Kobe's Nimble Public Relations Once Again Saves the Day

Personally, I think that Kobe handled it really well. I know he did not mean any hate or bigotry in the things he said, but was just frustrated with the game and those were the words that happen to come to his mind in that moment. If he had used any other slur words, depending upon their severity, nobody would have cared. For him to immediately come out and clarify what he meant and express his support of the groups that were against him, I think that was the best thing he could do. If I was a sponsor of the Lakers or Kobe, I would have accepted his apology, and moved on from it.

If I was an advisor to Kobe, I would have advised him that it was okay for him to appeal the fine, but not to fight back too much. The more this stayed relevant, and the more it was talked about, the less likely it would quickly go away. He is very lucky that it could have been a lot worse.

Shilling the Morning Joe

This interview debacle was at the fault of everyone who was involved. MSNBC should have made known, and could have easily, casually done so, the relationship it had with Starbucks during the interview with the CEO. Personally, I feel if they had just quietly mentioned it in the beginning, nobody would have even noticed or thought anything of it.

If I was the public relations manager for MSNBC, I would have stressed the importance of A) disclosing the relationship the network had with Starbucks and B) talk to Howard Shultz in the same manner as any other guest or interviewee would be talked to. The sponsorship by Starbucks is not a problem until they become exempt from the same scrutiny and examination as other news makers.

If I was the public relations manager for Starbucks, I would have told my CEO to be prepared to be interviewed the same way as any other guest would be and that our sponsorship of the show did not give us a free pass. But then again, the public relations manager, the CEO, and the news director were probably all involved with planning the interview to be a promotional spot for the company.

Kenneth Cole's Egyptian "Twagedy"

I understand that Kenneth didn't mean anything harmful by his tweet. He could have easily accomplished the same thing by tweeting his support for the people of Cairo, and not saying anything at all about his product line. His support for the people would have captured public attention, as well as the media play. This would then bring awareness to what he was trying to sell.

A simple policy could easily be followed for situations like this in the future. If you want to acknowledge of political or worldly event, do not attach anything sales related to it. Simply speak like normal people do, but don't sound like you are trying to gain something from it.

Playing "Chicken" with Gay Marriage

Yes, it is true that free speech is something we all get to enjoy in America, and rightly so. With that said, we still have to watch what we say for the fear of offending others and then consequently getting some kind of reaction to that. I think that it is fine that Dan is against the gay community, but he had to be smart enough to realize that the gay community use to eat his food, right? For example, he would not have said that he was racist or that he was against the African-American community, because he knows that there would be immediate losses at stake. He should have put more thought into what he tried to accomplish by making his views known.

If was working for Dan, I would have told him that while it is okay for him to have an opinion, he shouldn't make it known because there are a lot of people that will disagree with him, and who will choose not to patronize his company.

Drowning Out the Drone Attacks

I think the industry did a very good job trying to ease people's fear of death by drone, by comparing it to how many people die in car crashes everyday. With everything else that is happening during the war and the methods of attacks used, it is rediculous for people to get upset about the remotely piloted vehicles.

If I was running the public relations endeavors of the drone industry, I would have publicized more about the benefits and future uses of drones other than in the military. There his a whole future of advancement that drones can bring to the world, and it is important that the industry does as much as possible to silence the people, in a positive way, who are trying to slow that advancement.

I Hate You, I'm Leaving, Where's My Check

I would characterize Greg Smith's ethics of airing his grievances with his company as... drastic. I completely understand having frustrations with the place you work, and wanting to go public with it, especially if there is a lot of wrong doing involved. I have been in those shoes many times. With that said, there is a reason I have never done that. For the sake of not looking crazy, or bitter, I don't think that Smith should have published such a letter.

I believe that Goldman Sachs did as best of a job they could have given their situation by publishing the memo asking employees to stay polite. It was also good that they said they would make a good faith effort to improve the quality of the work environment.

The best advice that I can give Goldman Sachs is create a more open environment for it's employees. Give everyone an avenue to speak their peace inside the business, before they go crazy and tell the rest of the world about it. They better the treat their employees, the better they will behave.

Blogger Backlash Crushes ConAgra Conclave

Ketchum broke the cardinal rule about public relations... always tell the truth! They should not have allowed ConAgra to proceed with such a crazy plan to fool people into doing something they clearly did not want to do in the first place. Media people do not like it when they are lied to, so they should have known that this was going to blow up in their faces. They should have expected such a negative reaction.

I do not think there was a problem with inviting these bloggers to the restaurant for a dinner and tasting. With that said, they should invited bloggers and writers who actually cover the food being served, as opposed to ones who write about something completely different. If ConAgra had invited writers and bloggers who actually write consistently about the food being served, they would have been more likely to enjoy it and therefore promote it through their media platforms.

test

MSNBC Cries "Wawa" with Made-Up Romney Gaffe

I believe it is very common for the media to embellish, and borderline make things up about the topics they cover. I am not surprised that MSNBC tried to make Mitt Romney look like an idiot with technology. Obviously, they have their own agenda and ideas they want to push, so it makes sense that they would do this even if it is not real journalism. It was not good of Andrea and her people to slice and dice the facts, and present information to their viewers.

If I was Andrea Mitchell, I would have just done my job and presented what really happened. In fact, I will tell you what probably happened. The week this aired, they probably did not have much to talk about on the network, and thought they would take a normally boring piece about Romney at a gas station, and make it interesting and exciting. She should have just found real news, and not made her own.

Sleep-Deprived Research

If I were working for Sleepy's public relations firm, I would have not published the research. Only because, the differences in sleep patterns between occupations was so minimal I don't see what the point was. Yes, it does draw attention to their company and make people think about their own sleep patterns, but I think they could have found a better study to use to promote their company.

My thoughts on the New York Times use of the research is the same as Sleepy's. What was the point of publishing such research, when the differences in time between occupational sleep patterns was mere minutes. Also, who knows how accurate the research is seeing as the sampling pretty much guessed at how many hours of sleep they received. The Gray Lady should have done a better job with this.

Fall from Grace

Nancy really is a passionate person about a number of issues and cases. Obviously, I don't agree with her continued persecutions of people in cases that have either been settled in court, or have mounting evidence exonerating them. Personally, I believe it makes her look very stupid when she continues on saying how guilty people are even after a ruling has been made. I would like to know what it is about certain cases that makes her so passionate and blind to the facts.

If I was the public relations manager for Nancy's show on HLN, I would live in constant fear that she was going to do something to get us all in trouble. The way she carries on her crazy accusations, it is no shock that she is not hit with multiple slander lawsuits every year. I am surprised that CNN, with the reputation that is has, lets her speak on their airways.

The Sad Memoir of Scott McClellan

It is my belief that McClellan's loyalty to George Bush ended when he was fired, and that ethically there is nothing wrong with him revealing everything he knew, within reason of course, about what went on in the White House. I believe that his ethical loyalty should be allowed to expire once he is no longer being paid. Of course, I do think he would still have an ethical responsibility to uphold and keep secret any national security or safety information that he was made aware of during his employment.

During his employment, I am sure there was an internal struggle within himself to decide what to reveal because of his responsibility to the public versus his responsibility to his boss. The public deserves to know what is going on inside the White House, but the government also should be able to reserve some information. The golden median has to be found between these two extremes with the hopes that the right decision is made.

A Publicity Tie Too Far

Personally, I thought it was quite humorous that Backcheck issued an advertising press release, but that still does not mean that it was right. Yes, it was funny. No, it was not tasteful. The overall offensive part of their statement was how they were using someones death as a platform to promote their products. It is amazing how in a company with so many employees, nobody thought that this would be a bad idea.

I would say that Fleishman-Hillard did as good of a job as they could considering the foolishness their client unleashed. President John Blyth apologized and reiterated that his agency does good work, and that a mistake like this would not happen again. I am not sure what else he could have done to have made this better. I know though, that I would not have let Backcheck CEO Dave Dinesen make the statement that he did, which simply showed his ignorance and naivety to the situation.

Occupy: SI, Changing Public Opinion: Not Exactly

Personally I feel the Occupy Wall Street movement had good merit, and good intentions in terms of what they ultimately wanted to accomplish in bringing awareness to the corrupt running of the economy. With that said, they did not have a clear focus or message. Also, there was not an official leader, or someone to be the face of the movement. OWS should have picked one issue, and made that its primary goal.

If I was in charge of the Occupy Wall Street movement's public relations, I would have recognized the negative attitude the people and business's we were affecting had by our physical presence around them. I would have tried to figure out a way for us to demonstrate and be heard, but also not be an inconvenience to the neighbors and everyday people who's space we were taking up. I also would not be issuing multiple press releases about multiple issues. I would have made sure that our leadership knew we needed to focus on a singular issue that was easy to understand, and easy to gain support for.

The Name That Slimed An Industry

There really was not a fair debate regarding the healthiness and safety of the "pink slime" produced by Beef Products, Inc. It would appear that the negative attention the product received stemmed from an irrational fear caused simply by what is in a name. Perhaps, if USDA meat inspector Gerald Zirnstein had named it something more pleasant, it would have went completely under the radar. Before putting the product immediately on death row, studies and tests should have been performed on it to see just how safe, or unsafe it really is. If it was unsafe, why would the USDA even allow it to be sold and used?

If I was the public relations manager for Beef Products, Inc., I would not have let the name given by the USDA stand for as long as it did. Ten years ago when it first started being called "pink slime," I would have done everything in my power to change that name, receive the support of the USDA, and prove the worthiness of it to be sold and used in food products. It seems that whatever they tried to do after the blogger launched the online petition, it was too-little, too late and this all could have been avoided if pro-action had been taken a decade prior.

Burson Fumbles Facebook Flap

Instead of trying to make up a fake story about Google, Burson-Marsteller should have focused their energies on promoting the product that Facebook was working on, and telling the world about how it would be a better choice for internet users. By doing what they did, Goldman and Mercurio broke the public relations cardinal rule, "Never lie." I personally do not blame any of the bloggers or news professionals who called them out on their antics, as it is quite amateure of Burson-Marsteller to think they could manipulate the media in such a way.

Because public relations is built around the truth, and the transmission of information, I do believe that firms should have to disclose who their clients are. The philosophy of the real father of modern public relations, Ivy Lee, was that the key to business acceptance and understanding was for the public to be informed. Because of this, there is no reason that people should not know who the largest (and smallest) media controllers are being represented by.

Firing the Nazi in the House of Dior

I personally do not believe there was much else that Dior could have done besides fire John Galliano for his awful hate speech. Especially since this took place in Europe, and especially since the entire Dior brand was founded after Nazi occupation, Galliano should have known better. It is a wonderful example of no matter how powerful you are, or how talented you may think you are, that you still have to be mindful of what you say and how you treat people. I believe that you can still have an opinion, and a stance on an issue, but you don't drunkenly spray it on everyone around you.