PREP 17- Kobe's Nimble Public Relations Once Again Saves the Day

Bryant has wonderful PR people. It was an aggressive strategy that stayed in front of the news and drama that was very effective. They identified the problem, proposed a solution, identified its effects, ad then took proper action. I think him working with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation was a good move to. He said it would, "bring awareness and turn this into a positive." Classic spinning of the situation.

I think Bryant got lucky. If the news had gotten wind and went out of control before he called his own press conference, his sponsors would have backed out and neglected him. However, he called it first and took responsibility. As his sponsor, I would have weighed the potential lash-back. In the end, I would have stayed with him if he agreed to remain active in the issues at hand.

If I was Bryant's advisor, I would have told him to take the fine like a man. If that was the only punishment he was getting, it's more like a slap on the wrist. In the end, everyone would be settled: NBA took action and acted equally unbiased, Kobe maintained fans and sponsors, and the public forgave him. The crisis, while it will never truly go away if the internet lives, it is pushed under the rug.

PREP 16- Shilling the Morning Joe

This interview was a win for Starbucks and Schultz but I won't say it was a loss for MSNBC. The interview never mentioned the agreement they have with each other, despite the publics want for full disclosure. But I agree with MSNBC's decision to not have aggressively asked it or discussed it. I think they handled it well and were not bullied. "Our regular viewers are well aware that Morning Joe is 'Brewed by Starbucks.'"

From a Journalism standpoint, the interview sounds dull and not hard hitting. So while it wouldn't have been a loss for either side, both sides lacked a wow and interest factor. Schultz should have been prepared for some hard hitting questions or at least bringing them to the table. However, I can't blame him for just riding the calm wave. Either way, I agree that it was good PR to have signed with MSNBC and have their show 'Brewed by Starbucks.' I bet it did bring in the target market they wanted to appeal to. I wouldn't call this a bump in a road, more like a lack of a bump in the road.

PREP 15- Bad Taste Tweet Release

How would I have advised James Taranto to word his tweet about the Colorado massacre? It is kind of a loaded question. Like the text suggests, sometimes tweeting or a short news release will not be sufficient. In this case, that was true. I would have suggested that Taranto, first and foremost, avoided tweeting because it can be translated differently by people. In this case, his tweet was interpreted as insensitive and unsympathetic to the tragedy. Tweets lack clarity and precision.

PREP 14- Kenneth Cole's Egyptian "Twagedy"

Reputation is everything for a company. It can make or break it. Kenneth Cole was trying to appeal to humor when he tweeted about Cairo. I can personally appreciate his effort(s); however, it was, as he said, poorly timed and simply inappropriate. I think he handled it well though as he released his apology immediately 2 hours after.

Despite whether you argue about the accurateness of humor, the point is that it offended people. Let me take a unpopular approach and get creative:

What if KC ran with his original tweet and made it sound like he was bringing attention to the social issues abroad. For example, what if he had started a campaign to bring awareness and the tweet was his beginning to get people talking. If he did a campaign like donating 5% of sales to benefit the families effected abroad, he could shame some of the people for harassing him. Like, what if it was his plan all along? Maybe, maybe.

Despite if it would work, I like to know that there are other options outside of the box. But I still think he handled it well.

PREP 13- Playing "Chicken" with Gay Marriage

Often I feel like the American people hold others to a double standard. Companies are encouraged to speak opinions that would be deemed favorable and profitable, despite honesty. However, when you voice an honest opinion that could be decidedly unfavorable or disagreeable, it's discouraged. So as PR professionals, we hold ourselves to a code that encourages honesty but yet wants the publics favor. We are suddenly straddling a line of our ethics and our job.

Yes, I think the CEO was wise in letting his views known. However, I disagree with the questions the book asks. I do not believe he shunned gay marriage. He said specifically that he supports the Bible-written union of man and wife, nothing negative. It almost seems carefully worded to not be aggressive.

Chick-Fil-A is built on Christian values, that is just how it is. If I had been advising Mr. Cathy, I would have encouraged him to remain honest, yet empathetic and sensitive to others opinions. Maybe wording like, "I respect that others may have differing opinions and I reserve that right to the individual. But I hope you all can respect the core values that I built my company on."

I see PR as a volleyball game. Your spin or communication is you setting the ball over the net. Once it's in their court, you are in the clear with the right words and they have to be even more careful to respond. This case was not bad PR for Chick-Fil-A. They did not say they do not support gay marriage, they just said they support marriage of man and wife. They did not say for supporters to come to the stores that one day, Mike Huckabee did.

Ultimately, we all have values and we should not have to change those for the sake of reputation. Mr. Cathy still has a strong company and unfortunately their PR professional could not handle it.

PREP 12- "Remotely piloted vehicles"

The Public Affairs professional(s) in charge of this incident were right to take an aggressive approach to inform the public of the positives of the use of drones. First step, changing the term used. Toscano acknowledged the negative context with the word 'drone' and how other terms like 'remotely piloted vehicles' were more accurate. However, while his campaign was rightful to be aggressive in intensity, it lacked an emotional appeal and sympathy. He was toughly candid and did not do anything to diminish the deaths of the civilians and families affected. He kind of made it sound like deaths were unavoidable and unfortunate, like too bad, so sad. This is not good relations with the public. He should have expressed the regret for the people affected and then moved into his intense movement to contradict the bad press. Pros of these vehicles: technological advancements, safety and backup to military men and women, humanitarian potential, etc. Accidents do happen and while Toscano used the car crashes example (car crashes kill 35,000 people a year) to show the bigger harms out there, he may cause people to be defensive. I feel like emotional tiptoeing is a necessity.

On a more present news story, drones are becoming a huge potential part of our future. Amazon is wanting to use them to deliver packages immediately. Obviously, companies are not afraid to take on this technological advance despite its negative past.

PREP 11-I Hate You, I'm Leaving, Where's my Check?

"The poisonous pen letter" by Smith threw the company, Goldman Sachs, into the spotlight. Again more so with Levin yelling at Blankfein. But ethically? It is suspicious and shady that he went to the public on his last day with his issues. Not only does it reflect the idea that he doesn't care about the actual standards of his work place that he would try to change it or influence it while he's there, but it also shows that he is unprofessional. While it is a well-written letter, to say the least, it is definitely passive aggressive. I think the company handled it well and called it by its appropriate name. They acknowledged the issue and "expressed their shock and disappointment" but also the tardiness of the complaint. In a show of good faith, however, they said they would work to improve the internal climate. I think they made a good move changing their PR person too, especially with the fact that the new professional is well-liked.

Smith- what was holding you back during your time with the company? Why didn't you try to change these standards then? He refused to discuss more on the subject beside his general pen letter, besides the fact that he was writing a 'tell-all'. But the real question is whether his letter forced more people to speak out or if it disrupted the reputation in general with its employees and clientele.