I'm not sure what the original idea was in terms of going public with so dramatic a statement that it made the main headline on the top news bulletin of the day (admittedly in a very slow news week) but I still remain unconvinced that on balance there was more positive publicity than bad that came out of it.
For a start, perhaps Pick 'n Pay has forgotten that television is essentially bubblegum for the eyes and that viewers don't take in anything like the full message.
So, if the objective was for Pick 'n Pay to put the blame on raising oil and maize prices in an effort to get across the message that consumers should not blame them for the pending dramatic increases, I don't think this exercise got that message across at all.
Certainly it was part of the story, but given the vagaries of human nature and the way in which consumers view television, there was more chance of the overall impression being that Pick 'n Pay was going to dramatically increase prices – end of story.
It did not help the Pick 'n Pay cause when the e.tv reporter highlighted the fact quite early on that prices were going up on meat and maize staples in spite of Pick 'n Pay making "R3 million pre-tax profit per day"!
If one's dissects the entire story word for word, there is no question that Pick 'N Pay was simply issuing a warning and claiming quite clearly that it had no control over its suppliers.
But, TV viewers do not dissect things word for word but rather just work on perceptions, all of which makes the decision to go public with a story of this nature on television, a very dangerous one.
And, finally, my guess is that chairman Raymond Ackerman wasn't involved in the decision to go public in this manner. It completely lacks his positive style in terms of concentrating so hard on what amounted to very negative message.
A very strange piece of PR. And not what one would expect from Pick 'n Pay.
