In a video earlier this month, influencer ‘Foodpharmer’ Revant Himatsingka brought to the fore the ungodly amount of sugar in Cadbury Bournvita and attacked the brand's claims of being a "health drink."

Himatsingka also bitingly took a potshot at Bournvita's tagline "Taiyari Jeet Ki" (preparation for victory), calling it "Taiyari Diabetes Ki" (preparation for diabetes).

The video went viral and was even shared by some celebrities. As expected, the brand responded with a statement denying the accusations and saying that the video is factually wrong.

But on April 14, 2023, the influencer took to social media to say that he had to take the video down upon receiving a legal notice from the brand. Many sided with the influencer, pledging not to buy Bournvita again.

Many companies, including Cadbury, have faced PR controversies past and have successfully navigated the situation to come out smelling like roses. Back in 2003, a few consumers found worms in Dairy Milk bars and the issue became a nationwide controversy. The company roped in Amitabh Bachchan to convince its consumers that it listened to their grievances and left no stone unturned to ensure that Dairy Milk is once again safe for consumption. It was a gamble that paid off and Cadbury's handling of such a delicate case went on to become a case study in crisis management.

However, the company's handling of the Bournvita controversy merits no such distinction. By all accounts, it was a hamfisted attempt to shut down the controversy and people have been since talking about its disproportionate response to an influencer. What was needed was a measured and constructive response to the fiasco as it did in 2003.

What Bournvita should have done instead

exchange4media asked experts what the right approach to handle the controversy was without drawing more attention to itself. According to N Chandramouli, CEO of TRA Research, a legal notice isn't it. "It is the last of the actions that Bournvita should have taken. When the Legal Department intervenes, it should be the last resort. Bournvita does not have a case, other than showing muscle power, in which the influencer has to cower down. Assuredly, Bournvita is the loser in this action.”

Nisha Sampath, Brand Consultant, and Founder, of Bright Angles Consulting, feels the term "influencers" isn't for people like Revant Himatsingka. "I believe that ‘influencers’ represent a commercialized segment – meaning that they aspire to be monetized by businesses for their social currency. People are also sceptical about them. De-influencing is done by a different set of people. I would call them educators, or activists. They do not aspire to earn from brands, but rather to earn the trust of people by raising awareness," she pointed out.

Like Chandramouli, Sampath also blames the Bournvita's response to the issue. "I believe that Bournvita stands in the wrong here. Not just the activist in question, but even consumers have known for some time that Milk Food Drinks contain too much sugar and are unhealthy, while they claim the opposite extreme. He just voiced this concern. If the company listens to the response his video evoked, then they will realise that they don’t need to shut down the influencer, they need to listen to the consumer”, she added.

On the other hand, Samit Sinha, Managing Partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting, believes that if the brand is not wrong and has proof, then taking the legal route is not a bad idea. He said, “Brand owners have to keep in mind that there’s nothing or no one in the world that doesn’t have detractors. That is a small price to pay for popularity. If the detractors do not have much social currency or influence, it is best to simply ignore what they say or write. If the de-influencer has a significant following, they should be contacted with facts or any other compelling evidence and requested to retract their opinions in the same channel as the ones in which the opinion was expressed in the first place. If they refuse, then taking legal recourse is not a bad option, especially if the brand is in possession of evidence that proves the de- influencer’s assertions wrong.”

De-influencing is an emerging trend in influencer marketing, but it can be dangerous for many parties such as the influencer, the brand, and the audience. Or it can also turn out enlightening for different parties. When asked about how brands should go about de-influencing content, Sampath, said, “Communication as damage control can only work, if you have acknowledged and solved a problem. For example, after worms were found in chocolate bars, Cadbury re-designed their packaging. Then they did a campaign with Amitabh Bachchan, to reassure consumers that the product is safe. And it worked. Without action, communication won’t solve issues.”

“The best response Bournvita could make at this stage is to say that they will go back to the drawing board and design a healthier drink, by cutting down on sugar”, she added.

While Chandramouli said, “A discussion with the influencer to explain why Bournvita is right in their claims, an act which turns the crisis into an opportunity should have been the first action.”

Speaking on the issue, Piali Dasgupta, Senior Vice President – Marketing at Columbia Pacific Communities, said, “Ultimately, it's about freedom of expression. As long as there are products, there would be influencers who would be paid to sell those products. But there would also be a section of people who would call out products that don't serve the purpose that they are meant to. When dealing with de-influencing, this is where crisis and reputation management, come into play."

"When a large conglomerate like Mondelez takes on somebody who's created a platform to educate audiences about the right kind of food, it shows two things - insecurity and pettiness. A simple clarification on social media could have addressed the issue. Bournvita could have leveraged the power of print for this. Issuing the legal notice worked against the brand because the audience's sympathy was directed towards the content creator because he seemed to have been bullied by Mondelez to take down the video. It was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from the brand."

The experts unanimously agreed that sending a legal notice was a bit exaggerated reaction by the company. From a future perspective to handle a crisis like this, Chandramouli said, “All brands must have a Brand Trust expert on their advisory, the only voice which will help keep customer trust centric action for the brand. The Brand Trust expert should be empowered so that the customer's voice is heard.”

While Dasgupta said, “It is crucial to listen to the conversations happening on social media to get a sense of what the audience sentiment is like. Once you get a sense of the audience sentiment, craft your crisis communication strategy accordingly. It could be an announcement on print media but also something as simple as a campaign on social media to educate people about your product components, for example, to ensure that there is no misinformation floating around. Ultimately it's about having a long-term crisis management strategy as opposed to reacting to a crisis when it happens.”

Similarly, Sampath said, “The best way to deal with this situation is authenticity and transparency, as a company policy. Don’t make claims that won’t stand honest scrutiny, even if there is a legal loophole that lets you make them. Cultivate the difficult practice of being honest with your consumers.”

It will be interesting to see how Cadbury would wriggle out of this controversy as it did during wormgate. However, given its bitter response, let's hope Bourvita has not permanently left a bad taste in the consumers' mouths.