Maybe Hiding Your Money Under the Mattress Isn’t Such a Bad Idea After All J:4460

“Swipe…”

“Swipe…”

“Swipe…”

“Cha ching…”

“Cha ching…”

“Cha ching…”

What is that sound? It’s not only the sound of advertisers making money; it’s the sound of consumers swiping their debit cards at cash registers all over America. It will soon be the sound of Bank of America profiting off of users who make daily transactions with their debit cards monthly.

According to an article released by Reuters today, Bank of America will begin charging debit card users a monthly fee of $5 starting next year. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-bankofamerica-debit-idUSTRE78S4GQ20110929) Isn’t there something wrong with that? Consumers who use their debit cards not only to spend money without using cash are now going to have to pay to use their cards for a fee? There has to be something wrong with that.

Honestly, I’m a Bank of America debit card user and I’m even worried about being charged a fee to use it. Why should I be charged for money to be used that I store in their bank? It’s egoism at its best! There is no way that this is in the best interest of their consumer.

According to the same Reuters article, banks are looking for a way to increase profits in the dead-end economy. It is not fair that consumers who stand by Bank of America are going to be charged for using plastic the bank has given them to access their money.

Consumers will feel the effects using the cards to purchase items from stores, but will not feel it if they choose to access money from a Bank of America ATM. So if Bank of America isn’t charging us to take our money out of the bank at ATM’s, why are they charging us a fee at all?

I believe that Bank of America will begin to feel consumer backlash when the fee is put into place at the beginning of next year. Consumers are not going to want to be charged to access their money in an economy where they barely can afford groceries or the light bill. Consumers also don’t want the inconvenience of going to an ATM every time they need to access their money.

Bank of America did not handle the release of this information well. According to the article, Bank of America is taking advantage of their consumers. The consumers had little to no say in whether or not a fee would be acceptable. Can you hear the crisis management team running to Bank of America’s side in this situation? I can guarantee you that as soon as consumers begin to hear about the fee, Bank of America will surely be at the hands of their crisis management team trying to find a way out of what they started.

As a public relations major and a Bank of America consumer, they did not handle this situation well in the slightest bit. They should have come to an agreement with their consumers before even thinking about placing a fee on the use of debit cards. If I were their public relations consultant or on their crisis management team, I wouldn’t be sleeping at night until what I felt was best for the consumer was happening.

As public relations consultants, things about our clients will be leaked to the public the same way that it happened with Bank of America now. We, as their link to the media and the consumer, are going to have to grab the reins and make it right for both the client and the consumer.

Banks shouldn’t be profiting off of their consumer, unless the consumer is taking a loan out or starting an account with them. As their costumers, we have the right to our money and we shouldn’t be at their hand to use it. In an economy like this, I can assure you Bank of America will be the one feeling the hurt more than a $5 fee is worth to them in the long run. 

Reebok’s Blunder is Another Man’s Ethical Treasure J:4470

Advertisers and public relations consultants are faced with ethical decision making everyday. This doesn’t mean that they make the best decision for the benefit of society when they are faced with the choice between right and wrong.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states a decision is made for the greater good of society; this creates most rules, regulations and laws that society abides by today. Most advertisers are held to these rules and regulations in order to be seen as honorary by society, but some advertisers do not obey this theory in order to make a profit.

When Reebok made the decision to create and sell shoes that were intended to benefit the consumer by giving them better looking legs, they did not think to make sure that this product actually did what it said it could do. According to the FTC, it was never proven that the EasyTone sneakers would actually provide consumers the results that Reebok claimed the shoes would give. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/reebok-settlement-toning-sneakers_n_985141.html)

With this case, we are able to see that Reebok didn’t abide by the rules and regulations set by the FTC to make sure that the product would produce the results that were supposed to be given to the consumer while wearing the shoe. Reebok ended up profiting off of their consumer, because the buyer believed the shoes would produce the results that Reebok said would happen upon purchasing their product.

It is here that we can say that Reebok was abiding by the theory of egoism. Egoism is the ethical theory that a decision is made for the benefit of one’s self-interest and not for the greater good of society. In this case, Reebok put the shoes on the market to make a profit, which benefited the company, and the decision they made was NOT for the greater good of society.

In the end, Reebok is paying for their decision big time. They have agreed to a $25 million settlement with their consumers. This is the part where the theory of utilitarianism is taking place. Reebok promised something to their consumer that was never proven true. The company believed it was in their best interest to keep their mouths shut to make millions off of their lies. It wasn’t until the FTC stepped in to shed light on Reebok’s blunder and give the consumers what they deserved, the truth. Now that Reebok is paying for their egotistical decision to make money instead of giving the consumer a solid product, they are doing what is best for the greater good of society and giving the money back to those who were disappointed in the product.

Everyone has a set of morals and values. When they step into the workplace those morals and values are occasionally left on the doorstep and decisions are made at the expense of the consumer. It is unfortunate that we have come into a society where there is no trust, when less than 50 years ago our grandparents were allowing the milkman to come into their houses and leave without stealing anything. Leave the door open in today’s society for the milkman and he’d probably steal our plasma TVs and our high-end computers without a second thought.

In ethics, we are to believe that everyone has their own moral code that they live by, but sometimes when I see how advertisers pull the wool over our eyes to make a profit I begin to question if this is true. We should be able to trust that the products that companies design are made in our best interest and not theirs. It is unfortunate that in our society today we cannot make our judgment of a service or product off of what the commercials advertise them to be. We have to wait until the FTC comes to our aid to open our eyes and see that we’ve been duped.

I honestly don’t think that I could morally produce a product that doesn’t do what I say it’s going to do. Our families don’t make dinner and say, “this is the best damn dinner you’re going to eat” and it winds up tasting like garbage, they mean it when they say it that they’ve produced an honor worthy product. I will not put my morals aside for any company that says to lie or deface our consumers, its just not ethically right. 

What does Hank Hill have to do with PR, god dangit? J:4460

Recently, in my journalism ethics class, we learned about the “Beech-Nut” scandal of 1982.  This case involved Beech-Nut, a company that distributed apple juice for babies to stores. During this case, Beech-Nut claimed that they stopped distributing apple juice to stores because they found out that the apple juice was really sugar water. Unfortunately, they did not remove all of the apple juice from the shelves of stores and were still profiting off of their mistake, which is obviously unethical.

During my regular Monday night routine, where all I watch is My 27, I came across a very familiar scene. Familiar in the sense that it sounded just like the Beech-Nut scandal of ’82. Which leads me to the show I was watching – King of the Hill from season 6 episode 16. This episode was titled Beer and Loathing.

Anyone who has ever seen an episode of King of the Hill is aware of Hank Hill’s favorite past-time: Drinking beer in the ally with the guys. During this episode, Peggy is hired on at Alamo’s beer factory and while she is there she begins to notice some very funny things happening. Of course, Peggy is one of the Espanola telemarketers hired on and is expected to speak to citizens of Mexico who have come in contact with Alamo Beer. Throughout the episode, Peggy begins to realize that something weird is going on with Alamo Beer in Mexico. (Apparently a little bit of soap seeped into the beer and was making everyone sick.) Like corporations in America today, and 20 years ago I might add, Alamo Beer’s CEO did not want to recall the product even after knowing that the product was not what they promised their consumers.

If this were a real suit, like the Beech-Nut case, everyone in charge of Alamo Beer who was aware of the situation would be going to jail. Of course, Peggy saves the day in the end of the episode when she sneaks the unsanitary beer into the CEO’s office and he gets sick from it. This, as usual, woke up the chairmen of the board and they recalled the entire product in both Mexico and the United States.

Now as unethical as it would have been to not recall the product, this is the time to ask what does this have to do with PR and the media? In cases such as these, what are the repercussions for the public relations consultant? And how are they supposed to react for their clients when put into a similar situation? As public relations specialists all know, we are supposed to defend our clients and their actions. Unfortunately, we are going to be faced with difficult situations and tough decisions are going to have to be made.

Again, as they are our clients, we do not have the right to be biased based on the decisions that they have made or towards the situations they have gotten themselves into. So what are we supposed to do when we’re faced with these situations? How do we inform the media about our clients’ idiotic decisions without threatening the organization or companies image? In times when we are faced with these difficult questions and decisions, we must think back to our roots. I’m talking about our journalistic roots and the ability to make moral and ethical decisions.

They (the company) need us (public relations consultants) to maintain strong heads as we face a terrified audience when we expose the companies’ wrong doings. They also need us to be able to organize a way to make it right, whether it is organizing a recall of a product or explaining what our organization is going to do for the consumers of the product to make sure that little to no harm is done towards the organization or our consumers. As PR consultants, we cannot run from everything our clients do wrong, and if we would, well lets be honest here, we wouldn’t be trying to become public relations consultants in the first place now would we? We need to do everything that is expected of us from our client, because that is what we promise to do (defend them) in times of crisis. 

Should Companies Profit Off of Negative Coverage? J:4460

Should Companies Profit Off of Negative Coverage?

In the media today, companies will do anything to get coverage of their products or services. Over the summer, Summers Eve released a series of advertisements that could have been considered racist. This eventually stirred up controversy with the users of their product. Although the ads were controversial and were eventually taken down, Summers Eve still received coverage because of the controversy that had arisen during the ads.

It is probable that even though the ads were controversial and had to be taken down that Summers Eve was still able to turnover product and make a profit from the negative coverage. The ads may have been raunchy, but Summers Eve still profited from the negative coverage of the product. How ethical is it that a company or an organization can promise that their product will do something that it won’t or target certain stereotypes in their advertisements? Sounds unethical to me.

In an article released by PRSA this past week, they discuss the “Ethical Perils of Paying for Positive Media Coverage.” (http://prsay.prsa.org/index.php/2011/09/13/paying-for-media-coverage/) But what happens when the company doesn’t have to pay for the coverage in the slight? Plenty of companies have made mistakes in their product launches and advertisements and still profited off of the negative spin. How ethical is it to be able to produce a controversial ad, have it taken out of the media, and still be able to profit off of their mistake? Could it be possible that companies brand their products in a negative way that they would turn over more product in doing so, rather than spinning the product in a positive light? I believe that it is very possible. 

As PR professionals, we must have the capability of stopping a client from advertising their product in a negative light. No one should profit off of a racist advertisement, even if they claim that they didn’t think that the ad was racist. As PR professionals, we are the link between our client and the consumer. Any negative coverage the client receives, we are the ones that has to spin it. Companies who do this do not realize that there are repercussions of releasing negative advertisements, even advertisements that promise to do something that the product will not do. If the client receives negative coverage, we, as public relations professionals, have to take the heat and defend the client.

Unfortunately, it is both public relations professionals and advertisers who must make the decision whether or not the advertisement or article that is about to be released is ethical. Clients expect us to be able to foresee whether or not an advertisement or news release will receive negative coverage or if the advertisement/news release could hurt the company’s image. We should be able to decide whether or not a certain race could be harmed by an advertisement or product release. We should also be able to make the decision of releasing the advertisement or product release if it is racy, raunchy, etc. Our clients deserve the best coverage, even if they could profit off of negative coverage. Come on guys, it just doesn’t look good for a company to have stereotypical or racist advertisements as their whole campaign. We, as public relations professionals, should have known better and said, “Hell no, I’m not going to write a product release on this stereotypical advertisement where people may be offended!”   

Animals in need, we're here to help! J:3410

Animals in need, we’re here to help!

Growing up in a household with different types of animals has given me the ability to care for things other than myself. We have housed anything from snakes to rabbits to cats to dogs. Growing up in this type of environment has made me very passionate about helping animals in need.

Currently we have two cats that we rescued from the shelters many years ago. During this time, I have grown a deep love for the animal shelters that rescue animals from euthanasia located in kill shelters. I have made it a point to go to the local Denton animal shelter weekly to play with the homeless cats and dogs, because each and everyone of them deserves love and attention.

The non-profit I am passionate about is the SPCA. This organization provides care and loving homes to animals in need. They also provide a place for spaying and neutering for cats and dogs to limit the spread of homeless animals.

Not only do they provide care and love to animals, they also provide programs and services to educate the public about the animals they adopt. These programs are beneficial to those who are about to bring in a new family member to their household.

In 2010, the local SPCA of Texas rescued 857 animals and adopted out 5,408 animals to loving homes. Also in 2010, they spayed and neutered over 16,000 animals. They also educated over 13,000 people with their education services.

When these animals have no one to care or look out for them, the SPCA and other shelters are there to find them loving homes. No animal should ever live in fear of their owners or should ever be thrown out into the streets. I feel that with the SPCA, someone is there to look out for those who are abandoned and need someone to care for them. 

Social Networking Inhibiting Our Ability to Live J:4460

Social Networking Inhibiting Our Ability to Live

It is truly amazing to me that the world of social media has changed everything. When I was a child I played outside with friends and spent time with my family, but now that social media has come along it has completely changed the importance of real socialization for younger generations including our own.

Anyone who owns a facebook or a twitter knows that they spend way too much time being consumed by what other people have to say on the Internet. It is highly frustrating to see that friendships have turned into things I’d like to call “Web-ships.” Web-ships are friends who only talk on the Internet, make promises to hang out, yet can never escape from the computer or phone applications long enough to actually do so.

I know social networks are important, but why are they? Does it grow one’s self-esteem to see that one person has commented on their page or mentioned them in a tweet? It’s a little sick to think that it might.

I get that without social media, we might not get to stay in touch with people we knew long ago, but isn’t it hazardous to stay in the past? Doesn’t this inhibit our abilities to actually socialize with real people face-to-face on a daily basis? I think this is a huge possibility. As a society, we’re so caught up with what our friends are doing on the Internet that we inhibit ourselves to actually get out there and do things ourselves, to meet new people, to actually experience new things.

Unfortunately, even if one is to leave the comfort of the Internet at home, they have the ability to tweet and facebook anywhere they’re located by using their cell phones. I continuously see friends at social gatherings texting, tweeting, and facebooking to their hearts content. Some stand in corners to go back to the comfort of their Internet web-ships while all of their friends sit around mingling. I can’t even count the numerous times I’ve been invited to go out with someone, but the entire time we’re out they tend to their social networking needs rather than tending to our real friendship.

One of my favorite examples of social networking inhibiting someone’s day-to-day life is the Toyota Venza commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUGmcb3mhLM) where the woman complains about how her parents only have 19 friends on facebook. The ironic part of the commercial is that her parents are actually out with real friends while the daughter is stuck at home on facebook. It’s a prime example of how society is too into their Internet lives rather than their real life to get out there and experience new things. 

Don’t get me wrong; social networking can be of some importance if it actually sparks a real friendship off of the Internet. I think as a society, we need to put down our phones, iPads, computers and step into doing real things like hanging out with real people, or going to a park, or going to a movie. We need to step out of our comfort zones and actually experience our lives, because the truth is, we only get to live once. Why waste it pining over what your ex-boyfriend said to their new girlfriend on Facebook? Or reading 5 million reviews about the new restaurant that just opened down the street? Just get up, close the computer, and go!  

The Need for Ethics in the Media J:4470

The Need for Ethics in the Media

Everyday, society is bombarded by the media. From social media to the news, beginning journalists to the pro’s face ethical decisions when discussing issues with the public. In a field where journalists must make the right decision everyday does not mean that they will or do. As journalists begin to approach a story, they must think of how the information they write will affect the public.

In an earlier journalism class, we watched a story where journalists did not make the right ethical decision when spreading a story to the public. We are told, as growing journalists, to never dip as low as taking pictures of a dead body for an article or to ever use something that may disrespect a grieving family in a news story.

In February 2001, Karla Gutierrez swerved into a Miami canal. As the car was sinking, she called 911 Emergency for help. During this time the dispatcher did not know where the car was located to send help. Inevitably the car sank and Gutierrez drowned. The last words she ever spoke were with the dispatcher who could not explain to Gutierrez how to get out of the car.

Once the story was in the hands of journalists, there was a decision they had to make: to use or not to use the 911 call as part of their story? Unfortunately, multiple journalists made the wrong decision that day in playing the 911 call in their story. In the time they had to choose whether or not to use the call as part of their story, they should have known that it would disrespect the grieving family.

Although they made the wrong decision that day, it truly shows the importance of having morals when deciding what to do with a piece of information such as the 911 call. This is where the ethical decision not to use this piece of information should have come into play, which is why there is a very high need for ethics in the media.

Unfortunately, journalists still make these mistakes. These mistakes may not happen very often, but they still happen on occasion. Because journalists are in the spotlight all of the time, I believe there needs to be an ethic’s course that journalists must take every few years. In times where stories are pressing to be released, journalists must be able to make the correct decision with information they know.

These courses would put a journalist in a time crunch to make a quick decision between right and wrong. During these courses, journalists would be told the consequences of the decision they chose. Throughout the course, journalists would then be able to decipher right and wrong in seconds and what happened with Gutierrez’s case would never happen.

When I turn on the news, I do not want the gruesome parts of a story. I do not want to see a picture of a dead body or hear the last words of a man who is about to die. I’m not saying I want the news to smell of roses or have the beauty of a butterfly, I’m saying I’d like it to be a little bit more censored than what journalists do nowadays.

Society has been so desensitized to the media; there is no way to decipher if what they are watching has been chosen ethically or morally from the medium that is putting the information out there. I believe it is the responsibility of the media to choose rightly from the very beginning, so there is never a question of whether or not what they have done is ethical or not. To make a right or wrong decision is around us constantly, we just need the knowledge and skill to choose right over wrong.