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.
Monday, October 19, 2015
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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)