Taco Bell Thinks Outside the Bun and Wins

Faithful readers may recall that recently we discussed the PR implications of the lawsuit against Taco Bell. The suit took the fast food giant to task for allegedly not meeting government standards for what constitutes “beef.”

Taco Bell fought back by thinking outside the bun a bit. They launched an ad campaign that said “thank you for suing us” so they could demonstrate the quality of their food. It worked–the suit was dropped and now they want an apology:

Beasley Allen, the law firm that filed suit on behalf of a California woman alleging the company’s food did not meet federal standards to be considered “beef,” has withdrawn the suit, Taco Bell and the Alabama firm said this week.

On Wednesday, the fast-food chain decided to trumpet that good news with full-page ads in 10 major U.S. newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, demanding an apology. The company pegged the ads at a total cost of between $3 million and $4 million.


“Would it kill you to say you’re sorry?” the ad in Wednesday’s Tribune exclaimed.

“Sure, they could have just asked us if our recipe uses real beef. Even easier, they could have gone to our Web site where the ingredients in every one of our products are listed for everyone to see,” the ad read. “But that’s not what they chose to do.

“As for the lawyers who brought this suit: You got it wrong, and you’re probably feeling pretty bad right about now. But you know what always helps? Saying to everyone, ‘I’m sorry.’ C’mon, you can do it!”

The strategy is similar to that employed by Taco Bell and company president Greg Creed after the suit was filed in January.

“Thank you for suing us,” read a similar ad in the Tribune and other newspapers at the time, structured as a letter from Creed as Taco Bell sought to counter the suit’s claim that its beef taco filling was less than 50 percent beef. The ad went on to explain that the filling is actually 88 percent beef and 12 percent other ingredients, which were disclosed in the ad.

Congrats to the Bell. They won and had their public victory lap. The question is, how long do they remind people that they are the victors in this suit? Doesn’t continued use of this legal win in advertising remind people that their food quality was in doubt?

Sure, they want to let the world know that they won the legal battle over food quality–but when does it cross the line and edge them back into questionable food quality territory? As the cliche goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

We recommend that Taco Bell end their public beef with the purveyors of this lawsuit and move on.