When you hear a particular company name, you’ll immediately have an emotional reaction if they’ve spent a lot of time and resources on cultivating their brand. Your reaction could either be positive or negative based on past experiences with the company, recent headlines about them and/or opinions of those within your social circle. Each of these factors contributes to the overall image of the organization. Not surprisingly, people associate positive feelings toward companies that have good reputations.
But these reputations can be pretty fragile. Only one mistake can damage customers’ love and trust they had for a brand. This is especially true when the issue affects the customers’ health and safety.
Companies need to find ways to remedy these problems soon after they occur so they can restore the public’s trust. If their brand doesn’t recover from these mistakes, they risk losing these customers forever.
Let’s look at seven companies that had a negative brand image and how they overcame it. Of course, we kept the scope of this blog piece to events related to the over the counter (OTC) healthcare products or the overall health of consumers.
Table of Contents
McNeil Consumer Healthcare: Tylenol
In 1982, people throughout Chicago unexpectedly died, and the only link was that they each took an extra-strength Tylenol. Investigators made this connection of the best-selling, non-prescription pain medication. They discovered that someone laced each capsule with a lethal level of potassium cyanide.
McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a company of Johnson & Johnson, had manufactured the over-the-counter drug. The company issued mass warnings through the media and also recalled all Tylenol bottles in circulation.
Several stores discovered more laced capsules that were not yet sold or consumed. The company offered replacement capsules for anyone who turned in pills that they had already purchased. They even offered a reward for anyone with information on who was responsible for the tampering and random murders.
This incident inspired copycats across the country. In just one month after, there were over 270 incidents of product tampering. But pills weren’t the only product that people messed with. Some copycats used food, such as when parents found sharp pins in Halloween candy. This led to the ban of some cities’ trick-or-treating and has instilled a fear of tampered Halloween candy to this day.
After investing more than $100 million to handle the issue, Tylenol’s sales bounced back within a year. At first, critics thought the incident would kill the drug’s brand. But they eventually praised the company for how it handled the situation. Tylenol rebounded as the favorite over-the-counter pain reliever.
The year after the murders, the US Congress passed “the Tylenol bill” which made it a federal offense to tamper with consumer products. There are also guidelines now for products to be tamper-proof.
But this still doesn’t stop some people from messing with products. Just last year, a man licked the contents of an ice cream container at Walmart and returned it to the freezer. He recorded himself doing this and posted it on social media. Blue Bell Creameries had to replace all the products in the freezer. Store surveillance cameras found that the man finally bought the container, but this wasn’t shown in his social media video. This resulted in a fine and jail sentence.
Johnson & Johnson: Baby Powder
People know Johnson & Johnson from one of its most iconic products: Johnson’s Baby Powder. But consumers have lost trust in the company over that once-popular product.
The baby powder uses crushed talc which absorbs moisture and decreases friction to keep skin dry and prevent rashes. Many sources of talc have natural contamination of asbestos which causes mesothelioma. But it seems that Johnson & Johnson didn’t focus on this issue in their baby powder.
Asbestos-related diseases usually occur years after regular exposure. The company always denied that the product caused cancer. But documents in 2017 revealed that executives knew of asbestos liabilities as early as the 1970s.
As a result, the company faced legal issues over asbestos exposure from the well-known product. This included over 6,500 lawsuits for the powder causing ovarian cancer and mesothelioma cancer.
Johnson & Johnson voluntarily recalled over 33,000 bottles after discovering one contaminated bottle purchased from an online retailer. The company agreed to settle lawsuits and paid huge fines to affected plaintiffs. It also states that thousands of tests over the past 40 years always confirmed that the talc has never before contained asbestos.
McDonald's: Super Size Me
The world’s largest fast-food chain has always faced criticism over its unhealthy food options. But a particularly large wave of criticism hit McDonald’s after the documentary Super Size Me aired in 2004. One of the most infamous examples of how fast a brand’s image could turn negative.
The documentary, directed by Morgan Spurlock, was a social experiment in how the chain’s food affects health. Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald’s for one month, and if the employee asked if he would like to “Supersize” his meal, he would agree each time. A Supersize meal included about 200 grams of french fries and 1.25 liters of soft drink.
Spurlock gained almost 25 pounds and had increased body mass and cholesterol. His doctor recommended he stop the diet because it was harming his liver. McDonald’s UK sales dropped to one of its lowest levels following the documentary because of concerns about eating junk food.
McDonald’s responded by phasing out its Supersize portions. The chain revamped its menu to include healthier options such as salad and milk. It also launched its “Every Step Counts” campaign. This promoted the benefits of healthy exercise by giving away pedometers. It even funded a drive to train community football coaches.
Victoria's Secret: Ad Slogan
The American lingerie company Victoria’s Secret got heat in 2014 after the launch of a campaign using the slogan “The Perfect ‘Body’.” This referred to its “Body” lingerie line, and the slogan appeared on an image of Victoria’s Secret angels.
These were ultrathin supermodels, implying that the “perfect body” was thin and flawless. These are bodies that most of the female population cannot safely achieve. People saw this as damaging to self-esteem and women’s health while promoting eating disorders and unhealthy dieting.
Consumers posted backlash online, and over 30,000 people signed a petition for the company to correct and apologize for the offensive ad. In response, Victoria’s Secret changed the slogan to “A Body for Every Body,” even though the image remained the same. But people still responded with positive comments that the company made this change and that it was a step in the right direction.
Chipotle: E. Coli Outbreaks
In 2015, Chipotle suffered from E. coli outbreaks at restaurant locations across 11 states. Initially, 43 restaurants temporarily closed in Washington and Oregon in response.
Following these outbreaks, Chipotle released their short film, “A Love Story.” It was to remind customers of the “excellent ingredients” prepared with “classic cooking techniques.”
The company made major changes to its food safety policies and practices. But over the following three years, over 1000 customers became sick. Chipotle handled this by agreeing to pay a $25 million fine for charges involving food-safety violations.
The company also witnessed a massive drop in their stock value that lasted nearly three years.
Many efforts to rebuild trust focused on new marketing and ad campaigns. In 2018, Chipotle launched the “For Real” campaign to again remind customers of the fresh ingredients. This featured Chipotle’s shortlist of only 51 ingredients that everyone can recognize and pronounce. It even states the only ingredient that’s hard to pronounce is “Chipotle.”
The campaign launched across television ads, digital and print ads, and on Chipotle’s social media and website. Chipotle made a secondary Instagram account, @chipotleforreal, to educate users about each ingredient.
The company also launched a new loyalty program, Chipotle Rewards. This was part of the restaurant chain’s “ongoing efforts to drive digital innovation and make the brand more accessible.”
IHOP: "Personality" Pancakes
In October of 2015, IHOP posted a tweet comparing their pancakes to women’s bodies. This wasn’t the first post to raise eyebrows in a campaign that compared their pancakes to the female gender.
This tweet in question stated “flat, but has a GREAT personality”.
The vocal majority got angry. Others didn’t understand why people took such offense. As soon as IHOP realized that it caused outrage, its social media team deleted the tweet. IHOP’s Twitter account immediately followed up with an apology.
The same majority that didn’t like the original tweet didn’t accept the apology and continued to slam the corporation.
Samsung: Galaxy Note 7
In 2016, Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 smartphones were catching fire and exploding due to a battery malfunction. Sales were down by 15% because of the issue for Samsung users around the world. One instance may have caused the burned home of a South Carolina family, but thankfully no one was home at the time of the fire.
The company faced waves of negative comments because of the dangerous and threatening problem. But Samsung bounced back through persistent efforts. The first step was to get rid of all phones in circulation. The company recalled the Note 7, stopped sales and shipments, refunded users, and provided exchanges for the phones. It turns out that the replacements ended up having the same issue, so Samsung then recalled those, too.
The company took full responsibility for their problem. A team of researchers tested phones and batteries in every extreme condition so they could pinpoint the error. Once it did, Samsung announced where things went wrong; the phone batteries were too big for their casing, causing them to overheat. It also announced rolling out a quality assurance program and other safety features.
Samsung focused on gaining back trust by reminding users why they should love the brand. It changed its internal culture since it had a brand identity that “lacked warmth and humanity.” The company developed its tagline “Do What You Can’t,” creating a common vision for all its consumers.
This new campaign centered around the link between phones and content creators. They brought on popular Youtuber, Casey Neistat, and debuted their new personality during an Oscar’s commercial.
Procter & Gamble: Tide
Tide is the laundry detergent brand owned and produced by Procter & Gamble. Known for high-quality products, it’s the most popular selling detergent brand.
But in 2018, clients themselves tainted Tide’s brand image. Young generations started what they called the “Tide Pod Challenge.” The point of the social media challenge was simple: to eat one of the company’s small detergent pouches. The challenge went viral, and teens everywhere were indulging in the toxic “treat.”
Tide tweeted several times urging people not to eat the Tide Pods, saying they’d get sick since they’re poisonous if ingested. The company used NFL tight end Rob Gronkowski in a video warning against using Tide Pods for anything other than laundry.
They also invested heavily in Superbowl Ads the same year. Experts found that it led to steady sales although the brand’s overall perception at the time was bad.
H&M: “Coolest Monkey” Sweatshirt
H&M caused outrage in 2018 while announcing a new line of animal-centric children's sweatshirts. I know what you’re asking, how could this negatively impact the organization’s brand image?
The outrage occurred because the image H&M used to promote the new line contained a picture of an African American child wearing a sweatshirt. The fact that it was a sweatshirt wasn’t the problem, the outrage came as the result of the design displayed on the sweatshirt.
The sweatshirt had the words “coolest monkey in the jungle” across the chest.
The term “Monkey” has an unfortunate history as a racial slur toward African Americans. Many people thought the image showed that the company considered the child to be less-than-human.
In contrast, some other sweatshirts from the same line used white models. A white child modeled a hoodie from the same line featuring “survival expert”. Another said “junior tour guide”. Many people believed that this direct comparison was a deliberate move.
People on Twitter accused the brand of profiting from online backlash and bad PR. They thought the comparison was on purpose.
So how was this OK with H&M?
Sometimes interpretations of a brand’s actions aren’t clear until backlash begins. It seems that H&M may not have seen this comparison prior to posting their social media campaign. An ex-employee claimed that the Sweden-based retailer is sometimes “clueless” about cultural issues.
H&M removed the image across all of their social media channels. However, the same sweatshirt that caused outrage is still available for purchase on its UK-based website.
Heineken: Light Beer
In 2018, Heineken released a video advertisement that many viewers ultimately deemed as “racist”.
The commercial showed a bartender sliding a beer down the bar to one of his patrons. The beer goes past several customers of darker complexion. As the beer slides across the bar, its label faces the camera displaying the brewery's new beer, Heineken Light. After around 10 seconds of sliding the beer stops at a woman, who has a lighter complexion than everyone that the beer slid past.
The slogan “sometimes lighter is better” is then flashed on the screen.
The Twitter community quickly noticed and pointed out the issues with the new ad. As a result, it quickly started trending on the social media website, further adding fuel to the PR fire.
Due to the backlash, Heineken removed the video. They announced to the public that they value diversity with the statement, “For decades, Heineken has developed diverse marketing that shows there’s more that unites us than divides us."
The Netherlands-based brewery admitted that they missed the mark and will do a better job in the future.
Nestle: Unhealthy Products Internal Document
Nestle admitted that 60% of its food and beverage products aren’t considered healthy during an internal presentation that included press from the Financial Times.
The presentation also emphasized that only 37% of Nestle's food & beverages achieve a rating above 3.5 under Australia's health star rating system. The rating excluded products such as pet food and specialized medical nutrition products.
In the past, Nestle already received backlash about misrepresenting the ingredients and healthiness of several of their other products.
To give you some examples…
In 2015, Maggi noodles were so high in carbs and misrepresented so many ingredients that they got banned from grocery stores.
Orange San Pellegrino scored the lowest and most unhealthy rating for a food product.
Strawberry-flavored Nesquik had excessive amounts of sugar.
Once the presentation leaked to the public, Nestle said it values the nutrition it brings to its customers. Its PR team also mentioned that the company will do better to increase nutrition in its product line’s nutritional value.
Conclusion
Each of these organizations had products that led to a health problem in some way. Whether or not it was out of their control, their reputations faced backlash, and customers lost trust.
It was important that each of them resolved these issues and found a creative way to remind customers why they should still love their products and services. While some customers never returned, the efforts put forth by each of these organizations repaired their brand image.
When products harm the safety and health of consumers, it preys on their emotions. If products harm consumers, it will harm the perception of the company. But coming up with a response when this happens to remind customers why they had trust in the first place will help keep bringing them back.
