The corporate executives at McDonald's took a small step for man, and a giant step for PR when they decided that it was time to implement a $1 breakfast menu. Instead of charging more for their meals in hopes that McDonald's enthusiasts will stay loyal and pay for an over-priced meal in hopes of rescuing from them from their current economic downward-slump, they significantly reduce their prices as a means of empathizing with the struggling American. Way to kill two birds with one stone, McDonalds. They are pulling themselves out of economic disparity while simultaneously doing the same for consumers. PR at its best, in my opinion. By implementing this new value menu, they are making themselves look great and still worth visiting to the consumers, while attaining even more consumer loyalty because the enhanced convenience. Why can't everything be a dollar these days?
Friday, December 11, 2009
One, One Dollar, One Dollar Value Menu
McDonald's is slated to release it's new value menu in January. This value menu consist of breakfast items for only $1 each. Just when we thought McDonald's couldn't get any cheaper! Well, now we can eat breakfast for cheap too. The underlying reasoning behind this new, ultra-inexpensive breakfast menu is due to the ever-declining economy. McDonald's sales, overall, are dropping--not because of a lack of satisfaction with the food, but rather, because of the lack of money in the consumer's wallet.
Seeing Double
Men's Health magazine's December cover features Twilight star Taylor Lautner. Most people have seen several pictures of Taylor Lautner and would probably agree that he has a very fit, healthy, and admired frame. It's because of his much-appreciated body that the fact that he's on the cover of Men's Health should come as no surprise. However, the surprise is that Lautner's cover is almost identical to the cover that Jason Statham shot back in October 2007. The cover pages are eerily similar as almost all of the text on the left-hand side of the most recent cover matches the text from the left-hand side of the October 2007 cover as if it were a carbon copy. This seemingly ridiculous repeat of information poses this question: are Men's Health readers being gipped? Relieving words from the magazine's editor tell us no. David Zinczenko enlightens us by saying that the apparent re-use of material was entirely intentional, an an alternate cover was sent to subscribers. "Rest assured-it's this originality and reporting rigor that's made us the biggest men's magazine brand in the world," Zinczenko said.
From a PR perspective, Zinczenko trusts the readers of Men's Health enough to appreciate the creativity behind such a stunt. It takes a committed magazine-to-reader relationship to be confident doing something so dangerous as to making it seem like the information in an issue will be repeated. If anything, a loyal reader will pick up the issue anyway regardless of the misleading cover, and subscribers will be reinforced of the benefits of subscribing: no misleading covers.
A Riled Up O'Reilly
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly is not a happy camper, and Law & Order is to blame. The hit NBC show ran episode this week depicting an anti-immigrant activist who set out on a mission to kill the children of immigrants. During a scene of this episode, one of the main character's states, "Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of 'em, they are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate...They've convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that fail to pay a living wage or a broken health care system..." Offensive? Yes. True? Well, definitely not in O'Reilly's eyes.
O'Reilly directs his outrage at creator and executive producer of Law & Order Dick Wolf. The upset host referred to Wolf as a "far left, despicable human-being." While Wolf has the right to express his opinion through a show over which he has total creative control, this may have crossed the line. He characterized O'Reilly and other conservative news show hosts as being to blame for anti-immigrant violence. An opinion it may be, but does Wolf have the right to potentially shape the political views of Law & Order viewers nationwide? I'm not sure he does. And as far as the implementation of PR tactics on Wolf's side, he declined to comment on the matter.
Boo York Times
New York Times really did themselves in with a racially slurred article published in yesterday's issue. A new addition to Times' annual Holiday Gift Guide is what sparked this subtle uproar. Now a part of the article is an "Of Color/Stylish Gifts" section. Yes, this is in fact a list of gifts compiled specifically for ethnic people. The mere fact that an article so degrading as to actually designate certain gifts as being proper for ethnic people would even pass through the editing process is what baffles me. Are they implying that other gifts like clothing, tools, or electronics are things that only White people would appreciate? Absurd. This article may just be controversial enough to make the "PR Blunders of 2009" list. Some New York Times reporters defended the article because of the fact that it was written by an African American. Regardless of this truly-insignificant-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things fact, the article purely by its content serves as a vehicle for segregation--even in the most innocent sense.
Diane McNulty, spokeswoman of the New York Times says, "Our online gift guides are intended to offer holiday gift ideas for a wide variety of audiences and interests..." Their motives are respected, however, the execution was entirely improper. My advice to the New York Times editors/reporters: use tact and respect when attempting to appeal to a diverse audience, and imagine what their response would and could be if you were them.
Facebook Privacy: Things Are Changing
Facebook users are experiencing a new kind of privacy with their profiles--one with less privacy. Users were recently given the option to more narrowly specify what they want to allow certain other users to see. However, before this privacy modification users had the ability to keep everything private to non-friends with the exception of their name and network. This is no longer the case. Now aspects of your profile that are in the public category include profile pictures, pages of which you are a fan of, home cities, and friend lists. Critics from the online rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation are disappointed, and even disgusted at the weak attempt to enhance privacy. Facebook's attempt to give user more control over who views their information did not effectively translate to the EFF.
In response to the harsh opposition from EFF, Facebook's director of global communications Barry Schnitt says, "It's not that big of a change. The vast majority of users have already made this information available to everyone." Now this is an interesting approach in the PR sense. Instead of admitting any fault the public, Schnitt is supporting the actions of Facebook by exposing the fact that most users were already comfortable with making certain information public, so if anything, they're making Facebook easier for people. According to Schnitt, over 10 million users took advantage of the opportunity to implement their own privacy settings. Schnitt claims that they're are giving users credit in terms of their ability to decide their privacy for themselves, and feels that this is a step in the right direction. He's implementing some important rules of effective PR: Support your company. Defend your company. And believe in your company. Two thumbs up, Schnitt.
Snaps for Jenny Sanford
Finally, a first lady who does it right. Jenny Sanford is the wife of South Carolina republican governor Mark Sanford, soon-to-be ex-wife of an adulterer. That's right, we've got another public official cheating on his wife behind closed doors (is it just me or has this become a sick trend?). In any case, that's not the shocker in this story. The shocker is that she's divorcing him. This is a big deal because of the sad fact that it's typical of most wives of public figures to "stand by their husband in such a difficult time." Well, not for Jenny Sanford. During an exclusive interview with the Associated Press, Sanford said, "It's one thing to forgive adultery; it's another thing to condone it." Spoken like a true strong, independent woman, Sanford.
Taking it to a PR perspective, Sanford isn't concerned with painting the "nothing can shake our marriage" image to the public. She cares about showing the people that it's okay to show that you're hurt, and that your husband who's in a respected position of authority has made a serious mistake. Perception is reality in world of public relations, and in this case, what I'm perceiving is a woman married to a man in the public eye is finally not afraid to expose his faults by taking control and getting the divorce she deserves. Now that's relationship management if I've ever seen it.
Tiger Talk
Tiger Woods is in need of some serious image management at the moment. He's been in the most ridiculous of car crashes with no excuse, he's having affairs with multiple women, and now word just got out that some of those women were actually prostitutes. Tiger, could you make things any worse for your PR people? Now here's the question, is there anything that this guy can do to make himself look better to the public? To his fans? He's got domestic violence, mistresses, and mysterious car crashes under his belt--it's going to take a long time to climb back up to the squeaky clean respected image the golf star once had.
It's doubtful that the "heartfelt apology" Woods issued will be enough to erase what's already been done. Apologies aren't always enough in the world of PR. It takes genuine reformative action behind the words to pick up the pieces. Once we see that from Tiger, we'll see progress.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Jersey Shore to Jersey No More?
MTV's new reality show documenting eight twenty-somethings who party hard in New Jersey is, to some viewers, a serious hit-and-miss. More specifically, it's a hit-and-offend. The party people highlighted on this new reality series are all Italian and commonly refer to themselves as "guido," a derogatory term used to describe Italian men with over-exaggerated muscles, fake tans, greasy hair, and too much jewelry. Italian people view this show and are annoyed and offended by the hyper-sexualized, sleazy way in which Italians are portrayed. It's a "reality" show, therefore people are watching getting the impression that it is an accurate depiction of Italian life.
Protesters say that Jersey Shore is an inaccurate, "offensive" depiction of the ethnicity. MTV says that they have no plans to alter or remove the show. Someone call the PR police! MTV has committed a serious crime. Or have they? While MTV is not by any means ignoring the outrage that has been expressed by viewers of the show (most being offended Italians), they aren't really doing too much to make them happy either. Tony DiSanto, the President of Programming and Development for MTV had this response: "It never crossed my mind that this would be offensive. ...Everybody is welcome to their own POV. It bums me out that some people are offended." Hmm, it "bums you out," DiSanto? If only there were some solid action behind these seemingly sorrowful words. I'm not even Italian and I find this show offensive. It makes Italians look like crazy, drunk, and promiscuous, and reinforces these ideas with every episode. Viewers, those of the Italian ethnicity especially, have every right to get offended. But MTV has every right to keep the show on air. I think that DiSanto said it best when he stated, "...no show is for everybody and no show can be." That's real PR, if you think about it. If public relations is the act of managing the relationship between an organization and it's publics, isn't that DiSanto is doing here? He could lie to the public and say that he, too, sees the show as offensive, pull the show off the air, and apologize. That'd make people happy. But does PR always have to make people happy? Or does it just have to give people the truth, and hope that they're happy with it? I'd say the latter. Not every show is for everyone. We choose what we watch. if we continually watch something that offends us, we are choosing to be offended. Jersey Shore may present some Italians in a bad light, but I'd leave it to the intelligence of the American public to decide whether or not this show means that EVERY SINGLE ITALIAN IN THE WORLD is sex-driven alcoholic partier.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
AIG: Busted
AIG has been caught in so much questionable behavior that effective PR may not even be able to bring the company back up to good standing. One of the world's largest insurance companies, AIG's assets valued $1 trillion. While AIG is a successful company, I'm not sure it's a very smart one. Not only has AIG been on the brink of failure, but only days after their $85 billion taxpayer bailout, the company spent $440,000 on an all expense-paid vacation for its top employees in 2008. It should more properly be called a "expenses paid by U.S. taxpayers" vacation. AIG representatives say that such a trip is standard in the industry, comparing it to the necessity of a salary to any job. Regardless of this trip being typical of a company so well-known, there's no doubt about poor planning regarding its timing.
What does this say about AIG? Well in the PR sense, AIG's immediate actions generated a message to the public that said, "Thanks for the money, we've needed a vacation." One can't help but wonder if the AIG execs had any inclination as to what possible repercussions could result from such an inconsiderate act. You're company's on the brink of distraction, American taxpayers rescue you, and then you take your employees on a nearly half-a-million dollar trip to a lavish resort? Good luck pulling yourselves out of this one, AIG.
Tweets for PR
To tweet or not to tweet: that is the question. Twitter is well on its way to becoming a social networking phenomenon. Unlike it's predecessors, MySpace and Facebook, Twitter offers something different: a social networking site that utilizes ONLY status updates. Now my question is, is this concept merely one-dimensional, or genius? Well after a year of questioning this seemingly ridiculous idea of a site, I've come to the conclusion that it's both. It's one-dimensional in the fact that the site's sole purpose is to follow people actions via constant status updates. Therefore, all the extra stuff like multiple photo albums and personal interests isn't necessary. Having said this, Twitter is some kind of genius because of the fact that it cuts through the clutter. People don't always want to know where you've been, but they probably do want to know where you're going. People may not always want to know what you did, but rather, what you're doing. Twitter keeps you in the know and in the present.
That's why Twitter was made for PR. I have to be honest and say that I was (and somewhat still am) very anti-Twitter due to the fact that I, myself, don't feel the need to ALWAYS KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING. However, people should know what the companies that they invest in are doing, and those companies should want to keep the people updated on their good works. Effective PR should cut through the clutter and give the people the information they want in a timely, concise manner. Twitter does this in a way that no pre-existing social networking site has done before. And for that, I applaud it. But can information worth knowing always fit into 140 characters? Well, it can and will if it's truly worth knowing. As PR enthusiasts/professionals, the information we send should always be worth hearing about, and Twitter is a way to get that message out fast.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Glenn Beck or Gold Beck?
Glenn Beck, fox news host and radio show host, is currently in a ring of fire. He is an overt endorser of the precious metals vendor, Goldline International, and features the hosts endorsements on their website. Having said this, Beck's relationship with Goldline is no secret. However, we can't help but wonder if this well publicized fact would've been better kept just that--a secret.
Listeners and viewers are left disgruntled after hearing one of the many "gold plugs" that Beck implements throughout his TV and radio shows. As far as Beck is concerned, informing his listeners/viewers of an investment that he's found to be beneficial is no crime, but rather, a service. However, Fox News strictly prohibits on-air personalities from making paid endorsements. While Beck has never disclosed this to his audience, he is, in fact, a Goldline paid spokesperson. This little known fact is in direct contrast to Fox News' by-laws. This could potentially leave Fox News with a serious problem, resulting in a need for effective PR for both Fox News and Beck.
Air America, a liberal media company, created this video mocking Beck and exposing this conflict of interest.
Jordan Joke Gone Too Far
Brandt Andersen, owner of the minor league basketball team Utah Flash, learned a serious lesson this week: don't ever try to play a joke on devoted basketball fans.
Most people may remember Michael Jordan's Hall of Fame speech back in September in which he made some negative remarks about Byron Russell, the former Utah Jazz forward. Following Jordan's speech, Russell challenged him to a one-on-one battle. Very excited by Russell's proposition, Andersen promises $100,000 to the winner of the match to go to the charity of their choice. Andersen ultimately went to the lengths of hiring a "look-a-like" Michael Jordan to walk around Provo leading fans to believe that a legitimate one-on-one match would occur later that night between Jordan and Russell. At the time of the match, Russell walks onto the court expecting to see Jordan. The Jordan impostor walks onto the court surrounded by body guards, followed by Andersen taking the microphone and admitting to fans filling the arena that the "Michael Jordan" they'd just seen was a fake. The crowd responded with harsh boos.
Needless to say, Andersen's initial joke backfired into becoming a huge mistake. Instead of retiring from the arena upon the embarrassment he'd fallen victim to, he immediately responded with the overdone quick fix: throw out free stuff to the crowd. Tickets for a future flash game accompanied his apology. In my opinion, this is a weak PR attempt at fixing something that resulted in many angry, dissatisfied Michael Jordan fans. Does free stuff heal the wounds? Will these disgruntled fans still care enough about the Flash to want to see them play again after this stunt, or will they be to angry to continue to support a team that would stage such a foolish act? Well, the one true thing about all of this is that Anderson and the Flash are going to have to implement some truly effective PR to wipe the slate clean, that is, if a clean slate is even possible after this event.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Flip Flops for PR
What are Americans wearing on their feet when it's summertime? Flip flops--America's favorite sunshine footwear. If you don't own any, you've seen them. If you do own some, you could probably own a few more. Old Navy fully took hold of this summertime flip flop phenomenon and made it their own when they began their annual one-day-only $1 flip flop sale. Regardless of whether it was crafted as a way to better serve their customers or just merely a technique to boost sales significantly, Old Navy's PR department got it right with this idea. Ever since Old Navy burst onto the scene back in 1994 they've upheld a "good quality, low price" reputation. They're clothes are made to look fashionable and trendy, but won't bust you're wallet. Fifteen years after their first store opening, this is still the case. So why not enhance this reputation by launching the ultimate annual one-day sale? With the sale conveniently taking place at the beginning of the summer, Old Navy takes advantage of the fact that people are typically wearing flip flops during the hot summer months. They effectively combine fashion and comfort at an unbelievable price with this summerly sale. Details from the perspective of a consumer $1 flip flop advocate can be found here.
PR- Where's It Going?
What does the future of public relations look like exactly? One word: the Internet. The undoubtedly has an incredible ability to reach millions in merely seconds, and PR professionals should take hold of this fact if they haven't already. So why the internet, we ask? Well not only is it fast and convenient, it also offers a sense of freedom. People are free to absorb as much or as little news whenever and however they want. They can visit PR specific sites if they are extremely devoted to the information, or they can visit more general, all-encompassing sites like Google News or Yahoo News. These sites offer a convenience factor because they typically serve as home pages. The freedom aspect enters into play when readers are given the choice between what topics they're interested in reading about. That fact is, people aren't going to read EVERY bit of information that's out there. However, the amazing thing about the internet is that you're almost guaranteed to reach someone who's interested in reading whatever you have to put out there. So where is PR going? Well it's going a lot of places, and we have the internet to thank for that.
This link offers an array of tips for keeping up with PR. http://www.globalprblogweek.com/archives/tomorrows_pr_today.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)