September 23, 2008
Pet Food Brand Sues Supplier Over Tainted Vitamins
The pets product company Hartz Mountain Corp. is suing a supplier after it was forced to recall thousands of tainted pet vitamins over the past year.
In a lawsuit filed last week in Federal Court against UFAC (USA) Inc., Hartz Mountain alleged the supplier sold it vitamins contaminated with Salmonella bacteria.
“As a result of the inability to sell the cat vitamins and dog vitamins, and as [a] result of the negative publicity due to the defective nature of the products and product recalls, Hartz’s ability to compete in this product category, its name brand and good will have all been severely damaged,” the company charged in its suit.
According to a report on The Jersey Journal website, Hartz destroyed 2,000 bottles of vitamins in January but has over 60,000 bottles that cannot be sold.
This is not the first time Hartz Mountain faced issues with the safety of its products. In 2005, the company took some of its flea and tick products for cats off the market when the Environmental Protection Agency connected their use with “hair loss, salivation, tremors and even death,” according to The Jersey Journal report.
Discussion Questions: Will Hartz Mountain’s suit against the manufacturer that allegedly supplied it with tainted vitamins redeem the brand in the minds of consumers? How does Hartz Mountain or any other company dealing with this type of issue rebound from it?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
In today’s litigious society, lawsuits are an expected response to any product failure. It is the right thing to do for Hartz Mountain to hold their suppliers accountable. Unfortunately, this accountability fell apart and now Hartz is in the unfortunate position of making up for failing consumers’ expectations. The lawsuit is one piece of the puzzle and one that by its very natures focuses on the negativity. Hartz will need to also rise about the fray with PR and other consumer communication to remind consumers that they can trust the brand.
Hartz has to go through the motions of suing but unless there is some fantastic way they can demonstrate to customers that they have sufficient means of preventing a recurrence, it won’t make a blind bit of difference to confidence or sales.
The lawsuit is a must. It’s a necessary business step. But more importantly, it’s a necessary step in winning back consumer confidence. And that’s the bigger hill to climb.
Today’s consumers have heightened concerns about any product they put on or in their bodies, as well as the bodies of those they love. Like other parents, pet parents talk (in store aisles, on blogs, at pet parks, etc.)–essentially, they have easy access to plenty of info and opinions about goods. They may feel sympathy for Hartz getting a bad batch from their supplier, but that alone won’t be enough to get them to keep buying. Plus, shoppers have plenty other brands to choose from.
Ultimately, Hartz will have to implement several initiatives to win back customers. The lawsuit is underway. Other items for consideration: a look at the internal safety procedures that ensure products are tested before making it to the shelf. Externally, a clear public statement of what happened is in order, as well as info on how they’re implementing changes to ensure future incidents don’t occur. Some sort of product pledge may be needed, and they may want to seek out a few brand advocates to send into the pet community to help restore trust.
Consumers will find other options. The law suit sounds appropriate for Hartz but the consumer will likely avoid the product anyway. They need a good PR strategy that will regain the trust of their customers.
Too little too late. Even if Hartz’s winning the suit it will only get a mention on the business page. If they get more than a paragraph they will be lucky.
Most consumers will never even hear of the lawsuit and find out what the out come was.
Most of them will not even care.
Everyone who is tired of hearing me call for retailer-based and brand-based test laboratories can skip this comment. It’s boring, but most logical thoughts are. With their extensive R&D budgets, why can’t retailers and brands that outsource their manufacturing create test facilities to protect their customers? Hello, Walmart, this means you. Imagine the value of the resulting positive public perception. And, in the case of products like Hartz Mountain’s pet vitamins, they’d be twice-checked–once by Hartz Mountain and again by Walmart. Extra cost? Yes, but how does that compare to the cost of recalling products and lost reputations? “Walmart Certified” could become a more meaningful and powerful imprimatur than the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval. Additionally, how about a consortium of privately-held companies (outsourcers and retailers) that replaces or redundafies (is that a word?) the U.S. government as the sanctioning body for product approval?
And then there’s the newest China Syndrome. My newspaper lists recalls every week and nearly all are from Chinese manufacturers. It’s no crime to manufacture in China. But, it should be a crime for outsourcing brands and retailers to pass Chinese products along to consumers without due diligence. Of course, practices such as I describe would figuratively fracture the fingers-of-blame that point backwards during product crises, but isn’t final accountability worth something? Like consumer confidence?
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
In today’s litigious society, lawsuits are an expected response to any product failure. It is the right thing to do for Hartz Mountain to hold their suppliers accountable. Unfortunately, this accountability fell apart and now Hartz is in the unfortunate position of making up for failing consumers’ expectations. The lawsuit is one piece of the puzzle and one that by its very natures focuses on the negativity. Hartz will need to also rise about the fray with PR and other consumer communication to remind consumers that they can trust the brand.
Hartz has to go through the motions of suing but unless there is some fantastic way they can demonstrate to customers that they have sufficient means of preventing a recurrence, it won’t make a blind bit of difference to confidence or sales.
The lawsuit is a must. It’s a necessary business step. But more importantly, it’s a necessary step in winning back consumer confidence. And that’s the bigger hill to climb.
Today’s consumers have heightened concerns about any product they put on or in their bodies, as well as the bodies of those they love. Like other parents, pet parents talk (in store aisles, on blogs, at pet parks, etc.)–essentially, they have easy access to plenty of info and opinions about goods. They may feel sympathy for Hartz getting a bad batch from their supplier, but that alone won’t be enough to get them to keep buying. Plus, shoppers have plenty other brands to choose from.
Ultimately, Hartz will have to implement several initiatives to win back customers. The lawsuit is underway. Other items for consideration: a look at the internal safety procedures that ensure products are tested before making it to the shelf. Externally, a clear public statement of what happened is in order, as well as info on how they’re implementing changes to ensure future incidents don’t occur. Some sort of product pledge may be needed, and they may want to seek out a few brand advocates to send into the pet community to help restore trust.
Consumers will find other options. The law suit sounds appropriate for Hartz but the consumer will likely avoid the product anyway. They need a good PR strategy that will regain the trust of their customers.
Too little too late. Even if Hartz’s winning the suit it will only get a mention on the business page. If they get more than a paragraph they will be lucky.
Most consumers will never even hear of the lawsuit and find out what the out come was.
Most of them will not even care.
Everyone who is tired of hearing me call for retailer-based and brand-based test laboratories can skip this comment. It’s boring, but most logical thoughts are. With their extensive R&D budgets, why can’t retailers and brands that outsource their manufacturing create test facilities to protect their customers? Hello, Walmart, this means you. Imagine the value of the resulting positive public perception. And, in the case of products like Hartz Mountain’s pet vitamins, they’d be twice-checked–once by Hartz Mountain and again by Walmart. Extra cost? Yes, but how does that compare to the cost of recalling products and lost reputations? “Walmart Certified” could become a more meaningful and powerful imprimatur than the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval. Additionally, how about a consortium of privately-held companies (outsourcers and retailers) that replaces or redundafies (is that a word?) the U.S. government as the sanctioning body for product approval?
And then there’s the newest China Syndrome. My newspaper lists recalls every week and nearly all are from Chinese manufacturers. It’s no crime to manufacture in China. But, it should be a crime for outsourcing brands and retailers to pass Chinese products along to consumers without due diligence. Of course, practices such as I describe would figuratively fracture the fingers-of-blame that point backwards during product crises, but isn’t final accountability worth something? Like consumer confidence?