The Ups & Downs of PR

Nobody Likes a Dead Elephant 

    Last April, Bob Parsons, CEO of GoDaddy.com gave a perfect example of bad PR. While vacationing in Zimbabwe, Parsons shot and killed an elephant. Shortly after returning from his trip, Parsons posted a video of the killing to his website and linked the video to his twitter account. Media outlets across the country quickly picked up the video and spurned public outcry at both Parsons and his company. GoDaddy users began taking down their websites and the company’s stock quickly sank. Parsons defended the killing claiming that he provided villagers with a source of food and protected their crops from harmful elephant encroachment. Regardless of what Parson’s intentions were, he clearly didn’t think his actions through. He is the head of a major corporation and as such, he should have realized that his actions would likely harm his company’s image. If Parsons was truly hoping to enrich the impoverished village, he could have easily brought in much needed supplies or resources. He could have easily gained positive PR by really helping the village, but instead he shot an elephant. No one wants to see a dead elephant.

Tylenol Stops a Headache

     The 1982 Tylenol deaths and recall provide one of the best examples of successful public relations. Following seven deaths attributed to poisoned Tylenol capsules in Chicago, Johnson & Johnson decided to recall every bottle of Tylenol in the United States at the time. Following the recall Tylenol began an aggressive marketing campaign advertising the new sealed bottle and tablet form pill and ensuring the public that Tylenol was now safe to use.  The recall and relaunch of Tylenol cost the company around 100 million dollars, but was extraordinarily successful.  Within two months of the recall, Tylenol stock had returned to its previous levels after a 30 point fall following the deaths.  Johnson & Johnson couldn’t have acted in a more appropriate manor.  They responded quickly, pulling the product off the shelves, and successfully remarketed the brand in record time. 

Sporcle

I don’t have a single favorite website, but Sporcle.com is definitely one of my favorites. It’s a trivia website with full of random pop culture quizzes covering a massive array of topics. There are quizzes about movies, TV shows, music, geography, literature, sports, and almost anything pop culture related. A lot of the quizzes involve some sort of wordplay or clever arrangement which increase their fun factor. The website’s tagline, “Mentally Stimulating Diversions,” is exactly what I use it for.  I go to the site for entertainment, homework avoidance, study breaks, and random other times if I’m bored.  I don’t use Sporcle every day, but I definitely visit the site multiple times throughout the week.  It may not be my most visited site- according to my browser history, that’s taken by Facebook- but Sporcle is a favorite for sure. 

Visit Sporcle Now!

ESPN dumps Hank Williams Jr

     I definitely support ESPN's decision to drop Hank Williams Jr. While I realize that the singer has a right to espouse his political views, ESPN has an equal right to decide who is associated with their network. The comments that Williams made were offensive and unprofessional and I think it makes sense for a network like ESPN to want to dissociate with such a person. Regardless of your political views, comparing the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler is bad for business. The decision to drop Williams may not be supported by long lovers of the Monday Night Football anthem, but in terms of corporate image, I think it was a wise choice.
      I think every network or corporation should be able to decide who is associated with their brand. The power of association is extremely important for companies, and ESPN realized this and acted swiftly. When I think of Monday Night Football, I think of Williams song, and after watching the ESPN video, I think of his remarks about the president. The association between the singer's comments and the network's broadcasts were unavoidable.  When it comes to the issue of freedom of speech, I think ESPN did nothing wrong. They placed no limit on his freedom of speech and there was no government intervention or regulation over what he said. The network's decision was, if anything, a public relations decision, not a freedom of speech issue. I think it's easy to say that the song itself has nothing to do with Hank's comments and that viewers won't associate Williams' comments with the network, but I don't think that is realistic.

Payola

     I’m not sure if there is a feasible way to completely resolve the payola issue, but one way to help eradicate it would be to create quotas of non-payola music to be played on the radio. While banning payola completely would be ideal, it’s extremely unlikely to ever happen. Radio is a business. It provides a service and gets paid for it.  With this outlook, it’s difficult to mandate that radio stations not get paid for a product they mass market: music. The musicians are the suppliers, the DJ’s and stations the vendors, and the listeners are the customers- who consume for free.  The limitations this places on independent artists are disappointing to be sure, but in a way they’re inevitable.

     The small form solution to the problem would be to create a quota or requirement of non-payola, independent music to be played on radio stations. Radio stations would be permitted to continue payola practices, but would have to include non mainstream or paying artists in their broadcasts. There isn’t a realistic way to ban payola, it’s not illegal and there’s not enough current opposition to instigate such massive changes. The easy alternative would be to force a form of variety- whether it be large or small. Independent artists obviously do not have enough money to fund payola, and by enacting a mandate of small name variety, all parties involved are pleased. DJ’s are able to continue being paid, big name artists are still able to be played and consistently heard on the radio, and smaller independent artists are able to get their foot in the door.

The demise of newspapers? In response to The The Daily Show

I think that the newspaper industry is going through both a death and an adaptation. There is no question that the industry is dying, papers are going bankrupt and even shutting down completely in some cases. Even major papers like the Chicago Tribune face questionable fates and the New York Times had to remortgage the building that houses its headquarters. But at the same time, I definitely realize that this death is but a transition to what will most likely become an electronic-only news world. The internet is more convenient than a daily newspaper in many respects and allows for immediate coverage that newspapers have long since been unable to provide. I know that television gave the newspaper industry difficulty long before the internet, but I think the threat of online news sources is far greater than what TV first brought. While television brought competition, the internet threatens a complete replacement. It can do everything that a newspaper can, but faster and more conveniently.

                I’m not really sure what would happen if newspapers were to disappear. I think there would definitely be an information gap for both senior citizens who typically aren’t tech savvy as well as the minority of Americans who don’t have internet access. I don’t think that there would be a terrible difference in overall news coverage since nearly every article that is published in print today is also published online. College students and young people in general have become accustomed to online news sources and get the majority of their news from the internet. As the generation of the internet grows up, I think that the adaptation of internet news sources will eclipse the newspaper industry. The idea of a newspaper has already, in some cases become more of a novelty than a primary source of news. I get a copy of The Daily Tarheel every day to read before class or at breakfast and to keep up with happenings on campus, but I get primarily get it for the sake of differentiation. It’s fun to read something in print, and that’s what I think will keep the newspaper industry afloat for the time being- the physical presence of a newspaper and its sense of tradition.

                As newspapers dry up across the US, I can’t help but wonder how it will affect the credibility and stature of individual journalists. Having something published in print typically draws more attention to the author of a piece and, at least in my opinion, provides a larger sense of credibility than an online article. I think the vastness of the internet and the multitude of media outlets in a way degrades, may it be minutely, the stature of serious journalists. There are so many fictitious and misinformed websites that are just as easily, and often more, available than what are typically validated and credible news sources. I know the names CNN and The New York Times provide a sense of credibility in their own right, but the fact that they are found just as easily as a site like CollegeHumor, seems to diminish their creditability. This concept may not have a major effect upon the online news industry, but it definitely raises questions.

G-Male Video

I’m a little conflicted over the implications of the video. I’m caught in between being worried about Google’s invasiveness and the helpfulness of their advertisements and customization abilities.  There is definitely a scary quality to how easily they are able to monitor your online activity and emails and it raises the question of where to draw the line- if there is a line at all.  At the moment, in my opinion Google’s surveillance and involvement is pretty benign, but I can definitely see how it could get out of hand of dangerous. I think it’s extremely risky for one company to have such detailed history and information about millions of people. But while I see these risks, I feel like for now, the advertisements and suggestions are helpful and nonthreatening. I definitely see Google differently after watching the video. I think the video’s personification gave Google a more relevant representation of the company’s actions than what most people envision. Seeing Google as a person made it so much more real and invasive. I think because there isn’t normally a face or body to visualize Google, we become detached from their actions and don’t fully weigh their implications. I knew that people are often concerned about Google’s involvement in their customers’ online activity, but I didn’t know how extensive it was. In regards to how I would react if a less reputable company utilized similar tactics, I feel like I would most likely respond differently. I would probably be more bothered by the invasiveness because they would have less of a reputation to uphold if controversy or extreme infringements were to arise.