Tuesday, December 4, 2007

More Diversity...

I think the things that companies are doing as far as diversity goes. I think it is important because it can be tough to work somewhere where you are treated differently due to something like that. I am no expert on the subject but it really makes a difference in the environment at work if it is made out in the open that all cultures, ages, sex, sexual perferences, etc, are tolerated and that any bad treatment due to one of these issues will not be allowed. It makes people feel safe. I think that usually the companies that have really great polices set in place to protect their employees right to be different are usually the really great places to work anyway. They care enough to put these stipulations in place, therefore they probably do many other great things for their employees as well. And if they do these things for their employees, think of what they probably do for the consumers that buy thier products. It is a sort of ripple effect that gains people's trust.


I have been fortunate that I have not encountered that many "bad" situations where people have treated me a certain way based on my ethnicity or color. I have also been fortuante enough also to never really been around people who treated other people bad for those reasons as well. I went to a high school where there was a lot of diversity in the students, though there were not many African Americans. But there were some and there were no issues. In fact, there were groups, but they were made up of people that enjoyed being around each other and it did not matter what color you were or where your ancestors came from. So in that way, I consider myself lucky, but also sheltered. Never really seeing people with these type of prejudices has made it hard for me to know that it exists, though I know it does. So in class, I wrote about the one time I felt there were issues with certain groups, and the group was the younger employees. Everyday I went to work, I felt that there was something against the yournger emploees. THey were treated differently, as if it never matted what they thought and if there were issues over something, the way younger employees were repremanded was different that the way older ones were. At that moment I began to realize that sometimes people are not treated fairly for the silliest reasons. I was treated like I had no experiance with life when I worked there, although no one even knew before my employment there. I think these sort of things go on all over the place, even though sometimes it seems like we as a society are passed it.

Monday, November 12, 2007

American Diabetes Association

I found this article to be really well written. But also, sadly, quite humerous. I just don't understand ADA's stratgy for making sense out of their system of decieding who they can accept payment from and those they do not feel comfortable accepting donations from. I mean, they were considering Burger King, a business which obviously sells more unhealthy products than healthy ones, and yet they consider them as a possible person to recieve donation from. Weird. I think that instead of justifying what they are doing by trying to make guidelines, either they should take money from whomever and a justify as needinf funding or they should just not take money from any companies whom are obviously trying to trick consumers into thinking their products are not that unhealthy. I don't think that I would let anyone put my name on their label if it made my company look bad, and frankly some of the companies they allow to put their name on their labels only makes them look bad. I find this topic interesting because it really has some gray areas. On one hand these foundations need money. On the other, the sort of villian they are up against is exactly who is funding them to find ways to help people. It's like the villian is helping to find a way to stop itself, only they must know that there is no way to do this, or why else would they? But on the other hand, these organizations need to stand up to the companies that they are unconcievebaly upgainst and not take money. But it is the inbetween that is odd.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Conflicts of Interest

I really enjoyed the article. I think that this brings up many good points. But I have to admit that when we talked about this topic in class, it was hard for me to understand why it was a big deal just because I was thinking that if tobacco companies want to give money to these orgainzations, why can they not accept the money? Mainly because the fact of the matter is they need moeny for these organizations to actually research cancer. But after reading the article, I understand that if cancer organizations are taking money from these companies and sort of changing their focus so that they can accept the money given to them by these companies, that is a completely different story. I guess I was thinking that Phillip Morris gives money and supports many organizations that are against smoking. But the fact is that people like to smoke and even though everyone in the entire world knows it is bad, many people still smoke. I just thought that Phillip Morris supports these organizations to "call it good" and so that he can say, " Hey I do my part" and not catch any flack about everything. Lets face it though; people are still going to smoke.
Anyways, as I was thinking about it all, I thought that other organizations exist without taking money from the very people who they are up against. Think of Mother's Against Drunk Driving. I don't think I could take them as serious if they were backed by alcohol companies. Because alcohol companies want you to drink. And the more you buy to drink, the more money they make. And the ultimate goal of Mother's Against Drunk Driving is that people will not drink and drive, but more than that, not drink. Because as long as people drink, someone will always drive. It is the same thing with cancer research. There are reasons people get cancer and there are ways that people can prevent getting cancer. And those methods are just as important as the research to cure it.
When companies do this, it makes them less creditable. They don't need to accept money from the very people they are up against.

Monday, October 22, 2007

YouTube Apology

I think this article was really interesting but I also find it refreshing that companies are finding better ways of getting their apologies out there so that people can understand what happened and the company's version of why it happened and what they are doing about the problem to ensure that it doesn't happen again. To me, it means they are taking responibility for what occured and want more people to hear about the problem and how they are taking the enishative to fix it. This is a prime example of taking the new media and using it to your advantage, which to me is different than what some companies are doing to merely get into the new wave of media.
I do however think it is important what the article went on to say. If someone is going to get on YouTube and not be sincere about what happened and not be truly sorry, then the whole deal is a waste and, more than that, bad publicity. The deliverance of such apologies, combined with timing, is what is really important. WHere and how the apology is delivered is merely a component.
But I like the idea. And the airline was smart to reach out to people that way.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Blogging... Fake blogs

This is just stupid to me. If you fake a blog and pay someone to write about your company, people are going to find out. People find out and then they think that the company is just desperate for publicity and it looks really bad. I think that these days companies just see all these new concepts, and without really thinking about benefits and consequences, they jump into the trying these new outlets out. I think it is stupid. Just because there are new outlets does not mean that they will work for every company. It is the public relations department to realize what will be the most beneficial to the company and which ones are simply not a good idea. Blogging and pretending to be real people and telling everyone you are real person and really being a person that either works for the person or was hired to blog by the company is not a good idea. People are smart, and they will find out and it will do nothing but make the company look like liars. It just isn't a good idea and it is dishonest. Instead of making the company look good and giving it interesting publicity, it makes the company look bad and gives them negative publicity when and if people find out. Again, I just think companies are just jumping into these media outlets just because it is trendy and not because it is beneficial to the company and the company's image.

Articles Posted... Social Networking and Fake Blogs

I found the article on social networking to be really interesting. Some of the things mentioned on within the article just really made me think about my own experiences with social networking and the difference between a person using these networks and a business. As a college student, I have profiles on myspace and facebook and I am subjected to the advertising and groups trying to get people to join and people inviting you to big events where they want lots of people to come, etc. I just think that it all really depends on how much time I can spend looking over that sort of stuff. Some days I don't do anything besides check my inbox and my wall to see if anyone has written me and then I log off. On those days, it would not even matter how good the content of any companies page has, I won't visit it due to time constrictions. But there are days when I have more time and I do browse. The most important thing that I feel that the article mentioned was that companies need to stick with their particular brand. Target is known for certain things; Walmart is known for other things; But theses stores need to know how they are perceived and not try to fight it. Target is a completely different business as Walmart, though they are often said to be under the same category. I go to Target to get a little bit better clothing (sometimes they have better stuff), also I buy shoes and accessories sometimes from there. I will not buy these things from Walmart
(it has always been my experience that they did not have anything that I would really like), however I spend far more money at Walmart. When I need to go to the grocery store, and I live by both a Walmart and a Target, I go to Walmart. Food and other products for the house, Walmart has a far better selection. I think that with Walmart being more of a store that leads in this household area, why are they trying to get teenagers to spend money there? Teens and their parents already spend money there on dorm stuff, though it probably is not furniture. I think when Walmart went on Facebook, it was a stupid move. They should spend there money else where. Maybe moving their interests to Moms shopping for back to school stuff or something like that. Just because people are using these network does not mean that it is a good outlet for a company to get there name out there. Posting on these outlets have to have good reasons (a strategy) rather than just because everyone else is doing it.