The current controversy around Coca-Cola is a perfect example of what can go wrong when communication is not handled well. The company, in this case, had to eat at least some humble pie after it fostered bad publicity by its handling of the situation around its bottling firm in the Gaza strip. This link has led to calls for its boycott in several countries, while in Bangladesh, consumers are increasingly turning to local alternatives. To douse the fire, Coca-Cola Bangladesh rolled out an ad dealing with the matter at hand. Yet the campaign has not only failed to silence its audience, it has made things worse.

The advertisement: a case study in poor execution

The recent advertisement by Coca-Cola Bangladesh was just a textbook case of how not to handle a crisis. The starting frame is a disaster, lacking any knowledge of the issue at hand and why people are upset. The copywriting and dialogues are subpar, failing to be up to the mark for such a delicate subject, which needed a lot of finesse and sensitivity. Instead of making reasonable arguments or even accepting the consumers' concerns, it just offers obscure, non-committal comments against a backdrop that leads to a conclusion of a statement that "Coca-Cola even has a factory in Palestine."

The hurriedly done, poorly researched narrative did not serve the cause but signalled exactly a tone-deaf crisis approach. These are clear indications that the campaign's creators did no homework to try to understand the socio-political context or the depth of feeling on the matter among the public.

Coca-Cola's iconic advertisements: a stark contrast

Coca-Cola has a storied history of producing iconic advertisements that have not only resonated with audiences but have also become case studies in effective marketing. From the "I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke" campaign in the 1970s, which promoted a message of unity and harmony, to the "Share a Coke" campaign that personalised the brand experience, Coca-Cola has consistently set high standards in advertising.

These campaigns worked because they were the result of significant research and insight, carefully and thoughtfully designed, resonant with deep values and emotions, and culturally intelligent. They showed a great understanding of the intended audience, and were carried out with a finesse that was oddly missing from the most recent Bangladeshi ad.

The fundamentals of effective crisis communication

Crisis communication is an art and a science. It requires a nuanced approach that balances transparency, empathy, and strategic messaging. Here are some best practices that Coca-Cola's advertising team should have adhered to:

Understanding the audience

Before crafting any message, it is crucial to understand the audience's concerns and perspectives. This involves thorough research and genuine engagement with the affected communities. In Coca-Cola's case, acknowledging the historical and political sensitivities surrounding the Gaza Strip would have been a prudent starting point.

Transparent and empathetic communication

In times of crisis, transparency and empathy are paramount. Brands must acknowledge the issue at hand, express genuine concern, and provide clear, factual information. Coca-Cola's ad failed to demonstrate empathy or offer any substantial information that could alleviate the public's concerns.

Strategic messaging

Effective crisis communication requires strategic messaging that is coherent, consistent, and aligned with the brand's values. The messaging should aim to rebuild trust and demonstrate a commitment to resolving the issue. 

Engaging with stakeholders

Engaging with key stakeholders, including customers, employees, and community leaders, is essential in managing a crisis. This engagement should be ongoing and not limited to a one-off advertisement. Coca-Cola could have benefited from a more inclusive approach that involved dialogue with its Bangladeshi consumers and other relevant parties.

The recent advertisement from Coca-Cola in Bangladesh is a good example of how a lack of adept crisis communication can significantly hurt a brand's reputation. It is not the first company to screw up when trying to be sensitive, and likely won't be the last, but it serves as a perfect example of why we need to take a critical, empathetic, and transparent approach to delicate situations if we want polarised communities to trust us. 

With an audience-first approach, open and transparent dialogue, clear and timely communication, brands can better navigate crises and begin the slow process of winning back trust with their consumers. After all, it is a different era with a greater focus on transparency and public perception and knowing how to communicate effectively when there is a crisis is no longer just a skill—it is a requirement.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.