Another crisis communication training blog about food?
Yes, hot on the heels of our look at how supermarkets dealt with complaints they “ruined” Christmas with rotting meat, another big-name brand has found its reputation facing the heat of the grill.
McDonald’s has been hit with a lawsuit in the US about the ingredients in its McRib and how the product is promoted.
The claim – or McLawsuit - says the rack-of-ribs-shaped sandwich does not contain any rib meat.
The lawsuit, which contains 16 legal claims, says: “By including the word ‘Rib’ in the name of the sandwich, McDonald’s knowingly markets the sandwich in a way that deceives reasonable consumers, who reasonably (but mistakenly) believe that a product named the ‘McRib’ will include at least some meaningful quantity of actual pork rib meat, which commands a premium price on the market.
“McDonald’s does this despite knowing that the sandwich in fact does not contain any meaningful quantity of actual pork rib meat - indeed, none at all.”
A household name brand facing allegations of misleading customers, coupled with pricing and quality concerns. It’s a triple threat.
Not surprisingly, the lawsuit has gained extensive coverage. Here’s a little taste of some of the headlines and social media ccoverage:
It’s an unappetising set of headlines and social media posts for the fast-food giant.
But how has it responded to this crisis media management incident, and reputational threat?
Well, it has reacted quickly, with its statement carried in much of the coverage.
In the statement, it says the lawsuit “distorts the facts”, which feels robust, yet calm.
But then added that “many of the claims are inaccurate”.
I don’t know about you, but “many” strikes me as a bit vague and concerning. How many is “many”? And how many claims are accurate?
More questions than answers and plenty of room for speculation and commentary, which is not a great outcome from a crisis communication response.
And here’s the fascinating bit of the response:
"Our fan-favorite McRib sandwich is made with 100% pork sourced from farmers and suppliers across the U.S. – there are no hearts, tripe or scalded stomach used in the McRib patty as falsely alleged in this lawsuit,” the company said.
“We’ve always been transparent about our ingredients so guests can make the right choice for them."
Why’s that so interesting?
Well, it tells consumers what isn’t included in the McRib recipe.
That’s fine, and may provide some reassurance, particularly as ‘scalded stomach’ sounds remarkably grim.
But what stands out is that this response doesn’t tell you what is included in the McRib. “100% pork” reveals nothing about what pork parts make up the product.
That's a problem when you are aiming to reassure consumers reading negative headlines and social media posts.
And it detracts from the claim included in the statement about being “transparent about our ingredients”.
If you wanted to be transparent, wouldn’t you list the pork you include in the recipe?
The statement feels like a crisis communication response that has been heavily influenced by the legal team rather than one that truly considers how the story makes the public think and feel about the product and brand.
This is something that often happens during crisis media management incidents, particularly those involving some form of legal action.
The two departments approach crises from different angles, and the result can be a response that resembles a legal defence rather than one that will win in the court of public opinion.
Arguably, the most infamous example of this was how Thomas Cook handled the tragic case of two young children killed by fumes from a gas boiler during one of its holidays in Corfu.
Clearly, nothing the company could have said or done would have brought the children back.
But its handling of the case remains a lesson in how not to communicate during a crisis.
Under advice from lawyers, the company refused to apologise for the deaths until it was forced to do so - nine years later - by the weight of public anger, after an inquest found it 'breached its duty of care'.
The company showed a complete lack of compassion and humanity, and its cautious and distancing approach alienated it from the people on the street who buy its holidays.
The Financial Times described its handling of the tragedy as "extraordinarily tin-eared and heartless", which feels like a fair assessment.
The McRib case is a massively different type of crisis.
But that doesn't mean it can't be damaging.
It still serves up significant reputation issues that McDonald's has not fully answered.
While some consumers will continue to buy its McRibs regardless of their contents, others will now have doubts.
And they are likely to make up their minds about whether or not to buy the product much quicker than the legal world decides the outcome of the case.
Of course, legal advice is crucial.
Bu negative narratives quickly form, travel fast, and stick, especially when they are met with vague responses that don’t provide the necessary transparency, reassurance or - in the Thomas Cook case - compassion.
While we are still unsure exactly what is in a McRib, we do know transparency is a critical ingredient in the recipe for winning hearts and minds and rebuilding trust.
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.