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.