Five things we’re taking from the UK’s baby food scandal
Four months after a BBC investigation that exposed the UK’s baby food products for lacking key nutrients and misleading marketing tactics, the government has issued new guidance to manufacturers.
The ‘voluntary guidelines’ include cutting the levels of salt and sugar, stopping the promotion of snacks to those under the age of one, as well as restricting the use of claims that suggest health benefits without scientific evidence. It’s understood that those who do not make their products healthier in the next 18 months may face action. This comes after the NHS updated its guidance to parents, advising them to avoid relying on baby food pouches for everyday meals, due to concerns that they cause health problems for children if used as their main source of nutrition. Brands' responses to recent guidance have been few and far between.
So, what went so wrong with baby food products? We revisit the sandal to glean insights on managing brand reputation during a crisis.
The context
Based on research conducted by the University of Leeds, the infamous Panorama programme highlighted brands' use of‘halo marketing’: vague but misleading messaging to present products as being healthier than their actual composition, for example, using phrases like ‘nutritionally balanced’ or ‘packed with goodness’. Baby food brands also received criticism for using imagery on social media channels featuring babies eating directly from pouches, which both the NHS and WHO advise against due to links with dental decay.
As ever, it wasn’t just the claims themselves that caused a stir: it was the brand’s response to the scandal that captured attention.
Moving forward
Here are five lessons brands need to keep in mind when navigating public scrutiny:
Take ownership and action: Some claims levelled at brands will likely dent reputations. To rebuild customer trust, brands should acknowledge any misstep, refute any untruths clearly and consistently and demonstrate a commitment to making any necessary changes.
Meet audiences where they’re at: Burying a media statement in the newsroom section of a website rather than placing it on the platforms that customers use (for example, Instagram or LinkedIn) does little to quell the concerns of time-strapped parents who are unlikely to be searching corporate websites for reassurance. Brands need to communicate directly, accessibly, and transparently.
Show up consistently across channels: Despite eating directly from pouches being acknowledged as causing potential harm to children, many brands still include this imagery on their social channels today. At best, this will come across as careless, and at worst as arrogance. Taking an integrated, cross-channel approach to reputation management to ensure that all communications touchpoints tell the same story is crucial.
Communicate with clarity, empathy, and authority: Brand responses have ranged from overly emotive and lacking in substance to incredibly detailed and defensive. When called out on a complex issue, brands must communicate with clarity, empathy, and authority. Flexing brand tone of voice is crucial to ensuring audiences can make informed choices.
Bridge the values gap: Brands in this space rely heavily on emotional connection, positioning themselves as trusted partners for parents navigating a daunting life stage. But the scandal exposed a painful mismatch between their projected values and behind-the-scenes practices. Brands need to go beyond clever communications to embed integrity and transparency into every part of their business.
