Skip to main content

Outback PR disaster - serves alcohol to four year old

Outback Stakehouse apparently has a bit of a PR crisis on its hands as the result of one of its restaurants serving a four-year old alcohol.

Now, to be fair, the alcohol was a sample and given to the parents. The parents however did not know there was alcohol in the samples and gave it to their kids.

Outback's response to the incident was:


We were serving samples of one of our specialty cocktails to adults waiting to be seated. Our server failed to inform the adults in the Kerwin family that the drink contained alcohol. A member of the family then gave the sample to two of their children.
Our server gave samples only to the adults in the Kerwin party and was not present when the adults gave the samples to the children. Regardless, we should have informed the adults that the samples contained alcohol.

On the one hand this is kind of a non-event in the sense that there was no intent to actually give the kids alcohol. 
On the other hand though, it does show how absent-minded businesses can be when it comes to alcohol, treating it as a mere liquid like water or soda with little concern over who is consuming what. 
If you are serving an alcohol-based drink that looks like a slushy in an environment where there are children, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that eventually, one way or another, a kid is going to end up drinking said slushy at some point. 

I think Outback's PR response was weak, but in the grand scheme of things a more forceful response probably wasn't called for. Given society's attitude towards alcohol most Outback patrons will probably chuckle at the fact the kids drank a vodka-slushy (given no one was ultimately hurt).  

If the Outback had been giving out cigarette samples however (I know, absurd, but play along), and the kids ended up smoking a cigarette, you can bet the PR storm would not go away and it could easily have done long-term, serious damage to their brand. 

It's interesting to note the different PR response strategy to aclohol versus say cigarettes. Because societal norms are heavily anti-smoking, people would be up-in-arms over an establishment letting a cigarette fall in to the hands of a four year. But because society is pro-aclohol, I'm betting most people view this incident as either comical or nothing to really get worked up over. 
A great example of how societal norms influence the degree of PR response to a crisis.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes
Post a Comment
Read more

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...
3 comments
Read more

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...
Post a Comment
Read more