03 December 2025- (Bloomberg Opinion) — “S–t for f–king poor people” is not the tagline you want people associating with your brand.
But that’s the position Campbell’s Co. finds itself in after executive Martin Bally was recorded allegedly badmouthing the company’s products, along with calling its Indian employees “idiots” and claiming its soup contains “bioengineered meat.”
The recording was leaked by Robert Garza, a former Campbell’s cybersecurity analyst, in connection with a lawsuit he filed against the company and Bally, claiming he was fired not long after reporting the comments to his boss and saying he planned to tell HR:
“We have s–t for f–king poor people. Who buys our s–t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f–k’s in it. Bioengineered meat – I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3-D printer.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Campbell’s did the right thing once the recording came to light. The company canned Bally after determining that the voice on the recording was indeed his, and it put out a statement saying the comments were “vulgar, offensive and false” and do not “reflect our values and the culture of our company.”
But examining the ways Campbell’s has continued to respond to the fiasco offers some clues as to how the company might have ended up in this position.
Sign No.1 is the following comment from a spokesperson: “Keep in mind, the alleged comments heard on the audio were made by a person in IT, who has nothing to do with how we make our food.”
This is not the defense that Campbell’s thinks it is. The suggestion here is that since Bally worked in information security, not food, he doesn’t have a full understanding of how the soup gets made. But what’s really being said is that not everyone at the company is expected to live the company’s values or understand what it does – that it’s okay to stick to your narrow lane and remove yourself from the organization’s broader mission.
It should go without saying that if an employee doesn’t respect or understand the brand, they don’t belong at the company – irrespective of how good they are at information security or any other function. (Although the leaked recording also raises some questions about Bally’s adeptness in his supposed area of expertise.)
Bally’s rant is offensive in two ways – the disparagement of the food, and the disparagement of Campbell’s customers and employees. It’s telling which one Campbell’s has spent more time defending. It put out a press release on “the facts about our chicken,” including an FAQ about its ingredients that spelled out that it does not use lab-grown, artificial, or bioengineered meat in its products. It also issued a statement from its chicken supplier and a video featuring its CEO contesting the “false and absolutely ridiculous” claims about its food.
The company has not invested equal energy in defending its workers or low-income customers. “This reveals the unspoken attitudes of corporate executives toward working people,” says Daniel Sidorick, a lecturer in labor studies at Rutgers University who has studied Campbell’s.
This would be the right moment for Campbell’s to embrace lower-income customers by explicitly saying that it’s proud it can provide a product to people who are struggling. It could point back to its greatest contribution to soup innovation, if there’s even such a thing: concentrating and condensing. Removing water from its products meant reducing packaging and shipping costs, allowing the company to sell a can for a dime – a price it maintained for years as Campbell’s soup became an affordable pantry staple.
It could have given the same amount of airtime to all this as it did to 3D-printed chickens. And the timing for such a message couldn’t have been better: The crisis unfolded during Thanksgiving week, when consumers were stalking the supermarket aisles for a can of gravy or cream of mushroom soup for their green bean casseroles. It would have especially resonated with lower-income shoppers who are feeling squeezed in this moment.
But if Campbell’s employees don’t hear or buy this messaging, it can’t expect its customers to either. Walmart Inc. is far from a perfect company, but every employee there can rattle off its mission of “Save Money. Live Better.” “S–t for f–king poor people” may certainly be just as memorable a slogan, but it’s not going to sell any soup.
This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Beth Kowitt is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering corporate America. She was previously a senior writer and editor at Fortune Magazine.
(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and Parikh Worldwide Media does not officially endorse, and is not responsible or liable for them)