The Arby’s Public Relations Failure

Using Research in Planning

Hendrix and Hayes (2010) outlines the typical course of public relations using effective means to address the concerns of all stakeholders while promoting the course as the best option. This is only effective, however, if the course is actually the best option. This is where research becomes important. Public relations depends on research to get a true sense of the stakeholder when considering marketing decisions and how the stakeholder might be affected. This research can be useful in both determining the course of action necessary to move forward and to communicate these decisions to the stakeholder in a manner most effective. Without this research to guide decision-making, a company can easily upset an important segment of stakeholders while intending to be portrayed in a very different light.

The Importance of Social Media

Social media outlets (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, et al.) provide a rapid means of communicating with stakeholders. Social media is a useful tool for public relations practitioners to use when addressing concerns of or making assurances to stakeholders (Coombs, 2012; Fearn-Banks, 2011; Hendrix & Hayes, 2010). Lynn Kettleson and Jonathan Bernstein (as cited in Horovitz, 2012), both crisis managers, recommend using social media to quickly assess the public conversation, contribute to the conversation by providing factual and compassionate reassurance, and most importantly, put a corporate face on the response by having a senior executive respond to provide a sense of responsibility to the stakeholders.

Arby’s Social Media Failure

On April 4, 2012, the corporate Twitter account was used to respond to another Twitter account recommending that Arby’s stop advertising on the Rush Limbagh radio show (@Arby’s, 2012). Although Arby’s did not currently advertise on the aforementioned radio show, the response indicated that efforts to “discontinue advertising during this show as soon as possible” are being undertaken. The controversy, however, began when customers replied with their concerns via Twitter. According to The Blaze (Adams, 2012a, 2012b) and Forbes (Walker, 2012), instead of making a public statement regarding the controversy or even addressing the concerns of their customers on Twitter, the customers who complained to the Twitter account were summarily blocked. Walker (2012) decries this action as pathetic, stating “any major corporation […] needs to be able to accept and listen to criticism from customers [….] but using a coercive measure like blocking flies in the face of everything the social media space is supposed to be about” (para. 1).

Just as quickly and quietly as the Twitter accounts of those customers were blocked, they were unblocked (Adams, 2012b). This decision was, again, met with disdain as the company failed to apologize or address the issue publicly.

Arby’s Fails Again

On the heels of the Rush Limbaugh and Twitter controversies, Arby’s, again, finds itself in the midst of a public relations crisis. A month later, A USA Today article (Horovitz, 2012) describes a Michigan teen finding the fingertip of an employee in a sandwich ordered at Arby’s. Though the response from an Arby’s spokesperson was public and included an apology to the teen, it was criticized as being inadequate and potentially harmful to its already damaged reputation. Horovitz (2012) states that no mention of the incident was made on the corporate website, Facebook page, or Twitter feed.

Discussion

The directions of this assignment were to find an incident that was significant or complex enough to require involvement from senior management and, although in both incidents senior management failed to respond publicly and comprehensively, I feel that these two cases did, in fact, require senior management involvement. A rapid response by the public relations team could have addressed the concerns of the company’s apparent political actions towards Rush Limbaugh and reinforce commitments to the customer to provide good and fresh food.

The second controversy could have been addressed quickly by using social media outlets to assure customers that, although food preparation can result in minor accidents for employees, these problems are unusual and every possible step is being taken to ensure the safety of the employees and the safety of the food being served. This would also provide an opportunity to further the corporate image as a caring and compassionate company that understands the importance of a trusting relationship with the customer.

As stated in the opening of this paper, research is important to any public relations program. Tools, such as the survey provided in the appendix, are useful in determining the needs and desires of the various subgroups and demographics of the corporate stakeholders. The data provided by these types of tools can provide direction to future public relations efforts.

References

@Arby’s. (2012, April 4). Response to @StopRush [Twitter post]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/#!/Arbys

Adams, B. (2012a, April 6). Arby’s responds to annoyed Limbaugh fans by blocking them on Twitter. The Blaze. Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/arbys-blocks-twitter-accounts-of-customers-upset-over-limbaugh-announcement/

Adams, B. (2012b, April 9). Backpedal: Arby’s immediately regrets its decision to block customers on Twitter. The Blaze. Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/back-peddle-arbys-immediately-regrets-decision-to-block-customers-on-twitter-not-ready/

Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning managing, and responding (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fearn-Banks, K. (2011). Crisis communications: a casebook approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hendrix, J. A. & Hayes, D. C. (2010). Public relations cases (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Horovitz, B. (2012, May 17). Finger incident places Arby’s reputation in jeopardy. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-05-17/arbys-finger-crisis/55046620/1

Walker, T. J. (2012, April 15). Arby’s makes social media blunder. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/04/15/arbys-makes-social-media-blunder/

Appendix

Sample customer survey.

1. How often do you eat out at restaurants?

a) very infrequently (less than once per year)

b) annually

c) monthly

d) weekly

e) very frequently (more than once per week)

2. How often do you visit an Arby’s restaurant?

a) very infrequently (less than once per year)

b) annually

c) monthly

d) weekly

e) very frequently (more than once per week)

3. Do you prefer to receive offers from your favorite restaurants?

a) yes

b) no

4. How do you prefer to communicate on the internet (check all that apply)?

a) email

b) websites

c) social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.)

d) text messaging

e) other: _____________________________

5. In the past year, have you provided a compliment, complaint, or suggestion to any of your favorite restaurants using the internet?

a) yes

b) no

6. How often do you visit the websites of your favorite restaurants?

a) very infrequently (less than once per year)

b) annually

c) monthly

d) weekly

e) very frequently (more than once per week)

7. Do you feel that restaurants can provide meaningful communication to customers using the internet?

a) yes

b) no

8. Are you more likely to visit a restaurant if it was more accessible on the internet?

a) yes

b) no

9. What is most important to you?

a) quality of food

b) price of food

10. Is corporate responsibility to the community and environment important to you?

a) yes

b) no

Public Relations Terms

Legitimacy and ethical concerns are quite important to the practice of public relations (Hendrix & Hayes, 2010). With some errant developmental forefathers, such as Edward Bernays (1928) and contemporary deviants, such as Saul Alinsky, and self-proclaimed media watch groups, such as the left-wing Center for Media and Democracy’s PRWatch.org, it is increasingly important to understand appropriate use and context for the influences possible with contemporary public relations concepts (Stauber & Rampton, 1999). In this discussion, I will examine and discuss the appropriateness and ethical use of Blackmon’s (2009) three different public relations concepts: press agentry, promotion, and sales and marketing in light of the six provisions of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA; 2000) Member Code of Ethics: advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty, and fairness.

Press Agentry

According to Blackmon (2009), agentry is a tool to increase notoriety for the sake of notoriety and without any other objective or plan. A good example of press agentry is CNN Entertainment’s coverage of Nadya Suleman and her choice of career (Duke, 2012). Suleman is also known publicly as the Octomom. Although the Duke (2012) article expresses her choices as promotion for her new video, the actual article by Duke is borne from press agentry. Considering the PRSA (2000) code of ethics, it appears that Ms. Suleman’s press agent is acting in her best interests and not promoting Ms. Suleman in an unfair way that is not dishonest to the public. The choice of media outlets to cover Ms. Suleman at the behest of her press agent is entertainment journalism and falls outside of the scope of this discussion.

Promotion

Promotion, according to Blackmon (2009), is similar to press agentry, though with some objective or as a means to an end. Frum (2012) fulfills Sony’s promotional wishes by attending an event devoted to promoting electronic entertainment then writing about his findings. Like the Duke (2012) example above, Frum’s coverage is not the subject of the discussion here; however, the promotional event that Frum covers is. I find the pomp of the event likely needed to draw both consumers and journalists. Additionally, the public relations team that advocated for Sony to promote its new games at this heralded event to be in line with the ethics put forth by the PRSA (2000). Sony is putting its products in the public arena for both celebration and scrutiny, equally.

Sales and Marketing

Over the last few years, Sprint (2012) marketed its Simply Everything ™ plan as its premier-tier plan to include unlimited talk, domestic long distance calling, text, data, and roaming. This plan was marketed towards power users who cannot judge their cellular service usage month to month and are willing to pay a premium fee of $99.99 per month for this service. Recently, Sprint decided that network usage was too overwhelming and unilaterally decided to limit consumer phone data usage by implementing limited hotspot plans. A hotspot, in this case, is the ability of a smart phone to act as a wireless router to allow connections from laptops and other network devices to share the phone’s data connection. Initially, there was a single plan costing $29.00 that merely allowed using the phone’s hotspot feature, but they have since decided to even limit the use of the hotspot, specifically, to a set amount of five gigabytes (GB) regardless of the <i>unlimited data</i> included in the Simply Everything ™ plan (Webster, 2011). Sprint has now decided to discontinue the five GB plan and offer a two GB for $19.99/month and a six GB plan for $49.99/month (Tofel, 2012; Welch, 2012). The marketing plan would be within the PRSA’s (2000) code of ethics; however, the recent unilateral decision by Sprint to limit the users’ data usage under the unlimited plan is dishonest, unfair, and is insulting to loyal customers.

Discussion

The PRSA (2000) has chosen not to enforce their code of ethics; however, it does provide a standard to look towards for guidance in judging the ethics of public relations efforts. Public relations efforts that disrespect the consumer are dishonorable and will ultimately be judged by consumer choice. In all three cases above, the efforts are obviously focused at improving the business model of each subject (Ms. Suleman, Sony, and Sprint); however, the public relations effort is focused to an audience and that audience needs to feel some level of respect when receiving the message. Otherwise, the effort will fail.

References

Bernays, E. L. (1928). Propaganda. Retrieved from http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

Blackmon, M. (2009). Public relations terms [PowerPoint slides].

Duke, A. (2012, June 5). Octuplets mom Suleman books stripper gigs to save home. CNN Entertainment. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/showbiz/octuplets-mom-stripping/index.html

Frum, L. (2012, June 5). Sony highlights mature games, cross-play at Electronic Entertainment Expo. CNN Tech. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/tech/gaming-gadgets/e3-sony/index.html

Hendrix, J. A. & Hayes, D. C. (2010). Public relations cases (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Public Relations Society of America. (2000). Member code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/documents/Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf

Sprint. (2012). Plans: pricing, individual, business. Retrieved from http://www.sprint.com/landings/indirect/sprintplans.pdf

Stauber, J. & Rampton, S. (1999). The father of spin: Edward L. Bernays and the birth of PR [Book review of same title]. PR Watch, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q2/bernays.html

Tofel, K. C. (2012. May 22). Sprint bumps per GB price on hotspot plans for phones. GigaOM. Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/mobile/sprint-bumps-per-gb-price-on-hotspot-plans-for-phones/

Webster, S. (2011, September 22). Sprint to cap mobile hotspot plans at 5GB per month in October. CNET. Retrieved from http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-20110106-85/sprint-to-cap-mobile-hotspot-plans-at-5gb-per-month-in-october/

Welch, C. (2012, May 22). Sprint kills 5GB mobile hotspot plan, offers less cost-effective 2GB and 6GB plans to fill void. The Verge. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/22/3036211/sprint-mobile-hotspot-tethering-plans-updated