Let Them Eat Flakes

A few weeks ago, Kellogg’s Chair and CEO Gary Pilnick was interviewed on CNBC and said this:

“The cereal category has always been quite affordable. It tends to be a great destination when consumers are under pressure… We’re advertising about cereal for dinner.” Later he added that the messaging was “landing really well.”

Pilnick surely did not expect a firestorm around his comments on social media and then news outlets.

Because he (and presumably his team) did not recognize that what he was saying would not “land really well” on people. And that his comments could be classified as problematic language.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again:

Problematic language is expensive.

It harms relationships. It lowers trust, it causes pain, and it drives people away.

As I write this, three full weeks after his interview, an internet search on “Gary Pilnick” gives results that are completely dominated by negative headlines:

“Let them eat flakes: Kellogg’s CEO says poor families should consider ‘cereal for dinner’” (The Guardian)

“Kellogg CEO Gary Pilnick just displayed a stunning lack of emotional intelligence” (Inc.)

“Shoppers call out Kellogg CEO’s ‘cereal for dinner’ pitch for struggling families” (USA Today)

“Who is Kellogg’s CEO Gary Pilnick and what is his salary?” (The US Sun)

These headlines (and there are many, many more) show us that just a few sentences produced by Pilnick have done a world of reputational and brand harm. For his own reputation and personal brand, and for the Kellogg’s reputation and brand.

Problematic language is expensive.

So let’s take a look at how Pilnick’s remarks were perceived as problematic, even as they were cloaked in a veneer of inclusion and ostensible concern for the struggling Kellogg’s customer.

Suggesting that people eat cereal for dinner might seem innocuous from the perspective of inclusive language.

I often encounter the assumption that inclusive language is just about race or gender or sexual orientation or disability. But it’s way more than that. (For example, in this case it’s very much about socioeconomics and class.)

What is and isn’t acceptable often changes based on context. Who said it, where they said it, why they said it, and who the audience is.

This is one reason why I created my 6 principles of inclusive language that people can use as communication guidelines. If you go through each of my 6 principles and say,

“Is a wealthy and highly compensated CEO of a large and profitable corporation going to have a good reaction when he says that his company is marketing cereal for dinner?”

then it’s not hard to see that the answer is really likely to be,

“No.”

The three principles most clearly violated by Pilnick’s comments are

1. Reflect reality

4. Incorporate other perspectives, and

6. Recognize pain points.

Reflect reality

The reality is that corporations like Kellogg’s are directly responsible for the financial pain that many American families are feeling when it comes to food budgets.

American families are spending about 26% more on groceries than just four years ago, and inflation and shrinkflation are to blame.

Inflation: Kellogg’s increased prices 12.6% in fiscal year 2023.

Shrinkflation: Many food producers shrink the size of their product while charging the same prices for it. Shrinkflation has been especially apparent since the beginning of the pandemic.

Because of this, along with other areas of inflation, many American families can’t consistently afford nutritious food.

And, again, Kellogg’s is absolutely inflating prices for cereal and other products.

Finally, while Kellogg’s new ad campaign promoting cereal for dinner suggests that families give chicken “the night off,” the reality is that cereal and chicken are in no way equivalent. Ultra-processed foods, high-sugar foods, and high-calorie foods with low micronutrient levels are not good for anybody, let alone growing bodies.

Incorporate other perspectives

It is one thing if you are struggling to feed your family and someone in a similar position says to you, “Hey, have you tried cereal for dinner once a week? I play it like it’s a treat and it makes the kids happy.”

It is another thing if the person saying it is a CEO who makes $1 million in base salary and then $4 million on top of it in incentives.

Or if it is a corporation who has been raising prices and giving you less product for more money.

Pilnick’s comments on CNBC may have looked like, on the surface, they were about compassion for and care about people experiencing food insecurity and limited income.

But many people saw right through that supposed compassion and noted that his actual goal was a successful marketing campaign, increased sales and market share, and increased profits for the company that he leads.

Social media responses show that people felt condescended to, not truly seen or understood, and not cared about. That their perspectives were not being incorporated.

Recognize pain points

Right now, we are at a painful moment for many. Here in the US, some people are paying 30% of their income for food and 50% for rent, leaving not enough money for other bills, let alone savings or anything remotely frivolous.

Layoffs are rampant, as is the move to a gig economy, contract work, and lower income. Food insecurity levels are high and growing.

And income inequality, especially the distance between the 1% and the bottom 50%, continues to grow.

People are stressed out. Nervous. And worried, some of them every day, how they will feed their family healthy and filling food.

It’s giving French Revolution for many. And this is why so many social media posts and newsletters drew on Marie Antoinette’s most famous (but never actually said) quote: “Let them eat cake.”

During the French Revolution, getting cancelled looked like being dragged to the guillotine.

Today it’s just harsh comments on the internet. (And sometimes, if rarely, getting fired.)

But no matter what, not recognizing pain points because they are not your own? There are bound to be negative consequences.

I work with all kinds of executives and leadership teams. And one thing I hear a lot is, “I’m afraid of getting cancelled.”

The backlash against Gary Pilnick shows that even when you’re not saying a “bad word” involving race or gender or sexual orientation, you can still say something bad enough to infuriate people.

Bad enough to get them to their computers and phones and post about how rude and unkind and uncaring and French aristocracy you are. And, with enough groundswell, bad enough to have all kinds of reputable news outlets naming you and saying how emotionally unintelligent or arrogant or wrong-footed you are.

This is why it is a great idea to get your executive teams trained up in inclusive language (along with the comms and marketing and PR people who support them).

I suspect that if Pilnick and his team had been trained in the 6 principles of inclusive language, along with the Inclusive Communications checklist in my book, this whole PR debacle could have been avoided.

Problematic language is expensive. And investing in inclusive language for leaders gives a great return on investment.

Worthwhile R&C provides organizations of all sizes the latest in inclusive language services.

HOMEABOUTSERVICESREAD, WATCH, LISTENCONTACT

HOME
ABOUT
SERVICES
READ, WATCH, LISTEN
CONTACT