Social Media Rocks!

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/02/26/schepman.fb.reunites.sisters.kmgh

Today people use social media for a lot more than keeping in touch with friends - from advertising to finding long lost family members, social media does it all and for free!

Nimby Wars

In public affairs much emphasis is put on the importance ethos/credibility. In that regard, for me, our guest lecturer from BigFish got off to a shaky start. I was unimpressed by the presumptuousness of his unsupported (and inaccurate) statement that US coal mines are the safest in the world - they're not - and seriously offended by his related statement that life is regarded as less valuable in China. Talk about an Enthymeme! As a foreigner, it's irritating and wearying to have to deal constantly with US ethnocentricity and the US national superiority complex which so often feels like a form of low level racism. Rant over!

Mr BigFish (I couldn't find his name on their website or Facebook page) brought up NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard - the idea that people will oppose LULU - Local Unwanted Land Use - developments in their area. NIMBY campaigns are a specific occurrence of grassroots organizing which is generally regarded as a good thing, however, the term NIMBY coined in the 1980's by a conservative UK politician is almost always used pejoratively to imply that opponents of a development have narrow, selfish, or myopic views.

The key difference between NIMBY and NIABY - Not In Anyone's Back Yard – is that opponents of NIMBY development don't question the underlying social utility of the development exposing them to charges of hypocrisy. For example, most people accept that society needs prisons but few communities want one in their area. An example closer to home is a wind farm on Nantucket Sound, MA. Some residents and businesses of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket Island have opposed construction of Cape Wind, a proposed offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Supporters cite the environmental, economic, and energy security benefits of clean, renewable energy, while opponents are against any obstruction to the views from oceanfront vacation homes and tourist destinations based in the region. While NIMBY wars are often waged by communities against local government officials and Big Business, this example shows how sometimes both sides come from within the community itself, or from adjacent communities.

Sometimes, the shoe is on the other foot with a community campaigning for a development opposed by local government officials/planners. A case in point is the large IKEA store, recently opened on the outskirts of Dublin in a socially disadvantaged area. Although planners were against the development arguing about the traffic impact (on one of the main routes to the airport), the local community successfully lobbied for the store. No doubt they will soon be equally vocal about the traffic problems.

The inherent Social Utility vs. Private (Selfish) Interests contradiction has an impact on how NIMBY groups campaign, with organizers often trying to use find more reasonable/acceptable public grounds to mask their less reasonable/acceptable private objections, or finding other ways to block the development. For example, in Alexandria, VA, people who opposed high-density development in Potomac Yard demanded an additional Washington Metro station while simultaneously opposing the scale of development that would provide either sufficient funds for the station or sufficient ridership to justify its construction. What some people in a community will see as NIMBY others will see as NIABY – for example, nuclear power stations – further complicating how LULU grassroots campaigns organize themselves.

For those interested in Nimby issues and campaigns, NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use (available on inter-library loan from the Emerson Library) is an interesting read. From the book blurb: “Nimby Wars distills more than 25 years of experience in the trenches of land use battles, both for and against projects as varied as a hospital and an oil refinery. Readers will learn exactly what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to influencing local decision-makers faced with a controversial development proposal.”

Carissa Schively's 2007 academic article Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research (which can be ordered online via the Emerson Library) is also a good read. It looks at research in the area from the planners' perspective and methods available to respond to NIMBY concerns.

The Saint Consulting Group 2009 Index which tracks attitudes toward real estate development projects in the U.S., Canada and UK. contains some interesting statistics. A few are included here, however, the whole list is worth a look for anyone with an interest in the area.

American Attitudes on Development

• America’s opposition to local real estate development remains strong, with 74% of adults opposed to new development in their community.
• 78% of American adults oppose a landfill development in their hometown, making it the most unwanted type of local real estate project in America.
• A casino is the second most unwanted local project — 77% opposed.
• 59% of Americans say they are more likely to support new commercial projects in their hometown given the current economic situation.
• A nuclear power plant, while the least-favored type of power plant, would still be preferable as a local development project to a landfill, a casino, or an aggregate quarry, the survey results show.

Who Fights Development and Why

• One in five American families have actively opposed a development project
• The Northeast is the most actively NIMBY region of the U.S. (surprise, surprise!!!) followed by the West and Mid-Atlantic.
• The Midwest is the region most welcoming to local development.
• The most active NIMBYs are age 46-55, college or post-grad educated, own their home, and have an annual household income of $75,000 to $99,000.
• Key reasons for opposing a project are protecting the environment (22%) and protecting the value of a home or real estate (21%). Other reasons for opposition include fear of too much new traffic (19%) and protecting community character (18%).
• Nearly seven out of 10 Americans (69%) believe the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the land use approval process unfair.
• 87% of Americans say that a candidate’s position on development and growth is important when deciding for whom to vote.

Energy and Power Plants

• 53% of American adults oppose a local power plant project. That is down significantly from 75% opposed to a local power project in 2006, and 57% a year ago.
• Wind power remains the top choice for a power plant among Americans if one were to be built near them. 82% say they would support a wind-powered generation project if one were proposed for their community.
• Also enjoying more support than opposition are a local biofuel (54% support) or hydro power (61% support) project.
• 60% of Americans oppose building a nuclear power plant in their community —down from 65% opposed a year ago.
• 50% of Americans oppose a fossil fuel power plant in their community, down from 58% last year.

Originality, Plagiarism, and the art of the Remix

This article from the New York Times:

The Free-Appropriation Writer



To what extent should writers, thinkers be responsible for creating original material? I think this discussion has implications for our field(s):

"After a blogger and fellow novelist announced that Ms. Hegemann had blended sizeable chunks of his own writing into hers, Ms. Hegemann, instead of following the plagiarism-gotcha script of contrition and retraction so familiar in recent years, announced that appropriating the passages from that book and other sources was her plan all along.

A child of a media-saturated generation, she presented herself as a writer whose birthright is the remix, the use of anything at hand she feels suits her purposes, an idea of communal creativity that certainly wasn’t shared by those from whom she borrowed. In a line that might have been stolen from Sartre (it wasn’t) she added: 'There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity.'"

Turkey and Public Diplomacy

As I am supposed to be focusing solely on my thesis nowadays, I am wasting quite some time surfing. I decided to google "public diplomacy turkey" and to read the recent developments. I believe, after Turkish MFA's two conferences inviting all the ambassadors to meet in Ankara, Turkey decided to introduce new foreign policy strategies. I felt obliged to put my two "kuruş" in.

On Jan 30th, 2010, Turkish PM issued a circular order, underlining the importance of public diplomacy and announcing the new official Public Diplomacy initiative. Institute of Public Diplomacy, was founded by a Turkish think-tank founded (where I was an intern six years ago). Suat Kinikoglu, a member of the Turkish Parliament, has mentioned the importance of communication and public diplomacy several times. He is also the director of Center for Strategic Communication - "a non-governmental organization in order to facilitate strategic communication for Turkey both at home and abroad." (though I have to say, I am not really comfortable with calling an institution an NGO when the director is an MP and is affiliated with the ruling party).

MFA announced that Turkish public diplomacy efforts will be seen on the internet. Although Turkey didn't catch the first wave of 'governments going online', Deputy Undersecretary's statements prove that Turkey has understood the importance of public diplomacy and two-way communication in foreign policy.

Last January, the minister and several ambassadors visited Mardin, where they talked with local residents and journalists. The following news article explains how "prominent Turkish ambassadors briefly abandoned the formal world of diplomacy to interact with people at a local coffehouse". It is good to see that our ambassadors can act in non-traditional environments. Our diplomatic corps are infamous for being elitist, these actions surely will help them to break this bad reputation. Turkey has been also engaged in several student exchange, economic cooperation, and cultural diplomacy activities.

Now it is time for action. We are already a latecomer to the race, but at least, we are explicitly demonstrating our interest for being present in the public diplomacy sphere. I see four important problems: exploitation of the term, lack of strategy, unclear message, and targeting audiences.

Even though we recently learned the term, we love calling everything 'public diplomacy', for instance the visit in Mardin. Apart from the fact that Mardin is a city in Turkey, I really cannot justify calling an informal event as public diplomacy. The minister and some ambassadors decided to walk around the town with some journalists during a conference in Mardin. I tried to find similar news articles in foreign media, but I couldn't find any. Mardin is a fascinating city, is the home of several historical sites (and the world tallest men). But if there is no intention to create any communication bridges between Turkey and target audiences, this kind of public diplomacy attempts, one-way communication strategies are likely to fail. If we keep calling everything public diplomacy, the value of real PD projects will be neglected.

I cannot see a clear strategy in the existing student exchanges and other cultural/economic activities. All projects seem to have short term interest, such as constructing a building, hosting a student, and promoting an artist. If we want to justify the budgets for PD projects - and it is better if we do -, we should have clear quasi-measurable strategy objectives.

Turkey's biggest challenge (and opportunity) is that there are several messages we can communicate due to our historical and cultural roots.One of our favorite messages is being "the bridge between the East and the West". Visualized by Bush's speech during the NATO Conference in 2004, we love to claim that we have roots in the Eastern and Western cultures. Although this claim represents the reality to an extent, it sometimes reflects an inconsistent position instead of a unifying/unbiased position. Especially when our government sometimes tries to use our eastern roots as an alternative in EU negotiations, our inclusive approach becomes less persuasive. Another message is presenting the modern side of Turkey. Although it is more appealing to some audiences, it doesn't reflect the Turkish reality entirely. When you consider the various cultures of Anatolia (some of which have lived in the region years ago, and some of which are still living), we can come up with several different messages. Yet, still the important thing is to come up with consistent messages that reflect the reality instead of highly crafted propagandist messages.

Last but not the least, we should define and prioritize our audiences. Our current foreign policy strategy, Strategic Depth, aims to create a multi-dimensional approach in which Turkey tries to build up strong relations with anyone and everyone. From a communication point of view, it is neither desirable nor feasible.

In short, Turkey has the potential to become a well-known brand and a globally respected actor in international politics. It is time to stop calling everything public diplomacy, to leave our political differences aside, and to come up with PD strategies.

This blog post is also posted on http://efesevin.wordpress.com/ and http://placebranding.ning.com/.

Corporate Social Responsibility – Much More than Philanthropy

Having worked for a large multi-nation consulting company for over 15 years I have a longstanding interest in the area of Corporate Social Responsibility. Last semester, I did a group presentation on the topic with Akosua (who has already blogged on the subject here). For anyone who is interested in the area, I have included a bibliography of around a dozen useful academic articles that the end.

I was therefore disappointed when Dr Brown in his guest lecture, placed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) very much in the context of corporate philanthropy, even relying on a nearly 30 year old annual report to make his point, which gives some idea of how outdated this thinking might be. He seemed to regard it as a development that corporations were now targeting their philanthropy towards organizations and causes specifically relevant to their industries, rather than just donating to worthwhile charities and the arts. His 2007 article for the most part contains the same outmoded thinking. CSR has moved way beyond philanthropy and some even argue that philanthropy is not CSR, that it is the corporate equivalent of blood money to use an emotive metaphor.

CSR, today, is almost exclusively discussed in the context of business ethics and environmentalism, based on constructs such as sustainability accounting and the Triple P – People, Planet, Profit - bottom line. It is about Corporations taking responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, stakeholders employees & the general public.

One question that often gets asked is if CSR is just a marketing ploy, another example of greenwash. For some organizations, many of the biggest corporate donors included, the answer is very definitely yes. They talk the talk but don't walk the walk. However, for many more, and a growing number, the commitment is very real. One only needs to look at what they are doing to see which ones are serious and which ones are not. The three links below offer some examples which you can judge for yourself.

Walmart Sustainability News
Sears Sustainability Initiatives
Anheuser Busch Corporate Responsibility

There is a well-know management maxim that “what gets measured gets delivered,” which readily explains why some companies who measure what is easy rather than what is right perform poorly. What helps make CSR real is that it can be measured, and therefore monitored and managed, very effectively. Some of the formal measurement approaches include:

Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines
SA 8000 Social Accountability International Standards
AA100 AccountAbility Principles Standard 2008
Good Corporation Standards

A quick look at these will show how comprehensive they are, and also that some are more suited to particular industries that others. The Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines are probably the most widely used and cover a number of dimensions in detail with specific, quantifiable and credible metrics. The dimensions/categories they look at are:

• Economic Performance Indicators
• Environmental Performance Indicators
• Labor Practices and Decent Work Performance Indicators
• Human Rights Performance Indicators
• Society Performance Indicators
• Product Responsibility Performance Indicators

A second thing that makes CSR real is that consumers respond to it, creating a virtuous circle. Socially conscious consumers look for an organization's CSR credentials – Early adopter organization's build up and promote their CSR credentials – Mainstream consumers are affected by this CSR marketing and begin to look for an organization's CSR credentials – Mainstream organizations start to build up and promote their CSR credentials to stay competitive – Consumers start comparing different organizations' CSR credentials – Organizations start improving their CSR credentials, and so on. The following are some studies that show how consumers respond to CSR.

Fleishman-Hillard/National Consumers League Study 2007
BSR/GlobeScan State of Sustainable Business Poll 2009
Consumer Attitudes in Ireland - BITCI/Ipsos MORI Poll, 2009

Based on the Fleishman-Hilliard study, 82% of the American public now thinks that it is extremely important (50%) or very important (32%) that congress should work to ensure CSR and the following percentages ranked each of these criteria as their number 1 priority.

• 29% Treats/pays employees well
• 15% Goes beyond law to protect environment
• 14% Responsive to customer needs
• 9% Contributes to community beyond taxes
• 8% Shares values
• 3% Gives to charitable causes
• 3% Ensures good profit for shareholders

The third thing that makes CSR very real, and increasingly so, is public discourse. A post-modern, structuralist view would hold that we create our own reality through discourse. I'm not going to go into a long discussion of that here but for anyone who is interested it is worth reading Corporate Social Responsibility through the Lens of Communication Theory and Research. Grushina, S. (2008). Conference Papers - National Communication Association, 1

Corporate Social Responsibility – Bibliography

A New Generation of Global Corporate Social Responsibility.
Stohl, C., Stohl, M., & Townsley, N. (2006). Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-36.

Corporate Social Responsibility through the Lens of Communication Theory and Research.
Grushina, S. (2008). Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1

Corporate social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the marketing context.
Vaaland, T., Heide, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2008). European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 927-953.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework
Isabelle Maignan, O C Ferrell. Academy of Marketing Science. Journal. Greenvale: Winter 2004. Vol. 32, Iss. 1, p. 3-19

Perceptions and perspectives: corporate social responsibility and the media
Ralph Tench, Ryan Bowd, Brian Jones. Journal of Communication Management. London:2007. Vol. 11, Iss. 4, p. 348-370

Walking the Line: External stakeholders define corporate social responsibility.
O'Connor, A., Shumate, M., & Meister, M. (2007). Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.

Guest Editorial: Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility
Podnar, K. (2008). Guest Editorial: Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 75-81.

The Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility: United States and European Union Multinational Corporations
Laura P Hartman, Robert S Rubin, K Kathy Dhanda. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht:Sep 2007. Vol. 74, Iss. 4, p. 373-389 (17 pp.)

Taboos in Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse
Tomi J Kallio. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: Aug 2007. Vol. 74, Iss. 2, p. 165 (11 pp.)
Abstract (Summary)

Corporate Social Responsibility: Views from the Frontline
Lisa Whitehouse. Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 63: 279–296 DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-3243-0 . Springer 2006

Corporate governance, communication, and getting social values into the decisional chain
Stanley Deetz. Management Communication Quarterly : McQ. Thousand Oaks: May 2003. Vol. 16, Iss. 4, p. 606-611 (6 pp.)

Crisis Management in the Irish Catholic Church

James and Wooten, in their article How to Display Competence in Times of Crisis, talk about two types of crises: sudden crises and smoldering crises. The crisis facing the institutional Catholic Church in Ireland is probably best described as a smoldering crisis that from time to time bursts into huge flames. The most recent, and perhaps most damaging, conflagration was the November 2009 publication of the Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

This damning report, the second in one year concerning clerical child abuse, stemmed from a 2002 television documentary broadcast by RTE, the main public service station in Ireland. The documentary, Cardinal Secrets, reported on cases of child abuse by Catholic priests in Dublin being systemically ignored by Church officials who simply moved the offenders to other parishes where they continued to abuse. The resulting public outrage lead to the Irish government establishing a Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

Initially, concerned about the financial implications of admitting any responsibility and the avoidance of scandal, the diocesan hierarchy denied everything, implicitly – and often explicitly – calling the victims liars, fought every allegation, apologized for nothing, provided only very limited cooperation to the Commission and hindered their work as much as possible. The former Archbishop of Dublin – now Cardinal of Ireland – under whose watch many of the cover-ups had occurred refused to allow the Commission any access to diocesan files on the advice of lawyers. Meanwhile dozens more abuse victims and their parents were coming out of the woodwork. In 2004, the newly installed Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, after a public showdown with the Cardinal, announced that the diocese would open its files to the Commission and cooperate fully with their investigation. He kept his word in full. In addition, without waiting for the Commission to conclude, he accepted responsibility for the Church's failings and apologized to victims, much to the dismay of many of his fellow bishops and priests who were, and are, still in denial.

The report pulled no punches and named names, producing findings that four former and two current Dublin Auxiliary Bishops were guilty to varying degrees of covering up child sexual abuse crimes. The report also found that a former Archbishop had effectively lied knowingly, and criticized the Papal Nuncio (Vatican Ambassador to Ireland) for failing to cooperate with the Commission by refusing to reply to correspondence about the extent to which the Vatican was aware of, or involved in, covering up child abuse crimes in Ireland. In his defense, the Archbishop relied on the obscure theological concept of mental reservation which enables one to employ deception with the intention to mislead without it being a lie. The Papal Nuncio responded somewhat glibly that the correct diplomatic protocol hadn't been followed. To say that people were angered and galled by these responses is an understatement.

Archbishop Martin acted decisively, calling on the six Dublin Auxiliary Bishops named in the report (four of whom are now Bishops of other Dioceses) to resign immediately. One did, accepting some responsibility for his actions. Over the following weeks, under enormous pressure from Archbishop Martin, four more begrudgingly resigned, without accepting responsibility for their actions. One has still not resigned.

Earlier this month, all thirty-two Irish Bishops (and the Cardinal) were summoned to Rome for a two day meeting with the Pope. The only official outcome of this meeting was a Vatican Press Release. It is assumed, but not confirmed, that the Pope accepted the resignations of the five bishops. He has not called on the remaining bishop to resign. He has also declined to meet any of the abuse victims. Irish media reaction to the meeting and press release has been almost universally negative. The Irish Times, calling it the Vatican's textbook case of how not to manage news, made the point that part of the problem was the way in which the Vatican failed to manage expectations. That said, as the only formal response, the press release was woefully inadequate. It contains no apology or admission of responsibility and speaks of the abuse in abstract terms. Two passages widely interpreted as diminishing the suffering of the victims and distancing the Church from the abuse have come in for particular criticism. Regarded as an own goal by many, the Vatican response has mainly added fuel to an already blazing fire.

From a crisis management perspective, the Church approach so far has been a disaster. The only Church figure to have shown any leadership or real awareness of the seriousness of the crisis is Archbishop Martin who is coming out of it quite well. The others seem to have their heads either down in the sand or up in the clouds. If, as Professor Brown in his guest lecture suggested, the three cardinal rules of crisis communication are 1) determine what happened, 2) find out who was to blame, and 3) explain why it won't happen again, the Church has failed miserably in all three. It took a multi-year government commission to determine what happened and to find out, incompletely, who was to blame. During that time the Church, until Archbishop Martin was installed, obstructed the work of the commission as best it could. The Vatican declined to cooperate at all, despite presumably being aware at the time of much that was going on, given its highly centralized reporting structures. We know it shouldn't happen again because mandatory reporting procedures have been put in place and detailed guidelines issued.

My take on this is that people believe Archbishop Martin is sincere in his commitment in this regard. However, there is also a perception, already commented on in the media, that his wings have been clipped since he has been noticeably more muted and circumspect in his remarks following returning from Rome. Moreover, it is clear from the report that the Irish legal obligation to report to the police certain categories of suspected criminal activity, including child abuse, were often ignored in the past, at the behest, it seems, of the Vatican which requires any priestly transgressions to be dealt with under canon law. Some critics are now suggesting that certain priests and Bishops and the Irish Catholic Church as an institution (which doesn't actually exist, with each diocese being more like a papal franchise) should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. There is widespread support, at least in theory, for this idea.

While it is easy to say that the Irish Bishops and Vatican failed miserably to manage the crisis they found themselves in, such a conclusion is to some extent based on an assumption of what they saw as the crisis and what they were trying to protect. For the Church it was both a crisis of reputation/trust, and a potential financial crisis. The public, on the other hand, saw it only as a crisis of trust and as such framed their expectations of the Church's response in a certain way. When the Church, regardless of how they saw it, reacted to it as a financial crisis this only exacerbated the crisis of reputation/trust. I suspect that this is partly because finances are something tangible that the institutional Church is used to managing while reputation/trust is something more intangible that they confuse with power/edifice and have over the years protected by denying and silencing anything that challenges that power/edifice. If one thing has come out of the crisis so far it is a picture of an institutional Church, blinded by a near all-consuming need to maintain its power/edifice, hopelessly out of touch with the modern world and hopelessly out of touch with reality.

Perspective also plays a part. It is easy to regard many of the pious utterances of the various bishops as vainglorious attempts at deflection but there is no doubting the sincerity of some of them. While a victim may value an apology more than anything else, a bishop may believe that offering them prayers is a more meaningful response.

For the Vatican this may not have been a real crisis at all. In the grand scheme of things, with less than three million, and shrinking, practicing members out of a worldwide congregation of well over a billion, the Irish Catholic Church is like a small, poorly performing department in a peripheral office of a large organization. Compared to more pressing issues such as reconciliation with other Christian faiths and closer relationships with Islam, the Irish Catholic Church's problems don't amount to a hill of beans. Moreover, if some religious commentator's are to be believed, the Vatican has already given up on Europe where numbers are rapidly declining and is turning its attention to the emerging religious markets in Latin America and Africa. Certainly, at times, the Vatican appears to be more concerned with the preservation of the Church than with the preservation of Christianity. Perhaps, it sees them both as one and the same. The Irish public, shocked and appalled by what their Church has become, very definitely do not. As an interested observer, who has followed the fortunes of the Irish Catholic Church all my life, I understand well the Irish public reaction and can even understand the Irish Bishops' reaction – at least they appear to be struggling and trying – but the Vatican reaction, “like the wisdom of God,” to quote John Donne, “surpasses all understanding.”

In my opinion, if the Irish Bishops want to deal effectively with this crisis they need to follow their hearts and their consciences. As a first step, therefore, I think they need to acknowledge to themselves and to the Irish public that at this stage the Vatican is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Already, a number of leading Irish theologians, possibly acting as proxies for Archbishop Martin, have as good as said this. By taking full ownership of the crisis for themselves, the Irish Bishops would be telling the Irish public that, in the sad absence of papal leadership, they are willing to step up to the plate and ensure that this will never happen again. Without this I don't think confidence can be restored or trust reestablished with the Irish public. To demonstrate their sincerity and commitment, I believe they then need to make a meaningful public gesture of humility, penitence and contrition, which has been sadly lacking in some quarters so far. If the Irish bishops do all this effectively, they should regain at least some of the moral authority – enough for the moment – that they need to guide the Irish Catholic Church forward. Without regaining that moral authority, whatever else they do is useless. Then, I believe they need to engage meaningfully in dialogue with their congregations and let their congregations – who after all are the Irish Catholic Church – lead the way. There is no quick fix. Media campaigns may play a part but it is the amount and quality of their engagement that will determine if the Bishops will be successful or not. It will be hard work and will probably take a generation. It will also involve a diminution of ecclesiastical power and probably battles with the Vatican in that regard.

The Bishops hopefully realize that, despite all that has happened, there is a huge desire on the part of Irish Catholics for the institutional Church to redeem itself and a huge willingness to participate and help in that redemption. But as Kenneth Burke would point out redemption is not possible without contrition. And for all the pious talk about the healing power of unconditional forgiveness, healing and forgiveness too are easier in the presence of contrition. The crisis has gone beyond the issue of child abuse and is now about the heart and soul of the Irish Catholic Church. If the Irish Bishops' talk of “renewal” is to mean anything they need to accept responsibility for the past and embrace a future where power is vested in the congregation and not the hierarchy.

To whom is Tiger responsible?

This letter to the Editor appeared in today's Boston Globe:

[Tiger Woods] Betrayed His Family, Not the Public

I MUST have missed the memo stating that I was due an apology from Tiger Woods. Reading and hearing comments about how people do not believe the statements he made on Friday just makes me shake my head.

I understand Woods’s need to make some sort of amends to his sponsors, but beyond that, the only person he owes an apology to is his wife.

What he or any other public figure does in his private time is his business, not mine. I have no sympathy for the mess he has found himself in, nor do I have sympathy for the mistresses (who have spoken about how they feel Woods betrayed them). The only person Woods betrayed was his immediate family, not the public or the media.

Paula Caravella,
Plymouth

It's an interesting debate. Certainly the CEO of Toyota owes the public an apology because he is responsible for selling a shoddy product. In the case of selling image associated with product, the question is a bit more subtle.

But as Tiger makes big bucks selling an image of excellence and integrity, he has, in effect, offered the public (and the companies who are paying for that image) damaged goods. The practice of using celebrity to sell product (a la Bernays) suggests to the consumer that you are somehow metaphysically "buying" a little piece of Tiger's integrity and excellence when you are buying the product he endorses. But it's a bizarre sort of intangible value...Is the value of the Nike sneakers diminished if Tiger's integrity is soiled? They still function as shoes, after all--not like a sticking accelerator.

On the level of reputation repair, the author of the letter probably doesn't understand that Tiger's apology was probably less for the public's sake and more for the sake of saving his 'brand.'

What do you think?

Public Affairs Specialist Job Opening with Homeland Security

I thought I'd post this for anyone (U.S. Citizenship required) who might be interested:

http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=86406851&aid=85693405-24210&WT.mc_n=125

You will respond to requests for information concerning agency programs and policies from all media including the press, television, and radio at the local, national and international levels. You will also be responsible for coordinating the release of information with other local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for the media and the public. The information provided concerns general knowledge about the mission of ICE, law enforcement operations, or responses to criticisms of the agency. Many requests are extremely sensitive and controversial and require you to consider law enforcement sensitivity, security, freedom of information, and privacy requirements. You will serve as an advisor to ICE leadership on media matters and participate in policy-making meetings and conferences. You will also maintain working relationships with representative of the media, federal, state and local governments and members of professional, business, civic and other public interest organizations. You will be responsible for information the public of relevant agency policies and practices; enhancing the agency image; monitoring public attitudes toward the agency; preparing news releases, talking points and creating questions and proposed answers to anticipated questions; developing and disseminating information and educational materials; and providing guidance to field offices concerning procedures relating to specific requests to the media.

Toyota "not totally" confident despite their "commitment' commercial.

In what seemed to be the beginnings of a damage control campaign, with the airing of the Toyota's "commitment" commercial and other messaging concerning Toyota's dedication to fix their errors, newly released information suggests that the recalls may not, in fact, fix the problem. When Toyota's U.S. sales chief James Lentz was asked today following his testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce whether he could say with certainty that the fixes now being undertaken would completely eliminate the problems, Lentz responded "not totally." He added that the chances of unintended accelerations would be "very, very slim" once the recalls were complete. Though Toyota has not expressly ruled out an electronics malfunction, they argue that they have not found an electronic malfunction in the cars in question. This conclusion is based on Toyota's assertion that they and other independent sources had thoroughly analyzed the electronics systems and eliminated electronics as a possible cause of sudden unintended acceleration. However, this review was conducted by a company retained by Toyota's lawyers.

Not what Toyota owners, shareholders, and the government wanted to hear.

In the same testimony, Lentz previously stated that Toyota has "rigorously tested [their] solutions and (they) are both effective and durable."

This leads to the question, why, Toyota, are your 1,500 dealerships trying to complete the recalls as "quickly and conveniently as possible...[with] some dealers staying open 24/7 and repairing vehicles at a rate of about 50,000 a day?" If your solutions are both "effective and durable" then why are you "not totally" certain whether or not the fixes now being undertaken would completely eliminate the problem?

In the wake of the recent crisis, has Toyota succumbed to mounting pressure to implement a solution quickly that it may not totally fix the problem? Is it better to say 'we don't really know, for certain, what the problem is, but we are working on it?" Or implement a wave of repairs that may not do the trick?

In arguably the worst handled auto recall, is Toyota setting themselves up for another potential crisis? With increasing government involvement and speculation of Toyota's probe into the matter, and the potential chance of their being another third-party investigation of the issue, could Toyota find themselves in a similar, but worse crisis? What will Toyota do if, in fact, their 'solutions' do not really solve the problem?

ev

Undercover Boss - Television PR

Undercover Boss – one of the newest shows on CBS this season – has elevated “Reality TV” to the next level. But what is different about this reality show? It is not set-up. Upper-management wants to dig deeper into his/her organization, goes undercover, and gets the real deal.

According to Mainstreet, “the show is like a public relations valentine for the companies participating…”

And that statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Instead of a public service announcement or paid advertisement, Undercover Boss has created an hour-long public relations campaign that reaches every television in America.

In this week’s episode, 7-Eleven CEO Joe DePinto leaves the boardroom to make coffee, clean bathrooms, and help with deliveries. In the end, 7-Eleven helps to advance the careers of the featured employees and even creates an organ donor campaign in honor of one of the employees battling kidney disease.

DePinto uncovered a dedicated workforce. But what will happen when the boss uncovers the opposite? Will that be aired? How will reputation and ethos be maintained?

Entertainment Weekly may have the answer to this question: “In keeping with the series’ mandate, however, the good, hard-working people shown out-numbered the inappropriate…”

Although not set-up, the show definitely depends on storyline. Negative incidents may occur, as was the case with Hooters CEO Coby Brooks, but it is the way in which upper-management handles the incidents in the public eye is what may or may not maintain the reputation and ethos of the company.

According to our classroom reading of Weber Shandwick, strategies for recovery in the face of crisis can include:

• Announcing Actions to Fix Problem
• Establishing an Early Warning System to Identify Emerging Threats/Opportunities
• Committing to Corporate Responsibility

In the event that one or more of the CEO’s face negativity or a potential crisis, let’s hope they are able to utilize one or more of the above strategies to maintain their reputation on American television, and continue to implement those changes after the cameras turn off.

The Big Man from New Jersey

Good for Kevin Smith being able to use social media to his advantage. His tweet about being removed from Southwest airlines, created so much media coverage that he was the 23rd most searched term on Google. This not only embarrasses Southwest, but also helps Kevin Smith, because he can now highlight his new film coming out, Cop Out. Even by me writing this Mr. Smith is getting free PR for his film (even though my audience is incredibly small). This incident may have been annoying for Mr. Smith, but the amount of free media attention is priceless.
The use of social media for the dual purpose of complaining about an airline and getting coverage for your business has been done before. Dave Carroll a musician from Canada had his guitar broken while traveling on United and this incited him to write a song titled, "United Breaks Guitars". Mr. Carroll released a music video on Youtube that has had over 4 million views. This incident not only hurt the airline company, but also created free press coverage for a small musician.
These two examples show how consumer complaints can actually make a difference and the lowly consumer can have their voice heard potentially throughout the world. It is hard to say if these two incidents were done primarily for free media coverage or they truly wanted to try to make a difference. Either way it should have hopefully caught the attention of all industries, to realize that their consumers have the power to have a real affect upon them. Power to the consumer.

Will Ryanair Bring down the Irish Government?

Ryanair has been all over the Irish news recently for reasons I will come to. But first, a bit of background for those of you unfamiliar with Ryanair and Michael O'Leary, their 'either love him or hate him' CEO.

Ryanair is one of the great success stories of Irish Business. Founded in 1985, it has become the largest, low cost airline in Europe and one of the largest airlines in the world: No.1 by the volume of international passengers carried and No.8 by the total volume of passengers carried. The full Ryanair history is available on their website. Those interested can also check out Ryanair on wikipedia.

Despite their success, and the employment they have created, the Irish government has never really forgiven Ryanair for taking on and beating Aer Lingus, the formerly state-owned Irish Airline – and still part state-owned, with several government appointees on the Board - which for many years ran a high fare duopoly with British Airways. For example, Ryanair's 1986 launch fare of £99 return to London was less than half the Aer Lingus/British Airways lowest return fare of £209. Today, most fares are less than a fifth of that. Aer Lingus manages to be a white elephant and sacred cow at the same time, partly because the Board and senior management (from its days of being state-owned) is full of government party cronies and partly because Dublin Airport, where the bulk of the highly unionized Aer Lingus employees work, live and vote, is based in the prime minister's constituency. All politics is local, as they say. Ryanair's much smaller, non-unionized workforce has no similar clout.

Ryanair have also had an extremely fractious relationship with the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) who run Dublin Airport and set landing fees, etc. The DAA (in a previous incarnation) was spun off from Aer Lingus in 1988, when the latter was semi-privatized, although some would argue that the umbilical cord has never really been cut. Ostensibly an independent agency, the DAA has a largely government appointed Board. Consequently political interference in DAA decisions is not unknown.

Michael O'Leary has been Ryanair CEO since 1994 and has been an outspoken critic of the government's cozy relationship with Aer Lingus and the DAA who often seem to think as one. He had a particularly public, bitter and long-drawn out fight with them over their plans for the second terminal at Dublin Airport which has now been almost completed. Much to their chagrin he also launched an unsuccessful takeover bid for Aer Lingus last year. Some would argue that O'Leary, who has a reputation for plain speaking and, at times, colorful language, goes out of his way to antagonize a government that he sees as inept and anti-business. Unlike many other Irish high-fliers, O'Leary for all his faults chooses to live in Ireland and pay Irish taxes. Those interested can find more about Michael O'Leary on wikipedia.

The reason Michael O'Leary and Ryanair have been all over the Irish news recently is that O'Leary has accused the prime minister and deputy prime minister (who is also the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment) of scuppering his plans to create 300 jobs at Dublin Airport. 300 jobs may not seem many but in the current Irish context it is a large figure and this is a very highly charged accusation. Needless to say they deny this, prompting O'Leary to call them liars and accuse them of misleading parliament, which if proven would in all likelihood bring down the government. He has already published letters that at the very least raise serious questions for them to answer.

I find this interesting from a Public Affairs perspective because of a recent analysis I came across today. Prompted by government accusations that this is all just another PR stunt by O'Leary, one commentator decided to look at the extent to which Ryanair dictate their own media agenda. How one airline is dictating its own online media agenda concludes that:

1) Ryanair, in the majority of cases, do dictate their own media agenda.

2) They generate far more column inches online than any of their competitors, most notably Aer Lingus.

3) For an Irish company, they generate significant international coverage in the US, UK and Germany.

4) Michael O’Leary, while popular, features in a limited number of total articles mentioning Ryanair.

While this study only looks at online media, I think the same is true of all media and I think there are a number of reasons for Ryanair's success:

1) They tend to be very forthright in their comments and what they say usually has a ring of authenticity. Whoever their spokesperson – usually, but not always, O'Leary – they don't dodge questions and they don't equivocate. They answer questions with "Yes and here's why" or "No and here's why."

2) O'Leary himself is a great character. It doesn't matter what he's saying, he's always entertaining, and so journalists love him because he'll always provide a good sound bite.

3) No matter what their latest "stunt", their position is always "We are the cheapest airline who will get you there on time more than anyone else" And that's true. It's simply irrefutable, and it's a killer point. If O'Leary does actually bring in a fat tax or start charging people to use the toilet on board, his argument will be "We can either charge the individual who's utilizing the service, or we can make everyone pay for the that individual using the service."

4) Whether one likes their business model or not, it works. Unlike Aer Lingus, they're not losing money every day, they're looking to create jobs, and they're not dealing with strike threats and canceled flights. Every time they get in a debate with Aer Lingus, the Aer Lingus person is out-gunned simply because of the nature of the two companies.

5) They get the benefit of the doubt in 'he said, she said' situations because of their history. They did bring down airfares, making it possible for millions of ordinary people to fly, people who could never have dreamed of doing so in the 1980's when national monopolies abounded. Dublin Airport and the people running it are disasters as anyone who has passed through them can verify.

6) As I've written elsewhere, journalists are lazy. In the era of 24 hour news channels and online media, the pressure is on to get a story out as quickly as possible. And what simpler way to do that than simply regurgitating someone's press release. No analysis of the issues behind it. No investigation of claims of X hundred jobs to be created. In print journalism, the issue seems to be more one of cost than time.

It is hard not to conclude that Ryanair are PR geniuses. Therefore, from a Public Affairs perspective, the million dollar question has to be: if Ryanair are so effective at setting the media agenda why have they singularly failed to influence government policy? I'll try to answer this in one of my next blogs. (Apologies if this comes as an anti-climax.)

Obama's new healthcare plan

Obama presented his new healthcare plan today which includes aspects of both Democratic and Republican proposals for reforming the system. The two parties have been so divided about the issue and now at least Obama is trying to take a middle ground and bridge the gap that separates the two parties in regards to this issue. Under the new plan people would be required to buy health insurance and provides subsidized care for people who can't afford coverage. It also would allow for insurance companies to sell over state lines and would allow people to shop around for coverage to find plans that are less expensive.

The article that I got this information was entitled Obama Health Care Plan's Price Tag Jumps to $950 Billion" which was interesting since it focused solely on how the cost of the plan would increase to $950 billion rather than providing any information regarding what the new plan would really do for people. Since peoples' preoccupation with the reform's high cost seems to have helped to stall the progress of reform thus far. I feel like this article was framed in terms of the bill's cost is an example of what Jamieson & Waldman describe in their book the Press effect as the press acting in its role as a shaper of events.

In bringing the public's attention to the bill just by mentioning its high cost first, the press may only be serving to turn people against the bill since the high cost turns people off. I realize the media wants to attract the public and is more likely to take a controversial angle on issues in order to sell newspapers and get viewers to watch their broadcasts.

At the same time, I feel like instead of mentioning the price up front, if the article was entitled something like "New Obama plan seeks to breach the gap between Republicans and Democrats" perhaps it would get people to read about the plan without prejudging it as too expensive. I know cost is really important and I don't think it should buried in the article but as I said before, finding out even before reading the article that the bill would cost so much may just make people not even want to hear about the plan. People have to be made more aware of what this plan would do because if they lack this knowledge and just oppose the bill because of the price without knowing the facts then I feel like the bill is more likely to fail or to be set aside for an indeterminate period of time. While this article does outline the plan, the fact that the title could turn people off from reading it shows how the media can have the power to assist in the making or breaking of legislation.

Source: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/22/obama-unveiling-modified-health-care-plan-today/?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F02%2F22%2Fobama-unveiling-modified-health-care-plan-today%2F

The latest in Toyota's PR nightmare

Toyota boasted saving $100M on recall....

ev

The apology!

Think it was sincere?

Historical Car Recalls - The Audi Debacle

People with long memories may recall that Toyota isn't the first foreign automaker to face serious questions about the safety and reliability of its vehicles. In the 1980s, German manufacturer Audi had built an upscale reputation in the US, and was selling about 85,000 cars annually. Then in November 1986, the popular CBS TV newsmagazine "60 Minutes" ran a segment on Audi "sudden acceleration," featuring heart-rending stories of a mother who claimed she accidentally ran over and killed her 6 year old child when her Audi unexpectedly accelerated out of control. The TV story even included a dramatic segment showing an Audi accelerator pedal moving down by itself.

Public reaction was swift. Audi's sales plummeted to 15% of pre-crisis levels. The carmaker faced an avalanche of class-action lawsuits (one of which, filed in 1987, is still winding through the court system) and was nearly driven out of the US market. Audi's US sales took 15 years to recover, regaining 1985-era sales figures in 2000.

While the stories about Audi were terrifying, there's one major difference between the Audi and Toyota crises: there was never any substantiation that Audi cars were defective. The "60 Minutes" segment was later shown to be staged: an expert witness for a plaintiffs' lawyer modified a transmission and filled it with compressed fluid to produce the effect. And the awful story of the mother who accidentally killed her little boy? The police report in which she admitted that she had put her foot on the accelerator was omitted from the TV show.

Of course, thus far it seems that many of the stories about Toyota defects seems to be true, in particular my earlier blog post in which an experienced driver, a CHP officer, lost control of his Lexus. However, it is always useful in these situations to examine very carefully the potential motivations of people interviewed in media stories about product defects. (Some related links appear below.)

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_18.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/audi-s-1980s-scare-may-mean-lost-generation-for-toyota-sales.html
http://www.automobile.com/audi-investigated-for-unintended-acceleration.html

Public Diplomacy 2.0: David Saranga at Kennedy School of Government

Last Wednesday, I had the opportunity to (finally) listen to David Saranga, former Consul for Media and Public Affairs of Israel's NY Consulate. He came to Harvard to give a presentation on public diplomacy. After a heated discussion for around 45 minutes about the academic integrity of his focus group approach, the audience finally allowed him to talk about more substantive issues. I don't want to undermine the importance of research methods here, but when the speaker is one of the most prominent experts on Public Diplomacy 2.0, you really don't need to force him to talk about off-topic questions.

Israel started its rebranding campaign by doing focus group studies in the US, but they excluded East and West coasts in this study - which was a fatal mistake according to the many people in the audience. As the sample didn't represent the population, the results couldn't be academically sound. Though I support the logic beyond Israel's purposive sampling. At the end of the day, the aim was to frame Israeli image for 'average' American. You really don't need to interview people where your embassies/consulates are actively working, where you have an active diaspora, or where there are 15 universities per person.

After the focus groups, they realized that Israel was practically know for the Palestinian conflict and religious conservatism. I believe no one was shocked by this outcome. A more important result was that Israel wasn't able to reach liberals and youngsters (- It was difficult not to laugh when David Saranga admitted this at Harvard KSG.).

There have been many discussions about the definition of PD, and how to use social media. Thus, I'll try to do my best to summarize his 'original' ideas from my point of view. First of all, Saranga wasn't only a social media expert, he knew how to analyze the audience and how to find the best medium to reach the public. One of the projects he presented was, Maxim's special issue.

Israel was irrelevant to the young people. If your target audience doesn't see you as relevant, as a subject to learn more about, you really cannot explain yourself. So, Saranga invited Maxim to Israel for a special photo shoot and made Israel more relevant (for a specific audience for a short period of time).

Social media should not be seen as a substitute for traditional media, rather it should be used to amplify your communication endeavors. We are all very excited about Web 2.0, and 3.0, but still, it is wise for especially foreign diplomats to keep in touch with traditional media.

During his presentation, Saranga gave a great PD definition. The scholars get lost in details: should PD be executed by government? is it grassroots? which media can be used? how can you measure its effectiveness? He defined the PD understanding as "bringing your narrative in a sophisticated way, not in a propagandist way". All PD-related terms in fact, such as nation branding, place branding, cultural diplomacy etc., carry this main understanding. The fundamental aim is to present a narrative. You are not very likely to be asked your perspective on every issue, therefore it is up to you to go public and present your narrative, and subsequently to ensure that your narrative is more credible and persuasive than competing narratives.

This blog post is also posted on http://efesevin.wordpress.com/ and http://placebranding.ning.com/.

NBC apologizes for the wrong people...

Wednesday evening, prior to Olympic gold-medalist Shaun White's halfpipe final performance in Vancouver, NBC may have been covering the event a bit TOO closely.

White, the automatic winner of the event before he commenced his run, exchanged some vulgar sentiments with his coach Bud Keene which were picked up by NBC cameras and aired live to the East Coast audience. After several choice expletives were shared with millions of viewers, NBC announcers Pat Parnell and Todd Richards apologized for the athlete and the coach's language, defending their behavior and attributing it to the energy running through White and Keene.

I think that NBC made an in-the-moment decision which could have been better handled. Yes, apologizing was necessary, but they were apologizing for the wrong people. It is not their place to excuse the language of two adult men who couldn't be reasonably expected to be aware of a camera and a boom mike in their faces in a moment like that! Though the expletives would only be clearly audible to people with keen hearing, is it the responsibility of the athletes and coaches to censor their speech in non-interview conversation to prevent this from happening? Or should NBC have anticipated the intimate conversation may not have been G-rated (considering the circumstances) and refrained from tapping in to it? Or at the very least apologize for showing it in the first place....

ev

Budweiser the true "American beer"

All over the world Budweiser is known for being an American beer. Here in America people are used to seeing Budweiser being associated with true Americans and the American spirit. This gimmick is one which resonates with many of its customers. But how far can Budweiser go with it's patriotic sentiment, before it seems as if it is selling America as just a brand? After all Budweiser isn't America, but just a product which is brewed in America. It isn't even owned by Americans anymore after is was bought buy the massive beer conglomerate Inbev in 2008.
While rifling through the various commercials that Budweiser has put out in the last few years, I found an interesting one that was made right after the 9/11 attacks. Here is the link to the commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4yfivS8SWs. I'll give a brief little description of it. One of Budweiser's image's is there famous Clydesdale horses. This commercial features a team of Clydesdale pulling a coach first from their barn. Them it follows them with emotional music playing in the background as they pull through a town and then they are seen crossing a bridge into New York City. After that they are in a snowy field over looking the New York City skyline. The statue of liberty can also be seen in the background. The next shot is a close-up of one of the horses eyes as if seeing the emotion in them and then the horses bend down as if bowing to the city. The last shot is of the horses bowing down and the city skyline in the background.
I can understand an organization giving their respect to those who were lost in that horrible tragedy, but the way they created it was centered on arousing emotions not understanding. After all Budweiser is just like any another company trying to make as much profit as they can. So then is this commercial to honor those who were lost or just a way to have Budweiser's image as a true American beer exemplified by showing their compassion for those who were lost?

The grassy side of health care reform

I’ve been doing some reading about the history of healthcare reform in the US. It was interesting to see how there are parallels between what’s happened before in history of this reform and what’s happening now. In the early 1900s when reform efforts were just beginning, reform seemed to fail due to lack of popular support. Reformers seemed to focus on appeasing doctors and special interest groups and they didn’t focus a lot of attention on promoting plans to the general public. Consequently the public was left feeling like the plans that were created wouldn’t really help them.

In fact opposition groups appeared to be better at reaching out to the community to oppose reform and rally support around opposing reform. The authors of the article argued that if grass roots level support had been mobilized around healthcare reform then perhaps some reform efforts would be successful. As it stands, reform efforts to date, have created plans that were very complicated which made it difficult for the average person to understand. Special interest groups and policymakers that were against reform were able to use this to their advantage in mobilizing support against reform.

It seems like the same things are happening again today. The most recent healthcare reform legislation that has been proposed is largely complex and as before, a strong grass roots movement has developed that has raised a large amount of public support for crushing rather than encouraging reform. To be fair, Obama has sent out e-mails and made speeches but somehow it hasn’t been enough. I look back the “town hall meetings” that were held by legislators in their districts and they didn’t seem to accomplish much except get people angrier, but what they did accomplish was to get people against the bill. I know the Obama administration did make attempts to reach out to the public for support but it wasn’t enough and the opposition used this to mobilize the public against reform.

I wish more had been done to explain the bill at the beginning, when it was first introduced. I’m not sure what could be done to encourage grass roots support for the bill now. Its so interesting that Obama’s grass roots effort to get him elected and now a grass roots effort almost brought down this health care reform.

Source: Hoffman, B. (2003) Health care reform and social movements in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 93 , 75-85.

Toyota president RSVP NO to U.S. Congress hearing

CNN reported this morning* that Toyota president Akio Toyod has no plans to attend the U.S. Congressional hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee scheduled for February 24 concerning the massive global recall.

Considering the impressive recall that is taking place, I would be curious to know the reasoning behind the decision for him not to attend the hearings. Yes, Toyota North American chief executive Yoshi Inaba will represent the company, but don't you think the people deserve more than a sit-in? With the long-term implications of the recall and the Congressional investigation yet to be realized, wouldn't you think that the Toyota president could trouble himself to make an appearance at the hearings in light of the massive global recall?

*http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/17/japan.toyota.press.conference/?hpt=T2

ev

Fun ladies eat yogurt

Just for fun...

Snowstorm Take 2

Last week we had a snow emergency: schools and offices were closed, and across the state residents hunkered down in preparation for a snowstorm.

And, after all that waiting, hoping, and wishing for snow flurries: all we saw was a light dusting of snow, some rain here and there, nothing to get excited about.

As Washington, DC continued to dig itself out I childishly hoped that maybe the metro-Boston area would see five inches of snow, maybe six? (How many inches do you need to go sledding?) My sled was ready, the weatherman was building up my hopes, and alas…he got it wrong.

Tie this in with Jamieson’s The Press Effect and ponder these questions: What is the obligation of the weather service? And how do they work in collaboration with regular newscasters? Last week we hunkered down and prepared for the worst. When it didn’t happen, criticism was reported on the news because schools and offices prematurely closed in anticipation of a snowstorm that never showed its face.

Fast-forward to today – barely any school closings, offices were opened – and there were about four inches of snow on my doorstep when I got home this evening. But this week the weatherman and newscasters weren’t amping up the expected storm. And after it hit, and continues to snows, no criticism was reported. No safety issues seem to be of concern.

At work, there was heavy wind, snow blowing in all directions and I couldn’t help but think – why was no snow day called? What dangers are commuters going to face this evening?

The Boston Globe reported that snowfall outpaced the weather predictions, and still continues, however, “today’s snowstorm hit a little harder than meteorologists had predicted, but it’s still your ‘typical’ February snowstorm, according to the National Weather Service.”

Why do you think last week’s storm was reported with such a sense of severity, while this week it is a “typical” snowstorm?

Bipartisanship at the Blair House

President Obama’s attempts to get some sort of healthcare reform passed over the past year have been full of public affairs opportunities and missteps. The topic reached a fever pitch last summer with town hall meetings across the country, but it is still a hot issue and something that President Obama and the democrats are desperate to pass. This has led Obama to hold a bipartisan summit with Republican and Democratic leadership at the Blair House on February 25^th and this meeting will be televised to encourage transparency.

This was obviously an attempt by President Obama to show his dedication to healthcare reform and reaching some sort of bipartisan agreement, and having the meeting televised was supposed to show the American people that there would be no backroom deals and that the negotiations would be open. This decision was likely inspired by the great success that President Obama had with the televised question and answers session that he did a few weeks ago with the GOP House.

However, the responses to the Blair House summit have not been nearly as warm or encouraging for the president. The press has been incredibly pessimistic about anything actually being accomplished at the summit since it was announced. They saw through this attempt at transparency and pegged it as an opportunity for President Obama to claims attempts at bipartisanship and then give him a reason to encourage passing a bill through reconciliation when discussions at the Blair House summit fail. This may partially because this is how the Republicans have successfully been able to frame this summit as a “trap” but it is surely also reinforced by how partisan these negotiations have been, and it seems unlikely that this will change just because the president calls for a bipartisan meeting be televised. It seems more likely that the Democrats will come in with a bill and the Republicans will insist in starting from scratch, and that little if anything will be accomplished, besides a possible reason to push forward with reconciliation.

NBC Showing Olympic Death Video

Was it necessary for NBC to air the video of the death of Nodar Kumaritashvili? Kumaritashvili was a luger from Georgia, who died during Olympic training last Friday. An article from Yahoo! Sports discusses whether it was the right decision for NBC to make.

I believe that if NBC was recording live, then they obviously had no choice but to show the video. However, I don’t think it was necessary to continue showing the video after the fact. If it was not being recorded live then it was not necessary to even show it in the first place. They could have accurately reported on the newsworthy incident and respected the team and family of Kumaritashvili without showing the video of the accident itself. What is your opinion?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Should-NBC-have-shown-video-of-Nodar-Kumaritashv?urn=oly,219497

The perception of the beer corporation and your local brewery

Would you rather have a freshly baked loaf of bread from your local baker or a mass produced, shipped thousand of miles loaf of bread? The resurgence of the consumer's interest in locally grown vegetables, breads, fruits, and other various merchandise has been apparent with the rise of such stores as Whole Foods Market and the coverage of "green products" in the news media. The popularity of the green movement has peaked consumers interest in where their products are coming from and how many chemicals may be used to continue their shelf life. This concern of products does not just fall into food, but into beer as well.
Many microbreweries proudly express how they use recycled paper for their beer bottles or how they reuse the water they use to cool down their wort (beer before it is bubbly). Micro-breweries also do not have to ship their products far if they are consumed in the local area and they also use growlers (Large refillable glass jugs which hold 64 oz. of beer). Not only do the growler reduce the use of bottles, but the beer used to fill the growlers is the freshest it could be. The spent grains used for making the beer is usually also sold to local farmers who use it for their animals.
The ability for microbreweries to portray a more environmental practice in their production gives them the advantage over large beer companies. This also shows their awareness of their consumer, because of the general age group who drinks micro-brews, is also the age group who is interested in the green movement. Highlighting certain aspects of your business to entice potential consumers, is something which microbreweries have latched on too. This local and green perception is something which the large breweries can't compete with. I guess a large brewery could say that they act green, but just buy the amount they create will hurt their green image. In the end though it really comes down to taste and the quality of ingredients used. In this case I think microbreweries win.

Do brands really matter when times are hard?

Product overload: Stores are threatening to dump brands - Feb. 15, 2010

According to this article on CNN, Wal-Mart is trimming the 'fat' on its shelves. During this economic downturn when consumers are only spending on necessities, the retail giant is pulling brand name products in various categories including household cleaners. Most producers are having to make price cuts to keep their products on retail shelves. Instead of expanding product lines, their current challenge is to stay afloat in these hard time because really, as a consumer, I know I will not think twice about spending the extra dollar on a brand name trash bag when I can get the generic for much less.

Google Buzz

Stung by critics, Google alters Buzz - Boston Globe, 2/15/10

I'm glad to see this article today in the Boston Globe. My response to Google Buzz during its first week is summed up in my Facebook the day Buzz showed up on my Gmail page:

Is anyone else feeling sort of 'raped' by social media? Apparently I don't have a choice about joining Google Buzz. It's already there, I'm already being 'followed' and am involuntarily 'following' others. Rape is defined as "forced, manipulated, or coerced (social media) contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. ... It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of (social media)."

What I find astonishing is that a company like Google did not anticipate this kind of reaction when they designed this product. Responses among my friends ranged from "why do we need another Facebook" to being horrified that who we were following and being followed by was not optional for the user, but chosen by Google! Whose brilliant idea was that?!

Did they do any test marketing of this product or were they so desperate to create their own social networking function that they decided it was best to force relationships on their users? I'm quite sure this flaw would have become evident in even the smallest of focus groups. The result, for this victim of Buzz, is that the effort now just seems pathetic and unoriginal to me. That said, Buzz turned me off to the point that I have not explored all it offers. Maybe someone can tell me if it serves any purpose not already offered by Facebook?

The Toyota Crisis: A Once-High Flier Going Down in Flames?

If it were a TV script, it would be dismissed as too contrived: an off duty state police officer makes a panicked 911 call while driving. The accelerator is stuck to the floor, and he's barreling out of control at 120 miles an hour through traffic, unable to stop. His wife, daughter, and brother-in-law are trapped in the car along with him. He tells the 911 operator that he's about to plunge through an intersection. The car's passengers scream in terror...and the line goes dead.

Sadly, this really happened on August 28, 2009 to California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor and his family while driving a loaner 2009 Lexus ES350. Saylor had just dropped his car off for servicing, and died shortly thereafter, as the loaner flipped out of control and burst into flames, killing all four occupants. The chilling 911 tape even made it onto the Internet:

http://www.sandiego6.com/mostpopular/story/Santee-CHP-officer-Saylor-killed-Lexus-accelerator/AzYjOhtvFE2mIuxTtxrK4Q.cspx?p=2

http://www.sandiego6.com/media/lib/38/b/2/d/b2d4de84-999f-4074-b369-d0deb7c1b295/car911.wma

Lexus, of course, is the upscale division of Toyota Motor Corporation, the global car manufacturer that was about to surpass General Motors as the United States' biggest car company this year. Saylor's crash in a Toyota-built car was not an isolated incident, but instead one of several high-profile equipment failures, along with other potentially fatal product defects that (the awful human tragedies aside) have now caused a global crisis of confidence in Toyota's reputation and plunging sales.

Over the next few weeks I'll explore how Toyota has handled (or failed to handle) this growing crisis. I'll also explore the interlocking web of political and economic interests involved in this issue, as Toyota, along with most other companies of its size, has built up a formidable network of politicians and former government regulatory agency members that support its business.

CSR - fad or real?

I just found this article (from The Economist) online and since I did some research on Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) last semester, the article caught my eye.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15501657

So Pepsi donated its Super Bowl commercials (money) to some charities instead of spending insane amount of money on 30-second ads. How nice(Aaaawwww)! This was replete with a heart warming slogan and all - “Refresh Everything”. According to this article, Coca-Cola produced a similar CSR campaign a couple of days earlier. One wonders if this has become a game where companies try to 'best' each other at charitable giving trivia.

Research show that consumers develop an affinity to companies or brands that associate with good causes and according to this article, companies therefore manage their corporate philanthropy accordingly to get a slice of that pie. So does that make CSR efforts a fad? Do companies really care about the environment and the people who buy their products and services or is this just a ploy to gain market share?

Personally, I think CSR has some merits and is moving in the right direction. The concept of CSR forces companies to realize that their consumers hold them to a higher standard beyond providing goods and service. Society now expects companies to invest in the communities in which they do business instead of only caring about profits. One of the comments following the article implied that (and this is just my inference from the quote) people only do good because they expect something in return. Well, that may be true sometimes but I'd rather we all pretend doing some good deeds rather than perish in ignorance:)

Prime and Frame, then Cascade the Activation

As the title suggests, nowadays I am a little bit confused about how one can explain media and public opinion relation (especially in nation branding/place branding campaigns). Firstly, mediated reality is a fact. Lippmann saw the situation back in 1922, so I really cannot claim any credit when I say the real world is not important. What is important is the picture in our heads. When we consider the power of media and the various media platforms, another fact comes up: the picture in our heads is the mediated-reality. But how is the mediated-reality formed? Jamieson practically argues that media by choosing what to report and how to report plays an important role. Although her arguments in the Press Effect are quite persuasive and supported by great examples.

Jamieson doesn't use the terminology but what her points are very similar to priming and framing of agenda-setting theories. Media chooses how to frame an issue and what to report as background information in the issue. Practically by giving background information, media makes some knowledge available once again. But still, who controls these priming and framing processes? Journalists? If so, is it too late for me to become a journalist? Politicians? Public? Anyone?

Especially in political context, Entman's Cascading Activation model seems to be very accurate in explaining - well first of all explaining that the process is practically inexplicable - the behavioral patterns of different social actors and their power struggles. The figure below is taken from one of his published articles about White House's frame following 9/11 - illustrating the cascading flow of influence linking each level of the system: the administration, nonadministration elites, news organizations, the texts they produce, and the public (p.419).



Similar to a real waterfall, all the actors include their own input to the flow. I interpret this input to be composed of their own interests and ideas. Therefore, the information that reaches the public has already been 'polluted' a few times. There seems to be a power struggle over who will influence the priming and framing in this process. And the back-flow underlines the fact that public opinion is likely to show an impact on the media, as well as on administration and non-administrative elites.

I assume if we try to apply this model to place/nation branding, the flow chart will be a little bit different:

Branding campaigns should take competitors and other news resources into consideration. Several nations/regions/places try to reach the same audiences with practically similar messages. There might be other news resources feeding the media, such as other interest groups or negative branding campaigns of your competitors or a more 'news-worthy' event. Also, although relevant stakeholders will be included in the process, it is always possible to leave certain influential figures out. Their actions will be based on personal interest which might or might not be compatible with the main branding campaign.

Another important distinction is the possibility of creating communication bridges directly with the public. However, public is likely to disregard the messages if the sender lacks credibility. Also, if the stakeholders and officials are not 'accountable', they are more likely to disregard the messages.

To sum up, media-public opinion relations is very difficult to entirely comprehend, especially in a political context. Given the vague definitions and lack of strong theoretical frameworks in nation/place branding, it is even more tricky. I was amazed by Entman's Cascading Activation Model and came up with a draft of how this model might look like in branding campaigns. As this is a draft model, I would appreciate your feedback! . I will be constantly updating this blog post based on the feedback I receive and (hopefully) come up with a better model.

This blog post is also posted on http://efesevin.wordpress.com/ and http://placebranding.ning.com/.

Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432. doi:10.1080/10584600390244176
Jamieson, K. (2004). The press effect : politicians, journalists, and the stories that shape the political world. Oxford ;;New York: Oxford University Press.