Remember that Tears For Fears song, ‘Mad World’? Scratch that. It’s now a ‘Mad Cow World’ and beef marketers face a stiff challenge in the wake of the first Canadian outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalothapy (BSE) since 1993.

Even though the outbreak is limited – at a single cow, which is perhaps even inconsequential – it has already bruised the $7.8-billion beef industry and, in turn, the Canadian economy. According to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), BSE, or mad cow as it’s commonly known, is costing Alberta beef farmers $11 million per day in lost revenue. To contain any spread, over 1,500 cows have been prematurely slaughtered or slated for slaughter in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

The list of countries banning Canadian beef includes the country’s largest customer, the U.S., which accounted for 51% of exports in 2001. Japan, South Korea, Mexico, China and Taiwan have also followed suit, while Australia has banned imports of breeding cattle. Even within Canada, rifts between the provinces have begun to appear as Ontario and some Atlantic provinces float ideas about halting inter-provincial beef trade.

Sounds like someone will soon be calling up their advertising and/or PR agencies, doesn’t it? Surprisingly, the answer is, ‘Maybe, maybe not.’

Presently, the Alberta government – which is at the forefront of the crisis – has no plans for any communications work. ‘I think it’s far too early to determine that,’ says Shirley McLellan, agriculture minister for Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. ‘But I can tell you that any form it takes from our perspective will be made with the good advice of the industry.’

The Calgary-based CCA, which represents 90,000 beef producers, is similarly taking a wait-and-see approach. ‘Our focus at the moment is doing everything that needs to be done to get the borders reopened to exports so that our industry can start to recover,’ says Cindy McCreath, communications manager. ‘Once that happens we will be assessing the situation again and seeing if there is any additional public relations or advertising work that needs to be done.’

Big mistake, says one industry observer. John Torella, senior partner and retail consultant at Toronto-based J.C. Williams Group, thinks the provincial government and industry association should get started immediately.

‘I think they should be planning – whether or not they run it or execute it is another issue. It would be prudent to have a contingency plan in place,’ he says. ‘You want to be able to react quickly to either the issue disappearing or the issue expanding. And the longer the consumer is in doubt or confused, the bigger the potential for risk is involved.’

But according to a recent survey by Toronto-based Ipsos-Reid, so far the consumer doesn’t seem fazed. For instance, while 51% of Canadians were ‘concerned’ that mad cow would affect Canada, that number is down from 61% in 2001. Further, 58% of Canadians don’t feel anyone in the country will become infected with the disease, up from 39% two years ago.

Similarly, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, of Montreal, which monitors sales twice daily, reports no change in consumer behaviour. ‘We have had some questions at store level but right across the country we are not seeing consumers making any changes to their purchase habits,’ says Nick Jennery, president and CEO.

Still, Jim Robinson, VP of food service at Toronto-based NPD Group Canada, believes there is some anxiety among consumers – although at press time, the market research firm had yet to complete its online survey looking at mad cow’s impact among retailers. ‘It’s certainly a concern of those in food service, especially those who are in the burger category. They are spending money to research the potential impact but they haven’t seen a [financial] impact as of yet that’s been noticeable.’

Meanwhile, business has reacted with prudence. Toronto-based Burger King says it has suffered more from SARS than it has mad cow. ‘So far we’re seeing nothing – no impact,’ says Rob Doughty, VP corporate communications. ‘At this point we’re monitoring it very closely. Hopefully it will continue along these lines.’

Despite a near 7% slip in its stock price immediately following the May 20 announcement of the mad-cow outbreak, Toronto-based McDonald’s also denies any impact whatsoever. Ironically, a TV campaign touting the use of Alberta beef ended its four-week run on May 9, to make way for a ‘Money Mania’ scratch ‘n’ win promo that was launching in restaurants. (The promo’s original name, ‘Mad Money Mania,’ was quietly changed after the news about the mad cow incident broke.)

And what of the full-page ads touting beef quality that appeared in the national newspapers on May 28? Coincidence. ‘What you are seeing there is the continuation of a year-long food, pride and quality campaign that we committed to back in January,’ explains Ron Christianson, corporate communications manager for McDonald’s Canada, of both campaigns. ‘All of this was set into motion before any of this happened and we haven’t changed our strategy.’

However, if the situation does worsen, Canadian marketers should perhaps look for guidance to the U.K., whose beef industry was devastated by mad-cow outbreaks in the early and mid-’90s. In 1996, a nine-month TV and newspaper campaign – costing several million pounds – was undertaken by the U.K.-based Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) to rebuild consumer confidence in beef.

Phil Saunders, media relations officer with the MLC, says being open with the public is the key. ‘Like anything else, when people know what’s going on, they become less concerned about it. So really, keeping the public informed is probably one of the most important steps taken.’

Below, three strategists discuss how the Canadian beef industry can encourage consumers to keep dining on steak.

Heather Chambers, CD, Leo Burnett, Toronto

It should be business as usual for retailers like McDonald’s. If you try and reassure people that our beef is safe and it’s coming from a retailer – no thanks. I think that should be done by a third party.

I don’t think [marketing communications] should come from retailers. We need to take a step back and have someone who’s not going to try and sell you something [deliver] some information.

[Marketing communications] shouldn’t come from the Alberta government [either]. That would be defensive of the Alberta government and I don’t think they should take a defensive position.

I almost feel like the federal government, if anybody, should be saying, ‘Here are some statistics you should know.’

They haven’t take out any major [ads]. It would be great to see…one-page information [ads] or some simple TV [spots] informing Canadians.

I think [Ottawa] should be publishing some real relative statistics that actually ‘dimensionalize’ the risk factor. I mean, it’s been one cow in something like five million, right? And it didn’t make it to the food chain.

Peter Jones, president, Jones Johnston Communications, corporate communications consulting, Vancouver

A basic principle for dealing with such an issue is that the leaders in the industry – in this case it’s the cattle producers – should bring into play [some] allies. And their allies are the scientists, the government and the retailers – right down to supermarkets and fast-food restaurants and so on.

They need to be addressing their communications to all audiences, from the end consumer to senior government officials in, for example, the United States, where they made a very quick decision to stop imports.

In a situation like this, where you have a potentially perceived-life-threatening situation, people react out of emotion. It’s difficult to get the matter into the realm of rational assessment. And that’s the communications challenge.

As soon as the authorities can declare [there is no danger], then I think it’s appropriate for the industry and others associated with the industry to communicate that that’s the case. I would say keep very close tabs on public opinion through research. And when it comes time to reassure the public that any danger that existed has passed, [then] gear your campaign to the level of public concern that exists.

Tom Short, president, Idea Machine, ad agency, Calgary

In Canada I don’t think I’ve seen any specific scare or backlash. It’s more of a [problem] for cross-border imports and exports for Canada.

I’d take it from two different sides. I would…orchestrate press conferences to keep the public aware, but let the media disseminate the information. And then [I would] also run…more one-on-ones and educational elements with media outlets and invite people who think it’s a hot story to ground zero to show them exactly what’s going on and how they’re correcting the problem. That way reporters can do what they do and get out there and say, ‘Yeah, there’s no big deal – man, they’re on top of it.’

[For the U.S.], I would probably deal with a more formalized advertising campaign – targeting key centres. Most people would not have a clue whether they’re eating Canadian beef or Australian or U.S. But there are a few centres where the imports are going into and, in that situation, [marketers] may need to do more.

[It could be] a delegation going down to the key players, showing them how they’re dealing with the problem, to instill confidence in them.