Author: mlavens

1. What do you think of JetBlue’s response to it crisis?
I think they responded well for what was happening.  As stated in the case study, it may have been a bit late, but they communicated and that’s a key element to have when faced with a crisis.  I think because so much communication occurred they responded well to the crisis.

2. What else could the airline have done on February 14?
What I’ve seen most airlines do is cancel or delay the flights that are somehow involved with the problem.  If JetBlue was worried about the connecting flights with the New York issue, they could have rerouted some of the flights.  They also could have given the passengers other options.  Many airlines will cancel the flight then schedule them on a flight going out the next day or some will put them on another partner airline.  I don’t know if JetBlue had a sister airline, but I’m sure there would have been a way to reroute the passengers that needed to get out immediately, so that the back ups didn’t last a week.

3. How would you characterize the airline’s positioning of its CEO?
I think it was good he apologized time and time again.  Although this problem was not directly his fault, he still had to be the one to take responsibility for what happened.

4. What is the added JetBlue public relations challenge going to forward?
JetBlue is a relatively new airline compared to Southwest, Delta, or American Airlines meaning they’re going to have to prove themselves a bit more since the incident.  I think since this issue occurred, passengers that fly with JetBlue are going to expect that the kinks have been worked out and something like this won’t happen again.  I’m sure they’ll also expect good communication from the airline and its PR department if something does go wrong based on what happened in 2007.

1. Had you been McCain’s PR advisor, what would you have counseled him relative to third party supporters, debate cancellation, Michigan pullout, and the choice for VP?
I think McCain needed to find third-party supporters that were strong supports of him and his ideas for presidency.  I don’t think the debate cancellation was a smart move.  I would have advised him to reschedule it.  Also, I think that the pullout was a mistake.  I would have advised him to make an effort to campaign because pulling out raised questions of defeat.  I think his choice of VP is his decision. I would have advised him by letting him know this is going to be very controversial, but if that’s who he thinks will be the best for his VP then it’s his choice.  I would make him aware of how the public may see this choice, but I would not make the decision for him.

2. Had you been Barack Obama’s PR advisor, how would you have handled the San Francisco flap?
I would have had a press conference held so that Obama could have publicly  apologize and admit his mistake.

3. In term of lessons learned – from both the campaign and the experienced of his predecessor – were you President Obama’s communication advisor, what PR principles would you counsel him to follow in the White House?
I would advise him to plan ahead and be very prepared and up to date on information.  I would also advise him communicate important messages with the public.  He also needs to remember what he’s said in the past, so that when an issue revisits itself, he’s prepared from last time.

1. What are the ethical implications of the CEO’s anonymous postings about the competition?
Two ethical guidelines come to mind with this situation.  The first is honesty.  Obviously, Mackey was not being honest with the public due to the fact he posted these blog entries anonymously.  The other is fairness.  In the PRSA Member Code of Ethics, it states “we deal fairly with clients, employers, competitors, peers, vendors, the media, and the general public.”  In that statement it clearly says to deal with the competition in a fair way.  Posting blog entries that smash the competition is not being fair to them.  He may have these opinions about the competition, but keeping them private would be better.

2. Would Mackey have been better off signing his name to the postings?
It’s hard to say whether or not it would have been better if he signed his name.  Yes, he’d be honest with the public by letting them know who is responsible for the blog posts, but at the same time, if had signed his name it could hurt his business.  If followers of the blog realized that Mackey was bashing the competition, that may reflect negatively on Whole Foods.  Seeing a blog isn’t a reliable and creditable source, I don’t think he needed to sign his name.  There are going to be people who believe what he posted and who don’t believe what he posted regardless of if he signed his name or not.

3. If you had been PR director at Whole Foods, what would you have advised the CEO as to his Web postings and his blog?
Once the news came out about the blog posts I would advise him admit to the posts and that they are opinion statements.  I would also inform him of how blogs can have positive or negative effects on a company and if he wants to continue to post blog entries they’re going to have to provide the public with positive information and give the company a good name.  One company should not be knocking down another company.  In the end, it’s going to make Whole Foods look bad.

1. Would you let 60 Minutes in?
I would let 60 Minutes in.  They’re already there pushing their way in, so it could turn out worse in the end if they’re basically forced out.  If they’re not allowed in it gives them reason to believe something bad is going on, and make it look bad on Chase in the end.

2. Would you let them film the press conference?
Seeing they’re already there, I don’t see any issue with letting them in.  If it’s a press conference there shouldn’t be anything going on that needs to be hidden from the press or the public, so I don’t think it’s an issue if 60 Minutes was there filming.  As it said in the case study, the cameras could be noisy or distracting, but in the end, I think that’s only minor and filming it wouldn’t be a major issue.

3. Would you let them film the cocktail party?
Personally, I don’t think they should be filming the cocktail party.  It’s basically the reception after the press conference meaning all the important stuff was already said during that and they wouldn’t need to film it.  I would allow the members of 60 Minutes to attend it, but not film it.

4. Would you let them film a separate interview with the president?
I would let the president decide if he wanted to do a separate interview.  This would not be something I would schedule for the president to do.  After all, he would have already spoke at the press conference and may not want to conduct another interview afterwards.  If he wanted to, that’s fine, but otherwise I don’t think a separate interview should be done.

5. Would you change the format of the party?
From the sense I got from the case study, it wouldn’t seem like there’s much time to change the party.  The cocktail party is suppose to be casual and relaxed.  Seeing I chose not to allow the cameras in I don’t think it would be necessary to change party.  If anything the only change I would make is business casual attire instead of just casual.

6. How does the American Bankers Association (ABA) deal with the media today? What resources can members of the press access on this site?  How does ABA make it easy for reporters to make contact?
When going to the website listed, it doesn’t look like the ABA does much to deal with the media.  They’re given resources, but that’s about it.  There are a number of resources listed on the site that the press can access consisting of new releases, issues of interest, and other general information. In order to contact people, they’re  basically gives links that direct people to someone else to handle their questions.

1. After Browne Sanders went public with her charges, what PR options did MSG have? What PR strategies should MSG have taken?
I think that after she went public with the charges, MSG needed to make a statement about what happened.  If the public is only hearing from Browne Sanders that’s the story they’re going to know and believe.  If MSG communicated with the public by letting them know they’re looking into the case, and going to take care of the problem once the facts have been presented, they may have been able to avoid going to court.  The key thing that needed to be done was communicate.

2. What were the PR considerations for MSG and how did they differ from legal considerations?
The PR considerations were that communication needed to take place within MSG.  If the accused parties came forward and took responsibility for what happened the case could have stayed out of court and settled quietly, which would also make the company look better.   Because the case went to court, the legal considerations are different because the focus is placed on the clients.  Lawyers are paid to fight for their own party.  Because Browne Sanders put up a stronger fight than the MSG party, they were able to win the case.

3. If you were advising James Dolan on his video  testimony, what would you have advised him to wear? How would you have advised him to act?
I would have advised him to wear a suit and look presentable.  Even though it’s a video testimony, he still needed to look professional like if he was in court.  And for that matter, he needed to act as if he was in the courtroom. The video screen is presenting him to the court as if he were physically there, therefore, he should act professionally, the way he should if he were physically in the courtroom.

4. In terms of post modern actions after the verdict, what would you advise CEO Dolan?
I think after the verdict I would have pointed out things that were done well with the case, and the things that were done poorly, so that the next time a case of this matter was presented it could be handled better.  Obviously something different needs to be done next time to keep from losing millions of dollars.

1.  What would you have recommended Chairman Rawl do upon learning of the Prince William Sound oil spill?
I would have advised Chairman Rawl to travel to Alaska once he found out about the spill.   In order to take action on the situation I think it would be important for him to see what happened instead of hearing about it from other people.  Especially when it got to the point that he was unable to find someone to brief him on what was going on.  If he traveled to Alaska then he would have been able to get the information first hand.

2. How would you have handled the media in this case?
In this case, I would use the media to get the public involved and find out what they think about the situation, and keep a two-way path of communication with them.  I want to  know how they feel, and I want to keep them informed with what’s going on to deal with the oil spill.

3. What would have been your timing in terms of public relations responses in this case?
I would have wanted to get the information out as soon as possible.  I think that Exxon should have responded as soon as possible.  The longer they wait, the more it seems to the public that they’re not very concerned about the issue at hand.

4. What would be your overall public relations strategy if you were Exxon’s public relations director?
I would have taken a middle-of-the-road strategy because it’s important to let the public know what’s going on and what’s being done to solve it, but it shouldn’t be taken too far like with the aggressive approach.  Taking too strong of a strategy could backfire and upset more people.  On the other side, a low key strategy could upset people as well because it could seem like Exxon wasn’t doing enough to help.  This is why I think a middle-of-the-road approach is best.

5. Do you think this case will ever qualify as a “textbook example” of what not to do in a crisis?
I believe it is.  After all, the situation was handled poorly.  Although, even if it is a textbook example of what not to do, it seems like it didn’t impact much.  Seeing the recent BP oil spill had been handled poorly, maybe even worse than the Exxon one, we haven’t learned much from the previous incident.  I think it’s good to have an example like this though, because hopefully enough people will learn from it.

6. Now that Exxon has merged with Mobil, what is the corporation doing about the environment issues?
I was unable to get the website in the book to work.  I was able to find out that their company policy is that they are going to comply with environmental rule and regulations set down by the government, encourage concern and respect for the environment, emphasize every employee’s responsibility in environmental performance, communicate with the public on environmental matters and share its experience with others to facilitate improvements in industry performance.  I also found out that this seems to be a general policy between most gas/oil corporations.

1. Martha kept pretty quiet within her initial response to the public.  In my opinion I think she was trying to maintain what she had left of her reputation.  If she had been very open about it, there’s the chance she could have ruined her reputation and may not have made a come back.

2. I think a key principle she violated was the fact that she didn’t communicate with the public.  Communication is a key factor in public relations.

3. If I had been advising Martha in this case I would have told her how to influence the public’s opinion and keeping her reputation up.  Also, that she needs to have some contact with the public.  She was letting her lawyers speak for her, but I think that to help influence the public, she needed to say something before the jury made their verdict.

4. I’m not exactly sure how important it was for her to go to jail early.  I think she just didn’t want to be done with everything that was going on.  She had been in the news for over two years and if she hadn’t decided to put this behind her, the publicity would have continued longer than it did.  I can understand that she just wanted to get this mess over with as soon as possible.

5. I think having her get right back into things is a smart move.  Coming out of jail people are going to remember that she was sent to prison for obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators, so I think her best move is to show the public she’s back and ready to kick off her career again.  Showing she was coming out of prison a “new Martha Stewart” I think it was good for her to jump back into the spotlight and show the world this didn’t knock him down.

6. As of right now, I don’t think she needs to acknowledge her mistakes.  This happened years ago and it’s out of the media now.  If she did acknowledge the mistake then it’s going to cause the issue to resurface.  As for when this actually happened, it probably would have been good for her to admit a mistake. She handled herself so well throughout the rest of the case, I don’t think it would have reflected negatively on her if she had.

1. If I was the PR person writing the news release for the Raina Inc. to take to the council meeting, I would include the important information in my lead – meaning the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

• Who: The Raina Inc.
• What: The pollution problem caused by the smoke stacks from the factory
• When: Immediately
• Where: Blackrock, Iowa
• Why: The smoke stacks from the factory release black smoke, hazardous to the environment
• How: The Raina Inc. has set aside $2 million on top of the past $5.3 million spent on resolving this situation in order to continue to cut down on pollution

2. I would leave out the bit of information stating “Raina received 500 complaint calls in the past three months protesting its pollution conditions” because the public doesn’t need to know how many complaints there actually were against the company.  I would say that some have been received, but that many makes it seem like the company doesn’t care.  I would also leave out that “Raina originally planned to delay its pollution-abatement program but speeded it up because of public pressure in recent months” because that’s not going to appeal to the audience this news release is aimed.  Finally, the last piece of information I’d omit is the information about Leslie Sludge’s personal life.  This is because it doesn’t focus on the issue of pollution at Raina Inc.

3. If a report called me to ask about the former manager at the Blackrock Raina, I would probably choose my words carefully, and say something like, “He didn’t share the same vision as our new manager in the environmental issues at hand.”  I wouldn’t include how he supposedly stole money from the company and I wouldn’t want to give out any information that would make the company look back.

4. The public always has an opinion.  Since the Internet is constantly used by people all over the world, the majority of people in the town of Blackrock probably use the internet as well, especially if the have an opinion to voice.  I’m sure Raina could research some blogs of people in there area that are voicing their opinions about the situation.  Raina could also create an online survey to send out to the members of the community to find out how they feel.  It would also be important to research how other companies have handled similar situations to the one Raina is currently in.  Raina could also use the internet as a way to let the public know how they feel about the situation, and what they’re going to do.  New releases can be posted online, so that would be a good way to voice the companies position.