![WHAT IS LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF [LFTB]?
• LFTM, processed by the company Beef Products, Inc., (BPI) through the
following process:]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Therese Boutwell Case Study Analysis
Similar to Therese Boutwell Case Study Analysis (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Therese Boutwell Case Study Analysis
- 1. CONSUMERS ASK: “WHAT IS THIS STUFF?” P R E S E N T A T I O N B Y : T H E R E S E B O U T WE L L “LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF” OR “PINK SLIME”?
- 2. WHAT IS LEAN FINELY TEXTURED BEEF [LFTB]? • LFTM, processed by the company Beef Products, Inc., (BPI) through the following process:
- 3. NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS CREATE CONTROVERSY • Food Inc., Fast Food Nation, and “The Burger that Shattered Her Life” • “Company Record on Treatment of Beef is Called into Question” • Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution “since 2005, E. coli has been found three times and salmonella forty-eight times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch- room trays”
- 4. BEEF PRODUCTS, INC.’S [BPI] CRISIS • World News with Diane Sawyer, March 7, 2012, fueled the fire • Countless websites, petitions, reports follow to “stop pink slime” • USDA lets the districts decide • Harris Interactive Poll- 88% of Americans were aware of the “pink slime” issue and 76% said they were “at least somewhat concerned” • 3 weeks after ABC report, 3 out of the 4 plants closed, and the remaining plant reduced production
- 5. CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES & TACTICS • Objectives: • Reassure consumers of the reputation and safety of their product “lean finely textured beef” • Restore BPI’s reputation and commitment to safety, and • Prevent financial loss • Two-way symmetrical model of public relations • The campaign founded on the situational crisis communication theory • BPI used organizational-created media tactics, news-media tactics, as well as advertising and promotional media tactics throughout the crisis management cycle.
- 6. PROACTIVE PHASE: LOOKING FOR RISKS & MANAGING ISSUES • Problem: BPI wasn’t prepared for crisis • Lack of environmental scanning • No Pre-Crisis Plan • Delayed response time
- 7. STRATEGIC PHASE: RISK COMMUNICATION, CONFLICT POSITIONING • Conflict Positioning: • BPI hired Ketchum, an international PR agency on March 4, 2012 • Evidence supporting BPI’s stance in crisis • Third party support • BPI representative handles media attention • Established media center to attract publicity from journalists
- 8. REACTIVE PHASE: CRISIS RESPONSE STRATEGIES Deny, Justify & Attack the Accuser Relabeling & Corrective Action
- 9. RECOVERY PHASE: IMAGE REPAIR AND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT • Other elected officials condemned the “smear campaign” against BPI by broadcasting their views in the news media • BPI hosted a news conference at their last plant in operation, the Nebraska plant 3 days later, inviting journalists, governors and lieutenant governors, and other industry officials to tour their factory • Guests were served burgers made with BPI’s LFTB and were given t-shirts saying, “Dude, it’s Beef” following the close of the conference
- 10. EVALUATION & DISCUSSION • The strategies and tactics applied in this case would’ve been more successful if BPI had taken action sooner, and had established a pre-crisis communication plan prior to The New York Times article, and the ABC newscast. • Due to the high concerns raised over the decade prior to BPI’s crisis, the issue was difficult to resolve given the high volume of news media coverage that negatively portrayed LFTB and its safety for consumers. • I would make these tactics and strategies more effective by addressing the public in 2003, immediately after the first major beef recall called the industry’s safety into question. By informing the public first on the safety and treatment processes used in BPI’s production of LFTB, BPI would be able to clarify potential controversy regarding what LFTB actually is, and how components of its manufacturing process make the product safe for consumption to all distributers including the federal school lunch program.
Editor's Notes
- Safety concerns regarding the U.S. meat supply had been increasing for years, the primary concern; however, was E. coli, a bacterial contamination that can occur as a result of fecal matter coming into contact with food, specifically in ground beef.
- 2008 & 2009 the New York Times article featuring Stephanie Smith, a woman who consumed an undercooked hamburger and nearly died as a result of E. coli contamination, unveiled that the industry had numerous blunders to safety, as well as, secretive practices. The New York Times investigated the ingredients used in the production of Smith’s almost-deadly hamburger, and found that 10 percent came from “fine lean textured meat” processed by the company Beef Products, Inc “Company Record on Treatment of Beef is Called into Question” The New York Times also noted that BPI’s LFTB was approved and used in federal school lunch programs, and issued a follow-up front-page story in December 2009 on BPI titled Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution Crude simulation of how LFTB is created coining the term “pink slime” The products outcome of the beef he created appalled audience of parents and young children BPI had no formal response Critics focus 2 things: the meat trimmings were low quality and were treated with a chemical, ammonium hydroxide used to kill harmful bacteria Not labeled on packaging because it was a processing aid, not an ingredient
- BPI owner and founder declined interviews for article and access to company production facilities, and offered no formal response until after the ABC report featured on World News with Diane Sawyer that aired March 7, 2012
- Two way symmetrical model of PR: BPI sought to rectify a mutual understanding with news media outlets and its consumers on the safety of LFTB through research and support from industry representatives and embraced a two-way symmetrical model of public relations throughout their campaign. Situational Crisis Communication Theory: The campaign used the situational crisis communication theory as a foundation—the strategies used were relevant in addressing specific threats/crises that manifested throughout the crisis, and were applied to reverse media rumors, as well as restore BPI’s reputation.
- Conflict Positioning BPI hired Ketchum, an international PR agency on March 4, 2012 Evidence supporting BPI’s stance in crisis USDA response “Setting the Record Straight on Beef” March 22, 2012, after most of the damage to BPI’s reputation had already been done Head of USDA’s public health agency posted to her blog Third party support Industry association, The American Meat Institute, issued a statement and fact sheet on LFTB 1 day after ABC report, including a list of food quality and safety experts and they’re statements backing BPI’s process BPI representative handles media attention BPI spokesman, Rich Jochum defended LFTB for schools March, 12 2012 stating it 1. improves the nutritional profile 2. increases the safety of the products and 3. meets the budget parameters that allow the school lunch program to feed kids nationwide everyday Established media center to attract publicity from journalists “Beef is Beef” website was launched March 9, allowing concerned audiences to learn more
- Reactive Response Strategies: Denial and Justification Diversionary Response Strategies: Relabeling- LFTBBoneless Lean Beef Trimmings Rectifying Behavior Strategies: Corrective Action Offensive Response Strategy: Attack the accuser
- POST crisis After suspending operations in March, BPI released that it would be closing the plants permanently in May, eliminating over 650 jobs in Texas, Kansas, and Iowa. According to MarketingandTechnology.com, by mid-May only 3 states ordered school lunch beef with LFTB.