GIVE ME A BREAK!

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Greenpeace vs. Nestle

Storyline

On March 2010, Greenpeace released on social media an anti-campaign about the Kit Kat chocolate brand of Nestle. They uploaded a parody video on YouTube with the infamous title: “Have a break; Have a Kit Kat”. The purpose of that video was to protest against Nestlé’s controversial partnership with unsustainable oil companies such as Sinar Mas. Both companies were accused of producing and using palm oil, which has dangerous consequences for the Indonesian rainforest and Orangutan habitat. However, in an official statement of Nestle was mentioned that they used 0.7% of global palm oil.

Nestle relished a 60-second video picturing a bored office worker who decided to have a bite of Kit Kat chocolate. The officer unfolded the wrapping and as he reached the chocolate it turned out to be an ape finger. He had his first bite and then blood came out to his chin and all over his to keyboard. Then the slogan “Have a break?” appears and right after another slogan “ Give the Orangutan a Break”.

Retrieved from YouTube.com

 Reaction

Less than 1000 viewers saw the video before Nestlé forced YouTube to download the video due to copyrighting accusations. As soon as the public found out about the incident it became viral on social media. For instance, on the fan page of Kit Kat on Facebook, angry users posted comments altering the brand’s logo from Kit Kat to “Killer”. The company inappropriately responded and among others was following statement:

“To repeat: we welcome your comments but please don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic — they will be deleted.”

This reaction gave rise to even greater frustration and aversion towards the company. After the reactions of Facebook users on Nestlé’s fan page due to the removal of their posts and comments regarding the Kit Kat scandal the company posted an apology.

“This (deleting logos) was one in a series of mistakes for which I would like to apologize. And for being rude. We’ve stopped deleting posts, and I have stopped being rude.”

Greenpeace reposted the video on Vimeo.com where more than 78.500 users watched it in less than two hours. Furthermore, Greenpeace encouraged people through Twitter and other social media to start discussing and addressing the unethical methods of Nestle.

 What happened next?

At that time Jose Lopez (senior operations manager) and his team adopted a two -level strategy. So basically they created a short term plan in order to handle the immediate crisis and a long term plan in order to restore brand’s reputation and image (Nijkrake et al., 2015).

Short Term: Nestle stopped any sourcing from Sinar Mas and initiated meetings with Greenpeace to further discuss about the palm oil supply chains.

Long Term: Nestle collaborated with Greenpeace and the non-profit organization Forest Trust in order to help the company investigate better its future suppliers.

Lesson learned?

The strategy of Social Media

It is common for companies to jump into social media without having a deep understanding of their audience, the magnitude of the crisis and the communication strategy they want to pursue. When a company of that magnitude starts responding to an incident through various social media they must be ready to commit into a two-way dialogue and adopt a “harder stomach” in order to accept some criticism and enraged comments.

If a company promotes openness and transparency in its operations and collaborations should establish some ground rules for dialogue. Social media is a mean to establish good and transparent relationship with your customers but could have counter results if they are poorly managed. Therefore, a good idea would be that the company directs the discussion from social media into a forum. This way the company would appear to be open to further discuss and respond to the accusations but in a more private space.

Keep an eye on your social media

As social media are evolving to the most influential means of interactive communication, practitioners are being hired to counterbalance the immediate crisis, handle what is being said and posted online about a brand and restore the public image of the company to the extent that is possible (Verčič, D., 2016). A company like Nestle should have a team of experts to monitor daily what the crowd thinks about the company.

Don’t be Defensive

The saying, “Not everyone will like you” applies for companies as well. When a company is in front of a crisis, it is impossible to convince every single person that all the rumours were untrue. However, instead of denying every accusation Nestle could have regain the control of the situation, focus on the positive aspects of the company and all the things its doing right, admit fault and apologise. That reaction would be perceived as more honest and respectful in public’s eyes and regain their trust and credibility faster.

About the author : Maria-Louiza Kalogerakou is an aspired student of Communication Science who is hoping to finish her Master's as soon as possible and travel the world. She has been working and doing internships for the last 4 years but what she really wants is to move back  South  and listen to vinyls by the sea.

References:

Champoux, V., Durgee, J., & McGlynn, L. (2012). Corporate Facebook pages: when “fans” attack. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(2), 22-30.

Nijkrake, J., Gosselt, J.F. & Gutteling, J.M. (2015) Competing frames and tone in corporate communication versus media coverage during a crisis. Public Relations Review 41(1). 80-88

Verčič, D., & Verčič, A. T. (2016). The new publicity: From reflexive to reflective mediatisation. Public relations review, 42(4), 493-498.