Pepsi's crisis communication strategy during the syringe tampering crisis

Pepsi Case

Syringe in the Pepsi Can

In the situation in which the syringes and various other foreign objects were found in the Diet Pepsi can, the corporation was exceptionally effective in their communication with all intended publics. From the start, Pepsi realized there were several other market alternatives to their products and they knew they had to work quickly and support all statements with firm facts. In addition, they knew they had to have support from outside sources such as the FDA and the media to support the idea that the foreign objects could only have been placed in the cans after the consumer had opened them.

There were four primary publics with whom Pepsi had to be concerned regarding the effects of this problem. Those publics included:

The news media

The customers who purchased the product

All consumers whether they had purchased the product or not Employees and local Pepsi Cola bottlers and distributors.

Pepsi addressed the issue as though they were going to war. They identified a crisis coordinator to oversee all elements of the management of the problem and to make sure that all members involved were on target with the message and image the Pepsi Cola Company wanted to show.

The External Publics

Customers and consumers represented the external public that Pepsi had to deal with. External public and relations with the same are identified as those elements to which publicity is directed. During normal times of operation, Pepsi would be focused on increasing product recognition and well as market dominance. In this crisis situation, the focus shifted a bit and added the element of product safety. Essentially, Pepsi had to be sure that the external public received and processed the message that Pepsi was a safe and desirable product.

Public Relations Tools

Pepsi obviously would have had a strong public relations department, but it is not likely that they had ever considered the possibility that they would be called into action to deal with such significant product tampering allegations. The situation was doubly dire for Pepsi's product identification since it came at a time when AIDS was new, and people were still unclear regarding how it could be transmitted. Pepsi used its public relations system to its advantage. Number one, the company never went on the offensive or the defensive. It simply met all allegations head on and tried to see the problem from the consumer perspective. Since Pepsi was able to use the media as an internal public resource, they were also able to be honest about the situation and keep the public up-to-date on what the findings had been, and reassure the public about the safety of the product. At no time did Pepsi try to assign blame. Instead, the most effectively notified the consumers that if there was a problem, it would be found, and to date all product plants had been found to be safe. Their honestly and continued open communication with the public was likely one of their most effective tools. Interestingly, Pepsi elected not to recall cans of the product from stores. Until this time, any time product tampering was suspected a product recall was the first thing that occurred. Pepsi chose to take the chance of consumer loyalty and faith in the information they had provided and weighed this against the cost of a total product recall

It is really not necessary for us to speculate upon what would happen should an incident such as this one happen today. Most recently the Wendy's fast food corporation was accused of serving chili with a human finger served in it. It is my belief that the number of hoaxes such as the Wendy's case, the Pepsi case, the Tylenol case and others like them have made the buying public more skeptical of these stories when they come out. With the advent of the Internet, it may be more likely that rumors such as the one about Pepsi would be even more likely disseminated via email. However, email savvy customers are more likely to go to some of the myth debunking websites like Snopes.com to see what the real story on the situation may be, and if any truth can be attributed to the story.

The situation was a nightmare one for Pepsi. In hindsight, some might have felt that it would have been more effective for Pepsi to continue with the recall, but they gambled and won. Pepsi very effectively handled the media and the consumers and was able to turn a large amount of negative publicity into a tool for saving company market share. In retrospect, Pepsi kept cool heads, acted efficiently and with minimal financial cost to the company, saved their market share and company reputation all due to good planning and quick thinking.

Hendrix, Jerry A. Public Relations Cases. 2001, Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. Pages: 67-75, 115-123, 246-262, 295-305, 432- 441.