Social Networking

I missed class today, so I did not know which topic I should discuss in my blog. I’m going back a couple weeks to the topic of companies and their involvement in Social Networking sites such as Facebook or Myspace. In my own internet lurking I come across pages dedicated to ads instead of personal profile very often, and honestly I pay more attention to these pages than pop-ups or spam. When a person has the choice of clicking instead of being bombarded, it encourages their participation. The article posted brought up different examples of company involvement in these sites, and I was particularly interested in Target. They worked it the right way. From a PR standpoint, it allowed for feedback, which is fundamental. From an advertising standpoint, it got students pumped about their products and made them feel involved. It’s all about the angle employed. Their page was about the customer and their experience instead of the product. I can see where Wal-Mart ran into trouble. People don’t shop at Wal-Mart for the look or experience; they shop for the prices. A company has to have an ethical background before they open up to public scrutiny. Their page brought out flaws and discouraged buyers instead of attracting them. I don’t see the problem with companies using these sites as long as they are prepared for the outcome. If they put themselves out there, they have to be honest and willing to change when things do not turn out their way.

ADA

The article linked about ethics and the American Diabetes Association brought up a lot of interesting points. In my opinion the issue this organization is facing brings up the glaring flaw in the PRSA Code of Ethics. If being an advocate for your organization is the primary goal of a PR Practitioner, then the ADA is acting ethically. Without sponsorship money, they cannot function. As long as they inform the public on healthy lifestyle choices, then they are being ethical. However letting food companies use the ADA logo on their packages is leading the public to believe that those foods are safe for a diabetic and healthy for consumers. In actuality the logo simply means they have donated money to the ADA’s cause. When the ADA does not allow them to use their logo, then that costs them sponsorship money, which in turn hurts them. So the question is, what hurts more? Food giants like Cadbury make both junk foods and healthy ones, so where does the ADA draw the line. My vote would be to not accept money from companies that do not on some level promote a healthy lifestyle. Denying the Burger King money is understandable and essential. Credibility is an important principle in PR and the ADA would be nothing without it. The logo should only be placed on recommended foods.

JetBlue

It’s funny how after talking last week about how poorly Southwest Airlines handled an apology, to see another small airline do such a bang up job. JetBlue had an incident where a winter storm resulted in over a thousand cancelled flights, and otherwise created chaos in the airport. Naturally, the reputation of the airline was tarnished with the incident. But instead of placing blame, making jokes, or letting it blow over, a very sincere video apology was issued by the company’s CEO David Neeleman. In a case like this it is incredibly important to assume the right tone. The affected customers must feel like the airline is sincere or their business could be lost forever. Potential customers need to feel like if this happened to them, they would be treated fairly. The message did just that. It was conversational, which made it seem more sincere. The CEO gave the message when a PR Rep could have easily done the job. Most importantly, it offered a solution. He promised that something on that level would never happen again. Southwest hardly offered this kind of response, and in fact it did happen again with them. Another customer was kicked off the plane for an offensive t-shirt. As if the first statement wasn’t bad enough, this just adds insult to injury.

Southwest

Southwest Airlines appears to be going through some growing pains. They have made the switch from a smaller low-fare airline associated with the young cost conscious traveler to a major carrier. Apparently with their growing success, they haven’t maintained a handle on their public relations. Advertising has always been geared towards a younger audience, due to its humorous nature. This has given them the appearance of a laid back airline, so naturally the people were confused when the incident of dress code and traveler Kyla Ebbert losing her seat on the plane became public. There was no company policy regarding dress code on the plane, and even if there had been one in place, it would be a highly subjective issue. What is obscene or distracting to one person could be perfectly acceptable to the next. In my opinion if no body parts were exposed, then there it’s simply an issue of taste.

In this case a public relations department must make absolute sure that everyone employed by the company is aware of policy, and understands that rash decisions based on taste cannot be made. These instances are unavoidable at times, but when they do occur there must be a timely and sincere apology to the victim. The apology from Southwest was infuriating. It was insincere, late, and did not offer the any solution. They relied on the same humor present in their advertising to laugh off the incident, when in actuality a person was violated and embarrassed.

PRSA Code of Ethics

After reading the PRSA Code of Ethics, I found it coincided quite a bit with the ethics we discussed in class. The most important principle according to PRSA is truth, but no matter what having your organizations interest in mind. In this sense, it seems that the code takes on more of a utilitarian point of view. The code believes that the public's interests are important to an organization, but since the position of an advocate is taken by the practitioner not every person can benefit. The ultimate beneficiary always seems to be the organization with these values. If the organization is being truthful in their practices, however, this will result in a well served public.

Do unto others

Today in class we discussed the Dallas Morning News article by Nicholas Wade, "The Evolution of Morality." I found the article brought up a few very interesting points. Is the concept of "do unto others" written into our genes. It goes back to the basic belief behind cosmopolitanism. Though everyone may not have the same background, culture, and religious beliefs, there are basic moral principles that are true across national borders. Most cultures believe killing the innocent or helpless or wrong, they value authority, and they place an importance on chastity and history.

I also found it very interesting that religious behavior in its earliest forms, could have been tied to natural selection. Dr. Haidt believes that in order to survive humans found ways to bind them together in groups, and similar beliefs created that bond. It is true in every form of socialization I have learned since childhood, those who are part of a group have an easier go of things.

He did kind of lose me in the political alignment of values. I consider myself liberal, and when I took the quiz provided on yourmorals.org, the results seemed odd to me. Maybe reading the article beforehand made the outcome somewhat skewed.

Case Study Assignment

The upcoming case study I will be writing will be an in depth media analysis of the recent Apple iPhone pricing disaster. I will discuss the hierarchy of values in a public relations strategy, if there was one, Apple's over-hyped product release, and the method with which they delt with public outcry after the price drop. I will determine whether or not they assumed a utilitarian or communitarian theory in dealing with the incident, and try to propose a resolution.

Communitarianism VS Utilitarianism

When in crisis, each public relations professional faces a difficult decision; whether or not to be simply an advocate of their organization or maintain an objective stance. Oftentimes the reaction to a crisis has to be some sort of balance between these two, but in the case of the Dallas Cowboys' star player Michael Irvin and a fight with lesser known offensive lineman Everett McIver, there was no balance.

In a case study of the scuffle which put in Irvin's place on the team in jeopardy, it's essential to recognize the two possible resolutions the Cowboys camp could have come to. The first would be a communitarianism response, which is to place importance on each individual's well being and value truth above all else. Perhaps this would result in the punishment of both McIver and Irvin, but with the way that the team and media handled the situation, the world will never know. The decision made by the team was to keep the details hidden from the media, and they treated the incident as a family matter. By stonewalling the media, they were not serving everyone's best interest. They were valuing the future of the team over each individual player, because of the legal ramifications Irvin could face after another assault charge.

This reaction is indicative of a Utilitarian response. The theory of "the greatest good for the greatest number," fueled the Cowboys media relations team, coaches, and players "no comment" approach to the media.

Now here comes the big question: Which response was ethical?

If ethics is the issue, it is undeniable that the truth should be valued above all else. But in this specific case study, the truth is unknown. The incident could have been handled in house, because it truly was nothing more than horseplay that went a little too far. Jerry Jones and the PR staff could have valued the reputation of the team over the publication of a scuffle of no importance.

However, the way the fight was handled automatically points a finger of guilt. In public relations, I think that the main lesson to be learned is that "no comment," generally causes the media and public to assume the worst.

I cannot say that I condone the Cowboys' actions, but I definitely see the reasoning behind it. With the type of organization that a football team is, individuals forfeit their rights at the door. I'm sure that most players would agree that they will do whatever it takes to get them to the Super Bowl. The amount of secrecy that goes into a football team is high regardless of criminal charges.

Cosmopolitanism and PR

How does Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism relate to the work of public relations? It seems like an obvious comparison, but too often PR professionals do not attempt to understand their publics. By saying publics, I am referring to the media, the customers, and even the general population. In order to maintain a healthy relationship between a company and its consumers, communication is essential.

Ways that a public relations department could keep tabs on public opinion is by maintaining a blog on the company website to keep people informed, while at the same time allowing them to leave feedback. Even the most absurd complaints could be representative of a view shared by a large group.

Does everybody matter?

In Appiah’s Cosmopolitanism, there is much talk of the importance of cultural understanding. Does everybody matter in his definition of cosmopolitanism? If there is one concept that this author wishes to drive home in this book, it is without a doubt that every person matters, no culture has moral superiority to another, and in order to have positive global relations, a greater cultural understanding must be achieved. The first step in achieving this goal of global understanding and harmony is awareness. The ignorance that pervades our society and the world as a whole is responsible for the majority of clashes within different religions and governments. However it does not simply take a well-informed traveler to be a cosmopolitan. Appiah describes instances of travelers and anthropologists that maintain their prejudices and judgments despite their awareness. They assert a superior view as an anthropologist, but do not attempt to put themselves in the shoes of others. The ultimate goal of a true cosmopolitan would be that this understanding would lead to conversation, and this world society could communicate its differences and continually confront them with an open mind.

When it comes to supply chains for large corporations, it is a sticky subject for Americans. From a cosmopolitan view, it’s unethical for companies to use unfair labor practices or outsource their labor in less fortunate countries. It’s unethical as a citizen to support businesses who misuse people for the sake of profit. However, these companies are able to get away with this because of the ignorance on the consumer’s part. As a consumer, I try to pay more attention to where I spend my money. I would prefer to only shop at the organic grocery stores or mom and pop shops, but even as an informed citizen I oftentimes opt for convenience over conviction. These supply chains enable large corporations to sell goods at a reduced price, and as a student I fall into that trap.