Chapter 5 ♦ Developing a Global Vision 23
PART 1 – Integrated Case Assignments
MARKETING MISCUES
Concerns over Sustainability Result in Social Media Disaster for Nestlé
In March of 2010, Greenpeace began coordinating environmental activists in a protest over Nestlé’s alleged
purchase of palm oil from an Indonesian company that Greenpeace International claimed was destroying the rain forest
in the building of palm plantations. The palm oil was used to make Kit Kat candy bars. Although Nestlé claimed to have
already made the decision to no longer do business with the supplier, while also asserting that the purchase had
comprised only 1.25 percent of the company’s total palm oil consumption in 2009, the company was a vulnerable target
for environmental activists because of its history of questionable practices with respect to child labor and infant formula.
The coordinated efforts of the activists were composed of two major components. Greenpeace staged a protest
outside Nestlé’s headquarters in Switzerland and a mock Kit Kat commercial was posted on YouTube. Protesters at the
company headquarters wore cutouts of the candy bar but instead of the bar saying “Kit Kat,” it said “Killer.” The Kit Kat
commercial parody portrayed an office worker opening the candy bar and munching on a bloody orangutan finger. As
YouTube videos go, the Nestlé parody was shared far and wide via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
Like many companies, Nestlé has a fan page on Facebook to interact with its consumers. The Facebook fan page is a
location that enables dialogue about the company’s brands. Once the commercial parody hit the social media airwaves,
protesters began posting negative comments about the company on Nestlé’s Facebook fan page. Nestlé responded with
two actions. One, it asked Google’s YouTube to remove the commercial parody from the site due to copyright
infringement, and YouTube adhered to the request. However, the video had been downloaded, and it still spread across
the Internet. Two, Nestlé also told Facebook users that the company would delete their comments from the fan page if
the “Killer” logo was used. Apparently, angry protesters had begun to replace their profile pictures with the “Killer”
logo.
Interestingly, it was Nestlé’s response to actions within the social media ecosystem and not the palm oil issue itself
that erupted in war for the company. Nestlé’s threat to delete comments that included the altered Kit Kat logo (“Killer”)
incited the users of the company’s fan page. The fan base on Nestlé’s Facebook page soared to over 95,000 fans.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of this 95,000 were protesters, and Nestlé went on the defensive. The Nestlé online
moderator manning the fan page began to respond to individual postings in a derogatory and condescending tone. For
example, the moderator is purported to have said something like, “…it’s our page, we set the rules…” This just served to
fuel the online media firestorm even more, as the exchange quickly hit the Twitter circuit and even more people began to
visit the company’s Facebook fan page. Many of these visitors likely had no idea about the palm oil issue—they were
going to the fan page to see for themselves how Nestlé was engaging with its customers.
Ultimately, Nestlé’s rules of engagement for social media became a trending topic on Twitter, which resulted in
calls for a boycott of all of Nestlé’s products. The trending occurred because such a large number of people were
commenting on the same thing about Nestlé. As such, the issue appeared on the trend bar on Twitter’s home page. This
generated even more negative publicity for the company. Soon, the electronic word of mouth began to spread to the
offline world. This rapid spread of negativity led to panic among Nestlé shareholders and share prices began to drop
dramatically.
Nestlé had a social media disaster on its hands. Interestingly, that disaster was due to the way Nestlé engaged in
interactions on Facebook—not because of the fact that it had purchased palm oil from a non-sustainable company. The
negative social media engagement, however, brought the palm oil issue to the forefront of people’s minds who might not
have otherwise even thought about sustainability concerns related to candy bars. Thus, while the sustainability concern
might have lost its luster in a few days and activists would have moved on to the next cause, the social media
engagement snowballed and affected the company financially.
Sources: Raj Dash, “The Facebook Nestlé Mess: When Social Media Goes Anti–Social,” All Facebook, March 22,
2010, www.allfacebook.com/the-facebook –nestle-mess-when-social-media-goes-anti-social-2010-03; Rick Broida,
“Nestlé’s Facebook Page: How a Company Can Really Screw up Social Media,” BNET, March 19, 2010,
www.bnet.com/blog/businesstips/nestles-facebook -page-how-a-company-can-really-screw-up-social-media/6786;
“Nestlé and Black Friday,” March 23, 2010, www.rgc-media.com/nestle-and-black-friday; Emily Steel, “Nestlé
Takes a Beating on Social-Media Sites,” Wall Street Journal, March 29 2010,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230443440457 5149883850508158.html.