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.