A Food Safety Crisis Handled in a Media Environment - Assignment Example

A Food Safety Crisis Handled in a Media Environment Food Safety: E. Coli Outbreak According to a report published in “The People Daily “this morning, six people died of E- Coli Outbreak linked to “Roaster’s Fast Food.” The news report pointed out that this food crisis result from two children eating hamburgers bought at our restaurant. As a company, we would like to register our sincere apology and condolences to the families of the victims of the e-coli outbreak. Investigations are underway to get to the root cause of the problem. In the event our kitchen staff became complacent, we promise stringent disciplinary actions for the personnel responsible. However, there is a possibility that the news reports linking the deaths to our restaurant are pure speculation based on lack of sufficient proof that the two individual’s actual bought their hamburgers at our restaurant. Although “Rooster’s Fast Food” is reputable for the highest sales of hamburgers in this region, jumping into conclusions may misrepresent our company. It is our plea that food safety agencies conduct further investigations to ascertain the real cause of the crisis. Because of the recent increase in cases of food poisoning from restaurants, Roaster’s Fast Food restaurant’s management team decided to embrace technology; in which case, the focus was not only on improved service delivery. It also account for every detail of our customers. “This morning, the restaurant’s dedicated team of employees operated a database check for the two victims mentioned this morning, but there were no matching identities,” said Mr. Khan from the IT department. It is imperative for specialists to make utmost urgency and investigate the cause of the outbreak to enable a fast exchange of information. Urgent reaction will also allow food safety agencies to respond efficiently. The company perceives this as the highest level of malice from the media and demands for an apology to clear its name. Notes to the Editor Roaster’s Fast Food is a group of companies dedicated to quality service to our clients. The company, established two decades ago, perceives the current crisis and misleading news and speculation. The six victims of food poisoning did not buy their hamburgers at our restaurant. Notably, that the company has no previous records of unhealthy fast food sales to customer. Roaster’s Fast Food is not the only restaurant that sells hamburgers in the region. Therefore, the unfortunate food crisis should not be our sole responsibility. Customers did not just eat at our restaurant this morning but other establishments as well. According to our internal investigations under my leadership, there is a high probability of major competitors conspiring to destroy the reputation of Roaster’ Fast Food. Summer is setting in and this period our company realizes that highest sales in hamburgers. The report on the media this morning is subjective. The media should retract specificity on our restaurant to allow for further investigations. In the event, proper investigations carried out shall point to our company as the main cause of the death, we shall be ready to take responsibility and make changes in our ways of food preparation. Currently, the cause of E. coli remains unclear. The company, through its management, shall only be accountable for information that is true. An Internal Document for Management In this state of crisis, it is evident that not only the public gets the impact but also key stakeholders within the company. After receiving this food safety crisis in the media, it would be imperative for the company to move into action not only to repair the lost reputation but also to reassure publics that everything is in control. Grunig’s Situational Theory establishes that identification and classification of publics based on their level of awareness provides a clear channel through which to prioritize communication. Classification of publics as well depends on the level of their readiness to do something after the crisis. There are four main publics to handle. These include nonpublic (those people who are not aware of the problem), latent publics (the group that rarely recognizes a problem), aware public (acknowledges that there is a crisis), and active public (this group knows there is a problem and is ready to react) (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005, p. 428). The Roaster’s Fast Food management should purpose to handle the latent and aware public. Internally, the aware public includes those employees that realized the existence of the crisis and were unsure of their fate (Barton, 2001, p. 67). It would be crucial to handle this group by reassuring them that everything is under control. Employees need to be reassured of their job security after the media marred the company’s reputation. In most cases, employees panic that the company may not be profitable anymore and closure is inevitable. The company should organize meetings with employees to inform them about the media release. Workers should know what would likely come out of the entire episode. The incidence of food poisoning crisis raises much personal concern from the latent public. The first move would be to use the company’s blog to reassure consumers that the incidence actually emanated from misunderstanding. The move is to retain the confidence of loyal customers. Most studies propose the use of blogging as a radical way to establish that the company is still a trusted authority. Through social media like facebook established by the company and run by the CEO, it would be critical to rich out to the latent public and give them facts about the current food crisis. First, indicate great concern about the problem and feel remorseful. However, plainly inform this public that the linkage of this food crisis to Roaster’s Fast Food is a mere witch-hunt. Encourage customers to remain objective and wait for the final investigations conducted by experts (Dean, 2004, p. 201). It would be crucial to inform the latent public about the company’s technology use through social media. Let clients know that the company keeps a record of its daily visiting customers and none of the victims every visited the restaurant. An alert on the competitive advantage that the company gained, overtime, should be a spotlight as to why other key players in the industry would wish to destroy the good name and services of Roaster’s Fast Food. Based on the current crisis, it would be imperative for Roaster’s Fast Food public relations manager to move with speed with the purpose of repairing the reputation of the company and other behavioral intentions. Staff members ought to speak the same language especially when they meet the outside world. Based on the press release given, the public relations manager should focus on attacking the media (accuser) and denying that the crisis has no to this company. The management should apply the attribution theory proposed by Coombs (Coombs, 2004a, p. 270). It is inevitable to give an explanation as to why the crisis happened. By condemning the accuser, the company would be attributing responsibility for the crisis to the situation of the company being most profitable within the region, and this would attract hate from other players in the industry. Consider this as a rumor purported to damage the image of the company. This will help restore customer trust and aftereffects of poor performance. However, this situation should be a learning experience for the company to put in place stringent measures to ensure there is no damage on the company’s reputation. This may include implementing a food safety department that would ensure that food is safe for clients (Benoit, 1995, p. 93). There should be an assessment of the crisis management effort to ensure full functionality and improvements so that such cases of reputational damage do not recur. Roaster’s Fast Food Company should look for ways to enhance prevention, preparedness, and response. The information reached the media without the company’s knowledge requiring a press release to combat the issue. In conclusion, there is a need to communicate the crisis not only to the media, but also to the different publics. Notably, latent and aware publics are most prevalent groups to communicate to in the first place. The latent group may comprise of customers who are unaware of the crisis. They need to know what happened and get assurance that it was a misunderstanding. Employees as major stakeholders need assurance that the situation is indeed under control. The company’s future remains secure, as well as their job. Convening meetings with all departments would serve to address the problem with employees. Coombs points out that this should be a learning experience to make improvements within the company internal structure. New departments should be in place to mitigate such crises. Bibliography Argenti, P 2002, “Crisis communication: Lessons from 9/11,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 12, pp. 103-109. Arpan, LM & Roskos-Ewoldsen, DR 2005, “Stealing thunder: An analysis of the effects of proactive disclosure of crisis information,” Public Relations Review Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 425-433. Barton, L 2001, Crisis in Organizations II (2nd Ed.), Cincinnati, OH, College Divisions South- Western. Benoit, W L 1995, Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration, Albany, State University of New York Press. Benoit, W 1997, “Image repair discourse and crisis communication,” Public Relations Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 177-180. Carney, A & Jorden, A 20033, “Prepare for business-related crises,” Public Relations Journal Vol. 49, pp. 34-35. Coombs, W T 1995, “Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies,” Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 8, pp. 447-476. Coombs, W T 2004a, “Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situational crisis communication theory,” Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 41, pp. 265-289. Dean, DH 2004, “Consumer reaction to negative publicity: Effects of corporate reputation, response, and responsibility for a crisis event,” Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 41, pp. 192-211. Dilenschneider, R L 2000, The Corporate Communications Bible: Everything You Need To Know To Become A Public Relations Expert, Beverly Hills. New Millennium. Fearn-Banks, K 2001, Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach (2nd Ed.), Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. Hearit, K M 2006, Crisis Management by Apology: Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Klein, J & Dawar, N 2004, “Corporate Social Responsibility And Consumers’ Attributions Of Brand Evaluations In Product-Harm Crisis,” International Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 203-217. Lerbinger, O 1997, The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk And Responsibility, Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum. Sonnenfeld, S 1994, “Media policy–What media policy?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 18-19. Sturges, DL 1994, “Communicating Through Crisis: A Strategy for Organizational Survival,” Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 297-316. Taylor, M & Kent, ML 2007, “Taxonomy of Mediated Crisis Responses,” Public Relations Review, Vol. 33, pp. 140-146. Ulmer, RR, Sellnow, TL & Seeger, MW 2006, Effective Crisis Communication: Moving From Crisis To Opportunity, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Read More