Brand Failures
Brand Failures Brand Failures
140 Brand failures 46 Gerber’s PR blunder In 1986, Gerber, the German baby food manufacturer, made a critical PR mistake. When incidents of glass shards were found in its jars of baby food, Gerber remained tight-lipped and failed to issue a recall. This decision invited a lot of criticism with articles in Business Week, Newsweek and Time openly attacking the company on ethical grounds. Although the pieces of glass had not caused any fatalities, some babies had been severely hurt. Glass fragments had originally been found in some Gerber products – namely, their apple-plum and apple-cherry juices – in 1984. But in that instance, Gerber handled the problem effectively. Although neither the company nor the authorities found a manufacturing-related cause, Gerber recalled over half a million jars of juice. In 1986, however, there were over 200 reports of glass being found in Gerber’s baby products across the United States. Although the authorities failed to discover anything that would warrant a recall, Maryland officials banned certain Gerber ranges from being sold anywhere in the state. Gerber’s response The company sued the state of Maryland. Other than this legal reaction, Gerber did nothing. Not a word was said to the media about the issue, in the hope that the whole fiasco would just pass by. From Gerber’s perspective, the company was doing nothing wrong. After all, nothing suggested that the fragments of glass were the fault of Gerber’s manufacturing process. It had certainly been under no obligation to recall its products. The company therefore believed that the state of Maryland was in the wrong and took what it saw as the appropriate legal action.
PR failures 141 As Gerber saw it, a recall would only serve to generate more media attention and would have a negative impact on sales. It would also be expensive to implement. But Gerber forgot one important thing. Brands are about the public’s perception. It is not about proving who is right or who is wrong. By refusing to talk, Gerber was acting as though it had something to hide. For a company that built its whole brand identity around the high quality and safety of its products, this was clearly a bad move. If you produce baby food, you have to constantly remind the public that you have parents’ and babies’ best interests at heart. By taking the state of Maryland to court, failing to issue a recall, and by then remaining silent, this was not the message Gerber put across. Although Gerber’s brands survived the crisis, most analysts now agree the incidents were not well managed and that Gerber’s reputation suffered as a result. Lessons from Gerber’s PR blunder Make a public response to a crisis. As soon as the news arrived that some products had been tampered with, Gerber should have responded publicly and confirmed that it had the babies’ best interests at heart. After that, it should have been open to all lines of media enquiry. Most of all, Gerber should have looked like it was doing something, such as coming up with new types of product packaging to prevent tampering. Provide information. At the time of the crisis, parents wanted information. For instance, Gerber could have told them how to distinguish between products that had been tampered with and those that had not. Act tough. In a paper on the ethical issues surrounding the glass scare, Dr Philip Rothschild recommended that Gerber should actively and publicly lobby for increased penalties for product tampering. ‘They should make every effort to make someone else the bad guy,’ he suggested.
- Page 97 and 98: Extension failures 89 Lessons from
- Page 99 and 100: Extension failures 91 the no-nonsen
- Page 101 and 102: Extension failures 93 Have a core
- Page 103 and 104: Extension failures 95 In the mid-19
- Page 105 and 106: Extension failures 97 every brand -
- Page 107 and 108: Extension failures 99 sales rose to
- Page 109 and 110: Extension failures 101 However, amo
- Page 111 and 112: Extension failures 103 29 Chiquita
- Page 113 and 114: Extension failures 105 A brand is
- Page 115 and 116: 31 Ben-Gay Aspirin Ben-Gay is anoth
- Page 117 and 118: 33 Smith and Wesson mountain bikes
- Page 119 and 120: 35 Lynx barbershop Lever Fabergé,
- Page 121 and 122: 37 LifeSavers Soda Invented in 1912
- Page 123: 39 Frito-Lay Lemonade Frito-Lay is
- Page 127 and 128: It can be expected that brands will
- Page 129 and 130: PR failures 121 40 Exxon Don’t sa
- Page 131 and 132: PR failures 123 including the clean
- Page 133 and 134: PR failures 125 environmentalists,
- Page 135 and 136: PR failures 127 the public. [. . .]
- Page 137 and 138: PR failures 129 42 Perrier’s benz
- Page 139 and 140: PR failures 131 common purpose thro
- Page 141 and 142: PR failures 133 Lesson from Pan Am
- Page 143 and 144: PR failures 135 In addition, Snow B
- Page 145 and 146: PR failures 137 45 Rely tampons Pro
- Page 147: PR failures 139 Lessons from Rely
- Page 151 and 152: PR failures 143 regarding youth mar
- Page 153 and 154: PR failures 145 buying about 40 per
- Page 155 and 156: PR failures 147 Be sensitive. By s
- Page 157: PR failures 149 Remember that comp
- Page 161: Brands operate on a global scale. B
- Page 164 and 165: 156 Brand failures of the Bombay St
- Page 166 and 167: 158 Brand failures Coca-Cola. The
- Page 168 and 169: 160 Brand failures Lessons from Kel
- Page 170 and 171: 162 Brand failures Translation trou
- Page 172 and 173: 53 Schweppes Tonic Water in Italy I
- Page 174 and 175: 55 Electrolux in the United States
- Page 176 and 177: 57 Coors in Spain Coors beer had eq
- Page 178 and 179: 59 Clairol’s Mist Stick in German
- Page 180 and 181: 61 American Airlines in Mexico When
- Page 182 and 183: 63 Kentucky Fried Chicken in Hong K
- Page 184 and 185: 176 Brand failures ment. Pretty soo
- Page 186 and 187: 178 Brand failures 65 Quaker Oats
- Page 188 and 189: 180 Brand failures Lessons from Sna
- Page 191 and 192: The people behind a brand are its m
- Page 193 and 194: People failures 185 66 Enron Failin
- Page 195 and 196: People failures 187 67 Arthur Ander
- Page 197 and 198: People failures 189 68 Ratner’s W
PR failures 141<br />
As Gerber saw it, a recall would only serve to generate more media attention<br />
and would have a negative impact on sales. It would also be expensive<br />
to implement. But Gerber forgot one important thing. <strong>Brand</strong>s are about the<br />
public’s perception. It is not about proving who is right or who is wrong. By<br />
refusing to talk, Gerber was acting as though it had something to hide.<br />
For a company that built its whole brand identity around the high quality<br />
and safety of its products, this was clearly a bad move. If you produce baby<br />
food, you have to constantly remind the public that you have parents’ and<br />
babies’ best interests at heart. By taking the state of Maryland to court, failing<br />
to issue a recall, and by then remaining silent, this was not the message Gerber<br />
put across.<br />
Although Gerber’s brands survived the crisis, most analysts now agree the<br />
incidents were not well managed and that Gerber’s reputation suffered as a<br />
result.<br />
Lessons from Gerber’s PR blunder<br />
Make a public response to a crisis. As soon as the news arrived that some<br />
products had been tampered with, Gerber should have responded publicly<br />
and confirmed that it had the babies’ best interests at heart. After that, it<br />
should have been open to all lines of media enquiry. Most of all, Gerber<br />
should have looked like it was doing something, such as coming up with<br />
new types of product packaging to prevent tampering.<br />
Provide information. At the time of the crisis, parents wanted information.<br />
For instance, Gerber could have told them how to distinguish between<br />
products that had been tampered with and those that had not.<br />
Act tough. In a paper on the ethical issues surrounding the glass scare, Dr<br />
Philip Rothschild recommended that Gerber should actively and publicly<br />
lobby for increased penalties for product tampering. ‘They should make<br />
every effort to make someone else the bad guy,’ he suggested.