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.