You head to conference room B on the 10th floor of the building to meet with the brand manager responsible for Trach's candy corns. You decide to tell him about the blog post acknowledging that it was just an offhand remark but that you wanted to let him know because "Candy Confectioner" is the highest authority blog that you monitor. You mention the possibility of offering the blogger a tour of the factory and how candy corns are made. You think this might make for some great content especially with Halloween coming up and allow the blogger to take his own video, which might have the potential to go viral.
Scott, the brand manager, listens to your suggestion and then sighs rather defeated. You ask what is wrong. He informs you that he is not sure how to proceed.
Trach's nutritional research department is always conducting ongoing studies on all products to get additional research on various benefits/negatives of each brand. The connection between ADHD and food dye has never been proven. But a recent study by Trach's (which hasn't been released) offers some troubling news concerning the yellow dye used in the candy corn. Quinoline yellow is a very specific formulation designed to produce that exact vibrant yellow that Trach's candy corns are known for. It is the same formula the company has used for the past 96 years.
It seems that the yellow dye is produced through artificial coloring rather than using natural pigmentation. The study found that there was a statistically significant increase in ADHD behavior among rats in a laboratory experiment using quinoline yellow. There was no such activity for the orange dye known at Tatrazine, also a synthetic dye. At this point it is too early to tell if the findings are accurate - more tests need to be conducted with a larger sample size and eventually human subjects. The study will not be released to the public but will need to be reported to the FDA. The FDA is supposed to keep the information confidential until more research is conducted.
You are not sure how to proceed at this point. Now, it feels like by not responding to "Candy Confectioner" you are hiding something but it was also a rather innocent remark. Part of you also would still like to offer a blogger a tour of how candy corns are made because you know this would be really good content for Halloween.
Post your recommended next steps and look out for the next scenario!
Posts
NYT Connections Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for December 21
-
Connections: Sports Edition is a New York Times word game about finding
common sports threads between words. How to solve the puzzle.
3 hours ago
6 comments:
At this stage, I would rather not bring the blogger to the factory because the case is sensitive. I don’t want him to film anything that might be used against my company, as long as there’s no accurate information yet about the relationship between yellow dye – which my company uses – and ADHD.
The biggest dilemma here is transparency. I would definitely not ignore the blogger’s post, because I want to contain the issue at a very early stage and cut short any possible rumor.
The best thing to mention in my reply is that Trach’s number-one concern is consumer’s health and that the company’s R&D department is continuously conducting research and tests on all its candies’ ingredients to ensure consumer safety. I would also say that Trach has always been and is still transparently cooperating with the FDA which strictly regulates color additives to ensure they are safe for human consumption. No need to give him more explanation because, otherwise, I might risk sounding defensive.
I agree that transparency is the major issue here. The most important thing is that Trach's actually put a team onto figuring out whether or not their ingredients are dangerous. If they are, alternative ingredients should be tested and reviewed for a possible recipe update.
For now, Trach's should post on the blog that they put their customers' safety first and have used the same ingredients for 96 years. This should assuage some fears, and responding immediately should still help to stop the crisis early in its tracks.
I agree that it is important to be open and transparent, and I agree with Tamara's comment on developing talking points that emphasize Trach's concern with health standards.
Since the situation surrounding the candy corn is currently inconclusive, we could invite a prominent blogger or two to tour the section of the plat that produces other in-season candy. This would demonstrate commitment to transparency. We should also talk with the director of communication about how to answer potential questions regarding the candy corn in an honest, concerned manner while emphasizing Trach's focus on food safety.
We would need to plan the visit and communication strategy very well to ensure that we were showing ourselves in the best light and not hiding anything, even if tough questions are raised. Meanwhile, if a scandal breaks out regarding the yellow dye between the time the blogger(s) is(are) invited and when they visit, this will provide an added opportunity to demonstrate transparency and concern with safety-- after all, by having invited them before the scandal, it demonstrates that we were concerned with showing the facilities even before the crisis (and therefore, not solely interested in crisis management and smoothing over the media).
I really like Kat's idea of mentioning to the blogger that they've been using the same ingredients for 96 years. They could also mention that they test candy corn when they learn of new research that may affect their candy. This implies a lot about the safety of the candy, but doesn't necessarily shoot down the idea that the food dye is linked to ADHD.
I think Trach's could still give the blogger a tour of the factory to keep the lines of communication open - and especially to show the R&D/testing area. This will at least show that Trach's puts effort into making sure their candy is safe. Hopefully, if a scandal does occur, Trach's can count on the goodwill they've established with the blogger.
At this point, I think Trach's objective should be to kill the story, and responding to it could do more harm than good. As we learned in our theory classes, people tend to hold negative associations with people/institutions/brands that are accused of wrongdoing. And denying it, often times, just makes the accusation more salient than before. The example I've heard: if one newspaper prints a headline indicating a person has been "convicted" of a crime, and another indicates the person has been "acquitted" of a crime, the difference in public perception is marginal. The public will still associate the crime with that person.
Say we have a 90% chance of this story going away on its own, and a 10% chance of it becoming a huge crisis. Imagine If responding to the story (i.e. by doing a public interview, or a press release) mitigates the chance that it becomes a huge crisis by a great deal, but virtually ensures that the story becomes more salient. Is responding necessary worth it? Blogs write scathing, critical stories about products everyday, and the vast majority get zero traction.
On another note, I definitely agree with Kat: I think
the most important thing is that Trach immediately determine product safety and change its recipe, and if/when Trach responds it should emphasize the product's 96-year legacy.
My initial proposed actions included responding to the blog and emphasizing the fact that Trach values the health of all our consumers, and also talking about the different testing stages that ingredients used to make our candies go through to ensure they are fit for consumption. Just like Kat said, I will include the fact that Trach has been making save candies with the same ingredients for over 96 years. I will also reemphasize that we are of course working closely with the FDA to ensure that any food we sell to consumers is safe. What I will leave out at this point, is the suggestion that a third party endorser should write an article about ADHD and its causes (until there is clear scientific evidence that it is not caused by the yellow dye, as previously feared). What I would suggest too, is that we get an independent team of scientists to test the ingredients we use to make sure they are safe, and we will make this report available should the fears be confirmed, to show that we go the extra mile to ensure our food is safe.
Post a Comment