Analysis of the Pepsi Syringe Hoax and The Effect on the PepsiCo Image

Case Background

Earl and Mary Triplett - natives of Tacoma, Washington - were the first to supposedly

discover a used syringe inside of their Diet Pepsi soda can on June 9th, 1993. They passed this

can on to their lawyer as evidence in order to start a case against the refreshment industry giant.

The following day one local news outlet aired the Triplett’s story. On June 11th, another report

of the same incident was reported in Washington. This time, the Seattle Times picked up the

story, drawing more attention to the rumors of unsafe Pepsi sodas. In neither case so far,

however, were injures reported.

The next day the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “issued a five-state consumer

alert, asking costumers to pour soft drinks, particularly Diet Pepsi, into a glass or cup before

drinking” (Center, 2008, p. 170). The following days many more accounts of this same incident

were reported all over the country in states like Louisiana and 23 others.

The PepsiCo crisis management team, based in New York, was made up of many key

divisions within the PepsiCo organization including: executive, the public affairs department,

consumer relations, scientific and regulatory affairs, sales and marketing, manufacturing, and the

legal department (Center, 2008, p. 173). The decided to handle the matter internally rather than

turning to their hired public relations firm. The president of PepsiCo, Craig Weatherup was the

first to speak out about the incident. Weatherup played an important role and became a

trustworthy spokesperson for PepsiCo and in dismantling the ideas that this tampering was

happening within the borders of the PepsiCo manufacturing plants. Becky Madeira was also a

key player on the PepsiCo crisis team. She was the Vice President of PepsiCo’s Public Affairs.

She and her team developed the ad hoc plan and implemented the strategies and tactics used in

handling the disclosure of information to the public in an intelligent and logical way. Lastly on

the crisis management team was the one and only FDA. The commissioner of the FDA, Dr.

David Kessler served as the external and credible expert and as an influential opinion leader that
corroborated the facts put out by PepsiCo.

There were also key people on the opposing side of this case. These include the first

reporters, Earl and Mary Triplett and the 50 other individuals who reported cases of finding

foreign objects in their soda cans that followed. However, PepsiCo’s main enemy in this case

was the media. The various media that took a hold of this story turned it into a nationwide

catastrophe.

Objectives, Strategies and Tactics

After the stories of syringes in Pepsi products started flooding American households,

courtesy of news channels everywhere, the one goal of the PepsiCo Corporation’s ad hoc plan

was to restore trust and credibility with the customers. This goal was achieved through many

objectives including: following the reports and finding the problem, keeping media updated on

facts of investigation, monitoring public opinion as the story developed, and observing sales.

These objectives were fitting for this particular crisis because they were all centered on the idea

of restoring PepsiCo’s public image. The objectives allowed the crisis to be managed quickly

and with full transparency on PepsiCo’s end. These impact objectives can be further classified

into three groups: informational, attitudinal, and behavioral.

Informational objectives are objectives that strive to circulate or spread a message.

PepsiCo’s informational objective in this case was to keep the media updated on facts and

developments in their investigation. They spread this informational message through press

releases given by President Weatherup, and responding to all media inquires with new

information and progress. Weatherup appeared on many TV news channels and did countless

newspaper interviews to spread the concrete facts about the case. They also had more internal

information objectives. These objectives were not to spread information exactly, but were to gain

information. They investigated every report in order to learn more about the situation and the

possibility of any truth to the allegations. They also conducted research within their own filling

plants to determine if the problem was coming from within. These objectives while informational

and did help to circulate the message that PepsiCo was “innocent” of the accused crimes, were
not to be spread specifically to the masses.

The attitudinal objectives of the case were arguably the most important to the salvation of

the PepsiCo image. These included keeping a tab on public opinion throughout the case, and

following the reports. Even though there was no substance to this crisis and all claims were

quickly disproven, the negative claims were enough to stir up a crisis-like situation for the

company. In this case, the perception of a crisis had the possibility to ruin PepsiCo’s global

image. The strategy used in this objective was to take complete responsibility of solving the

issue. In order to combat this threat, they had manned hotlines operating 24/7 to take calls from

worried consumers and to ensure they integrity of the company. This was a way for them to also

research what the public opinion was.

Lastly, the behavioral objectives include the monitoring of sales. The behavior of the

consumers was critical to PepsiCo income during the crisis. Luckily, sales only dropped 3-4%

during the hoax. The strategy to achieve this objective was to keep positive relations with the

businesses that sold their products. A tactic was ensuring customers that their products were safe.

PepsiCo did not issue a recall to the customers because they knew that there was no real health

concern.

Many critics say that PepsiCo was too delayed in their response to the allegations. Time

was most certainly of the essence in a case like this. However, PepsiCo made a smart decision to

wait to put out a statement until they got the facts about the happenings. Madeira stated in an

interview a year later, “Speed is essential, but so is accuracy. It is very dangerous to attempt to

explain the cause of the crisis without facts that are corroborated from outside experts” (Center,

2008, p.172).

PepsiCo did everything right in this crisis management effort. They could not have

possibly relied on precedent to help them in this case, as no two crises are alike. They thought

quickly, acted responsibly, were completely transparent, and resolved the crisis in a short weeks

time. Crisis management needs to be a unique, flexible, and essential division of every company.

PepsiCo recognized this fact and acted appropriately to the specifics of the predicament.