The VND500 million housefly, and a lesson about branding
The VND500 million housefly, and a lesson about branding
A beverage manufacturer has decided to take legal proceedings against a consumer for alleged blackmail, but the company’s action could do more harm than good.
The move comes after Tien Giang provincial police on January 27 placed Vo Van Minh of the province’s Cai Be District into custody to investigate the accusation that he had appropriated assets of the company.
Minh, who sells beverages for a living, discovered a housefly in a Number One soft drink bottle and contacted Tan Hiep Phat, the manufacturer, to report the case.
He asked for VND1 billion for his “silence” and told Tan Hiep Phat’s representative that if he did not get the money, he would provide information to the press.
Tan Hiep Phat, after negotiations, agreed to pay VND500 million to Minh in exchange for his silence and then reported the case to the police. As a result, Minh was caught red-handed receiving money from Tan Hiep Phat.
Police said there was a housefly in a soft drink bottle with an uncovered cap.
Tan Hiep Phat has had similar trouble in the past. In 2012, local newspapers reported that a man discovered a cockroach in a company product and asked for VND50 million in compensation.
However, the current case has become more well-known because of the widespread use of social media.
Many experts said they do not think Tan Hiep Phat made a wise move and could fall into its own trap.
Khuat Quang Hung, PR director of the US-based FMCG in Vietnam, noted that in both cases, Tan Hiep Phat used the same measure to manage risk.
The manufacturer, acting as the aggrieved party, passed the buck to consumers, thus driving the focus of the case to another aspect – conspiracy to blackmail.
The move, in the immediate time, would help the company avoid press stories about its product quality but could end up harming its reputation and popularity with customers.
Dang Thanh Van, Thanhs Brand’s CEO, a branding expert, also thinks that Tan Hiep Phat’s risk management policy was not a good one.
Van said the public tends to defend the person in disadvantageous positions.
Nguyen Cuong, a lecturer at the Hanoi University of Social Sciences and Humanities, noted that what most interests the public is the manufacturer’s attempt to send the customer to prison.
“Having a hostile attitude towards customers is not the right behavior,” he said.
