△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Chili’s controversy just one case of social media driving a brand to take a stand on a social issue

Chili’s controversy just one case of social media driving a brand to take a stand on a social issue

Chili'sLessons abound in the recent controversy surrounding restaurant chain Chili’s decision to cancel its autism-focused fundraiser. The controversy has emerged as one big cautionary tale with three key themes:

  • Companies need to perform due diligence before aligning with other organizations
  • Websites need to be reviewed regularly and revised based on the organization’s current reality
  • Since social media is emboldening (some might say forcing) organizations to take stands on issues, it is increasingly important for brands to understand the strength of its own market’s positions

The kerfuffle kicked off when Chili’s announced plans to donate 10% of its revenue for one day to the National Autism Association, in recognition of National Autism Awareness Month. The news led a swarm of consumers to leave comments on Chili’s Facebook page objecting to its choice of charities. They pointed to the association’s website—specifically, the Causes of Autism page, which begins with a paragraph linking vaccinations to autism. “Though published mainstream science fails to acknowledge a causal link to any of these specific exposures,” the association writes, “it’s important that parental accounts be carefully considered.”

A little background

The belief that vaccinations can result in autism is deeply held by many, including celebrities, notably Jenny McCarthy. However, the the anti-vaccination’s position is based on the poster child for junk science.

Well over 100 studies have failed to find the slimmest connection between vaccinations and autism. There was one, however, that did. A 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield, published in the medical journal Lancet, hypothesized that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine led to the development of autism. To bolster his argument, Dr. Wakefield “described 12 children with neurodevelopmental delay (8 with autism). All of these children had gastrointestinal complaints and developed autism within 1 month of receiving MMR,” according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The 2011, most of the researchers involved in the study had renounced it. Lancet retracted the study when it was determined that the research on which the report was based was fraudulent. A comparison of the diagnoses reported in the study and the actual hospital records determined that Wakefield and his colleagues had doctored the data; in fact, five of the children in the study had exhibited developmental problems before their vaccinations. An analysis also found that all 12 cases were misrepresented compared to data from medical records and from the children’s parents.

In its retraction, the Lancet wrote:

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.

As a result, despite Wakefield’s vigorous defense of his research, the UK General Medical Council brought charges of professional misconduct and struck him from the UK medical register. To date, no other research or study has been able to find a connection.

But there are always people willing to succumb to fear—especially when led by celebrities—and the anti-vaccination movement continues today, producing exactly the kinds of public health consequences the Lancet recognized. Measles in particular is on the rise because of parents refusing to vaccinate their children. The vast majority of children contracting measles had no immunizations.

As entertainers Penn & Teller make clear in the introduction to the anti-vaccination episode of their Showtime series, “Bullshit!”, even if you buy into the anti-vaccination hysteria, acting on it defies logic (this clip is definitely not safe for work):

Update: YouTube also hosts the entire 30-minute episode of the Penn & Teller episode.

Chili’s charitable campaign

April has been National Autism Awareness Month since the 1970s, and this year, as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility activities, Chili’s decided to let customers eating at its 1,200 restaurants on April 7 request 10% of their bill be donated to the National Autism Association.

The NAA is not the only autism advocacy group. The Autism Society, for example, makes no reference to immunizations, noting that “There is no known single cause for autism, but it is generally accepted that (autism) is caused by abnormalities in brain structure or function.” Chili’s explained its choice of the NAA as the recipient of its largess, noting on Facebook that it “was based on the percentage of donations that would go directly to providing financial assistance to families and supporting programs that aid the development and safety of children with autism..”

Some reports suggest Chili’s knew of the NAA’s views; if so, taking the pulse of its customer base might have helped lead them to find another beneficiary of its largess.

As it was, some customers already knew the NAA’s position; the organization also supports an anti-vaccination site, Age of Autism, which includes statements from the NAA’s board chair, who called a decision by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee to remove vaccine safety research from its strategic plan “a slap in the face.” Others visited the NAA’s website and found its anti-vaccination messages. Still others were informed through media coverage.

In any case, it didn’t take long for customers to flock to Chili’s Facebook page, leaving comments like one from Tony Sanchez, who wrote, “You are helping expose our children to communicable diseases.” Another comment read, “Autism foundations need help, but find a responsible one that is committed to REAL science and really helping people. I won’t be there on the 7th.”

After reviewing the comments, Chili’s decided to back out on the program, posting this message to the page (as well as its website and on Twitter via a link to the site):

While we remain committed to supporting the children and families affected by autism, we are canceling Monday’s Give Back Event based on the feedback we heard from our guests.

We believe autism awareness continues to be an important cause to our guests and team members, and we will find another way to support this worthy effort in the future with again our sole intention being to help families affected by autism. At Chili’s, we want to make every guest feel special and we thank all of our loyal guests for your thoughtful questions and comments.

The April 6 statement has generated more than 1,500 likes and 830 comments, not to mention hundreds more comments contributed directly to the page.

The NAA’s response

While the NAA was gracious in its acknowledgment of Chili’s decision, president Wendy Fournier said in an interview that the backlash shocked her; she characterized the blistering comments left to the Chili’s Facebook page as a “group of individuals that is trying to pigeonhole us as anti-vaccine.” The NAA’s focus, she says, is on safety issues for already-autistic children and that the group has no programs dealing with vaccines. As for the anti-immunization statement on its Causes page, Fournier said, “We haven’t even looked at that page—it’s been up there for years.”

Fournier seems to be suggesting that the group once adhered to the anti-vaccination message but has backed away from it as it altered its mission. If so, the simple act of updating its website might (and I emphasize might) have prevented the situation (and helped fill the association’s coffers). Fournier also said that while the group may update the page in the future, doing so now could lead to additional criticism.

(It’s worth noting that Fournier never flat-out dismisses the autism-vaccine link, telling USA Today, “The vaccine issue is, like any other medical decision you make for your family, it should be made with all the information available.” That’s not even close to acknowledging the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s authoritative statement that “there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.”

Taking a stand

Chili’s decision has resulted in praise from many. It has also earned the restaurant condemnation, with many customers pledging never to patronize Chili’s again. Most parrot the anti-immunization community’s belief that big pharma is behind efforts to squash their unshakable belief in the link.

Two sides on the Chili's decision

Ultimately, the situation puts Chili’s in a difficult position. They’re not alone. As JWT partner Todd Copilevitz wrote in a recent MediaPost article, the torrent of backlash many companies face for everything from TV commercials to Chili’s-like campaigns “is also providing the proof necessary for brands to take a stand. By keeping a close ear on the comments consumers share prolifically online, brands can see for themselves that the public isn’t nearly as divided as politicians would lead a casual observer to believe.”

Copilevitz points to other controversies that have made headlines recently, such as brewer Sam Adams withdrawing sponsorship of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade over LGBT issues; the inclusion of gay families in Chevrolet ads; and Coca-Cola’s multi-lingual “It’s Beautiful” commercials—all of which generated blistering commentary from people who see things differently. While companies may have once steered clear of anything that might alienate any customers, analyzing data can now help determine that the vocal minority is truly small, and that by reflecting values consistent with the majority of their customers, they can help build the brand even as they alienate a small group whose boycotts won’t have a significant impact (and could even be offset by new customers who share the company’s publicly-stated values).

Copilevitz asks how a brand can know when to take a stand. “Listen, listen, listen,” he answers. “Brand planners can certainly talk with consumers and pour over research, but there’s no substitute for the fire hose of unfettered data that comes from social media. By exploring what people are saying away from the brand pages, marketers can get a strong sense of how vocal its market is when it comes to causes.”

Such listening would undoubtedly have served Chili’s well—and could have played a part in its decision to cancel its donation plans.

The core lesson for communicators is simple. Chili’s embarked on an effort that seemed good-hearted and free of controversy. It wound up creating headaches for both the brand and the association it sought to help, and forced the company to take a social position it probably wasn’t prepared to take.

Your company, on the other hand, can be prepared, whether the focus is on health matters, diversity, or any other polarizing issues. From advertising to CSR activities, though, organizations need to stop wasting time and start now to prepare to participate in the marketplace of ideas, armed with your organization’s own values and well-documented data about how your decisions will play with your customers.

Comment Form

« Back