It is a rare case to find crises that had come up as one that was foreseen from before. While manufacturing a product or providing a service most organizations plan carefully so that there are no complaints from their stakeholders. The major priority for any organization is customer/ stakeholder satisfaction. This is simply because of the surge in the use of new media, which allows anyone to access a vast amount of information regarding any organization from the Internet. Therefore, in today’s technologically advanced world, organizations are forced to be transparent to their stakeholders because crises can be born out of anything, anytime, anywhere. Crises are generally of two types. 1) Unexpected crises: the news of which spreads fast (Ex: Nokia in Crisis Management Mode over Faulty 'Bl-5c' Batteries) 2) Ones which start out small but then develops into bigger ones (Dominos Youtube Crises) However, in times of crises it is key for the organization to respond fast because otherwise once the ‘word spreads’ the organization can suffer a severe loss both in terms of goodwill and income generation. This had happened to Baush & Lomb (one of the worlds most renowned and leading eye care company) in 2006 when its contact lens cleaner, ReNu with MoistureLoc (ReNu MoistureLoc) was reported to create a fungal infection of the eye called Fusarium keratitis. In this case Baush and Lomb had initially overlooked and delayed in reacting to the crises due to which many analysts and critics said that B&L had adopted a "self-destructively passive role" in dealing with customers and investors and had thus broken the basic rule in crisis management. They should have reacted like Nokia which despite its crises of faulty batteries came out of it almost unscathed. Therefore, organizations need to remember that denying or trying to evade a complaint can result in paying high prices. They need to think and act fast in order to keep their goodwill and sales figures unhampered because truth is a ‘stitch in time saves nine.’
Watch the Dominos Pizza Prank @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaNuE3DsJHM
Ethics has been and will always be a subject of debate within the PR industry. There are many articles and books written on the fact public relations is ethical because through their work, public relations professionals promote mutual understanding and peaceful co existence among individuals and institutions (Seib and Fitzpatrick 1995) If this is the case then why are the PR professionals themselves divided in two groups? Then can it possibly be true that the term “public relations ethics” is truly an oxymoron? The pragmatic PR people versus the idealist PR people In their book PR a Persuasive Industry the authors Trevor Morris and Simon Goldsworthy clearly stated that PR professionals can be divided into two categories. While the pragmatic PR people themselves admit to lying but generally keep their heads down and get on with their jobs there are the Idealists who publicly deny to lying. If practitioners themselves are divided in opinion is it any wonder that people outside the industry generally end-up accusing PR professionals to be liars? Many suggest that the Public relations codes of ethics are actually codes that are setup to give the profession an actual professionalized and institutionalized status. More importantly they are setup to show that PR people do have ethics and although there is an ongoing debate within the professionals themselves PR is a profession like, any other which has rules and regulations, which are to be abided by, by its practitioners. Sadly, the enforcement of these codes is only limited down to the pr practitioners who are members of the (code setting) organizations such as the PRSA and the CIPR. And it has been recorded that only a mere 10 percent of the active PR professionals in America are today a member of the PRSA. The worst bit of it all is that members who violate these codes are at max expelled from the organizations. After expulsion there is no licence that the organization can take away from the practitioner. (Therefore, the practitioner can easily join other companies or organizations or set-up his/her own practice) Although PR has followed its counter professions such as law and medicine when it comes to setting up codes, what it did not do is provide license that can be seized if rule are violated. Therefore, can it not be said that without making a license for the profession, PR has actually given its professionals the license to practice unethically? Can it not be said that not enforcing the codes as a mandate for its professionals is PR’s way of providing a leeway for the practitioners to do as they see fit? Most importantly, can it not be said that PR professionals have actually made the codes keeping the notion in mind that “ rules are meant to be broken?”
“Practical skills might get you your first job. But understanding the context in which you are operating and the strategic and communication issues, which affect your work, will get you your second job.” (Morris and Goldsworthy 1)
All the activities that the PR industry does are primarily based on communication. The major job of a PR team of any international organization (which intends to establish itself in foreign lands) is to establish, build and maintain relationships with their international stakeholders. This brings us to the question that who are their stakeholders with whom they want to build relationships? The local people! Therefore it is not enough for a PR practitioner to have the practical skills for the job to just plan and organize campaigns and events. In order to execute a successful task (internationally) it is very important for them to do the background research to know the economic, sociological and cultural context in which they are to operate before executing a plan. McDonalds did this very successfully. Being one of the world’s largest international fast food chains, which has restaurants in 119 countries and territories around the world, before franchising itself to India McDonalds tailored its menu according to the Indian context by offering a vegetarian menu for a vast majority of population in India (who are vegetarians.) This step taken by McDonalds bonded them with the Indian population. This is where the notion of “ Think globally- Act Locally” comes in. While it is important for the progress of any international organization’s PR team to think and compare itself to global standards it is integral for them to act locally- because truth be told their stakeholders are the local people. And in-order to connect and establish relationships with them it is important for the PR teams to focus their practice on keeping the local context and cultures in mind. “Therefore, it can be said that Good PR is culture and context specific but in-order to progress forward, global standards to have to be kept in mind”
“The only way to practice ethical PR is to work in the NGO or voluntary sector, all the rest is corporate propaganda or spin”
If this statement is proposed in front of any random individual I believe they would vehemently agree. Before studying PR I probably would have agreed too. This is simply because NGO’s have a predetermined positive status in people’s mind. It is because of their noble philanthropic causes and objectives for doing good for the society that NGO’s enjoy this benefit.
The truth is NGO’s today share a similar stance and stature in the society as businesses. “ They share with big businesses an ability to leap borders and operate internationally.” (Morris and Goldsworthy 123)No one even bothers to ask or interrogate how NGO’s have attained this status.
The truth is that NGO’s have attained this position by doing the same things as corporations and business have done. Like corporations and businesses NGO’s also have communication and media departments where they plan campaigns.After determining the purposes of the campaign the (PR teams) aka communications teams take charge to promote the campaign through the persuasive mix. It is after this that the fundraising events are held via which NGO’s aim to raise funds and attract more volunteers to work for their causes.
Just like businesses and corporate counterparts NGO’s also use the common PR techniques such as celebrity endorsement to attain the attention of media. It is just because they are NGO’s that their news tends to more attention and the messages that they tend to put across are seldom challenged. What messages they promote and what they do in these charity events and campaigns are never questioned or scrutinized. NGO’s are free to use various publicity stunts and often it has been seen on various cases that NGO’s have over stepped the boundaries to make emotional appeals (even by breaking laws sometime.) If events as such would occur in the private sector or government PR they would be severely penalized.
Another important aspect where NGOs enjoy benefits is accountability and transparency. For NGOs there are no universal standards of accountability. They are allowed to get away by providing ‘patchy’ information regarding their use of funds. This is incomprehensible when it comes to democratic governments or companies who have to provide a large amount of information for public information and scrutiny.
Keeping all the above stated in mind can anyone determine if how NGOs practice PR is any different from other sectors? More importantly, should we be overlooking all these important details just because NGOs work for a philanthropic cause and not for a profit margin? Should we provide blind support and call NGOs ethical –just for the cause of their help to humanity?
CAMPAIGN RATIONALE: According to recent reports from DAAT (Drug and Alcohol Action Team) and Asian drug charity Nafas, there has been an alarming rise in the rates of drug usage amongst young girls in the UK. Provoked by the superficial ideology of beauty being “Slim and Trim” which is promoted by the various media outlets and women’s magazines teenage girls as young as 14 are being driven to use the powerful speed drug (amphetamines) in their desperate attempt to lose weight. Since the company specializes in the area of larger size womenswear, as a response to the current alarming scenario, launching an online viral campaign called “Don’t Speed Up- Simply Be Yourself” could be a great opportunity for the company to establish itself as a socially responsible brand in the mind of customers. This campaign is a much-needed one and would be the first its kind. That being, a Weight Loss related Anti-Drug Campaign, which would be targeted at young women to raise awareness: not just to prevent substance misuse, but also to change their ideologies related to the stereotypical image of beauty. In order to maximise impact of the campaign and to reach the target audience (females of 14-22) effectively the organization can promote the campaign through the launch of a viral video on 1st April 2010 in its YouTube Channel, which will be linked to its blog, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The second phase of the campaign would be taking place from 7th April2010- 7th July 2010 through a novel online and interactive competition The Curvy Fashionista’ (in a new website which can be created by the company solely for the campaign.). The website will provide information about the dangers and risks of using Speed Drug. It will also be used as the platform where there will be a blog related to the campaign and the place where the competition will take place. Participants can register into the competition through their Facebook and Twitter Accounts. The competition will be based on the Spring Summer 2010 Western Wear. Any girl can upload photos of themselves following the S/S2010 theme. They can upload the photos on the website and pass on the links of the photos to their friends via Facebook and Twitter asking for their votes. This will be a 3 months competition where participants will have to post one photo/week throughout the entire period. The participant getting the highest votes at the end of each month will be getting a £100 shopping voucher from Simply Be. Depending on the response to the campaign, the company might choose to carry on the campaign and the competition based on the Autumn/Winter 2010 line-up.
Campaign: “Don’t Speed Up- Simply Be Yourself” Type if campaign: Awareness Raising. Client: Simply Be PR team Timescale: 1st April 2010- 7th July 2010 (3months) Budget- Agency fee: £3000*3=£9000 Voucher cost: £100*3=£300 Total campaign cost: £ 12,000
SUMMARY OF OBJECTIVES & GOALS – • To raise awareness regarding Weight Loss Related Drug issues. • To sustain target groups interest all through the campaign period • To raise public awareness about the issue at hand • To drive traffic to the Campaign website. • To drive traffic to Simply Be’s website. • To increase the number of fans and followers on Simply Be’s Facebook and Twitter Account. • To initiate conversation amongst target group regarding the issue on the campaign blog. • To get a minimum of 50 participants/ month • To get a minimum of 100 voters/ month • To be mentioned in Women’s Magazines such as : Glamour, Prima, Bella, Cosmopolitan etc. EXPLANATION OF STRATEGIES AND RECCOMENDATION- Stage-1 • Make a Social Media Press Release to announce the beginning of the campaign, which can be picked up by journalists online. • Release a viral video on the company’s YouTube Channel the links of which shall be given on the company’s Facebook and Twitter Account. • The website that shall be created for the campaign shall be stated at the end of the video. • Members of Simply Be can watch the video from the links and if further interested can go to the campaign website. • For Facebook it shall appear on members Home page from where other people can see it. • For Twitter-members can retweet it to others.
Stage-2 • On the 7th of April2010 the website of the campaign will be re-promoted through Facebook and Twitter when the News of the competition “The Curvy Fashionista” will be announced. • Members will have to come to the website in order to know the terms and conditions of the competition. • The website shall also have the video embedded in it and a blog related to the campaign. • People who are just interested in competition and were not aware of the campaign will get to know about the campaign. • The blog can be open to comments and shall have links of related blogs (which shall generate further traffic into the blog and the campaign website resulting in greater awareness of the campaign) • Participants will get to upload their photos through the website. • To gain votes they can forward the photo links to their contacts on Facebook or Twitter. • This will bring in more hits to the campaign website thereby creating further awareness of the campaign. Stage-3 • At the end of every month participant getting the highest number of votes shall be getting a £100 voucher from Simply Be which the participant can use to buy any item of women’s wear or women’s accessory from the Simply Be website. (This shall generate greater traffic to the Simply Be website)
MEASURING:
• The number of video viewers can be seen from the number of views on the Youtube channel. • The number of hits to the website can be calculated by registering the URL of the website into Google analytics. • The number of views and hits on the blog can be measured by feeding the blogs URL into Google analytics. • The popularity of the campaign can me measured by the number of visitors to the website.
After attending the debate on political PR where the issue was whether it is “Political PR that has undermined public trust in politicians and is the single biggest threat to our democratic health” I could not but help recall my first voting experience which occurred two years ago in 2008. I stood to wonder why I had chosen the party I had chosen. Sadly, the answer lay in the fact that I had chosen so because my uncle was one of the representatives of that party… Could I Be Blamed? ...
Coming from a country like Bangladesh, a representative democracy, where the political scenario is majorly dominated by the two major political parties the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and the Awami League who constantly vilify and ridicule each other, I believe it is not Political PR that undermines the public trust in politicians effecting the publics democratic health rather it is the notion of party politics (and the associated acts of negative advertisement) that actually harms democracy the most. I’m saying this because I, like many of my fellow young-generation Bangladeshi’s, are apathetic towards our country’s political system and we choose to alienate ourselves from this aspect because whatever information we get about the political systems comes from cynical and sarcastic dinner table arguments or cartoon animations on national newspapers of the political conditions of the country. Mostly all TV channels and newspapers are owned\backed-up and controlled by the two major political parties and each and every bit of news has two different angles (depending on the ownership of the source.) Aside from that, before the election the parties did not think of how it could interest or influence the new young generation voters. They were less concerned to communicate the values and policies of their party and more concerned in creating negative advertisement to exploit the fear factor regarding the national prosperity and future of the nation if the public were to pick the opposition party. Under circumstances as such could we blame the presence of Political PR? More importantly is political PR actually practiced in Bangladesh? I believe not. The only presence of PR is in the negative sense of spinning news and agenda. People are growing more apathetic towards the government because despite their votes everyone is actually affected by the practice of negative advertising. It is this practice that actually effects peoples faith on the politicians, the government and the democracy because no matter what “ the pervasive negative message is that politicians are ‘all the same ‘- incompetent , untrustworthy and sleazy.” ( Tench and Yeomans, 87) There have been many debates regarding the existence of real democracy but despite the debates most nations around the world today claim to be democratic. And since they are democracies, I believe despite all arguments from pluralists , elitists, neoliberals and Qunagos, having Political PR is actually beneficial for the existence of each countries democratic systems. This is because “ Good public relations may help the lest bad form of government to conform more closely to democratic ideals, particularly my improving the quantity and quality of two-way communications between the people and their elected government.” ( Tench and Yeomans, 82)
The entirety of CSR can be discerned from the three words contained within its title phrase: ‘corporate,’ ‘social,’ and ‘responsibility.’ Therefore, in broad terms, CSR covers the responsibilities corporations (or other for-profit organizations) have to the societies within which they are based and operate. The Public Relations handbook by Alison Theaker defines CSR as voluntary actions that business can take, over and above compliance with minimum legal requirements, to address both its own competitive interests and the interests of the wider society. More specifically, CSR involves a business identifying its stakeholder groups and incorporating their needs and values within the strategic and day-to-day decision-making process. CSR can include embracing the issues of environmentalism, animal testing, human rights or other social or political concerns affected or perceived to be affected by an organisation’s policies.
(CSR) is a controversial subject that has been debated and written about by authors who argue that the whole issue is irrelevant to business (Freeman and Liedtka 1991), including those who see the relevance, but think it is a bad idea for business (Friedman), to the vast array of writers who think that CSR is just of strategic importance to business (Asongu). When considering CSR it is important to distinguish between corporate activities that are intended to contribute to the society and charitable acts or philanthropy. CSR does not mean a mere money donation within some charity actions, but rather a different style of doing business, an integrated style within the company culture. Many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists simply to make money. While this is an important result of a company’s existence, we have to go deeper and find the real reasons for our being. As we investigate this, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a group of people get together and exist as an institution that we call a company so that they are able to accomplish something collectively that they could not accomplish separately. Therefore before claiming that CSR is mere window dressing one must know that CSR broadly represents the relationship between a company and the wider community within which the company operate. Businesses rely on the society within which they operate and could not exist or prosper in isolation. They need the infrastructure that society provides, its source of employees, not to mention its consumer base. Advocates of CSR believe that businesses, without exception, have an obligation to contribute as well as draw from the community, on which they rely so heavily. Therefore it can clearly be established that CSR is recognition of that inter-dependence and a means of delivering on that obligation, to the mutual benefit of businesses.
CSR is an argument of economic self-interest for a business. In today’s brand-driven markets, CSR is a means of matching corporate operations with stakeholder values and demands. All aspects of a company’s operations today feed into helping build the corporate brand. Brands today are one of the key focal points of corporate success. Companies try to establish popular brands in consumer minds because it increases leverage, which is directly reflected in sales and revenue
Given the large amount of time, money and effort companies invest in their brands; a good CSR policy is an effective means of protecting that investment and maximizing its impact. These can clearly be seen from the cases of BP, Nike and Johnson & Johnson. All 3 companies made CSR their priorities due to which now:
BP with a $200 million re-branding exercise, has effectively re-positioned itself as the most environmentally sound and socially responsible of the extraction companies. The company stands in stark contrast today with Exxon Mobil that faces on-going NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) attacks, consumer boycotts,
Nike after facing consumer boycott in 1990 has now emerged as one of the most progressive global corporations in terms of CSR by publishing an annual CSR Report. This has helped the company to mitigate public opinion, establish its brand as representative of a much more committed corporate citizen.
And Johnson&Johnson could successfully manage its crisis regarding the Tylenol brand in 1982 by retracting 31 million bottles of the drug following a suspected poisoning/product-tampering incident. In acting in the way it did, Johnson & Johnson saved the Tylenol brand, enabling it to remain a strong revenue earner for the company to this day.
NOT only is CSR a concept that was important as showed in the past records but also it is simply the new reality of business. We can make this claim by explaining the 3 new identifiable trends:
Changing social expectations Consumers and society in general expect more from the companies whose products they buy. This sense has increased in the light of recent corporate scandals, which reduced public trust of corporations, and reduced public confidence in the ability of regulatory bodies and organizations to control corporate excess.
Globalization The growing influence of the media sees any ‘mistakes’ by companies brought immediately to the attention of the public. In addition, the Internet fuels communication among like-minded groups and consumers—empowering them to spread their message, while giving them the means to co-ordinate collective action (i.e. a product boycott).
Keeping the above stated facts in mind I’d like to restate once again that CSR is an important business strategy because, wherever possible, consumers want to buy products from companies they trust; Suppliers want to form business partnerships with companies they can rely on; Employees want to work for companies they respect and NGOs, increasingly, want to work together with companies seeking feasible solutions and innovations in areas of common concern. AND it is by incorporating CSR into their strategy that a company can benefit greatly in today’s competitive market because CSR is a much more holistic approach to business.
