If you’d asked me a year ago if I’d be siding with KFC as opposed to a large, charitable organization in a reputational crisis, I’d suggest you cut back on whatever drugs you were taking.
But that’s how things roll these days. When the U.K. branch of KFC ran out of chicken last month it caused a furor. It got so bad that people were calling the police. Some 700 of the country’s 900 KFC restaurants were forced to close. The company’s response was fast and brilliant, and while it may take the business time to recover, relatively little damage was done to the brand.
Coverups Since 2010
All of which stands in stark contrast to the way highly respected organization Oxfam handled recent revelations. The Times of London uncovered years of sex scandals involving the charity’s aid workers who were sent to foreign countries to help with disaster relief. Instead, some of the workers were visiting prostitutes and engaging in illicit sexual practices with natives they’d been sent overseas to help. The Times discovered evidence of wrongdoing and subsequent internal investigations and coverups dating back to 2010.
The result has been not only permanent damage to the brand, but the loss of celebrity spokespeople, donors and the U.K. government threatening to de-fund the organization.
Protect The Brand At All Costs?
That’s what you get when you prioritize brand protection over the protection of people. If we’ve learned nothing in the last few years of scandals and crises it’s that organizations that put the brand (aka profits) over the safety and well-being of humans suffer the greatest brand damage. Just ask Volkswagen, Equifax, Theranos and the folks who were in charge of water in Flint, Michigan. Time will tell if we’ll add Facebook to this list and the companies that designed and built the bridge on Florida International University’s campus, which collapsed and killed six people last week: FIGG Engineering-Bridge Group and MCM Construction, respectively. You get the idea.
KFC
When KFC switched its delivery service provider from a smaller specialty company to behemoth DHL, it expected a few hiccups, but it was completely unprepared for the level of interruption that resulted. It was equally unprepared for the customer backlash.
KFC’s communications team, though, and particularly its agency of record, Mother London, jumped into action. Within days it put up an ad designed not just for the print media, where it was placed, but also as a meme on social media.
KFC or FCK?
By a simple rearrangement of the brand’s letters, Mother London created an apology that was visually irresistible and tonally perfect. Using humor combined with an acknowledgement of the hard work and contribution of employees, who had to handle crowds of hungry people, it was particularly effective in toning down outrage.
The crisis ended in days and many pundits predicted that rather than suffering serious damage, the value of the KFC brand was enhanced by the very public demonstration of loyalty that the crisis evoked. The only lasting damage may be that once you’ve seen the ad, you will forever associate those three letters with the brand. And, sure, there were parties who complained about the implied language meaning of the rearranged letters, although that damage seems light.
Oxfam
Oxfam took the exact opposite route when faced with distressing issues. When a whistleblower informed senior leadership that Oxfam workers, sent to help in post-earthquake Haiti in 2010, were sexually exploiting women, the scandal was hushed up.
Sure, a press release was issued and people were fired, including the head of the operation. But rather than being transparent with the facts, the fired executive was given a recommendation and, as we’ve seen with disgraced priests and professors, had little issue finding other jobs.
Oxfam let the problem fester until this year, when people who were upset at the lack of action, and whose knowledge couldn’t be erased, came forward with the truth.
CONTACT: [email protected]
