Case Study: The Great Bacon Shortage (Hoax) of 2012

How a British Trade Organization Created an Artificial “Porkocalypse” With an Unethical Press Release

Background

The National Pig Association describes itself as “the voice of the British pig industry.” This trade association serves as the voice of the UK’s pork producers and promotes the interests of the industry. Its web site and associated press releases provide industry-specific information that is designed for a media audience.

However, an attempt by the organization to attract a wider audience met with unintended consequences. A description of the situation below is followed by the aspects of the PRSA Code of Ethics that should have advised the organization against such an unethical action.

Dilemma

In 2012, the National Pig Association attempted to tap into the rising popularity of bacon by sending a press release with a provocative lede: “A world shortage of pork and bacon next year is now unavoidable.” As hoped, the announcement received widespread media coverage, including somewhat alarmist headlines trumpeting the oncoming shortage of this beloved food.

There was just one problem with this: The so-called shortage was an oversimplification of a complicated agricultural situation, and a misrepresentation of both the situation and the group’s intent. It’s true that pig production was down by about 10% that year, although this decline could hardly be called a shortage, and true scarcity was unlikely to exist in any foreseeable circumstance.

Course of Action

It’s true that the pig farming industry was facing challenges in 2012: A drought that summer had drastically reduced the corn output in many countries, and the rise of ethanol had meant that feed corn made up a smaller market share than previously. Pig farmers were definitely going to be facing higher prices for corn, raising their overall expenditures.

By announcing a shortage, the industry group attempted to prepare customers for a rise in bacon prices. The media relations effort also intended to encourage supermarkets and other vendors to pay pig farmers an increased price for their products in recognition of the higher costs of farming in that year.

Consequences

The efforts were certainly well-intentioned in their advocacy for the client (the UK’s pig farmers), gamely attempting to pave the way for higher prices to offset the farmers’ higher expenditures. However, the PRSA speaks specifically of responsible advocacy, an adjective that might be considered questionable here. The entry on advocacy in the PRSA’s professional values continues:

We provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate.

Arguably, this press release did not aid informed debate, instead sparking an overreaction on Twitter and internet media over the forthcoming “baconpocalypse.”

Because of its oversimplification of the complex situation causing the rise in pork prices, this action also does not uphold the professional value of honesty, defined by the PRSA with this statement:

We adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.

The overdramatization of the pork scenario, while it does have some basis in the facts of the corn shortage, probably does not live up to the highest standards when it comes to truth and accuracy.

The National Pig Association’s actions in this situation also run afoul of the code provision regarding enhancing the profession, which states:

Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public's trust in the profession.

Moral of the Story

Unfortunately, the National Pig Association’s alarmist actions in the pursuit of attention have the opposite effect of strengthening the public’s trust in public relations, portraying the function instead as being willing to stoop to a ham-handed attempt at grabbing the spotlight.