Procter & Gamble and Iams: Crisis Communication Strategy
This paper examines the crisis communication challenges faced by Procter & Gamble and its Iams subsidiary following allegations of animal cruelty raised by PETA. It identifies and analyzes the key stakeholders involved — including the company, consumers, regulators, the media, and the animals themselves — and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of P&G's initial response. The paper argues that a defensive communication posture is counterproductive, and recommends a forward-looking public messaging strategy aimed at reducing media interest and reassuring consumers. It also addresses the critical internal communication dimension, including accountability for ethical and legal lapses, staff retraining, and the need to professionalize Iams' public relations function.
- Stakeholder Analysis: Identifies all parties and their competing interests
- External Communication Strategy: Media-centered messaging to reach consumers
- Moving from Defensive to Forward-Looking Messaging: Replace deflection tactics with positive future commitments
- Internal Communication and Accountability: Employee accountability and PR professionalization at Iams
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Methodically identifies all relevant stakeholders and articulates their distinct, sometimes conflicting interests before proposing any strategy — a sound analytical foundation.
- Recognizes that crisis communication is both an external and internal challenge, giving equal weight to employee accountability and organizational culture.
- Demonstrates strategic nuance by explaining why PETA is not a productive negotiating partner and redirecting P&G's messaging toward consumers and the media instead.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper applies a stakeholder mapping framework to structure its analysis, categorizing each party by interest and influence before recommending communication interventions. This technique — working from stakeholder positions to message strategy — is a hallmark of applied public relations and corporate communications analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper divides naturally into two halves. The first half maps all relevant stakeholders and proposes an external communications strategy centered on media engagement and forward-looking messaging. The second half pivots to internal communications, addressing personnel accountability, cultural problems within the research program, and the professionalization of Iams' PR function. The argument flows logically from diagnosis to prescription throughout.
Stakeholder Analysis
There are a number of stakeholders in this situation. Procter & Gamble, Iams, their employees, and their shareholders represent one set, oriented primarily toward 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 in the matter. PETA's stakes are less clear. The organization positions itself as speaking for and defending the animals, but it may well have other motives. PETA is known to thrive on publicity and seeks it out for a variety 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 also stakeholders, and their interests fall somewhere between those of the company and those of the consumers. Regulators are stakeholders because there are laws governing the treatment of animals, and some of those laws may have been broken. Finally, the media is a stakeholder. It drives the story, helps amplify messages, and shapes public opinion. The media benefits from a compelling controversy, and conversely has little interest in a non-story.
External Communication Strategy
Procter & Gamble will be communicating primarily through the media. Crisis communication in this context is complicated by the fact that PETA is not what one would call a productive partner for negotiation. While PETA's concerns about animal welfare could potentially be addressed, the story carries significant publicity value for the organization, giving it strong incentive to leverage the controversy to spread its broader message. P&G therefore needs to speak to consumers directly, using the media as an intermediary.
Reducing the salience of the issue for consumers will not only protect P&G's interests, but can diminish media interest as well. The communication goals should be pursued primarily through public statements, and by ensuring that P&G spokespeople are positioned to contribute the company's perspective to every new piece of coverage on the issue.
Moving from Defensive to Forward-Looking Messaging
If achieving non-story status is to be an objective — as it should be — the company also needs to ensure that its messaging is tailored accordingly. The current strategy of attempting to deflect the issue is defensive, and the use of ad hominem attacks on the researcher serves as a fairly transparent smokescreen. The problem with defensive tactics is that they create the impression that there is something to be defensive about.
P&G needs to adopt a much more positive tone in addressing this problem. The past may have been negative, but the future can be positive. P&G should therefore focus the conversation on the future — specifically, on how that future will not include this type of animal testing and will be free of cruelty. This approach will address the issue for most consumers, give PETA less to amplify, and — most importantly — will persuade the media that there is little ongoing story to pursue.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.