Last night someone told me about a snake head turning up in a can of green beans. This is disgusting! Think back to rats in people's Wendy's and all those horrible cases of food that was contaminated. A lot of PR cases handled contamination of products well, ie Tylenol. However after searching for the snake stories, I have found two recent cases of snakeheads and neither have been handled well.
Let's see how great these companies have handled their slithery messes according to Guth and Marsh's PR method.
Ultimately I have found two cases, one in Philadelphia, and another in Iowa.
I will break them down case by case.
Research: The Philadelphia man, Earl Hartman, bought a can of Green Beans in a local PathMark. He brought them home, cooked a meal and then found a slimy snakehead hanging out in his chicken and noodles (See the story from NBC). The can was packaged in Seneca Falls, NY according to another article from the Trentonian, as well as the NBC article. So the company at least knows where the food was packaged. Apparently knowing where the bad food came from was enough research for Pathmark.
Planning: According to the NBC article I hyperlinked, it really shows a lack of planning from Pathmark and the packing company. The Seneca Falls packing company intends to do research by having Hartman send them the snake head. Luckily Hartman is not intending to sue, but I think I would in that situation. Also Pathmark and the packing company should really plan for a case. If Hartman feels that the problem is not sufficiently addressed, he may decide to sue out of anger. I think neither company has made a solid plan, and are treating this issue as if it isn't a big deal.
Communication: Overall there is an overwhelming sense of "no comment" in this case. The only Pathmark communication has been from Rich Savner, a spokesman for Carteret, N.J.-based Pathmark Stores Inc. According to the Trentonian, Savner "confirmed that a customer reported finding a "foreign substance" in a can of green beans, but said officials had not determined what it was." Also the NBC article said that the manager of the store was not allowed to comment. The Trentonian has claimed that the store where the beans were purchased at least spot checked cans and removed them from the shelves. The problem with Savner is that here he is saying that Pathmark won't even confirm that the man found a snakehead. There are pictures of it, and they are claiming something was found, but we aren't sure it is a snake head. WHAT HORRIBLE COMMUNICATION!
Evaluation: Pathmark has denied, denied, denied. Nothing is even posted on their website. This company is ignoring the issue, and if Hartman gets upset, he may make it a larger issue. Green Beans are not the main source of income for Pathmark, but ignoring a problem like this could bring down the whole company. I personally will not shop at a pathmark again. This is a PR issue that has not done too much damage yet, but it can easily become a big deal.
Now let's look at the Iowa case; another quality example of when PR goes wrong, or non-existent in these cases.
Research: According to a local NBC network, Amy and Michael Schneider and their four children are suing Lakeside Foods of Manitowoc, Wis., and Supervalue Inc., of Eden Prairie, Minn., the parent company of the Iowa City Cub Foods store where the can of green beans was bought. Lakeside foods offered the same great research as Pathmark. Send us the snake head and we will do research on it. Great research. Maybe they should have seen how far wide-spread this story is, seeing as how here in Poughkeepsie we are outraged. They also may have wanted to see how upset the Schneider's were in order to avoid a huge lawsuit. Lakeside Foods and Supervalue's PR reps really skipped a few classes when their PR professors told them to do research.
Planning: Interestingly I again see a lack of a plan for Lakeside Foods and Supervalue. Their great idea is clearly shown in an ABC article on the Iowa snake head. They decided to give the Schneiders some coupons. Now if I was dealing with something this big, I would probably give these people more than a few coupons, especially when the customer was saying she would never buy their brand again. Interestingly enough this court case was raised recently, and brought to media attention on September 21, however the incident happened on March 24th, 2006. This company had a year and a half before these people hit their final straw started a lawsuit and got media coverage, and Lakeside Foods and Supervalue did nothing but send a few coupons!! They are nuts! The only other possible plainning that has occured is a recall of Lakeside Food green beans this past August. I wonder if they got served with papers and then decided to recall. Notice this recall gives "potential problems" as the reason for pulling green beans across the nation.
Communication: Here's another great example of communication: None. Lakeside did respond to the initial incident by saying, "that type of snake is common to the area where they pick the green beans. This happens"(NBC). The only other communication was the giving of coupons, and no comment to all news networks. According to ABC's article, Lee Ann Jorgenson, a spokeswoman for Cub Foods, and Jim Ferguson, vice president for customer service for Lakeside Foods, both declined comment.
Evaluation: This companies really hit rock bottom on their PR here. No comment is completely incriminating. These companies don't care about their publics, as they show but saying it's a commin problem and sending coupons. If I found a snake head in my green beans I would flip out as I'm sure most of this class would. This company had a year and a half to take care of this women before any media was even aware of the situation. They really did nothing. Coupons were a poor choice of a PR plan, and maybe some research or effective communication or planing, would have saved this company a lot of headaches. I hope this woman wins her case because Lakeside Foods and Supervalues should really think about a better PR plan than coupons.
So that's the snake news, bad PR all over the place. I tried to get some video coverage of these cases but could only find articles. However I did find one really interesting that I guess fit nicely with this blog. I couldn't figure out how to nicely post things in this blog so I put it in another blog. I'm technilogically challenged but I did get as far as getting it in another blog post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Heather,
Wow, a double play! Thanks for the extra effort to analyze two cases in one. That’s really going above and beyond the call of duty … I appreciate your effort. Thanks also for the very cool hotlinks to print and broadcast articles on this topic, organizational Web sites, etc. – and a very creative use of the “eating like a snake” video to lead off your analysis of food companies that apparently want us to “eat a snake” in their products.
You offered many facts, figures, and credible examples to back up your analysis of these cases and surmise that the food company public relations managers should “go back to school” and take some basic public relations classes.
Really, how can a professional public relations practitioner get away with saying “no comment” these days? How about the last paragraph in the Trentonian article: “A woman who answered the telephone at Marion, N.Y.-based Seneca Foods Corp. on Friday said the company had no comment”?
This makes Seneca Foods look guilty and on the defensive. My advice is to NEVER, EVER say no comment. There are thousands of ways to say no comment in other ways that are much more open and honest.
How about PathMark’s response: “Rich Savner, a spokesman for Carteret, N.J.-based Pathmark Stores Inc., confirmed that a customer reported finding a ‘foreign substance’ in a can of green beans, but said officials had not determined what it was”? This sounds much more credible, and it sounds like they are investigating the matter instead of ducking it.
Thanks, again, Heather for a very entertaining, informative, and thought-provoking post.
Well done,
Mark
Thanks for your comments, they are very encouraging. I disagree with Savner though. It's not a great idea to say we don't know what the thing in the can was. I think I would apologize for a snake head in a can, rather than say well something was found, and we are determining what it is. That has really got to be annoying for the family. I think I would advise my superior to acknowledge, accept and move forward with a solution to the problem, rather than deny what has happened here.
Post a Comment