The "half-billion-dong fly" case: The king dies, the lord also passes away.

Many experts believe that Tan Hiep Phat's handling of the crisis was unwise, as it involved imprisoning the person who demanded 500 million VND in exchange for a bottle of water containing a fly.

According to press reports, Vo Van Minh, while opening a bottle of soft drink to sell to a customer, discovered a fly inside. The beverage company sent someone to meet with him. The seller demanded 1 billion VND for his "silence," threatening to provide the information to the press and print 5,000 leaflets to distribute if his demands were not met. After negotiations, the company agreed to pay him 500 million VND. However, Tan Hiep Phat also simultaneously notified the police. When Minh arrived to finalize the payment and receive the money, he was caught red-handed on charges of extortion and coercion.

According to the Tien Giang Provincial Police, the bottle of water that this person used to extort money from the beverage company actually contained a fly and the bottle cap had not been opened.

This situation has left consumers very confused about how to handle the situation if they discover a product is defective, damaged, or does not meet food safety and hygiene standards, posing a health risk to themselves and other consumers.

Vo Van Minh, who was recently arrested on charges of extortion and property seizure.

Media navigation?

Previously, Tan Hiep Phat also experienced incidents regarding the quality of its bottled products. In 2012, the press reported that a customer discovered a cockroach in the company's product and demanded 50 million VND in compensation.

However, unlike the incident that occurred three years ago, with the development of social media, the story of the "half-billion-dong fly" has become a widely discussed topic with conflicting viewpoints.

Some support Tan Hiep Phat's "tough measures to cleanse society" approach, while others criticize the company.

In the media, critical opinions regarding Tan Hiep Phat's actions are overwhelmingly dominant.

We contacted communications expert Khuat Quang Hung (Director of External Relations for an American FMCG company in Vietnam) to gain a better understanding of this issue.

"In both cases, Tan Hiep Phat applied the same crisis management approach: 'blaming' (making the company appear as the victim) and shifting the focus to a more serious matter (a blackmail plot)."

This approach could help the company avoid, in the short term, media attention that might be unfavorable to product quality.

This is a very clever but cruel way to handle a crisis, as it can push an individual or even an entire family to the brink of despair.

"It demonstrates inhumane behavior and a lack of the company's core values. When core values ​​are not upheld, sooner or later, the business will decline," Mr. Hung said.

Expert Khuat Quang Hung was formerly the Director of External Relations and Communications at METRO Cash & Carry Vietnam.

Ms. Dang Thanh Van (CEO of Thanhs Brand - Brand Strategy Consultant) also shares this view, arguing that Tan Hiep Phat is implementing a flawed "media navigation" policy.

"Legally speaking, Tan Hiep Phat has the right to act in self-defense against the unreasonable and illegal demands of its customers."

Imagine we're walking down the street and get slightly bumped into by someone, but that person demands compensation far exceeding the actual damage. This would give us an idea of ​​the situation Tan Hiep Phat is facing.

"But from a media perspective, I don't think they did the right thing," Ms. Van said.

Ms. Dang Thanh Van quotes an idea that Marco Glaswell, one of the famous authors of psychological research, wrote in his work "David and Goliath":

The battle between the little shepherd and the giant has always been a popular theme. Society tends to support the underdog, hoping for a "miracle" where the shepherd defeats the giant.

Tan Hiep Phat's harsh handling of its customers is like a giant crushing a shepherd; it could provoke public outrage regardless of who is right or wrong.

"Ordinary people won't want to waste time trying to figure out why Minh was imprisoned; they'll just know he's been 'pranked' by the brand."

A brand is not the exclusive property of a business, but rather an image or association that resides in the minds of customers.

Therefore, acting like Tan Hiep Phat certainly damages the brand image," Ms. Van emphasized.

Expert Dang Thanh Van - CEO of Thanhs Brand

Regarding this issue, Mr. Nguyen Cuong (Lecturer at the Faculty of Journalism and Communication – Hanoi University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Deputy Director of VTC10 television channel) also expressed his agreement.

Mr. Cuong stated: "Leaving aside whether the user fabricated the defective product or not, my first and only impression so far is that consumer Vo Van Minh has been brought to justice."

Regardless of how one judges Mr. Minh's behavior from an ethical standpoint, the first thing I notice is the cold and harsh message that Tan Hiep Phat is sending to consumers.

That means Tan Hiep Phat does not accept being manipulated; they are ready to send anyone to jail if the settlement they offer is not accepted.

Upon receiving that message, I no longer cared whether the fly was real or fake, but rather the level of respect the business showed towards its user community. And this incident made me feel like they completely disregarded that!

In any case, being hostile towards consumers is the wrong attitude, especially such a scandalous incident right before the New Year's shopping season.

Lecturer Nguyen Cuong

Was Tan Hiep Phat's action unwise?

Meanwhile, expert Dang Thanh Van stated: "I truly believe that Tan Hiep Phat has played an unsportsmanlike game and acted improperly. They didn't need to criminalize a civil relationship like this."

If Tan Hiep Phat is a brand that fights for integrity and justice, it should involve the press and lawyers instead of dragging its customers into legal trouble.

The measures the company is taking only help Tan Hiep Phat win the legal battle with Mr. Vo Van Minh.

In the "battle for the minds" of customers and the public, to become a beloved brand, logic often has to give way to "emotion" and "human connection".

According to communications expert Le Quoc Vinh (Chairman and CEO of Le Invest Holdings Corp), "reporting to the police that consumers are caught red-handed receiving money can be considered a form of iron fist."

In reality, it is not uncommon for competitors to fabricate rumors and false evidence, then use consumers' names to bring down their rivals.

These actions violate the law of fair competition and must be eliminated from healthy business practices.

Expert Le Quoc Vinh

However, Mr. Vinh argued that using an "iron fist" approach in this case was excessive.

"It will create a sense of apprehension among consumers, making them hesitant to offer honest feedback or report problems to businesses."

From now on, if consumers come across a defective Tan Hiep Phat product, I believe they will either contact consumer protection agencies or immediately report it to the press.

At that point, a media crisis is certain to occur and become extremely dangerous for the business.

"More importantly, if consumers turn to competitors, the weaknesses of the business can be exploited more subtly, leading to unpredictable consequences," Mr. Vinh said.

Netizens call for a boycott of the "soft drink… with flies in it, priced at 500 million VND".

The incident involving a bottle of soda with a fly in it has become a hot topic on social media. A Facebook fan page has even appeared calling for a boycott of the soda company.

To date, this Fanpage has attracted nearly 1000 likes and followers. In their humorous conversations, people always bring up the deeply ingrained story of "soft drinks with flies in them costing 500 million dong."

Some newspapers even uncovered about 3 to 4 cases where this beverage company behaved similarly towards consumers. According to press reports, customers who signed agreements to pay for the company's products ended up with a tragic outcome: those who consumed the company's products containing flies and cockroaches were arrested and faced legal consequences and imprisonment.

From a media perspective, social media blogger Nguyen Ngoc Long commented that the way the "soft drink with a fly" handled its media crisis was becoming increasingly detailed, allowing the message "soft drink with a fly" to spread even wider.

Lawyer Vu Van Dung (Hanoi Bar Association) stated: "This consumer has the right to provide information to the press, the right to contact the manufacturer to file a complaint about the product, and the right to receive compensation based on actual damages. Every organization and individual has the right to report illegal acts. The inappropriate use of these rights leads to undesirable legal consequences. I believe both sides acted inappropriately and both bear some responsibility for the resulting outcome."

According to soha/infonet