week 7 discussion response

Please read the two (2) below discussions and write a response. 

Must be a minimum of 14 lines per discussion.

Please include a reference in your response using A
PA format and cite the reference in the text.

1-  The key problems that Gupta should focus on in the short term is a communication strategy and in the long term a new marketing strategy. Gupta and Coke India have an uphill battle trying to regain the commercial success ground lost due to the pesticide crisis. The best solution for Gupta is to deal with this crisis head-on and communicate with the consumers. As for the new marketing strategy, Gupta needs to make it about family and caring for one another in health and environment. It is important to convey that Coke India cares about their consumers health as well as their happiness and comfort. Marketing towards the family unit and prosperity in health and comfort will give Coke new momentum in the Indian market, especially after this crisis for the pesticide. The strategy has to face the crisis head on, not shy away from it, but show how Coke is being transparent with their product and that the number one goal of Coke is to bring happiness into their lives, not pain or sadness. 
My recommendation for Coke’s communication strategy would be to make it a personal message and get out amongst the consumers in the rural and urban areas. Gupta needs to show the people of India that Coke cares about them as people and not just as consumers. The communication strategy needs to be about how Coke cares for the environment and people. One way to send this message home more confidently would be to drink coke while talking to people, the same coke product that is being sold to the Indian people, so they can see that even an affluent foreign manager is drinking this product, therefore it can’t be as bad as the CSE reports. Gupta needs to not just say that Coca-Cola is safe for consumption, he needs to show it. This is a case where actions speak louder than words, if the people see that it is good for him than the natural reaction will be it is good and refreshing for them. By having a strong communication strategy and speaking with the consumers, it will alleviate the chatter from consumers that Coke India doesn’t care about what they sell to people. This opportunity for communicating gives people as consumers a chance to talk to the management of Coke India and ask their questions. Getting out in front of the issue and talking about it is the best solution for Coke because it shows they have nothing to hide or worry about, they believe in their product and they are backing their product. “Survival depends on walking a highly dangerous tightrope between humility and stubbornness, between a willingness to change and a determination to stay the course.” (Eney, n.d.)
The key constituents are the consumers and shareholders. The consumers refusing to purchase the product puts Coke in peril with the shareholders, due to declining profitability. Coke not only has to gain back the consumers, they also must show the shareholders that they have a solid plan to gain back the consumers trust in the Coke brand. 
Coke could have avoided this crisis if they had followed regulations utilized in the United States for acceptable beverage limits. With the lack of regulations in India for what is an allowable amount of chemicals in a drink, Coke should have maintained their product standard utilized in the U.S. “The main law governing food safety in India was the 1954 Prevention of Food Alteration Act (PFA), which contained a rule regulating pesticides in foods but did not include beverages.” (Argenti, 2013). Environmental awareness has become a greater concern within the past decade, therefore, Coke should have utilized the stricter regulations in the U.S. vice following the ambiguous ones in India, this would have shown the CSE that Coke truly does want to provide a safe product to their consumers.
2-  Coca Cola, as an international company, knew what an untapped market India would be, and this was evidenced by targeted effort for marketing, involving local employees, embracing local culture, and penetrating the community with advertising with a product that touts the same quality but less cost for half the volume. Gupta, Coca-Cola India’s CEO, was faced with allegations of presence of higher than normal quantities of pesticides and other chemicals in their product. This was according to research conducted by one of the NGOs, Center for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2003 (Argenti, 2013. Pg 287). Immediately after the story broke, so did the trust of their customers.
In the short term, Gupta should not ignore the public’s concerns, but instead, utilize this as a platform to address them. Gupta did not learn from the Kinley water contamination crisis, and it opened up the larger company being vulnerable to further scrutiny and criticism. His short-term goals should be to: first, communicate how the false information can be sensationalized to be worse than it is; and next, reassure their customers that the quality of the beverages is exactly up to appropriate standards. His long-term goals should be to earn the trust of the consumers by committing to surpass prior standards by implementing a plan to do so (ie: plan for better water purification, find root causes for contamination and improve on those standards, etc). For example, Coca Cola India can revolutionize water purifying methods using novel techniques. It will definitely require an investment of time and money, and if it happens to align with goals defined by their overall corporate responsibility platform, then Coca-Cola India can even use this novel technique to improve water quality in urban and rural communities. Another important long-term goal is to engage the loudest critics in ways to improve their product. If Coca-Cola India can convey to the public that not only have they met CSE’s standards, but now they are using CSE’s influence to make the product even better, it would certainly win back the trust of Coca-Cola India’s consumers.
Coca-Cola India’s communication strategy in handling this crisis is somewhat mixed. In light of hindsight, it is easy to see what worked and what didn’t in their methods of engaging their constituencies. Coombs suggests, “The words used, and action taken by management affect how people perceive the organization and/or the crisis. In turn, those perceptions shape evaluations of the organizational reputation as well as stakeholders’ emotional response toward and future interactions with the organization” (2007. Pg 171).  First, they responded quickly and joined in with their long-established competitor, PepsiCo, to show market solidarity. This was a great choice in navigating the narrative. Next, they vilified CSE, citing its non-reproducible data and even threatening to file a lawsuit. As stated previously, it probably would have been better to work with CSE in the long run – the optics of the situation is improved had consumers viewed Coca-Cola practicing transparency. Third, and perhaps their greatest strength, was the clarity provided by their Facts vs Myths statement published on the Coca Cola India website. One can tell that a savvy communications team, who know their audience, the people of India, delivered this deliberate and targeted message.
Overall, the Coca-Cola crisis may not have been avoided altogether, but given the recent lessons learned from contaminated Coca-Cola distributions from other parts of the world in the years preceding the allegations posed by CSE, Coca-Cola India and Gupta should have been better prepared. They should have acted swiftly after their Kinley water brand incident and should not have opted for silence. It was this inaction that led to further scrutiny by these government watchdog groups. Fortunately, the brand reputation of Coca-Cola is strong, and does not need deep fundamental changes in order to earn back consumer trust, however are clear opportunities could have prevented such a crisis.