|
Lynne Franks is a self-styled PR guru who established her own business, Lynne Franks PR, in 1971. It is now one of the most respected agencies in the UK's media industry. Lynne Franks was interviewed in 1997 by One-Off Productions for their TV documentary, McLibel: Two Worlds Collide.
|
Could you give us a bit of a picture about McDonald's PR, how successful they are, what it is about their PR that makes them so successful?McDonald's are probably one of the most successful companies in terms of public relations, advertising and marketing, generally in the world. I put them very much in the line of the other major multinational brands such as Coca Cola and Pepsi and so on. They come over very much as a family business aimed at children taking parents into McDonalds. They've done a very successful job in marketing terms, no question of it. They have also spent a lot of money on social areas, hospices and so on, and they've done a good job of that. So do you think the public perception of McDonalds is realistic?I think the public perception of a user-friendly, family-friendly business reflects the realities as far as the consumer is concerned. I mean it's a nice bright shop, you go in there, it's a friendly atmosphere. So, to an extent - as far as outward appearances are concerned - yes, it does reflect reality. But you've only got to look behind the counter and see the pressure that the very young staff are working under to wonder whether what's behind the scenes is a true reflection of what's in front. |
In regard to the McLibel Trial, how well do you think that McDonald's have achieved their aim of halting the distribution of the information contained in the original leaflet? |
I think the original decision to sue over the distribution of the leaflet was wrong. |
There is no question that had that information continued to be distributed in the way it was, it would only have caused minor ripples. By turning it into a libel case McDonalds have turned a major international spotlight onto the very thing they wanted to keep quiet. There was no long-term view on the whole exercise and I believe they were very ill-advised. Any PR or Communications person should have been able to see that to do that was going to open a whole can of worms, which indeed it has done. |
If you were McDonald's PR, how would you have handled the issue of the original leaflet?I would have been prepared to sit down, discuss, listen, and in fact act on, some of the input instead of taking on a completely aggressive, arrogant role of "We're the biggies and you're small and we can buy any lawyers we want in the world and any experts in the world and we can shut you up". Clearly this has not proven to be the case. The reality is that the consumer is now starting to ask questions. They are asking "What is in this product I'm eating?" "What is in this product that I'm putting on my hair?", "What is in this product that I'm putting in my body?" "Has it been made with slave labour?" "Is it nutritious for my children?" We are finding out - rather sadly, and rather lately - that we have done so much damage to ourselves and to the planet by the products that we use in our daily lives, that something must now be done about it. I think that McDonald's and all multinationals selling direct to the consumer, whether it's soft drinks, cigarettes, coffee, ice cream, or whatever have got to seriously look at what they are selling and be prepared for what I believe is just the start of the ground swell of public opinion which is going to get bigger and bigger over the next five or ten years. But the irony is that as the cutting-edge thinkers in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Germany, the UK, Australia and America start asking questions, the countries who are new to this - the Eastern bloc, Asia, and all the rest of course - are hungry for the very things that we're now starting to ask questions about, and that's the dichotomy. So will the future be companies like McDonald's saying "Oh God alright, that's enough, we're not going to open up any more in England because they ask too many questions, we're just going to open another 25 in Bombay", you know what I mean? That's the irony. | |
| But now, with the Internet, with communications and technology progressing the way it is, and cable and digital TV and so on, there are going to be so many more successful ways for information to be distributed around the world that multinationals will not be able to keep secrets anymore. And if you think of, for example, Nestle and the powered milk situation in Asia, it was a very tiny irritant in their side and perhaps it still is a tiny irritant, but it is still there and it hasn't gone away. It has not done that company any good. There is starting to be, without question, a consumer backlash from the public. We have the power as the public - our shopping card, our shopping trolley - is our vote, and we ve got to learn how to use it. | We have the power as the public - our shopping card, our shopping trolley - is our vote, and we ve got to learn how to use it. |
Would you call the McLibel Trial a PR disaster for McDonald's?I do think it has been a public relations disaster - it's arrogant of the multinationals to think that they can own and silence everything and they can't anymore and I think it's one of the things that Shell, for example, quite clearly found out with the whole Nigeria situation, and the British beef business generally where the consumer wants to know and it's just starting . I think it is a PR disaster because it will have a very long term effect, and I hope and trust that the powers that be at McDonald's will actually take it on board as a very positive input about things that they should be looking at themselves. If they prove that they can actually listen, hear and be prepared to make changes, they may wind up having, in my opinion, a more positive business than one that is on the defensive and therefore is aggressive. |
See also:
