Running head:Wendy’s Crisis Communication 1

Wendy’s Crisis Communication

Julia D. Kent

Azusa Pacific University

Wendy’s Crisis Communication 2

Introduction

Wendy’s slogan, “Quality is our Recipe,” came into question when a human finger was

found in a customer’s bowl of chili in 2005. This certain instance unfolded into a large public

relations crisis that, due to unprepared efforts of Wendy’s public relations team, led to major sale

and stock loses for the company. This paper analyzes the case study, ​Court of Public Opinion

Points Finger at Wendy’s​ by Anna Strahs from the Arthur Page Society. This paper will fully

explain the crisis situation Wendy’s faced showing how Wendy’s, the media, and law

enforcement handled this situation. Image Repair Theory (IRT) can be used to analyze the

communication strategies used during crises, and the impact on an organization’s reputation

when crisis communication takes place. Through this analysis using IRT, advice for corrective

action can be discussed as one understands the crisis in the eyes of the public.

Explanation of the crisis

On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 a public relations crisis began that Wendy’s was not

prepared for. Anna Ayala claimed that she found a human finger in her bowl of chili at a

Wendy’s located in San Jose, California. This, of course, led to a huge uproar as many people

became worried about eating food served at Wendy’s. Health officials assured the public that the

finger was fully cooked and could not contain any viruses, however, there was little information

in regards to where the finger came from and what Wendy’s was going to do to prevent this from

occurring again. The media soon picked up this crisis and began to create more of an uproar for

Wendy’s to deal with. After a long period of time, Anna Aayla was arrested for attempted grand

larceny because the finger was actually planted, as it was all plan to sue Wendy’s and receive a

large sum of money in a settlement.

Wendy’s Crisis Communication 3

Chronology of the crisis’ unfolding

This crisis begins with Anna Ayala claiming that she bit into a finger in her chili at

Wendy’s on March 22nd. After health officials and Wendy’s did a complete investigation of the

supply chains, they were certain that the allegations could not be true about Wendy’s

involvement in the situation. Wendy’s made the first public statement on the day of the incident

that stated, “‘We haven't found anything to support allegations Wendy's or our supply chain were

the source of the object in question" - Bob Bertini USA Today” (Strahs, p. 12). However, this

did not stop the crisis because on March 23 and 25, the media began to pick up the story (Outlets

such as USA Today & CBS News), making this incident national news and now officially a

full-blown crisis. Wendy’s continued to explain on March 25th that "the finger did not come

from one of its suppliers because of product coding that allows the company to trace where a

product comes from, the day it was produced, when it was shipped and when it arrived at the

restaurant" (Denny Lynch, 2006). Despite this information, Wendy’s sales and stock began to

drop at a rate of 50%. On March 28, Anna Ayala filed a lawsuit against Wendy’s. However, a

conspiracy began to unfold and law enforcement opened an investigation to see whose finger it

was, which ultimately led to Ayala dropping her case on April 13. Soon after the investigation

began, Ayala was soon arrested, as the police believed the finger to be a fraud/hoax. Wendy’s

offered a reward of $50,000 for anyone who had any information about where the finger came

from. Wendy's and law enforcement received a tip that led them to James Placencia, Ayala’s

husband, and who received the finger from a man, Rossiter, who lost it at a worksite accident in

return for $50 debt he owed him in gambling. Placencia was soon arrested and both began to

appear in court. While the case began to unfold in court, Wendy’s had a giveaway of free
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 4

Frosty’s to thank loyal customers for standing by them and to help rebuild Wendy's image. The

couple decided to plead guilty to all charges, which led to Ayala being sentenced up to 10 years

in prison, and Placencia up to 13 years, as he had other charges.

Traditional media coverage and impact of coverage

The media played a large role in spreading messages about this crisis and helping it grow

into something bigger than it was. When looking through the appendix of the ​Court of Public

Opinion Points Finger at Wendy’s​, one can see that a majority of the information that built this

crisis came from the media. Each new piece of information that tells this narrative is from the

media, therefore, the media acted objectively not as an advocate for Wendy’s, but simply

reporting the news. At the beginning of the coverage, the media implied that Wendy’s was at

fault. Their headlines read, “Woman Bites Off More Than She Can Chew,” “Finger Food Leaves

Diner with Really Bad Taste; Chili Had To Much of A Human Touch,” and “Wendy's diner finds

human finger in her chili,” When headlines like these were published, Wendy’s did not

comment or try to change the narrative. This is an example of framing theory as the media

framed Wendy’s for the cause of this crisis, and created headlines that evoked fear and disgust

amongst readers. Framing theory is “a message-focused theory, describing how content

elements (frames) prompt audience members to recall certain already established, shared and

persistent stereotypes, metaphors or social qualities. These predispositions shape how audience

members interpret messages and respond to narratives and events” (APR, p. 117). As the case

was investigated and new information was presented, the media began to change the narrative

and show how Anna Ayala created this whole situations as a hoax to get money. This shows the

media’s shift in framing of the blame off of Wendy’s and onto Anna Ayala. Once the case was
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 5

taken to court, and Ayala and Placencia were found guilty, headlines read “Wendy's Off The

Hook In Finger Case” (CBS News). Overall, the media played a large role in how this crisis

played out. Since Wendy’s stayed quiet for a majority of the duration of the crisis, the media

was able to control the story and the framing of it even if that meant originally presenting false

information unknown to them that lead to the destruction of Wendy’s image.

Use and role of social media

Due to the year this crisis occurred, social media did not play as big of a role as it would

nowadays. During the time of this crisis, the only major social media sites that were used and

created were facebook®and Myspace™. Both Instagram® and Twitter™ were not founded yet,

therefore, those platforms didn’t play a role at at all. However, social media have played a larger

role in the aftermath years later, as many people still talk about the crisis on twitter™ to this day.

Despite the fact that there is no question about Wendy’s involvement in the case, some people

still don't know that it was a hoax. @Heytherebil tweeted “Yo @Wendys, did someone really

find a finger in your chili back in the day?” (22 May 2018). Showing that there is still some

confusion as to whether it was a hoax or not. Some people also tweet about how the incident,

regardless of Wendy’s involvement, still has an impact on their choice of fast food chains. For

example, @foodmancing tweeted “14 years ago someone tried to scam @Wendys by hiding a

finger in their chili and suing. Even though I know it was a scam the thought of Wendy’s chili

STILL makes me nauseated” (April 12th, 2019). This shows that even though some people

know that it was a hoax, they still will not give their business to Wendy’s due to fear and disgust.
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 6

Critique of Wendy’s handling of crisis

Wendy’s was a company that overall had a successful history and hadn’t faced any crises

yet. However, when the finger crisis began, Wendy’s chose to stay on the quiet side and only

release two public statements. Wendy’s communication to the public was to a minimum, and

even though Wendy's denied involvement this still was not enough to stop sales from dropping.

Wendy’s actually did a very thorough investigation, however, that was not properly expressed to

the public. Rather Wendy’s condensed into a 43-word sentence that stated, “‘Wendy's is

confident the finger did not come from one of its suppliers because of product coding that allows

the company to trace where a product comes from, the day it was produced, when it was shipped

and when it arrived at the restaurant’ -Denny Lynch USA Today” (Strahs, p. 12). The narrative

told to the customers was not assuring enough, and even though Wendy’s was proven to have no

part in this situation, some people still could not eat at the fast-food chain.

Critique of the Arthur Page case study analysis

Overall, the Court of Public Opinion Points Finger at Wendy’s by Anna Strahs presented

this case in an easy-to-follow manner. Readers are able to understand every aspect of the case

and how Wendy’s could have taken more action to save the brand’s image. One thing that this

case study could improve is that it ends abruptly and doesn’t give a lot of alternate actions, or

ways that Wendy’s could have changed the crisis communication. Rather, the article focuses

more on what actually happened versus explaining the public relations strategies used, how

Wendy’s could have changed the crisis communication plan, and stopped the company’s image

from suffering.
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 7

Discussion of relevant theories and principles

Coming out of this crisis, Wendy’s should have retained a positive image because the

brand, company, and food were not at fault for the crisis that unfolded. However, due to the

crisis communication strategy used, or lack thereof, Wendy’s brand image suffered. Image

Repair Theory is a theory that provides strategies used to restore an organization’s image

because the reputation has been damaged. This theory addresses the five strategies to crisis

communication, which are denial, evading of responsibility, reducing the offensiveness;

corrective action, and mortification and how they are viewed by the public (Wallace, Ferguson,

& Chandler p. 20). Another one used is silence or no comment. The component of IRT that

Wendy’s faced was an “accusation of responsibility for the act” (Coombs, p. 31). Through this

theory we can understand why Wendy’s failed in the use of public relations efforts and how

Wendy's could have changed the course of action to help repair Wendy's image. One of the key

findings of this theory is the three-tier typology that shows which strategies are viewed

positively, negatively or extremely negatively within different crisis situations. Research shows

that corrective action, compensation, mortification, and bolstering are most positively viewed

(Wallace, Ferguson, & Chandler p. 22). When looking at the strategies Wendy’s used, one can

see why the image suffered. The primary crisis communication strategy used was a simple

denial, which is in the third tier, meaning it is viewed extremely negatively. Wendy’s denied

wrongdoing in the situation, and showed no change in how Wendy’s establishments were run.

There was also a sense of silence during different times of this crisis, which is also viewed very

negatively because customers feel like the company is not showing concern or willingness to

make change.
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 8

Recommendations for alternate actions

Wendy’s main campaign to repair the company’s image involved free Frosty’s to try to

rebuild what was lost during this crisis. However, this still did not bring the reputation back to

where it was before March 22, 2005. Sales promotions “generally have short-term sales

benefits….they fall short in longer-term image repair. In fact, giving something away for free

might convey some implicit admission of responsibility for the situation—potentially a

detrimental stance” (Braun-Latour, year, pp.107-108). In other words, this kind of strategy made

consumers feel like Wendy’s was just trying to get back the sales and stocks lost during this

crisis. By giving away a free Frosty, Wendy’s is hoping that customers will buy other products as

well. However, it also conveys the connotation that if none of this crisis was the company’s fault,

why is there a need to give away free food? Wendy’s intention was to thank customers for

standing by the company, however, this did the opposite and made some customers more

skeptical. One of the biggest concerns for customers was whether they knew they could trust the

safety of Wendy’s food. While Wendy’s did not have any problems with this since Anna Ayala

placed the finger, Wendy's should have made health and safety implementations to help calm the

fear customers had. Another strategy could have been to create a campaign that brought back

good memories of Wendy’s. For example, “Wendy’s could, for instance, have used a

nostalgia-based campaign to remind customers of happy experiences they have had at their

restaurants. In fact, given what is known about the reconstructive nature of recall, it is possible

that through using this technique, Wendy’s might have been able to create positive memories of

things that may have actually never happened” (Braun-Latour, year, p. 109). Overall, Wendy’s
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 9

need to appeal to the emotions of loyal customers and build that trust rather than offering

promotions and free food.

Conclusion

As seen through this case, how a company handles crisis communication is essential to

either further the success of the company, or diminish sales and the company’s image. Wendy’s

should have come out of this crisis without a long-lasting impact as they were not at fault,

however, due to the crisis communication strategy Wendy’s used the company’s image suffered.

Concepts such as Image Repair Theory can help to show how the strategies used contribute to

whether it is a short term crisis or continues to be a long term problem for the company.

Wendy’s is just one example of a company who struggled to choose the right strategy; however

if a company surrounds themselves with experts, doesn’t underestimate the public & the media,

and recognizes the impact of technology, they can come out of a crisis with a strong image.
Wendy’s Crisis Communication 10

References

Braun-Latour, K. A., Latour, M. S., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Is That a Finger in My Chili?: Using

Affective Advertising for Post-crisis Brand Repair. ​Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly,​ 47(2), 106–120. ​https://doi.org/10.1177/0010880405283623

“Crisis Management and the Wendy's 99 Cents Chili Incident”.(2019, March 19). ​Loss

Prevention Magazine.​ Retrieved from https://losspreventionmedia.com/crisis-

management-and-the-wendys-99-cents-chili-incident/

“Communication Models and Theories.” ​APR STUDY GUIDE​, 2010 UNIVERSAL

ACCREDITATION BOARD. pages 112-116

Coombs, T. (2012). The Handbook of Crisis Communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

Hechtkopf, K. (2005, April 23). Wendy's Off Hook In Finger Case. Retrieved from

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wendys-off-hook-in-finger-case/

Richtel, M. (2005, April 29). Wendy's Gets a Break, but Still Has Work Ahead of It. Retrieved

from https://www.nytimes.com/wendys-gets-a-break-but-still-has-work-ahead-of-it.html

Strahs, A. (2006). COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION POINTS FINGER AT WENDY’S. Retrieved

March/April, 2019, from https://page.org/attachments//WendysCourtofPO.pdf

Wallace, J., Ferguson, D., & Chandler, R. (n.d.). IMAGE REPAIR: EFFECTIVE,STRATEGIES

TO SUSTAIN RELATIONSHIPS. ​Continuity: The Magazine of the Business

Continuity Institute​, 20-22.

“Wendy's CEO had to endure the finger-in-the-chili jokes, bide his time”. (2005, May 21).

Sioux City Journal. Retrieved from https://siouxcityjournal.com/business/wendy-s-ceo-

had-to-endure-the-finger-in-the/article_80f4cd94-7483-5123-be15-06a96fb9a15b.html