What I've learned about public relations

Edward Bernays, father of PR, defined PR as:

A management function which tabulates public attitudes, defines the policies, procedures and interests of an organization. . . followed by executing a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.

I think that Bernays got a few things right in his definition. It is the responsibility of public relations to understand public attitudes and to create "a program of action." But I think he was wrong when he said that it is up to public relations professionals to execute this action, because it is not the PR agent that must execute it, but the entire company. 

The company must fully understand the program of action and give full cooperation in using that plan. If they do not then there's not much a public relations professional can do. The PR must be backed up by action. Action must be planned by the PR professional, but it must be carried out by everyone that is connected to the organization. 

Also in this new age of instant communication, there has been a radical shift towards two-way communication, where companies not only have to understand the public but interact with them and respond to their needs. 

It's no longer just about getting the public to accept your company or brand, but also to understand why they accept it and what they want from your company. What should be added to Bernay’s definition is that PR creates mutually beneficial relationships. The broadening ability of consumers to communicate with companies and others through social media means businesses today can no longer just bomb the public with positive messages of themselves. They must find out what their consumers expect and make sure that they are meeting those qualifications, or they will surely die. 

Before taking this class, I didn't understand how closely my advertising major and public relations were linked. I am glad that I have a better understand of PR and what it does, so that I will be better equipped in working with those in public relations. I have also learned about the importance of public relations in providing consistency which will be essential to building a brand identity. 

The Girl Scouts discourage social media

In the spring of 2009, the Girl Scouts of the USA were getting indigestion from them all, thanks to an industrious 8- year- old scout named Wild Freeborn. Wild, a Girl Scout in Asheville, NC, set out to sell 12,000 boxes of cookies so that she could win a free week of Scout camp for her entire troop. Wild’s father, a Web site developer, helped her advertise her mission online.

So he promoted Wild’s cookies on Facebook and Twitter. He even made a YouTube video of Wild bouncing on the couch. And the Asheville community “ate it up.” But then the Girl Scouts governing body got wind of Wild’s Internet activity and blew the whistle, stating that Internet cookie sales were forbidden and were not fair.  

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com

From the ethical standpoint of the Girl Scouts, they have a duty to protect their member’s safety, and the idea of an 8-year-old on YouTube makes us all a little nervous. Even though the mission was innocent, there is still a huge issue of if something had happened to Freeborn the Girl Scouts could have been held liable. Yet, I don’t think that the organization handled it correctly by going after the 8-year-old herself. It only gives the impression that her hard work and innovation were discouraged. 

The organization stated that Internet sales were forbidden, but that is not the issue here. At least, it shouldn't have been. The issue for the organization should have been the child’s safety, and this could have been addressed more efficiently.

The Girl Scouts argued that in addition to the dangers of the Web for an 8- year- old girl, there was a question of “fairness” in hitting the Internet for sales. Cookie sales, the Scouts argued, were designed for local communities and not to be promoted broadly on the Internet. This claim makes the organization look silly. Why are discouraging a little girl from trying as hard as she can to send her whole troop to camp?

If they had stated it as a safety issue and that only, the organization would have had a better chance.

In the case of Wild Freeborn, her ethics were in the right place. She wanted to sell more cookies and maybe Internet sales were prohibited; but was utilizing social media prohibited? I think not. In all reality, this child’s campaign was more in tune with the world we live in today, which could have been a viable learning experience for both her and her troop. 

Cartoon Network bombs a publicity stunt

On January 30, 2007, cable news networks interrupted regular programming with bulletins that bombs had reportedly been planted “ all over Boston.” Bomb squads were called in. Bridges and highways were shut down.

As it turned out, the more than three dozen devices around the city were harmless, blinking electronic boards depicting a boxy cartoon character, the star of the Cartoon Network’s new Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The faux bomb scare was intended as a harmless publicity stunt.

http://www.bostonhassle.com

But Boston authorities weren’t laughing. The police immediately arrested the two nitwits who planted the devices.

As a public relations director for Cartoon Network, I would have never allowed this type of publicity stunt to go on. I believe that if any thought had went into the campaign, the agency could have anticipated this reaction. Because of the 9/11 attacks in Washington D.C., you can be detained for having using a laser pointer, for Pete’s sake.

I cannot believe that Cartoon Network did not foresee the major problem with this plan. Instead of plating bombs they could have created statues of the character, approved by the city first of course. What advertising agency wouldn’t think to mention to officials that they would be planting devices around the city?

This type of public relations disaster is unacceptable. The stunt made Turner Broadcasting look ignorant, and the $2 million compensation for planting the devices surely set back the agency. Not to mention the overall annoyance of those who lived in Boston who were unable to move around their own city.

However, I am glad that Turner Broadcasting and its advertising agency agreed to pay the compensation fee for shutting down the whole city. This was a good reaction after the disaster. In addition, two days after that, the president of Cartoon Network, a 13-year veteran of the company, tendered his resignation, saying, in part, “ I feel compelled to step down . . . in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch and to put this chapter behind us.”

This was another good reaction, but it probably did nothing to remedy the situation. I’m sure everyone was still busy talking about the fake bombs rather than the rightful resignation.

I believe that both Cartoon Network and Turner Broadcasting could also have made formal apologies to both officials and the city. 

Blagojevich's mastery of the spoken word

In the winter of 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was accused, through government wiretaps, of trying to peddle President-elect Barack Obama’s U. S. Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was warned by his own Democratic Party not to try to appoint a successor.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed that no person the defiant governor appointed would have a chance being seated as a U. S. senator. But the governor ignored their pleads and immediately held a news conference to announce that he had selected Illinois’ first African American Attorney General, Roland Burris, as his choice to fill out the Obama term.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/

“The people of Illinois are entitled to have two U. S. Senators represent them in Washington, D. C.,” Blagojevich began the news conference. “As governor, I am required to make this appointment. If I don’t make this appointment, then the people of Illinois will be deprived of their appropriate voice and voice in the U. S. Senate. Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man.”

His choice, Roland Burris, was seated as the successor to President Barack Obama.

While Blagojevich’s charges were pending against him, I believe that any public relations practitioner would have encouraged him to try to minimize the press on him and the incident. The less said about the situation, the less the public would have been aware of his peddling.

However, this might not have been the best choice for Blagojevich, as it appears that he was still able to come out looking good. Surprising to many, including the senate, Blagojevich was still able to have a say in the appointment of the next senator. This made him appear to be committed to his position and it’s duties, even while being impeached by the Illinois legislature.

Upon the seating of Ronald Burris as senator, I would have encouraged Blagojevich to point towards his dedication to his job.

I think Blagojevich found a way to make the best out of his situation. I would like to think that I could have foreseen how the senator might of used his rhetoric and reasonability to make a public appointment of the next senator. But if the senator had not used the words he used the way that he did, any recommendation he made probably would have been ignored.

This example shows the ability of Blagojevich to persuade though his speech, even when everyone else doubted him. I hope to be able to share the same dexterous poise some day. 

Press releases in an over sensitive society

In the winter of 2001, the Washington Post Magazine called out public relations firm, Porter Novelli International, for what the paper called a tasteless news release for one of their clients, Chef America’s Hot Pockets sandwiches.

The Porter Novelli release in question said: Although the last few weeks have been a challenging time for everyone both personally and professionally, I know that we are all striving to return to “normal.” In the coming weeks as you begin to return to your regular areas of focus; I want you to be familiar with Chef America, makers of HOT POCKETS brand sandwiches.

One of their columnists, Gene Weingarten, criticized the release saying, “People don’t buy HOT POCKETS because they are grateful to the manufacturers for their humanitarian gestures. They buy HOT POCKETS because they’re scared of Osama.”

http://scienceblogs.com/

The firm was criticized for trying to capitalize on the terrorist attacks. I’m not really sure that I see the point here. It seems to me that the public relations firm was only trying to acknowledge what was on everyone’s mind at the time. I mean isn’t it a little awkward to just go on with business like everything’s fine?

What was the release supposed to say, “Hey, I know we just suffered a huge loss of precious life and now we as country are afraid for the safety of our citizens but, on the bright side, we just invented a new type of HOT POCKET! I mean honestly, to me this seems to be nothing more than business can’t just stop dead, no matter what’s going on in the world.

However, I suppose there’s always something more that could be looked at when you’re writing a press release. You have to consider every word that you’re writing, because it is a representation of your firm and of your clients. 

I believe that since releases are written so often, they are often overlooked. A public relations professional should take extra care when delivering a press release and be sure edit it for clarity; because as you can see from the controversy over this press release, one small error could have you defending yourself and your clients. 

China's unexpected response

When the Communist nation of Myanmar suffered a devastating cyclone in May 2008, the world responded immediately to the country’s pressing need for food and water for 220,000 cyclone victims. The United States immediately dispatched four Navy ships carrying supplies to deliver to areas hit by the storm. But their military regime feared that the supplies were a ruse to attack the country.

http://msatokyo.wordpress.com/

After circling for days, the four U. S. ships gave up without delivering the humanitarian supplies. Finally, when supplies were ultimately distributed, the ruling Myanmar junta plastered the boxes with the names of top generals, attempting to turn the relief effort into an exercise in propaganda.

The Myanmar generals’ attempt to influence public opinion was dishonest, at best. They were attempting to put their generals’ names on supplies that were not provided by the generals. In fact the military leaders denied their transport based on distrust for Western culture, which cost many citizens their lives. 


More than 23,000 people died and 37,000 went missing as a result of the Myanmar cyclone, despite the International Red Cross and the United States attempting to provide assistance.

That same month, China’s Sichuan Province experienced the 19th deadliest earthquake of all time, resulting in 69,000 deaths. This disaster occurred two months prior to the Olympics in China. As the death toll rose in the province, China went against past diplomatic practice and openly accepted disaster relief and equipment from other nations, including historical adversaries Japan and Taiwan. While the response to the Myanmar stonewalling was highly criticized, the response by the Chinese gained worldwide praise.

The previous disaster in Myanmar combined with the upcoming Olympics probably led to China’s open and accommodative response to the help of other nations. From a public relations perspective, refusing help from those competing in the Olympics would have been insulting and could have jeopardized the success of the upcoming event. Therefore, China’s public relations response to the earthquake was most definitely affected by the timing of the Olympics.

If they had refused to receive assistance, world opinion might have changed leaving the world regretting hosting the Olympics in China. In addition, some countries might have thought the insult too great and might have backed out of the competition.  

American Apparel's overly sexualized work environment.

http://straightfromthea.com

American Apparel (AA) is an edgy, progressive clothes emporium known for its snug-fitting, logo-free T-shirts, underwear, and casual clothes. American Apparel founder Dov Charney, may be the most controversial aspect of the company.

There were five cases in five years filed about Charney’s behavior. In 2008, a former employee sued Charney for sexual harrassment. Specifically, the former AA employee charged that Charney barged into her office shouting obscenities and physical threats and simulating sexual acts. In addition in 2005, another employee claimed Charney once greeted her wearing one of their socks draped over his genitals.

This type of behavior might ultimately hurt AA. But, for right now, it’s just making American Apparel that much more hip and trendy. From a Public Relations standpoint, this type of behavior makes my stomach do a flip. But the company has positioned itself as controversial, and perhaps that’s why it’s popular with celebrities.

http://www.juxtapoz.com/

In the fashion world, things got out of style faster than other types of retail. AA has found a way to connect with consumers, and by working in non-traditional ways. For example, the company selects clothing models with physical imperfections and enhances them, rather than covering them up with Photoshop. Where as the majority of retailers, wouldn’t even consider publishing a photo of a model without at least some teeth whitening.

It’s a hard thing to do though, because AA is dependent on remaining controversial and unique. This rogue brand persona might soon go out of style. I don’t think that being controversial is just a fad. Controversial companies, people, and products will probably always be a hot topic and in that sense American Apparel has found a way to be controversial without offending their consumers. If they can continue to do so, then these types of antics might not be hurtful to the company.

What I do see as an issue here is Charney’s blatant disregard for sexual harassment in the workplace. Although the American public enjoys a bit of bad-boy never-follows-the-rules charm, sexual harassment is a serious charge. The CEO needs to find a way to remain controversial without causing emotional harm to his employees. If he continues to harass those who work for his company, it will surely fail.