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. 

FEMA's fake press conference spreads like wildfire.

In October 2007, the deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), held a news conference to address the agency’s response to the California wildfires. Its inept handling of Hurricane Katrina had recently tarnished the agency, and it appeared that FEMA had recorded a stunning success in response to the wildfires.

What was more damaging to the agency’s reputation was it’s press conference. And it wasn’t the deputy administrator’s response to reporter’s questions, because there were no actual “reporters” at the conference. 

FEMA announced the conference only 15 minutes beforehand and when, not surprisingly, no reporters could make it to the conference FEMA used its own employees to pose as reporters and ask “fluff” questions.

Rightfully, the Bush Administration was unforgiving calling the conference an “error in judgment” and insisting that, “It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House.” And the Homeland Security Director claimed, “ I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since I’ve been in government.”

The fake press conference was a huge embarrassment for the agency and for the government as well. Although I don’t think that there is anything wrong with coaching newsmakers on what they should say before an interview, allowing them to know the questions beforehand defeats the purpose. As you can see here, this type of press conference did more harm than good. It made FEMA laughable and removed any success that they had achieved with their attention to the wildfires.

Public Relations people are not reporters. They never will be. Reporters should want the story, regardless of its effects on the entity that they work for. 

That’s what keeps news unbiased and allows the public to be informed. A public relations professional’s job is to mediate between a company and the media, not to become the media. Their job is to persuade opinions, not to make them.

There would be no point in holding new conferences if they were only attended by public relations people. That’s what the company’s press releases are for. And that’s how it should remain.

No shit, Sherlock.

Biologist, Holmes Sherlock, former winner of the Nobel Prize for Biology and one of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the field of DNA. While in Paris, Sherlock was interviewed by a reporter with the newspaper, Le Monde. He was quoted in Le Monde as suggesting that “people of African descent are less intelligent than people of European descent.”

Dr. Sherlock was suspended from his job as president of Warm Springs Laboratory on Staten Island. Immediately after the incident, Sherlock apologized saying, “I am ashamed of these comments, do not believe them, did not mean them to be interpreted this way, and don’t believe at all that there is any scientific basis for them.”

Just a few months before the incident the University of Chicago decided to award Dr. Sherlock the Distinguished Prize for Lifetime Contribution to Science. Many are insisting that the president revoke the award and cancel the following lecture.

But, the university should award the professor; one remark to a reporter doesn’t remove all his contributions to the science community. Because of Dr. Sherlock’s response to the article in the Le Monde and his immediate suspension, I believe that the school should reward the professor regardless of one reporter’s allegations.

Whether or not Dr. Sherlock actually feels this way, I do not know. But I do know that when free speech gets in the way of achieving success we have a problem in this country.

Due to the university’s claim to be a defender of “free speech” when in 2007, they allowed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, not allowing one of their own professors to speak because of alleged controversial civil thinking would only make the university look hypocritical.

President Ahmadinejad has been frequently criticized in Iran for his economic troubles and his disregard for human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, "Respect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement.” And many hold President Ahmadinejad responsible.

As a student blogger pointed out, “Academic freedom means we are confident enough to hear from all viewpoints, including those like Pres. Ahmadinejad and Prof. Sherlock, whose attitudes may be repugnant to civil thinking. We should allow the lecture to go on.”

As a public relations agent for the university, I would explain that the decision was made to protect the first amendment rights of both staff and students. To those who press the matter further I would also make it clear that the university in no way condones racism on its campus.

Money over ethics is a poor choice.

It only takes about thirty minutes of watching the news before I start asking myself whether I’m being presented material that I want to hear or that which I need to hear. It’s a constant complaint by journalists and news enthusiasts alike. Stop printing what will get good stats, and start printing information that I need to know.

But in a news environment, where readers can pick and choose what they want to read, this may not be realistic. Gone are the days when every person read his or her local paper cover to cover. It’s much more likely that readers are reading blogs that they enjoy and directly feeding content they’re interested in at their disposal, and ignoring, if even acknowledging, all the rest.

This doesn’t mean that reporters should only cover what will be the most popular news story. That’s not the role of journalism. And many journalists still feel this way. Take for example, when in 2008, Sam Zell bought the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Orlando Sentinel. He was later sued by a group of current and former Los Angeles Times reporters who accused Zell of “recklessness.”

One of the first things that Zell did was to discard the old “overly legalistic” handbook and replace it with a new one that began: Rule No. 1: Use your best judgment. Rule No. 2: See Rule No. 1. The handbook further stated “ Question authority and push back if you do not like the answer.”

And now you’re thinking good; finally a CEO is encouraging employee push back. But this moment of clarity was lost when in a later meeting, a staff photographer asked her new boss what he thought “ the role of journalism was in the community” and Zell responded, “ I want to make enough money so that I can afford you. You need to in effect help me by being a journalist that focuses on what our readers want that generates more revenue.”

Zell greatly misjudged the loyalty of journalists to the ethics of journalism. He should have realized the importance of journalistic ethics to his staff member’s reputations and careers. So Zell was sued for “recklessness” and eventually went under when in December of 2008 he filed for bankruptcy.

Just ask any current college student or grad (like myself) the current job market is a scary and uninviting place. Now more than ever, CEOs are realizing that maintaining positive employee relations programs is a critical step to ensure productivity. But apparently Zell, made the tragic mistake of valuing money over assets. Employee assets that is.

Domino's Pizza Dilemma

In the spring of 2009, Domino’s Pizza became the target of a gross video made by two employees at a store in Conover, North Carolina. They filmed them selves doing gross things to the ingredients they were serving to their customers, which they then posted to YouTube. By the next day, the video had gone viral and hit a million views. 

I think Domino’s handed the public relations fallout correctly, by initiating contact with those talking about the video through the social media outlets they were using. It would have been a poor choice for them to have responded through their own website or through print or news media. But they had the right idea addressing consumers concerns and issues directly and through their own blogs, was the right decision. However, Domino’s should have taken the time to listen to every type of discussion about the video. Creating an account on NetVibes.com or a similar social media listening dashboard would have been an easy way for them to keep track of the many different mediums being used to discuss the video.

Besides ignoring the importance of Twitter, I think Domino’s had a good plan for dealing with issue, because giving too much attention to a video before it becomes viral will only elevate the amount of discussion about it. If however, they had seen how the video was blowing up on Twitter then they might have been able to respond to those comments individually and stopped the video from spreading further.

Once they finally did see the importance of Twitter they did exactly what one would hope. They started their own account and started tweeting articles about the incident and responding to customers.

I think that there probably won’t be any long-term impact on the Dominos brand, although people might think twice about who’s delivering their pizza. But in all reality, Domino’s customers will probably forget and let it go. After all, it was only two employees that created the video. So although it looks bad for the company, I would assume that most customers would not hold them responsible. 

Larry Craig's tap shoes.

In June 2007, Senator Larry Craig was arrested for suggesting to an under cover police officer for disorderly conduct. The officer stated that Craig had peeked through the bathroom stall and tapped his foot to suggest that he wanted to engage in “lewd conduct.” When he was charged he signed a guilty plea and later attempt to reverse it.

From a public relations standpoint, it was too late. The damage had been done. Once he pled guilty it changed the way that the public—and the senate—perceived the situation. I would explain that removing the guilty plea would solely be for legal purposes, and that if he did remove the plea he would be going back on his word. He would seem wishy-washy and the public would assume that he was a liar. You can’t plead guilty and then take it back without the public assuming that you were guilty in the first place. 

I do understand that there are reasons why someone might plead guilty even if they weren’t, but a Senator should know better.

I believe that Craig should have considered the repercussions far before pleading guilty. But after he had pled guilty I would have advised that he move onto the case and get it over with as quickly as possible, to minimize the time that his name spent in the headlines.

If I was Craig’s lawyer however, I would have advised a completely different plan. If Craig was solely considering this from a legal standpoint, it would be better to go ahead and plead not guilty and give the jury and judge the ability to decide.

I believe than the mistake that was made here was the guilty plea. If he could have avoided this then the sex sting might not have been so harsh and the appeal wouldn’t have made Craig look as indecisive. All around, I think the best decision for him would have been to go the way that he had been going in the beginning. When he announced plans to resign in September and not finish his third term.  Regardless of sexual orientation, the unsolicited conduct that occurred in an airport bathroom was not the sort for any senator. And the right thing to do, to earn the most respect, would be to have backed down and admitted wrong doing. 

What Happened, Scott?

                  George W. Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan was one of the weakest in history. Bush loyally transferred McClellan with him from Texas to Washington D.C. when he was elected. But when McClellan  left his position he started pointing fingers at Bush in his instant best-seller, “What Happened.”

                  I understand the idea that McClellan had an ethical responsibility to reveal what happened in the White House, but his timing was all wrong. If McClellan had truly just wanted to reveal what happened behind closed doors, he could have released that information during his time as a press secretary, not after Fox News broadcaster Tony Snow had replaced him. And if that really was the only reason, which I highly doubt, then he would not have released it as a memoir that gained him profit. If McClellan thought that Bush’s campaign relied on “ propaganda” to sell the war in Iraq, was “terribly off course” in war policy, was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing. Then why didn’t he tell Bush that? Why didn’t he show Bush the ways that he could have improved his campaign? And if Bush didn’t listen, then McClellan needed to share that information with the public right then—not years down the road.

         If anything I think McClellan should have remained loyal to Bush. Saying one thing during his position and then turning around and saying the opposite after he was “relieved” of his duties, made McClellan, as well as the Bush administration, look dishonest. There is no more room for dishonesty in public relations. PR is supposed to create transparency, so that we can truly see what public entities are about. Public relations is already receiving a bad rap because of recent scandals in the media. In reality, PR is the opposite of lying; it’s showing the public the truth. But for most, I think the words truth and PR have no relation to one another.

         Either way, McClellan is still being dishonest, but if he remained loyal to Bush at least his future clients would have seen him as loyal. Now how will his clients know that he will not trash talk them in front of the entire nation after he has worked with them. They won’t; and his career in PR will probably suffer from that. 

Hillary's double crossed again

          In the spring of 2008, Democratic presidential primary candidate Hillary Clinton’s chief advisor, Mark Penn, was involved in a heated controversy that landed him in the media’s spotlight. The Colombian government hired his public relations counseling firm to help them pass a free-trade pact. This was in direct conflict with Clinton’s stance—which opposed the pact. And when Clinton’s competitors saw the chance, they jumped on it.

         Penn should have quickly seen the conflict of interest and refused to work on the Colombian account. He was working against himself, trying to oppose the pact and confirm the pact at the same time. It not only made him look like a hypocrite, but his clients as well. Although having both of these large accounts could be very tempting, if you are CEO of a public relations agency you should know that it is important to keep affiliations separate, and that devotion to your clients is extremely important.

         I have always been a strong believer that you should admire the company that you work for. If you don’t agree with what your organization or clients are saying or doing and don’t think that you could stand behind their morals, then that’s not the right place for you. Particularly from a public relations standpoint where you have to show your clients in their best light and champion them to public, you have to be honest about who they are and what they are about. And if you don’t believe in them, then you will have to be dishonest. And in PR, honesty is key.

         Penn’s decision to juggle both a public relations firm and a political candidate campaign was probably not the best choice, because political candidates are notoriously black-and-white on many key issues. The odds of all of your firm’s clients and the candidate’s interests not overlapping would be very slim. In order to represent both without conflict or inattention would be a very difficult job to manage. 

Discount biased opinions

I think we can all agree that the war in Iraq and the George W. Bush administration have been repeatedly scrutinized by the media and a majority of the world. The website moveon.org loved to criticize Bush, but in the fall of 2007 they went too far when they bashed a well-respected General David Petraeus in an ad in The New York Times.

They misjudged the amount of pride shared by Americans for their armed forces. But it’s not surprising to me to hear public outcry over a company questioning someone who served to protect American rights. I love knowing that if someone tries to unrightfully criticize a well-respected general who fought for our nation that Americans will not just accept it. However, the real mistake here was not by moveon.org but by The New York Times who gave the company a $70,000 discount on the ad.

In a time where the public is constantly claiming that there is bias in our news, this type of behavior is unacceptable. Although I can see how it would be extremely tempting it would be to give discounts to ads that you agree with, there is no place for it in journalism. Today, journalism education preaches the importance of delivering unbiased news. Showing this type of left-wing favoritism surely hurt The NY Times reputation and credibility. If they’re biased about their ads, what makes me think they are unbiased in their content?

The Times ended up charging MoveOn the normal price for an ad, but I don’t know if that reaction was enough. That doesn’t change the fact that they were biased or restore any of my faith in them. Perhaps firing the salesperson who permitted the discount or doing some type of campaign to reassure the public that they are not doing favors for liberals would be more beneficial. Their response doesn’t fully address the seriousness of the issue, because it’s not about the money; it’s about trust. They already lost that trust when they provided the discount, and they should address that fact and show the public how they plan to make changes to ensure that it won’t happen again.   

Public Relations in a black turtleneck

In the fall of 2007, a new iPhone was released to the public. Two months later they reduced the price by $200. Now I’m not sure about you, but if I had the choice to wait two months to save $200 for a new phone, I absolutely would. And loyal apple customers were right to be infuriated when they found out about this extreme price cut.

Apple is one of those companies that has cult-like devoted customers. Apple fans are extreme die-hard fans. I know because I am one. Just the thought of opening Word Processor on a PC makes my head hurt. This intense group of customers that wait outside of stores until the big release of the latest Apple product create a buzz. The excitement and extra publicity created by this group can persuade others who maybe like Apple, but haven’t taken that leap of faith yet, to buy from Apple. And it would be a horrible mistake to upset the most loyal of your customers, in order to sell more iPhones.

Apple probably lowered the price in order to encourage more neutral people to buy the iPhone. This was a good strategy—if they had waited more than two months. But they didn’t and it was a huge mistake that left iPhone owners feeling betrayed. The price-cut could have cost them their most loyal enthusiasts.

But, no surprise here, Steve Jobs saved the day…again.

The greatest decision on Jobs’ part was his quick response to the outcry. Luckily, Apple does attempt to keep up with their consumers’ opinions and receive feedback from them, which is an essential part of public relations today. If you fail to listen to your consumers, they’ll find someone else that does. This situation reminds me of a similar one with Bank of America. They decided to start charging their customers $5 for making a debit transaction, and their consumers pushed back. Unlike Apple, Bank of America ignored their customers and created a lot of bad PR before finally retracting their decision. They should have taken a lesson from Jobs and noticed that as soon as you know you’ve made a mistake apologize and reconcile the situation.

Congratulations to the late Steve Jobs for being a master of both technology and public relations! Due to his attention to customer feedback, his sympathy towards Apple devotees, and his quick and apologetic response Jobs turned a negative into a positive. And Apple continued to sell a record-breaking amount of iPhones—no surprise to this Apple lover—I can’t imagine a day at school without mine. 

Pope Benedict XVI's Public Relations

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI made a trip to the United States.  The trip came on the heels of The Catholic Church’s destructive scandal involving pedophile priests. In order to make a name for himself and in an attempt to combat the humiliation of such a historic disaster, Pope Benedict orchestrated his time in America by including events which would ultimately restore the public’s faith in the church. 

He began by discussing the pedophile scandal with reporters before his plane even landed. Next, he held a conference with sex-abuse victims. In addition, he went to a synagogue in New York, held a mass at Yankee Stadium and spoke with the United Nations.

But the Pope had other options. One option would have been to ignore the problems and try to rise above them. He could have just followed in previous Papal footsteps and visited the president or presided over a mass, but this would have been ignoring the obvious problem. Although the idea that refusing to address the problem would draw less attention to the scandal, the firestorm over the abuse was so well known that ignoring it would just raise more questions.  Either way the pervasive scandal would have made its way into the media. Providing the public with an honest, direct response made Pope Benedict seem candid, which inspired confidence in his leadership.

He could have tried to address the issue on his own turf before coming to America. He previously had attempted to remain silent on the issue, but once he made it to the US he decided to confront the scandal. If however, he had attempted to give his opinion and express his remorse in Italy, then the media might have already covered the information thoroughly and wouldn’t have given the story as much attention on his arrival.

The downside of using his trip to address the pedophile scandal is that it draws more attention to the situation. It could cause the public to concentrate on the scandal rather than the positive issues that he was offering. But completely ignoring it would raise suspicion and leave devotees wanting answers to their questions. 

Dog The Bounty Hunter Scandal

Duane "Dog The Bounty Hunter" Chapman’s racist language almost cost him his job in November 2007. During an off-screen telephone conversation, Chapman used an obscene racial slur while trying to persuade his son to break-up with his African American girlfriend. After suspending Chapman for a short time, the A&E network brought back the show.

A&E could have completely pulled Dog The Bounty Hunter from the air and refused to work with a man who misrepresented the company in a negative way. But completely pulling the show off the air before gauging the public’s opinion could have cost them a successful program.

They could have cut Chapman’s pay, unless there was a contract preventing it. Typically, a quick way to let an employee know that you are serious is to cut their pay or hours. Giving Chapman real consequences for his actions might have helped to make his situation seem more serious.

Another interesting option might have been to find another star for this type of show. Although it wouldn’t have been the same “Dog” that attracted an audience with his brash antics; they could have found another fugitive recovery agent to replace him.

This, like many PR questions, is a tricky one. I don’t think it really has a simple answer. To not allow employees to have their own opinions, however disgusting they may be, is not a trait that I would encourage for any institution. However, employees must recognize that their behaviors are a reflection on their employers.

I think that A&E should have taken Chapman back with a long list of conditions. Perhaps they could have insisted that he make a public apology for his behavior.  Or they could have insisted that he enlist in tolerance classes.

Allowing Chapman to return, regardless of the conditions still has a negative impact on A&E’s reputation in some respects. It leads the public to believe that racist language and inappropriate behavior are tolerated by A&E.