P&g There are a number of stakeholders in this situation. Procter & Gamble, Iams, their employees and their shareholders represent one set of stakeholders, oriented primarily towards defusing or deflecting the criticism in order to protect their market share, profits and shareholder value. The animals are another direct stakeholder, and they have little voice here. PETA's stakes are unclear. They position themselves as speaking for and defending the animals, but they might well have other motives. We know that PETA thrives on publicity, and seeks it out for a number of reasons. Consumers are a further stakeholder, as pet lovers are unlikely to be attracted to a pet food company known for cruelty to cats and dogs. Supply chain partners are stakeholders, and their interest falls somewhere in between the interests of the company and the interests of the consumers. Regulators are a stakeholder because there are laws governing the treatment of animals, and some of those laws might have been broken. Further, the media is a stakeholder. They...

The media loves a good controversy because it helps their organizations financially, and conversely the media hates a non-story.
Procter & Gamble will be communicating primarily via the media. PETA is not what one would call a good partner for negotiation. Their concerns about the animals can be assuaged perhaps, but the story has good publicity potential, so there are larger benefits to PETA for leveraging this story to help spread its message. P&G therefore needs to speak to consumers directly, and do so using the media as an intermediary. Defraying the issue for consumers will not only salvage P&G's interest, but can reduce media interest as well. The communication goals should be accomplished primarily through the use of public statements, and by ensuring that P&G spokespeople are able to contribute the company's story to every new piece about the issue.

Further, if achieving non-story status is to be an objective, as it should be,…