The E. coli outbreak at McDonald’s that led to at least one death and 10 hospitalizations is a crisis no brand wants to navigate. But marketing experts said that the fast feeder’s response so far has been nearly a textbook example of how brands should react should a similar food safety crisis befall them.

Among the reasons cited by experts: McDonald’s reacted quickly, promptly removing the Quarter Pounder from the affected areas where the sickened consumers had purchased it. The chain addressed the issue promptly with a statement regarding the outbreak and followed up with a YouTube video from McDonald’s U.S. President Joe Erlinger, who reiterated and reassured consumers that other burgers on the menu were not impacted. And it has been judicious with communications since, waiting until all the facts are in. The Centers for Disease Control has not yet identified the cause, although McDonald’s believes that slivered onions are responsible.

“Their emphasis is on understanding and addressing the crisis versus the damage caused,” said Kim Whitler, an associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. “This is a typical game plan for such events.”

“McDonald’s response has been swift and the messaging has come from the top, which is good,” said Keith Niedermeier, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University.

Even an agency executive working on a rival fast feeder applauded the measured response: “I think they are correctly being conservative and waiting for more information. If you post and then the information changes, you are playing catch up.”

Impact on sales

There have been prior cases of E. coli outbreaks at restaurant chains, most notably Chipotle’s in 2015 that led to a drastic drop in sales. And food safety issues have affected the deli case too: In September, Boar’s Head shut down a Virginia facility tied to a listeria outbreak. 

But some investors are betting there won’t be long-term brand damage for McDonald’s, the world’s largest restaurant chain. “It’s premature to start making comparisons to the Chipotle precedent scarred in investors' memories,” wrote Peter Saleh, managing director and senior restaurant analyst at BTIG, a financial services firm, in a research note. “Our initial sense is that this is more contained than previous food safety incidents, as McDonald's seems to have identified the source and quickly removed it from menus. Assuming this is contained and out of the news in the next week, we would expect the sales impact to be very short-lived.” 

This is partly due to the brand trust and reputation for quality that the McDonald’s brand has built up over decades, observers said. 

“My immediate thought is that the McDonald’s brand will likely not suffer much in the long term due to this,” wrote Gary Ottley, associate professor of practice in marketing at Babson College, in an email. “McDonald’s is an iconic American brand, to which generations of Americans feel a strong nostalgic connection. It’s going to take a lot for wide swaths of McDonald’s consumers to move away from the brand.”

“Short-term, they might see less traffic since people have seen ‘McDonald’s’ and ‘E. coli’ in the same headline,” said the rival agency executive. “But maybe once they learn more about it, like that it was not their state, they might go back.”

Based on a cursory look at McDonald’s Instagram feed, consumers on social media seem to be responding more negatively to a McDonald’s franchisee allowing former President Donald Trump to visit a Pennsylvania McDonald’s to work a fry station than the E. coli outbreak. 

That Pennsylvania location has since been inundated with negative Yelp reviews. The comment sections on McDonald’s social media have included customers saying they will boycott the fast feeder because of the Trump campaign stunt, while others praised the move.

While experts generally praised McDonald’s initial response to the E. coli issue, which was handled internally, some believe the chain should be more proactive by addressing food safety and posting the video on its social media channels.

“The YouTube video was a good step, yet they need more curated content by platform going out real-time across social channels,” said Barry Thomas, senior global thought leader at Kantar.

What competitors may do

The experts interviewed by Ad Age were mixed on how competitors should address the Golden Arches—if at all.

“We could see some competing chains move more of their content and media plans to food quality and safety messaging,” said Thomas.

But Niedermeier disagreed, noting that “all of McDonald’s competitors are susceptible to similar issues sooner or later, so the best response from them is to say nothing.”

He added: “Instead, they should use this opportunity to review their own safety protocols and have a plan of action for when they might have to deal with a similar issue.” 

Next steps

Some experts stressed that the chain should now turn its attention from information to empathy.

“They have to take care of the impacted customers financially, yes, but emotionally too,” said Kantar’s Thomas. “Personal calls from corporate leadership and franchisees to those hurt can help humanize the brand. Here the local franchisee is a key part of the response.”