Hogs and Facebook Ads?

There has been lots of buzz lately about advertising and marketing efforts across social networks like Facebook. According to many experts, these networks represent the wave of the future when it comes to reaching younger, segmented audiences that use the Internet to hang out with each other.

On the other hand, members of these social networks are growing wary (and frustrated) about becoming targets of unwanted advertising.

Of course, the owners of these sites can reap huge profits from advertising revenue -- sorry, folks, someone has to pay for the social networking services that we take for granted.

So what does the hog pictured here have to do with Facebook and advertising? Check out the recent blog post by Jason on calacanis.com for more about the debate over social network advertising.

Oink,
Mark

Oprah Does it Again!

As some of you know, my cat disappeared this past week, and I have been a mess. I thought for sure that she was dead. Well last night she showed up, she needed to be rushed to the Emergency Vet, and her leg needs to be amputated, so naturally I have been a mess over that too. Thank god though because she is alive and well, minus the major problem. So I apologize to you, my classmates and professor, as I have not actively participated this time around.

With all that being said... A sex scandal has emerged within South Africa. Oprah Winfrey's Leadership Academy for Girls has become a major news headline, as alleged sex scandals have surfaced. This is an important matter not only for the world, but also for this class, as this may be a venue for the NAAMHC public relations campaign. Luckily for IBM and us, I think Oprah Winfrey has done an amazing job handling this PR fiasco.

RESEARCH: According to Daily Mail on October 29, 2007, Oprah Winfrey has made multiple (at least two) personal appearances at the school over the past few weeks. She has spoken with all the girls and parents to figure out exactly what has happened. "She organized an independent investigation headed by Richard Farley, a Chicago detective who specializes in child abuse," according to AdelaideNow. According to Yahoo News, Oprah also encouraged counseling for all students, and encouraged them to come forward. Currently there are only 7 formal complaintants. Unfortunately I can't remember the television program I watched on this, but it did say that Oprah also gave each girl in the academy a cell phone to call her directly if they wanted to talk to her.

PLANNING: Oprah Winfrey made lots of plans. Her first step was to contact the police, and hire a private investigator. She was told not to communicate to the public until investigations were ended, so she did not to jeopardize the case. She also began removing all matrons from the school, as they had hid details and allegations of abuse from her. Basically every single employee was being replaced. She also planned how to speak with the American public, as well as the parents of these kids. Her press conferences were to be held in America and in South Africa.

COMMUNICATION: Oprah Winfrey did an amazing job communicating to her publics. According to WBZTV (Which also has a nice video that I couldn't get into this post), Oprah held press conferences and apologized to the parents and students, as well as her fans. She claimed she was devastated from this scandal, and she is doing everything to correct it. She took full responsibility for what happened, and stated that there was a flaw with her hiring and screening process, even though she did not hire the faculty, she still took responsibility for it. News anchors, such as the one featured on WBZTV's site, praised Oprah and said that politicians and other celebrities should learn from the way Oprah communicates.

EVALUATION: I think Oprah did an amazing job handling this case, which is a good sign for our NAAMHC case study. She held nothing back. She took responsibility, personally handled investigations and telling the police, communicated with the students, parents and fans, and kicked PR butt. Oprah is a classic showing of good PR. She handled it well when she found out the author of A Million Little Pieces lied about his "Autobiography" and she apologized them as well. She is really a great example of a truthful, honest, and great public communicator. Lets all take a hint from her in the future with our handling of PR fiascos.

Merck on Vioxx: "We May Have Killed Thousands, But We're Still On Top"

Pharmaceutical company Merck has found itself in some hot water recently since its popular drug Vioxx has been linked to the heart attacks, strokes and deaths of several patients around the world. Merck has agreed to pay almost $5 billion to settle various lawsuits.

One such case is Carol Ernst, whose husband died after taking Vioxx, as featured in the New York Times article.

Merck stopped selling Vioxx in September 2004 following a clinical trial that showed that it raised the risks of heart attacks and strokes. Despite all these troubles, how is Merck somehow coming out on top? Merck's stock has risen 2.3 percent since the news has broke, which is pretty much unheard of.

Research: I'm sure that Merck conducted copious research on the Vioxx drug before it was released to the market, and surely before the FDA. It is the practice of all pharmaceutical companies to do so because, quite frankly, a mistake on their part can and will cost them someone's life. However, it is hard to do research on humans, for obvious reasons, and if research is conducted on animals certain problems that will only occur in humans will never be found. I'm not exactly sure what the solution to this dilemma is but perhaps the use of an animal that is genetically more similar to a human would be more practical. Also, is there a possibility that human cells can be tested using this drug? The smartest minds are at work on projects such as these and I feel there must be a more logical explanation to this.

Planning: There is also a great amount of planning that goes into the launch of a drug. A company like Merck has to plan all of its messages about the drug, including messages about crises such as these. Because of the regularity that these cases have, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies build their public relations plans to allow for the possibility of possible lawsuits and other such problems. In addition, Merck is also committed to keeping their litigations public, as you can read further here. This does show Merck's commitment to the litigation, even though a more proactive approach could have been much more effective.

Communication: Merck's communication in this case was mostly legal. The company made a strong commitment to legally fight every claim followed by a blanket settlement with several, if not all, of the lawsuits raised against them. This sets the standard for other cases of this nature because it is more beneficial for the company than settling individual cases. This is most likely a public relations tactic that was decided by Merck ahead of time in the event of something like this. In addition, it is hard to prove that Vioxx in itself has caused these deaths. Merck's clinical trials did not take into account other factors that may lead to death, such as smoking or alcohol abuse in concurrence with regular use of Vioxx.

Evaluation: One thing that I did not see at all in this case was evaluation. At the end of the article, it was clear that Merck believed the only thing that mattered was that they had not lost money in the end. We all know it is the duty of a public relations professional to create plans that keep both the company AND its publics in mind. I doubt death is one of the values that Merck's publics holds dear to its collective heart. If Merck was more concerned with evaluation, they could plan for more research to be conducted in order for these tragedies to be avoided from the beginning. Although this would decrease Merck's revenue because of the increased budget for research, in the end it would save lives. It is up to Merck to decide which is more important. In addition, this attitude has spread to other drugs, such as Avandia, which is featured here in this video clip.

Don't Eat Your iPhone!

Greenpeace slammed Apple in a report released October 15, 2007, claiming the iPhone contains many toxic materials that the company promised to cut down on. Based on the study, another environmental group, the CEH, has threatened to sue Apple for violating California law. Others question whether it's logical to single out one device when so many consumer products contain toxic materials.

The handset, according to the group, contains several toxic substances including brominated flame retardants as well as phthalates plasticisers and chloride, both substances characteristic of PVC (polyvinyl chloride). So far, it's been proven that the iPhone is only hazardous to one's health.. if you eat it. Who in their right mind would gnaw on an iPhone??

According to newsfeedresearcher, "Apple did not respond to inquiries for comment by press time, and the CEH said it had not heard back from the company as of yet."

Research: Apple took their time in addressing this issue. First, the price decrease of the iPhone that originally sold for $599, then this. Kudos to Apple for addressing the price issue in a timely manner. But unfortunately, Apple was not nearly as prompt in addressing this matter. They may have set themselves up by issuing a "green" statement (a promise to an environmentally safe phone) prior to the launch of the iPhone, then releasing a phone that is now reported as environmentally unsafe. Thus, this indicates that Apple did not engage in proper research.

In its defense, Apple responded to the report by reiterating its original "green Apple" statement, pointing out that the levels of chemicals in its products adhere to government standards. This statement does not fall in place with Greenpeace's findings. Also, it's hard to say what research Apple could have done prior to launching their phone, seeing that other competing manufacturers' products, such as Nokia and Sony, contain these toxins as well. Is Greenpeace targeting Apple?

Planning: Unfortunately, there was not much planning involved in this case because I believe Apple had hoped for the best and did not expect any complications in the launch of their iPhone. It is only for Apple to truly know whether or not they were releasing a phone that did not adhere to California state law and were simply hoping it would not be detected. To say that they could have planned for an escape route would be criminal, as this would have indicated a lack of civic concern. But, as the top innovators of technology, I'm sure they expected to be slammed in one way or another. It seemed they had a team of people on standby to address such a matter if need be.

Communication: Apple issued a statement on their website explaining their position on the toxic iPhones. They state that they will be removing toxic chemicals from their new products, but do not mention anything about a recall. No other methods or outlets of communication were found.

Evaluation: Apple should have conducted more research on the toxins within the iPhone prior to launching a "green" statement. By launching an environmentally friendly statement, then going out and releasing a product containing these toxins, diminishes Apple's credibility. But at the same time, I believe that Apple was doing the right thing by attempting to launch a "green" phone. Is it fair, or right, to slam a company for trying? So the iPhone contains potentially hazardous and cancer causing chemicals, I get that. But it's reported that peanut butter contains cancerous ingredients as well. Are they going to sue "Skippy", too?

It is difficult to measure the extent in which Apple has gone in order to clean up this mess and their image because from what I have researched, they have not utilized any other outlets other than their own, to convey their message of apology. It may have been far more effective for Apple if they had taken their stand on a few major networks.

Watch the CNN video of the toxic iPhone here.

NFL overseas

In week 8 of the 2007-08 NFL season the league attempted something that they had never done before. The NFL held a regular season game overseas at Wembley Stadium in London, England. The NFL wants to bring American football to several different foreign countries. This is a risky campaign but it is also genius as far as PR and marketing are concerned. The NFL wants to target foreign publics to increase awareness globally. Oh yeah, and to make more money from a booming sports industry.

R: The NFL had been backing an NFL Europe league from 1991-2007. They ceased operations on June 29, 2007 saying that it was a smart business move for the league, which it was. The NFL was losing nearly $30 million a year. The NFL decided to revamp their international strategy by holding regular season games in foreign countries. The league established a fan base in Europe with the NFL Europe league, but now they want to bring the American players to foreign fans. This would require some research on the NFL's part in order to ensure that this game in London would be a money making venture, but also to gain positive feedback from fans. Wembley Stadium holds 90,000 people while the largest NFL stadium holds 80,000. Over 81,000 people attended the Week 8 matchup between the New York Giants and the Miami Dolphins in London. Ticket sales+concessions+merchandise= a boat load of money, but the NFL had to antipate that there would be potential problems by holding games overseas. Although it is a good way to globalize American football, generate money, and increase the NFL's popularity it can cause some issues within the league. For example, Miami Dolphin season ticket holders aren't thrilled because the London game counted as one of Miami's 8 home games. Eventhough Miami and New York are both on Bye weeks in week 9 it took a toll on the players and coaches.

P: The NFL decided to expand its horizons in late June, early July of this year so they didn't have a whole lot of time to plan. The league planned this event in London very carfully for months and they pulled it off quite nicely. The NFL made a smart move by targeting new publics; new foreign publics. The N.F.L. brand itself skyrocketed after last weeks game in London. Outside of the stadium there was a 26 foot robot of Miami Dolphins defensive end Jason Taylor, so I'm sure that took some time to put together. Also, there was 30 minutes of warm up acts before the game even started with fireworks, cheerleaders, and all of that good American fun. According to the New York Times the NFL is far from subtle and this event in London proved that if the Super Bowl half time show with Janet Jackson didn't do that already. The Times article breaks down the game itself and also discusses the positive impact the NFL made in Europe. It is clear that there was a lot of careful planning put in to putting on a great show in London.

C: The NFL communicated on a global level by holding a regular season game overseas. The league communicated with NFL organizations and American fans as well as European fans and representatives from Wembley Stadium. It was important for the NFL to communicate clearly the rules of the game to the European fans. A you tube video shows the 26 foot robot of Jason Taylor and on a 30 foot big screen television highlights of the real Jason Taylor. This gave fans someone to root for and allowed them to become familiar with NFL players. The man in the video explains the NFL rules while the highlights are being played. This was a smart tactic used by the NFL to educate European fans on American football rules.

E: The overall response from the NFL game in London has been mainly positive although there are a few areas to improve on. Giants head coach Tom Coughlin said that it was difficult for his players to adjust to being in London and fautigue was an issue. He also said that in the future better transportation plans have to be made on the NFL's part. An article from Guardian Unlimited discusses how fans were upset because tickets were being purchased and then sold on Ebay for more than face value. Also, fans were told a certain price range before buying tickets but once they bought them the price had risen. People still bought the tickets either way but they were frustrated that the NFL raised ticket prices so soon before the game. On the other hand, there was a great response from fans and others from overseas. The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is quoted as saying "What this clearly shows is that there is a huge potential in Britain and wider in Europe for American football to have a huge impact. We want to see the NFL coming back to London again and again." As part of the evaluation phase the NFL had 40 volunteers handing out Q&A's to fans to get their response to the game. They asked what the fans liked and what they didn't like as well as if they understood the game. An ESPN article explains the Q&A and also has quotes from Giants head coach Tom Coughlin, quarterback Eli Manning, and NFL VP- international Mark Waller. The NFL has even discussed having a Super Bowl overseas in the future, but I feel as though many people will have a problem with that. Super Bowl Sunday has become a national holiday in America surrounded by advertisement dollars, tv deals, pizza and chicken wings. There is no way that they can take the Super Bowl out of America. I think the NFL did a great job executing their PR plan and feel that games in foreign countries is a great idea. I also think that they should be careful when trying to expand, and not to move too quickly. What do you think? Good or bad move for the NFL?

Staph Infection Break Out

A major concern regarding a deadly staph infection known as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is crossing the country. This particular strand of staph infections does not respond to antibiotics and can become fatal. There have been several outbreaks of the infection in schools and is becoming an increasing problem. I will look at one school's public relations response to an outbreak of MRSA, according to the methods of Guth and Marsh. Staunton River High School located in Bedford, VA, was one of the first schools to have a student die from the infection, 17-year-old Ashton Bonds died Monday, October 15, 2007 from the infection. You can read a full article about the case here.

Research: Although I could not find evidence that the school did conduct formal research, I can guess that some research was most likely done by school officials. They probably would have gathered as much information on the infection in order to effectively handle both the students, parents and media. The school provided useful information on their website to their audiences about the staph infection that came from medical sources.

Planning: This school did not seem to have a contingency plan immediately in place regarding the staph infection outbreak. School officials attempted to reach out to students, parents, and community members, but failed to address the sanitary issues in the school. In response to a protest by students on Tuesday October, 16, the Bedford County Public Schools Superintendent closed all 22 schools for a thorough cleaning, The extent of the cleaning is described in this article. The school also plans to regularly clean the school in order to prevent any future breakouts of infection.

Communication: The school communicated effectively to the responses of the students, parents, and community members. They posted important announcements and information about MRSA on their website. The Superintendent made formal announcements in a news conference as reported here, and the Principal is also featured on this video found online. Tactics that school officials completed in response to the case were also shown on television and in print media. The school and district officials listened to their audience's concerns and were able to communicate through a variety of tactics and communication channels.

Evaluation: Short term evaluation of the school's actions are shown in this article which states attendance at Staunton River High School was down on Thursday, October 18, when the school reopened after the cleaning. The case is new, therefore, any long term evaluation, like the upholding of regular school cleanings, will have to be evaluated at a later time.

Overall, I think that the Staunton River High School responded to the MRSA outbreak well. It is difficult to plan for something so unexpected, however, by creating many communication tactics and channels to pass on information about both MRSA and what actions the school is taking against the outbreak, the school was able to keep their audiences up to date. By also immediately taking action to the student's protest, students felt as though their concerns and opinions were taken seriously which will create respect for school and district officials.

This case also warns of the dangers of MRSA. Remember to take your hygiene into careful thought in order to prevent this outbreak within our own Marist communinty and also seek immediate professional medial assistance if you show any signs or symptoms of this infection.

Hingis tests positive for drugs and retires

I don't know if everyone follows sports but I guarantee that you are all familiar with Martina Hingis, an all-star tennis pro. Hingis is a five-time Grand Slam champion and former Wimbeldon winner. BBC News has reported that the athlete tested positive for cocaine at this year's Wimbledon. Hingis denies ever taking drugs and has decided to retire from tennis because she does not want to spend the rest of her career fighting with anti-doping authorities. Read more about Martina's case here

Let's take a look at this case according to the public relations process of Guth and Marsh.

Research: The research that has taken place in this case had been conducted by Hingis and her attorney. Although not mentioned in the article, one can only hope that Hingis' attorney or manager did some research on the International Doping Tests and Management (the company that conducts and processes the drugs tests) in order to confirm the company's credibility. Most likely Hingis and anyone advising her in this situation would have looked back on other cases of athletes testing positive for drugs and evaluated how they handled their cases.

Planning: In this particular case Hingis probably had been given advice from lawyers and public relations practitioners on how to handle the results of her drug test but the planning ultimately was Martina's personal decision. She planned to confront the issue head on by issuing a statement and retiring from tennis all together.

Communication: In order to communicate her plan to the public Hingis issued a personal statement. In her statement Hingis claimed after receiving the first round of positive results she took the advice of family and management and took a hair test, which turned out to be negative. An attorney was then hired and advised Hingis that fighting a drug test could take years. Hingis then decided to retire from the game and left fans and audiences with this concluding remark "Therefore, there is only one more thing to do - to thank all of you for your many years of goodwill, and also yo assure you: I have never taken drugs."

Evaluation: In my opinion, I find Martina's decision to be sudden and not very well planned out. If the tennis pro was in fact telling the truth that she has never taken drugs and her heart was still in the game, why retire all together. However, one can only assume that somewhere along the line she had done drugs, hence the positive results. If this was the case public relations practitioners did a good job of preserving her image. Her statement provides insight as to why she didn't want to spend the rest of her career in a courtroom when it should be on the court.

This case provides us with good public relations tactics regarding quite a hot button issue, professional athletes and the use of illegal drugs. The placement of these substances in various cases can make for one heck of a job for public relations practitioners. Usually honesty is the number one priority in PR but often times athletes and celebrities lie through their teeth about their use of illegal substances. When taking this into consideration perhaps the public relations practitioners did a really good job in handling the case of Martina Hingis. She bowed out of the league gracefully to avoid more conflict and accusations but assured audiences she had never done drugs.

Oops, what did I just...STUMBLE on?

Have you ever came home after a long day of classes, went straight to the internet to look up more information about that wonderful discussion you had in class? If not, you must be one of those people who goes to www.dictionary.com just to learn new words, right? Ha, if only that were the world today's kids lived in today, we'd probably already have the cure for cancer or something. Well instead of your typical Myspace or Facebook, how about something that leads you to websites cued by your interests? Huh huh?! I got you guys at the edge of your seats right?!

Well, our commonly known web browser, FireFox, has recenrecently added a new tool bar, and what better name to call it other than STUMBLE? We all know that the best way to procrastinate is the internet, so instead of goggling for the coolest new site or trying to see what goggle comes up with when you type in 'Old Lady Wearing Funny Hats in Milwaukee'
in the image search bar, why not go and download stumble which can bring the sites to you!

Alright, so enough of the tease, stumble is a tool bar based application that you can download right on your Firefox tool bar. It takes up no more than 209 KB (for your non-computer goers, that's not a lot ;). With this application, you are able to first, fill out an interest section, which fliters through a different websites based on what you clicked. Since I'm already a member, however, I'm not able to get you going on what interest they have, BUT you can sign up yourself here. Once you get all signed up and ready to go, you can start to stumble.

Though I'm no expert on this subject matter, I have did my research. Since we all know Firefox to be as innovative as the next guy, we know that they're always looking for ways to make their website browser more user friendly and attachable (meaning you have everything right there on your browser page). They have recently added stumble upon to facebook, youtube, ebay and wikipedia (just to name a few). With these sites, once you download stumble upon, you can go to common search engines like google or yahoo, type something in the search bar, and see whether or not people rate it as a good site or not. Is that cool or what?

Although this may sound like an amazing idea, not every one agrees to it. According to a blog by the stumbler creator Geoff Smith, not every one is enjoying how the great new application is being destroyed by the Firefox updates. "Well, the latest compulsory Firefox update, has declared Stumble Upon tool bar incompatible for Firefox and simply deleted it for me!" Says member 'plplouise.' The issue at hand here is that Firefox needs to make sure that their updates do not mess with any of their previously added applications. Though this maybe a great application to have, if you can't use it with the new Firefox, it isn't worth much any more.

But, that's expected to happen with any new technology, I mean look at the iPhone (thanks Dan!). Though they may have gotten bad blogger post, Firefox has been in the news about this new application. Recently in the Wall Street Journal, an editor writes, "Next time you want to wander the Web, forget about Googling it. Stumble it." We all know how creditable the Wall Street Journal is and with that type of publication backing you, you stand to be creditable. But that's not all, according the BBC World, "Stumble Upon is a brilliant downloadable tool bar that beds into your browser and gives you the chance to surf through thousands of excellent pages that have been stumbled upon by other web-users."

So with over 2 million users to date, Stumble upon has been used and website have been browsed. But, with it's new add-ons, you can now share websites with your friends, search video games, videos, and other amazing things, and even a blog (this is all you professor VanDyke), Stumble upon has thought of it all! I think they hit a very good audience with the new wave of web 2.0. It also has linked itself with very popular sites such as ebay, facebook, myspace, and others, which has increased its awareness. Though their plan may not have been completely outlined, It's difficult giving you too much information without taking away from the great distraction it will and can be. So go ahead, sign up, and STUMBLE!

Dog Is In the Dog House

A&E's hit show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is currently experiencing a difficult situation. The show is in its fifth season and is one of A&E's top rated programs. Duane "Dog" Chapman, the star of the show, was recorded during a private telephone conversation with his son using racial language. He used the "N-word" repeatedly while talking to his son about his girlfriend, who Dog urged him to break up with.

In a situation like this, what research can be done? The video clearly shows what Dog said, but people have questions as to why and how it happened. The conversation was recorded and posted online by the National Inquirer. During the recording, Dog states that it is not about the race of the person, but about their character. David Perel, the Enquirer's editor-in-chief said, ''There's no problem with how the tape was obtained and Dog has acknowledged its authenticity, and admitted to using the racist language." He would not comment on how the tape was obtained because it is its contents that matter.

A&E has taken control of the problem. They have already suspended the show and plan to do an investigation. Dog is planning to meet with his spiritual adviser, Rev. Tim Storey, who is black, and hopes to meet with other black leaders, including Rev. Al Sharpton, in order to learn who he truly is and how to make things right.

Much communication has been done to the media. Dog has issued many statements apologizing, for example: ''My sincerest, heartfelt apologies go out to every person I have offended for my regrettable use of very inappropriate language. I am deeply disappointed in myself for speaking out of anger to my son and using such a hateful term in a private phone conversation" and, ''I know that all of my fans are deeply disappointed in me, as well, as I have tried to be a model for doing the right thing ... I did not do the right thing this time, and hope you will forgive me." (You can view these and other heart-wrenching apologetic statements in this The New York Times article and this CNN.com article.) As pervisouly stated, A&E has suspended the show pending an investigation. A&E spokesman Michael Feeney said, "We take this matter very seriously" and when the "inquiry is concluded, we will take appropriate action."

Seeing as this case just hit the news today evaluation has not taken place yet. Everyone who watches the video will have their own evaluations, I'm sure. Hopefully A&E will take appropriate action so as not to be associated with any form of racism.

So far, I think A&E is handling things very well. Suspending the show was necessary; however, I don't know what excuses could possibly justify putting it back on. Dog has done the right thing by apologizing, but what were his other options? Ironically, the video clearly shows that exposing his racist beliefs was solely what he was trying to prevent. Too bad. I think people will find it hard to sympathize with him after such remarks and actual effort to conceal his beliefs. I would recommend that the show not be put back on. Even if it were, it has already lost a huge fan base. Would you watch his show again?