An Apple a Day

Steve Jobs' own ignorance and failure to see the implications of his not divulging information on his health was definitely suggestive of a potential if not full-on crisis. Obviously Jobs' appearance at Apple when its was losing significantly in the market showed that consumers held him in high confidence. His lack of concern for these same consumers led the brand to suffer because of his unnecessary secrecy. A company should always be willing to give a report about the state of its CEO, the person in charge of making sure the company is handling business in the best fashion. If a company's CEO falls ill, that presents numerous questions about the future of the company's leadership. Steve Jobs apparently didn't think this to be important information to his various publics and his reputation suffered. I would have advised Jobs to be frank with his publics especially his shareholders. He could easily have explained his ailment situation while still maintaining confidence in the Apple brand. By not speaking, Jobs was himself sending out a message. And the consumers listening heard loud and clear that Steve Jobs cared more about his ego than informing the people around him.

The Way the Cookie Crumbles

Wild Freeborn's ethical thoughts were probably that Girl Scout cookie sales were what would get the troop to camp, no matter how they were sold. She probably thought it was an ingenious idea to use a personal video of herself to magnify the power of cookie selling far beyond that of a few hundred door knocks. Her intentions were most likely not to try to flout the tradition of Girl Scout cookie selling, it was just to raise money for her troop. However, the Girl Scouts most likely were unhappy with the idea of one Girl Scout being able to unfairly surpass other troops who kept to traditional methods of selling. They probably also felt that Freeborn would be sparking a dangerous trend of other Girl Scouts competing to see who can create the most outlandish video to sell cookies, which has a slightly exploitative connotation. I don't think the Girl Scouts should have come down so harshly on one of its own members. After all, it wasn't like she was making a profit of her own. The money she was raising was for her entire troop to go to scout camp. I think the Girl Scouts should have banned future use of the Internet to sell cookies but should have let Wild raise enough money for her troop to go to camp.

The Last Laugh

With the serious and grave publicity stunt that Cartoon Network had decided to pull in order to promote Aqua Teen Hunger Force, I felt that their course of action in rectifying the situation was appropriate. Instead of trying to displace responsibility or burying their heads in the sand, Cartoon Network took full responsibility for its actions and the head of Cartoon Network understood the consequences when announcing he felt it best if he stepped down. Cartoon Network recognized the legal implications of their actions and also anticipated the public fallout after they were discovered. Although many viewers of Cartoon Network would not have felt the incident was a reason to stop watching the network, CN still took the time to make sure that their public understood how apologetic they were and that the situation was now under control. Cartoon Network for sure will understand now the importance of keeping advertising legal and not misleading.

Behind Every Bad Politican

Had I been Ron Blagojevich's PR specialist, I would have advised him to not respond to Roland Burris' appointment as Senate due to his already tense relationship with his fellow Democratic senators. The amount of furor that would abound after his speaking on or confirming Roland Burris' election would be detrimental to his success in disproving the rumors of him selling the U.S. Senate seat especially after other senators had warned him of his actions. While his trial was pending, I would have advise Blago not to make any public statements regarding the case or to make any public statements about his character or the character of Roland Burris. I would have advised him to step down from promoting Burris and to focus more attention on minimizing media spotlight and disproving the rumors. His insistence in the matter was his downfall  because his insistence on pressing Burris as Senator caused others to believe that he may well have had a hand in getting Burris the seat.

Hot Pockets in the Hot Seat

I agree with Porter Novelli on defending the press release. The release did not attempt to make an insensitive interjection of the product in regards to 9/11 nor did it make any comment on whether or not the situation was grave. The press release simply acknowledged that the company understood the magnitude of the event and was trying to help people as they returned to living their lives. I don't think that this makes Hot Pockets an item that is trying to brush off the effects of a terrorist attack nor is it trying to determine why consumers bu Hot Pockets. It would not be common sense for Porter Novelli to believe that a terrorist attack could possibly make consumers vulnerable to a Hot Pockets PR pitch. Rather, Porter Novelli simply wanted to both make a public statement about the nature of the recent events and also encourage new customers of the brand to find Hot Pockets a continually delicious home food.

Throwing the Book at Him

In the case of Zell's new handbook, his insistence on giving employees a chance to dispute certain rules does allow for democracy in the workplace which improves employee relations. However, his lack of regard for the quality of the work from his employees or his own interest in the company's output indicated a disregard for employee relations in the company. His myopic view of his employees only as moneymakers caused the photographer to be offended that Zell had no interest in the content made by employees. Also, it is most likely that employees felt resentment towards Zell at the idea of being used for his personal gain rather than giving the journalists opportunities to display their work and create objective, truthful, and informative news content. Also, the ethical boundaries of journalism were crossed when Zell stated he only cared about profits. Journalism should seek to find and report news as well as act for the good of the people they serve not to exploit them for their money. Zell's comment certainly slashed an ounce of integrity that he had built up with his employees.

Tragedy in Myanmar

The Myanmar junta's attempts to influence pick opinion were bot extremely dangerous and unethical. Their inability to look beyond politic suspicions to assist the welfare of the country's people cost many their lives. Their subsequent attempts at creating the farce that they were the ones providing aid damaged diplomatic relations and also community relations. China understood that responding quickly to the earthquake was important be aide the country was under a microscope for the Olympics. To fail to do so would incite a PR disaster that China would not be able to handle. The public opinion of China from other countries would have dropped significantly damaging future international relations. China, being the major power player that it is, has a great deal of self-consciousness when it comes to PR. China's history of the use of propaganda and control of messages within the country elude to the fact that China doesn't like when messages are being fabricated about the country without China's input.

Thongs and PR

Dov Charney's questionable behavior wi no doubt have an impact on employee relations. However, I don't believe that his product will be as affected. The internal affairs of American Apparel has some but lite influence on the way consumers view the brand. American Apparel's branding ability far exceeds its public relations ability. As AA's PR rep, I would recommend that Charney tone down his outlandish activities due to the inevitability of a sexual harassment lawsuit that he may not win. His insistence on activities that are sexual in nature can have a dangerous impact on his employee relations and also how consumers may perceive his brand on the future. However, if American Apparel does elicit a statement warning prospective workers of these situations and they continue to work there, then it is the responsibility of the employee to determine whether or not working their is in line with their ethical interests.

Too Good to Be True

The harsh response of the White House to the faux press conference by FEMA was very warranted and appropriate. A sensitive situation such as a natural disaster is far too important to be played down by a fake press conference. Preparing newsmakers for interviews is not a practice that a government agency should engage in frequently. Not allowing re journalists to ask pertinent questions raises suspicion among members on society and doesn't engender trust. PR reps posing as journalists leads to incorrect, faulty news being reported incorrectly. PR reps should work with the media to protect and promote their clients rather than try to pose as them. This situation exhibits a direct ethical violation in reporting accurate and truthful news. The fact that FEMA failed to contact enough journalists to attend is an example of their inattention to details the public found important. Their lack of common sense in this situation created a nasty PR crisis that implicates more parties than just FEMA themselves.

On His Case

In the case of Holmes' unsavory racial comments, the University should not award him nor allow him to speak. The comments that Holmes made was in reference to his scientific work and whether or not he believes them, he grounded them in his research and in a science periodical. I would explain that although Holmes has made great gains in the area of science and is very ingenious, his racial comments represent a scientific error that cannot be condoned by awarding him a title that should be given to someone more proficient in the area of scientific research. An award presented to someone signifies that a person is leading others through their progressive thinking. To award an honor to a man whose antiquated ideas still managed to slip his tongue indicates that he has not fully done that yet. Also to make such a comment clearly not rooted in scientific fact indicates his failure to think objectively and rationally.

It's a Fact He's a Fake

I would have advised Giuliani that the most important aspect of citing facts in PR usually is most effective when external sources are cited. Giuliani's failure to include external sources led others to scrutinize his words which led to his resignation. He also should have anticipated others looking to check into his claims because he was the one making them. His erroneous statements led people to believe he was lying which caused his loss in the court of public opinon. The Giuliani experience indicates that constituents are not mindless idiots. When a politician makes a claim and asserts it to be fact, people now with the Internet are going to work to prove it wrong or right. Giuliani's facts lost him a battle in the court of public opinion and set a precedent that would be hard to overcome in the future. Giuliani should have understood that any politician who is using objective facts to solidify his position in a campaign should do so mindful of the scrutiny that is sure to come from constituents and opponents alike.

The Topping on the Crust

I think that Domino's responded quicy and appropriately to the YouTube incident but did not anticipate the surrounding PR shockwaves that would occur as a result. Domino's was right in engaging the blog one on one but it should have utized social media as a response to the blog as well rather than forgoing it entirely. Social media has become the vehicle that gets unreported news and people often look to it more frequently than actual news. I think that the long-term effects of the incident will not be so long term. Social media has a tendency to forget quickly and people will for the next Internet oddity. I think that it would be extremely wise for Domino's not to underestimate the power of social networking in the future and not to underestimate the levels of damage that something as small as a YouTube video can incur on an entire franchise.

Opportunity Knocks

er

Had I been Senator Craig's PR advisor, I would most certainly have made him aware that the opportunity for him to get out of the PR crisis he created for himself unscathed lied in his resigning. What Senator Craig failed to realize is that he not only didn't win in the court of law, he also lost in several courts of opinion: his colleagues, his administration, and his constituents. By pleading guilty of his illicit actions to a public audience, Craig crystallized the opinion of all of those watching into believing that he was a sexual deviant not fit to serve a people as senator. By quietly dismissing himself with whatever dignity he had left, he would have saved himself from a world of PR hurt. The PR arguments were that a man who stands and delivers a public address to an audience and then then recants his words must either be lying or have something to hide. The legal arguments in Craig recanting his statement is that the evidence for his crime stood. His opinion or his words held no weight in court especially with the police officer who was involved.

A Dish Best Served Cold

Add caption

Scott McClellan's actions taken after his dismissal from the White House represents a serious ethical breach of trust with the government and also his previous employer. His disregard for the reputation and credibility of others caused him to be labeled as untrustworthy and incapable of respecting privacy. His lack of advocacy for his former employers, whether good relations or bad overrides the importance of telling any sordid truth about the U.S. government. His lack of trying to rectify the situation while he was in the White House was a clear indicator of his vendetta against former President Bush and not a desire to inform the public about the activities of the U.S. government. PR ethical considerations that come into play with the McClellan case are the legalities of the information McClellan distributed, the loyalty to the government, the fairness of giving out information without the opposing party knowing, and his personal advocacy.

Penned In Dishonesty

In the case of Mark Penn's conflict of interest, his first move should have been to understand fully all of the policies that Hillary Clinton was supporting and to also understand the ethical stances of his public relations firm. His second move should have been to communicate those stance before accepting the role of chief advisor for Clinton's campaign. This lapse in judgement no doubt severed the credibility that Clinton shared for Penn and unfortunately cause an avoidable political rift between Clinton and Penn's employer. This illustrates the danger of a PR firm endorsing a political candidate; future clients who witnessed Mark Penn's  fiasco will be less likely to look to him or his company for their services. Also, clients whose interests may not be aligned with a particular candidate will be less likely to continue business with a firm whether that firm has performed consistently well or not.

Remember The Times

The New York Times' discounting of the ad by MoveOn was clearly an egregious communications mistake. A newspaper paragon like the Times should have been able to discern the PR impact that indirect advocacy for a group like MoveOn could possibly have. Now conservative and moderate readers of the Times will judge its articles with much more bias and they will become a target for right-wing institution-bashing. The New York Times should not have tried to cover up its endorsement of MoveOn by citing a salesman error, they simply should have restated their condition as a newspaper whose attention is to providing the facts and allowance of free speech. Then they could charge for the difference as usual. Now their reputation is tarnished because of their inability to take responsibility for their actions.

An Apple a Day Keeps Unhappy Customers Away

Apple's decision to lower its prices only two months after the release of the iPhone was most likely a strategic communications ploy to move the iPhone out of the hands of the early adopters that would snatch it up just have the latest new touch-screen phone into the hands of more wallet-conscious consumers. Unfortunately Apple failed to take into account the recent events of the time into its communication strategy and it ended up beginning the start of a pattern it still performs today, albeit more covertly. Apple didn't realize that once consumers got word that their self-interest was involved in the lowering of the iPhone prices, they were none too happy at being at Apple's mercy with their products. However, Steve Jobs' excellent PR move to give customers who had already bought the phone at full price a $100 credit did well to restore customer satisfaction. Apple's advertising and previous PR strategies of communicating their message of dedication to customer service was received well by the public. Whether or not Apple's move was in the interest of their customers doesn't matter because they will still believe that should they ever become disgruntled again, they know how to get the ball rolling at Apple.

Hope For The Pope?

I think that Pope Benedict XVI definitely did well in removing himself from his well-known private persona and handling the hostile public relations atmosphere that he was facing at the start of his trip to the United States. The United States is a historically Protestant-minded country and so many citizens have absolutely no idea of the Pope's real significance or of the Roman Catholic Church's agenda. Visiting various archdioceses and organizing multiple press conferences might allow the Pope to connect with the American people while still being surrounded by supporters. Perhaps a bold move but one that would be appreciated is simply having the people ask him questions personally and for Pope Benedict to answer them candidly. The downside of the US trip is that people who previously knew about the Church allegations were probably more likely to feel resentment towards the Church for trying to put on a good face. They probably felt Pope Benedict arrived out of obligation, or in layman's terms, a CYA agenda. Also, it could also bring the scandals to the attention of people who were previously unaware, making the entire trip counterproductive.

You Get Fleas

It's no surprise that Dog The Bounty Hunter received an enormous backlash at the inane racist comments he made back in 2007 when in a caustic conversation with his son he insulted his black girlfriend. So when the supporters and more importantly the advertisers that endorsed his eponymous show began backing out, so did the network, A&E. In light of being a black American myself, I will say that perhaps his comments were derogatory and his name fittingly suggests that he does have the mind of a canine, A&E probably would have fared better with the public if they had aired an episode that allowed Dog to address his concerns or opinions with his son as well as apologize for his comments. A&E is a fool if they think the public is just really going to "forget". Celebrities are losing favor with their public as at an even faster rate than before simply because of the powerful revealing light of social media. Nothing anyone says, does, writes, nowhere anyone goes, no matter who anyone tries to be, the speed at which information travels now hits the people before those celebrities even have a chance to try to cover it up. Then again, no matter what race we are, we all have said things about other races that are clearly tinged with our individual biases. Whether it's thinking all Black people eat chicken, all white people must have money, all hispanics are gardeners, or all asians do nails, we understand that these things aren't true. Often the people who cry "racist" aren't the people being talked about but the people who are afraid of what others will think of them.  I don't think A&E should have used the strategy they did to take him back, but at the same time they certainly should put a muzzle on this Dog.