Anthony Hilton: Regulators quiet on BA and Cadbury’s

British Airways and Cadbury have been hit by the worst kind of negative publicity in the past seven days. The airline found itself under investigation by the Office of Fair Trading for alleged collusion – attempted or real – with other airlines over the timing and extent of fuel surcharges.

The chocolate firm, meanwhile, announced a decision to withdraw from the shelves around one million chocolate bars after coming under pressure from the Food Standards Agency surrounding an alleged risk of salmonella.

The first thing that struck me about both cases was the lack of symmetry in the PR. The companies had to make statements to the stock exchange because the news could reasonably be expected to affect their share prices, and having done that, they then had to explain as best they could what they thought was going on. Cadbury at least had the wit to put up one of its top people and explain, with what seemed like complete candour, how the problem had arisen.

The regulators, on the other hand, produced no explanation for their actions. The Food Standards Agency put an alert on its website the day after the news broke that said why it had instigated the recall – possible salmonella contamination – but gave no explanation as to how it had arrived at this decision, nor how strong its evidence was.

In the BA case, the Office of Fair Trading on its website confirmed that an investigation was taking place and warned no assumption should be made that the law had been infringed – but again did not publish this notice until the following day.

Even if both companies are found to be wholly innocent – Cadbury is alleged to have detected the salmonella contamination months before the recall – their reputations have taken a battering. This is why the regulators’ comms response is inadequate. If they are going to take an action that does reputational damage, they ought to be willing to explain the background, so outsiders can form a more informed judgement on the merits of the case. Silence is justified when investigations are secret, but it is different when they are in the public domain.

anthony.hilton@haynet.com

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus

Latest Articles

John Lewis to tell brand story with "tasteful" 150th anniversary celebrations

John Lewis to tell brand story with "tasteful" 150th anniversary celebrations

Department store John Lewis is to use its 150th anniversary this year to talk about its history, which "not enough people know about", according to director of communications Peter Cross.

Labour hires Obama election strategist David Axelrod to fight General Election

Labour hires Obama election strategist David Axelrod to fight General Election

The man who helped Barack Obama win the 2008 and 2012 US presidential elections is to work for Labour along with members of his team.

Sky adds Fever PR to its roster after splitting with Cake

Sky adds Fever PR to its roster after splitting with Cake

Pay-TV giant Sky has added Fever PR to its agency line-up for a wide-ranging brief covering products and services.

Max Clifford trial jury to continue deliberations after Easter break

Max Clifford trial jury to continue deliberations after Easter break

The jury in the trial of celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been sent home for Easter and will reconvene on Tuesday for further deliberations about its verdicts on 11 charges of indecent assault.

Home Office brings in Munro & Forster to campaign against FGM

Home Office brings in Munro & Forster to campaign against FGM

The Home Office has tasked Munro & Forster (M&F) with supporting its campaign to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM) as part of a wider retained brief.