Recent legal hassles have received a high amount of media coverage; thereby publicizing, not always positively, the industry's public relations struggles.

     As the legal brawl between Pizza Hut and Papa John's became front-page news around the globe, polished public relation teams, from both sides, responded to the upheaval. Thereby demonstrating how the larger corporations deal with any type of crisis.

     Do you have a crisis team in place to take care of whatever may come your way? Do you know what you would do if you were being sued over your product and claims of freshness? Or what you would do if you were boycotted and called a bigot for not delivering in a controversial neighborhood? What would you do if you were being sued because you are the only store to deliver in a notorious area?

HOW TO HANDLE A PUBLIC RELATIONS NIGHTMARE!

     Brabender Cox, who represents General Nutrition Centers, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Pittsburgh Penguins and Pizza Outlet, which we featured in our Fall 1999 issue, is an integrated marketing communications firm. They have expertise in crisis communications, publicity, public affairs, media relations and cause marketing. Brabender Cox has agreed to help Pizza Marketing Quarterly provide our readers with some useful ways to handle a crisis.

     Kelly Denny, Director of Public Relations at Brabender Cox, said no one wants to think about it, but every pizza owner should take the time to anticipate the types of crisis that could occur in this industry.

     "Every business, at one time or another, will be on the receiving end of some event that risks your credibility and reputation," Denny said. "But there are 10 common sense commandments that can save your reputation and your business should a crisis occur. What would you do if one of your drivers had a serious accident or injured someone?" Denny asked. "How would your employees handle a robbery, fire or incident of food poisoning? Would you know what to tell your employees or how to answer the questions that would come from the media?"

     Denny said these are lessons to take very seriously.
The 10 Commandments for Crisis Communication

1. Anticipate and Plan for a Crisis-Take the time before a crisis occurs to anticipate what could go wrong and how you would respond. You can narrow the margin for chaos by outlining a plan that designates key tasks to the appropriate people and taking the time to assure that each player knows his or her role-just in case.
2. Know your Target Audience-Should a crisis occur, it is important to know who the people are that would care about it. Key audiences could include businesses located near yours, employees and vendors, regulatory agencies and the media.
3. Gather Information-As the crisis unfolds, gather as much information as possible to answer the essential questions: who, what, when, where, why and how. If appropriate, talk to people who may have witnessed the crisis or know the people involved. Write a brief statement that answers the key questions outlined above along with the steps that will be taken to resolve the crisis, a timeframe for each and a desired outcome.
4. Be Timely-When dealing with a crisis, it is important to remember to respond quickly and proactively to the media. The media's interest in the situation is likely to be brief and it is critical that you respond to a story before it appears in print, as you will not get another opportunity to do so.
5. Never Speculate-When addressing a crisis situation with the media, deal with facts-avoid giving your opinions, responding to hearsay or making judgements.
6. Never Mislead-While you do not have to reveal information that may be harmful, always tell the truth. If you play it loose and fancy free with the truth, you stand to have your key audience find out you lied and lose all faith in you. If you lose credibility, you have lost the battle no matter what the outcome.
7. Contradictions Kill-In the heat of a crisis, it is critical to have all communication come from a single, credible spokesperson. If more than one person speaks about the crisis, it leaves room for contradictory stories, which is potentially more disastrous than the crisis at hand. Take the time, in advance, to decide who will be the designated spokesperson.
8. Seek Counsel-Keep in mind, many crisis situations may require the counsel of a public relations professional and possibly an attorney who can inform you as to liabilities that could prove critical.
9. Take Responsibility-If your business was responsible for some aspect of a crisis, it is best to take a stand-up approach in accepting responsibility rather than receiving blame from another source. After acceptng responsibility, outline the steps you plan to take to correct the problem, the timeframe for executing those steps and the ultimate goal in addressing the crisis and putting it behind you.
10. Learn from the Experience-Once the crisis is past, take the time to analyze your response. Did you have one spokesperson who stayed focused on the key messages at hand? Did you reach your target audience in a timely fashion?

FOOD FIGHT #1

     When Pizza Hut sued rival Papa John's on the basis of the Lanham Act, Papa John's counter-sued Pizza Hut over the same statute. This very public legal battle, over who had the "best" pizza, may have been decided in court, if only temporarily. However, both sides presented well chosen statements that explained their position, while taking jabs at the public image of their competitor.

     "This is a landmark victory for consumers as much as it is for Pizza Hut," Mike Rawlings, Pizza Hut President, said. "The court ruled that truth in advertising outweighs hype and deceit and it told Papa John's they no longer can deceive consumers as they've been doing in the past."

     Karen Sherman, Papa John's Senior Director Community and Public Relations, said the lawsuit was not so much Pizza Hut's way of protecting the consumers, but rather the company's way of shutting down the competition.

     "As we've said all along, we think this lawsuit was an attempt by our largest competitor to slow Papa John's growth and momentum in the marketplace," Sherman said. "If you look at the latest pizza industry numbers from CREST, the leading independent research firm in the restaurant industry, you will see that Papa John's sales are up 34 percent for the year ending August 1999, while the other three big chains are up only a combined four percent. So Papa John's continues to win in the marketplace."

     Papa John's claims of superior sauce and superior dough and the company's attacks on Pizza Hut's quality were found, by the court, to be false and deceptive. The court also barred Papa John's from ever using their "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza" slogan.

     The court ordered Papa John's to remove the slogan from all advertising material, print and broadcast, by January 24, 2000. The slogan had to be removed from all printed material, such as pizza boxes, napkins, cups and clothing by March 3, 2000. Removal of the slogan from all restaurant signage and delivery vehicles was set for April 3, 2000.

     Pizza Hut claimed victory; despite the eight-person jury declaring the company was also guilty of deceptive claims of freshness in some of their advertising.

     "We're very pleased by this decision and now we can get back to doing what we do best, making and serving great pizzas to our millions of customers each day," Rawlings said.

     In January, the lull in the legal war between these two companies was over, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of enforcement suspending the Federal District Court's decision against Papa John's.

     This stay delays any enforcement of the District Court's decision until Papa John's appeal can be heard.

     Sherman said the slogan was important for the company to fight for, but realistically, the slogan was not what was important to the customers.

     "Papa John's has become the fastest growing pizza company in America from customers eating our pizza, not our slogan," Sherman said. But, "we obviously think the ÔBetter Ingredients. Better Pizza.' slogan is legitimate and one worth fighting for. So, we are glad the Court of Appeals has put the brakes on the process while it takes a careful look at the lower court's ruling before requiring us and our franchise family to spend millions of dollars to change our slogan."

     Pizza Hut, however, seemed to believe the higher court would inevitably concur with the lower court's ruling against Papa John's.

     "We are absolutely confident the Appellate Court will agree with the verdict that Papa John's slogan is false, misleading and deceptive," said Bob Millen, Pizza Hut's Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel. "We look forward to presenting our case to the Appellate Court and expect to have Papa John's appeal denied."

     No matter what the decision, the battle between these two pizza powerhouses looks to continue well into the future. And, you can bet the public relations department in both camps will be working hard at presenting their company's interests in the best possible light.

     In the next two public relation nightmares, ask yourself "What would I do?" One day, you might need an answer to that question.

FOOD FIGHT #2

     In St. Louis, Missouri, Papa John's has also been dealing with angry local members of ACORN. The activist group has boycotted, picketed and discussed plans for a lawsuit claiming blatant discrimination because delivery in a high-crime neighborhood was halted.

     Is it discrimination to refuse to deliver in a known "high-crime" area? Should delivery drivers be required, as part of their job, to deliver pizza in neighborhoods known to be violent, maybe even deadly?

     Cathy Juengel, a St. Louis Papa John's district manager, said she could not and would not ask her drivers to put their lives on the line, even if ACORN continued to boycott or actually sued the store.

     "Frankly, my drivers don't want to go," Juengel said. "If they feel threatened, if they feel endangered, we're not going to do that (deliver)."

     ACORN members claim this refusal to deliver is blatant discrimination because the neighborhood being denied is predominately African-American.

     "Crime is not that bad here," Lee Willis, ACORN's spokesman, said. "Where do we draw the line for high crime?" For Juengel, the line was drawn when she received the crime statistics report provided by the St. Louis police department.

     According to the report, during a six-month period last year, the neighborhood in question had 100 assaults, 56 robberies, one murder and one rape. Yet, Willis said crime is everywhere and the people of the community should not be penalized due to where they live. Willis said the issue was really about race and the driver's perceptions about the black community.

     Juengel said this accusation is false because most of the drivers are African-American and live in the very neighborhood being denied delivery service. The driver ratio being 75 to 85 percent African-American.

     These statistics did not impress Willis, but he said the group would consider not suing if Papa John's would agree to hire ACORN recommended drivers, donate to local groups and give away free pizzas to the community.

     Juengel said she was more than willing to work with Willis on a compromise. She said she has offered to print information for ACORN on the pizza boxtops and would be more than willing to work with Willis and the group in the future.

     Nevertheless, Juengel said the delivery question was not debatable.

     "I don't want to have to call up parents and have to tell them that for $5.70 an hour their son or daughter has just been shot," Juengel said.

     During the time ACORN has picketed and protested, Juengel said sales have remained the same and may have even increased slightly.

     Juengel said she believed the stores' sales remained because her customers realized she, her drivers and Papa John's were not discriminating against anyone.

     Still, Juengel said she did not like being targeted as a racist or having her stores and Papa John's smeared with that name. For Juengel, the issue was not discrimination but the safety of her workers.

     "It never had anything to do with discrimination," Juengel said. "I have to keep focused on the best interest of my folks. Willis knows that, but that would be contradictory to his platform."

     It is one thing to face legal recourse for refusing to deliver, but what if you are being sued BECAUSE you deliver where no one else will.

FOOD FIGHT #3

     Frank Meeks, owner of 58 Washington, D.C. Domino's franchises, is facing three lawsuits alleging discrimination and totaling $150 million. According to civil rights attorney Jim Bell, the three lawsuits against Meeks are due to the driver's "stay-in-the-car mentality." A mentality, which he says, equates to racism.

     "They make you come outside," Bell said. "I think they have a generalized fear of crime that translates to a generalized fear of blacks."

     Meeks, like Juengel, strongly disagrees with claims that he and his drivers are racists. Meeks said these charges are unfounded because he is "the only one that has a business in every neighborhood. And all the employees in those neighborhoods are African-American, I don't think that is an issue with me."

     Holly Ryan, Domino's public relations manager, said the chain supports Meeks and his decision to have his drivers decide where they will deliver to the door.

     "The safety of the drivers always comes first," Ryan said. "That is our chain's policy."

     Meeks said he wants to continue providing the delivery service to these neighborhoods, but admits he would not have been sued if he had refused to deliver to these areas.

     "We are the only business that delivers anything in every area," Meeks said. "I took a risk that none of my competitors took...and now I am being sued because I did."

     Meeks said he gives his drivers full authority to determine, for themselves, if the area is safe or unsafe. Even staying in the car does not guarantee the driver's safety. The drivers may even decide staying in their cars is not safe enough.

     "I give the drivers the authority to determine if the situation is safe enough to go to the door," Meeks said. "There are some areas I deem dangerous, but all in all, we just have to be cautious. We're just trying to minimize the risk."

     According to Meeks, he made the right decision to continue to deliver in all areas because it would have been his customers who would have been punished. However, he said he was concerned not only about the financial aspects of these lawsuits but also what message it might send to the pizza delivery industry.

     "The lesson, unfortunately, if this lawsuit succeeds, is you'll have fewer pizza delivery companies going into bad neighborhoods," Meeks said. "Neighborhoods that need our jobs, need our products and need our services."