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.

PREP 10 Is this like those Febreeze commercials?

Newspapers and media outlets are one thing, but bloggers are a whole different ball game. They are not held to the same standards of ethics or disclosure as we are. They are not held to objectivity as we are, they can tell their opinions as they see fit. If I were Ketchum, I would have seriously warned caution upon ConAgra.

By hiding their true motives, ConAgra was focusing on the tool itself rather than the overall picture. In the book, a veteran blogger suggests "organizations need to zero in on 'the principles behind social media that make it work, like participating in a larger community and not controlling the conversation.'" This would have been definitely possible for ConAgra to do. Ketchum should have suggested, after its cautionary statement, to use full disclosure on the invitation, asking them to participate in a food study regarding ConAgra products. They should have been doing PR before they even sent out the invite. They should have made sure the bloggers didn't feel pressured to write postively or that they were coerced. If ConAgra wanted to continue down the rabbit hole of working with bloggers, they needed to make the bloggers happy. The bloggers were the public during this, and similarly, they betrayed their trust and in return, the publics.

PREP 9 Someone's trash is another man's treasure...

In some ways, Andrea Mitchell told the truth in her report; however, she omitted some telling information from it that completely changed the context. So, how do we, as journalists or PR professionals, determine what is the truth and what needs to be told? A PR professional obviously has a preference, but the journalist does too. Do we leave it all to relationship building and become so connected with the journalist they will tell our story how we want it to be told? My truth could be someone else' half-truth. Our cardinal rule is to not lie, but that brings in so much more.

Ultimately, Mitchell spun her story wrongly and should have presented it as unedited. I am curious to how this issue was confronted besides "running for the hills" when the dirt was uncovered. MSNBC is obviously at fault because they are the parent, but they could give themselves some slack due to Mitchell, in some form, being their spokesperson. She could take the wrap for her story. Nonetheless, they are both due some good PR because they ruined their reputation with the Romney company. The public I doubt would care too much, but journalists need PR professionals as much as we need journalists. They may not be getting that new exclusive anymore. Wawa, on the other hand, got some free PR out of it and seemed to come out nicely. The whole world knows they have some of-the-day equipment and great service. Cheers to you Wawa.

PREP 8: I'm a little sleepy right now...

Public Relations wise, Sleepy's definitely succeeded by distributing the sleeping research. Why wouldn't you? If at the very least, it could be asked how accurate it was, but it was a sampling. How accurate are any surveys? This surprisingly was a great move for them. It got people considering how much sleep they were getting and in turn how much sleep they wish they were getting.

If I were the New York Times PR person, I would suggest they do not run the research. It potentially could not be taken seriously, despite the fact that they analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey. So I would give it to Sleepy's and let them take advantage of the research, but I wouldn't suggest for the NY Times to publish the data. Maybe a third-party could, but not the main branch.

"Dancing with the Devil" PREP 7

I have a huge objection to Nancy Grace's techniques and voiced opinions. However, PR is not what my opinion is-it is the publics perception. So I will describe how Grace's voiced opinions go against journalistic ethics and lawful ethics.

Based on the cases given in the reading, she propagandizes court cases. She goes around the rulings of the courts and will continue trying to persecute people based off her own opinions. So is this just gossip or a "personality trait?" Some would say its her trademark for her shows and participations in the media. But it goes beyond that. Despite her being a media figure, she constantly goes against the ethical bounds of her position. I wonder how she has not been subject to libel or slander. It would be easy to provide to a court the requirements needed to be taken serious:

1. The falsehood was communicated through print, broadcast, or other electronic means.
2. The person who is the subject of the falsehood was identified or easily identifiable.
3. The identified person has suffered injury- in the form of monetary losses, reputational loss, or mental suffering.

So how has she gone so far without being forced off the air? Is her holdings just too strong or her connection with CNN too concrete? Is she just using her right to freedom of speech of the "publics right to know?"

Furthermore, while she is on the air, does she have to be held to the Journalism Code of Ethics? It is something we decide to live by. However, it is very similar to any lawful code of ethics. She is a media head so why are we not demanding she live by those standards? Grace's PR is miserable. If she were to be held accountable to the same standards of journalism, the publics perception of her would increase positively. However, against what CNN wants, it would bring down their ratings because people watch her because of her reprehensible attitude. I stand by the idea that she should not be the exception. She is constantly pushing the line of ethics and, indeed, dancing with the Devil.

PREP 6

Scott McClellan's tell-all book was more hurtful to his own reputation than it was to Bush's. As secretary, his job was to aid Bush's office and in a PR position, speak up if necessary. Instead, he was allegedly a lamb in a pin of wolves. By not performing his role and being visibly coddled by Bush, whatever he said after the fact discredits his entire office. Even his statements seemed to be completely biased opinions. McClellan failed both ethical responsibilities: both to his boss and to the public.

Even if the public were concerned about the ethics regarding Bush, like his relying "on propaganda to sell the Iraq War," the no-factual backing of McClellan's gossip is just that- gossip.

PREP 5

A Publicity Tie too Far

Backcheck stretched the line of ethics with its release. It used the case of Canada's "body parts killer," suggesting it could have been avoided if the landlord of the killers apartment had been using its services/product. Naturally, the Canadian public didn't react well, and with good reason. It was not ethical and created a negative connotation to its product. Back check used these terrible circumstances to attempt to further its on product. Imagine the victim's family. Not a good story to have used.

Fleishman-Hillard worked well. The president, John Blyth, issued an apology for Backcheck. As a Public Relations manager, we have the right and obligation to speak up and manage honestly. Like Warren Buffet said, "We can afford to lose money-even a lot of money. But we cannot afford to lose reputation- even a shred of reputation."

Occupy...but what exactly? PREP4

We all heard about Occupy Wallstreet and its effects on the area in Manhattan. I can honestly say, however, that none of it was positive from what I remember. So was it successful in its movement? I don't think so. Occupy started off with a huge potential to achieve something. They were bringing attention to a problem in the government and ecconomic figureheads, but the process on which they took hurt them more than helped them. They negatively effected the merchants and local salespeople who they were indirectly saying they were trying to help, engaged in criminal activities, and had terrible or questionable hygiene. This was meant to be a social movement that would spread on its own, however, you need the public and the publics opinion of you to be successful. They failed at that and so ultimately I say the movement failed.

If I was there PR person, I would have a list of objectives to be carried out before, during and after the occupation of Wallstreet.
1. Communicate to all local merchants and express our respect of them and their businesses, promising to stay out of their way as much as possible.
2. Establish that this is a respectable campaign, and therefore will be treated as such. All members participating should be positive and respectful to the surroundings, people around, and eachother.
3. Have an established leader that would oversee publicly.
4. Rent porta-potties for the area so hygiene could be maintained. Through donations have samples of deodorant, toothpaste and sprays for participators to use.
5. Have clean-up crews available to maintain the area.
6. Hire Occupiers to work as security for the Occupation and keep all occupiers in line.
7. Make sure there is an established message that is consistent and everyone is familiar with it (use social media, posters, etc.)

Ghandi and other figureheads spearheading movements weren't successful because of aggression or scare-tactics. They won over the public because they appealed to the public more. Goal for Occupy: Win over public, win the movement.

Prep3- Nicknames are all fun and good until they're not

Unfortunately, Beef Products, Inc. was a victim of a prime example of how a successful business can be taken down in nanoseconds by one word. This is a case of semantics. USDA meat inspector, Gerald Zirnstein, nicknamed the meat filler "pink slime" because of its appearance. It was merely a nickname that had no negative attitudes behind it. But the woman who blogged about it brought down decades of success and no issues by reshaping the harmless meaning of the nickname into something tragic and concerning. In PR terms, she spinned it. While it sucks for the business, this happens all the time and honestly should have been prepared for. If I was working for Beef Products, Inc., I would take the approach that Panera Bread has been taking since news of their foods not being fresh came out. The negative connotation needs to be re-spun and then they need to provide a "full disclosure" method of their products, like, "Here is what is in our products, this is what it does, this is why it's not harmful and we care about your health."
Nonetheless, I would advise Beef Products to prepare for the worst.

Atleast He Tried...PREP2

So Harold Burson was caught indirectly trying to sabotage Google for his client, Facebook. Did it fail? Yes. Was it a good shot? Sure. But was it the best avenue he could've taken while representing Facebook? Probably not.

Look at it this way, Facebook was concerned about Google's new "Social Circle" feature, which is totally understandable, it could potentially effect sales. So Burson sent two representatives out to spread the word about the deficits of the Google product. What got the suspicion going was when Burson refused to reveal his client; nonetheless, insulting the bloggers. USA Today released an incriminating story highlighting the attempt of a smear campaign and Facebook quickly disjointed itself from Burson's company saying they had no intention of a smear campaign.

All the while, Google is chilling to the side not commenting on the issue but reporting that they are aware of the allegations, they are just focused on promoting "new products". Well played Google, well played.

Burson should've tried appealing to the masses in a non-negative way. Smear campaigns never end well. Honestly, Facebook's marketing team should've been running in third gear trying to promote why it's better and giving something new. In turn, Burson could've just piggy-backed off of that and planned a 'revitalization' event for Facebook, explaining why Facebook is the best promoting its services. Burson promotes his marketing-oriented PR that is supposed "to help clients sell their goods and services, maintain favorable market for their stock, and foster harmonious relations with employees." See words "harmonious" and "favorable."

What I do give him credit for is the under the rug tactic that was at the beginning, before it all blew up. If the bloggers wouldn't have been upset and outted the story, this could have been a great example of an indirect PR tactic. Except, it didn't work out and he didn't even try to spin it at the end somehow like, "As a company, Facebook has every right to be anxious about the wellbeing of the internet population,"

I also give him credit for not outing his client. Just like doctors, teachers and psychologists, professionals are permitted to allow confidentiality in the exchange of services. It builds trust.
So Burson, I give you credit for trying, I think I see what you were intending to achieve.

Everyone's Replaceable: PREP1

John Galliano brought back to relevance and rejuvenated the Dior brand, which was credited with saving the French couture industry after WW2. The Dior brand provided clothing to Nazi wives and French collaborators. For 15 years, Galliano has continued to provide his creative insights into fashion for the Dior fashionhouse. However, in 2011 Galliano was arrested for hate speech, which is a crime in France. His alleged statements were aggressive and the Dior CEO was unforgiving to him in the press release. Galliano was released from his position. Lesson: no matter how creative or talented he was, the presentation and credibility of the Dior fashionhouse was ultimately held to a higher priority. While they could have put him on probation or made him publicly apologize, it undoubtedly would have affected the sales of the company. From a PR standpoint, the fashionhouse did the best they could to preserve the good name of their company, especially when hate crime is illegal in their country, which can be used as a scapegoat. The CEO was thinking about the public opinion regarding their company which is what a good PR person does. She kept open a link of communication and full disclosure.
I liked how they handled it. I thought it was accurate and thoughtful. And the stats proved that everyone can be replaced and a company does not rely on the talents of a single person. According to Vogue Australia, among many other sites, Dior sales actually RISED after the Galliano scandal and firing. 27 per cent, in fact.
Sorry, Galliano...play with fire, you can get burned.