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.
Monday, October 19, 2015
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)