Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Kobe With The Step Back!
I watched this game in 2011 and remember reading his lips and thinking, "Ohhhh man, Kobe is gonna get burned for that one." Surprisingly he at most was the talk of ESPN/Sportscenter for the next couple of days.
I think him and his public relations adviser have a strategy that seems to work well for them and they're sticking to that. I probably would've included an apology in my quoted statement though. He talks about how it's not okay to use those slurs, but never says "I'm sorry I said the things that I did."
The unfortunate thing is less people care about homophobic slurs than they should. If he had insulted a different demographic then people might have cared more. That's probably why the sponsors and fans stayed with him. If he makes the same comment 20 or 25 years from now, as the country evolves, I say the fans would have his head.
I'm honestly still shocked that he didn't lose his sponsors from the sexual assault accusations. He settled it out of court, but that just looks like he threw money at it to make it go away. I guess when you're one of the best players of all time, you get a little more leeway.
As for the NBA fine, I probably would have told Kobe to just pay it. It makes it seem like he knows what he did was wrong. Appealing it makes a statement that he thought he was in the right. But once again, it didn't really seem to matter in the long run.
I think him and his public relations adviser have a strategy that seems to work well for them and they're sticking to that. I probably would've included an apology in my quoted statement though. He talks about how it's not okay to use those slurs, but never says "I'm sorry I said the things that I did."
The unfortunate thing is less people care about homophobic slurs than they should. If he had insulted a different demographic then people might have cared more. That's probably why the sponsors and fans stayed with him. If he makes the same comment 20 or 25 years from now, as the country evolves, I say the fans would have his head.
I'm honestly still shocked that he didn't lose his sponsors from the sexual assault accusations. He settled it out of court, but that just looks like he threw money at it to make it go away. I guess when you're one of the best players of all time, you get a little more leeway.
As for the NBA fine, I probably would have told Kobe to just pay it. It makes it seem like he knows what he did was wrong. Appealing it makes a statement that he thought he was in the right. But once again, it didn't really seem to matter in the long run.
Shilling The Morning Joe
I don't think that it was that big of a deal that Morning Joe did not disclose that they were partnered with Starbucks.
Normally I would be very abrasive about a company or network trying to pull the wool over our eyes. But if their dedicated viewers watch the show they probably already knew that Starbucks sponsored them. Peyton Manning doesn't have to remind everyone he is sponsored by Papa Johns if he says anything good about them.
I think MSNBC handled it well. If they have been upfront about their relationship with Starbucks and were genuine about not their belief in the viewers knowing their partnership, then that's all you can do. I think apologizing would have made them look like they were sorry they got caught.
Starbucks got exactly what they wanted from the interview: easy advertisement and publicity. I wouldn't advise Mr. Schultz to have conducted his interview any differently.
If this situation was a big deal, then people should also make a big deal about companies that donate funds to political campaigns. Energy companies give aid to these republican candidates that get elected and they just to happen to reject policies that would make the companies lower carbon emissions and ultimately cost them money. But hey, lets focus on people trying to sell us coffee!
Normally I would be very abrasive about a company or network trying to pull the wool over our eyes. But if their dedicated viewers watch the show they probably already knew that Starbucks sponsored them. Peyton Manning doesn't have to remind everyone he is sponsored by Papa Johns if he says anything good about them.
I think MSNBC handled it well. If they have been upfront about their relationship with Starbucks and were genuine about not their belief in the viewers knowing their partnership, then that's all you can do. I think apologizing would have made them look like they were sorry they got caught.
Starbucks got exactly what they wanted from the interview: easy advertisement and publicity. I wouldn't advise Mr. Schultz to have conducted his interview any differently.
If this situation was a big deal, then people should also make a big deal about companies that donate funds to political campaigns. Energy companies give aid to these republican candidates that get elected and they just to happen to reject policies that would make the companies lower carbon emissions and ultimately cost them money. But hey, lets focus on people trying to sell us coffee!
Monday, November 9, 2015
Kenneth Cole's Egyptian "Twagedy"
Kenneth Cole obviously did not realize how far-reaching a tweet is. There are all sorts of anonymous parody accounts that tweet similar tweets and people find funny. The only difference is that their twitter handle isn't connected to a image or brand.
The joke was obviously insensitive to the situation overseas. I think the best way to go about tweets from companies is to avoid controversial situations or any situation where people are being harmed or oppressed.
Commenting on pop culture and current events can be a great marketing strategy. When a team wins the Superbowl, you could use a play on words about the winning team as a funny tweet. But when people are suffering, it's not best to try to increase profits using their agony.
In the future I would advise Mr. Cole to follow the guidelines I have outlined before this. Mostly he should think before he tweets. That's just a simple rule for life. Think before you tweet (speak).
If anyone can be hurt by your message, then it should automatically be trashed.
The joke was obviously insensitive to the situation overseas. I think the best way to go about tweets from companies is to avoid controversial situations or any situation where people are being harmed or oppressed.
Commenting on pop culture and current events can be a great marketing strategy. When a team wins the Superbowl, you could use a play on words about the winning team as a funny tweet. But when people are suffering, it's not best to try to increase profits using their agony.
In the future I would advise Mr. Cole to follow the guidelines I have outlined before this. Mostly he should think before he tweets. That's just a simple rule for life. Think before you tweet (speak).
If anyone can be hurt by your message, then it should automatically be trashed.
Playing "Chicken" With Gay Marriage
I remember when this controversy was going on. I thought it was pretty silly how it caused an internet war. The CEO got lucky that, with his statements, the situation wasn't a complete disaster. If it wasn't for Mike Huckabee, there probably wouldn't have been a Chic-Fil-A appreciation day, and instead a long boycott by protesters.
Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is not relevant. He is running a business to serve food, not changing public policy. Some may say that corporations have a social responsibility to shape public policy and be a voice in the public forum, but gay marriage isn't an area that businesses should be diving into.
His remarks basically say, "Here at Chic-Fil-A we discriminate against the gay community." How is that a good marketing message than saying nothing?
If I was advising Mr. Dan Cathy, I would suggest keeping personal beliefs to myself and focusing my interviews on the business side of things. His interviews should promote the companies benefits for communities and employees. There are times to talk about public matters, but that was not one of them. For example, if it was 2001 and they asked Mr. Cathy how 9/11 affected him, he could give an honest response.
Dan Cathy may have thought the target market for the magazine would like to hear that particular response, but those words carried over to everybody. I think a lot of CEO's or spokespersons want to give the best interview possible, so sometimes they are loose with their tongues.
Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is not relevant. He is running a business to serve food, not changing public policy. Some may say that corporations have a social responsibility to shape public policy and be a voice in the public forum, but gay marriage isn't an area that businesses should be diving into.
His remarks basically say, "Here at Chic-Fil-A we discriminate against the gay community." How is that a good marketing message than saying nothing?
If I was advising Mr. Dan Cathy, I would suggest keeping personal beliefs to myself and focusing my interviews on the business side of things. His interviews should promote the companies benefits for communities and employees. There are times to talk about public matters, but that was not one of them. For example, if it was 2001 and they asked Mr. Cathy how 9/11 affected him, he could give an honest response.
Dan Cathy may have thought the target market for the magazine would like to hear that particular response, but those words carried over to everybody. I think a lot of CEO's or spokespersons want to give the best interview possible, so sometimes they are loose with their tongues.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Drowning Out The Drone Attacks
I think the drone industry should focus their message more on keeping men and women out of harm's way and the good that can come by using the unmanned flying vehicles. Their comparison to cars causing 35,000 deaths is an absurd comparison. Cars are made for the purpose of transportation, while drones can have multiple purpose, one of which is isolated missile strikes. Their goal should be educating people on how drones work and the usefulness that can come from them.
I would add, to the PR approach, more plans for the future of drones. They had a good start with their examples of forest fires and missing persons. Who knows, it may become pizza delivery drones. I can't personally give great future examples because I do not work for the industry. Maybe even talk about future regulations regarding drones that would make citizens feel safer.
Whether hobbyist should be able to own a drone is a whole other monster.
I would add, to the PR approach, more plans for the future of drones. They had a good start with their examples of forest fires and missing persons. Who knows, it may become pizza delivery drones. I can't personally give great future examples because I do not work for the industry. Maybe even talk about future regulations regarding drones that would make citizens feel safer.
Whether hobbyist should be able to own a drone is a whole other monster.
I Hate You, I'm Leaving, Where's My Check?
It seems pretty convenient that Greg Smith allowed Goldman Sachs to pay him nearly three quarters of a million dollars and then splits on them. If Smith had such a problem with the company and how it handled external affairs, then he should have taken it up with upper management, human resources, or any communications director. There is nothing wrong with whistle-blowers. I have a problem with the people who make tons of money from an organization and then get out and talk bad about them.
I think Goldman's response was appropriate. If Smith was the executive director and head of the firm's United States equity derivatives business in Europe, Middle East, and Africa, you would think that would give him a little bit of clout. Directions and goals cannot be changed or altered if you stay quiet and let the business continue their "toxic and destructive" behavior.
The PR team for Goldman Sachs needs to conduct better internal research. They should find out their employees attitudes about how the company is living up to it's mission statement, so that similar events don't happen like this one.
I think Goldman's response was appropriate. If Smith was the executive director and head of the firm's United States equity derivatives business in Europe, Middle East, and Africa, you would think that would give him a little bit of clout. Directions and goals cannot be changed or altered if you stay quiet and let the business continue their "toxic and destructive" behavior.
The PR team for Goldman Sachs needs to conduct better internal research. They should find out their employees attitudes about how the company is living up to it's mission statement, so that similar events don't happen like this one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)