PR Ethics
118 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

American Apparel CEO Says Using Hurricane Sandy To Hawk Clothes 'Not A Serious Matter'

American Apparel CEO Says Using Hurricane Sandy To Hawk Clothes 'Not A Serious Matter' | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
American Apparel might adhere to a "Made in U.S.A" business model, but the company forgot some intrinsic American values when Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast on Monday.
Bre Rogy's insight:

 

 

In November of 2012, disaster struck our country in the form of Hurricane Sandy. Nine states were affected by the tragedy and that part of the country was, no doubt, in a state of devastation. This sounds like the perfect time to release a campaign promoting a sale for your company right? Maybe not. Well apparently American Apparel thought the timing was perfect. They chose to capitalize on the effects of Hurricane Sandy by hosting a “SANDY SALE.” The promoted the sale in a tweet that stated, “In case you’re bored during the storm, just enter SANDYSALE at Checkout.” Not only was this extremely unethical in the terms of using a natural disaster for means of corporate gain, it also belittled the severity of the storm and made it sound like your average thunderstorm, which was quite obviously not the case.

When asked to comment, CEO Dov Charney came forward and, to the surprise of many, stated that he saw nothing wrong with the way his marketing team chose to go about their campaign. He talked about how in the corporate world companies must do whatever is necessary to stay afloat and boasted about the fact that the campaign did cause traffic and revenue for the company. He ended is statement by saying, “We’re here to sell clothing. I’m sleeping well at night knowing this was not a serious matter.” Another representative came forward the next day with a slightly softer spirit stating that the company would “never mean to offend anyone” and that the campaign “came from a good place,” a week attempt at utilizing Beniot’s strategy of Good Intentions.

Throughout his statement he attempts to use Beniot’s strategies of Bolstering and Minimization. He preaches on the fact that American Apparel is a Made in USA brand and that they were simply seeking out ways to keep the company moving for the sake of its employees and stockholders. He also attempted to use minimization by stating that the issue really was not as big of a deal as everyone else was making it out to be and that he essentially was not sympathetic to the company’s actions because he did not see this as a “serious matter.”

Many angry customers took to twitter in protest but the angry tweets were still not enough to make the CEO see the error in the company’s ways.

Unfortunately, the corporate world is a dog-eat-dog environment and companies must attempt to always be a step ahead of their competition. Many times companies get too caught up in getting the sales that they overlook the bigger picture and the people they are affecting with the strategies.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

Lululemon founder Chip Wilson plunges company into PR crisis | Marketing Magazine

Lululemon founder Chip Wilson plunges company into PR crisis | Marketing Magazine | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
Bre Rogy's insight:

In November of 2013, athletic clothing icon Lululemon found itself swimming in the midst of yet another public relations crisis. Lululemon creates very fashionable and very expensive athletic clothing for women. The company’s apparel has become somewhat of a staple in women’s workout wardrobes everywhere.

The crisis stemmed from an initial complaint stating that the material with which Lululemon’s pants are made was too thin and also that the pants were pilling quite easily. These initial complaints were in no way threatening to the company and could have been very easily dealt with in a quick and efficient manor by apologizing for the poor quality of product and promising to get to the bottom of the issue and turn out an even more successful product. Unfortunately, Lululemon founder, Chip Wilson, chose to take a much more complicated route. He refuted the negative comments regarding his clothes by stating that the Lululemon product was not the problem, but rather that “some women’s bodies actually don’t work” for the line of clothing. Woah! This statement alone is extremely unethical, especially in today’s society where such an emphasis has already been placed on young women to strive for unrealistic weight goals and body images. But it gets even better; Wilson continues to refute the remarks by addressing the issue of pilling. He claims that it is not the fault of thin material, but instead he said, “It’s really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure there is over a period of time, how much they use it.” Double Woah! One of the biggest issues among teen girls today is the newfound fascination with having a “thigh gap.” An unrealistic goal that has young women attempting desperate measures to obtain, and he just added fuel to the fire.

In his sad attempt to apologize, Wilson released a video to his Facebook and YouTube outlets. The only people apologized to on this video was made to his employees. He stated that he was sorry for his actions and apologized for putting his employees through the negative outcomes that came from his statements. No statement was made regarding an apology to customers or the women he insulted whatsoever.

Wilson made a sad attempt to utilize Beniot’s strategy of Attacking the Accuser and failed miserably. Like I stated at the beginning, this would have been an extremely easy case to tackle by means of simple Mortification and Compensation, but unfortunately Wilson was too focused on his brand image to see the big picture.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

How KitchenAid Spun A Twitter Crisis Into A PR Coup

How KitchenAid Spun A Twitter Crisis Into A PR Coup | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
KitchenAid's apology for an offensive tweet about President Obama's deceased grandmother amounts to a case study in digital damage control.
Bre Rogy's insight:

On October 3, 2012, an extremely offensive tweet was sent out on KitchenAid’s corporate twitter handle. It became evident right away that the tweet was mistakenly posted to the companies handle instead of the individuals personal handle, but nonetheless the damage had already been done.

The tweet read as follows: “Obamas gma even knew it was going 2 b bad! ‘She died 3 days b4 he came president'. #nbcpolitics.”

Not only did this tweet display horrendous grammar, it was extremely unethical in the fact that it slandered the President, it also made a joke of the passing of his grandmother and created an extremely negative image of the company among twitter users and those with which it was shared.

The beauty in this situation, however, was the manor in which KitchenAid approached the situation handled the negative press. They began by first removing the tweet as soon as the error was realized. Once the tweet was removed they moved forward with their public relations crisis plan right away. They immediately released a follow up tweet apologizing “irresponsible tweet” and assuring the public that the views expressed in that were in no way a reflection on the companies. They were strategic in releasing this statement because not only did they release it from the medium on which it originated, they also used the same hashtag that was present in the original tweet so that those following the hashtag would easily have access to the apology. They also released a later tweet personally apologizing to President Obama using his twitter handle.

Next, Cynthia Soledad, the woman in charge of marketing and managing KitchenAid’s twitter feed came forward with a statement. Although she was not the one who personally send the tweet out, she utilized Beniot’s strategy of Mortification and took full responsibility for it. She recognized that it came from her department and stated that that person would no longer be tweeting for the company. He statement read:

"During the debate tonight, a member of our Twitter team mistakenly posted an offensive tweet from the KitchenAid handle instead of a personal handle. The tasteless joke in no way represents our values at KitchenAid, and that person won't be tweeting for us anymore. That said, I lead the KitchenAid brand, and I take responsibility for the whole team. I am deeply sorry to President Obama, his family, and the Twitter community for this careless error. Thanks for hearing me out."

I thought this statement was beautifully crafted. It was short, sweet and to the point yet still conveyed the regret for the mistake. Our book states on page 300 that one of the key considerations in crisis communications is to be prepared. I believe that because of how prepared the team was and how quickly and efficiently KitchenAid jumped on this crisis, the backlash it received regarding it was much more minimal than it would have otherwise been.  

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Bre Rogy from Hybrid PR
Scoop.it!

Ford’s PR team worked all weekend on ad crisis

Ford’s PR team worked all weekend on ad crisis | PR Ethics | Scoop.it

Are you having a rough Monday? At least you weren’t handling a fast-moving PR crisis all weekend.


Via LPM Comunicação SA
Bre Rogy's insight:

In March of 2013, the Public Relations team for Ford Motor Company had their work cut out for them. A mockup print ad that was created by a company in India called JWT, owned by WPP, was released depicting caricatures that were slightly less than ethical. One ad showed the Italian Prime minister driving a Ford Figo with three women tied up in the trunk. The caption of the ad reads: “Leave your worries behind with Figo’s extra large boot.”

Yikes. Referring to women as “worries” and depicting them tied up and gagged in the trunk of a car probably is not the quickest route to getting consumers on your good side. In addition to that ad, another was release showing Paris Hilton at the wheel and the three Kardashian sisters tied up in the trunk. Once again, if you are looking to start controversy, these would all be great ideas, but if not, you should probably get on the phone with your Public Relations agent as soon as possible.

Just by hearing an overview of what these ads looked like, it is easy to see that they are extremely unethical and it becomes very easy to understand why the companies received so much backlash because of it. A story was even posted on Business Insider regarding the ads and was titles “Worst Ford ad ever?”

Unfortunately instances like these, having an outside company post fake ads using your logos is extremely difficult to predict. As PR professionals, all we can do is be prepared. I think Ford Motor Company did well in refuting these ads quickly and efficiently, though they may have been a little under prepared than they should have been. They had a global team that worked together as one to combat the allegations. They quickly had the ads removed from the site but unfortunately the damage had already been done. The Public Relations team has implemented a strong social media monitoring platform to keep an eye on the way things were circulating and to stop any future accusations.

The thing that shocked me the most about this case was the way that WPP responded to the incident. Since WPP was not the direct source of these publications, but rather just the owner of a smaller company who released them, they were shocked to find out about the ads. They released a statement making it very clear that these ads were not created by Ford and that in no way did Ford sign off on them. The company also stated that they deeply regretted the incident. I think this lines up well with the PRSA value of honesty described on page 245 of our book. Overall, though this was unfortunate for Ford, it really did not harm them in the long run due to the fact that people saw them as the victim and wanted to stand up for him. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

Malaysia Airlines to Families: 'None of Those On Board Survived' - NBC News

Malaysia Airlines to Families: 'None of Those On Board Survived' - NBC News | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
The families of passengers aboard the missing Malaysia Airlines jet have been sent text messages telling them that the plane has been "lost.""...
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

ABC's Bachelor issues apology for gay comments

ABC's Bachelor issues apology for gay comments | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
Juan Pablo Galavis issues apology on Facebook, writing,
Bre Rogy's insight:

I heard about this controversy one day while I was at the nail salon and my Public Relations brain automatically was crazy. The jist of what happened is that Juan Pablo, current star of the hit ABC show "The Bachelor" is gaining a world of backlash from making an anti-gay comment regarding the show and the possibility of a homosexual bachelor at some point in the future.

According to this article by USA Today, Juan Pablo said that having a homosexual bachelor would create a "bad example for children to watch" and that homosexuals are "pervert(ed)." I am sure you can imagine that gasps that occurred throughout the nation as more and more people became aware of his statement. Considering that Juan Pablo is currently a heart throb to most women in the country, it broke a lot of hearts to learn that he made these negative comments. 

As for the topic of ethics and public relations, it is evident that this statement was clearly unethical and some apologies were going to have to be in order if Juan Pablo desired to maintain his image.

Though we can never be sure if he truly meant the things he said, Juan Pablo came back and released a statement via Facebook stating that his comments regarding a homosexual bachelor were misunderstood and that his language barrier was to blame for the improper choice of words. In my opinion, this method of apology for a hurtful comment lines up wonderfully with Beniot’s strategy of transcendence, stating that the act should be understood in a different context, as well as defeasibility, a lack of information for control.

Juan Pablo claims that because English is his second language, his vocabulary is not as broad as he would like and for this reason, sometimes the meaning that he intends put across is distorted. He is attempting to claim that the context of what he was trying to say was improper due to his language barrier and that he does not posses the full knowledge of the English language to be able to communicate his opinion properly.

I found this article very interesting because at first glance to this article, I assumed that the overall population would be fairly forgiving to Juan Pablo due to the fact that he is such a house hold name right now and so many women in this country are drooling over him. I was surprised to find that this was not exactly the case and that he has indeed been getting quite a bit of grief over the topic. However, with his timely apologies and charming smile I am sure the bounce back from this blunder will not be unfeasible. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Bre Rogy from Hybrid PR
Scoop.it!

Coca-Cola's America Is Beautiful ad / The genius of the Coca-Cola company is that they made the racial aspect of soda marketing work in their favor with this ad

Coca-Cola's America Is Beautiful ad / The genius of the Coca-Cola company is that they made the racial aspect of soda marketing work in their favor with this ad | PR Ethics | Scoop.it

Via LPM Comunicação SA
Bre Rogy's insight:

I found this article, as well as situation itself, to be very interesting in terms of Public Relations Ethics. During the Super Bowl on February 2, Coca-Cola released a commercial that left some people with warm fuzzies inside and others outraged. The commercial showed people of all different genders, ethnic groups and sexual orientations singing the beloved song, “America the Beautiful,” some of them even singing it in their own native language. Attached to the end of this commercial was the hashtag “America Is Beautiful.”

            Many people were touched by this commercial and thought that it showed the true diversity of America, some even reported tearing up in the middle of the commercial. Others were not so supportive. Many remarks were made about the fact that one of our nations most beloved songs was being sung in a language unfamiliar to the majority of our population.

         In terms of ethics, I found this commercial to be, in fact, ethical. It brings together people from all walks of life and does not single out one minority to be more inferior to any other ethnic group in our country. Ethnic unity is something many people strive for today and in terms of that, I think Coca-Cola hit the nail on the head.

         Other arguments can, and have been, made as to why this commercial was unethical. People that argued this view attempted to harp on things as bold as saying that this commercial pushed multiculturalism down peoples throats. Snide comments were even made toward the foreign language in the song and that that took away from this person’s sense of pride in his country. Due to the fact that the U.S. has never had an officially language and was founded by many people from various ethnic groups, I can not give way into this way of thinking because the argument simply is not strong enough.

         In terms of Public Relations and getting their name out there, I think that Coca-Cola did wonderfully. They have seen a decreasing in soda consumption throughout the majority of the population, so they decided to target various different minorities, particularly rapidly growing minorities, in hopes to bring them in as new and loyal customers.

         I feel that the strategies they used line up most closely with Beniot’s strategy of Bolstering. Though Coca-Cola did not do anything major recently to where they would need to administer an image restoration strategy, let’s face facts…soda is not the best thing, health wise, out there. By releasing this commercial, Coca-Cola hopes that their good characteristics such as a desire for ethnic equality, will outweigh the scrutiny from health professionals about the empty calories in their product.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

BUSTED: Walmart Caught In Huge Bribery Scandal -- Senior Management Knew About It And Tried To Cover It Up

BUSTED: Walmart Caught In Huge Bribery Scandal -- Senior Management Knew About It And Tried To Cover It Up | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
Ouch....

 

This article discusses how one of the largest and most successful companies of all time was caught in a bribery scandal. To make matters worse senior management was caught trying to cover it up. There is a pending investigation occurring that could lead to the firing of several of Wal-Mart hire-ups to be fired, and possibly face criminal charges. The Wal-Mart chain in Mexico, which accounts for one-fifth of all Wal-Marts, has been bribing Mexican government officials for many years. The bribes which allegedly total more than $24 million were paid so they could be granted permission to open more stores vastly and quickly then could have ever been possible if the company would have obeyed the Mexican laws. According to the article the bribes were originally covered up from Wal-Mart’s global headquarters in Arkansas, by disguising them as “normal legal bills,” this can also be known as accounting fraud. So, in other words they have a public relations nightmare on their hands. Wal-Mart prides itself on having high ethical standards. The public relations team sent a statement out calling the bribery scandal, no more than just campaign donations and lobbying funds. This would be a very hard situation for any public relations team, especially if they believe it to be all true. That would have to play into their morals and code of ethics. I know as a public relations specialist it would be very hard for me to spin this situation in a light way for Wal-Mart. “The difficulty in trying to pin down ethics in terms of standards or principles of conduct is that there is so little uniformity. Short of what is legal or illegal, determination of what kinds of conduct are acceptable, in various kinds of circumstances, comes down to the individual or the group conscience.” (Center et al pg 306) If the group conscience is to go against the law, then it will not seem as immoral, than if everyone was against it.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

The worst media disaster of April 2014

The worst media disaster of April 2014 | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
We’re calling it early this month, because we don’t think much of anything can top this sports team owner’s statements, nor his organization’s response to them.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

Calming a twitstorm: O2's masterclass in dealing with 'outage outrage' (Wired UK)

Calming a twitstorm: O2's masterclass in dealing with 'outage outrage' (Wired UK) | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
On 11 July, O2 experienced a network outage that caused many customers to lose all 2G and 3G connectivity. As customers flocked to social media to express their dissatisfaction, O2 gave a masterclass in crisis management
Bre Rogy's insight:

I believe that O2 has captured one of the few moments where throwing caution to the wind in the midst of a public relations crisis can actually work to the advantage of the company in trouble.

In July of 2012, O2, a UK based network company was faced with a tough crisis to tackle. They were undergoing problems with their network that caused a 2G and 3G outage spanning two days. During these two days customers became irate and, like most angry customers these days, took to twitter to express their feelings. Customers expressed their disappointment and even went as far to say that they were going to cancel their contracts with the company and move on. O2’s twitter page was blowing up and they were faced head on with a massive public relations crisis.

Every public relations book, lesson plan or study will tell you one way to handle a situation like this, typically resulting in something along the lines of “Sorry for this temporary outage in our service, we are working on getting this up and running as soon as possible. Please bare with us.” Is that what O2 did? Nope! They decided to run with the tweets and confront each tweet on a case-to-case basis. They used wit, humor and directness to win over the opinions of their angered customer. A couple of their best responses were as follows:

Customer (@MrJeb): "Oi! O2! Because of you I missed a call from my dear old mum. For that I think I owe you a pint. Ta! :)"

O2 response:  "Um... you're welcome, we think. But if your mum asks, we'll totally deny this tweet"

 

Also,

Customer (@grahamcummings7): "@O2 F**K You! Suck d**k in hell"

O2 response: " Maybe later, got tweets to send"

 

These responses, among many others, were direct, humorous and targeted specifically at each individual. As more customers and non-customers alike became aware of the companies remarks, their popularity began to skyrocket. They were gaining major support for their humorous comebacks. In a world where we are told to not “feed the trolls,” O2 not only responded to the trolls, but put them in their place with a witty comeback no one was expecting.

O2 utilized the crisis strategy of “Address Stakeholder Needs” by efficiently analyzing each complaint and responding with a tweet the specifically targeted each customers needs. In my opinion, O2 took a big risk that ended up turning a big reward for them.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

Skittles Caught in an Unforgiving Spotlight - PR News

Skittles Caught in an Unforgiving Spotlight - PR News | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
Skittles parent company Wrigley threaded the needle in its management of the boost in awareness of the candy as a result of the Trayvon Martin case.
Bre Rogy's insight:

I found this case to be one of the more interesting public relations cases that I have ever studied or reviewed. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman has claimed that the incident was self-defense, but all that was found on Martin was a can of Arizona Iced Tea and a bag of skittles.

 Upon hearing this, skittles quickly became a symbol of mourning and protest for many people. People were being encouraged to bring skittles to rallies hosted in Martins name and a box of skittles was even sent to the police department as a form of protest over the fact that Zimmerman had not yet been arrested.

To no ones surprise, people started to wonder what the Skittles company, rather Wrigley, the makers of Skittles, were doing to help the cause.

Activists quickly took to social media and began to ask questions about how much money Wrigley was making off of this uproar and if they would be donating any of the proceeds to the cause.

This is where things get interesting. At this point, Wrigley is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Whether they attempt to remove their brand name from the situation or choose to donate to the cause, they would receive backlash for it. This subject was so sensitive and for that reason, their PR team had to be very strategic in forming their response. After much consultation they released a statement saying:

            “We are deeply saddened by the news of Trayvon Martin’s death and express our sincere condolences to his family and friends. We also respect their privacy and feel it inappropriate to get involved or comment further as we would never wish for our actions to be perceived as an attempt of commercial gain following this tragedy.”

Beautiful! I think the response that they came up with was spot on and exactly what their audiences needed to hear. They were able to spin their statement in such a way as to acknowledge the tragedy without pulling their personal gain or loss into the situation. Page 300 of our book talks about crisis communication strategies. On of the strategies listed is “Address Stakeholder Needs” this entails directing the message to the needs of the public. I feel that Wrigley in this case did that by thinking about the things that would either please or anger their various public and came up with a solution that met in the middle. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Bre Rogy from The PR Story
Scoop.it!

Subway Finally Responds to ‘Footlong’ PR Crisis

Subway Finally Responds to ‘Footlong’ PR Crisis | PR Ethics | Scoop.it

Subway Finally Responds to ‘Footlong’ PR Crisis


Via Susan Andrews
more...
Susan Andrews's curator insight, January 28, 2013 8:41 PM

A change of strategy more than a week into the crisis. Solid preparation doesn't come to mind.

Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

Women is office are 'more honorable and ethical,' NM candidate ...

Women is office are 'more honorable and ethical,' NM candidate ... | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
“MORE HONORABLE AND ETHICAL:” A candidate for city council in Santa Fe, N.M., says female elected officials are more cooperative and ethical than men. By Rob Nikolewski │ New Mexico Watchdog. SANTA FE, N.M.
Bre Rogy's insight:

Yikes! This woman’s name is Mary Bonney and she is running for city council in Santa Fe, New Mexico. As part of her campaign, Bonney and her team have released a flier listing five reasons as to why citizens should vote for a woman for officer and why a woman would be more suited for the position. Come of the claims made on the flier include things such as “women are more responsive to constituents,” “more focused on cooperation,” and she even goes so far as to say that women “have been proven to be more honorable and ethical.” No sources were given to prove this “proven fact” and, as you can imagine, this campaign has caused some controversy.

In the flier, Booney also included a quote from Margaret Thatcher that read, “If you want something said ask a man; if you want something done, ask a women.”

Her whole campaign seems to be focused on how females are so much more superior to males. In addition to all of the other negative comments she also referred to her male competitors on the flier as “Bad Boys.”

After receiving some back lash regarding the flier, Booney responded by saying, “It certainly wasn’t meant to intend to offend men, for sure.” She also went on to say that she did not believe the flier was sexist in any way and that people were just reading too far into what she was trying to say.

All of these attempts to respond to the criticism line up with Beniot’s strategies of Transcendence and minimization. She pretty much is saying that the public did not understand what she was trying to say and took her topic out of context. She also tries to minimize the situation by saying that people were reading too far into it and making it a bigger deal than it was intended to be in the first place.

I found this very interesting because even when I, a women, read this campaign, my first thought is that it is screaming sexism and feminism at me. I also found it interesting because I feel if a man was posting this campaign about a women it would have caught a lot more press. I do not understand her attempts to minimize or cover up the issue. I guess it goes to show that when people have their minds set on a goal and strategy, their mind will not be easily swayed. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Bre Rogy
Scoop.it!

W&M fraternity suspends itself following explicit email

W&M fraternity suspends itself following explicit email | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
A fraternity at the College of William and Mary has voluntarily suspended operations while it investigates a vulgar email posted through an internal listserv.
Bre Rogy's insight:

The tales of Fraternity men acting out are some of the most widely circulated stories these days. Everything from wild parties to degrading women, we have heard it all.

         As a member of Fraternity and Sorority life, I can personally vogue for the fact that, for the majority of the time, this is not how all fraternity men conduct themselves or their chapters, but of course there are always a few bad seeds that ruin it for everyone else.

         Over the weekend of January 29, the Zeta Upsilon chapter of Sigma Chi at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg Virginia sent out an extremely vulgar email that circulated through its members. Unfortunately these men did not take into consideration that things shared on the Internet hardly stay secret for long. Shortly after the email was sent, it was leaked to the public.

         The level of disgust felt by men and women across the nation was overwhelming upon reading the email. Lines throughout the message included things such as: "There’s beer to be drunk, porn to view, and sluts to f***. Let me reiterate that last point: sluts are everywhere." If this is not disturbing enough for you, maybe the instructions to picture women with their clothes off or referring to women as “the lesser sex” will be. The sad thing is, it gets worse than that.

         Obviously an email with these claims and statements puts this chapter in an extremely unethical state. They have dug themselves quite a hole that will not be easy to get back out of.

         Shortly after the email was leaked the Zeta Upsilon chapter released a statement regarding the email. They stated that they were extremely regretful of the email and that it was not in line with the values of the organization. Surprisingly, that chapter also announced that they would be voluntarily suspending themselves until they could get to the root of the issue and that they would also be taking a close look at the men in their chapter to weed out the bad seeds.

         I thought that this was a great PR move on their part by not waiting to be suspended by the campus or their headquarters but instead taking on the initiative themselves. This is directly in line with Beniot’s strategies of Mortification and Corrective action. They have taken full responsibility for the actions of their members and taken the initiative to get to the root of the problem.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Bre Rogy from Public Relations and Ethics
Scoop.it!

Microsoft makes products making fun of Google

Microsoft makes products making fun of Google | PR Ethics | Scoop.it
Mugs, t-shirts and hats bearing Google Chrome logos and assertions that the search company steals users’ data may be doing Microsoft more harm than good.

Via Anniston Henk
more...
Anniston Henk's curator insight, December 4, 2013 9:05 PM
Is it ethical to put down another company to make your own company look better? I have heard both sides of this debate in my marketing classes, but I personally do not think it is ethical or very effective. Microsoft clearly does not share my opinion because of the line of products they have made to “put down” Google. Not only is it unethical, but this has also been very ineffective marketing for Microsoft. Instead of benefiting Microsoft it ended up backfiring and making them look poorly inste ad of Google. On page 246 Guth and Marsh state, “Social contract theory essentially says that we’re all in this together, so if you treat me well, I’ll treat you well. If we fail to do so, we reduce our society to chaos.” I think that when a company says negative things about one of their competitors it is violating their social responsibility because they aren’t treating their competitors fairly. I think that a part of social responsibility is treating others how you would want to be treated and I do not think that Microsoft would want Google making products making fun of them. I think that this product line has only made Microsoft look bad because a lot of people do love Google and I don’t think that it is as widely hated as Microsoft assumes. I also do not understand why they made products trying to “put down” Google. Do people really hate Google enough to put a product on their body making fun of Google? I just can’t help but think not many people would pay or wear those products. I think that this whole campaign made Microsoft look very stupid because nobody seems to be showing interest in purchasing their products. Since Google did not do anything to retaliate against Microsoft it shows that Google is unconcerned or threatened by Microsoft. It also shows that Google has a better grasp on social responsibility than Microsoft. On page 243 Guth and Marsh state, “If we deliberately refuse to consider long-term ramifications, short-term thinking may be more of a problem of denial than ignorance.” I think that Microsoft did not consider the long term problems that could arise because of these products. Microsoft employees are embarrassed about this campaign and that could cause them to lose pride in their job and become unmotivated. It also makes Microsoft look bad because they started firing negative things about Google when Google has said nothing negative about them.