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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
"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.
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.
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."
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."
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
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.
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.
Nonetheless, I would advise Beef Products to prepare for the worst.
Friday, September 4, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)