PR Crisis

For this blog I will select a company that has experienced a PR crisis and discuss how they coped with the situation. I will use PepsiCo for this exercise and focus on a crisis involving their Diet Pepsi brand.

Back in 1993, PepsiCo image suffered a major blow to their public image when reports surfaced that syringes were found in cans of Diet Pepsi. What made this situation worse was it occurred during a time when people were still getting used to AIDS and HIV. Whatever damage control needed to be done, had to prompt and sensitive to their customers.

At a time of crisis, people usually want answers. So, PepsiCo went on the offensive and established an open relationship with the media…both nationally and at the local level where the syringes were found. The company also reached out to retailers asking them not to drop their products until the ongoing investigation was completed.  Additionally, PepsiCo’s local bottler and distributor opened its doors to the members of the media. The Alpac Bottling Company invited the media to film canning procedures and take tours of the plant.

PepsiCo adopted the philosophy of transparency and was open and upfront with the public. They did not try to deny or run away from the issue, but instead showed great concern for the situation. By allowing their processes to be transparent to the media and the public, PepsiCo received positive media coverage both during and after the incident. Naturally, this positive attention carried over to the company’s overall public image. In return for their loyalty, PepsiCo offered coupons to consumers and ran multiple ad campaigns expressing their appreciation.

If PepsiCo wanted to measure the effectiveness of their damage controls, they could track the number of sales during the crisis (for Diet Pepsi and other PepsiCo products) and the number of sales after the crisis has been resolved. For more context, PepsiCo could compare the data to the number of sales from the previous year. Another way PepsiCo could gauge the effectiveness of their crisis management is with surveys. The company could conduct surveys by mail and/or in-person at various retailers. Surveys would allow PepsiCo to acquire a better insight into what consumers really think.

Based on the outcome, it is hard to pinpoint something PepsiCo should have done differently. It appears the public and media appreciated the upfront and honest approach to the situation. When the investigation determined the contamination resulted from consumer tampering, PepsiCo’s credibility continued to grow. Consumers are not fazed by the potential for future contamination because of the PepsiCo’s willingness to be transparent in their processes.