Unexpectedly, the incident began, this benzene exceeded the standard of questionable news was ? s unanimous denials, as in several similar cases. To say that our products pose a cancer risk is unfounded. I think there is something wrong with the source of this information. a head of Coca-Cola (China) Public **** Affairs Department defended to the media. Like Coca-Cola's statement, Lu Jin, director of public **** affairs of PepsiCo (China), also said that according to the company's comprehensive evaluation and product testing, all its products are safe and fully comply with all regulations on benzene.

Obviously, this kind of self-defense is not convincing to consumers. According to a special survey by Sina.com, as of 21:30 on March 6, ****24,175 people participated in this survey, of which 18,402 said they would not continue to consume soft drinks such as Fanta and Minute Maid, accounting for 76.12% of the netizens who voted.

Official validation, turning a crisis into a crisis

While reacting quickly to the incident, the two giants also seemed very conscious of the fact that self-justification alone is not enough. But when similar words from the China Beverage Industry Association, the State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine and other official organizations, but has a very different effect. March 7, the China Beverage Industry Association of ? Drinks containing benzene problem? The first official response. In a public statement, the China Beverage Industry Association said that the British Food Standards Agency found that most samples of 230 soft drinks sold on the market contained very low levels of benzene, within the WHO limits for safe drinking, and did not pose a threat to public health.

Meanwhile, in response to widespread concern that ? Benzene in a few drinks containing vitamin C and sodium benzoate?

Meanwhile, in response to widespread concern about the presence of benzene in a small number of drinks containing vitamin C and sodium benzoate, the AQSIQ*** completed an inspection of more than 170 batches of imported and domestically produced soft drinks, and the results showed that the benzene content of all the samples did not exceed the relevant regulations.

And the comments of relevant experts also gave ? Two Joys? A pill of reassurance. In response to the claim that soft drinks can cause cancer, Prof. Hu Yadong of the Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, said that there is no relevant domestic research to prove it. Prof. Hu said: ? Sodium benzoate has been used as a preservative for a long time, and it should be said that it has been safe.? Prof. Hu said that soft drinks are usually consumed at room temperature or even at low temperatures, and if they are not heated, it is unlikely that benzene will be produced even if they contain both substances. In addition, compared with the impact of home renovation, car exhaust, is also insignificant, there is absolutely no need to cause panic.

The validation information from the authoritative organizations and the comments from the experts are certainly very persuasive. Numerous media outlets have begun to shift the subject of their coverage after the initial exposure to ? Soft drinks containing benzene will not threaten health? and other directions, while Sina.com's ? Sina.com's Fanta Minolta Drinks: A Cancer Hazard? The number of news links on Sina.com's "Nestle Milk Powder: Carcinogenic Hazard" page is much lower than the number of news links on Nestle Milk Powder in 2005. The number of links on the Sina.com feature page is also much lower than the number of links to the 2005 Nestle milk powder and KFC? Sudan Red and the KFC Sudan Red fiasco. By March 13, just over a week after the incident, few media outlets in China had followed up on the story. The buzz of Fanta, Minolta and other benzene-containing drinks may cause cancer has finally come to an end.

Reflection on the case

In the crisis of the enterprise due to the relationship between the interests of the public and the community often produce a certain conflict, the organization itself to send out the information and explanation is more difficult to be directly accepted by the public, persuasive insufficient. This is the first time that a company has been able to get the information from a third party, so it is important that the company has the ability to get the information from a third party, so it is important that the company has the ability to get the information from a third party, so it is important that the company has the ability to get the information from a third party. Fenta Minolta cancer storm? The crisis response of the two music, fully demonstrated through the government official and authority? The crisis response of the two companies in the Fenta-Minolta cancer fiasco fully demonstrated the effectiveness of public relations through government officials and authorities. The first time I saw this was when I was in the middle of a movie.

From the point of view of the whole Fanta Minolta carcinogenicity fiasco, the two companies have been able to make the best use of the government's official and authoritative public relations efforts. The two music? The main reason for this is that in the early days of the incident, it was not easy to find a way to get rid of it. The main reason for this is that the outbreak of the incident at the beginning of the authoritative testing organizations test results and expert comments on the information, not the two beverage giants of the statement of the public relations staff of the defense. This move has been used many times by many successful crisis PR companies, and has been tried and tested time and time again. Toyota Razor oil leakage incident: slow to take action, self-inflicted consequences?2006 first half of the famous enterprise crisis case review series of three

October 26, 2005, FAW Toyota's main product Razor scenery on the market, its shocking price and Toyota quality to attract the attention of many consumers. To the time of the new car launch, the manufacturer declared ? In less than 2 months since the price was released on September 1, 2005, orders for the Razor have reached 12,498 units? , which thrilled Toyota. But soon afterward, the Razor? Engine oil pan oil leakage? Phenomenon, but to the ambitious to enter China's Toyota head a stick.

The Chivas Regal fiasco: a game of media and branding

Replay of the incident

The IFP published this powerful front-page exposé citing a source who declined to be named as saying that the company had been "in the middle of the game" for a long time. The article cited an unnamed source's knowledge of the cost of Chivas Regal 12, an internationally renowned alcoholic beverage sold in China, and issued four questions to the Chinese distributor of the EU's largest alcoholic beverage company Pernod Ricard, Pernod Ricard China: The cost of Chivas Regal 12: $25? The myth of the billion dollars? A hundred million dollar myth? Product sales in China: no real 12-year-old wine in the mainland market? Traveling to the UK for all staff: a luxury under profiteering? Brand value:? The water that has changed its flavor?

A series of challenging questions pulled Chivas down from the altar of the foreign wine luxury far from the ordinary consumer groups, and for a while, Chivas cost lies spread rapidly through the Internet, newspapers, television, radio and other media spread throughout the country.? Chivas fiasco? Instead of being a news exposure, it should be regarded as a declaration of challenge launched by the media to the foreign wine brands, and the first international brand trust crisis in China in 2006 broke out before the arrival of the Spring Festival in the Year of the Dog.

Case Review:

Looking back at Pernod Ricard's response to the Chivas Regal product crisis, the overall crisis management can be summarized as follows:? A lot of highlights and a lot of failures?

Highlight 1: Act quickly and react quickly.

On January 20, the same day that the IFP published an article questioning the cost of Chivas 12, Pernod Ricard China commissioned its PR firm to issue a press release. The announcement accused the IFP of reporting without factual basis, demanded a written apology and correction, and explained the production year control and cost composition of Chivas Regal 12 products. Although a simple press announcement did not convey more information to the public, it was able to make its voice heard, show its attitude and position by responding quickly to the negative media reports at the first time of the crisis, which was a good first battle for its crisis public relations.　　Highlight 2: Capture the focus and respond again.

On January 24, Chivas Regal producer Pernod Ricard Group once again responded to the public in the name of the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) through the First Financial Daily, stating that ? Chivas Regal 12 years? vintage is full. Meanwhile, in response to the claim that the cost is only 25 yuan, Pernod Ricard China's communications director Wang Jue told the media: ? The value-added tax alone is more than 25 yuan. But as for the total cost of Chivas Regal, Pernod Ricard refused to disclose specific data on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Highlight #3: Top brass gathered to speak out.

On January 25th, the Scotch Whisky Association, Pernod Ricard (China) Trading Company Limited, and Chivas Brothers UK Limited, a subsidiary of the Pernod Ricard Group, held a joint press conference in Shanghai to reiterate to the media that Chivas Regal 12 Year Old is blended with a variety of whiskies that have been mellowed in oak casks for at least 12 years.

At the press conference, Pernod Ricard's Managing Director, Derek Zee, the current Chief Executive of the Scotch Whisky Association and Chief Bartender of Chivas Brothers, as well as Chivas Asia-Pacific Vice President Poon Teck Sze, representatives from the British Consulate General in Shanghai and the European Union Delegation to China, and many other high-level figures, were present to take questions from journalists. This gesture further demonstrated to the media and consumers that Pernod Ricard is not interested in the ? Chivas Regal fiasco? s exceptional attention, while the presence of officials from the Scotch Whisky Association, the European Union and the United Kingdom in China expressed clear support for Chivas Regal from both the trade association and government organization levels.

Despite being able to make a statement during the ? Chivas fiasco? happened, despite the first time to react, despite the firm attitude to express their voices to the public, despite from the European Union, the British government, Pernod Ricard European head office to the mainland distributors of the top level of the crisis incident to give considerable attention, but from the various types of media after the incident overwhelmingly continued to question the reports and comments, from the portal site on the survey data of 77.76% of the consumers said that no longer buy Chivas Regal, we can still feel that in the whole ? Chivas Regal fiasco? We can still feel the obvious flaws and failures of Pernod Ricard's crisis response during the whole Chivas fiasco.

Failure 1: Non-transparency of crisis information

Pernod Ricard's response to the Chivas Regal fiasco was not transparent. The Chivas Regal fiasco?

Pernod Ricard in the Chivas Regal fiasco? to set the record straight? questions. However, in the public's view, Pernod Ricard, while carrying out its strong duty to the IFP, avoided talking about the key issues on the grounds of commercial secrets, and could not come up with sufficient factual evidence and data to substantiate the two focal points of the incident: the vintage testing conclusions of Chivas Regal 12 and the cost of the product.　　At the press conference held on January 25th, in the face of various questions from more than 60 media from all over the country, it seems that the relevant explanations of the representatives of Chivas Regal still can't make the on-site journalists fully convinced. To Chivas 12 vintage testing, for example, the Scotch Whisky Association chief executive frankly more than three years of the exact year of alcohol is difficult to identify. Pernod Ricard, on the other hand, claimed that they were absolutely sure of their own products, so they did not need a third-party test report. They also said that the British Embassy's statement could also be used as a standard for the importing country to rely on. In this era of frequent product crises, the elimination of consumer trust in brands must be based on clear, sufficient, perceivable product information.

Failure 2: lack of direct consumer involvement

? The Chivas fiasco? The Chivas fiasco started with a skeptical article about Chivas products, but Pernod Ricard should have realized that the most important point of the IFJ report was that it caused a serious crisis of confidence in the Chivas brand among the domestic consumers who had little knowledge of foreign wines. As a matter of fact, most of the consumers in the Chinese market have only a general knowledge of the brand, while the differences in taste, culture and brewing process of different types of foreign wines are not known to ordinary consumers. In the wide variety of foreign wines on the market, consumers' choice is mainly based on their perceptual knowledge of the brand. Therefore, the Chivas Regal fiasco has been a major problem. Chivas Regal fiasco? The most important goal of PR is to eliminate the brand trust crisis of existing and potential consumer groups.

Unfortunately, in Pernod Ricard's crisis response, we can't see any direct consumer involvement. If there were consumers familiar with Chivas Regal products at the press conference in Shanghai on January 25th, explaining the experience of drinking Chivas Regal 12 obtained from different channels, or organizing consumer representatives to drink and feel Chivas Regal 12 products sold in the domestic market and the UK local market, and to feel whether there is a difference in taste, etc., by directly absorbing the participation of consumers to carry out crisis public relations from the perspective of consumers, I believe it would be a great opportunity to get involved in the crisis. The result will be a different kind of public relations.

Failure 3: Neglecting Chinese government and industry PR

Pernod Ricard's response to the Chivas Regal fiasco? Chivas Regal fiasco. One of the highlights of the crisis response is the luxury lineup of EU, UK officials and representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association to lobby for public relations in China, which is in sharp contrast to the public and the media in the whole incident, but it is difficult to hear the voices of the relevant Chinese management departments and professional industry associations. Despite the British government as a shield, but the lack of domestic authoritative testing departments to prove and explain, Chinese consumers still lack of trust in Chivas vintage, and even many media journalists in the press conference in Shanghai have expressed doubts: why do you think that the words of the British government must be credible?　　This phenomenon on the one hand reflects the insensitivity of certain departments of the domestic government to the Chivas incident, and at the same time, it also reflects the failure of public relations of Chivas to the domestic government departments. For Pernod Ricard, the best way to prove its innocence is to apply to the relevant state departments for product quality testing. If the test confirms that the products sold in the Chinese market? Chivas 12 years? is in full compliance with quality standards, it will certainly establish an unquestionable brand reputation and organizational image in the public.

Reflection:

Unlike the majority of well-known brand and product crises in the past, the Chivas incident did not originate from consumer complaints, product quality and safety, or a major management issue, but was triggered simply by a negative news report. From the beginning, the accuracy of the information in the initial article has been the center of contention between IFJ and Pernod Ricard. With little knowledge of high-end wines, even though many consumers were not sure about the content of the report, the mentality of believing in something rather than nothing quickly triggered a crisis of confidence in the Chivas brand among Chinese consumers.

The law gives the mass media the right to monitor behaviors that harm consumers' rights and interests, but whether or not to make reasonable use of this right has become an important criterion for measuring the media's credibility. For a media with a high sense of responsibility, credibility and professional ethics, it should maintain a consistent image in the eyes of ordinary consumers and business organizations: it should not only safeguard the interests of consumers and monitor and criticize any behavior that harms consumers' rights and interests, but also should not interfere with the behavior of enterprises participating in free market competition.

Specifically, in the IFP's initial exposure article, of the four focus issues it raised, except for the vintage of Chivas 12, the other three, such as the cost of Chivas 12's products, the way profits from sales are distributed, and the value of the Chivas brand, are not part of the corporate behaviors that affect or harm consumers' rights and interests. Just as in similar commodities, there are always consumers who are willing to buy products with higher brand value and greater influence at a higher price. But no matter how much the price, as long as the product quality should be guaranteed, without affecting the consumer's right to know, the right to choose, we should not regard this kind of complete market behavior as damage to consumer rights and interests.

So, the ? Chivas fiasco? The real focus of the issue is not the high selling price of Chivas Regal products, not whether Pernod Ricard has gained huge profits from the Chinese market, but the issue of ? Whether Chivas 12? is a real 12-year-old wine. Only this question involves whether Pernod Ricard has engaged in false propaganda and market fraud, and whether it has led to damage to the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in the Chinese market.　　Fanta Minolta Cancer Storm: Authoritative Verification to Cure the Danger?The First Half of 2006 Famous Enterprise Crisis Cases Review Series No.2Following the product crisis suffered by many international brands in 2005, the beverage consumption season in 2006 is coming, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, the two major international beverage giants at the same time suffered from the products of its products, Fanta, Minolta, the benzene content of the excessive and potentially carcinogenic thorny issue! The two international beverage giants, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, have also encountered the thorny issue of excessive benzene levels in their products Fanta and Minute Maid, which may cause cancer. In the soft drinks may cause cancer itself highly concerned about the incident at the same time, many media and consumers are watching the two giants of the crisis public relations moves.