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