by Andy
August 22, 2012
Coca-Cola is under continued attack for marketing a product that is supposedly contributing to the global obesity epidemic. An article posted yesterday in brandchannel (online branding magazine and part of Interbrand) points out yet another battle now emerging in Canada (http://bit.ly/SSq75x). A close friend and fellow marketing enthusiast, Jim Lahner, shared this article with me.
While Coca-Cola provides proof that soda is not the culprit (Canadian consumption of sugared drinks has decreased while obesity rates have increased), public officials in Ottawa are still keeping up the pressure. In NYC, Mayor Bloomberg is trying to ban portions of sugary drinks that exceed 16 oz/serving. Even politicians in London wanted to throw out Coca-Cola and McDonald’s as Olympic sponsors ‘because they weren’t sending the message of healthiness that the Assembly wanted to project.’
Within any industry or category exist a few impassioned critics who can wreak PR havoc. While they may not have any significant influence on corporate performance (e.g., Coke’s stock up nearly 20% this year), they do create unwanted and potentially difficult obstacles.
For the record, I believe PlayStation, Xbox, TV and other forms of sedentary entertainment are the real culprits. Unfortunately for Coke, it’s just easier for critics to link high fructose corn syrup and obesity, and is nearly impossible to effectively refute because Coke has tried. They’ve also realized that placing blame elsewhere is not a successful communications strategy either.
Guilty or not, the obesity issue is real and one that Coca-Cola must combat. And it is. School vending machines and cafeterias are becoming void of sugary beverages with Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Dasani, and Minute Maid in its place. In fact there are over 800 low- and no-calorie beverages in its portfolio, 100 of which were launched just last year! (source: Coca-Cola.com)
But this is not enough.
I believe grass root complaints need to be addressed at that level. Working directly with influential, vocal critics will go a long way toward keeping a PR volcano from erupting. ‘We heard you and we’re doing something about it’ is a far better approach. Plus, these people are easy to find.
Social media provides critics with a global communications platform. It also points out who they are (name, email address, Twitter handle, Facebook page and more). Taking the time to directly assuage these critics by empathetically honoring their complaints (misguided or not), rather than explaining why they’re wrong, is a far more effective strategy.
Great post Monty! I’m always amused when I see a corporation (or a politician) handle a PR issue without a good dose of empathy, especially in the social media world.
Great post Monty! I’m always amused when I see a corporation (or a politician) handle a PR issue without a good dose of empathy, especially in the social media world.
I think it’s a fascinating topic. Cigs have had to deal with it for decades. I agree with your points. Coke should actually lead the charge here rather than appear defensive. Your example of school vending machines opting for dasani, etc., is perfect.
My only comment is that Coke’s main line of defense — that Canadians got fatter while consumption of sugared drinks fell, therefore sugary drinks don’t make you heavier — is statistically bogus. Canadians would have still gained weight thanks to all those tim horton’s donuts, but they would have gained less if they had consumed less soda.
I think it’s a fascinating topic. Cigs have had to deal with it for decades. I agree with your points. Coke should actually lead the charge here rather than appear defensive. Your example of school vending machines opting for dasani, etc., is perfect.
My only comment is that Coke’s main line of defense — that Canadians got fatter while consumption of sugared drinks fell, therefore sugary drinks don’t make you heavier — is statistically bogus. Canadians would have still gained weight thanks to all those tim horton’s donuts, but they would have gained less if they had consumed less soda.
Jim, you are correct. Sadly, fattening foods surround us and are easily accessible to all. Coca-Cola is certainly not helping the obesity issue. However, Diet Coke is now their #1 brand. Not sure if the McD salad has supplanted the quarter-pounder with cheese, or ever will.
But Coca-Cola is a well-known target of wrath and often poked. And when your product is associated with super sizing and extra value meals, guilt by association certainly exists. Deflecting responsibility is not the answer.
Jim, you are correct. Sadly, fattening foods surround us and are easily accessible to all. Coca-Cola is certainly not helping the obesity issue. However, Diet Coke is now their #1 brand. Not sure if the McD salad has supplanted the quarter-pounder with cheese, or ever will.
But Coca-Cola is a well-known target of wrath and often poked. And when your product is associated with super sizing and extra value meals, guilt by association certainly exists. Deflecting responsibility is not the answer.
I agree that Coca-Cola (and similarly situated ‘targets’) should directly engage their critics, validate their concerns and address their complaints. That response would turn a hostile environment into a productive conversation. And, hopefully, everyone would gain from the dialogue.
Instead it appears they’ve adopted a ridiculous advertising campaign featuring world class athletes reaching for an ice cold Coca-Cola at the finish line of their swim/run/ride/game. (“Coke: It’s a healthy sports recovery beverage!”)
The dishonesty of these ads is punctuated by the athlete hoisting a product (the iconic green glass bottle) unavailable to viewers in the marketplace. The entire message is unreal to the point of absurd.
Coca-Cola would be much better served by your counsel, Andy. And so would consumers of their products.
I agree that Coca-Cola (and similarly situated ‘targets’) should directly engage their critics, validate their concerns and address their complaints. That response would turn a hostile environment into a productive conversation. And, hopefully, everyone would gain from the dialogue.
Instead it appears they’ve adopted a ridiculous advertising campaign featuring world class athletes reaching for an ice cold Coca-Cola at the finish line of their swim/run/ride/game. (“Coke: It’s a healthy sports recovery beverage!”)
The dishonesty of these ads is punctuated by the athlete hoisting a product (the iconic green glass bottle) unavailable to viewers in the marketplace. The entire message is unreal to the point of absurd.
Coca-Cola would be much better served by your counsel, Andy. And so would consumers of their products.
If Bloomberg bans large servings of Coke in the City to combat obesity, he might as well ban excessive butter in French cooking… and cream cheese on bagels…and extra cheese on pizza’s…. and “double meat” Subway sandwich’s… and NY cheesecake…
Where does the obesity politburo stop?… is this the end of personal freedom as we know it? …the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (through food)?… or is this an evil Obama communist plot to reduce healthcare costs of the many, by taking fat grams and calories away from the few?
… that said, great perspective, Monty, on combating the absurd (which somehow is perceived as credible)… unfortunately in social media, brand equity, politics, and mainstream media, this is “the new norm”… so does relevancy= acknowledge, align, exaggerate, and change the conversation? (half-kidding, of course)
Or gin for my tonic?! Funny stuff. Yup, the radical right (and left) have loudspeakers like never before. Sometimes credible, sometimes not, but now fully capable of being a thorn to the effective management of any brand.
If Bloomberg bans large servings of Coke in the City to combat obesity, he might as well ban excessive butter in French cooking… and cream cheese on bagels…and extra cheese on pizza’s…. and “double meat” Subway sandwich’s… and NY cheesecake…
Where does the obesity politburo stop?… is this the end of personal freedom as we know it? …the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (through food)?… or is this an evil Obama communist plot to reduce healthcare costs of the many, by taking fat grams and calories away from the few?
… that said, great perspective, Monty, on combating the absurd (which somehow is perceived as credible)… unfortunately in social media, brand equity, politics, and mainstream media, this is “the new norm”… so does relevancy= acknowledge, align, exaggerate, and change the conversation? (half-kidding, of course)
Or gin for my tonic?! Funny stuff. Yup, the radical right (and left) have loudspeakers like never before. Sometimes credible, sometimes not, but now fully capable of being a thorn to the effective management of any brand.
Thanks Andy….good stuff, and thanks for making me thirsty ( for a CokeZero!!)
Thanks Andy….good stuff, and thanks for making me thirsty ( for a CokeZero!!)
The remarkable thing is that I always thought Coca Cola – for all of its sugar – was the real thing and Diet Coke and Coke Zero would turn out to be the real culprits in the end as their chemicals and their impact on us would not be fully appreciated for 20-30 years. We were drinking Coke in the 1950s and 60s and no one cried foul then and the formula hasn’t changed (except that one moment with New Coke which they then turned into a great marketing campaign to re-establish the brand).
The remarkable thing is that I always thought Coca Cola – for all of its sugar – was the real thing and Diet Coke and Coke Zero would turn out to be the real culprits in the end as their chemicals and their impact on us would not be fully appreciated for 20-30 years. We were drinking Coke in the 1950s and 60s and no one cried foul then and the formula hasn’t changed (except that one moment with New Coke which they then turned into a great marketing campaign to re-establish the brand).