Ribena case study

**Hitcher** · 28th March 2007, 08:52

As an interested professional observer, I have been particularly interested in the reaction and responses of GlaxoSmithKline during the course of the Ribena saga involving the Commerce Commission.

In my view this is a classic example of how not to manage a public issue. I wonder how much GSK has "invested" on professional advice over the past few years, leading them down a path littered with gaffes, multi-national arrogance and lies. The damage to GSK's reputation from this event will be considerable, not to mention a knock-on effect onto all other "health" drinks.

Tui moment: "It was never our intention to mislead our customers."

I hope heads roll at GSK. This sort of behaviour by any organisation is unforgiveable, not least when it is supported/encouraged by communications "professionals".

**ManDownUnder** · 28th March 2007, 08:55

Originally Posted by Hitcher

...professional advice over the past few years, leading them down a path littered with gaffes, multi-national arrogance and lies.

Sounds like a certain war on terror really doesn't it?

Or perhaps a certain Ms Gutting a la Telecon - "it's ok, deception's a valid tool in the marketing kit"

Line 'em up and nail them to the wall.

**skelstar** · 28th March 2007, 09:24

Not 100% up to speed on this but what is considered as a good response to this gaff then Mr. H?

**avgas** · 28th March 2007, 09:29

Fact of the matter - advertising is lies.
Misses got pissed off at me cos i told her to get over the whole Ribena thing. The percentage of people who bought Ribena for the sheer fact it had "4X the Vit C of Oranges" deserved to be lied to.
Here are some other simple facts:
Subway has more that 8 grams of fat no matter how you have it.
Colgate will not clean your teeth for 24 hours
You will not run faster, jump higher, or attact the opposite sex unless you have been lied to - believe the lie - and do it on your own anyhow.

**Hitcher** · 28th March 2007, 09:31

Originally Posted by skelstar

Not 100% up to speed on this but what is considered as a good response to this gaff then Mr. H?

If you don't know the truth, discover the truth.
If this discovery process will take some time, outline the process and the likely timeframe.
If you've done something wrong, admit to it and then outline what you're going to do to put things right.
Do not be evasive, or talk down to your audience or, worst of all, lie.

Your sins will always find you out, despite best efforts to brush off or conceal.

**Hitcher** · 28th March 2007, 09:33

It's always better to be in control of your own destiny than to have some external party reviewing your performance. GSK passed up this opportunity and have now been exposed and hammered by the Commerce Commission.

**Ixion** · 28th March 2007, 09:39

Originally Posted by Hitcher

If you don't know the truth, discover the truth.
If this discovery process will take some time, outline the process and the likely timeframe.
If you've done something wrong, admit to it and then outline what you're going to do to put things right.
Do not be evasive, or talk down to your audience or, worst of all, lie.

Your sins will always find you out, despite best efforts to brush off or conceal.

No, they very seldom do if you are a global corporate.

Arguably GSK adopted the standard and correct procedure . They were very unlucky in that Fairgo decided to intervene , forcing the authorities to take some action. Had it not been for that (and the odds of a "Fairgo" type intervention are very low), nothing would ever have happened. The authorities had already dismissed the matter, any attempt by the schoolgirls to publicise it could easily be shutdown with the threat of a libel suit.

999 times out of 1000, the standard multinational response of deny and threaten works perfectly. If corporates (or government departments) were to start telling the truth they would very quickly all be in deep shit indeed.

**eliot-ness** · 28th March 2007, 09:39

Originally Posted by Hitcher

The damage to GSK's reputation from this event will be considerable, not to mention a knock-on effect onto all other "health" drinks.

Maybe their reputation in NZ will be damaged but is it likely to get TV coverage and make headline news worldwide. The amount they were fined gives the impression that the offence was trivial. My bet is that it will be swept under the carpet and apart from NZ it will be business as usual and even here it will soon be forgotten. A fine of $5,000,000 would have had more impact. A company rep on the news last night admitted they'd made a mistake but added "Ribena concentrate has some vitamin C". No claim about the amount being higher than other products. He didn't sound too worried by the outcome.

**Paul in NZ** · 28th March 2007, 09:42

As an amatuer observer and a professional Type 1 Diabetic and thus one whos health and well being depends upon accurate makers descriptions of the contents of all foods and beverages, I find their actions deplorable.

On the other hand - it's great that affordable 'science' is availiable all school kids and the rest of us so these pricks can't get away with this stuff... It does make you wonder though. If these clowns are prepared to lie about Ribena, maybe that tobacco is not as safe as they said and perhaps there were no weapons of mass destruction after all... egad... I'm off to check the power output on the Triumph, perhaps thats not right either...

**Motu** · 28th March 2007, 09:47

It's all ok now,they have been hammered with a crippling fine.

**Blackbird** · 28th March 2007, 09:54

Originally Posted by Hitcher

I hope heads roll at GSK. This sort of behaviour by any organisation is unforgiveable, not least when it is supported/encouraged by communications "professionals".

I might comment on an issue which is before the courts at present concerning a division of our company with respect to knowingly selling timber which was below published strength specifications. (This is public domain). The CEO at the time (now retired), is apparently liable for a personal fine of up to $1 milllion. I wonder how this applies in the Ribena case?

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th March 2007, 10:14

Originally Posted by Ixion

No, they very seldom do if you are a global corporate.

Sorry Ixion, I agree with Hitcher. However, you are right in saying that it seldom makes a difference.

**Beemer** · 28th March 2007, 11:06

I agree that any food or beverage producers' claims must be accurate and not deliberately misleading - especially for people like Paul, who rely on this information to make choices to avoid harming their health. I think a lot of people DO buy Ribena for their vitamin C claims - especially those with children. As for me, I drink things because I like the taste, not necessarily because I think they are doing me good, so this won't affect me greatly. However, the fact it contains more sugar (40% I think) than a bottle of Coke does concern me as I always thought of it as a low-calorie alternative.

I think any company that scoffs at suggestions they are being less than honest and only admits they have been lying when the matter goes to court has blown it in the eyes of the public. Sure, some people won't give a stuff and will continue to drink Ribena (or maybe even be unaware of the controversy), but many others will avoid anything made by this company in case there are other similar products being sold to unsuspecting consumers.