Did this brand just cook its reputation?

Fancy a warming bowl of soup containing “bioengineered meat”.

Or made with chicken that comes from a “3D printer”.

Maybe not, even if it’s supposed to be the season for comfort food.

But these claims about ingredients, together with mocking the people who buy and make the products, have placed an iconic brand in crisis media management mode.

Campbell’s has been facing a reputation storm after a former employee allegedly secretly recorded one of the company’s bosses insulting its products and customers.

The released audio in the US allegedly features vice president and chief information security officer, Martin Bally.

And a voice, which the company has subsequently confirmed it “believes” is Mr Bally, says: “Who buys our sh*t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely any more. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**k’s in it … bioengineered meat.

“I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.”

A bit of a Ratner moment, perhaps? You can certainly see some similarities.

Also in the recording, customers are called “poor people” and Indian workers are mocked.

The comments came to light after a colleague who reported the comments was allegedly fired, leading them to sue the food giant.

The release of the audio has led to widespread criticism on social media, with people saying they will take their “poor people money” elsewhere. And there are videos of the soups being thrown down sinks on TikTok.

And there have been some damning headlines.

There are lots of different ingredients in this crisis – questions about the quality of its ingredients, criticism of the people who buy and make its products, and an internal culture that seems pretty toxic.

And it is the recipe for long-term reputation damage.

So, how has the brand responded to the crisis?

Well, it feels a bit mixed.

A detailed statement was released.

In it, the company confirmed that Mr Bally was “no longer employed by the company”, showing immediate, decisive action.

And it condemned the language he is alleged to have used.

It said: “The comments were vulgar, offensive and false, and we apologize for the hurt they have caused.

“This behaviour does not reflect our values and the culture of our company, and we will not tolerate that kind of language under any circumstances.”

The statement also sought to reassure customers about the quality of its ingredients.

“The comments heard on the recording about our food are not only inaccurate - they are patently absurd,” it said.

“The chicken meat in our soups comes from long-trusted, USDA approved U.S. suppliers and meets our high-quality standards.

“All our soups are made with No Antibiotics Ever chicken meat. Any claims to the contrary are completely false.”

I’m a fan of the “absurd” line. It is emphatic, reassuring and media-friendly.

What I also like about its crisis media management response is that it seems to have quickly realised that one response will not repair the damage.

It has also issued a news release called ‘The Facts about our chicken’, which contains a detailed Q&A about its ingredients.

Visible crisis leadership

And there has been a video update from CEO Mick Beekhuizen, where he attempts to “clear up any myths” about the chicken the company uses.

It’s well-intentioned, and I like the visible leadership.

But the execution needed refining.

Mr Beekhuizen repeats the negatives about the ingredients to rebut them.

“Our chicken is not bioengineered or 3D printed,” he said.

When you repeat negative statements like this, it amplifies that negativity and helps make it stick in people’s minds.

The boss also fell into the trap of adding the ‘any’ clause to his apology.

He said: “I want to apologise for any hurt these comments caused.

We’ve written many times in our crisis communication training blogs about the importance of avoiding this three-letter word.

It always feels like an attempt to play down the significance of what has happened, rather than suggest genuine regret. And it also makes apologies feel scripted.

On social media, where there has been lots of damning posts and memes, the response has been pretty bland.

A post on Instagram just says it is “proud” of the food it makes and its “high-quality ingredients”.

But there’s no apology or context.

And I can’t help wondering why the CEO video has not been shared on social channels.

Can Campbell’s rebuild trust?

That’s the key question.

Moving quickly to tackle what it believes is misinformation about its ingredients is a good start.

But misinformation also has a habit of sticking. Views quickly become entrenched.

That, coupled with the ongoing legal action, and questions about the company’s leadership, culture and handling of whistleblowers, means the soup company can expect plenty more time in hot water.

And facing a big helping of scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal has already run a Here’s What’s Really in a Can of Campbell’s Chicken Soup article highlighting high sodium levels,

Rebuilding trust will be a long process, which will require good, consistent communication at its heart – not some parts good, others a bit lacklustre.

And plenty of transparency and evidence of change.

This particular crisis is no storm in a saucepan.

Media First are media and communications training specialists with more than 40 years of experience.

We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.

Click here to find out more about our crisis communication training courses.