Skittles perfect response to Trump’s never-ending idiocrasy

A controversial statement from the Trump camp will not surprise anyone. However, on September 19^th, Donald Trump Jr. decided to add more controversy and tweeted the following:

(twitter feed Donald Trump Jr.)

Imagine working for skittles and being in charge of (crisis) communication. What seems to be a regular day in the office is ruined when Donald Trump Jr. decides to compare a few poisoned skittles to the Syrian refugee problem. How would you deal with such a situation?

What does the theory suggest?

Valackiene (2015) argues that crisis situations are often not resolved in the first stage because most organizations do not have crisis management plans. What would this first stage be, you might wonder. In their article, Sung and Hwang (2014) introduce Fink’s four-stage crisis model. The first, or prodromal, stage is where a potential crisis emerges and the crisis manager is required to detect and prevent it. Optimally organizations would skip the second, or acute stage and the third, or chronic stage to reduce further damage to the reputation. Preferably, one would move as fast as possible to the fourth, or resolution stage whereby the crisis is no longer a concern to stakeholders. How did Skittles skip the second and third phase?

What did Skittles do?

Skittles’ response got applauded by PR advisors and crisis communication experts all over the world. One of the main strengths of the response was the speed. Shortly after the tweet by Donald Trump Jr. was published the company shared its response through a writer of The Hollywood Reporter and through their corporate parent Mars’ Twitter account.  It was short, to the point, and perfectly clear about Skittles’ view on this whole matter. Claeys and Cauberghe (2012) found that timing of crisis communication greatly influences evaluation of post-crisis credibility and reputation.

(Twitter feed Mars.)

If your organization is dragged into an emotional and negative public event or issue you would do well to avoid getting caught up in it. Either by distancing yourself from the situation completely or by treating it with the humility it deserves. A few years ago, McDonalds was criticized for making use of a tragic situation to promote their brand. A column writer went as far as saying that McDonalds seemed content on piggybacking this sensation. Skittles respectfully refraining from further comment shows that the company had learned from previous mistakes by other companies and wanted to avoid being criticized for applying marketing to such an emotional issue.

How did the audience respond?

As one could expect, the tweet led to another wave of criticism towards the Trump campaign. Many people tweeted pictures of Syrian children with the hashtag #NotaSkittle. Some creative individuals decided to slightly alter the image:

(photo from Huffington post article)

Skittles’ response is likely to be imitated in the future, as it was welcomed by PR and crisis communication experts. It seems that by distancing themselves from further comments and explaining that they disagree with the comparison they managed to stay out of controversy so that all the criticism was focused on the Trump campaign. Crisis communication experts often say that crisis situations are opportunities for brands. I would say that, in this case, Skittles turned an unexpected crisis situation into an opportunity.

Niels van der Plas is a student in persuasive communication at the University of Amsterdam. He loves to watch and play football and is passionate about the world of online marketing. Niels writes about social media, online marketing and current (sport) events.