How to Protect — and Destroy — a Brand

The Day the Brand Collapsed

27 June 2000, 11:29 a.m.

A call came in to the customer service centre at Snow Brand’s Kansai branch. A consumer reported vomiting after drinking low-fat milk produced at the company’s Osaka plant. At the time, this seemed like just one of the 200–300 complaint calls received daily by customer centres across Snow Brand’s six regional offices.

A sales representative from the nearest branch office promptly visited the customer and sampled the product — but no abnormalities were detected. On the following day, 28 June, a similar complaint was received around noon. Still, no one suspected food poisoning.
At 1:40 p.m. that same day, the Osaka City Health Centre unexpectedly conducted a forced inspection of the Osaka plant. That evening, the centre formally recommended that Snow Brand issue a public announcement and initiate a voluntary product recall. Unfortunately, as the company had little experience with crisis communication — and because many executives and Kansai branch staff were in Sapporo for the annual shareholders’ meeting — the company’s response was delayed.

On 29 June, Snow Brand held an emergency press conference, urging the public not to consume its milk due to the potential health risk. A formal public notice was finally published in newspapers in the Kansai region on 30 June — although the cause of the problem remained unknown at that time. No abnormalities were found in shipped product samples, and only a vague sense of foreboding lingered.

Then, on 1 July, the incident escalated into a full-blown scandal. A former president flew in from Hokkaido the night before and held a press conference without having a clear grasp of the situation. While he claimed there was “no problem with the plant,” the plant manager interjected to admit there was in fact an issue. The room turned chaotic, and the scene was broadcast nationwide.

On 2 July, the Health Centre issued a suspension order for the Osaka plant. On 4 July, another press conference was held at the Kansai branch. When it ended, a TV news crew approached the former president in the elevator, capturing his now-infamous line: “I haven’t slept.” The remark, seen as indifferent and out of touch, was broadcast nationwide.
Further problematic comments followed. Phrases like “to preserve the dignity of the health centre” alienated government authorities. Another executive’s comment about “racial differences in milk digestion” spiralled into racial and minority rights issues.

On 6 July, the company announced the resignation of its president. By that time, media, consumers, police, and regulatory agencies had flooded company offices and factories across Japan, creating widespread chaos. Unfamiliar with crisis protocol, Snow Brand was criticised for a culture of cover-ups, and the lack of a coordinated communication strategy led to further confusion on the ground.
On 12 July, operations were suspended at all 20 of the company’s factories nationwide, with external inspections initiated.

Meanwhile, customer complaint resolution was slow and challenging. As health authorities withheld consumer complaint records, employees were forced to visit each customer directly. With public anger reaching a boiling point, the company was overwhelmed with 32,000 complaints via phone and email, and responded with over 30,000 individual home visits.
This was the moment when Snow Brand — a historic and once highly trusted name — saw its brand equity evaporate almost overnight.

Reviving the Brand: A Company-Wide Commitment Begins

In July, immediately following the incident, Snow Brand’s sales plummeted to just 23% compared to the same month the previous year. Products rapidly disappeared from shelves across the country, and consumer boycotts emerged. Internally, the atmosphere was equally unsettled.
“I don’t know what we’re doing.”
“There’s no information at all.”
“Is this how the company ends?” — such voices of confusion and despair echoed throughout the organisation.

In response, the company strengthened its external communications framework and developed more detailed measures for improving customer satisfaction. Internally, the VOICE PROJECT was launched using the company’s intranet. All 6,400 employees participated in the real-time sharing of facts as they evolved daily. The platform became a space for open and often intense discussions, with employees candidly debating why the crisis occurred, how the company should be run going forward, and openly criticising both management and one another. (These discussions reportedly continue to this day.)
In parallel, every employee began visiting retail stores, milk delivery services, and restaurants to check the extent to which Snow Brand products had returned to the shelves. These findings were reported daily within the company — a small but vital effort to restore morale and foster hope.

On 14 October 2000, as operations resumed at the Daiou Plant, Snow Brand took its message directly to consumers. Just four days later, on 18 October, all employees — from factory workers to head office staff — stood at supermarket entrances nationwide, distributing 750,000 leaflets alongside their products. With sincerity, they asked:
“Please give us another chance.”

For many who had never interacted with customers before, the experience was sobering. Some were met with visible anger, others with cold indifference — a stark reminder of how deep the wounds ran. And yet, amidst the rejection, there were also moments of encouragement. Words of support from loyal customers gave employees a renewed sense of purpose, and a shared commitment emerged — to rebuild the Snow Brand name, together.

Risk Management as a Guardian of Brand Value

One year after the incident, Snow Brand’s sales had recovered to approximately 75% of their pre-crisis level. However, the company had not only caused a serious food safety incident — it had also mishandled its response. As a result, Snow Brand lost the most valuable component of its brand: trust. Rebuilding that trust is not a matter of months, but of years.

Establishing a strong brand image requires immense and ongoing effort. Companies often devote considerable attention to shaping and enhancing their brand perception — yet damaging that image can require far less effort. Alarmingly, there is often little awareness of how easily this can happen.

Countless cases — not only Snow Brand — demonstrate how a single defective product, a lone complaint call, or a single newspaper article can inflict lasting damage on a brand. Once consumer trust is broken, the recovery demands an extraordinary level of commitment and resources.

Therefore, one of the most important principles of brand building is not just to create a positive image — but to take proactive steps to avoid generating a negative one.
In the aftermath of the crisis, Snow Brand consolidated its six regional customer service centres into a single, centralised hub. All interactions with consumers and the media were logged and managed under a strengthened public relations structure. Beyond PR, the system was designed to ensure that voices from consumers reached across all departments — from product development and sales to manufacturing.
Trained operators, armed with comprehensive response manuals, monitored consumer sentiment and flagged emotionally charged calls with warning signals, which were immediately shared with the PR and executive offices in real time. Executive meetings were held every morning to review updates from the call centre, and on Mondays, board members listened to recordings of actual customer calls. Though the crisis-related communications cost the company over ¥20 billion, a far more robust and proactive publicity infrastructure was established.
In crisis communications, effective messaging does not come from first-person (“I”) statements, but rather from credible third-party voices — experts, large groups, or respected public figures. Mobilising such opinion leaders is key to regaining public confidence.

Snow Brand has committed to preserving a full record of the incident, ensuring the lessons are not forgotten. Internally, the VOICE PROJECT remains active, continuing to facilitate candid and often heated dialogue among employees, now organised regionally.
A brand is defined by its strength and the associations it creates. But a seemingly minor incident can imprint a powerful negative image in consumers’ minds — one that is exceptionally difficult to erase. Reversing that damage requires significant time, effort, and energy.
In essence, brand management begins with one fundamental rule:

Protect the brand from generating negative perceptions in the first place.