Question

CASE STUDY 3.1 - NESTLE'S RESPONSE TO GREENPEACE'S SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN

On 17 March 2010, Greenpeace posted a spoof video online which criticized Nestle for acquiring palm oil, which is used in products such as Kit Kat and Rolo. The criti­cism related to the sourcing of palm oil from unsustainable producers in Indonesia who are levelling rainforests, and in doing so threaten the remaining habitat of orangutans. The video featured an office worker who opens a Kit Kat bar to take a break but then essentially consumes an orangutan finger rather than chocolate. Greenpeace posted the video on You Tube after its direct discussions with the com­pany had stalled. Greenpeace felt that Nestle should have followed other companies such as Unilever, Kraft and Shell which had ended their contract with their unsustain­able palm oil suppliers. One supplier in Indonesia, the Sinar Mas Group, in particular, was known to burn forests to clear land for palm oil plantations. Besides contributing directly to an increase in carbon emissions, the clearing of land alfo endangered already threatened species such as Sumatran tigers and elephants, and orangutans. According to Greenpeace, it had targeted Nestle as it is 'the largest food and drinks company in the world, and already a major consumer of palm oil — the last three years have seen Nestle's use of palm oil almost double. Considering its size and influence, it should be setting an example for the industry and ensuring its palm oil is destruction free. Instead, Nestle continues to buy from companies like Sinar Mas, that are destroying Indonesia's rainforests and peatlands'.

When the video was posted, it took Nestle by surprise. In a direct attempt to quell the storm, the company decided to ask You Tube to remove the video for copyright infringement. Yet, this had the opposite effect. Visitors who wanted to view the video saw the following statement: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Societe de Produits Nestle S.A.' The video itself was quickly reposted on other sites such as Vimeo, as well as the Greenpeace site. Arguably, it also came across, even unwittingly, as an admission of guilt, and very quickly the protest went viral with the video being shared amongst protes­tors and consumers, and with many of them turning to the company's Facebook site. There, thousands joined to post negative comments. The initial censorship had thus mobilized social media activists, whose actions on the Facebook page were being re-tweeted and reached a global audience. Interestingly, these activ­ists had not been part of the Greenpeace action, but had very quickly organized themselves around what they saw was an important campaign.

The moderator of the Nestle Facebook page was woefully unprepared for this kind of onslaught and became more bitter and rude in his responses. Instead, a more diplomatic and humane tone would probably have been fitting, but it demonstrated how unprepared Nestle was in terms of a social media strategy. The moderator threatened Facebook users with the removal of posts on its fan page that contained altered versions of the company's logos such as a Kit Kat logo that had been altered to read 'killer'. This led to a further discussion between one Facebook user and the Nestle moderator, which ran as follows:

Nestle             : 'To repeat: we welcome your comments, but please don't post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic — they will be deleted.'

Facebook user : `Hmmm, this comment is a bit "Big Brotherish", isn't it? I'll have whatever I want as my logo pic thanks! And if it is altered, it's no longer your logo is it!'

Nestle^,                     : 'That's a new understanding of intellectual property right. We'll muse on that. You can have what you like as your profile picture. But if it's an altered version of any of our logos, we'll remove it from this page.'

Facebook user : 'Not sure you're going to win friends in the social media space with this sort of dogmatic approach ... Social media is about embracing your market, engaging and having a con­versation rather than preaching.'

Nestle             : 'Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider yourself embraced. But it's our page, we set the rules, it was ever thus.'

This and other similar exchanges only fueled the fire further, and rather than being a single offhand comment, the sarcastic tone of the moderator continued. His comments were widely re-tweeted and further swelled the number of visitors to the Facebook site. By 18 March 2010, the Greenpeace video had been reposted on You Tube, Vimeo and other sites, and had been watched more than 300,000 times. The video, together with the Facebook comments, also gained major news coverage around the world. The issue, in other words, had gone mainstream with reports on Sky News and NBC and newspaper coverage in The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Nestle's reputation was severely damaged and there was a slight dip in the share price the day after. As one Facebook fan wrote:

'Hey PR moron. Thank you for doing a far better job than we could ever achieve in destroying your brand.'

The campaign had built such a momentum that Nestle found itself not only cornered by Greenpeace and social media activists but also by its own consumers who threatened to boycott the firm. On 19 March, the company apologized for its handling of the comments on its Facebook site: 'This [deleting logos] was one in a series of mis­takes for which I would like to apologize. And for being rude. We've stopped deleting posts, and I have stopped being rude.' On the same day, Nestle announced on its Facebook site its intention to use sustainable palm oil by 2015: 'Hi everyone - We do care and will continue to pressure our suppliers to eliminate any sources of palm oil which are related to rainforest destruction. We have replaced the Indonesian com­pany Sinar Mas as a supplier of palm oil for further shipments.' Greenpeace, however, continued to challenge Nestle for its sourcing of palm oil, claiming that some of its sourcing was still indirectly linked to Sinar Mas. The company then announced on 13 April that its chairman had written to Greenpeace to call for a ‘moratorium on the destruction of rainforests’ and to work together in achieving this goal. In May 2010, Nestle joined the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, a partnership of companies and other parties aimed at eliminating unsustainable production. The company also moved ahead with its target of only sourcing certified palm oil by 2015 and had con­ducted an in-depth analysis of its supply chain to ensure transparency and report on its progress. The company chose The Forest Trust (TFT) as a credible external partner that would audit and certify the sustainability of its palm oil suppliers.

A year later, Nestle also added the new post of Global Head of Digital and Social Media to its corporate communication team. The incumbent in the role, Peter Blackshaw, set up a 'digital acceleration team' as part of Nestle's efforts to monitor social media sentiment 24 hours a day. When issues connected to Nestle emerge in social media, ^,the team coordinates internally with the relevant departments but also externally with suppliers, campaigners and consumers, to work out a response. In addition, Nestle's executives from around the world are made aware of the team's efforts and achieve­ments, and are able to visit the team at its base in Switzerland to learn about managing social media communications. In the end, Nestle realized that engaging with its critics was more effective than trying to control and shut down discussion on social media.

QUESTION

1. How would you characterize the initial response from Nestle to the emerging crisis and to its critics, and should the company have taken a different approach instead? (10m)

Answer 1

Answer:-

Nestle's brand revival is one of the classic cases to talk about.

we should perceive how it unfurled

It's a stun that hit. abrupt ban by an administration organization on maggi - it's flagship food brand. The initial response is that not to remark to a lot or boast about their brand.

Prior to making a decision about their call, we should remember that it is a food ware (okay, brand !), low value , small volume SKUs (Stock Keeping Units) sold in colossal volumes to be a 2-minute food.

The stakes are high, you end up being fouling up - you are bankrupt because at the end it's food.

So stage 1:- Tell the world that your contribution is safe - not hazardous ! without that nobody accepts whatever the company says.

And the data sampling process at govt organization can turn out badly - it's picking not many single digit units from a huge number of SKUs delivered at different focuses.

So first of all... demonstrate we are acceptable and say to the world we are great.

Indeed, there's a period lapse in containing the negative progression of information which can be avoided by assuring the customer fraternity that Nestle is investigating the issue genuinely and they are ready to do anything to secure health of shoppers. Be that as it may, there was top management rearranging happened to watch the issues.

stage 2:- interface the customer once we are demonstrated acceptable.

Nestle came up with campaigns that connected and done by their cherished customers.

This progression played beautifully and here we can perceive how they are into family units again.

I can characterize the initial response is a less hesitant, may be feared by their grossroots in food business however their subsequent half was amazing.

The other way company would've done is - combat the ban with cleanchits from private labs and assured safety to purchasers at the earliest.

Otherwise that the revival is an amazing comeback by a corporate to handle the masses with taste and flavor.

Please please like the answer.......