You can read the whole story over at Brand Republic and on the PR media blog In summary, it seems an ex-employee managed to video himself doing some disgusting things inside an Asda supermarket store and they ended-up on YouTube. Those videos have been subsequently removed. Videos apparently included him licking raw chicken, urinating in the store and cutting holes in employee's clothing.

Why anyone would behave this way or indeed want it videoed is beyond me, but anyway, back to the story. The official company response was quick. But, let's be honest- some will wonder if there are wider employee issues inside the company. Dominic Burch, head of corporate comms and new media at Asda, informed the PR Media Blog: "There was a chance people would think this was still happening in that store or that we'd turned a blind eye at the time it happened."

Employees at the store saw the videos and were shocked. From the store itself- a fast video response from employees. Unscripted, honest and credible. Now, You may not be able to have employees respond in every crisis situation and in some cases it might not be the right thing to do- but in this specific case, consider the standard video response: an Asda Executive reading from a prepared script- I'm sure equally shocked and disgusted and saying so- trying to reassure customers this is an isolated incident and so on. But which approach has more impact? Which is more credible?

Well done Asda!