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.

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.

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.

PRSA ETHICS VS ETHICS DISCUSSED IN CLASS

I think that the ethics we discussed in class have similarities to the PRSA ethics. The obvious ones that I found were that the humaneness was most like the PRSA's advocacy. Humaneness is like having the public's interest at heart and genuinely caring about the people you are working for or with. I think this is a good core value; one that should naturally to most people but also one that sort of sums up the golden rule about caring for people and wishing good things upon people. Many people these days only care for themselves, and everyone looks at things like "that's your problem" type thing. I also thought that the stewardship core value and the expertise core PRSA value were similar because they are saying "this is our brand, this is what we stand for," and of course when you stand out there and say that you want people to think that you are good at what you do and that you know what you are talking about. Of course the truth core value and honesty core value are similar. They mean the same thing. If you tell the truth, you are honest. I think that the most "trouble" happens when people or businesses simply do not tell the truth. People will forgive you if you are honest about making a mistake. But when you lye, people automatically think of you differently. Your reputation is tarnished. I think that the lest couple of core values are different between the two (the one we discussed in class, and the ones listed on PRSA). The difference is that the PRSA one lists loyalty. which I think is different than justice or freedom. Loyalty is means you are committed to never making someone or something look bad, you always stand behind it, etc. In the PRSA case, they are faithful to those they represent, as they should be. To me, freedom is the right to chose, the right to be different, your right to do anything. Justice is what happens when you didn't get the freedom you were owed, and now you need to action to be taken. I think that all three core values are important, but I think that it matters with the situation as to what are the needs of that organization.