Comments on: Crisis public relations management… but should consumers trust Cadbury?

By: Sheba

Sheba — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:57:41 +0000

I know this incident happened a long time ago, but I think that this was a very important learningn factor for the people involved and even those in related fields. The role of the PR in this case was not properly executed and thus added on to people’s prejudices that Pr Personnel are liars. I think it is very important that we rose above the prejudices and did what we are supposed to be doing as PR Personnel, to avoid further incidences like this in future. The Cadbury’s saga may have worked out well in the long term, but this would have turned out to be a different story all together.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 03:09:00 +0000

On the Cadbury salmonella story… Chocolate manufacturers (and I work for one) know that if they use modern detection methods for salmonella on chocolate that they will frequently fail. The industry as a rule sticks to older less sensitive tests. Chocolate is fermented on the ground under banana leaves in a third world country…and during its production there are no thermal kill steps. Bean roasting is for flavor development and not a pathogen kill. Cadbury’s real screw up was using an outside lab. Most chocolate companies keep their micro testing close to the vest. This incident is going to put chocolate processing in general under the regulatory microscope. The whole industry could take a beating.

By: LeverWealth

LeverWealth — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:39:00 +0000

I am not too sure that this is going the way we expect. Cadbury will take a hit but for how long? I have been doing a straw poll – OK its Wiltshire! There is an argument about the FSA brand – nanny state – who do you trust more – if it was chocolate from Johnny foreigner would they be as nasty etc.

Cadbury could play this well. It is, after all and emotional brand. They won the ‘milk’ chocolate debate and could turn it.