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

A couple weeks ago, when the Eliot Spitzer story broke, friends and family began asking me what I would have done were I the former governor's public relations advisor. Most everyone I know is aware that I study PR, and they were curious to know how I would have handled the prostitution ring scandal and what I would have advised the former governor to do.

My parents and some other relatives were not only disgusted by the whole situation, but were totally turned off by Spitzer's two brief speeches (one that informed the public of his wrongdoings and of his apology, and one that announced his resignation). My family members thought the speeches were poorly done and that they made people even more angry with the former governor.

I, however, have a different opinion of the PR behind Spitzer's actions following the discovery of his link to the prostitution ring. In a reply to those who wanted to know what I would have done, I first informed them that years ago, I vowed never to do PR for politicians. In my few years on this earth, I have learned that politicians almost always have some steamy sex situation brewing, and that I don't ever want to be the individual who has to clean up that mess.

Also, though, I told friends and family that even if the best PR person in the world had been working for Spitzer, the final two speeches wouldn't have changed. When a politician gets embroiled in something of this magnitude, what else can a PR advisor do than to advise him/her to just tell the truth quickly and get out of office?

In much of the crisis communication research I have read, it has been found that the best thing to do to steady oneself after a crisis occurs is to be fast about telling the public exactly what happened. Speed and honesty are often crucial when trying to ease public anger or, in some cases, save the organization or individual involved in the crisis. Also, when a public feels cheated, it wants someone to blame and pay for the offense, and it wants an apology.

Whoever helped Spitzer come to the decision to say what he said and then leave office was giving the public just what it wanted: a target (Spitzer) for pointing the finger and a straightforward apology. The speedy admission of the truth and the fact that Spitzer paid for his crime (by leaving office) were actions that quite possibly helped prevent an even worse reaction from the public.

I'm not saying that the PR behind the speeches created a favorable impression of Spitzer, but it certainly did more for him than lying, blame-shifting or making excuses would have done. Think of the many politicians who have done something awful and then lied about it afterward. I'd be willing to bet that Spitzer will come out of this media storm better off than those politicians who didn't just come out with the truth immediately after they offended the public.

-Kelly 

Informing the Media and the American Public

The press conference, once seen as a staple of media relations, has taken a backseat to content electronically being released through the Internet. However there are still plenty of instances where a press conference is useful when one needs to address issues that are controversial or complex. Though this instance was not a press conference in the traditional sense where reporters have opportunities to ask questions, it served the same purpose as the senator was addressing questions that had already been asked.

 

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday on race in America was intended to sway voters in the upcoming Pennsylvania election, but it also served a more immediate purpose. Two weeks ago video clips began circulating on the Internet and in political talk shows of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a man Sen. Obama has described as his spiritual leader and mentor, denouncing America’s foreign policy as being terrorist in nature. The Reverend preached that 9/11 was a result of U.S. foreign policy supporting terrorist abroad, and that “What we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag.”

 

For a presidential candidate to have described this reverend as his mentor, this calls for some urgent damage control. More and more clips began emerging and it became clear that this issue was only gaining momentum. A New York Times article stated that Sen. Obama “concluded over the weekend that he had failed to resolve the questions” and “wanted to address the firestorm in a speech.”

 

Sen. Obama and his campaign staff were facing an issue that had garnered media attention on the national and international level. I can imagine far too many news sources were writing or broadcasting on the issue for the campaign to efficiently respond to individual media inquires. A high-profile speech would be an opportunity for the senator to address the issue and make sure he had a forum to state his case. Rather than the media having to follow this story based on press releases from his campaign, Sen. Obama instead chose to address the issue head on in front of both the media and the American public. A televised speech allowed Sen. Obama to inform the media, but also to directly send his message to the America viewers who watched the speech live, or afterwards on YouTube.

-Brian

Target takes wrong approach when dealing with blogger

A blogger recently contacted Target in regards to her concern about a Target billboard in Times Square which featured a young girl, fully clothed but spread-eagle with Target's trademarked bullseye design in line with her crotch. A public relations person at Target responded to the complaint with "Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets."

News spread over the blogging world about Amy Jussel, the founder of the blog and contacter to Target about the billboard, and Target's response to her complaint. It eventually blew up enough for The New York Times to feature an article about Target's lack of communication with new media. If you haven't seen the article Target tells a Blogger to Go Away, here it is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/business/media/28target.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=media+relations+target&st=nyt&oref=slogin.

With the growth of the internet and new media outlets, you would think Target would recognize the importance and power of the blogging community. Company spokeswoman, Amy von Walter stated that "Target’s policy is to focus limited resources on the big media outlets, like television stations and newspapers, which reach large numbers of shoppers," but said Target is making small strides towards improving their relationship with new media outlets. Currently, Target is reviewing their policy of responding to traditional media only and may adjust it to encompass new media as well.

Other large retailers, such as Walmart, have been praised for their attempts to work with new media. Walmart's WalmartWatch.com was recently launched in order to keep up with customer complaints and see how customers feel about service and products. Many other large companies are expanding their Web sites to accomodate for bloggers and their opinions. Will Target be next?

-Mandy

Obama's free ads

People tend to turn their heads when political advertisements are at large. They are usually so full of agendas and mud-slinging that any sort of credibility is usually lost. Something is different during this election though, advertising creative's seem to have a crush on Obama. Some of the best creative minds in the world are creating world class advertising for Obama--they are not part of his campaign and are doing it for free, because they can.

If you haven't seen the videos check out http://www.dipdive.com/. As of tonight over 11 million people have watched the "Yes We Can" music video, which features an all-star cast and first-class production. It was all done by calling in favors from friends, just because they like Obama--talk about great media relations! This isn't the first time either, many artists and ad people are diving in to free promotions.

What is it about him that makes ad people and celebrities so excited to endorse Obama? "This is a guy who speaks in poetry -- he's a wide-open canvas and really right for making incredibly moving and incredibly inspiring work," said John Dukakis, senior VP-branded entertainment at Hill Holliday. He seems to possess qualities that make the online media world ready to create viral pieces that speak volumes.

Celebrities don't endorse products for free.

Advertising agencies are usually in the same boat.

Yet, with Obama it's different. It gives him huge credibility that paid promotion simply could not offer. Over 11 million times, people have sought out his message and been completely engaged with it, knowing that it was created by his true supporters. Only time will tell if the buzz marketing will turn into votes but one thing is for sure, the media is on Obama's side and willing to help get him where he wants to go.

-Jessica

Leave the Pop Wreck Alone, Media

For the past few months, it seems as if what pregnancy test Britney Spears is stocking up on is the most relevant current event to many media outlets. You know it’s gone too far when CNN tags the reoccurring subject as “Britney in Crisis” and flaunts it right next to the breaking news headlines about death tolls in Iraq. You also know it’s gone too far when entertainment source TMZ.com posts at least four daily videos of Britney walking to her car, fighting off rampant photographers, going to court or some other scene that is probably not worth watching. 

Have we really become this pathetic? Do we really have nothing better to do with our time than follow the daily antics of the not-so-luminary pop star?

Granted, while a more appropriate term for her may be a pop wreck, the media really should focus on the more pertinent issues in today’s world. Let’s face it, we have a lot of pressing issues that need to be exposed, and I don’t think Britney’s underwear situation or greasy-haired boyfriend fits anywhere within the conventional elements of news coverage.

Besides the fact that the media has a great responsibility to feed the public news that will inform and educate, the focus on Britney is doing a glaring injustice to her well being, and to the sanity of her children. It is quite obvious, especially after her recent visits to psychiatric clinics, that Britney has issues. Constantly putting her in the spotlight in her condition opens her up to unnecessary scrutiny and leaves her defenseless.

While Britney and her family attempt to clean up the mess that is her life, I suggest that the media find something else to cover.

- Courtney