Wal-Mart Can Be Responsive - Sometimes

Here is a story that stands out in the midst of all the negative press coverage of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has been known for ignoring ethics in many cases, such as the recent case involving Debbie Shank, the woman who was hit by a truck, suffered severe brain damage, and was awarded a settlement, which Wal-Mart then proceeded to sue her for.

This time, Wal-Mart stood out among a group of retailers who are all seemingly stonewalling the media on allegations of selling shrimp processed in Thailand and Bangladesh factories with very poor working conditions. An article on cnn.com tells of a report from the Solidarity Center detailing the brutal working conditions some workers in these factories are subject to. According to the report, factories are dangerous, dirty and full of potential for fatal accidents. Workers are treated "like slaves" and many workers are trafficked. Some of these workers are as young as eight years old.

Some of the well-known American retailers who allegedly sell this "slave labor" shrimp are: Costco, Tops Markets, Wal-Mart and the trendy Trader Joe's, where we liberals go to feel healthy, organic and environmentally conscious. Shame on you, Trader Joe's.

Of these (and others not named), only Wal-Mart has come forth with statements to the media. The cnn.com article quotes Wal-Mart spokesman Deisha Galberth as saying, "We hold our shrimp suppliers to the highest safety and quality standards - including maintaining processing plants and packaging facilities that meet or exceed Best Aquaculture Practices standards set by the Global Aquaculture Alliance. Although we have not seen the Solidarity Center's report, we are working with our suppliers to investigate the allegations shared by CNN. We're not aware of any issues in our supply chain."

Now, in time, the truth about the shrimp will, doubtless, come out and we will know whether or not Wal-Mart is hiding the truth about their suppliers. However, it was interesting and somewhat encouraging to see Wal-Mart reply to the media before the other retailers; as it now stands, Wal-Mart is the only organization that has responded. The point is: a response is better than stonewalling.  

-Kelly

Forgot to sign the bottom,

-Jessica

If you are interested in the article, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/media/21bloggers.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=media+relations&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Sticky Fingers Restaurant Makes Use of New Media

Sticky Fingers, a memphis-style rib joint based in Tennessee, Georgia and Florida, have demonstrated that it can pay attention and deal with new media sources just as well as big companies.
Recently, a blogger posted about his bad experience at Sticky Fingers on his personal blog. Several days later, a manger of Sticky Fingers contacted the blogger and apologized personally for Sticky Fingers and his bad experience at a Chattanooga restaurant. The chain manager then offered the blogger the opportunity to have the restaurant cater for him and several of his friends. The blogger took the manager up on the offer and several days later took advantage of the catering services.
In his personal blog, Olivier Blanchard raved about the catering services and stated that "these guys scored big with the way they handled the situation." Not only did Sticky Fingers offer to "make things right" with the blogger, it would went above and beyond in its gesture. Also, by catering to 10 others as well as the blogger, Sticky Fingers was able to gain a great rapport with the blogger and his friends.
How is it possible that a small-chain restaurant such as Stinky Fingers is paying attention to blogs and other new media forms better than large companies? Maybe these large companies should take a lesson from Sticky Fingers and recognize the importance of new media and their impact on a company's reputation.
Here is the link to the customer's blog. http://thebrandbuilder.blogspot.com/2007/04/sticky-fingers-conclusion.html. Enjoy!
-Mandy

Get out of my locker room...bloggers

Before a Dallas Mavericks game a reporter for The Dallas Morning News, who writes a blog, asked Mr. Cuban, the owner of the Mavericks about his injured star player.

Cuban responded “We’re not trading him to the Warriors, bloggers might make that point.” The comment illustrates his discontent with how bloggers are covering his team. Last month he tried to ban bloggers from his locker room but the NBA stepped in. Cuban decided that if bloggers from credible organizations are allowed in, everyone with a blog should be let in...Does that mean me? Cuban joked that it should be all or nothing as an attempt to keep negative bloggers from covering his team.

It's hard to reach a balance between encouraging alternative media and protecting the interests of an organization. I think it would make sense to maintain positive relations with any party wishing to publish information on you--that includes reporters with blogs and maybe even non-reporters with largely followed blogs. More people than ever are able to access information and the behavior of one owner or coach toward a single blogger may create backlash in the virtual community on the whole!

Of all people he should have known better

Part of ensuring good media relations practice is being able to identify what issues or events the media may consider to be newsworthy. One would imagine that the global CEO of Burston-Marsteller, and president of the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Burland Associates, who also happened to be a chief advisor for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, would have understood that meeting with an ambassador from Columbia to discuss promoting a free-trade agreement Sen. Clinton has openly opposed would be a bad idea. Not only a bad idea, but a story for the media to have a field day with. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05penn.html?ref=us

While the ethics of Penn representing two clients with competing interests could be a story in itself, when people are in leadership positions within a company or a campaign, or both as in this case, a practitioner has to recognize that if any of his or her personal mistakes are picked up by the media, the stories are going to reflect poorly on the company or candidate.

While addressing the media after the story first broke, Penn proceeded to explain that meeting with the Columbian ambassador was a poor choice, a statement that offended the Columbian government when that story was printed.

The result of Penn’s actions was more work was created for the media relations experts on Sen. Clinton’s campaign who needed to spend time on damage control, and the Government of Columbia fired Burston-Marsteller for government relations consulting.

Another crucial part of media relations is for practitioners to understand that a story only dies when no new information emerges. But it has been alleged that although Penn has resigned from the campaign he still plays an active role sans a fancy title. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/08/2008-04-08_mark_penn_still_in_clinton_loop_source_.html

It is always good practice as a public relations practitioner to keep in mind how your individual actions may affect media coverage of your organization or client, and how distancing oneself from an issue can offend one of your target publics and/or client. Offend too many people, and you'll be out of business.

-Brian

Clinton under fire, but not from a sniper

One of the responsibilities of the American media is to fact check stories before they go into print. If the media is doing its job well, faux stories should never reach print and the individuals responsible for providing the information should be identified. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton learned this the hard way, coming under fire for the fact that she never was under fire.

Last month, when discussing a visit to Tuzla, Bosnia in March of 1996, Sen. Clinton stated, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." The only problem is journalists who reviewed footage of the then first lady’s plane landing in Bosnia saw no signs of distress from those exiting the plane nor were people running for cover. Within a day the military officials who had received Sen. Clinton at the Tuzla airport and others present denied anything out of the ordinary had occurred that day. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/26/hillaryclinton.barackobama

Moral of the story? It is not wise to lie to the media. In fact, it is incredibly stupid. Technology today makes it almost effortless to check the validity of statements made before a story is printed. Furthermore, technology has allowed people greater access to the media organizations, as those who were with Sen. Clinton that day in Bosnia 12 years ago were able to quickly dispute her statements. CBS news even posted to YouTube footage of Sen. Clinton and her daughter Chelsea exiting their plane and calmly speaking with American soldiers stationed in Bosnia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic

It goes without saying that the odds of getting caught for lying are pretty good nowadays. We learn in class that the temporary benefits an organization or individual may gain from lying are in the end far outweighed by the backlash from the media and publics when they have discovered that they were lied to.

In Sen. Clinton’s defense, she did come forward quickly and acknowledge she had made an erroneous statement noting, "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?ref=politics

Personally I am not sold, as I would consider a trip to war-torn Bosnia with my child to be a unique, memorable experience, The senator and presidential hopeful failed to explain another instance when she was under sniper fire that she had mistaken the event with. It is one thing to mix up where an event might have occurred, but if Sen. Clinton has never been under sniper fire after landing in a foreign country, I would say that her story was a blatant lie. But at least the senator was wise enough to not fabricate another story where the sniper fire took place, as the media would have likely uncovered that lie as well.

-Brian

Paterson: Bad Timing?

With the resignation of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, political figures certainly seem to be exemplifying the stereotypes of sexual affairs, lies and deceits recently. However, how much information is too much for a politician to reveal? Is there an appropriate time to release personal details if he or she chooses to do so?

If anyone wanted an answer to these questions, Gov. David Paterson gave his perspective as he was sworn in on March 17, 2008 after Spitzer stepped down. Paterson, and his wife, Michelle Paterson, spilled the beans about both of their sexual affairs. He even gave the exact location of where he cheated on his wife. Although it is clear that Paterson wanted to prevent the media from catching wind of the story in the future, and ending up in Spitzer's situation, he probably should have considered his timing. 

Although it was a good idea to get this story out before the media got to it, and to practice honesty and transparency, Paterson should have held off a bit. There is a time and place for everything. Almost immediately after being sworn in as governor is probably not the best choice. 

There is no doubt that in today's world, with the all its turmoil, we desperately need role models who abide by good morals and conduct. Who better than those who represent our country and individual states? However, we have to except that even politicians are humans. They, like everyone else, make mistakes. Big deal. How they represent us politically should be the main concern, not whose sheets they paid a visit to. 

So, Paterson, the people of New York forgive you and the media has already forgotten your story. We appreciate your honestly, but do everyone a favor and behave from now on. 

- Courtney