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.