SOPA

I am a very opinionated person. Very rarely do I blast my opinions via the internet because saying the wrong thing could tarnish you and your company’s reputation. I do have very strong (negative) opinions about SOPA, but that is not what I want to discuss. I want to discuss how people are reacting to the blackouts that will be happening tomorrow. Reddit and Wikipedia will both be blacking out their sites in order to protest. Google will join in, but not by blacking out; instead they will post a link on their homepage that supplies information about SOPA.

First of all, the Internet, in the scheme of things, is a new tool. We are still living with generations of people who remember what it was like to NOT have Internet. Heck, even I remember setting up my first AOL email account and when Google didn’t exist.

Second, it is amazing how the Internet has consumed our society and the way we complete daily tasks. Most of the comments I have read on various social media sites include a gist of the following: “Please don’t black out Wikipedia, I have finals, papers, etc. I need to study for/write. I don’t know how I am going to write this paper without it.”

…Seriously?

Go to a library, open up a book. Step away from the computer and involve yourself in some good ole’ human interaction. Go educate yourself instead of expecting the education to be supplied at your finger tips. Learn from the world around you, talk to: professors, friends, colleagues, the guy sitting at the end of the bar, the person who you stand next to on the metro every morning (and refuse to make eye contact with because updating your every move on Facebook is more important); engage in simple conversation. You do NOT need the Internet to write that paper or study for your exam.

I am completely opposed to the censorship of the Internet but please do not use it as a crutch for education.

Metro Fares to Increase

It’s bad enough that D.C. has one of the most expensive public transportation systems in the COUNTRY but now they are raising the prices even more.

The actual amount of increases would vary by trip, but riders who use paper Farecards would face the biggest change. Whether going two stops or 10, they would pay one-way flat fares: $6 during rush hour, $4 in off-peak times. For a group traveling together, hailing a taxi might quickly become more palatable.

For ONE stop it would cost $6. I understand they are trying to get the tourists, but what about the every day traveler who is just trying to get to and from work? What about people who live in or right outside the city who dont own a car? This is just another example of corporations taking advantage of the American people. I hope people rally against this. If anything, corporations should know the American people do not take things sitting down lightly. Bank of America and Verizon learned that lesson the hard way. D.C. Metro, I hope you learn the same lesson. Absolutely ludicrous.

Read the full story here, from the Washington Post.

Infographics

Found this awesome site that explains what infographics are and how to make sure they are effective. Check it out, here.

Socially Savvy

Social media allows you to interact socially (two-way communication) through technology (i.e. Facebook). It has become overwhelmingly popular within the last decade. Advertisers need to know their audience in order to have successful social media. Many have tried and failed and other have become the most successful forms of social media used today. Before considering social media as a form of PR, there are a few important details a company should take into consideration.

1. TARGET MARKET: Are your audience already online users or will you have to cross them over? If you start to use strictly social media, you have to risk losing some audiences who refuse to make the change.
2. CONTENT: Do you have enough content to have a continuous flow of social media?
3. THINK LONG TERM: Social media for PR purposes can take up to a year to fully see results, are they willing to put in the effort for a long period of time even if the results are not what they expected to see?
4. SETTING A GOAL: What do you want to say to your target audience? Setting rules and objectives for your social media and how you want it to represent your company by setting policies.
5. RESOURCES: Do you have the tools to make this happen? Do you need to hire a new team to do this? If you cannot hire new people, do you have the ability to train people within the company to take over the social media aspect on top of their other tasks?

A bad example of an organization using social media for PR would be Motrin. It launched a social media campaign for International Baby Week. Motrin produced a commercial about mother’s using baby carriers and the painful effects it can have on their body. In the commercial it advertised babies as a fashion statement. Mothers were not happy about children being advertised this way. Motrin’s problem was that it did not know their audience. If it did, it would have predicted this response and thought of a different way to say the message.

A good example of an organization using social media would be Twitter. It has a function on it’s site called “lists”. This feature is extremely useful especially for news groups. The New York Times uses Twitter Lists for the latest headlines so they are all in one place and neatly organized. This is a great example because many organizations can effectively use the feature and be able to apply all of the considerations listed above.

If an organization is not sure if it can successfully launch a social media campaign it should not try because it would be a big loss in terms of money and time. The five considerations listed above should always be thought of before launching any form of social media. This will help pave the road for a successful campaign in PR.

“Pump the breaks! Oh, wait…”

The Toyota crisis was one that gained a lot of attention specifically during the year 2009 The initial complaints and accidents started in 2000. In many Toyota vehicles the car would accelerate out of control. When the driver tried to stop the car by applying the brakes, they would not work. These failures resulted in 34 total deaths, 21 deaths from 2005-2010 alone. When the initial events occurred, Toyota was very quiet about the situation. It seemed as though they were trying to use the methods of: Excuse, “claiming the inability to control the events that triggered the crisis”, Defeasibility “lack of information about events leading to the crisis situation”, and lastly Accidental “lack of control over events leading to the crisis situation.” All three of these responses were executed by Toyota not taking the initiative to fully figure out what the exact problem was until almost a decade later. It wasn’t until the new CEO, Akio Toyoda, addressed the issue publicly and apologized to the families.

I believe that Toyota used the method of Apology to try and repair their reputation in response to the crisis. The Apology method of how to repair their reputation is when the “the crisis manager indicates that the organization takes full responsibility for the crisis and asks stakeholders for forgiveness.” Multiple times during the year 2010 when this situation gained a lot of attention, Toyota publicly apologized to their customers and families who were affected by the deaths and injuries because of the acceleration and breaks failure. The CEO of Toyota stood in front of the US Congress taking full responsibility.

At first it appeared as though Toyota was not paying enough attention to this problem and were trying to find a simple solution. The solution that Toyota informed its customers was to remove the floor mats from under the acceleration pedal so it would not impede with the function of the pedal. When accidents continued to happen, the company was forced to come up with a solid solution as to why this malfunction kept occurring. The Los Angles Times published that the Toyota organization ignored over a thousand received claims about the events leading up to this crisis. In early 2010 the company recalled 2.3 million Toyota brand vehicles.

A crisis like this can be a devastating loss to its customer base and loyalty. Toyota ignored the complaints and let this issue go on way too long, imposing more damage for a company. Customers will turn their back on the company and not look back, especially when Toyota would not come out and take responsibility for the issue. The organization knew that if they wanted to maintain their customer base and a good reputation they would have to take full responsibility and apologize the families affected by this crisis.

The reason I believe Toyota used the Apology method is because in the end of 2009, the CEO did come out in front of the US Congress admitting the full responsibility for the crisis. Before standing in front of Congress, Toyota would apologize publicly but never taking full responsibility of the issue at hand. This situation should have been taken care of back in the early 2000s. It should not have come to 34 people dying because of uncontrollable acceleration and break failure, for Toyota to recall as many cars or take immediate action sooner. This crisis damaged   this company’s reputation, but ultimately lost their customers trust. Toyota will have to work very hard to gain their customers trust back and for some.

Oh, Sugar Sugar…

The soft drink industry has been in an uproar recently with the issue of sugary drinks and the rising rates of obesity in America. Congress and the President have been discussing the idea of putting a higher tax on these drinks. With this higher tax they are hoping people will be less likely to buy them.

“Using data from nearly 9,400 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2004, they tracked consumption of sugary soft drinks, a major source of high-fructose corn syrup in the United States, and protein in the urine, a sensitive marker for kidney disease. They found that overall, people who drank two or more sugary sodas a day were at 40 percent higher risk for kidney damage, while the risk for women soda drinkers nearly doubled.”

In this particular situation, I believe that the taxpayers will have more influence on the soft drink industry. Before the government starts taking steps to put a tax on these items it deems “unhealthy” for America, it should look at cigarette sales. It is a fact that cigarettes lead to lung cancer and are very unhealthy for the entire population. A higher tax has been placed on these items but people still buy cigarettes by the pack and carton. They know full well of the negative effects.

The idea of putting a higher tax on these sugary drinks depends on the amount of the increased tax. If the tax only raises the price by five cents people will not even notice and continue to buy the product they crave. If the government were to go so far as to raise the tax up to five dollars people would stop and think, “Do I really need this drink?” The companies would have a lot to say to the government if this happens.

The PR and advertising practitioners would have to work together to fix this situation. Right now, advertising practitioners are doing their job by making these sugary drinks appealing to the masses, unhealthy or not. The marketing practitioners would have to change they way they market the drinks to the masses.

If the soft drink industry wants to still appeal to the masses and not lose business it should collaborate with some of the healthier companies. Instead of processed sugars it could look into collaborating with companies that use real sugars and natural ingredients to make the drinks healthier. As the PR thoughts would be to lose corn syrup completely.

If I were the soft drink industry I would start looking at sugar substitutes or healthier ingredients that can replace the sugar but still keep the same sweet taste. The PR company and marketers could pair up with “get-fit” organizations. This would launch a new campaign for the soft drink industry. This campaign could benefit the company in many ways by targeting a whole new audience. The government is trying to put a tax on soft drinks because they believe that they are adding to the obesity in our country. The new campaign would show that the companies are trying to change to suit the needs of a healthier lifestyle.

The new campaign will be supporting local schools all around the country setting up “get-fit” programs for kids. The program will launch a website where participants can track their progress and set goals. Once the goals are reached prizes will be given in the form of t-shirts and natural healthy packages from wholesome companies such as Kashi. This it will inspire people to reach their goals as well as eat healthier while still being able to have their favorite soft drink.

Corn vs. Sugar

Jan-Mama Saint

The soft drink industry has been in recent uproar with the struggling issue that relates to sugary drinks and the rising rates of obesity in America. Congress and the President have been discussing the idea of putting a higher tax on these drinks. With this higher tax they are hoping people will be less likely to buy them.

In this particular situation, I believe that the taxpayers will have more influence on the sales. Before the government starts taking steps to put tax on these items they deem “unhealthy” for America, they should look at cigarette sales. It is a fact that cigarettes lead to lung cancer and are very unhealthy for the entire population, first and second hand. A higher tax has been properly placed on these items but people not only still buy cigarettes by the pack but by cartons; knowing full well the effects it offers.

The idea of putting a higher tax on these sugary drinks all depends on the amount of the increased tax. If the tax only raises the price by five cents people will not even notice and continue to buy the product they crave. If the government were to go so far as to raise the tax up to five dollars people would stop and think, “Do I really need this drink?” The companies would have a lot to say to the government if this were to happen.

The PR companies and the advertising companies would have to work together to fix this situation. Right now, advertising companies are doing their job by makes these sugary drinks appealing to the masses, unhealthy or not. The marketing companies would have to change they way they market the drinks to the advertisers for them to change the way they present it to the masses.

If the soft drink industry wants to still appeal to the masses and not lose business they should pair up with some of the healthier companies. Instead of processed sugars they could look into pairing up with companies that use real sugars and natural ingredients to make the drinks healthier. My thoughts would be to lose corn syrup completely.

“Using data from nearly 9,400 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2004, they tracked consumption of sugary soft drinks, a major source of high-fructose corn syrup in the United States, and protein in the urine, a sensitive marker for kidney disease. They found that overall, people who drank two or more sugary sodas a day were at 40 percent higher risk for kidney damage, while the risk for women soda drinkers nearly doubled” (New York Times).

If I were the soft drink industry I would look to third world countries and see which has the best sugar supply. From that point I would start marketing sugar from these countries, bringing profit to them as well as using that sugar to make these drinks not only taste better, but also healthier then the high-fructose corn syrup that is used currently. This method would not only benefit these countries but also the companies with a new approach to a more innovative healthier approach. They could then pair up with “get-fit” companies and marketing segments and launch a new line of products with a whole new line of advertisements.