Approaches to self managed learning

Pepsi Case Study In the summer of 1993, the Pepsi scare was one of the most widespread news stories in the entire country. This happened to be negative publicity for the Pepsi Company. There were cases being filed against Pepsi that there was syringes, needles, pins, screws, a crack cocaine vial, and even a bullet have been found in Diet Pepsi cans. The media would start to increase on this story as more reports would come in. “In one week’s time, more than 50 incidents had been reported to the police, the FDA or the media”. Pepsi was not sure of why these incidents were being reported. Pepsi had to research on why these claims were being made against their company. Pepsi was going to defend their company and not recall any of their products. Pepsi wanted to show the country that there was no possible way that these objects could end up in their products at the different factories. In this study there will be many different techniques the PepsiCo uses to explain to the country that this is impossible and these include: identifying the different publics, impact of communication on the public, the different PR communication tools and techniques, benefits and risks using these tools, how new technology would impact this case, and what is the companies status today in reference to this incident.
Identifying the Different Publics
In this study there are internal and external publics. Internal Publics are people that are involved in the company in any way. In this study the internal publics are: factory workers, CEO’s, president of the company, stockholders, and anyone that has a say in the production of Pepsi products. There are also external publics in this case. An external public is someone who works outside of the company and may become future customers. The external publics are: consumers, competitors, customers, community, vendors, Alpac, FDA, and the media.
Differences between Internal and External Publics The internal and external publics are