As many of us know, Apple has been under the lime light for the "unprofessional," decision they made involving the price reduction of the Apple iPhone. If I were a public relations practioner, or Steve Jobs, I would issue an apology. Here is what I would say:
"I am here today to apologize to our loyal Apple community. After the much publicized scandel of the Apple iPhone price reduction, it is my sincere apology I offer to those of you who have been affected. By offering the $100.00 rebate, we here at Apple, hope to reconcile any damage that may have been done to our relationship with each and everyone of you. Looking forward, we promise to learn from our mistakes and take you, our loyal customers, into a more positive consideration. Thank you for standing by us, through these difficult times."
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Legal and Ethical Restraints on PR
In class, we have discussed many rules, laws, and regulations that public relations practitioners have to or should abide by. On page 64 of Gower, "Defamation is holding someone up to public hatred , ridicule, or scorn. It is more than just saying something that is embarrassing or private about a person. "
I am a little confused with this term. What I don't understand is if someone is in the "lime light," are we not allowed to say whatever we feel about them? For example, if a person is running for a certain position, and it is up to us to elect them, can we not say what we feel about them? I'm not sure in what situation we can talk about the bad characteristics of a person.
Also, is it true that the difference between libel and slander is that libel is spoken and slander is written? I just want to make sure I understand the differences.
I am a little confused with this term. What I don't understand is if someone is in the "lime light," are we not allowed to say whatever we feel about them? For example, if a person is running for a certain position, and it is up to us to elect them, can we not say what we feel about them? I'm not sure in what situation we can talk about the bad characteristics of a person.
Also, is it true that the difference between libel and slander is that libel is spoken and slander is written? I just want to make sure I understand the differences.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Glengarry Glen Ross
After watching the Glengarry Glen Ross play, I realized how easy it is to get lost in the crazy world of money and success. In our class, we have learned about morals, values, ethics, and their similarities and differences. I would sometimes sit and wonder why in the world we have to learn things like this, because I believe, think like a communitarian.
During the play, we saw many examples of how corrupt our world is. The first example was when one business man is trying to corrupt another man into a plan to steal "leads." Do some people really have to steal in order to get to the top? After all, didn't he end up getting caught?
Another example is the poor, married man is getting screwed out of his money. The salesman is competition to earn a car amongst other salesmen. The poor, married guy is trying to get his money back after he told his wife what he had done. After going back to the salesman, he is played like a fool, because the salesman won't even pay attention to him, lies to him, all in order to get to the top of the success ladder.
This play broadened my view of how the world works, and I know I don't want to be one of these types of Public Relations practitioners.
During the play, we saw many examples of how corrupt our world is. The first example was when one business man is trying to corrupt another man into a plan to steal "leads." Do some people really have to steal in order to get to the top? After all, didn't he end up getting caught?
Another example is the poor, married man is getting screwed out of his money. The salesman is competition to earn a car amongst other salesmen. The poor, married guy is trying to get his money back after he told his wife what he had done. After going back to the salesman, he is played like a fool, because the salesman won't even pay attention to him, lies to him, all in order to get to the top of the success ladder.
This play broadened my view of how the world works, and I know I don't want to be one of these types of Public Relations practitioners.
PRSA Code of Ethics
The PRSA Code of Ethics has six values that I believe coincide with our five values we learned about in class.
The way the two sets of values match up are as follows:
Advocacy = truth- in order for the public to gain accurate knowledge, the PR practitioner must serve in the best interests for the public.
Honesty = truth- also where accuracy of information come into play.
Expertise = stewardship- the PR practitioner must research the brand in order to put their skills to work.
Independence = freedom/liberty- after the PR practitioner sends the information, the client has the right to walk away.
Loyalty = humanness- we as practitioner need to be fair to all or most, and by doing so, we need to remain loyal to our values.
Fairness = humanness, and justice- in order to do our job we need to treat everyone fairly and if not, we need to compensate for our shortcomings in order to complete our jobs successfully.
The way the two sets of values match up are as follows:
Advocacy = truth- in order for the public to gain accurate knowledge, the PR practitioner must serve in the best interests for the public.
Honesty = truth- also where accuracy of information come into play.
Expertise = stewardship- the PR practitioner must research the brand in order to put their skills to work.
Independence = freedom/liberty- after the PR practitioner sends the information, the client has the right to walk away.
Loyalty = humanness- we as practitioner need to be fair to all or most, and by doing so, we need to remain loyal to our values.
Fairness = humanness, and justice- in order to do our job we need to treat everyone fairly and if not, we need to compensate for our shortcomings in order to complete our jobs successfully.
Apple iPhone
Summer 2007 was a big hit for the Apple community, with the launch of the much-anticipated iPhone. After only 74 days on the market, Apple reduced the price. According to Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster, “Apple and AT&T (T) were selling an average of 9,000 iPhones a day before the price reduction, which would have put their quarterly sales at 594,000 as of Sept. 5.”
The Apple case is a great example of the Four-Part Public Relations Process, because the research was done efficiently. The questions such as: How much should we charge? When should we launch the iPhone? Should we drop prices in time for Christmas shopping season? were answered. During the planning phase, which is the second part of the process, Apple hyped the phone to be revolutionary. They then, planned the launch and during the communication phase, Apple launched the phone. With much advertisement under their buckle, Apple sat back and collected the revenue. In an effort to increase the buying potential for Christmas, Apple cut the price of the iPhone by $200.00. “In an open letter to iPhone owners, CEO Steve Jobs today promised a $100 store credit to anyone who bought an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T prior to yesterday’s $200 price cut.”
The friction between the utilitarian and a communitarian is truth. Apple hyped the iPhone up to be a new technological revolution. Although Apple never commented on how long the phone would be at a premier price, consumers thought there would be a longer period of time before the priced dropped. The time period why alone is the reason early adopters are so angry. The effect of this decision cost Apple their stewardship, because the brand experience was tarnished. Apple is not portraying their company in an approvable manner.
I can see both sides of the issue, but all in all, iPhone was out for a profit and made it. This case staudy is a great example of a utilitarian's view. If this is not there goal, then I would have waited longer to do a price cut.
The Apple case is a great example of the Four-Part Public Relations Process, because the research was done efficiently. The questions such as: How much should we charge? When should we launch the iPhone? Should we drop prices in time for Christmas shopping season? were answered. During the planning phase, which is the second part of the process, Apple hyped the phone to be revolutionary. They then, planned the launch and during the communication phase, Apple launched the phone. With much advertisement under their buckle, Apple sat back and collected the revenue. In an effort to increase the buying potential for Christmas, Apple cut the price of the iPhone by $200.00. “In an open letter to iPhone owners, CEO Steve Jobs today promised a $100 store credit to anyone who bought an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T prior to yesterday’s $200 price cut.”
The friction between the utilitarian and a communitarian is truth. Apple hyped the iPhone up to be a new technological revolution. Although Apple never commented on how long the phone would be at a premier price, consumers thought there would be a longer period of time before the priced dropped. The time period why alone is the reason early adopters are so angry. The effect of this decision cost Apple their stewardship, because the brand experience was tarnished. Apple is not portraying their company in an approvable manner.
I can see both sides of the issue, but all in all, iPhone was out for a profit and made it. This case staudy is a great example of a utilitarian's view. If this is not there goal, then I would have waited longer to do a price cut.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Dallas Cowboys Case Study
After reading the Dallas Cowboys case study that was handed out in class, I was curious about one fact in particular. After the whole scandal was covered up pretty well, why did Michael Irvin ever admit to doing anything to Evertt McIver after retiring from the NFL? If it was true that he was at fault, then why would he admit to it after getting away with it?
The public relations aspect on the case, in my opinion, was unethical. The Dallas Cowboys are in fact the DALLAS Cowboys, and it is the taxpayers who help pay for the feild they call home, therefore, I think the citizens have the right to know what is going on. The 'no comment' approach definately worked, but it was unethical in my eyes.
If I were involoved with the Dallas Cowboys scandal, as a public relations practicioner, I'm not quite sure what I would do. I am a huge Cowboy fan, and I'm all about winning, but if winning means disloyalty to the public, as a practioner my word would mean nothing, if I went along with the 'no comment' approach. The way I would probably go about it, is admit what happened, see if we could just set a punishment for Irvin, get it over with, and move on. Action needed to be taken if it was indeed, not an accident. The public should have been notified.
The no comment can work in some cases, such as personal, or family matters, but it should be done so with caution.
The public relations aspect on the case, in my opinion, was unethical. The Dallas Cowboys are in fact the DALLAS Cowboys, and it is the taxpayers who help pay for the feild they call home, therefore, I think the citizens have the right to know what is going on. The 'no comment' approach definately worked, but it was unethical in my eyes.
If I were involoved with the Dallas Cowboys scandal, as a public relations practicioner, I'm not quite sure what I would do. I am a huge Cowboy fan, and I'm all about winning, but if winning means disloyalty to the public, as a practioner my word would mean nothing, if I went along with the 'no comment' approach. The way I would probably go about it, is admit what happened, see if we could just set a punishment for Irvin, get it over with, and move on. Action needed to be taken if it was indeed, not an accident. The public should have been notified.
The no comment can work in some cases, such as personal, or family matters, but it should be done so with caution.
Appiah
Appiah's model or should I say view on life is a lot like the way a public relations practicioner should view life. The reason I say this is because he keeps a very open-mind when it comes to culture, values, and beliefs. He knows that not everyone is alike or comes from the same background.
I say that the view Appiah has on life and that of a public relations practicioner are similar, because a practioner notices the differences in culture, values, and beliefs, but does not pass judgement based on these things. Sometimes differences are good.
Appiah points out that not all cultures may agree on things, but may also disagree on some things and that can be looked at as a good thing. Stating differences, adding opinions and being diverse can add "spice" to a company. Being too close-minded in a compamy setting can destroy a company because like I said earlier, and Appiah says in Cosmopolitan, not everyone has the same background.
I think that if people were more open-minded as Appiah is, the world would be better off. That is also why I think every company has public relations practicioners, and if it doesn't, then it should.
I say that the view Appiah has on life and that of a public relations practicioner are similar, because a practioner notices the differences in culture, values, and beliefs, but does not pass judgement based on these things. Sometimes differences are good.
Appiah points out that not all cultures may agree on things, but may also disagree on some things and that can be looked at as a good thing. Stating differences, adding opinions and being diverse can add "spice" to a company. Being too close-minded in a compamy setting can destroy a company because like I said earlier, and Appiah says in Cosmopolitan, not everyone has the same background.
I think that if people were more open-minded as Appiah is, the world would be better off. That is also why I think every company has public relations practicioners, and if it doesn't, then it should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
