BP's PR relies on purchasing power for crisis management

Here is an interesting article about how BP is dealing with the aftermath of the oil spill. It also raises questions of media ethics as well for both BP and google. Apparently, you can purchase search terms on sites like google that bring your site to the top of the search list. BP has supposedly done this for terms related to their little problem in the gulf. If you type in (try this) 'gulf oil' or a few other related terms, BP's response page comes up first on the search. So for anyone trying to get information, a google search leads right to the source. This is good, right?

From a public relations standpoint, this is probably pretty awesome. Anyone looking for info on the oil spill will immediately find the BP page and be given the information that BP wants to put into the press concerning the spill. But the question for me is, how can you 'buy' a term? Sure you can buy web addresses and domains and all that, but an actual search term? And according to the article, for nearly $10,000 a day!? Another question: what/who determines the cost of that term and where is all that money going? So for the freelance photographer who wants to place his photos of the damage done by BP or the family who STILL hasn't received the compensation for the loss of their entire livelihood, but can't afford $10,000 a day advertising on google, they're out of luck. Someone already "owns" the term 'oil spill' and their little site probably lands somewhere towards the bottom 30,000 of the google search.

Of course, if you click on the BP link, it offers alot more than inflated PR spin on the spill, there are volunteer links, contacts, etc. But its just something to think about, if you can buy a 'word' on the internet, what's next? What else do people own online that we don't know about yet?

Social good campaign: Pepsi Refresh

PepsiCo is giving $20 million toward projects for "social good."  Listen to Bonin Bough, global director of digital and social media for the company talk about how "social good" campaigns are very popular right now, how this project will help with brand promotion and identity (given Pepsi's ongoing competition with Coca-Cola, for example), and ultimately they hope help the bottom line.  But will "social good" in some cases take on traits of "greenwashing" as we discussed in class yesterday? And how does this project also encourage interaction with consumers?

http://mashable.com/2010/09/21/pepsi-refresh-project-racks-up-more-votes-than-last-presidential-election/

Ben & Jerry's "All Natural"?

I found this article interesting considering our discussion today on Greenwashing.

Ben & Jerry's is going to remove the "All Natural" label from their ice cream containers after a request from The Center for Science in the Public Interest. The CSPI said that Ben & Jerry's products include corn syrup, hydrogenated oil, and other unnatural ingredients, so they shouldn't be labeled as all natural.

The FDA doesn't have a formal definition for "natural", so technically, Ben & Jerry's didn't need to change the label. However, they decided to make the change anyway to "take away any misconceptions for people."

I thought they handled it well by being open about the issue and also being willing to change the labels so they don't mislead customers.

Here is the complete article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ben___jerry_s_all_natural

Are pomegranates really that great?

This article caught my eye today, given that we were just talking about ethics in class! The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just filed a complaint against POM (you know, that pomegranate-based juice they sell next to Odwalla in the produce section of the grocery store) for "false and deceptive claims" that it can treat and prevent diseases.

But, that's not the end of the story. POM responded by suing the FTC and saying it disagrees with the FTC's accusations and will continue to share its research results on the health benefits of drinking POM. It also threw in the oft-cited "freedom of speech" grievance.

I think that POM is playing a pretty good game of issues management by putting the focus of its research claims on its benefit to consumers. It is saying that it has a right to share the "encouraging" results of its research with the public.

So who can consumers trust? POM or the FTC. Both have obvious things to gain and lose from their complaints against each other. POM stands to lose its credibility and consumer loyalty. But the FTC also stands to (potentially) lose in a more nefarious way--lobbyist funding and support from the pharmaceuticals industry, which would love to see POM's claims ring false. Now, that's just my own supposition, but what do you think?

FTC v. POM

Journalists Flee Utah Newspaper Overtaken by PR

Interesting tidbit posted on PrWatch.org, a division of the Center for Media and Democracy. As the post explains, several journalists are quitting their jobs at the Deseret News in Utah because of an article published on the front page of the paper written by the head of the Latter Day Saints PR department. It has also come to light that the paper is owned by a subsidiary of a for profit company that is owned by the LDS.

I thought this was a timely piece, especially as we discuss PR ethics today, and the the PRSA guidelines regarding disclosure of information.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9489

Strat Comm Ethics: "Selling sanity through gender"

Excellent article on how the pharmaceutical industry has "problematized" many aspects of women's lives and are pushing pills for women to feel more "balance."  These ads are extremely effective (talk to any medical professional about how often patients ask for the "purple pill" etc.).  But what are the ethical implications of these ads?  And how do they reflect and promote certain attitudes and expectations of women?

"Selling sanity through gender"

Netflix's embarrassing PR flop

Here's an example of a case where an organization immediately acknowledged its mistake and apologized for it. What do you think are some of the situations Netflix avoided by doing this?

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110807/netflix-hires-actors-in-canada

All the news that's fit to print...and then some.

In case you all were wondering what I was talking about in class the other day about The New York Times, here it is! I had some of the details wrong, so even I didn't know what I was talking about...

New York Times blasted from all sides

This article is about the criticism that the newspaper received regarding multiple journalistic ethical shortcomings (act independently!), including a story the White House called "100% inaccurate" and accusations in an upcoming book that the Times published a front-page story showing Obama "just as the White House had hoped" in exchange for the White House's help brokering a high-profile interview. It brings up the age-old debate about the role of the media in regards to the government: watchdog (critic), lapdog (cheerleader), or, as my Comm 101 professor called it, guard dog.

Another story was about a business/economics writer for the Times who left to work for the Huffington Post, an online, liberal news outlet. The Huffington Post has managed to draw a few high-profile journalists and editors lately, including one from Newsweek. The trend is interesting, given that Newsweek and The New York Times are traditional, print news sources while the Huffington Post is entirely online.

It will be interesting in my group's investigation of the Times' PR to see how a traditional news outlet handles the rise of the Internet and online news, which no doubt takes away from its subscriptions, if not readership. [How] can print news sources expand their subscription numbers and readership given the realities of 21st century technology?



**Here's what Accuracy in the Media had to say about the "inaccurate" article. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) was silent on the issue. I would check back with their blog/site for any updates.

Twitter Video

Since we've been talking about using Twitter, I thought everyone might appreciate this blog, Why I Still Like Twitter, along with this video.

Debate blocked on military gay ban

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68K46Y20100921?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Politics+News%29

Article following the Senate's block on the debate to end the military gay ban, a setback for one of President Obama's policy goals.

It will be interesting to track various publics' reactions to this.

Companies getting creative with facebook

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_16138052

Interesting article about how corporations are using facebook to educate people about their product. Many organizations are going beyond just creating a fan page, but are actually working their products into apps like Farmville.

Also, the article mentions that for the first time, people are now spending more time on facebook than Google. I think this give an idea of just the variety and depth of the facebook audience.

Facebook Shuts Down Anti-Target Page

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_boycott_target.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29

It seems to be that taking away the "Boycott Target" page goes against the very principles that Facebook was founded upon: an open forum for discussion and opinion. Facebook claimed that it was all a misunderstanding and gave the administrators their rights back. This article poses the question: what should be allowed on social media pages like Facebook? Should there be limitations to keep Facebook "a safe, secure, and trusted environment"? Or is the idea of Facebook to not limit people expressing their views and sharing their opinions with others?

Dominos NEW and IMPROVED taste! But WHY the change?

In North Carlina, two Domino's employees made a short video while working their shift. This video shoes the disgusting things they did to customer's food which included sneezing in food, farting in food, and among other things, putting cheese in their noses and then placing it in the food. The video went public and in response, Domino's sales decreased significantly. Domino's hopped on this huge PR disaster and came out with public statements condoning this type of behavior and also created commercials promoting their new taste as a response to people who were not satisfied with the 'taste' of Domino's pizza. As you can see in the article below, sales began to increase after Domino's dealt directly with the PR issue.

Disgusting Domino's Video

Domino's: How One YouTube Video Can Ruin a Brand

Kickstarter: Grassroots online fundraising

This is a grassroots online fundraising website which is used to raise money for creative projects and endeavours ranging from community projects to products to films and theatre.  This has tremendous potential for non-profits, including those for your final campaign projects.  Go to: http://www.kickstarter.com/ for more information.

States Delay Executions Owing To Drug Shortage

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129912444

This is an extreme interesting issue to me. This has the potential to either be a public relations disaster or success. There are many different questions that should be considered.

What happens if the shortage is not cured soon?
Should another method be used?
How long would that take to be approved and would the public have a say in the decision?
Should another business be opened that produces the drug?
Where would that business be and would that cause a public relations issue amongst the people who protest the death penalty?

It will be very interesting to observe how this issue is resolved.

"Social Good" Goes Online

Social good organizations are non-profits or NGOs (non-governmental organizations) working for social change.  For profit institutions such as corporations may also launch social good campaigns as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts.  Below are two articles that show how social good has gone online, with great success:

5 Trends Shaping the Future of Social Good
Charity & Technology in the Online Universe

More on Target

After reading through Jen's post, I thought this might be an example of why Target should involve itself in the realm of social media. Its consumers (or probably best describes as past consumers) already have.

Gabourey Sidibe's Controversial Elle Magazine Cover

The Gabourey Sidibe Elle Magazine controversy has been gaining steam in the last few days. At first Elle was criticized for the way Sidibe was photographed on the October cover (the picture is a close up, and does not show her profile like the other cover girls for the month, many believe this is because of Sidibe's weight) but now many have said that Elle also lightened Sidibe's skin. So far, Elle has denied claims that Sidibe 's pictures were treated any differently than the other models, but as criticism rises, it will be interesting to see how Elle deals with this potential PR crisis.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/gabourey-sidibes-elle-magazine-cover-raises-controversy/story?id=11644132

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/09/13/the_gabourey_sidibe_problem

Boys' Club?http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/sports/football/18rhoden.html?scp=1&sq=NFL,%20sexism&st=cse

Interesting debate.

Target's latest PR faux pas

I came across this post (link below) today as I was investigating the news on Target's public relations since it's controversy over funding, through the political action group Minnesota Forward, an "anti-gay" politician. However, on the top of the news (at least in the blogosphere) was Target's latest PR mistake.

According to the blog article and the New York Times article referenced in it, Target declined to comment on accusations from a blogger about an insensitive advertising mishap. Target's response when asked for comment was that it "does not participate with nontraditional media outlets … This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest.”

I found this surprising, given that many in strategic communications have enthusiastically embraced the use of social media as a way to connect with customers and respond to their inquiries. One of the original marketing/advertising/PR functions of Twitter was a rapid response by companies, even those as big as Target, to complaints and comments from customers.

The following article analyzes this situation as well as why corporations should embrace social media... and if not embrace it, they should be paying attention to it, as it is one new area of influence where their image can be shaped and changed whether or not they participate.

I also found it interesting that Target, which has branded itself as hip and young, wouldn't respond to social media in the way this blogger recommends. What do you think?

Read the full article: Missing Targets: Target PR.

Welcome to our Class Blog!

This blog is designed to provide a forum for all of us in the class to post news articles, links, videos, etc., that you think might be of interest to others to generate dialogue and debate.  Feel free to post often.  Enjoy!