PepsiCo Social Media Crisis and Crisis Management Analysis
Maintaining a leading position as a brand requires developers and managers to avoid any form of crisis. With the prevailing competition, it is easy for any company to lose customer loyalty due to a specific social media crisis. Notably, social media commands a robust population globally, which means any crisis can be overly detrimental if not managed and handled adequately and effectively. The response to crisis mitigation determines if the brand in question retains a good reputation or not. In this case, we focus on PepsiCo, a leading food, snacks, and beverage company that was recently involved in a social media crisis regarding the Israel and Palestine war.
Followers Outrage On PepsiCo’s Support for Israel Amidst the Prevailing War
Social media crises are regarded as detrimental to any business, especially for popular companies that must maintain a good reputation and good impressions to make sales. Influential brands around the world have found themselves in a social media crisis that significantly affects their performances. PepsiCo is one of the companies that recently found itself in a social media crisis. In this case, some comments on the PepsiCo Facebook posts implied that the company supported Israel in the current war against Palestine. In one of the comments, a customer indicated her disappointment with the company for supporting the killings of innocent children in Israel, the customer further called for a total boycott of PepsiCo products, citing inhumanity through supporting the global crisis and war that led to deaths.
In a different post, another customer was accused of siding with Israel in the war against Palestine. The comment comprised some hashtags that communicated an anti-Israel war message. Further, the post stated ‘Save Gaza from Israel’. This came as a second case where PepsiCo was accused of being pro-Israel, which did not resonate well with the company’s customers and followers on Facebook.
From the two comments, it is evident that the followers are concerned about PepsiCo’s position, which in this case emerges to be pro-Israel. The displeasure from the followers through the comments is a reason enough for the company to lose public trust and reputation.
Whose Fault? Is PepsiCo Centrally Involved?
PepsiCo has major interests in Israel, particularly with respect to business. Today, PepsiCo has multiple teams across Israel including Soda Stream, a reputable soft drink and snacks company that PepsiCo acquired in 2018 at the cost of $3.2 Billion. Not to mention, PepsiCo is directly linked to Strauss Group Limited which is equally a major brand in the food and beverage sector in Israel. Therefore, PepsiCo is seen as a victim of circumstances in supporting a country in which its business interests are established.
In an instance where Israel was negatively impacted by the war, PepsiCo stood a significant chance of losing business in the country, which is akin to major losses. This however does not settle well with social media followers. A majority of the concerns raised on social media are aimed at condemning PepsiCo for taking sides rather than maintaining a neutral ground and discouraging the crisis.
How Did PepsiCo Manage the Crisis?
Although some of the leading brands have occasionally found themselves in social media crises, some manage the occurrences effectively and eventually neutralize the matter. Prompt response to concerns from social media followers is one of the strategic ways of countering any crisis. In this case, PepsiCo did not perform well in managing the crisis, particularly on the social media platform. Even after some concerns from followers emerged on several posts regarding a common issue, the company did not respond or reply to any of the comments. Note that the concerns raised were highly impactful to the company to the extent of affecting its reputation and market position enormously. Therefore, it was necessary for the company to engage the followers by replying to the negative comments or making a formal statement about their position with regard to the Israel-Palestine war.
Conclusion (Does It Hinder or Help PepsiCo as A Brand?)
The main aim of establishing a crisis management approach is to salvage the current situation and retain the brand in its competitive position. Timely response to any form of crisis is integral in ensuring that damages do not escalate beyond control. Unfortunately, PepsiCo’s delay in responding to the Facebook followers’ concerns is detrimental to the brand. The current indicators confirm an anti-PepsiCo campaign, whereby some followers are influencing others to boycott the company’s products. So far, the company has underperformed in handling the crisis, which means there are high chances or negatively affecting the brand.
