Back story: in April, Lucire ran a PETA advertisement that asked consumers to boycott KFC for cruelty to the chickens it used at its restaurants. Yesterday, I received a letter from the CEO of the New Zealand franchisee. While she forbids me to reproduce her letter in any form, it’s my choice for me to reproduce part of my reply to Restaurant Brands’ CEO Vicki Salmon. I encourage KFC to reproduce my letter in any form in any medium.

We refer to your letter of the 10th inst., referring to an advertisement in the April 2006 issue of Lucire for PETA.
   Please note that your concerns should principally be directed at the advertiser as this advertisement did not originate from us, though we have considered your position.
   When organizations advertise with us, they are responsible for ensuring that their material is not defamatory, misleading or deceptive. They are legally and solely responsible. We imagine Restaurant Brands has encountered such advertising contracts with the media it uses and, therefore, find it surprising that you have come to us. As with most publications, advertisements do not carry with them any endorsement from the publisher.
   We have discharged our responsibility to be vigilant and had a written exchange with PETA when we first saw the advertisement’s artwork, specifically over whether its claims applied to KFC in New Zealand. PETA informed us:

it actually applies all over the world. We have done numerous demonstrations in Europe, China, India … etc. against KFC.

   … We can provide contact information for PETA, or it may be reached via www.peta.org. We strongly recommend that you address your concerns with them directly.

   I still don’t get why KFC contacted me. Has it never encountered an advertising contract before? Does it not know that ours is the conventional position?
   Secondly, why attempt to bully a publisher? Do they not want my cooperation in stopping the advertisement? Not from what I can gather: we are the target. A wiser move would be to ask for my help, nicely. Lesson one: leaders are meant to inspire, not create conflict.
   Guess we won’t be seeing her company win any Medinge Brands with a Conscience prizes. (I did joke with members over a “dumb brands of 2005” award. Hmmm.)
   I’ll be a gentleman and assist her with her threat, I mean, enquiry, but speaking for myself, her letter puts me in a position firmly against KFC. Sure, I see letters with legalese every day, but this has to rank as one of the least intelligent, as she alienates me immediately. Obviously, Ms Salmon does not know about my legal training—she probably thinks I’m some illiterate immigrant Chink. Lesson two: don’t burn your bridges before you begin.
   I’m personally boycotting KFC now—and God knows Lucire staff members have been frequent customers (to the point where we get discounts at our local branch). I believe my whole firm will join me. Some of our staff have already boycotted it for health reasons, and others are vegetarian.
   I’m not boycotting KFC for the reasons in the PETA advertisement, which at this moment might not apply to the New Zealand market—I can’t tell you how they don’t because Ms Salmon has forbid me to—but I am boycotting it because I can’t fathom how unbusinesslike the franchisee is. Lesson three: everything is part of your brand, including your correspondence. Failing to live it undoes any positive marketing that you have done.
   I hate to think of the sad corporate culture Restaurant Brands must have, if her letter is any indication of how it operates.
   KFC has just lost itself a few customers from our head office, and I imagine my international staff will follow suit. (Oh, when I boycott, it sticks. I have not shopped at Woolworths since 1993, and McDonald’s since 2004.)

Del.icio.us tags: KFC boycott brand correspondence PETA Posted by Jack Yan, 11:34  permalink

comments

Post a Comment  Links to this post