MacDonald and the E. Coli Crisis: Strategy of Avoidance or Avoidance of Strategy

In October 2024, McDonald's was hit with a crisis: an E. coli outbreak across several U.S. states, primarily tied to its famed Quarter Pounder. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) reported about 90 cases of E. coli O157 infections and one death, with most patients linking their symptoms to a recent Quarter Pounder indulgence. After some sleuthing, investigators pointed fingers at slivered onions as the likely culprit.

Now, in terms of SEO? It’s impeccable—type “MacDonald” on Google from a European IP, and you’ll see everything but the crisis. This E. coli episode seems geographically boxed into the U.S., with no international reaction, nor has any other branch of McDonald’s made a peep about it. Even McDonald’s Corporate stayed largely silent, except for a lone statement on Facebook.

As for the first official press release, it didn’t even see the light of day until October 22, 2024, despite cases popping up in late September. To their credit, identifying outbreak patterns in the food industry does take time (usually two to three weeks to confirm an outbreak source), which explains some of the lag. But here’s where it gets interesting…

Social Media: A Study in Strategic Silence

A quick glance at McDonald's Corporate social media feeds tells us a lot:

• X: Abandoned since 2022—hardly the commitment you’d expect from a brand of this size.

• Instagram: Radio silence, though their bio linktree boasts about CSR efforts like “community clean-up”.

• TikTok: See Instagram? You copy and paste it. 

• LinkedIn: Here, one might expect a calm, reassuring message aimed at comforting stakeholders and employees. But—surprise! Silence again. The reason? Q3 results were set to drop, and apparently, they didn’t want E. coli riding shotgun. Splitting their messages across channels to prioritize crisis management could have been a less confusing way out. Missed opportunity.

• Facebook: The only platform they acknowledged the outbreak on, perhaps because this is where their biggest audience (83 million followers) hangs out.

  
  

  

  
  

McDonald's paradoxical strategy seems to be: let the media run with the narrative rather than controlling it through multi channel updates. As a result, MacDonald is directly described as the responsible and their crisis communication as a simple try to dodge a bullet.

The Changing Face of Accountability

Between October 22 and October 30, the press release saw five updates, each signaling a subtle strategic shift. The first press release conveyed McDonald's willingness to accept responsibility by recalling the Quarter Pounder. This initial response was reinforced with an unlisted YouTube video statement from the CEO of McDonald's USA, aiming to reassure the public (around 5000 views). But by October 25, the tone had changed radically—they shifted to an avoidance strategy, publicly naming and blaming their supplier, the Taylor Farms Colorado Facility, for the contaminated slivered onions.

While this scapegoating approach may be effective short-term, it hardly boosts McDonald’s image, painting them as unconcerned with food quality in their establishments, which contrasts with their statements. But why the sudden pivot? It’s likely tied to the looming Q3 results and the need to reassure stakeholders. Was it worth it? Economically speaking, McDonald’s Q3 results seemed quite unfazed by this outbreak. And yet, a sick client filed a lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporate, not Taylor Farms, so the finger-pointing ultimately just showcased their denial in public view. The crisis only deepened when top U.S. publications, like The New York Times, and even some European newspapers, began associating McDonald's directly with the E. coli scandal, splashing the brand’s name alongside reports of contamination.

What McDonald's Did Well:

• Initial Accountability: McDonald's took responsibility in the early stages by recalling the Quarter Pounder, backed with a statement from the CEO, reinforcing its commitment to consumer safety.

• Regular Updates: Consistently updating its website showed active engagement and transparency in handling the crisis, demonstrating a responsive approach.

  
  

Areas that can be criticized

• Limited Multi-Channel Communication: By confining updates mainly to Facebook (one post only), McDonald’s Corporate missed an opportunity to display transparency.

• Delayed Initial Response: The gap between the first cases and the initial press release gave an impression of slow action, which gave time to the press to mediatize the case before they even communicated on it. 

Unlike McDonald's, which shifted blame to its supplier, Leclerc in 2004 fully took responsibility for its contamination crisis, even knowing the source was external. This approach helped them maintain consumer trust. McDonald’s could have benefited from a similar strategy, assuming full accountability and addressing the issue internally without deflecting.

Should McDonald’s have followed Leclerc’s example and taken full responsibility all along the crisis? Share your thoughts in the comments!