Hold the Lettuce. Crisis Communications Lessons from Taco Bell.

Iceberg lettuce is not your everyday villain, but this week the leafy green emerged as the primary suspect in an explosive case. It also put fast-food chain Taco Bell on the front lines of responding to one of the biggest food-safety crises in the chain’s history.

For those not following along, a quick recap: On July 17, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) linked an outbreak of cyclosporiasis—defined by symptoms of “explosive diarrhea”—to shredded iceberg lettuce Taylor Farms, a supplier to Taco Bell. Things moved swiftly after that: Taylor Farms recalled lettuce grown in central Mexico and Taco Bell halted shipments of the garnish. Then the FDA retracted its claim of finding the cyclospora parasite in a Taylor Farms sample, calling it a false positive. Taylor Farms said the FDA “apologized to us” for the error.

Steve Soltis is a lecturer and communications expert at UVA’s Darden School of Business. (Photo by Caroline Mackey, Darden School of Business)

If that wasn’t head-spinning enough, the FDA on Wednesday identified a new cyclospora outbreak tied to 72 illnesses. This cluster is separate from the Taco Bell-linked outbreak associated with shredded iceberg lettuce and, so far, has no known connection to Taco Bell or any restaurant.

Still, consumers seem to be associating the rising number of cases with Taco Bell, as the chain is reporting a big drop in foot traffic.

The Darden Report caught up with Steve Soltis, a lecturer and crisis communications expert, for lessons from Taco Bell’s and Taylor Farms’ responses to the cyclosporiasis outbreak. Soltis previously led executive communications at The Coca-Cola Company and is co-founder of Arvo Advisory and the Darden Leadership Communication Council at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business.

While the FDA announced last week that it linked the cyclosporiasis outbreak to iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms, they issued another statement Sunday night that it was a false positive, and they have “not yet identified any product as the source of the parasite-borne illness outbreak.” Given the disputed cause of the outbreak, how should Taco Bell and Taylor Farms respond publicly?

Taco Bell’s response after Sunday night was smart and appropriate. They didn’t gloat over the FDA’s reversal but instead doubled-down on their commitments to ensuring supply chain safety while mitigating operational risks that could impact customers.

Taylor Farms, on the other hand, took a more “in your face” approach by saying the FDA was wrong. While they did reinforce they were continuing to take precautions, it felt to me like they were taking a victory lap even though this “false positive” does not necessarily mean they weren’t culpable. It’s risky and unnecessary.

On Wednesday, Taco Bell announced it was offering $1 lettuce-free Enchiritos (a mix between an enchilada and a burrito). Given the outbreak, was that a smart crisis communications move, or not?

Full disclosure: I’ve worked with Yum Brands!, the parent company of Taco Bell, in the past and I absolutely love their heritage of innovation, marketing and promotion. Taco Bell has rabid fans who tend to expect these kinds of promotions. But given the timing on this, my gut would have advised them to hold off until the dust settles.

Would a public apology be an admission of guilt? Would a denial appear defensive or risk being undercut if the FDA makes another announcement in the future?

At this stage, until all the facts come in, it’s not necessary to formulate an apology. What customers need to be hearing is that both Taco Bell and Taylor Farms are aware of the problems and are working together and with health and safety officials around the clock to identify issues and correct them if necessary. Removing suspect lettuce doesn’t imply guilt but rather shows an abundance of caution and care for their customers. That was the right move.

Foot traffic to Taco Bell and other restaurants has declined substantially. Is this likely to cause lasting damage to affected brands?

History shows that companies that handle a crisis with full transparency and quickly remediate the problem and show remorse, if culpable, are often rewarded with returning customers. That said, the “hall pass” can evaporate if such breakdowns become a common occurrence.

At Darden, we’ve taught a similar case study involving food-tainting issues at Chipotle, which caused significant store closures and reputational damage several years ago. While their initial communication was a bit opaque, they were quick to make operational changes that were communicated effectively after the crisis. Interestingly, a few former Chipotle leaders have worked at Taco Bell in leadership positions over the last several years.

How can affected brands rebuild or retain consumer trust?

A lot of companies are dragged into crisis even though they are not responsible for the problem being cited. A great example here was the Silicon Valley Bank collapse from a few years ago. Every regional bank in the country found themselves in crisis communication mode, and most handled it well.

I counsel clients to think about what I call a “4 T framework” focused on timeliness, transparency, tenacity and trust. This framework calls for getting out on top of the issue as fast as possible and doing it in a way that is as clear and transparent as possible. It also requires the tenacity to see the issue through completion and not just expect it to die with the next news cycle. Tenacity can manifest in the form of correcting a problem; showing remorse for those impacted; demonstrating that new steps have been put in place as safeguards for the future; and working closely with officials who oversee, regulate and report on problems. Once you’ve addressed the first three Ts, trust can be rebuilt. But it’s going to require ongoing commitment and results.

Are there other principles of crisis communications that the leadership of affected brands should be implementing?

From a leadership communication standpoint, crisis can make or break a CEO and C-suite leader. Having a strong crisis plan in place before crisis strikes, getting the right media training in advance and ensuring that the right leaders are the face of the issue given the magnitude of the problem are all essential.