Latest / Hustle Minds / 10: Coca-Cola's Hidden Influence: Unveiling Industry Tactics

Transcript

10: Coca-Cola's Hidden Influence: Unveiling Industry Tactics · Hustle Minds

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. Today. We're going down the
0:03
Speaker 1: rabbit hole of how Coca Cola has interacted with researchers
0:06
Speaker 1: and those public health institutions, you know, like the ones
0:09
Speaker 1: that are supposed to be looking out for us. Yeah.
0:11
Speaker 2: It's a really, really fascinating area of study. And just
0:14
Speaker 2: to be clear, we're not here to put Coca Cola
0:16
Speaker 2: or any company for that matter, on trial, right right.
0:19
Speaker 2: The point is to kind of understand like the subtle
0:22
Speaker 2: ways the industries can you know, influence research and even
0:26
Speaker 2: shape public opinion.
0:27
Speaker 1: Okay, So think of this deep dive as our little
0:30
Speaker 1: detective mission, right hm. And the magnifying glass. We're using
0:34
Speaker 1: a twenty twenty research paper from Public Health Nutrition.
0:38
Speaker 2: Oh I've heard of this one.
0:39
Speaker 1: Get this. They actually got their hands on thousands of pages,
0:43
Speaker 1: thousands of internal Coca Cola emails.
0:47
Speaker 2: The way how they swing that.
0:48
Speaker 1: Freedom of information actor questions. Oh that's gold, right, talk
0:52
Speaker 1: about a treasure truck years.
0:54
Speaker 2: It's like a crash course in how these corporations, especially
0:58
Speaker 2: when it comes to health, think about their how they
1:00
Speaker 2: want the public to see them.
1:01
Speaker 1: It's all about perception, right, Okay, So this study it
1:04
Speaker 1: dug up two main strategies that Coca Cola is using.
1:07
Speaker 1: The first one revolves around funding, but it's more nuanced
1:10
Speaker 1: than just hey, we're giving money to research. This is
1:13
Speaker 1: about control, right.
1:14
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely. They knew like the public perception, the optics
1:18
Speaker 2: of being seen as this big corporate puppeteer, it wouldn't
1:22
Speaker 2: go over well, right, right, So they took steps to
1:24
Speaker 2: kind of downplay their role as this major major funder
1:29
Speaker 2: of you know, all this research on diet and health.
1:32
Speaker 1: Hmm, interesting, So how did they do that? I mean,
1:35
Speaker 1: the money's got to come from somewhere.
1:36
Speaker 2: Right, So one tactic was actually bringing in additional funders, oh,
1:40
Speaker 2: I see, to try and create this like illusion of
1:43
Speaker 2: you know, diversified support, like it's a whole bunch of
1:46
Speaker 2: people all agreeing.
1:47
Speaker 1: So it's like they wanted to seem like just one voice,
1:50
Speaker 1: you know, in this big chorus of voices, even though
1:52
Speaker 1: they were the ones, like you said, writing the.
1:53
Speaker 2: Biggest checks exactly exactly. And it gets even wilder. They
1:57
Speaker 2: even like debated, you know, what words to use. They
2:00
Speaker 2: talked about using specific language very calculated like gift or
2:04
Speaker 2: unrestricted grant.
2:05
Speaker 1: Oh, instead of just calling it funding.
2:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, like to describe their funding. And they're doing this
2:11
Speaker 2: to minimize any perception that they're, you know, trying to
2:15
Speaker 2: control the research.
2:17
Speaker 1: It just shows how much thought goes into every single word.
2:19
Speaker 2: Right.
2:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, it wasn't just about the money. It was about
2:21
Speaker 1: how that money would be perceived. Clearly they were aware
2:25
Speaker 1: of how the public might interpret their involvement for sure. Okay,
2:29
Speaker 1: so that strategy number one, control the funding, control the message.
2:32
Speaker 1: What about the second strategy?
2:34
Speaker 2: All right, So the second one is all about relationships.
2:37
Speaker 2: They really focused on building up this network of researchers,
2:42
Speaker 2: you know, people they had these close ties with.
2:44
Speaker 1: Oh so it wasn't just about the money. It was
2:46
Speaker 1: about building these connections, you know, cultivating influence over time.
2:50
Speaker 2: You got it? And get this. They called this group
2:53
Speaker 2: of academics their like email family, you know, that's.
2:57
Speaker 1: What they call them, email family. Wow.
2:59
Speaker 2: Yeah. And they didn't stop there. They also tried to
3:02
Speaker 2: connect these researchers with you know, people making.
3:05
Speaker 1: Policy decisions, policy makers.
3:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, policy makers exactly. And they even talked about how
3:10
Speaker 2: to like help advance these researchers careers, provide support for
3:15
Speaker 2: their institutions.
3:17
Speaker 1: They were really in it for the long haul, weren't
3:18
Speaker 1: they it wasn't just about funding one study and helping
3:22
Speaker 1: for the best. It was about cultivating this whole network
3:26
Speaker 1: that could potentially promote a certain viewpoint over time.
3:29
Speaker 2: That's exactly it. They were playing the long game here,
3:32
Speaker 2: and it's a great example of how like corporate influence
3:36
Speaker 2: can operate on all these different levels. It's not just
3:39
Speaker 2: about the funding decisions. It's also about shaping what research
3:42
Speaker 2: gets done. You know, what questions get asked, right, right,
3:45
Speaker 2: And it's about building those relationships with like the key
3:50
Speaker 2: opinion leaders in a field.
3:52
Speaker 1: The people that everyone else listens to.
3:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, and all of this is happening behind the scenes,
3:56
Speaker 2: which makes it so much harder to spot from the outside.
3:59
Speaker 1: It's subtle, but it can be very very effective.
4:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
4:02
Speaker 1: But they didn't stop there, did they. I mean, they
4:03
Speaker 1: took this a step further by actually trying to emphasize
4:06
Speaker 1: certain types of research over others.
4:09
Speaker 2: That's right. Like, for example, the emails show how interested
4:13
Speaker 2: Coca Cola was in research that highlighted the importance of
4:17
Speaker 2: you know, energy balance, Oh way, yeah, calories in calories
4:21
Speaker 2: out right right.
4:22
Speaker 1: The idea that if you eat more calories than you burn, well,
4:25
Speaker 1: guess what you're going to gain weight, right, Okay, so
4:27
Speaker 1: that makes sense on the surface. But what's the advantage
4:30
Speaker 1: for Coca Cola in emphasizing this energy balance concept.
4:33
Speaker 2: Well, think about it. If they shift the focus to
4:36
Speaker 2: energy balance, then they can kind of sidestep the issue
4:40
Speaker 2: of sugar drinks themselves, like suddenly, it's not about the soda,
4:44
Speaker 2: it's about you not exercising enough or making other lifestyle choices.
4:48
Speaker 1: So the way of deflecting attention away from the potential
4:51
Speaker 1: negative impacts of their products clever, right, very clever. Exactly.
4:55
Speaker 1: It's all about framing the issue in a way that
4:57
Speaker 1: benefits them, right. And speaking of framing this energy balance thing,
5:02
Speaker 1: it wasn't just like a general philosophy for them. They
5:04
Speaker 1: actually put it into practice.
5:06
Speaker 2: Oh really, how so?
5:08
Speaker 1: Okay, so remember that whole Global Energy Balance Network thing. Yeah,
5:12
Speaker 1: I think I've heard that GEBN.
5:13
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, GEBN. So they presented this group, you know,
5:18
Speaker 2: to the public as like this independent, you know, scientific organization, right, right,
5:23
Speaker 2: But those emails they tell very very different story.
5:27
Speaker 1: Oh.
5:27
Speaker 2: Really, turns out Coca Cola they were like super involved
5:30
Speaker 2: in creating GEBN, funding it the whole nine yards. They
5:34
Speaker 2: saw this as their chance to like really push that
5:38
Speaker 2: energy balance message, you know, to counter what they called
5:42
Speaker 2: like biased information about sugary drinks.
5:45
Speaker 1: Oh so they were trying to shape the narrative, like
5:47
Speaker 1: we were talking about before. It's like setting up your
5:49
Speaker 1: own think tank, you know, to promote a certain point
5:51
Speaker 1: of view. But did it work? I mean did people
5:54
Speaker 1: buy it?
5:54
Speaker 2: Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it. And it's
5:57
Speaker 2: where things get even juicier. Actually, so people started asking
6:00
Speaker 2: questions right like who's funding GBN? Well, where's all this
6:04
Speaker 2: money coming from? And you know what, Coca Cola they
6:06
Speaker 2: got like really hesitant about, you know, coming clean about
6:10
Speaker 2: their like massive financial support.
6:13
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean wouldn't you If you're trying to
6:15
Speaker 1: create this image of independence.
6:18
Speaker 2: The last thing you want is for people to find
6:19
Speaker 2: out that you're the puppet master behind the scenes.
6:21
Speaker 1: Exactly. It's all about controlling the message, right, maintaining that
6:26
Speaker 1: like you know, facade of oh this is totally independent,
6:30
Speaker 1: objective science.
6:31
Speaker 2: So what happened? Did they actually manage to exert any
6:35
Speaker 2: real influence through this network or did it all just
6:38
Speaker 2: kind of blow up in their faces?
6:39
Speaker 1: You know, they tried, they really did, And there's some
6:43
Speaker 1: like evidence that suggests they wanted to use GEBN to
6:46
Speaker 1: connect with, you know, policymakers and other big wigs in
6:51
Speaker 1: the health world, like we were talking about before, to
6:53
Speaker 1: really try and sway those opinions get to get their
6:56
Speaker 1: message out there exactly. But ultimately GBN they faced a
7:00
Speaker 1: ton of scrutiny, especially you know when those emails came out,
7:03
Speaker 1: and in the end they had to disband, like shut
7:06
Speaker 1: it down completely.
7:07
Speaker 2: Wow, talk about backfiring. It seems like their attempt to
7:10
Speaker 2: like control the narrative actually had the opposite effect. But
7:13
Speaker 2: I can't imagine this was an isolated incident, right, I mean,
7:16
Speaker 2: we're talking about Coca Cola here. Oh, you are absolutely right.
7:19
Speaker 2: This was not a one time thing. The emails they
7:22
Speaker 2: also show how they interacted with like individual researchers, and
7:27
Speaker 2: it went way beyond just you know, handing them a
7:29
Speaker 2: check and saying do some research for us.
7:31
Speaker 1: Oh, like what kind of stuff were we talking about here?
7:34
Speaker 2: So there's documentation of them like offering to connect these
7:39
Speaker 2: academics with you know, policymakers for example. They even like
7:44
Speaker 2: suggested research topics really oh yeah, ones that just happened
7:48
Speaker 2: to you know, align very nicely with Coca Cola's interest.
7:51
Speaker 1: Of course, of course, what a coincidence, right, Yeah, So
7:54
Speaker 1: it wasn't enough to just fund research. They wanted to
7:56
Speaker 1: be involved, you know, to shape the questions that were
7:59
Speaker 1: being asked, the connections that were being made. Did they
8:02
Speaker 1: offer anything else to these researchers, Like what's in it
8:05
Speaker 1: for the researchers besides maybe getting their research funded?
8:07
Speaker 2: Well, there were these discussions about potentially funding like entire
8:11
Speaker 2: academic institutions.
8:13
Speaker 1: Wow.
8:13
Speaker 2: Really yeah, which I mean, let's be real, that creates
8:17
Speaker 2: a huge sense of like obligation.
8:20
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, for sure. It's hard to say no to
8:23
Speaker 1: someone who's paying your bills, even if it's indirectly. It's
8:25
Speaker 1: amazing what you can find out from these internal emails, right,
8:28
Speaker 1: It's like we're getting this like behind the scenes, look
8:30
Speaker 1: at how the sausage gets made, you know. But what
8:32
Speaker 1: stands out to you is the most like revealing thing
8:36
Speaker 1: in all.
8:36
Speaker 2: Of this, you know, for me, it's the lengths to
8:39
Speaker 2: which they went to like really really managed the message,
8:44
Speaker 2: you know. Yeah, like remember that email chain where they
8:46
Speaker 2: were discussing how to respond if someone asked about gbn's funding.
8:51
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, I mean talk about a masterclass in pr.
8:54
Speaker 1: They were ready, weren't they.
8:55
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, like they wanted to have all these other
8:57
Speaker 2: funders lined up, you know, to trot out before they
9:00
Speaker 2: even breathed a word about Coca Cola's involvement. It just
9:03
Speaker 2: shows how aware they were of how that would look.
9:06
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes you wonder what they were so afraid of.
9:08
Speaker 2: Right, And don't even get me started on that whole
9:11
Speaker 2: debate over whether to use the word gift or grant
9:14
Speaker 2: for their contributions.
9:15
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, that was a whole thing, wasn't it, Like.
9:18
Speaker 2: They actually thought that gift sounded like less agenda driven.
9:23
Speaker 2: It just goes to show how much they understood the
9:25
Speaker 2: power of language.
9:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's incredible how much those little choices in warding
9:29
Speaker 1: can really shape how we perceive something. And wasn't there
9:33
Speaker 1: also that whole thing about the spokesperson Q and A.
9:36
Speaker 2: Oh yes, yes, it's the document right, Like they literally
9:39
Speaker 2: had pre written responses to questions that they thought people
9:42
Speaker 2: might ask about Jay Avian.
9:43
Speaker 1: Oh so they were ready for anything.
9:44
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, prepared for every possible scenario.
9:47
Speaker 1: Smart. Yeah, what were some of the like pre written answers?
9:51
Speaker 2: So, for example, one of them said that, like, for
9:53
Speaker 2: legal reasons, they couldn't actually reveal, you know, who was
9:57
Speaker 2: funding them without getting permission like from the donors.
10:00
Speaker 1: Oh interesting.
10:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, they even cited like Colorado state law.
10:04
Speaker 1: But didn't the paper like call them out on that.
10:06
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, they did their homework. Turns out the researchers
10:10
Speaker 2: couldn't find any law in Colorado that would have actually
10:13
Speaker 2: prevented them from disclosing that Coca Cola was a funder.
10:16
Speaker 1: So they were using the law, or at least the
10:18
Speaker 1: appearance of it, as a shield to avoid being transparent.
10:22
Speaker 2: It definitely makes you wonder and it's a good reminder that, like,
10:25
Speaker 2: we're not talking about a couple of people sending numbls here.
10:28
Speaker 2: We're talking about a whole operation, right, Like corporations, they
10:31
Speaker 2: have entire teams of lawyers and pr people whose entire
10:36
Speaker 2: job it is to protect the company's image.
10:39
Speaker 1: Right right, It's their job to make sure that the
10:41
Speaker 1: company looks good no matter what. And they're good at
10:43
Speaker 1: their jobs. I mean, you got to give them that.
10:45
Speaker 1: Were there any other instances where like they were trying
10:49
Speaker 1: to control the narrative?
10:50
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, tons, Like there's this one exchange that's really
10:54
Speaker 2: telling Rona Applebaum. She was a big deal at Coke
10:57
Speaker 2: at the time. She freaked out about a study that
11:00
Speaker 2: challenged that whole energy balance idea. Oh really, Oh yeah,
11:03
Speaker 2: she was like, we need to get ahead of this,
11:05
Speaker 2: you know, like full on damage control mode.
11:08
Speaker 1: Wow. It sounds like they were terrified of anything that
11:10
Speaker 1: might contradict the message they were trying to promote. But
11:13
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't the science you know, on sugary drinks
11:17
Speaker 1: kind of clear at this point?
11:18
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Like there's a very strong scientific consensus that
11:22
Speaker 2: sugary drinks contribute to a whole slew of health problems.
11:26
Speaker 2: But this shows that they were still very much aware
11:29
Speaker 2: of research that could, you know, potentially threaten their bottom
11:33
Speaker 2: line right right. And it's interesting they even use the
11:36
Speaker 2: phrase some intentionally when they talked about those who question
11:39
Speaker 2: the idea of energy.
11:40
Speaker 1: Balance some intentionally.
11:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, almost like they thought there was this like deliberate
11:45
Speaker 2: campaign to undermine them.
11:46
Speaker 1: It's like they were trying to paint themselves as the
11:49
Speaker 1: victim here, even though I mean, come on, they're Coca
11:51
Speaker 1: Cola exactly.
11:52
Speaker 2: But that's how it works though, right, Like if you
11:54
Speaker 2: can create doubt, if you can muddy the waters, enough,
11:57
Speaker 2: it's harder for people to like see clearly to figure
12:00
Speaker 2: out what's true and what's you know, spin.
12:02
Speaker 1: Absolutely, it's classic misdirection. But you know, I want to
12:06
Speaker 1: circle back to those relationships that Coke was building with
12:09
Speaker 1: researchers because I think that's such a crucial piece of
12:12
Speaker 1: this puzzle and we only really scratch the surface.
12:14
Speaker 2: Totally agree. It's something that often gets overlooked. You know.
12:18
Speaker 2: People focus on the funding, which is important, don't get
12:20
Speaker 2: me wrong, But these relationships, these are the invisible threads
12:24
Speaker 2: that really tie everything together.
12:26
Speaker 1: It all comes back to that phrase that email family.
12:29
Speaker 1: It just sounds so, I don't know, so innocent, you know.
12:32
Speaker 2: Right, like a Hallmark movie or something.
12:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm guessing those relationships weren't all like holiday
12:39
Speaker 1: cards and potlucks, right, There had to be some strings attached,
12:42
Speaker 1: oh for sure.
12:43
Speaker 2: I mean the fact that they even use that phrase
12:45
Speaker 2: email family, it's telling, right. It suggests this level of
12:49
Speaker 2: closeness that you just don't get and like a purely
12:52
Speaker 2: transactional relationship, you know, like you were saying before, here's
12:55
Speaker 2: some money, do some research. This is deeper than that,
12:58
Speaker 2: and those kinds of relationships they create the sense of loyalty,
13:02
Speaker 2: of reciprocity, even if it's never explicitly stated, it's.
13:06
Speaker 1: Like an unspoken agreement. We're all friends here, we take
13:08
Speaker 1: care of each other exactly.
13:10
Speaker 2: And Coke, they weren't shy about using those relationships to
13:14
Speaker 2: their advantage.
13:15
Speaker 1: Right, Like that whole thing with a Physical Activity council.
13:17
Speaker 2: Right, yes, remember that, they were like, oh, hey, you're
13:20
Speaker 2: a researcher who's interested in physical activity. Well, we just
13:24
Speaker 2: happen to know some people at the Physical Activity Council.
13:26
Speaker 2: Let us make an introduction.
13:28
Speaker 1: And what's the strategy there? What are they hoping to
13:31
Speaker 1: gain by playing matchmaker?
13:33
Speaker 2: It's all about access and influence, right Like, by connecting
13:37
Speaker 2: these researchers with these big organizations, Coca Cola is getting
13:41
Speaker 2: their foot in the door. They're able to at least
13:43
Speaker 2: indirectly influence the conversation around you know, physical activity and health.
13:49
Speaker 1: So it's it's kind of like they're playing three dimensional chess. Well,
13:52
Speaker 1: everyone else is still stuck on checkers. They're thinking several moves.
13:55
Speaker 2: Ahare exactly, they're playing the long game and they're playing
13:58
Speaker 2: it well. And remember it wasn't just introductions. They offered
14:01
Speaker 2: other kinds of support too, right, right.
14:03
Speaker 1: Like for the researchers' careers and even their institutions, Like
14:06
Speaker 1: they were really invested in.
14:08
Speaker 2: These people totally. Remember when they offered to help develop
14:11
Speaker 2: a whole communications plan for the West Virginia University School
14:14
Speaker 2: of Public Health.
14:15
Speaker 1: Wow, I mean that's a lot of work.
14:17
Speaker 2: That's not something you'd normally associate with a beverage company,
14:20
Speaker 2: is it?
14:20
Speaker 1: Not at all? It's like they're trying to be this
14:22
Speaker 1: silent partner shaping the direction of research and public health
14:26
Speaker 1: messaging in these very subtle but very significant ways. And
14:31
Speaker 1: most people probably have no idea that this is going on.
14:34
Speaker 1: And that's the point, right exactly, And that's what's kind
14:37
Speaker 1: of unsettling about all of this. It makes you wonder,
14:40
Speaker 1: like what else is out there? What other unseen forces
14:44
Speaker 1: are shaping the information we're consuming every day.
14:47
Speaker 2: It's a good question, and it's a good reminder that
14:50
Speaker 2: we can't just passively absorb information, right. We have to
14:53
Speaker 2: be critical thinkers, We have to be skeptical, especially when
14:56
Speaker 2: it comes to know something as important as our health.
15:00
Speaker 2: Always always question the source.
15:02
Speaker 1: Right, consider the motives, who's benefiting from this information exactly?
15:06
Speaker 1: Follow the money, right don't just take things at face value.
15:10
Speaker 1: Dig a little deeper now before we wrap things up.
15:13
Speaker 1: I do want to be fair and mention that this
15:15
Speaker 1: study we've been discussing it did point out some limitations
15:18
Speaker 1: in their research.
15:19
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, for sure, Like every study, there are always
15:22
Speaker 2: going to be those little caveats.
15:23
Speaker 1: Right, right, right, So what should we keep in mind?
15:28
Speaker 2: Well, as juicy as those emails are, they're really just
15:31
Speaker 2: a glimpse into a much bigger, more complicated story. We
15:35
Speaker 2: have to remember this research, it was focused on Coca
15:39
Speaker 2: Cola's interactions with just two public institutions. Okay, so there's
15:43
Speaker 2: a whole lot that we don't see here. Who knows
15:47
Speaker 2: what kind of similar activity might be happening with other institutions, right.
15:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, It's like we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
15:52
Speaker 1: There's a whole lot more going on beneath.
15:54
Speaker 2: The surface, exactly. And remember we're talking about emails specifically.
15:59
Speaker 2: There could be other communications like internal memos, discussions, you know,
16:04
Speaker 2: phone calls even who knows that weren't included in this.
16:06
Speaker 1: Analysis, right because they weren't accessible.
16:08
Speaker 2: Right exactly. So as insightful as this research is and
16:12
Speaker 2: it is, we're only getting a partial view, you know.
16:15
Speaker 1: Right right, a snapshot in time. But even with those limitations,
16:19
Speaker 1: I think this study raises some really important questions about
16:22
Speaker 1: you know, where our information comes from, how it's shaped,
16:25
Speaker 1: and who's trying to influence our choices.
16:27
Speaker 2: I totally agree it's anything it should make us even
16:30
Speaker 2: more curious, more determined to find out the truth.
16:33
Speaker 1: Well said, well, thank you so much for taking this
16:35
Speaker 1: deep dive with us. Always a pleasure to chat.
16:38
Speaker 2: With you, always great to be here, and.
16:40
Speaker 1: To our listeners, we hope this episode has given you
16:43
Speaker 1: plenty to think about and maybe even sparked some healthy skepticism.
16:47
Speaker 1: Remember there's always more beneath the surface. Until next time,
16:51
Speaker 1: stay curious,