Recently Southwest Airlines was ridiculed for kicking a 23 year-old college student off of a flight for wearing scantly clad clothing. Their PR team saved them. Instead of allowing the press to blow all of this way out of proportion, the way they always do, they decided to make it into a joke.
The airlines apologized to the girl, and then began running advertising campaigns making fun of the incident. They also encouraged other women in short skirts to fly Southwest as often as they like.
Radio programs around the nation were also having a ball with the incident, planning stunts where they would gather dozens of short skirted girls onto a southwest flight, just to fly them to a city close to them for lunch.
I must say, as a frequent flyer, I was pretty amused by the whole situation. I wanted to specifically dress risque and go on a Southwest flight, just to see what would happen.
From a PR standpoint, I believe that Southwest did the right thing. They didn't make a scene of it, they just apologized and played along. Really, in a situation like that, you can either make light of it or hold to your flight attendants thoughts on the customers attire and make it a serious matter that the media would eat up.
The best thing was done, and now the situation isn't really talked about anymore. It maybe got two days of negative attention from the media, and the rest after that was all positive thanks to the Southwest PR staff.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Apple IPhone
Apple, where should I begin.
I'm not a consumer of Apple products, in fact I pretty much hate everything Apple. So I'll try and keep my biases out of this and get my venting over with in this paragraph. Here are the things I don't like about Apple: the way they handle their customers (they treat them like income not humans), they don't care about quality (who puts a product out knowing that the consumers will have to send it back in two years because the battery won't last longer than that? I understand it is to make money, but it is careless), and last but not least, I don't care for their empire of products that are dependant on other Apple products. What if I want to use something other than itunes?
After reading the Apple IPhone case I came to the conclusion that they are taking on a communitarianistic viewpoint.
Justice - Justice really hasn't been served in the case of Apple. They are currently violating disability acts because their new phones are not made for people with hearing disabilities. So far they have not responded to any customer complaints and instead take on a "no comment" stance. In this case it is definitely the powerful over the powerless. The Apple empire is worth billions of dollars, I'm thinking that some disgruntled customers will not affect their sales to the extent of bankruptcy, therefore Steve Jobs isn't worrying about it.
Humaneness - In this case Apple is not being humane. They aren't recognizing their customers needs, and are completely overlooking every helpful comment to simply get the product out and make the money. If they would have taken on a good business standpoint they would have acknowledged the hearing impaired when they attended meetings before the release to try and get their product changed, instead they ignored them and in turn ignored that whole sector of the population who could have been brought on as Apple customers. They also ignored their European customers by releasing the IPhone there knowing that the Internet speeds would be slower than in the US. Everything that Apple does revolves around money, not the customer.
Truth - Apple is telling the truth, they warned customers about the battery life of the IPhone, they told people that they were sorry for the price drop and offered something in return to hopefully satisfy their customers, but they failed to take the interests of their customers to heart.
Freedom - They are free to pursue profit. They are a business, that's what businesses do. Sloppy ones do whatever they can no matter what to make more money.
This case hasn't helped my stance on Apple. I originally thought that their $100 rebate was a nice gesture, but after I found out it is only a store credit, I was a little mad. There's nothing like getting store credit instead of cash, instead of using that money to buy something else, you are forced to use that money on Apple products. WooHoo...so what about the people who don't want anything to do with Apple after they screwed them over? I guess they themselves are screwed.
I'm not a consumer of Apple products, in fact I pretty much hate everything Apple. So I'll try and keep my biases out of this and get my venting over with in this paragraph. Here are the things I don't like about Apple: the way they handle their customers (they treat them like income not humans), they don't care about quality (who puts a product out knowing that the consumers will have to send it back in two years because the battery won't last longer than that? I understand it is to make money, but it is careless), and last but not least, I don't care for their empire of products that are dependant on other Apple products. What if I want to use something other than itunes?
After reading the Apple IPhone case I came to the conclusion that they are taking on a communitarianistic viewpoint.
Justice - Justice really hasn't been served in the case of Apple. They are currently violating disability acts because their new phones are not made for people with hearing disabilities. So far they have not responded to any customer complaints and instead take on a "no comment" stance. In this case it is definitely the powerful over the powerless. The Apple empire is worth billions of dollars, I'm thinking that some disgruntled customers will not affect their sales to the extent of bankruptcy, therefore Steve Jobs isn't worrying about it.
Humaneness - In this case Apple is not being humane. They aren't recognizing their customers needs, and are completely overlooking every helpful comment to simply get the product out and make the money. If they would have taken on a good business standpoint they would have acknowledged the hearing impaired when they attended meetings before the release to try and get their product changed, instead they ignored them and in turn ignored that whole sector of the population who could have been brought on as Apple customers. They also ignored their European customers by releasing the IPhone there knowing that the Internet speeds would be slower than in the US. Everything that Apple does revolves around money, not the customer.
Truth - Apple is telling the truth, they warned customers about the battery life of the IPhone, they told people that they were sorry for the price drop and offered something in return to hopefully satisfy their customers, but they failed to take the interests of their customers to heart.
Freedom - They are free to pursue profit. They are a business, that's what businesses do. Sloppy ones do whatever they can no matter what to make more money.
This case hasn't helped my stance on Apple. I originally thought that their $100 rebate was a nice gesture, but after I found out it is only a store credit, I was a little mad. There's nothing like getting store credit instead of cash, instead of using that money to buy something else, you are forced to use that money on Apple products. WooHoo...so what about the people who don't want anything to do with Apple after they screwed them over? I guess they themselves are screwed.
Dallas Cowboys...
Upon reading the Dallas Cowboys story, I have come to believe that there was some under the table exchanging of money. Although we do not have the whole story, I think that McIver was paid to keep quiet. I'm sure they didn't have to pay him much either, since he was probably scared out of his mind that he would lose his job or be blacklisted in the NFL if he ever said anything.
I also believe that what the Cowboys did was ingenious. I by no means support the "no comment" strategy, but in this case it worked. The reason it worked was because an inferior player was involved. He was the one that was the victim, and after the implementation of scare tactics, the team was then able to silence everyone.
As someone who is a fan of football, not necessarily the cowboys, I support what they did. If my team would have had issues with their key players and would have risked losing a season because of something they did, I should hope that they would keep it covered up.
Even though this strategy worked, there could have been many things that went wrong. Someone could have spoken, charges could have been pressed, and then what would be the image of the cowboys? Would they have changed their minds about supporting their key player, or would they have turned on him and kicked him off the team? Football is a business, and in a business you need to do what you have to, to keep it afloat.
I also believe that what the Cowboys did was ingenious. I by no means support the "no comment" strategy, but in this case it worked. The reason it worked was because an inferior player was involved. He was the one that was the victim, and after the implementation of scare tactics, the team was then able to silence everyone.
As someone who is a fan of football, not necessarily the cowboys, I support what they did. If my team would have had issues with their key players and would have risked losing a season because of something they did, I should hope that they would keep it covered up.
Even though this strategy worked, there could have been many things that went wrong. Someone could have spoken, charges could have been pressed, and then what would be the image of the cowboys? Would they have changed their minds about supporting their key player, or would they have turned on him and kicked him off the team? Football is a business, and in a business you need to do what you have to, to keep it afloat.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Genital Cutting
Last semester I wrote a paper on genitle cutting for my anthropology class. I read several papers by distinguished anthropologists, but never realized until I read "Cosmopolitanism" that they were very biased. The papers mainly talked about the horrors of the mutilation, and as I read them I began to feel sad for the women who go through this process.
Appiah takes on a totally different view and brings up points that I never would have thought of. One point he makes is that critics "say it is mutilation, but is that any more than a reflex response to an unfamiliar practice?" He also says, "They say that female circumcision demeans women, but do not seem to think that male circumcision demeans men."
These viewpoints made me realize that it is just a part of their culture, and just because I don't agree with genitle cutting doesn't make it wrong. Since western culture doesn't practice genitle cutting we automatically frown upon it, and based on biased accounts gathered to make the process sound heinous, we judge it and therefore decide that we need to get involved to help stop it. That would be like someone from another country coming to the United States and saying that male circumcision is wrong and that ethically we should not practice it anymore.
What I don't agree with is genitle cutting without consent of the woman. That is what is unethical. A woman should have a say on what kinds of procedures are to be performed on her genitalia. She shouldn't have to suffer just because her husband wants sex to be more pleasurable. It is the same with abortion, a woman should have a choice on the procedures that are to be performed on her body, no one else should get a say in the matter.
Appiah takes on a totally different view and brings up points that I never would have thought of. One point he makes is that critics "say it is mutilation, but is that any more than a reflex response to an unfamiliar practice?" He also says, "They say that female circumcision demeans women, but do not seem to think that male circumcision demeans men."
These viewpoints made me realize that it is just a part of their culture, and just because I don't agree with genitle cutting doesn't make it wrong. Since western culture doesn't practice genitle cutting we automatically frown upon it, and based on biased accounts gathered to make the process sound heinous, we judge it and therefore decide that we need to get involved to help stop it. That would be like someone from another country coming to the United States and saying that male circumcision is wrong and that ethically we should not practice it anymore.
What I don't agree with is genitle cutting without consent of the woman. That is what is unethical. A woman should have a say on what kinds of procedures are to be performed on her genitalia. She shouldn't have to suffer just because her husband wants sex to be more pleasurable. It is the same with abortion, a woman should have a choice on the procedures that are to be performed on her body, no one else should get a say in the matter.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Does Everybody Matter? What about the people within corporate America's supply chains?
Yes, everyone matters. If everyone didn't matter than what kind of world would we live in? I admit in the past and even today certain groups of people have decided that others aren't as worthy as they are of having a normal life. They are imprisoned or judged because of their beliefs. Take the famous examples of Nazi Germany, slaves, or even people within corporate America's supply chains. These examples have allowed most of us to learn from that behavior, and I believe that we are slowly shedding our ethnocentric views for that of a cosmopolitanism belief that we are all "human" and can "learn from each other's differences".
Although it would be nice to have everyone take on a cosmopolitanism belief, not everyone can fathom the idea of equality. Some people have been brought up with certain beliefs, and after a certain time period it gets harder and harder to change those instilled beliefs. In a perfect world, if everyone was brought up with these views, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately I'm going to take a pessimistic view and say that this will never happen. There will always be someone who will believe their race, religion, etc. to be better than another. Therefore, although I think everyone matters, not everyone will share in my belief.
Although it would be nice to have everyone take on a cosmopolitanism belief, not everyone can fathom the idea of equality. Some people have been brought up with certain beliefs, and after a certain time period it gets harder and harder to change those instilled beliefs. In a perfect world, if everyone was brought up with these views, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately I'm going to take a pessimistic view and say that this will never happen. There will always be someone who will believe their race, religion, etc. to be better than another. Therefore, although I think everyone matters, not everyone will share in my belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)