Kraft-Heinz and General foods have made a crucial decision: They’re committing to get rid of all artificial food colourings in their products by 2027… But are they really just getting ahead of the issue rather than actually dealing with it?
They’re not saying it as such, but I think K-H and General Mills are making their commitments, and making a big deal out of them, for one overriding reason: To stay ahead of Trump Health and Human Services guru Robert F, Kennedy Jr. in his crusade to have all artificial additives in foods sold in the US replaced with ‘natural’ ones as soon as possible.
This stance puts them in the best place they can hope to achieve: as allies of the government and the consumer, rather than adversaries. And it affords them the most wiggle room on the issue.
Other options…
There used to be other viable options available to deal with situations such s RFK Jr.’s demand that all artificial colours be eliminated from foods.
One was to stand up and say, ‘No’. Making it clear that you couldn’t comply – not that you didn’t want to comply. If you chose this route, you had to choose from a whole menu of ‘reasonable excuses’. You might decide to say, “We can’t do it in the time you’re allowing us’. Or, “The technology doesn’t (yet) exist.” Whatever.
You could also challenge the reasons on which officials were basing their demands for changes. The only proviso there was, your ‘reason(s)’ had to be plausible. Brands usually claimed that studies on which demands for change were based were flawed. They may also have cited other studies that came to different conclusions. If you look long enough, dig deep enough, you can always find a study, or studies that support YOUR claims.
One thing you could NOT do was claim that little green men came down in space ships and told you the world was going to end if you DID comply.
Likewise, you could NOT claim that the government (or whomever) was just out to get you. Nobody ever won in the optics/PR dimension by promoting conspiracy theories. That only works in the movies.
Old ways don’t work
But these rationales for fighting changes you don’t like are all old news. Mainly because they no longer work the way they used to. Consumers are too savvy these days to fall for weak ‘excuses’. Study after study reinforces the relatively new notion that the average person these days wants greater transparency from marketers, manufacturers and retailers.
As with any crisis – political, business or whatever – it’s best to be ahead of the game, rather than flailing away back in the pack, trying to catch up. Getting and staying out front is considered good business. Good optics. Suggests a commitment to ‘transparency’ that doesn’t actually have to be there, at all.
YOU make the rules!
The trick is to lead opinion on your issue. Position yourself as the guys who want to help. Position your ‘defeats’ as righteous attempts that failed. Never admit that you could have tried harder, or invested more in a ‘cure’.
Reassure your audience that, “We’re all in this together!” Invite them to, “Join hands and move forward together!’ No matter how slow your progress or how muddy the road.
Transfer responsibility…
Otherwise known as ‘shifting the ‘blame’.
And if the effort to change gets completely bogged down… Be the first to suggest that, “This may simply not be the time. But when the time does come, we’ll be there with you, and for you. And we’ll all meet this challenge together!”
That approach lets everybody involved kid themselves into thinking they’ve ‘done all they could do’. And they don’t have to feel bad at all leaving the issue for future generations to address…
~ Maggie J.