This document contains Chapters 7 to 8 Chapter 7 MEDIA RELATIONS As the text points out in the introduction to this chapter, relations with the media traditionally have been equated with public relations. With the development of social media and online communication, some of the traditional media relations practices have been altered or updated to reflect new media opportunities. This section explores what the authors believe is the true role and power of the media. Some theories gleaned from research studies show these characteristics of the media: 1. Media influence is cumulative and long-term. 2. The main power of the media is to make us aware. 3. The traditional media concentrate on reporting bad news. Thus, the challenge for public relations practitioners has been to establish relationships with reporters to encourage them to come to them for information when necessary. Unfortunately, reporters are usually suspicious of the “slant” a public relations practitioner may give to information, so amicable relationships with the press are hard to come by. With new media flourishing, however, practitioners have the option of “going direct” to audiences, avoiding traditional media bias, filters, gatekeeping, and agenda setting. As the public relations industry moves forward, expect more and better development of web-based communication. However, never forget that the media are still only one of several intervening publics. Traditional or new media still carry a message. Its content, its direction, and its target audiences are still keys to success. Journalists, bloggers, social media experts, etc. still have opinions, bias, and access……..so not much has changed. One tenet, however, unites these professions—the First Amendment. Each group champions the idea that every voice should be heard and fights to protect that right to free speech whenever it is threatened by censorship, special interest groups, or regulatory measures of the government. In this issue, public relations practitioners and the media are united. The authors have outlined eight guidelines to follow when considering media relations: 1. Know how the news-gathering process works so that you will have enough of a working knowledge to fit into that process. Social media can move much faster than traditional news-gathering elements. Be prepared. 2. Establish a designated media spokesperson. In the throes of a media event it may be difficult to organize this point on short notice. Have someone designated to monitor web-based content at all times. 3. Be as open and honest with media inquiries as humanly possible, considering restrictions in competitive and personal information. 4. Be prepared to accept the bad news with the good. No organization can escape some negative coverage. Bad news travels like wildfire—especially online. 5. Continuously educate and train employers and spokespeople on how to handle themselves when in contact with news media. 6. Generate good news situations as a track record to offset instances of undesired news. Do not simply wait defensively for bad news. 7. Advocate an employer’s views on public issues among the organization’s natural constituencies and in the news media receptive to them. 8. Expect the unexpected and be prepared for it. In particular, have a crisis or disaster plan. Exam Questions for Chapter 7 1. If media have as little effect as the authors claim, what is the point of advertising products and services? Explain. Answer: While it's true that the impact of media on consumer behavior may vary depending on the context and individual factors, advertising still serves several important purposes: 1. Awareness: Advertising helps to create awareness about products and services among potential customers who may not have otherwise known about them. By showcasing a product or service through various media channels, companies can reach a wider audience and introduce their offerings to new markets. 2. Brand Building: Advertising plays a crucial role in building and reinforcing brand identity and brand recall. Consistent exposure to a brand through advertising helps to establish trust, familiarity, and positive associations in the minds of consumers, leading to brand loyalty and preference over time. 3. Influence: While the direct impact of advertising on consumer behavior may be debated, it undoubtedly has the power to influence perceptions, attitudes, and purchasing decisions. Through persuasive messaging, compelling visuals, and emotional appeals, advertising can shape consumer preferences and drive action, whether it's making a purchase, visiting a store, or engaging with a brand online. 4. Competitive Advantage: In today's competitive marketplace, advertising allows companies to differentiate themselves from competitors and highlight their unique selling propositions. By effectively communicating the benefits and advantages of their products or services, companies can attract customers and gain a competitive edge in the market. 5. Sales Promotion: Advertising often serves as a tool for promoting sales, discounts, and special offers to incentivize immediate purchase behavior. By creating a sense of urgency or exclusivity through advertising campaigns, companies can drive short-term sales and generate revenue. In summary, while the direct influence of advertising on consumer behavior may not be as straightforward as commonly assumed, it still plays a crucial role in creating awareness, building brand equity, influencing perceptions, gaining competitive advantage, and driving sales. Effective advertising strategies leverage various media channels to reach target audiences, engage them with compelling messages, and ultimately contribute to the success of businesses and brands. 2. Use an example from current issues covered in the news media that illustrate the media’s gatekeeping role. Answer: A recent example that illustrates the media's gatekeeping role is the coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, media outlets worldwide have played a critical role in disseminating information, shaping public perceptions, and influencing policy responses. Media outlets act as gatekeepers by determining which information to prioritize, how to frame stories, and what narratives to amplify or downplay. For example, during the early stages of the pandemic, media coverage focused heavily on reporting key developments such as the spread of the virus, government responses, and public health guidelines. Media outlets also played a crucial role in debunking misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding COVID-19, thereby helping to ensure that accurate and reliable information reached the public. By fact-checking claims, providing expert analysis, and highlighting the importance of following scientific guidance, the media helped to counteract the spread of false information and promote public understanding of the virus. Furthermore, media coverage of the pandemic has influenced public attitudes and behaviors, including perceptions of risk, adherence to health guidelines, and support for government policies. For example, through in-depth reporting on the experiences of frontline healthcare workers, the impact of lockdown measures on communities, and the development of vaccines, the media has helped to shape public discourse and foster a greater sense of solidarity and collective responsibility in addressing the crisis. Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a poignant example of the media's gatekeeping role in shaping public understanding, influencing attitudes, and driving societal responses to major global events. Through their reporting and editorial decisions, media outlets have the power to inform, educate, and mobilize the public, making them indispensable actors in the dissemination of information and the formation of public opinion. 3. You are the new public relations director for a mid-sized, but quickly growing company. Unfortunately, your employers equate public relations with how much positive publicity is gained by the organization in the news media. How will you deal with the situation? Devise a strategy to explain your position. Answer: To address the situation where my employers equate public relations solely with positive publicity gained in the news media, I would implement a comprehensive strategy to educate them on the broader scope and value of public relations. Here's how I would approach it: 1. Education on PR Principles: • Start by providing a clear explanation of what public relations encompasses beyond media coverage. This includes managing relationships with various stakeholders, shaping public perception, crisis management, internal communications, and community engagement. 2. Setting Realistic Expectations: • Help my employers understand that while positive media coverage is valuable, it's just one aspect of a larger PR strategy. Emphasize that PR is about building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders, which may not always result in immediate media attention but can have long-term benefits for the company's reputation and success. 3. Measurement and Evaluation: • Introduce metrics beyond media mentions to measure the effectiveness of PR efforts. This could include tracking brand sentiment, analyzing website traffic and social media engagement, measuring customer satisfaction and loyalty, and monitoring employee morale and retention rates. 4. Integrated Approach: • Advocate for an integrated approach to communications that incorporates PR with other marketing and communication functions, such as advertising, social media, content marketing, and internal communications. Highlight the synergies between these disciplines and how they can work together to achieve common goals. 5. Case Studies and Examples: • Provide case studies and examples of successful PR campaigns that go beyond media coverage to demonstrate the broader impact of strategic PR efforts. Show how companies have used PR to manage crises, build brand credibility, engage with communities, and cultivate strong relationships with stakeholders. 6. Continuous Communication: • Maintain open and transparent communication with my employers, regularly updating them on PR activities, achievements, and the rationale behind strategic decisions. Encourage ongoing dialogue and feedback to ensure alignment with company goals and objectives. 7. Professional Development: • Offer opportunities for professional development and training on PR principles and best practices for key stakeholders within the company. This could include workshops, seminars, webinars, or access to relevant resources and literature. By implementing these strategies, I would aim to shift my employers' perspective on public relations from a narrow focus on media coverage to a more holistic understanding of its role in building and protecting the company's reputation, fostering positive relationships with stakeholders, and driving overall business success. Case 7-1 The Role of the Media and Public Relations in Negotiating Public Policy—Real Salt Lake City Builds Stadium in Utah Public funding for private enterprise will never be an easy sell, even in the best of economic times. In a recession, the question of spending public money on a stadium for a profit-making enterprise was an especially tough sell. 1. How much did the presence of the media influence the stakeholders in this case? And, did it ensure greater responsiveness or responsibility by the negotiating parties? Or, did the media merely inform the public and make it aware of the issues involved in the public dispute? Answer: Based on the material presented, it seems that the media was driving the discussion—discord and all. Media pride themselves on providing a “watchdog” service to the public. Sometimes the watchdog becomes more important than what it is watching. That seems the case in Salt Lake City. Media reports seemed to have fanned the flames of discord, keeping consensus and understanding from being achieved. Were the media just trying to inform the public, or was there an anti-spending bias creeping in? It’s hard to say for sure, but it doesn’t appear that the media coverage helped resolve the issue. 2. Does traditional media still matter when it comes to serving the public interest and in policy making, especially with the rise of social media (e.g. blogs, Twitter) that are rising in credibility in the eyes of the public? Answer: The one group of public figures who has traditionally looked at mass media reports as “vox populi” is politicians. No one reads the editorials or watches the 11 p.m. news with as much trust and confidence as political leaders. No one curries editorial favor like politicians. So, yes, traditional media still holds sway with politicians and influences the decisions made. All that will change over time as consumers (from whence politicians come) become more comfortable with social media and internet resources. Younger consumers have already abandoned traditional media in favor of cell phones, notebooks, iPads, Twitter, and Facebook. 3. Is this process of public policy making—negotiating in the public arena— simple, or messy and complicated? Is it worth our time in pursuing? What is the responsibility of public relations practitioners in this process? Where does the media stand in the process—what stakeholders do they represent? And does this serve the public interest effectively? Or is it self-serving? Answer: Media have always loved being the gatekeepers, agenda setters, censors, and filters of public information. Many studies show a degree of disdain for public relations practitioners, especially as a group. (Interestingly, journalists have a better regard for those PR people they actually know, which bodes well for good media relations relationship building.) An old journalism canard holds that media’s role is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Others say they enjoy being the “voice of the voiceless.” Most states have “sunshine laws” that state that public discussions have to be open processes, with media not only allowed, but invited. This serves the public’s need to know quite well, but seldom improves the process. Complex financial negotiations, highly private personnel matters, and sensitive national security issues all fall under the sunshine laws. The result is difficult, drawn-out negotiations like those in Salt Lake City; limited pools of qualified candidates for public positions, and endangered national security—according to those on one side of the issue. On the other are the media who happily report on every public meeting, knowing their presence keeps public officials honest. Case 7-2 Social Media and Activism: Anyone Can Now Easily Play Before the rise of internet-based communication systems, anyone wanting to help set new societal standards had a tough job. Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, organized marches, suffered great indignities, went to jail, and eventually was murdered for his civil rights beliefs. Marches, demonstrations, and sit-ins were hallmarks for those who tried to foment change. There will always be those who take to the streets to get their message heard, but with the advent of the internet, raising the awareness bar is much easier. 1. Is the emergence of Change.org a good thing or a bad thing for the future of public relations? How? Why? Answer: Improvements in technology are almost always good for the public relations industry. The evolution of Change.org is no exception. Certainly, such a service will make some counselors’ jobs more difficult, but that’s not a bad thing. If an organization is challenged, it needs to look carefully at the challenge to see if it has merit. If it does, then remedial action will reduce or eliminate the reason for the challenge and give the organization something positive to communicate to its stakeholders. That the challenge came in the form of an online petition doesn’t change the validity of the challenge. If the challenge is without merit, then the organization can use the new technology to defend itself, redefine the issue, or take whatever actions it deems necessary. The message might be a problem, but don’t blame the messenger. 2. Is the decline of mass media a positive or a negative for PR practitioners? Why? Answer: For the most part, the decline in mass media influence is good for public relations practitioners. For years, the media roles of gatekeeper, filter, agenda setter, and critic have made communication to stakeholders problematic. Now, with the ability to bypass mass media and go directly to stakeholders is a plus. As today’s young, sophisticated population grows older, newspapers, broadcast news, magazines, etc. will continue to wane in importance as new media becomes the norm. That’s a good thing for enlightened PR practitioners. 3. Why does Change.org seem to favor “populist” causes? Answer: Change.org, like most media, reflects the philosophies of its founder(s). Fox News, for example, leans far to the right. Change.org leans to the left. Also, change, with a lower-case “c” always comes from those who are dissatisfied with the status quo. Those who are happy with the world as it now stands have no reason to petition for change. That’s the nature of humankind. 4. How would the liberal bent shape your opinion of the service? Answer: For those interested in changing the world, a liberal slant is desirable. If one’s personal opinions and beliefs are more conservative, then Change.org’s agenda won’t be too pleasing. That said, it would not be difficult to organize a conservative version, if that’s what society needs to provide balance. 5. What steps should businesses and corporations take to maximize the value of a site such as Change.org (or minimize the damage)? Answer: Change.org is hard to ignore, so any organization in play by virtue of its social or financial position should be aware of what’s going on with all web content, Change.org included. By using environmental scans, the organization can easily predict or anticipate what might be coming and be prepared. This is not unlike standard PR practices, of course, but the speed and depth of online communication steps up the pace of preparation. If an organization has a public issue that can be addressed through Change.org, then anyone would expect it to be active in pursuing its cause via Change.org and other venues. Online activism is certainly not going away. Case 7 - 3 THERE’S A SYRINGE IN MY PEPSI CAN! The makers of Pepsi and Diet Pepsi were stunned when an isolated case of product tampering escalated into a national crisis, which later turned out to be a hoax. Pepsi’s response team eventually delivered compelling evidence that the contamination was a hoax and nothing more, but a week went by while the facts got sorted out. The case demonstrates the fine line between immediacy and accuracy in communication, and shows how perceptions can be shaped through good communication 1. Discuss the implications of Pepsi’s strategy: specifically: Answer: a. Putting public safety first Pepsi’s strategy was pre-determined. It really had no choice. In today’s post-Tylenol era, even if a producer of a popular consumer product wanted to ignore public safety, it would not be able to do so. But, having said that, “pulling the product” is not always the only option to protect the public’s safety. The company could have ordered a full recall. That would not only be expensive, it would have been foolish. Pulling the product, when no public safety threat was really present, would have only prolonged the problem. By sticking to its determination to protect public safety and bring the controversy to an end, Pepsi was well advised to keep product on the shelves. The perception of maintaining public safety, however, is another story. Some called for a full recall, thinking that would protect the public fully. Pepsi, with its unique perspective, knew syringes were not popping up in cans during the filling process. Demonstrating that it was impossible for such an occurrence to happen during the process, showing the filling line, ultimately brought the case to a close. b. Taking full responsibility for solving the problem Actually, Pepsi did not take responsibility for solving the problem. It wisely let regulatory and governmental authorities get to the bottom of the tampering. It cooperated fully, communicated fully and pointed out the inconsistencies in the various reports. That is all it should do. When the Food & Drug Administration and law enforcement personnel explained what really went on, the explanation took on more meaning, more force, and was more conclusive. Pepsi’s final “word” came in the form of its advertisement “NOTHING.” While the company did not actually “solve the problem” it did manage the communication throughout the weeklong siege. It is well known that how a company communicates through a crisis determines, to a large extent, how it is judged to have handled the problem. In other words, good communication translates to good action to most in the consumer public. So Pepsi’s responsible actions, combined with aggressive communication, helped bring the case to a close. c. Using the media to present its case When the media are a major force in creating a problem, the only effective way to regain lost ground is through those same media. In essence, this case is media driven. The media picked up on the story, chased it around the country, inspired copycat replications of the tampering and generally played havoc with reality. Because the media were driving the store, Pepsi was wise in using these same media to present its case to the public. Today’s general public gets its news primarily from television (about half) with one-fourth looking to the daily newspaper for its information. Thus, three-fourths of the consumers whose behaviors might be affected by the tampering hoax could be easily reached with good media strategy. Further, the media, in all fairness, would likely be fully committed to Pepsi’s response, given how and why the story had gotten to that point so quickly. Plus, the availability of the filling-line video, the convenience store security tape, and Craig Weatherup made the story even more appealing. With these elements in place, using the media to reach vast numbers of people quickly was an obvious and useful option. Pepsi’s follow-up advertisement was clever and probably created a “warm, feel-good” effect among bottlers and distributors, but the real work was done via public relations and media relations. Media exposure helped create the problem and commensurate media exposure helped bring the crisis to a close. 2. Differentiate between “solving the problem” and “solving the situation.” Answer: Solving the problem means identifying how (and if) the contaminants got into the cans, and if the cans were tampered with, where and how. Because the tampering was external, that was something for the law (and FDA) to determine. Thus, good legal work “solved the problem.” Solving the situation means making the controversy go away, letting Pepsi get back to the business of selling soft drinks. By being cooperative with the authorities and fully accessible to the media, Pepsi management was able to resolve the situation within a week—too long, but certainly conclusive at the end. 3. Evaluate Pepsi’s decision not to order a product recall. What are the pluses and minuses of such a decision? Answer: Recall, in this situation, would probably add to the panic that existed, bringing more imitators to the fore. Expense is always an issue, but not a determining one at this point. If real danger to the consumer had existed, Pepsico would have pulled the product. It knew this was at worst a mistake, and at best a hoax. There was no need to pull the product. On the plus side, a recall would have made Pepsico appear fully concerned, putting safety above all cost. On the minus side, the recall would have added panic and been expensive. All in all, not doing a recall was a wise decision. 4. What options did Pepsi have on June 10, 1993? Did the company select the correct course of action? Why? Why not? What other choices could the company officials have made? Answer: The day after the story broke, the company could have (a) ignored the report, knowing it was unlikely a syringe would be in a can; (b) issued a statement saying it was confident its filling line was safe and secure—issuing the video tape it later released; (c) contacted the family bringing the charge to see what was going on the night before; (d) let the local bottler/canner handle the response (the selected option); (e) gotten corporate public relations and operations involved immediately. Was the option selected the correct one? Second-guessing is easy from the perspective of hindsight. Letting the local bottler/canner handle the response allowed the story to stay in Seattle, initially, while bringing in Pepsico at this point would have made the story that much larger. Ignoring the report is not a serious option, ever, even if taking no action is the ultimate decision. Contacting the family involved is best left up to authorities—especially since a lawyer was the first person called when the syringe was found. That leaves issuing a statement reflecting the integrity of the filling line, along with the videotape to support that integrity. Had that been done in Seattle, it is possible the story could have died there, and the copycats would have stayed under their respective rocks. 5. Discuss the role of the FDA in addressing/solving the situation. Was Pepsi’s use of the FDA beneficial? Why? How? Answer: The role of the FDA was that of an impartial observer and referee. The FDA has as its mission the safety of food and drug products sold in the U.S. When the FDA felt compelled to speak to the safety of the soft drinks, it added to the product’s problems. When the FDA was able to give the product a green flag, it signaled that the problem was over. Pepsico was able to effectively use the FDA’s credibility to good advantage. The FDA never said the product was tainted, but did originally caution to pour the soda into a glass if the consumer was concerned. When the FDA was able to say the product was safe, the consumer knew it was okay to buy and consume diet Pepsi. 6. Could this “crisis” have been avoided? How? Shortened? How? Answer: The crisis could have been avoided by more direct (and immediate) action on the part of the local bottler/canner. Had sound public relations counsel been available at the first report, perhaps the story could have been contained with a plant tour of the canning line. Local reporters would have to conclude the filling line was safe and secure. Once the story took on a life of its own, containing it then depended on (a) demonstrating the security of the filling line and (b) catching some of the copycat hoaxers in action. Good fortune and the good VNR brought both of those about after a week of work and worry. 7. Did the news media behave responsibly in reporting this story? Cite examples to support your answer. Answer: The news media could have been more responsible, in that the “report” was really ludicrous from the beginning. Just because someone says a syringe was found in a soft drink can doesn’t mean it came from the factory that way. Good reporting would have mentioned or questioned that fact. Once the story took wings, however, the media was fully available to Pepsi’s point of view. As the story grew from city to city, the media were forced to cover it. But, by giving Pepsi “equal time” to respond, the media did what they could to balance the story, which by this time was obviously a hoax or fraud. 8. Discuss the communication tools employed by Pepsi in solving the problem. Specifically evaluate the role of the VNRs. Answer: The most effective communication tools by Pepsico were the executive interview and the video news release. Craig Weatherup was “Jim Burke-like” in his defense of Pepsico and its products, appearing on show after show and interview after interview. His stature as the CEO of Pepsico and his relaxed, measured tone gave confidence to the consuming public that the company was (a) not at fault and (b) eager to resolve the situation. The VNR was the keystone in the communication strategy. Once the public (and the media) saw the reality of the filling lines, it was obvious to all that no syringes were falling into cans in the plant. They had to be externally induced—something that Pepsico needed the public to understand. Without the video, the story would have dragged out, even with the tampering evidence. Had the tape been released earlier, perhaps the story would have died in Seattle. 9. What was the “turning point” in Pepsi’s resolution of this problem? Cite examples to support your answer. Answer: There were two turning points. The issue of the filling-line video and the evidence of tampering (security tape) in the convenience store were both essential to solving this problem. With the VNR of the filling-line flooding the airways, consumers could see no way that a syringe could get into the can. When a woman was seen poking a needle into a can in the convenience store, evidence of tampering was established, and with it, the root of the problem—fraud and hoax. 10. When “perception is reality, facts notwithstanding,” how can a company like Pepsi create new perceptions? Did the company succeed? Cite examples from the case to support your answer. Answer: Perception is reality, but perception can be shaped by communication—verbal, non-verbal and symbolic. Pepsico was able to shape new perceptions, in part, because no real behavioral change had taken place. The public was not turned off by Pepsi, only wary and waiting for the issue to be resolved. Thus, reinforcing existing positive behavior (the easiest of all behavioral goals) was a major strategy. By showing the integrity of the filling-line and the good fortune of catching a hoaxer, Pepsico was able to recreate the old behavior of buying its products again. The tacit social license enjoyed by Pepsico and its products came into play as soon as the tampering was revealed. People were eager to return to the product of their choice and the final advertising salvo (covered extensively by the news media) enabled consumers to again ask for a diet Pepsi. Case 7-4 UNIVERSAL STUDIOS FLORIDA: RIDING “RAT LADY” TO HALLOWEEN SUCCESS For most of the major theme parks in the United States, the fall season is one of reduced attendance, lower revenues, and a general downturn in business. Universal Studios Florida found a way to put some “life” in this dead time, using a clever idea, some good strategy and tactics, and a few hundred rats. The result is a continuing program that has pumped up the bottom line and made October-November a strong point each year. 1. The goal of having a “Rat Lady” was to generate publicity for Universal Studios Florida. What is the value of publicity to a destination like this? Answer: Publicity is invaluable to attractions such as Universal Studios because it creates awareness. People cannot act on something about which they don’t know. Therefore, awareness is the first step in getting the behavior one wants. For Universal, it has two problems that publicity can address. First, it is a daily competitor with other Orlando-area attractions such as Walt Disney World and Sea World. To distinguish itself from its competitors is one of its business goals. The uniqueness of the Rat Lady and Halloween Horror Nights quickly set Universal apart from the others. Second, even the most creative idea isn’t successful if it doesn’t move the organization toward achieving its overall goals. For Universal, that is more people through the turnstiles and more money in the bank. Once visitors and potential visitors learned of the special Halloween event—and the unique Rat Lady—they were able to make a decision to go see for themselves—even though they were required to buy a special ticket. Thus, publicity, and the awareness it created, helped Universal distinguish itself from its competition AND improved its bottom line. 2. Assess the strategy of placing a classified ad. What other options might USF have considered? Answer: The strategy of kicking off this campaign with a classified ad was as creative as the stunt itself. Pedestrian public relations would have held a “press conference” or a “media day” with a pre-selected Rat Lady, some rats, and a free lunch (cheese?) for the media covering the day. That works, but it is pretty trite. Going to the classifieds with a weird offer of employment put a mysterious twist on the story, actually making the media pursue Universal for “the story.” Seldom do the media call the public relations departments begging for information. In this case, they did. And the coverage proved it was a good strategy. 3. Why was no “press kit” distributed? Was this wise? Answer: There was no press kit because there was no “press event” per se. The premise of this whole program was “Universal is just looking for someone to lie down with some rats……..” Distributing a press kit would have ruined the “innocence” angle and lessened the impact of the approach. Eventually, of course, Universal had material available for the media. 4. What would you say to PETA about using live animals in such a stunt? Answer: PETA hasn’t said much about this promotion. PETA doesn’t like anything involving animals except letting them roam free of human interference. Therefore, PETA probably doesn’t approve of rats being kept in confinement and forced to lick peanut butter off some lady’s face. PETA is no stranger to theme parks, either, being a frequent visitor to Sea World and Walt Disney World’s Animal Kingdom. In this case, Universal wisely documented the path of the rats to stardom. The rodents were carefully selected, allowed to become accustomed to human contact, and were exchanged at regular intervals to be sure they were not harmed in any way. Having employees “adopt” the rats at the conclusion of the promotion allowed for a happy ending. PETA might not be satisfied, but the public had no problems with how the animals were treated. Problem 7-A EMPLOYER INTERESTS AND MEDIA INTERESTS IN CONFLICT This problem examines a difficulty that many public relations practitioners face in relations with the media. Ted Square must consider his employer’s communication needs and desires before those of his long-standing friend, George, the bureau chief at a major financial newspaper. A company is faced with a crisis situation. The vice-president of operations demands that the president make him a partner in the business or he will leave. The president will not bow down to this man’s demands. The vice-president resigns and defects to a company competitor, taking other key managers with him. The dilemma is this: When Ted Square’s friend calls to find out the details of the shake-up at the company, he fails to ask for details regarding the circumstances of the vice president of operations leaving. Ted only answers specific questions regarding the situation and does not volunteer any additional information. That bureau chief is scooped by another paper about the full details of the situation, which puts Ted’s relationship with his friend, the bureau chief, on the line. The bureau chief claims he can never trust Ted again because he kept information from him. Ted claims his loyalty was to his employer first. These developments seriously damage the relationship with this major financial newspaper. 1. Who was right: Ted? The bureau chief? Both? Neither? If you had been Ted, how would you have handled the situation so that your employer’s interests and your good media relationship with George were both protected at the time and for the future? What would you have done differently? Answer: Considering the details of the case, it is difficult to point out one right answer. There are two sides of the situation to consider. On one hand, Ted answered all of George’s questions truthfully. He did not want to blow this story out of proportion because of the implication it would have on the business in the long run. George, as a trained newsman, should have known to ask the circumstances of the situation. If he had asked, Ted could have directed him to the people in the organization who could answer those hard questions. However, the depth of the relationship between Ted and George was a consideration as well. This would have made a difference on what was disclosed about the situation. If there was a level of trust between the bureau chief and Ted, wouldn’t he have expected Ted to be forthcoming and therefore perhaps not as inquisitive? It was possible for Ted to be upfront in a way that still downplayed the event. He owed it to the bureau chief to assume someone, somewhere, would find out the information and pass it along to the press. In looking back at the situation, Ted may have done something to better protect his relationship with George. He could have referred him to the operations vice-president right away. Or he may have called him first with the information, though this may have created more problems than it solved. 2. If your company was publicly owned, would you have acted differently when George called? Answer: Though the company would have had the added stakeholder of stockholders, the implications of babbling this information to the local newspapers would have been the same whether the company was publicly or privately owned. It would have brought more attention to this situation than was necessary because of the immensity and implications of the vice-president and other managers all quitting at once. Plus, the material facts must be disclosed to meet SEC regulations. Problem 7-B DEALING WITH THE MEDIA IN A STICKY SITUATION This problem describes a situation in which a company faces immediate opposition because of a misspoken comment by the president. Alger Tiberius Software, Inc. has developed a new computer program, Manufacturing Efficiency Revolution (MER), that can be integrated into manufacturing equipment. It will increase efficiency and cut production time in half. It looks as if it may be a lucrative product for the company. One day the president of the company, Don T. Figgle, makes an offhand comment to a reporter about the product and says, “This product will virtually replace about 15 percent of the American manufacturing workforce. It cuts out about half of the unnecessary action done in factory production.” The comment by the president had been statistically incorrect; the program would eliminate jobs by 10 percent (instead of 15). In addition, he had failed to mention that those whose jobs may be eliminated could be retrained for other areas of the manufacturing companies. With this quote comes implications of repercussions from the AFL-CIO, who claims that this product was represented falsely by the company. Media immediately latch onto this story, publicizing far and wide the fact that MER will cut jobs from the manufacturing industry. Little is said about the other facts such as retraining options for workers. A newly formed opposition group, WACS (Workers Against Computer Software) begins to picket the software company. Local TV stations are all present to cover the protest and give up-to-the-minute reports. The media has gone to Congressman Bill Zealot for his reaction, who vows to fight “big business pushing aside the little guy and trying to make him obsolete in the name of progress.” It looks as if there may be legislative action against MER. The CSPA (Computer Software Programmer’s Association), who were initially behind this program, start to back off because of all the negative press. Without the backing of the CSPA, the future of MER will be difficult. Those initial questions to ask yourself as a public relations practitioner for Alger Tiberius Software are: • Who are those groups who are garbling my message? Answer: The group that is causing the most garbling of AT’s message are media aided and abetted by all key stakeholders. The media’s ability to set agendas and bring only certain facts to the public arena has spurred on some of the other groups to add to the static of your message. WACS and the AFL-CIO do not help in that they bring more attention to the elimination of jobs element of MER than the breakthrough in manufacturing technology. • What other groups are likely to become involved? Answer: This may involve legislative action, such as other legislators other than Bill Zealot who may speak out against this product. If AT Software is a publicly owned company, stockholders could also become involved. Manufacturing organizations that may be interested in MER could become involved. • What are the likely behaviors of each group? Answer: Legislators may be talking out of both sides of their mouths, championing the worker’s cause on one hand, but speaking about the need for business growth on the other hand. They could cause serious problems by creating legislative obstacles for MER. Stockholders may become spooked and demand that AT Software drop the project altogether if negative coverage continues. Manufacturing organizations may become spooked as well by this uproar to the software. They may back away from the product. • How can I minimize their messages and maximize mine to the publics I would like to reach? Answer: The key here is finding a venue other than the media for reaching those publics who may be reacting to the negative coverage MER is getting in the headlines. A way to do this may be contacting opinion leaders in the manufacturing industry who could spread the word about the positive aspects MER will bring to the manufacturing public. Another would be to show some respected leaders of the legislature the benefits of using the software in manufacturing equipment. • Can I reach those publics without utilizing usual venues, in order to avoid media, political and activist gatekeepers? Answer: The answer to this an enthusiastic yes! By going around the media and going direct to the publics that matter most, many times organizations can avoid catastrophe and outspoken opposition. Opinion leaders are a great resource. If those have not been identified yet, any face-to-face interaction between those publics that matter most and those that have the facts should be a productive meeting. 1. With those questions in mind, how would you go about creating a plan to reach key publics with one-on-one communication to stay some of the immediate damage caused by the negative reactions of those groups who have been most vocal? Answer: Taking into account the answers to the questions above, an effective plan would most likely directly target those key publics most affected by this uproar. The strategic planning process should be used in this situation. • Determine the problem • Environmental scan • Identify and prioritize publics and influentials • Set behavioral goals with each target audience • Latent readiness (what has happened in the past that might assist or detract from achieving the goal?) • Research (what else do you need to know about?) • Activities (i.e., one-way, two-way and triggering events) • Message appeal (what rationale appeal is most appropriate for each publics) 2. What use would you make of social media, if any, in this situation? Answer: Now is the time to use social media to by-pass traditional media. The agenda setters and gatekeepers have put the company on the defensive, but it can use social media to get control of the flow of information. The company’s website needs to be immediately updated to include the correct statistics, realistic expectations of savings, jobs and retraining, etc. Company officials need to post on relevant bulletin boards all the factual information available and put the company’s perspective on jobs and retraining. Efforts must be made to get the company’s perspective at the top of search engines posts so that when anyone searches for information, the Unions, politicians and opponents don’t dominate the first page postings. Finally, an e-list needs to be compiled of any and all known influencers and personal emails should be sent to these people. If possible, arrange for a personal meeting with the CEO-at a breakfast or something—so that opinion leaders can get the facts from the horse’s mouth. This is a classic opportunity to use social media to bypass traditional news channels. Use it. 3. Could AT Software have avoided this negative uproar to MER? What actions should have been taken before presenting this product to the public through the media? Answer: AT Software definitely could have prevented this uproar by going around the media to alert key publics ahead of time of MER’s benefits and qualified drawbacks. That way when this big story came out those publics that would be most affected would already know the true circumstances of the situation. Though AT Software could not have told the future, it would have been possible to anticipate those issues that may have come up as a result of the introduction of this product. Any program that would change the makeup of a workforce or threaten anyone’s livelihood should be approached with as much sensitivity and forethought as possible. AT Software also could have instructed their CEO to keep his opinions to himself unless specifically asked for, and they could have better prepped him with the facts of the situation. The key was to reach those publics such as manufacturing organizations ahead of time with one-on-one communication techniques. This may have let them prepare their employees and other key stakeholders ahead of time to soften the blow of job layoffs. Chapter 8 PUBLIC ISSUE CAMPAIGNS AND DEBATES Dealing with public issues is one of the most challenging components of public relations. In order for the public to be able to make educated, intelligent decisions about issues that affect their lives, information about available options must be presented to them completely and persuasively. This chapter deals specifically with: • Issues: subjects on which there are two or more strongly opposing arguments, emotional involvement of a large number of people, and concern that the decision will have an impact on people’s lives or the functioning of society. • Crises: when a public or organizational issue gets out of control, to the point that it can no longer be settled before it becomes huge and threatening to the organization or society. Issues are loosely assigned categories to address the stage of life that an issue is in. They fall into four basic stages: Latent: Just being formulated by far-thinking scholars or social activists, but with sufficient apparent validity that it could become an issue sooner or later. Emerging: Starting to be written about in scholarly journals or speciality media; perhaps a special interest organization adopts the idea or a new group forms around it; early adopter opinion leaders begin to be aware; it starts to spill over to wider public, but no coherent action plan or broad support is yet evident. Hot: A full-blown issue in current debate. Fallout: Leftover remnants from the settlement of hot issues, which can come back onto the public agenda because they have already attained visibility. In their discussion of issues and crises, the authors also look at the importance of target audiences and the general public. Practitioners often work with stakeholders—employees, neighbors, stockholders, customers—any constituents who have reasons to support or oppose an issue or an organization. It is often difficult to get the general public involved because they can be uninterested or uncommitted to a public issue. At times, its support or opposition might have a bearing on the outcome of a situation. An organization’s concern for social issues and problems is often expressed in its public service programs. Organizations engaged in public service programs must manage: strategy, planning, and research program design civic participation governmental and educational liaison meetings and events media placement and relations preparation of print, audio and visual materials Public service programs are valuable means of demonstrating socially responsible behavior, gaining trust for good deeds, building customer goodwill, or building working relationships with constituency members. They often call for cooperation between public relations/public affairs, human resources, marketing, and other departments. Two requirements of public service programs are: A program must fit logically into the mission, objectives, timetable, and field of endeavor in which the organization has expertise. There must be an identifiable, measurable benefit to the organization as well as to the public or the noble purpose involved and affected. Another component of the arena of public issues lies in one of the basic rights of the Constitution. Our country’s right to freedom of speech, which allows persons or organizations to take public stands on important issues, is a basic underpinning of effective public relations practice. In recent history, however, champions of issues have become fractionalized, each clamoring for their right to be heard. While so many crusaders are shouting, the majority can often be drowned out and the decision process can be obstructed. Public relations’ role is to help these different parties get their voices heard on behalf of a particular interest or public issue. Compromise often goes hand-in-hand with some of the social issues discussed in this chapter. When powerful and determined special-interest groups collide, it usually results in some sort of reconciliation, with each side compromising. Other casebook examples deal with those issues that can’t be compromised, that have become so emotional or deep-seated as to evoke picketing, boycotts, and even violent protests among activists. One way that organizations can deal more effectively with public interests is to anticipate them before they become a problem. This chapter examines the importance of issue anticipation teams, which are set up by organizations wanting to identify and handle issues before they become a problem. Benefits of issue anticipation teams include: serving on a team is an honor, which motivates members forcing members to read and observe things they previously didn’t interacting with people they might not come into contact with otherwise building consensus and encouraging teamwork encouraging supervising managers to start to think broadly about the implications of what the organization does and sensitizing them to public relationships identifying and training the rising stars Exam Questions for Chapter 8 As each of the four categories of issues are quite different, would it stand to reason that a different strategy would be required for dealing with each one? Think of an example of each of the four stages of issues, and discuss how the strategy would differ for handling each. Answer: Certainly, the strategy for dealing with each category of issues would vary based on the nature and severity of the issue. Let's explore an example for each of the four stages of issues and discuss how the strategy would differ for handling each: 1. Latent Issues: • Example: A mid-sized technology company identifies a potential cybersecurity vulnerability in its software during routine internal testing but has not yet experienced any breaches or incidents. • Strategy: • Proactive Approach: Given the seriousness of potential cybersecurity threats, the company takes a proactive approach to address the issue before it escalates into a crisis. • Immediate Action: The company immediately allocates resources to patch the vulnerability, strengthen security protocols, and conduct a thorough review of its systems to identify and mitigate any other potential weaknesses. • Transparency and Communication: While there may not be immediate public awareness of the issue, the company communicates transparently with customers and stakeholders about the steps taken to address the vulnerability, reassure them of their data security, and emphasize its commitment to proactive risk management. 2. Emerging Issues: • Example: A mid-sized retail company receives multiple customer complaints about a new product line causing allergic reactions, indicating a potential product quality or safety issue. • Strategy: • Rapid Response: The company responds quickly to investigate the complaints and determine the root cause of the issue, including conducting product testing and analysis. • Crisis Management: If the issue is confirmed, the company implements a crisis management plan to recall the affected products, notify customers, and address any health or safety concerns. • Stakeholder Engagement: The company engages with affected customers, regulators, and other stakeholders transparently to communicate the steps taken to address the issue, offer refunds or replacements, and rebuild trust in the brand. 3. Current Crisis: • Example: A mid-sized manufacturing company experiences a major workplace accident resulting in injuries to several employees and significant damage to its facilities. • Strategy: • Emergency Response: The company prioritizes employee safety and well-being by providing immediate medical attention to those injured and evacuating the affected area. • Crisis Communication: The company establishes a crisis communication team to manage internal and external communication, providing regular updates to employees, families, media, regulators, and other stakeholders. • Reputation Management: The company takes responsibility for the accident, expresses empathy for those affected, and outlines its plans for addressing the situation, improving safety measures, and preventing future incidents. 4. Crisis Resolution: • Example: A mid-sized hospitality company faces a prolonged labor strike by its employees, leading to disruptions in operations and negative publicity. • Strategy: • Negotiation and Resolution: The company engages in constructive dialogue with labor unions to address employee grievances, negotiate fair labor practices, and reach a resolution to end the strike. • Recovery Plan: Once the strike is resolved, the company implements a recovery plan to restore operations, rebuild relationships with employees and customers, and mitigate any long-term damage to its reputation. • Learning and Improvement: The company conducts a thorough review of its labor practices, employee relations policies, and crisis management procedures to identify areas for improvement and prevent similar issues in the future. In summary, the strategy for handling each category of issues should be tailored to the specific circumstances, risks, and stakeholders involved, with a focus on proactive risk management, transparent communication, stakeholder engagement, and continuous improvement. Suppose that an election for local and state officials was pending. The general public in your community is particularly apathetic and shows no interest in this election. What are some specific tactics you would use, as a public relations practitioner, to generate interest in the election and to motivate this general public to vote? Answer: As a public relations practitioner tasked with generating interest in an upcoming local and state election in a community marked by apathy, several tactics can be employed to engage the general public and motivate them to vote: 1. Educational Campaigns: Launch an extensive educational campaign to inform the public about the significance of local and state elections. Highlight how these officials impact their daily lives, from education and healthcare to transportation and infrastructure. 2. Personalized Messaging: Craft personalized messages tailored to different demographics within the community. Address specific concerns and issues that resonate with various groups, showing them how their participation can effect change. 3. Community Outreach Events: Organize community outreach events such as town hall meetings, candidate forums, and meet-and-greets. These platforms provide opportunities for direct interaction between constituents and candidates, fostering a sense of connection and accountability. 4. Social Media Engagement: Leverage social media platforms to disseminate information, engage with the community, and mobilize support. Utilize targeted advertising to reach specific demographics and encourage voter registration and turnout. 5. Partnerships and Collaborations: Form partnerships with local organizations, businesses, and community leaders to amplify the message and reach a wider audience. Collaborate on initiatives such as voter registration drives, educational workshops, and endorsement campaigns. 6. Creative Campaign Tactics: Implement creative campaign tactics to capture attention and spark interest. This could include art installations, street performances, viral challenges, or interactive digital campaigns. 7. Empowerment Through Participation: Emphasize the power of individual voices and the collective impact of community participation. Highlight success stories of communities that have mobilized to address issues through the electoral process, inspiring others to do the same. 8. Incentives and Rewards: Consider offering incentives or rewards for voter participation, such as discounts at local businesses or entry into prize drawings. While controversial, these incentives can serve as initial motivators for engagement. 9. Continuous Communication: Maintain consistent communication throughout the election period, providing updates on candidate platforms, key issues, and voting logistics. Keep the dialogue open and encourage feedback from the community. 10. Follow-Up and Accountability: After the election, continue to engage with the community and hold elected officials accountable for their promises and actions. Establish channels for ongoing communication and feedback to ensure that the momentum generated during the campaign is sustained beyond Election Day. By implementing a comprehensive strategy that combines education, engagement, and empowerment, we can inspire greater civic participation and ensure that every voice is heard in the democratic process. Your are the vice-president of public relations at a controversial nuclear power plant that does not receive favorable publicity or much public support. Devise a public service program that would meet these two necessary requisites and develop working relationships with the public. Answer: As the vice-president of public relations at a controversial nuclear power plant facing unfavorable publicity and limited public support, implementing a strategic public service program is crucial for improving our relationship with the community. Here's a plan that meets these requisites and fosters positive engagement: 1. Community Education Initiatives: Launch a comprehensive community education program aimed at dispelling myths and misconceptions about nuclear power. This program should include informational sessions, workshops, and seminars conducted by experts in the field. By providing accurate information about the safety, efficiency, and environmental benefits of nuclear energy, we can address public concerns and build trust. 2. Environmental Stewardship Projects: Demonstrate our commitment to environmental responsibility by initiating environmental stewardship projects in collaboration with local organizations and authorities. This could involve initiatives such as tree planting campaigns, wildlife conservation efforts, or clean-up drives in nearby natural areas. By actively contributing to environmental preservation, we can show our dedication to sustainable practices and community well-being. 3. Safety Awareness Campaigns: Prioritize safety awareness through targeted campaigns focused on nuclear safety protocols and emergency preparedness. Offer educational materials, training sessions, and drills to educate the public on the stringent safety measures in place at the facility and the rigorous regulatory oversight governing nuclear operations. By fostering a culture of safety and transparency, we can alleviate concerns and instill confidence in our operations. 4. STEM Education Partnerships: Forge partnerships with local schools, colleges, and educational institutions to promote STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education initiatives. Support programs that encourage students to pursue careers in science and engineering fields, including scholarships, internships, and mentorship opportunities. By investing in the future workforce and fostering innovation, we can cultivate positive relationships with the community and demonstrate our commitment to education and advancement. 5. Health and Wellness Programs: Launch health and wellness programs tailored to the needs of the community, with a focus on promoting physical and mental well-being. Offer free health screenings, fitness classes, and wellness workshops to residents in surrounding areas. Additionally, provide support for local healthcare facilities and initiatives addressing health disparities. By prioritizing community health and welfare, we can foster goodwill and strengthen our ties with the public. 6. Open Dialogue and Feedback Mechanisms: Establish open channels of communication with the community, including regular town hall meetings, feedback sessions, and online forums. Encourage constructive dialogue, listen to concerns, and address feedback transparently and proactively. By actively engaging with the community and valuing their input, we can build mutual understanding and collaboration. 7. Charitable Giving and Volunteerism: Demonstrate corporate social responsibility by supporting charitable organizations and community service projects through financial contributions and employee volunteerism. Encourage employees to participate in community service activities and provide opportunities for them to give back to the community. By actively contributing to the betterment of society, we can enhance our reputation and foster positive relationships with the public. By implementing this multifaceted public service program, we can demonstrate our commitment to the community, promote positive social impact, and build trust and support for our nuclear power plant despite its controversial nature. Case 8-1 RIGHTS AND CHOICES—FOR WHOM? For many decades the issue of abortion and abortion rights has raged in the court of public opinion throughout the United States, and, at times, the world. As public attitudes and morals have shifted in our society, so has the majority opinion about this issue. Just as attitudes and morals can shift, the level of prominence of an issue in public discussion and debate can change depending on other events that may occur during a particular period of history. Recently, the debate over abortion has been overshadowed by other issues, but it clearly was on the agenda when the U.S. Senate confirmed two new justices during the G.W. Bush administration—Roberts and Alito—and by President Obama—Sotomayer and Kegan. This case examines the public relations efforts on both sides of the abortion issue. However, it is not as simple as boiling the case down to the abortion issue. Each side is fighting for a different reason. Right-to-lifers focus on the action of abortion itself and believe that aborting the fetus is equivalent to murder. Pro-choicers focus on the impact of bringing an unwanted child into the world and the choices that a woman should have in bringing up a child. Each group uses sophisticated public relations techniques to emphasize their side of the issue. 1. Breaking the law as a tactic to gain awareness and build public support has had a role in this debate as well as others (think Boston Tea Party, environmental movement). Is this a tactic that should be part of a public relations strategy? If so, to what extent can it be taken and still be effective? Answer: Surprisingly enough, recommendations for strategy, messages, and communication vehicles could be amazingly similar. One integral part of people making decisions is on the basis of personal interaction with others to discuss and solidify ideas. Personal dialogue about an issue can never be replaced by a television ad or an article in the newspaper . However, if the issue had the same status today as it did in the early 1900s (no discussion whatsoever), it may be an effective strategy to create publicity to create greater awareness about the birth control issue and the effects of not talking about it. 2. With Roe v. Wade in place, the “behaviors” needed by the pro-choice movement are significantly different from the “behaviors” needed by the pro-life movement. How do you feel the strategic decisions made by each side help or hurt achieving these behaviors? Answer: Assuming that there is some sort of head-to-head antagonism between these groups, there are many ways to bring these groups together to discuss solutions to these immense societal problems. Besides the points of common interest between these church groups, such as poverty and illiteracy, there are other topics that may be discussed and used as common ground to attack the root causes of these issues and change them. They include: teen sexuality, the effects of increased population, and the dilemma of unwanted kids. These points of interest could be translated into avenues of common effort through an interchurch-sponsored reading program, a core group of church leaders who organize discussion groups with youth to talk about these sensitive issues, or an interchurch-sponsored community meeting that visually demonstrates through an interactive exercise the distribution of world population in comparison to resources. These programs and exercises provide common ground for these churches to stand on without specifically talking about the issues of birth control and abortion. 3. How might you see a resolution to this issue coming about? What public relations techniques might others outside the core for and against groups take to help resolve the issue? What other issues now on the national agenda may become insurmountable in their resolution? Answer: As a generalization, threats to our physical well-being usually take precedence over those that assault our conscience or character. According to Maslow and his Hierarchy of Needs, we as human beings evaluate our needs in this manner. Physical needs (including threats to well-being) are taken into account first. Appeals to conscience, intelligence, and character come much further down the list. One exception can be when ego needs for respect and status take precedence. Examples may be socially irresponsible behavior influenced by peer pressure and embarrassment, such as fear of asking a partner to use a condom and an attitude of “it won’t happen to me.” These all have been shown to be reasons why AIDS is still spreading. There are, of course, other exceptions to this generalization. In some cases, human beings are willing to sacrifice their physical well-being for a higher good, such as in revolution for a cause, etc. It all comes down to risk and risk assessment. If human beings are able to see the risk and assess the rationale behind that risk, they may be more likely to make their own decisions about matters that may threaten their well-being. What do you think Planned Parenthood should do to protect its position and funding? Answer: Planned Parenthood’s biggest problem is its tendency to appear as if it is bullying those who disagree with it’s programs and policies. The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who would stop or reduce funding to Planned Parenthood (see Target, Susan G. Koman for the Cure, etc). Its strong-arm tactics have won some battles, but might threaten its long-term success. Time Magazine ran a cover story in January, 2013, that proclaimed the pro-choice side has not won much since Roe v. Wade back 40 years ago. Planned Parenthood needs to strengthen its state-based organization and start pushing back at that level if it expects to maintain its position and protect its funding. Case 8-2 TAKE YOUR CHOICE—TOBACCO OR HEALTH Issues that deal with products that have a potential health risk are constantly surrounded in controversy. This case outlines the historical development of the conflict between tobacco companies and anti-smoking groups. At the heart of this issue is the right of people to smoke versus the right of others not to be impinged on by smoke and the social responsibility of the tobacco companies. Smoking is dangerous to the health of the smoker and those around them. Does the government have the right to dictate where people can and cannot smoke? The courts increasingly say “yes.” On the basis of the information in this case, your personal knowledge, and a professional, objective mindset, which, if any, of the following conclusions might be supported by maxims of persuasion (see Chapter 1) or by the strategy and tactics used on either side? Answer: The anti-smoking coalition and the tobacco interests have been equally effective in their communication programs. Until recently, both sides have been head-to-head in their efforts to get the action they wanted from either the smoking or non-smoking side. Now it seems as though the anti-smoking coalition is gaining a lead and is having more success with their communication programs. The second maxim, source of information, may be one reason. The anti-smoking forces (The American Cancer Society, Lung Association, doctors, etc.) are all respected, trusted sources of information about our health. Also, the maxim about clarity, simplicity, and symbolism is also applicable here. Pro-smoking groups need to convince people that it’s not a dangerous habit, encourage current smokers to continue and replenish the supply of smokers with new recruits—all while people are suffering from smoking-related diseases. It’s a bit easier for the non-smokers to get their point across that “smoking is harmful.” One side (which one?) has focused more on influencing behavior than opinion. The anti-smoking side has focused more on behavior by being more adamant in their efforts to encourage smokers to quit. Their message is clearly “Quit smoking.” The smoking side, on the other hand, communicates that “Smoking is cool” and “Smoking isn’t bad for you,” which are not directly actionable messages. It has been a fine line for the tobacco companies, because they haven’t wanted to appear to influence potential smokers. They emphasize brand switching versus recruitment. The aims and actions of both sides, one side, or neither, reflect a genuine concern for public opinion and behavior over the long haul. Both sides in this situation are concerned with affecting public opinion and behavior. The anti-smoking advocates want people to stop smoking and the smoking side wants people to continue and begin smoking. The effectiveness of each side’s campaign is supported by the maxim that says a suggested action as part of a message is more likely to be accepted than a message by itself. With fewer people taking up the habit, it appears that the anti-smoking coalition has successfully gotten its “Stop Smoking” message across to more people. The tobacco interests give more evidence of “issue anticipation” than the anti-smoking coalition. Since the massive legal settlements, some tobacco companies have made efforts in discouraging people under 18 (the legal age smoke) from smoking. These companies are anticipating that the anti-smoking forces will accuse them of convincing future generations to pick up the habit. While they are then sending mixed messages by advertising to young people, they can still claim to be socially responsible by having these programs in place. The public relations thinking and actions on both sides can be decisive factors in attaining a reasonable solution. Public relations techniques can have a part in several proven maxims, including: Being a good source of information for the public trying to make a decision. Helping to establish personal contact with the various publics. Making sure the message is clear and simple and is actionable. On the smoking side of the debate, there is the personal freedom to make choices in life. On the anti-smoking side, there is personal health. Both are strong appeals to self-interest. Are there other appeals you find significant in the contest? Answer: Second-hand smoke is an issue for non-smokers. While smokers may have the choice of whether or not to light up, that makes it difficult for non-smokers in the room who dislike it. Also, insurance costs for everyone are rising, in part due to the costs associated with treating long-term illnesses like cancer. On the smoking side, non-smokers can go somewhere that the smoke won’t bother them. Why is it always the smokers who are being restricted? Some smokers may say that it’s not their fault they smoke—they’re addicted and can’t do anything about it. Also, there are other “smells” that may offend or harm others ( e.g., perfume, cleaning products, and even air fresheners). The chapter introduction talks about stakeholders. Among the tobacco interests, stakeholders would be vehicles that carry tobacco advertising. Can you think of any others? Among the anti-smoking stakeholders would be insurance companies. Are there others? Does that leave anyone or any group in the middle, the neutral or “don’t care” category? Answer: Tobacco Stakeholders: Smokers Shareholders in tobacco companies Doctors who earn a living treating smokers Growers and sellers of tobacco, those who support tobacco—from agriculture to ads People in communities that are dependent on tobacco as a commodity Anti-smoking Stakeholders: Non-smokers who are bothered by smoking American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, or similar groups Doctors concerned with public health Neutral: Non-smokers who aren’t bothered by smoke Are there moral and ethical considerations a practitioner should take into account before serving an employer or client involved in the tobacco, liquor, pornography, or handgun industries? Put another way, should the moral and ethical standards of a professional be essentially the same as those of his or her employer or client? Whether yes or no, can you think of a situation in which you would make an exception? Answer: Practitioners should only work with clients they feel comfortable supporting, or they won’t be doing their best work. No matter what the client, your personal convictions should always come first. If the project would help a worthy cause, either financially or otherwise, exceptions to personal convictions might be able to be made. Or, if the organization was asking you to help communicate something that would ultimately benefit the public (i.e., age minimums, limits on consumption, etc.). Remember, though, that every legitimate organization has the right to have a voice in the court of public opinion. The issue of whether a company has the right to mandate what an employee can do in his or her spare time has been hotly debated in recent years. From the employer’s viewpoint, what would be acceptable to make restrictions on and why? From the employee’s viewpoint? Answer: From an employer’s viewpoint: Most employers don’t want employees involved in any illegal or potentially embarrassing situations after work. It makes the organization look bad and could result in lowered productivity at the office. Some employers restrict second jobs altogether and some won’t allow working for a competitor in the same field. Obviously, the latter is a reasonable request. If an employer makes known their requests before hiring someone, the employee has the opportunity to accept the job under those stipulations. From an employee’s viewpoint: Personal time is personal time. An employer is paying for a certain amount of time and what’s left over is yours. Whatever you do outside of that time is your business. An employer could, however, relieve you of your duties if your outside activities conflict with your work life. Case 8-3 GUNS—FOR WHOM? FOR WHAT? Another emotionally charged issue—the availability and restriction of guns—has become a hot topic. This case discusses how the National Rifle Association marshals and sustains resistance to restrictive firearm measures. Although polls of the U.S. population reveal a strong gun control sentiment, the NRA still remains rather victorious in Washington. Repeated attempts at the federal level for gun control legislation have failed in the face of NRA opposition. The strategy of the NRA has been to oppose any legal measures that might tighten controls. The grounds are that any of these would be a foot in the door leading to demands for more such laws. As an objective communications professional, how do you feel about this “no exceptions,” “no compromise,” “not one inch” attitude? Has your attitude changed at all by your studies of the ultimate purpose of public relations? If so, how and why? Answer” The NRA would probably have a better reputation if it were a bit more flexible in dealings with the opposition. Some of its strong-arm tactics, such as sending negative mailings to the constituencies of congresspeople who don’t endorse certain bills, have angered members of the legislature. In addition, pro-NRA issues are winning by smaller and smaller margins on Capitol Hill. Finally, leaders of the nation’s law enforcement agencies, once vocal supporters of the NRA, are now taking issue with the organization. Much of the public relations philosophy concerns building relationships, even with those who oppose you. By continuing in this vein, NRA leaders have succeeded in strengthening the resistance against them. As an overall strategy, therefore, the “take no prisoners” approach (extreme no compromise) can really only be successful for a time—until public backlash occurs. With continual modification and compromise, the organization and its purpose can remain intact and strong. For those who hold to a hard line on the gun issue (on either side) and those who hold to a hard line on birth control (either way), what similarities and differences do you find in the basis of their convictions? In their strategy and tactics? Answer: Both the pro-life and pro-gun sides are unwavering in their convictions. Neither side makes any room for compromise on their issue. Also, both issues are based in strong personal beliefs and really have no right or wrong answer. They are different in that pro-life activists will use any tactic to keep an abortion from happening—including hurting another person. They frequently condone such actions, unlike the NRA, which uses more subtle tactics and tries to get their message understood. The NRA even has the policy of “laying low” during incidents where it knows it will be criticized. Both pro-life and pro-gun advocates see the value in communicating to decision-makers. Both do it through letter-writing campaigns. Using the definitions of a public issue and a crisis given in the introduction to this chapter, which of the following would you consider issues, which crises and which are neither? Answer: Abortion rights - issue Gun control - issue Integrity in public office - an issue in general and occasionally becomes a crisis Insurance rates - in some cases this may be an issue, but is not usually emotionally charged enough Crime rates - the rates are an issue and specific incidents can be crisis Drug usage - an issue Can you think of a strategy that the NRA could take in order to influence the public along its line of thinking? What strategies are used that soften the position? That strengthen it? Answer: If the NRA would loosen up a bit and allow for discussions of possible compromise, there is a good chance they would get more of mainstream America on their side. Their unwavering position against any and all legislation suggests they know they are wrong and stand to lose it all. Their approach to gun rights is antagonistic at times and alienates possible supporters. The NRA could find out why people aren’t supporting it and then address those concerns on a local level. Was this case presented in a biased manner? Give evidence for your position. This type of analysis is a regular task of public relations practitioners preparing plans and strategies. Answer: Obviously, the authors believe they have presented the information as objectively as possible. The NRA’s side is discussed, with the history of the organization, financial information, and discussion of the group’s strategy. The material doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the authors, but a mere presentation of facts as presented by the NRA itself. How can a group with only 10 to 15 percent of the public supporting its views (which has historically been the case with the NRA) be so powerful? Why would officeholders listen to its views? What strategies do you feel enable such a minority view to prevail for so long? What must the Brady Campaign and others opposed to unregulated gun ownership do to successfully make their case? Answer: As we learned in the chapter introduction, a vocal minority frequently prevails. The NRA’s efforts have focused intensely on backing politicians who do not favor restrictive gun legislation. It also gets their attention by flooding them with telegrams to oppose legislation that appears to be leading to federal gun control legislation. Another tactic the NRA utilizes is to lay low publicly any time a shocking crime, such as the shooting of a public figure, takes place. Officeholders listen to these views because it’s likely that they outnumber contacts from the opposition. Again, remember the active, vocal minority. The Brady Campaign and similar groups need to make themselves heard, either by combining groups to be a larger voice, or by at least coordinating efforts to get to the decision-makers. Case 8-4 UNITED WAY AND THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA: A QUESTION OF FUNDING This case illustrates how the depth of sincerity evidenced by a public agency can sometimes lead to conflict with another similar entity with equal sincerity, and thereby create public relations problems for everyone involved. The United Way wants to be diverse and inclusive. The Boy Scouts want to adhere to its century-long standards. The law agrees. Good public relations strategies and tactics will determine if society goes along. When laws (as in a Supreme Court decision) conflict with mores (accepted social conduct), how can one decide what is right? Answer: Laws, normally, take precedent over mores. However, this is not totally a legal issue. There is no law that says United Way has to give money to any organization. There are many non-profits, that, for whatever reason, receive no funding from United Way. In cases such as this, one has to do “the right thing for the right reasons.” United Way, to its credit, is sticking up for something in which it believes. That’s where mores come in. Mores are the social standards just below the law in strength. Many times, changing mores predict changing laws. In America today the homosexual community has developed a high profile, and there is a legitimate possibility that in the near future sexual orientation will find itself among other “protected classes” of American society. The Boy Scouts, as a private institution, can establish policies of its choice as well. It, too, is sticking up for something it holds dear. The term “morally straight” has been part of the Scout Oath for 100 years. Both institutions are right—or wrong—depending on one’s point of view. Are the positions of the Boy Scouts and United Way really mutually exclusive? Answer: Certainly not. Some 90 percent of local United Way chapters have no problem continuing to fund local Boy Scout councils. It’s the other 10 percent that have the problem, and even there, it’s not a problem with no resolution. Various funding options, for example, allow both sides to “win” or “save face” with their constituents. Gregg Shields rightly points out that in most communities, the Boy Scout leaders and United Way leaders are one and the same. Common sense can reduce this issue to a non-issue at most local levels. Discuss the strategy of United Way America pushing decisions down to the local-chapter level. Answer: The decision to make this a “local option” was a wise strategy for United Way to establish. A broad, national policy against the Boy Scouts would have been a disaster for both sides. Donors would have to make a choice—a choice most of them were loath to make. Everyone would be hurt, and no one would benefit. By making this a local decision, the United Way allows chapters who feel strongly about the issue to take a stand while enabling those where it isn’t a pressing problem to go along as usual. If you were PR counsel to the Boy Scouts of America, what advice would you offer? Answer: The Boy Scouts are pursuing a sound PR strategy already. BSA is maintaining its “morally straight” posture while becoming more inclusive and diverse. Entries into demographics currently underserved—such as African-Americans and Hispanics—not only offer opportunities to increase membership, but also make BSA more inclusive and diverse. This posture plays well with a public that is being asked to see BSA as bigoted and discriminatory. If you were PR counsel to United Way, what advice would you offer? Answer: The United Way has more serious public relations problems than does BSA. One might get the feeling that UW opened a can of worms that it might want to re-cap. Five years into the “anti-discriminatory” policy, only 10 percent of local United Way Chapters subscribe to the policy. And, among the 10 percent that do, many are finding ways to continue to fund BSA councils, even while subscribing to the policy on paper. Other chapters that once followed the policy are now restoring funding to the BSA. One might advise the United Way to “make up its mind” once and for all on the policy. If there is deep support for the policy, then stay the course. If the support within UW is lukewarm, then revisions might be in order. Here is where some good research will help. United Way Worldwide should spend the money to determine what perceptions and behaviors have resulted from the policy so far. Are these the perceptions and behaviors that UWW wants? What competitive forces are at work here? Are competitors taking advantage of the situation to eat into UWW’s power base—American corporations? What do donors think? Is this giving reluctant donors a reason to stop donating? Are they shifting to a competitive effort? Are they managing their own donations to charities of their choice? Any advice should rest on the results of thorough research, and this is a good example of that. Case 8-5 MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING—MADD Support groups are often a source of comfort and understanding for people who have had emotional or tragic experiences. In addition to providing this base of assistance, support groups can work to promote awareness and education about public issues. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is one such organization that assists victims and also raises awareness in the community. MADD was an organization established by one who had suffered a great tragedy because of the carelessness of a drunk driver. Today the organization has been extremely successful in exacting changes in societal attitude against drunk driving. What does their success indicate about relationships formed when people who have suffered the same tragedy band together? Answer: Consider the old saying, “misery loves company.” MADD’s success illustrates that people form bonds more easily with others who share their experiences—particularly emotional experiences. When tragedy is involved, a major support base can be found in others who sympathize, understand, and know firsthand what the experience is like. These bonds are stronger than those formed between people without the emotional connection or similar experiences. In regard to MADD’s success, people who are bound by emotion are continually reminded of that bond, reminded of the reason they were brought together. That reinforcement makes the group that much stronger as a whole unit and more committed to their cause, whether it be enacting change or preserving something. Can you think of another organization that was formed because of an emotion-laden circumstance? Has it been as successful as MADD? Explain you answer. Answer: Very few organizations come to mind as quickly as MADD. This is not to say that there are no programs out there that have been as successful as MADD in building community awareness or in advocating social reform, such organizations surely do exist. There are several organizations devoted to finding missing children, coalitions formed for AIDS awareness and support, and programs for abused and battered women. MADD is unique, however, in its nationwide recognition and familiarity, while many of the other organizations are most familiar at the local level and in their particular communities. The success of any of these organizations depends on how they are perceived and supported by the public, how well-developed they are and how active the members are. MADD’s success is, in part, due to the active participation and commitment of its members and the sympathetic support received from the public. The scope of MADD’s success is reflected in the fact that there are more than 400 MADD chapters nationwide and continually increasing membership. What other communication vehicles could MADD utilize to spread its message? What are they? Answer: In reviewing the list of communication vehicles that MADD already uses, it appears that many of them are reactive. While the support and assistance that the organization provides for victims of drunk driving and their families is very valuable, it is also important to curb the initial drunk driving behavior. On the local level, MADD could work with restaurants and bars to establish a designated driver program, offering free nonalcoholic beverages or even a free meal to those designated drivers. Some places do offer this sort of “reward” for sober drivers during the holiday season, but it is a program that needs to be implemented in more establishments—and not just on holidays. Similar to MADD’s Project Red Ribbon, which works at the point of behavior, a “table tent” campaign could be implemented in bars and restaurants as well. These MADD-sponsored reminders about the dangers and consequences of drinking and driving could be placed on tables and at the bar, where people who are drinking will see them. Another proactive communications effort could be made at the high school level. MADD could work in conjunction with the student organization, SADD, to promote awareness and education. As seen in MADD’s victim impact panels, real-life anecdotes send a powerful message to the public; perhaps bringing a similar program into the schools would impact teenagers before they decide to drink and drive. In addition to educating young people, the organizations could provide them with an alternative to drinking and driving. Local MADD and SADD chapters could sponsor dances, carnivals, movie nights, sports events, any non-alcoholic functions that fall within their budget and spark an interest in the teenage population. By creating such activities, MADD would not only express concern for teenage drinking, but also reaffirm their position as a supportive advocate in the community. Now that social media is the channel of choice for young people, MADD can take advantage of Twitter, especially, to communicate its messages, programs, and projects. Younger drivers are more prone to impaired driving, texting while driving, etc. They should be good targets for a well-developed social media campaign. It is important to note that many of these ideas do already exist in some communities. If they were implemented on a nationwide basis, however, it might influence behavior change on a more noticeable scale. As society begins to “forget” as drunk driving fatalities decrease, romanticizing drinking has returned. Shows such as “ Mad Men” glorify the drinking culture. Liquor ads are once again allowed on television. What would you recommend MADD to do going forward to counteractr these mixed messages? Answer: MADD should continue to apply pressure “up the line” on drinking and driving. Holding bars, restaurants, servers, etc. personally liable for drunk drivers is going to help control how many drunks there are to drive. Also, MADD needs to continue to work the legislative and judicial levels to make punishment swift and certain when people are caught driving drunk. Mandating ignition lockout devices after one offense would stop a large percent of drunks from driving. MADD should also remember the value of “symbolic” communications and seek to find opportunities to reinforce what it has accomplished, and still needs to accomplish, using such communication. The persuasion has occurred. Social mores have changed. Now the focus needs to be on legal consequences and engineered solutions. Problem 8-A A SMOKEOUT CAN BE A HOT POTATO You are a first year employee at W.L. Fixit Associates, a public relations firm in Piedmont, North Carolina, a city of 40,000 people that has long thrived on tobacco growing and manufacturing. Mr. Fixit started the agency 10 years earlier after handling communications for the local Chamber of Commerce. He is well-known and knows everybody who is important in the region. You’re doing well. You’ve just been advanced to Associate Account Executive and been assigned the Piedmont General Hospital as your very own client. Among other clients of the agency are a nearby college, a large resort hotel, a new downtown shopping mall, and the United Way. At the hospital, you’re helping them deal with complaints about the high cost of health care, as well as promoting greater use of a new daycare adjunct, annual fundraising, and employee morale. One day in August, the Fixit senior account executive comes into your office and says, “You’re about to get your first sticky wicket to handle.” He tells you that the United Way has committed to implement the “Great American Smokeout” annual event of the American Cancer Society and has asked the Fixit agency to implement it with all their clients. Mr. Fixit feels that the agency could duck out by pleading a conflict of interest, but with a public health issue like this that would do the agency more harm than coming up with a plan that has a chance of keeping everybody happy. Your supervisor tells you, “It will be your job to come up with a catchy, contagious one-day event at Piedmont General.” He hands you a packet that explains the Smokeout concept of affecting smokers’ behavior, and suggests ways to get the cooperation of various organizations, tie in local public health officials and other community leaders, attract the media, instruct those in the facilities how to prepare, make it a fun event, recognize and reward those who abstain for a day, and measure the success. The packet includes examples such as the organization that gave out survival kits including chewing gum and candy, another that put baskets of apples all around, another that set up smokeeaters in designated smoke areas, another that removed cigarette vending machines on Smokeout Day, and another that sent a congratulatory letter from the president to each smoker employee who reported successfully abstaining on Smokeout Day. Then the account supervisor threw the curve. “This is no piece of cake,” he said. “Your hospital’s largest contributor is the tobacco company over in Winston. There’s a wing named for their founder, Colonel Piedmont. Also, have you noticed that the Piedmont’s administrator is a chain smoker? That’s why all the major committee meetings are held out on the penthouse roof in good weather. You’ve got to come up with an event that makes us look good enough to nonsmokers and the United Way without doing damage to our relationship with the hospital administration. Maybe you can persuade them there is a trade-off for them. As for smokers and the tobacco industry around here, don’t do anything that could cause permanent alienation. Mr. Fixit wouldn’t mind landing a tobacco account someday, and tobacco companies are branching out more and more into food products.” He added, “Mull it over. If you can’t involve both sides working with each other, at least figure out a project in which neither’s ox is gored so badly they have to fight back. Put your ideas down on paper with a reasonable objective; keep in mind that United Way isn’t a big spending account; list what’s new and newsworthy about your event, and explain what you have built into the plan to protect against seriously riling tobacco people, including General Piedmont’s family, who made their millions on tobacco. Give me a call in ten days and we’ll take a look together at what you’ve come up with.” As you start thinking about a solution to this situation, you remember that the basis of a successful message strategy: Emphasizes the benefit statement Avoids stiffening the resistance Asks for a willing suspension of disbelief With this in mind, what further background research will you do before you start defining the objectives and activities of your program? Who will you talk to, what concerns do you anticipate, and how will you deal with them? Answer: Further background research should include speaking directly to the key publics—the hospital administration, the United Way, a representative from the tobacco industry—anyone who might have an interest in your program. Give them all a “heads-up” on your program ideas and find out what suggestions or objectives these publics might have. It may be that the tobacco industry and/or hospital administration will support your program if they can see the potential for improving their own public reputations—you won’t know whether to count them as supporters or opponents until you speak with them. Let the United Way know that there are potential problems in trying to conduct this program at the hospital, mainly due to the contributions of the tobacco company and the smoking habits of Peidmont’s administrator. Be honest and upfront with the United Way about the uncertainty of the program’s success. Communicate with the publics involved on all sides of this issue. Let them know that you understand and respect their concerns and hesitations, but that you are interested in working out a compromise that is pleasing to all. If you ask for input from these publics on organizing, preparing, and running the event, they might appreciate that you want them involved. Let these groups know there is potential gain for them, too, in being associated with this public program. As a public relations practitioner, you should be prepared for concerns of self-interest from all key publics. By identifying potential problems before a conflict arises and communicating with the various publics in the interest of a compromise, those concerns would likely be less of a threat to your program’s success. Using the feedback from this research, define the objectives of your program and describe and explain how the proposed activities will support your communications strategy; include some means of measuring the success in obtaining your objectives. Answer: Some basic program objectives: Create awareness of your event, especially among smokers who wish to quit or have tried to quit. Use this public awareness to induce behavior change—convince people to stop smoking. Come to some sort of an agreement for the implementation of your program that is satisfactory for all key publics. Avoid irritating community supporters, such as the tobacco industry. Also, focus your campaign on helping those who wish to quit, rather than assaulting those who do not care to stop smoking. To measure your program’s success, use face-to-face public interviews on the day of the program. Find out if the program was effective, how well the public thought it was presented, if it was worthwhile, etc. A head count could be done at the event as well, to determine attendance rates and survey community interest. A feedback survey could also be set up for your key publics, to find out what they thought of the program and whether their concerns were validated. This survey would also let them know that your concern for their views and opinions didn’t end when the important day was over. Do you see any ethical issues that might arise in handling this situation? If you do, how would you deal with them? Answer: In the unlikely event that a healthcare facility would receive major funding from a tobacco company, it would be ethically questionable for that healthcare facility to promote nonsmoking. Piedmont Hospital, largely supported by the local tobacco company, is being asked to host the Great American Smokeout event. That appears to be a conflict of interest. W.L. Fixit Associates implementing the nonsmoking campaign with all of its clients could be a potential ethical issue. The Smokeout event is favorable as a public health campaign, but the public relations firm enacting such a program with other clients at the request of the United Way is questionable. The United Way does not have any authority to dictate what other organizations do or do not support, and it is ultimately Mr. Fixit’s choice whether or not he wants to pursue the project. In any situation where an ethics issue should arise, it would be the judgment of the public relations practitioner and the firm whether or not to take the case. If you are uncomfortable with an issue, or don’t agree with your client’s actions or beliefs, it will be difficult for you to do a successful job for them. As always, any situation that violates the Code of Ethics is not one that you want to pursue as a public relations practitioner. Problem 8-B REFEREEING A NEW KIND OF GAME After earning three letters for sports at Louisiana State University, you were sidelined by a knee injury that kept you out of the professional draft. Fortunately, your journalism/public relations major helped you land a good job with Dorino, Marion public relations agency. The firm does some work for professional sports teams and suppliers and has good connections in the state capital. They also have a reputation for public service assistance to nonprofit organizations. You like it at Dorino, Marion. They like you. The main account you personally handle is the subcommittee of the Mardi Gras, which brings in celebrities for the annual event. Your work tends to be seasonal except for periodic planning meetings, some out-of-town contacts and some correspondence, so you have considerable spare time. That situation changed suddenly one day, when the agency was approached to take on the public relations problems arising from the actions of Brother Omans, the charismatic, activist minister of the local Bible-for-Everybody. It seems that Omans, with the active support of a doctor who wrote an anti-abortion book, has challenged the activities of the local Birth Control Institute Inc., an affiliate of Planned Parenthood International. They are known to perform and arrange abortions. Brother Omans has notified the institute by mail that its “committing murders” and that it risks “harsh judgment” in which proper penalties can be imposed. He has led a picketing group, some of whose members went beyond passing out pamphlets to shouting at clients heading into the institute. Mrs. Safeway, head of the institute, has gone to the police for protection. The police say that the pickets do not trespass as long as they stay on the sidewalk, that they have the right of assembly and freedom of speech. If and when Brother Omans or his constituents break any law, they will be apprehended. Mrs. Safeway is concerned that this reactive attitude may allow further escalation of potential violence. She therefore approaches Dorino, Marion to ask for advice in seeking a more proactive approach to the situation. You are assigned the task of analyzing the situation and coming up with a proactive approach as a public service of your agency. You know that Louisiana favors restricting abortion rights and probably would, if it were legal, forbid any abortion except in very narrow circumstances. To get your facts straight, even before you go to see Mrs. Safeway, you talk to a member of the local media with whom you went to school. He tells you that Brother Omans set up shop locally about eight years ago. A profile the newspaper did on him shows that he has had quite a career. At one time he was a circus barker hailing originally from San Antonio, Texas, traveled through the southern Bible Belt, became a minister, and then moved to New Orleans. If he had anything in his background of moral turpitude, or assets, there is nothing about it in the newspaper morgue. From other sources, you find that in the past eight years, Brother Omans, from the pulpit, has taken on or opposed witches, homosexuals, pornography, X-rated movies, the “mercy death” of a 93 year old comatose man, Mormon missionaries in general, and any women who go into politics. Armed with this information, you go to see Mrs. Safeway at the Birth Control Institute. She’s scared. There have been so many instances of bombing or arson at Planned Parenthood clinics, she can envision some of Brother Omans’s constituents making her place a target. She has notified the Planned Parenthood national office. She has read their Clinic Defense Manual and notified the appropriate offices in New Orleans of her concern. She hopes you can do something to calm the situation down, but not antagonize Brother Omans, his doctor supporter, or his followers. She appreciates that your agency has agreed to take on this project as a public service. You respect her professionalism, but recognize that some of her actions have themselves been adversarial. Back at your office, you talk it over with your boss. You agree that there are such strong feelings on both sides that it would be tough to marshal enough neutral public opinion to induce a reconciliation without at the same time arousing special interests with strong bias toward a confrontation or worse. “This looks like one of those situations calling for a brainstorming session at the agency, bringing together representatives of groups with a stake in peaceful coexistence and no axe to grind on abortion,” your boss says. “Maybe we can get a strategic plan out of the session. If not, it will put Brother Omans on notice that some important people are watching him, and it may reassure Mrs. Safeway that she isn’t about to be bombed.” Your boss instructs you to make up an invitation list of about fifteen organizations, starting with city hall, the police department and the county medical society, a brief statement of the meeting’s purpose, and a tentative agenda for the meeting. “When you get those done, let me have a look,” your boss says. Before you start on this project, what issues affecting other members of the firm and the firm’s reputation in the community might you want to discuss with your supervisor? How would you suggest dealing with them? Answer: Abortion is an extremely controversial subject because people generally have a strong personal belief one way or another. Members of your firm are entitled to their own personal views as well, and they may not all be in favor of working for the Birth Control Institute. You would want to take into consideration what this project could do to your firm’s reputation in the community. It is stated in the problem that, overall, Louisiana is not in favor of abortion—chances are that this sentiment is reflected in your local community to some extent, and it might be disruptive to that community to take this case. You may want to start with an internal meeting to discuss the client’s needs and the firm’s position. It is best to be upfront with your coworkers, to inform them of the situation before they hear about it somewhere else. In dealing with this issue, position your firm in the middle. Present your role as that of a mediator, not a player for one side or the other. If members of your firm, as well as community members, see you trying to resolve a potentially volatile situation without choosing sides, it would encourage them to view your participation as neutral. The first question to answer may be, “What publics are we concerned about? What will this initial meeting do to serve them?” In order to plan a strategy, you must first define the objectives of your project and the publics you are trying to assist. Do you agree with the suggestion that the invitations list should include city hall and the police department? If so, why? If not, on what basis would you suggest omitting them? Answer: It would be a good idea to bring in some sort of law enforcement interests, as this is an emotional, and in some cases violent, conflict. The police should be aware of what is being proposed so that they can be prepared to offer any alternatives to your plan that they might find necessary. On top of an already debatable project, you don’t want to start a controversy with the police and city hall by not keeping them informed or asking for their input. Would you include Mrs. Safeway or Brother Omans or both in this initial meeting? What could be the positive and negative results of having them there? Answer: Some of the negative results of having Mrs. Safeway and Brother Omans at the initial meeting are that their presence might detract from the purpose of the meeting, and there would undoubtedly be some strong feelings between the two of them. It would be only natural for each to try to persuade the group that their perspective is the correct one, and that would jeopardize the neutrality of your core group. On the other hand, without representation from the two sides, your core group participants may not be as quick to “buy in” on the project. It is probable that your attendees might expect to meet and talk with the two key players that have brought the issue to light. Without Brother Omans and Mrs. Safeway at the initial meeting to present their respective sides, the issue would lose some of its urgency and importance. Regardless of whether Safeway and Omans are invited to the meeting, remember that you would never want to invite one without the other, at the risk of appearing biased. 4. What would be your list of invitees, the statement to invitees, and the agenda? Answer: The list of invitees might include: city hall, the police department, a representative from the county medical society, someone from the school board, and any other important opinion leaders in the community. If possible, it would be beneficial to invite someone associated with a local church, if they could remain impartial to the issue. Similarly, inviting a Planned Parenthood representative would provide the group with valuable information, but that representative would have to remain unbiased. At least in the early planning stages, it would be a good idea to keep the core group small. With a select group of individuals, there is less chance of the issue getting out of hand and for personal opinions to enter the picture. A three-ring circus will not accomplish anything. The statement of the meeting’s purpose should include the following key points: We are trying to formulate a strategic plan for the resolution of this issue. No one (in the group) is taking sides on the issue—just trying to work out a solution that is satisfactory for both sides. We do not want this issue to become a hot topic of public debate. We do want to nip it in the bud before it becomes a larger conflict than it is. The resolution does not necessarily have to be ideal for either side, but should provide a nonviolent, nonthreatening solution. A benefit statement for the community participants, letting them know how they will benefit by getting involved. The meeting agenda should be designed to include all of the key elements in a format that allows open communication within the group. 5. What would be your recommendation in alerting or not alerting the media and dealing with the possibility of a premature leak? Answer: At the point of the initial meeting, there really isn’t much information to leak. To avoid escalating the issue and bringing it to the forefront of public debate, do not alert the media before you really have something newsworthy to tell them. If, for example, a reasonable plan for resolution is developed in the initial meeting, then let the media know that. Unless there is some sort of action being taken or some steps made toward a solution, it is not necessary for the media to become involved. That involvement would potentially stir up public sentiment on the issue and strengthen the conflict. Problem 8-C ANTICIPATING EMERGING ISSUES With a staff meeting scheduled for Friday, it leaves less than a week to get a recommendation in place concerning the school name (and probably mascot, too). The first step in determining a recommendation is to do some research on the name and its status with students and alumni of the school. It is beneficial to have a good relationship with the alumni association so a call to the current president is met with appreciation, if not enthusiasm. She, too, has probably heard rumblings about politically correct nicknames, and is likely not happy with those who would change a long-time tradition at the school. She probably believes these people are just looking to flex the newly found power delivered by the “PC” crowd. She should agree to quickly assemble the past president’s council for a focus group. Any practitioner would be apprehensive about facing this group with the suggestion that the name be changed, but time is running out. It has to be done. It would be wise to assemble the student council, national honor society, and grade-level presidents for an informal focus group. Explain that there are those outside the school who find the term “Braves” demeaning to Native Americans. Ask their opinions about this, and the advisability of changing the name to something less offensive. If this group is pretty open-minded, one could project some understanding, but some will be doubtful that changing the school’s team name will do anything to improve the self-esteem of Native Americans. Try to get them to go back to their respective organizations, seek opinions, and then meet the next day after school for their reports. That night, the alumni presidents’ group will be a tough crowd. They have been out of school for as long as 20 years, and history has always been as important to them as their memories of their school days. They’ll see no reason to change the nickname, but should agree to listen to any suggestions. The next day, expect the students to report that losing the “Braves” name would upset most of the current students, but, like the alumni, they should be willing to listen to any suggested alternative. Don’t contact the Find Another Name (FAN) organization yet; keep that door closed for now. Once you start conversations with a group like this, it’s hard to stop without meeting its expectations. Until it’s time to agree or disagree with them, do not include them in the research. It is clear from this research that an issues anticipation committee or task force is warranted. This is a potentially divisive issue that needs thoughtful consideration, and it likely won’t be the last such issue the school must contend with, given today’s social activist bent. As you begin preparing the report, try to think of a way to maintain the loyalty and support of alumni, current students, and the many fans the school has in the community. The Braves issue won’t go away just because those close to the school want to keep the historic team name, and these groups don’t want the school influenced by people without a direct link to, or a stake in, the school. One way to appease both sides of this issue is to find a team name that is acceptable to all. It is evident that “Braves” won’t be accepted by FAN, but both groups might like the collective name “BRAVE.” That should be the recommendation to the Board. Such names have been around for some time. The University of Southern California, for example, is known as the “Cardinal.” This is not the bird; it’s the color. The Utah team in the NBA is known as the “Jazz” which is really a holdover from when the team was in New Orleans. In Orlando, the NBA team is known as the “Magic.” Using the term “Brave” would allow students, alumni, and fans to continue to have a familiar and popular name. Now it would represent the valiant, the stalwart, and the courageous, rather than a word that stereotypes American Indians. Although time is running out, offer that idea to the alumni association president and the student body president and ask them to solicit opinions from their peers. Tell them of the Friday deadline and request that they get back to you ASAP. As Friday approaches, draft the report. The first item is the recommendation that the school appoint an issue anticipation committee. Be willing to head the committee and ask that alumni, current students and opinion leaders be included. The committee would meet monthly, with individual members charged with daily monitoring of the social, technical, political, and economic environments locally, with an eye to spotting any trends that might impact the school or its stakeholders. The second recommendation is that the Board approve changing the school’s team name from “Braves” to “Brave.” Explain why this is up for discussion; relate any conversations with students and alumni, and the rationale for recommending the change. Ask the Board’s permission to work with the FAN group if changing the name is approved. With the Board’s permission, the issue anticipation committee will be formed and help map a strategy and tactics involved in officially changing the school name (assuming that recommendation is accepted as well). At the appropriate time, school officials, students, and alumni will join with FAN in announcing the new name and the rationale behind the decision. Such a joint announcement should satisfy most people and the issue anticipation team can retreat to take care of the tasks assigned to it. Solution Manual for Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and Problems Allen H. Center, Patrick Jackson, Stacey Smith, Frank R. Stansberry 9780132341363, 9780136138037, 9780130981530, 9780137384778
Download
Close
Close
