Foodservice communicators find pen not always mightier in war of words vs. deeds

Nation's Restaurant News,  Feb 26, 2007  by Richard Martin

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

As writers and readers, we know that words have transformative powers, but they can be peculiar tools of persuasion when refracted through the prism of business world priorities. Words also can be slippery critters when they're filtered through the spin cycle of press conferences, analyst briefings, prepared releases, one-on-one interviews, contractual covenants and courtroom testimony.

Sometimes what's not written or said by the foodservice industry's corporate communicators speaks louder than anything they might utter. Take, for example, the attention paid in the consumer press this month to Yum! Brands Inc.'s prepared explanation for the 5-percent fourth-quarter drop in same-store sales at Taco Bell, usually one of Yum's hotter performers. That downturn dragged the overall same-store result of the Yum system, including KFC and Pizza Hut, into negative territory. Yet without a single mention of E. coli and Taco Bell's unfortunate linkage in December to a widespread infection outbreak traced to lettuce that was tainted at the grower or processor level of the supply chain, Yum limited its oblique explanation for the sales drop to"adverse publicity related to a produce-sourcing issue."

Instead of euphemisms, legalese sometimes is the preferred language for communicating corporate embarrassments. Such was the tone apparent this month in a formal statement from IHOP Corp. explaining its temporary nationwide cessation of franchising and interruption of a $200 million recapitalization program--all because the owner of the 45-year-old pancake house brand somehow had failed to re-register trademarks and service marks with the U.S. Patent Office. IHOP indicated that at least some franchise contracts inked since late 2000 would be "affected" and that a hasty renewal of the federal registrations would be needed, along with the refiling of franchise offering documents in all 50 states. Though IHOP had yet to gauge the potential financial impact, it said the matter was not expected to have "a material impact" on business.

Words and labels used by restaurant companies sometimes find their way into court, where hard-core legalese and wordplay can ensue. One example was the recent litigation involving a sandwich chain franchisee at odds with his shopping-center landlord over an alleged violation of his lease's sandwich menu exclusivity clause. The operator contended that a neighboring Qdoba Mexican Grill could not be allowed to open because its burritos were a form of sandwich--until a judge wisely shot that assertion down.

A similar dispute arose more recently between the Atlanta Bread Company bakery-cafe chain and a franchisee who had opened a separate brand licensed from another company. In suing, Atlanta Bread cited a contract provision prohibiting its operators from running competing "bakery-deli" concepts. The defendant said he would argue in court that because his new operation offered alcohol, it didn't fall into that proscribed category.

Semantics are one thing, but sometimes foodservice officials get caught uttering words that seem to be flat-out misstatements of fact. That happened last month when a Starbucks Coffee spokesman appeared to get sucked into the frame of reference of propagandizing food safety activists who were pressuring the chain to buy milk only if it was "free" of the synthetic growth hormone rBGH, which many dairies give their cows to stimulate production. The spokesman told the Reuters news service that Starbucks officials were "actively engaged with all our dairy suppliers to explore converting our core dairy products to be rBGH-free in our U.S. company-owned steres."

However, even government health authorities in Canada, which along with Japan and the European Union prohibits the use of rBGH for various reasons, have stated that no residues of the hormone can be detected in any milk, regardless of whether cows are given the stuff In fact, dairies that tout their milk as coming from cows not treated with a growth hormone were forced several years ago to stop calling their products "free" of the substance and had to start labeling their milk as not significantly different from any other, after dairy industry forces sued to halt what they said was the implied disparagement of hormone users' products.

What companies choose not to say may be driven by their hypersensitivity to recurrent nutrition and health criticisms. A high-ranking spokesman for McDonald's Corp. conceded to me two years ago that the cost and still-sketchy supply of alternative oils indeed were factors being weighed in the chain's long-delayed plan to reduce artificial trans fats in its foods.

However, the company has consistently explained the delay in public statements as involving only a corporate concern about protecting food flavors.

No business would want consumers thinking that commodity and cost considerations might stall a shift to heart-healthier cooking oils, so it's natural that emphasis would be placed on words like "taste" and "flavor" in discussing plans to purge trans fats.