Putting Public First First off, it was smart of Pepsi to look at the situation from the consumer point of view. As a corporation, Pepsi knew it was not their fault as their filling facilities were top of the line, leaving no room for these syringes to enter the can. The general public on the other hand was not aware of the technology that Pepsi uses which can lead to a sense of uncertainty and fear. By putting the public first, it shows that they care about this crisis seriously in order to gain back public trust.
Taking full responsibility for solving the problem. Pepsi took a proactive approach by taking full responsibility for the situation, doing so ensured that they were in charge of the messaging. Even though Pepsi wasn 't to blame …show more content…
Another potential implication could have been some one dying from drinking a Pepsi which would have resulted in a PR crisis nightmare.
Four:
Pepsi had several options and chose the strategic route. Their options were to recall Diet Pepsi in the affected areas, create a media strategy that showcases the safety of their plant, or they could have been defensive. Even though Pepsi did lose 3 percent of their sales, which is a substantial amount, a recall would have cost them far more in revenue. At the same time it would also be similar to admitting guilt. I feel as if Pepsi made the right call in the long run. Other options Pepsi could have considered were product replacement or compensation for customers who found objects in their cans.
Five:
The FDA was a crucial part in solving the situation. The FDA assisted Pepsi in several ways; they ensured the safety of the filling plant, they gave Pepsi credibility, and they backed Pepsi up when they did not issue a product recall. Overall, it was beneficial for Pepsi to use the FDA as a third party partner because it established a non bias point of view in their …show more content…
Having a positive relationship meant that they had a chance in challenging the media "goliath" NBC. First, it allowed GM to quickly acquire a copy of the firefighter 's video. GM also stayed proactive by keeping the media informed about their progress. The press conference was an important part of the relationship as well, NBC could not justify their claims, and GM did extensive research and gave the media the truth which destroyed NBC 's argument.
Two
In general, fighting back as a strategy makes a company seem defensive and that they are guilty. If one wants to fight back they need to have positive evidence, arguments, and things that can discredit their accusers. Josh Gordon fought back; presidential candidates sometimes use this tactic as well. GM chose a risky strategy as they were fighting a media giant. Providing factual arguments such as the incendiary by the gas tank and discrediting NBC 's auto expert GM was able to be transparent and show the public they were not guilty.
Taking full responsibility for solving the problem. Pepsi took a proactive approach by taking full responsibility for the situation, doing so ensured that they were in charge of the messaging. Even though Pepsi wasn 't to blame …show more content…
Another potential implication could have been some one dying from drinking a Pepsi which would have resulted in a PR crisis nightmare.
Four:
Pepsi had several options and chose the strategic route. Their options were to recall Diet Pepsi in the affected areas, create a media strategy that showcases the safety of their plant, or they could have been defensive. Even though Pepsi did lose 3 percent of their sales, which is a substantial amount, a recall would have cost them far more in revenue. At the same time it would also be similar to admitting guilt. I feel as if Pepsi made the right call in the long run. Other options Pepsi could have considered were product replacement or compensation for customers who found objects in their cans.
Five:
The FDA was a crucial part in solving the situation. The FDA assisted Pepsi in several ways; they ensured the safety of the filling plant, they gave Pepsi credibility, and they backed Pepsi up when they did not issue a product recall. Overall, it was beneficial for Pepsi to use the FDA as a third party partner because it established a non bias point of view in their …show more content…
Having a positive relationship meant that they had a chance in challenging the media "goliath" NBC. First, it allowed GM to quickly acquire a copy of the firefighter 's video. GM also stayed proactive by keeping the media informed about their progress. The press conference was an important part of the relationship as well, NBC could not justify their claims, and GM did extensive research and gave the media the truth which destroyed NBC 's argument.
Two
In general, fighting back as a strategy makes a company seem defensive and that they are guilty. If one wants to fight back they need to have positive evidence, arguments, and things that can discredit their accusers. Josh Gordon fought back; presidential candidates sometimes use this tactic as well. GM chose a risky strategy as they were fighting a media giant. Providing factual arguments such as the incendiary by the gas tank and discrediting NBC 's auto expert GM was able to be transparent and show the public they were not guilty.