1. vs

2. Before Nestlé case...
 9 May 2008 - Greenpeace's forests campaigners meet Unilever senior
executives.
 Greenpeace launch a viral video called ‘Dove Onslaught(er)’.
 In just two weeks Unilever receive tens of thousands of protest emails
from around the world, because Greenpeace activists brought masses of
news media to their buildings in the UK, Netherlands and Italy.
 Public pressure moves Unilever to react. (1)
The campaign was designed to stop the palm oil industry from destroying the
Paradise Forests, and ensuring the protection of the climate and a future for
orang-utans.

3. ‘If others in the palm oil industry are smart, they'll follow
Unilever's lead. There's no excuse for wasting time now, so any
industry slow-learners could be our next campaign target.’
(Greenpeace, 2009)

4. Give orang-utan a break!
 17 March 2010 – Greenpeace publishes ‘Caught Red-handed’
report. Greenpeace state they have new evidence which shows that
Nestlé are using palm oil produced in areas where the orang-utans'
rainforests once grew.
 17 March 2010 – Greenpeace posts on YouTube a viral video ‘Kit Kat
– give the orang-utan a break’.
 Nestlé demands video to be removed due to copyright violation.
 The Video is then posted on Vimeo.

5. Give orang-utan a break!
 Nestlé receives 200,000 emails, hundreds of phone calls
 Nestlé struggles to respond to bombardment of criticism from
angry consumers on Twitter and its official Facebook page.
This is Social Media Crisis

6. Social media crisis
 Members of the public have gone to social media sites to criticise
the company, following reports that it is continuing to source palm
oil from Sinar Mas, an Indonesian company accused of illegal
deforestation of rainforests.
 On Twitter, the firm has been bombarded with critical comments.
Users have been tweeting Nestle's Facebook page and encouraging
people to go on to see the comments posted online.
 Consumers on Facebook accused the company of ‘hiding behind PR
spin', calling the company's response to the criticism a ‘major social
media fail'. (3)

7. Nestle’s PR solutions
 Official press release was published on the day of report from
Greenpeace
 The company initially tried to respond on Facebook (not successful,
rude and not tackling the issue)
 The company demanded to take off the video, threatened to
remove pictures of the ‘new’ KitKat logo
 The demands from Greenpeace were fulfilled in May 2010: Nestlé
developed a plan to identify and remove any companies in their
supply chain with links to deforestation, including Sinar Mas group.

8. Effectiveness of these solutions
 The official press release gave an official source for customers and
press to quote and refer to (the contact details were provided,
Nestlé seemed to be open for discussions)
 However, inability to talk directly to customers developed rage and
worsened the issue leading to even more comments and retweets

9. Crisis
 Nestlé’s crisis was ‘simmering’. ‘Simmering' events cover situations
that lurk beneath the organization's surface and can erupt into a
crisis at any time' (Ruff & Aziz, p.3).
 ‘Crisis, in reality is much more likely to be predictable and expected’
(Ruff & Aziz, p.3).
Nestlé should have been prepared considering the experience of
Unilever.

10. Crisis management
 The key to crisis management is being prepared
 Goals of crisis communication:
1. terminate the crisis quickly
2. limit the damage
3. restore credibility
Be prepared. Be available. Be credible. Act appropriately.
(Seitel, p.406)

11. Nestlé’s key issues
 Nestlé was not prepared. As a result - bad crisis management
 Inability to interact with the public efficiently
 The Facebook responses attacked the users and concentrated
on copyright violation rather than on the issue
 Threats of removing pictures and comments are not
permitted!
 Company did not take the issue seriously

12. Where else did Nestlé fail?
 ‘Someone within Nestlé is also responding to posts, but they are
not corporate in tone and are juvenile. The company should be
tailoring its response more to the environment with a more human
tone.‘
 ‘The person responding for Nestlé seems to be junior. In future they
need look at the person who is responsible for monitoring the page
and use someone more senior.‘
 ‘Nestlé could do a round-up of three or four of the key issues that
have been raised and address them. It should also do a video and
post it on YouTube to address the topics. If it is brave enough it
should do it in response to the Greenpeace video.‘
(Kerry Gaffney, Porter Novelli associate director)

13. ´How an organisation handles itself in the midst of a crisis may
influence how it is perceived for years to come. Poor handling of
events not only can cripple an organisation´s reputation but also
can cause it enormous monetary loss or even cause its demise. It
is essential, therefore, that such emergencies be managed
intelligently and forthrightly with the news media, employees,
and the community at large.´
(Seitel, p.405)

14. What they could have done
 Be prepared to use social media platforms
 Be prepared for the possible crisis (knowing the experience of Unilever)
 Be fast, open and respectful in response
 Take the issue and customers seriously
 Get involved in the dialogue with Greenpeace
 Involve CEOs or other official spokespeople
 Should not censor users and content (rights of free speech)

15. ‘I think the problems with Nestlé were poor understanding of
risk, lack of appreciation for how little control brands can have if
things go wrong in social media and insufficient processes or
resources to cope with the crisis they faced.’
(Neil Bayley, Porter Novelli corporate practice leader)