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.

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

Blogger Backlash Crushes ConAgra Conclave

I've always seen the commercials, like McDonalds, using the bait-and-switch to advertise their product. I've never thought of it from the perspective that maybe the people don't want their processed food.

I think Ketchum's research methods should have been better. Find out who their target audiences were and invited those people. I imagine the people who were not thrilled with their experiment were either health conscience people, food critics, mothers who would like nutritional meals, and etc.

Also, the bloggers who made the trip probably had to pay airfare and lodging fees, while only the dinner was free. No one wants to pay for a trip to get tricked out of what was actually promised for them. Of course, I am speculating and could be totally of base.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to structure the invitation to bloggers without receiving seamlessly the same result. Perhaps pay airfare/lodging and provide an event other than the dinner. Make it seem like the trip to New York and free event are the reward for participating in the test dinner. Of course this only makes sense if their grievances were what I stated before.

I think these are learning experiences for all PR practitioners. Mistakes like the one Ketchum made can teach everyone in PR what-not-to-do.

MSNBC Cries "Wawa" with Made-Up Romney Gaffe

I believe MSNBC handled the story poorly. The only reason this moment was a story was because MSNBC took the snip out of context in order to make Romney look ignorant. MSNBC is not the only news station guilty of this, I have seen it on Fox and CNN as well.

The media relies on sensationalism to boost ratings and keep viewers. It's a vicious cycle, really. They bring viewers in with these dramatic stories and then the viewers expect that nightly. If the networks went back to their "boring stories" for too long ratings would drop. So reporters are always looking for the next big thing and sometimes when they have nothing, they'll make something out of nothing.

Who is to blame for it though? Is it the network's corporate greed for ratings, which eventually mean profits? Or is it the viewers desire for a scandalous or shocking story?

I would personally like to hear 100% accurate news all the time, but the networks need to cater to the majority. I'll stick to National Public Radio for now. Terry Gross and crew seem to be the more unbiased talk radio/news that I've listened to.

Sleep-Deprived Research

This research is laughable, along with a lot of research you see posted around on Facebook. The statistics wouldn't convince me to buy a better mattress. If I had seen that the professions that received the least amount of sleep and the profession that received the most were only about 30 minutes apart, I would assume that everyone got around the same amount of sleep. That thinking wouldn't make a mattress purchase a top priority. If enough people thought the same way I did, then that would make the publishing of the ad a waste of money and resources.

Research can be tricky. It can be used effectively to persuade people to do things like make a purchase, help decisions in court cases, or provide information for legislation. But it can also be used to manipulate people. I saw some research recently that opposed the Black Lives Matter movement. The research showed numbers indicating more white people are killed by police officers than black people. What the statistics didn't include was that there are six times as many white citizens in the United States than black citizens. So if the numbers were to be even, there theoretically should have been six times the amount of white people killed by police officers. Another example of bad statistics can be found in a Bill Burr stand-up, where he jokes that research shows that gun owners are more likely to get shot if they own a gun. He explains that is logical because you are more likely to drown if someone owns a pool.

The sleep research was poorly conducted by the mattress chain, but also should have been counter checked by The New York Times. The newspaper has a reputation to uphold that most definitely means more than Sleepy's does.

Fall From Grace

The problem I have with Nancy Grace speaking out abrasively about ongoing legal cases, is that it can affect the verdict. The court of evidence can be just as strong as the court of public opinion. Grace may not be aware of all the facts, but may persecute suspects on the grounds of her suspicions. She is broadcast nationally and people have a tendency to believe in the opinions of celebrities.

Grave must be a headache for the network that she is employed by. On the one hand she most likely has many lawsuits filed against her for the way her behavior affects other people's lives. On the other hand, her high ratings bring in lots of revenue for the network. They have to ask themselves does her reputation help or hurt the network more? It really is a balancing of pros and cons when it comes to Nancy Grace, and apparently the pros outweighs the cons.

I don't think stars realize how their thoughts and opinions affect the public. When Si from duck dynasty shares his opinions on homosexuality, a large portion his fan base will accept his opinion as a valid argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the celebrities that people look up to can shape public opinion moving forward, regardless of how educated the opinion may be.

The Sad Memoir of Scott McClellan

Scott McClellan sold out his former employer for money. On the other hand he gave a tell-all about the office's campaign for the Iraq war. Some would suggest that he was bitter and just wanted retaliation. Perhaps he had a guilty conscience from what he believed the Bush administration had done to the American people.

One of the rules that public relations follows is "do the right thing always", right? It is possible that he thought that this was the right thing to do and the money he received was a side bonus. I can't say for sure, I can only infer because I cannot speak for Scott McClellan.

It should not have mattered much to President Bush because it came out when he had less than a year left in his final term in office. The only consequences I see from McClellan's actions would be towards war efforts in the middle east. People might be less supportive of the war if they thought it was fueled by propaganda and thirst for oil.

McClellan didn't want to be the Joe Paterno of Jerry Sandusky.

A Publicity Tie Too Far

I think the news release was insensitive at that particular time. The company should not have tried to tie-in to a story that was so recent. There were probably grieving families and friends of the victims who didn't need to hear that the apartment building didn't do a background check.

This is an example of shameless self-promoting. Flieshman-Hillard apologized, but the damage is already done.

The company could have used the story without doing it so publicly. They could have visited apartment complexes and had a personal meeting with the leasing managers. Then discussed how important it was for background checks on tenants and make a small reference to the body parts killer.

Who knows, my idea may be just as offensive. I personally think the harsh reality is that there are terrible people out there and background checks should be a thing for many situations.

Occupy

I always thought the protest slogan, "We are the 99%", was catchy. The people who started the protest probably had great intentions. As more and more people joined in, the focus began to blur and lose direction. It started as a protest of the inequality between the lower/middle class and upper class, then it shifted towards the government violence towards protesters. If the protesters had kept sight on their goal and didn't differ the assembly might have been more effective.

The book stated that there was no clear leader or voice. If I had been running the show, I would have selected a good face for the movement. Somebody that could've conducted interviews and had a background that others could get behind. Perhaps a business woman with a family that made a livable wage, but was still having to live paycheck-to-paycheck due to inequality of pay.

Also, they needed a catchphrase that was drilled into the protesters heads. "We are the 99%" was great, but they needed to make sure that everyone understood that was what they were there for.

Lastly, I would have made efforts to make the protesters seem and look respectful. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you look like trash. All it takes is one person that looks ridiculous and an image will go viral and that will be the image associated with your movement.

Occupy Wall Street great end goals, but poor execution.

The Name That Slimed an Industry

After reading the Mini-Case, all I could think was, "man, that must have been a tough spot for Beef Products." 

I had previously seen the story about the pink slime on the news and spread around on Facebook as well. I was probably considered part of the crowded that denounced McDonald's and other companies that used the 'pink slime'.

The way the news made it seem was that there wasn't hardly any meat in their products. They played off the public's concern of what they were putting into their bodies.

There's not much Beef Products could have done to save face. Once the witch hunt gets going, it's hard to slow down the snowball effect.

If I had to take an approach, as a PR agent for the company, I would have tried to find the USDA meat inspector who coined the term, 'pink slime', and asked him to go on record saying the nickname was just something he came up with and the product has been safely used for years.

Maybe if the public knew that it was put into the meat to kill bacteria and make it safer for us and not just used as a meat replacement, then the public backlash might not have been so harsh.

Whoever said fast food was good for us anyways?

Burson Fumbles Facebook Flap

Burson-Marsteller tried to smear Google, although they claim otherwise. The entirety of the campaign should of had a different goal. Instead of trying to make their competitor look bad, they should of made their client look better. It's a slippery slope whenever a PR agency makes a company look bad. That burns bridges for future partnerships. Burson-Marsteller could have gone the route of offering information about the services that Facebook provides that Google does not.Also, they could've noted the things that Facebook does better than anybody else.

BUT hindsight is 20/20 and instead the PR agency went their own route. As Warren Buffet said once you can lose money, but you can't lose an ounce of your reputation. One bad publicity stunt like that could severely hurt a PR agency. It really surprises me that the PR practitioners couldn't predict this because it's the focal point of their job to make sure people look good!

I'm not sure whether it's ethical to always say who your client is. It may not be a big deal if you're asking general questions. If you're asking bloggers to make another company look bad, than its not fair to the bloggers. It's unfair because the blogger may be asked to endorse a company they don't particularly like. Hypothetically, the blogger could not of liked Facebook and wouldn't want to ruin their competition.

Firing The Nazi in the House of Dior

I think Dior did the only thing it could do to protect their image by firing Galliano. If they had kept him on board then the public would assume that Dior endorsed Nazism. Basically, I respect Dior for having the gumption to fire one of  their talented designers. They can find other designers, but their image and brand isn't something they can swap out.

They could have kept Galliano on board and made him issue a public apology, but I don't think that would have been as effective. I'm sure a PR team weighed all their options and told management that the only way to put out the fire was to terminate Galliano.

The fact that this happened in Paris, which was occupied by Nazis during the war, is astonishing. It just goes to show how racism and/or persecution still survives in Europe. If I was on the PR team for Dior I might also have done some sort of donation campaign. What I mean by that is I would have donated clothes to families that had ancestors in the holocaust or a Jewish organization. This would emphasize their remorse for the situation. Obviously companies, don't want to throw away money at every crisis, but in the long run it may brought back unhappy customers.