What Is The Case Of Coca-Cola'S Crisis Public Relations?

Case 1: August 5, 2003 - India

Reason:

In August 5th, a non-governmental organization in India, the India science and Environment Center, announced the results of the quality test: Pepsi soft drinks are 36 times more pesticide than the EU level and 30 times higher than Coca-Cola.

The test used 12 bottles of beverages, including agricultural insecticides Lin Dan, two chloro two benzene three chloroethyl, malathion and chlorpyrifos.

These pesticides can potentially lurk and destroy the immune system in the human body for a long time.

The center also tested similar products in the United States but found no similar ingredients.

Narain, director of the India science and Environment Center, said: "they claim that the global standard is uniform, but this test proves that it is not the case at all.

These companies have exploited the legal loopholes in India's water quality regulations for soft drinks.

"Countermeasures:

Coca-Cola and Pepsi, which have gone through various quality accusations, are very firm in handling such accusations.

Two the president of the India district jointly held a press conference on the same day, denying that the products contained excessive pesticide problems and rebuked the political conspiracy behind the exposure.

Gupta, President of Coca-Cola India, said: "some people are trying to create panic.

We challenge the methods of detection. We will invite 5 famous scientists in India to reexamine them.

Our products are absolutely safe. There is absolutely no double standard.

"Bakhshi, President of PepsiCo India, said that their company adopted the global test standards for the groundwater used, consistent with that in the United States and Europe.

For the two joint efforts of coke companies, Gupta said: "it is because our beliefs, commitments and safety quality are the same.

"

Consequences:

Consumers are already very sensitive to a variety of food pollution accidents that have occurred around the world.

If the pesticide incident is not effectively clarified, it will surely leave a shadow in the minds of consumers in India.

The boss of a foreign company in India said more thoroughly: "I don't know if these accusations are true, but in India, many people believe this.

"

By the time Limon wrote this article, the India incident is still in progress, but Coca-Cola China has issued a statement that Coca-Cola in the Chinese market can rest assured.

{page_break}

Case two: July 11, 2003 - USA

Reason:

The Coca Cola Co was "cold shot" by a former employee of the company. The employee was accused of having quality problems and fraud after being dismissed by Coca-Cola.

To this end, the federal prosecutors launched an investigation into Coca-Cola in July 11th.

Countermeasures:

Coca-Cola did not wait for the government's investigation results to come out, it immediately responded, with "no basis" denied Wheatley most of the allegations, and said Wheatley was "a dissatisfied former employee", expressed willing to accompany the end.

However, Coca-Cola also admitted that one of the allegations was cheating in promotional activities.

Consequence:

After hearing the news, Burger King fast food company immediately stopped the sale of frozen cola and stopped using Coca-Cola's frozen carbonated beverage machine.

Coca-Cola's troubles didn't stop there.

The government's audit investigation found new loopholes, and Coca-Cola had to admit that there was a $9 million discrepancy in its second quarter accounts.

The US Department of supervision later intervened in its investigation of irregularities, and Coca-Cola was also investigated by the anti trust authorities, which involved more than 200 markets in the world.

Coca-Cola, which suffered many setbacks, was sold by investors in the stock market, and Coca-Cola shares fell 1%. before the end of July 11th.

Case three: February 27, 2003 - UK

Reason:

In February 27th, the British Sunday Times published an article entitled "secret report on sweeteners", which claimed that according to a newly decrypted Research Report, the national Beverage Association conducted a study on aspartame, a sweetener widely used in soft drinks in the early 80s, and concluded that aspartame can decompose toxic substances such as methanol and phenylalanine, thus affecting the normal work of human brain.

The national Beverage Association is opposed to adding aspartame in beverages. This report also points out that many beverage manufacturers including Coca-Cola and Pepsi are still using aspartame.

The Sunday times report is undoubtedly a heavy bomb dropped in the crowd.

Soon, the news of coke containing toxic substances appeared on the Internet, and then quickly pmitted to all corners of the world on the computer screen.

An earthquake that surprised the Coca Cola Co has erupted quietly in the deep part of the Internet.

Countermeasures:

On the afternoon of March 1st, the call from the major media reporters broke into the office of Coca-Cola (China) company, asking for an explanation of the British newspaper report.

So Coca-Cola (China) decided to hold a news conference that night to clarify the facts to the press.

On the evening of March 1st, Lu Dawei, vice president of Coca-Cola (China), dropped all his work and appeared in front of reporters in Beijing's major media.

David Lu emphasized that the aspartame was not used in the Coca-Cola series drinks produced and sold in China, especially in the red canned Coca-Cola drinks. Natural sugar was chosen, and no artificial sweeteners were used at all.

In Coca-Cola products, the use of sweeteners is only white canned "diet coke", and "diet cola" does not use aspartame. Instead, it uses two sweeteners, sodium cyclamate and saccharin sodium, and marks the two ingredients on the outer package.

To provide evidence for his statement, Mr. Lu also presented a statement issued by the national Beverage Association in February 28th to the British Sunday times.

In this statement, William Pohl, chairman of the national Beverage Association of the United States, pointed out that the questions raised in the report quoted by the Sunday times have long been proved by scientific research to be absent, and aspartame has been approved by more than 90 countries in the world.

In this statement, Pohl also criticized the British Sunday times' pictures to mislead readers, because Coca-Cola does not contain aspartame.

Consequences:

From February 28th to March 1st, Coca-Cola's businesses all over the world had different degrees of influence, and a public relations crisis was launched in the wake of propaganda.

{page_break}

Case four: 1999 - Belgium

Reason:

In June 9, 1999, 120 people in Belgium (40 of whom were students) were poisoned, vomited, dizzy and headache after drinking Coca-Cola. 80 people in France also had the same symptoms.

Coca Cola Co, which has a history of 113 years, has faced a major crisis in history.

Countermeasures:

Coca Cola Co immediately launched an investigation into the cause of poisoning and the number of people poisoned. Meanwhile, some brands of Coca-Cola products were recovered, including Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite.

A week later, the cause of poisoning was basically ascertained. The poisoning incident in Belgium was found in a factory in Antwerp where there was carbon dioxide in the packaging bottle. The poisoning in France was caused by the fungicide on the wooden tray of the storage room in the dkirk factory.

But the problem is that from the outset, the incident was handled by the company headquarters in Atlanta.

In the past week, the headquarter of the Atlanta company headquarters was informed of vomiting and other adverse reactions caused by bad smell. The company thought it had no danger to public health. Therefore, it did not start the crisis management plan. It only pasted a related report on the company's website, which was full of professional words which no one could understand. Nor did any of the top managers of the company come forward to express their concern about this matter and the poisoned people.

The move angered the public. As a result, consumers thought Coca Cola Co had no human touch.

Consumers soon stopped buying Coca-Cola soft drinks, and the Belgian and French governments insisted on Coca Cola Co's recovery of all products.

The company realized the seriousness of the problem. 10 days after the incident, Glass lvester, chairman and chief executive officer of the Coca Cola Co, arrived in the Belgian capital Brussels for a press conference from the United States, and then launched a strong publicity campaign.

Unfortunately, Coca Cola Co only agreed to withdraw some of its products and refuse to take back all the products.

The biggest mistake at that time was that the management of the Belgian and French branch offices did not fully participate in the communication and responded promptly.

The head of the company's headquarters did not know that a few days before the incident, a series of incidents of carcinogenic substances in meat, eggs and other daily life products occurred in Belgium. The Belgian government was criticized by the public and was anxious and anxious to show the voters that the government attaches great importance to food safety. The Coca-Cola incident just hit the muzzle and forced them to withdraw all the products, which is a good opportunity for the government to perform.

Coca Cola Co's chief executive, Vic, has made a special trip from the United States to the Belgian capital, Brussels, where a press conference is held.

On that day, a bottle of Coca-Cola was placed on every seat in the assembly hall.

In response to a reporter's question, the chief executive, who took office two years ago, repeatedly stressed that despite the current events, Coca Cola Co is still the world's leading company, and it will continue to produce first-class drinks for consumers.

Interestingly, most reporters did not drink the coke that was given to the attendees.

Later, Coca Cola Co's publicity campaign showed that the press conference was just a prelude to their crisis public relations work.

The second day of the press conference, that is, in June 18th, he appeared in various newspapers in Belgium. The letter from his signature to consumers gave a detailed explanation of the cause of the accident. The letter also made various assurances, and presented a bottle of coke to every family in Belgium to show Coca Cola Co's apology.

At the same time, Coca Cola Co announced that it would withdraw all coke from Belgium in the same period, and announce the results of the investigation as soon as possible, indicating the scope of the accident and returning it to consumers.

The Coca Cola Co also said it had to reimburse all poisoned customers for medical expenses.

Other regional executives in Coca-Cola, such as China, also announced that their products had nothing to do with the Belgian incident, and that the market was selling normally, thereby stabilizing the minds of people outside the accident area and controlling the spread of the crisis.

In addition, the Coca Cola Co also set up a dedicated line telephone and set up a special website for consumers in Belgium on the Internet to answer various questions raised by consumers.

For example, how far is the impact of the accident? How to identify new coke and contaminated coke?

In the course of the whole incident, Coca Cola Co firmly grasped the source of information release, prevented the wrong diffusion of crisis information, and reduced the loss of corporate brand to the minimum limit.

With the deepening and expansion of this PR campaign, Coca-Cola's image began to recover gradually.

Soon, some residents of Belgium received the coupons from the Coca Cola Co, which read: "we are very pleased to inform you that Coca-Cola has returned to the market.

"The children took the coupons issued by the Coca Cola Co to each family and happily returned the free Cola from the mall.