Blog Post 7

Minorities matter and they will be heard

A little over a year ago, April 20, 2016, Snapchat came out with a new filter. It was a lens of a person who resembled Bob Marley. This lens warped the user’s eyes and nose as well as darkened their skin tone.

backlash

The backlash of this Snapchat stunt instantaneously occurred. Media users all over the web expressed how they felt snapchat was recreating a digital version of blackface. This was a major issue and crime that came about in the 19th century, in an effort to mock African American people. People would paint their faces black in different theatric venues and it was very offensive to African Americans.

drawn conclusions

Snapchat came out with a statement stating, “Millions of Snapchatters have enjoyed Bob Marley’s music, and we respect his life and achievements. [The lens] gives people a new way to share their appreciation for Bob Marley and his music.”

This could have been a good conclusion for Snapchat to draw to, except for one major aspect, which was the timing of this filter or lens. This filter was added to snapchat on 4/20, which is also known as annual “weed day.” This made people draw to the conclusion that Snapchat was in fact not doing it in respect of Bob Marley and his music like they said. Instead, it appeared that Snapchat was doing it only in light of 4/20 and in that case the public was only seeing it as blackface not in respect of the singer.

This isn’t the only time that Snapchat has presented filters that have transformed users’ faces into other minority enthnic groups. This is definitely not a good tactic in general for Snapchat to take part in. Minorities may be the smaller portion of a population, but they are often some of the loudest as well. What matters to them is going to be heard especially when it comes to racism.

Snapchat should have been more careful about this issue. They offended many of their users and they did not think of all the conclusions that could have been drawn about this lens. Where they tried to state that this was done to represent the artist and his work, they really didn’t have enough evidence leaning towards that, so they shouldn’t have tried to make excuses. Instead, they should have admitted their faults and apologized for not seeing that other, underlying meaning behind what they did.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/snapchat-blackface/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/04/20/snapchat-under-fire-blackface-filter/83284206/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/20/snapchat-and-kylie-jenner-in-hot-water-over-blackface-filter

Blog Post 6

We are one

Manchester experienced their tragic terrorist attack less than two weeks ago. After the Ariana Grande concert on May 22nd, there was a bombing which resulted in 22 deaths and many other injuries. After this horrific attack, Ariana Grande postponed her “Dangerous Woman” tour in respect for what happened and those affected.

One Love manchester

Just this week it was announced that Grande was going to continue her tour starting June 5th, but before doing so she would make a reappearance in Manchester. On Sunday, June 4th, Grande is performing at the Manchester’s Old Trafford Cricket Ground.

In honor of those affected by the Manchester bombing, Grande is giving free admission to all who attended her May 22nd concert as well as the families of those affected. For the “One Love Manchester”  concert all proceeds will be donated to the British Red Cross, the We Love Manchester Emergency Fund and Manchester City Council.

TERRORISTS’ View

Terrorists want people to run and hide from them and what they do. They hold the power to make people fear. Grande is sending them the sign that we, as a whole, do not fear them. David Katz, a former  U.S. federal agent stated, “Hold the concert and show these miscreants that we will not be intimidated by their cowardly attacks.” 

Ariana Grande’s Relations

This approach to what happened is such a powerful move by Ariana Grande as well as the music industry. This is sending the message that music can bring us all together and that’s what it is here to do. Some may think that this is just Grande putting more people at risk, but that is not the case. No matter when or where a large event like this takes place there is always the risk of another attack. However, this is maybe the most honorary thing the music industry could do for Manchester and people are going to recognize that.

This stance creates a form of unity for not only those involved, but for all those citizens who began to fear. “One Love Manchester” is being live broadcasted for everyone who wishes to be apart if this beautiful event. It has the potential to bring people together and serve those who have suffered.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/celebrities/ariana-grande-katy-perry-coldplay-benefit-concert-manchester/

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-june-ariana-grande-manchester-benefit-sold-out-1496332523-htmlstory.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/concerts/ariana-grande-one-love-manchester-concert-time-tv/

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/06/01/ariana-grandes-manchester-benefit-concert-how-do-protect-it-from-terrorists.html

 

Blog Post 5

A fine line of emotion

On May 16, 2017, McDonalds released an advert in the UK centered around a boy asking his mom about what his dad was like. The mother goes on to explain how the boy is nothing like his father. That is until the very end when they stop at McDonalds and the boy orders the same sandwich his father always ordered and ate it in the exact same way.

You can see the message McDonald’s was trying to get across, but the way they portrayed it was done very poorly and was not accepted well by it’s viewers at all. Shelley Gilbert, a psychologist, was quoted by The Guardian saying that one in every sixteen children are affected by bereavement, and it is not a light matter. She continues on to say that McDonalds is being perceived now as a company who has manipulated the misfortunes of many children.

This is not something that a company would want for their Public Relations, especially a company like McDonalds who often caters to children. This campaign they were running in an attempt to connect people’s emotions to their food took a very sharp turn in the wrong direction with this advert.

Once this commercial was released and McDonalds started receiving the backlash and disapproval from their viewers they automatically pulled the ad and sent out an apology. McDonald’s statement to PRweek went as follows, “We apologise for any upset this advert has caused. This was by no means an intention of ours and we regret some have interpreted it in a negative way.”

McDonald’s attempt at fast recovery for this advert was most likely as good as they could have done without causing anymore damage. They apologized while letting their audience know that this was not their intent. The biggest problem with their PR work on this campaign is that people are seeing this as an obvious message that McDonalds shouldn’t have overlooked and that they did this on purpose.

My suggestion to McDonalds after this incident is that they come out with a new advert. They don’t want it to seem like they are covering up their past, faulty actions, but they need to do something to redeem them from this misinterpreted message that they connected to their company.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/16/mcdonalds-apologises-over-ad-exploiting-child-bereavement

http://www.prweek.com/article/1433615/why-mcdonalds-uk-dad-film-worse-pepsi-campaign

Blog Post 4

Just adding to the pile

This week Nike was accused by China, once again, for false marketing. On March 15th, China Central Television (CCTV) used their annual “315” broadcast to shame Nike. This broadcast happens to coincide with World Consumer Rights Day, and their statement about Nike’s most recent mishap may result in a lot of damage for their US based company.

Nike had plans to reach $50 billion in revenue by the year 2020, but rising competitions are making that quite difficult. China is Nike’s second largest market place. However, Nike has received a very large amount of backlash from China consumers for the mis-marketing that was done within this past year.

On CCTV, Nike was accused for falsely advertising their Hyperdunk 2008 FTB shoes. It is said that 300 pairs of these basketball shoes were sold last April in China with an incorrect description saying that the shoes contained Nike’s signature “zoom air” cushion, which they did not.

Nike came out with an apology to those who were affected by the false advertisement as well as a complete refund for all those who purchased the shoes. China has a law that states consumers can apply for compensation up to three times the original price of the product, which Nike has agreed to.

After all these occurrences and where this hasn’t been the first time Nike has had dishonest dealings with China, a lot of the Chinese consumers were unsatisfied with Nike’s apology. The Chinese are unhappy and stating that Nike needs to be more sincere and serious with their Chinese consumers.

The PR used by Nike in this false marketing wasn’t accepted very well. Where Nike didn’t apologize for the incorrect descriptions of the shoes until after they were called out on it by CCTV, it looks as though Nike would have kept cheating their Chinese consumers until they were caught. This is not a good image to have, especially at a time when Nike needs China most for their increasing sales.

I think Nike apologizing for this dishonestly and them offering refunds, was simply the bare minimum that they could have done. To help their PR with their Chinese consumers they needed to do more. Something that I think they could have done, is offer China merchandise with some sort of deal to show them how much they respect and value their business. With Nike’s rising competitions making further offers to China would have been much needed.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1038354.shtml

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nike-target-of-complaints-in-chinas-annual-consumers-forum-1489600425?mod=mktw

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-15/nike-muji-criticized-for-false-marketing-by-china-consumer-show

Blog Post 3

Reaching the real life Emotions of your Publics

What do you think of when you hear of the company Amazon? Often times you relate it back to a website where you can purchase an enormous amount of products and merchandise. What else do you associate with this company? If you can’t think of anything else, odds are you aren’t the only one. Amazon knows this. That’s why this month they put a lot of money on the line, and handed out some free give-aways.

Amazon is not only a website for online shoppers. They have they’re very own TV and film production studios. This isn’t a very well known thing. So, in order to promote this, Amazon took action this month.

They recently released a new movie call Manchester by the Sea. They came up with a risky move to create a more established relationship with their viewers and what Amazon has to offer.

To advertise their release of this movie into their Amazon’s Prime Streaming Service, they decided to give every home within the real Manchester, Massachusetts area a free one year subscription.

This did great things for Amazon’s public relations. Handing out free things can be a very risky thing, but Amazon took that risk and great things happened because of it. They are receiving more publicity and recognition for this move then they ever could have hoped. Amazon has gotten great feed back and has been featured for this PR move on many national news sites.

Not only is this promoting their new movie and it’s sells were able to do very well, but it also promoted their production studio and streaming services that they offer. Amazon killed multiple birds with this stone and it’s gotten them some very, very good feedback from people all over.

I think this was such a great move as well, because this isn’t something that happens on the regular. This idea of recognizing everyone in the real life area of Manchester, was able to truly affect people. They were able to see Amazon as more of a personal company who cares about everyone involved in their works. It personalized their company, and there’s nothing else that can be more effective than connecting with your publics emotions.

http://www.prmoment.com/category/good-and-bad-pr/good-and-bad-pr-amazon-amazes-fyre-fails

Blog Post 2

There’s always more than one way to give

Sunny Co. Clothing, a partial charity company ran by two longtime friends may have gotten in over their heads in a matter of days this past week.

Sunny Co. Clothing issued an almost irresistible offer to their shoppers and Instagram followers Tuesday, May 3rd. Sunny Co. Clothing told their followers that by Wednesday May 3rd, anyone who would repost their Pamela Sunny Suit and tag the company, that they would reward them with a voucher for a free swimsuit.

For the next 24 hours there was an enormous amount of Instagram users who posted and tagged this photo for Sunny Co. It was reported on the Time website that the company was not expecting this large of a reaction from their shoppers and followers. Their post for this offer got over 334,000 likes and the fluctuation of reposts by shoppers was unimaginable to the company.

Sunny Co. Clothing came out to E! News that they had to tell followers that they may put a cap on the vouchers being offered. Also, that there are high chances of delivery delays due to the immense amount of orders.

There has been a media outburst on this subject over the past few days. The Statement released by the co-owners of Sunny Co. was only expected because of the smallness of their company. There has been media mockery and tons of negative feedback from followers and other media users because of the large reaction to this offer.

Sunny Co. Clothing’s reaction to this outburst did not come as a surprise after people realized the aftermath of the situation. I think they could possibly do something else, however, to compensate for the fact that they won’t be able to do all they had said they would. It could give them a very bad reputation, as it already has. Many online users are saying that this company is only trying to scam it’s followers and that it’s not a real thing.

This clothing company has the opportunity to turn things around. Where they are charity operation and for every purchase, they donate one dollar to an Alzheimer’s  foundation, they could really promote their company and save their suddenly bad reputation. Where as creating and giving away few suits isn’t an option anymore, they could result to charity. Sunny Co. Clothing could tell their followers that since free vouchers is not in their reach, they will donate 10 or so dollars to the Alzheimer’s foundation instead.

There are many ways Sunny Co. Company could save their reputation at this point, but will they try is the real question.

http://time.com/4766561/sunny-co-clothing-red-swimsuit/

https://sunnycoclothing.com/pages/about-us

Blog Post 1

Shea Moisture-ad backlash

Shea Moisture is a cosmetic company started and ran by people of the African American race. Their main audience target for years has been to their like community and manufacturing products that cater to their hair types.

This past week Shea Moisture released an ad for their campaign, Everybody Gets Love. In this advertisement there was only one woman of color represented, followed by many white women throughout the ad. This ad was centered around women and their hair hate. It advertised that Shea Moisture helps you love everything about your hair.

As soon as this ad was released Shea Moisture faced instantaneous backlash by their colored women consumers. Shea Moisture is primarily supported by African American women, and since these women weren’t feeling like the center of Shea’s audience with this ad, it caused instant retaliation from their black consumers.

As soon as Shea Moisture realized the impact their campaign had, they pulled the ad. Following this action they published an apology on their Facebook feed about the insensitivity the ad had presented towards the majority of their consumers.

As a result from these PR actions taken by Shea Moisture, there was little change in the unforgiving mood of their African American audience. There was still backlashing and bitter comments being posted all over social media.

As for the the way they handled their PR, I think they did as good as they could have, in regaining their primary audience, without completely degrading all other ethic groups. However, I personally think they could have added to their apology in the case to justify their reasoning for the ad they pulled earlier this week. There may not have been as many black women presented in this ad was the colored community would have liked, but that doesn’t mean that Shea Moisture was in the wrong. They could have released their apology, but along with that justified their actions by saying, “we were simply wanting to create a more unified community.” I think that would have gave their opponents something more to see and ponder on. Where as the apology just fed the opponents’ pride, making it easier for them to feel that they didn’t need to change their newly formed opinions of Shea Moisture. Those people fighting Shea Moisture on this issue would have possibly seen Shea as being the bigger people, instead of a company who made a tremendous mistake.