I don't understand why slander would be a big deal. Whatever happened to free speech?
I guess we have free speech but to an extent. That's what I will assume. You can say something, but if it offends someone then you get in trouble. Whatever happened to opinions? I guess you can't have those anymore because it may be offensive to someone. I feel like the law has taken libel and slander a bit overboard. Instead of being free to say anything you want, the way this country was brought up to believe, you have to walk on egg shells and hope that no one is offended by what you say.
So what happens to those people who say something inappropriate? Their names go on record of saying the phrase that made someone upset and they have to go to court to settle something that may have been just a momentary thought written down on paper or spoken. Because they were able to say what they felt, they are now being slandered their reputation is in jeopardy. They will always be known as an offensive rude person. Is that fair?
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Mamet's Assertions About Ethics in Marketing
Within Mamet's Glengarry, Glen Ross assertions about ethics in marketing were made.
Most of us have formed a negative stereotype regarding sales people. We think of them as smooth-talking, blood-suckers who are out to support themselves in any way possible. Mamet plays on this stereotypical outlook and portrays his characters dealing with ethical situations.
The salespeople in Gelngarry, Glen Ross sell property. The property they sell does not exist. In the process of selling the fictitious land the men never take into play the situations of their customers, they simply are out for money and recognition as the top seller.
The unethical practices that the sales people within the play are known for are:
- Promising clients more than they can deliver, and lying to get the sale.
- Knowingly recommending products to the customer that they know is not in their best interest.
- Steering customers toward a higher-priced solution when a more reasonable option exists.
The unethical decisions that the characters within Mamet's play make are common ethical dilemmas which salespeople still deal with today. Although the ethical landscape is changing within corporate sales departments, these ethical problems still exist within the people employed. Greed and the fight to make commission get in the way of making the ethical decision within those employed, therefore further tarnishing the way sales careers are viewed.
Continually pushing company ethics and ridding sales departments of commission pay will help to deter people from making unethical decisions and encourage them to hold to company wide ethical standards.
Most of us have formed a negative stereotype regarding sales people. We think of them as smooth-talking, blood-suckers who are out to support themselves in any way possible. Mamet plays on this stereotypical outlook and portrays his characters dealing with ethical situations.
The salespeople in Gelngarry, Glen Ross sell property. The property they sell does not exist. In the process of selling the fictitious land the men never take into play the situations of their customers, they simply are out for money and recognition as the top seller.
The unethical practices that the sales people within the play are known for are:
- Promising clients more than they can deliver, and lying to get the sale.
- Knowingly recommending products to the customer that they know is not in their best interest.
- Steering customers toward a higher-priced solution when a more reasonable option exists.
The unethical decisions that the characters within Mamet's play make are common ethical dilemmas which salespeople still deal with today. Although the ethical landscape is changing within corporate sales departments, these ethical problems still exist within the people employed. Greed and the fight to make commission get in the way of making the ethical decision within those employed, therefore further tarnishing the way sales careers are viewed.
Continually pushing company ethics and ridding sales departments of commission pay will help to deter people from making unethical decisions and encourage them to hold to company wide ethical standards.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Southwest Airlines Apology
Southwest Airlines recently faced two clothing situations, where two of their customers were refused service because of their attire. This is very unsouthwest behavior.
In order to kill the press on the first incident, Southwest decided to make light of the situation in both a press release as well as TV commercials.
From a business standpoint I believe that Southwest was right in handling the situation the way that they did. By making fun of themselves they were able to get the press off of their backs and still save the face of the company.
From an ethical standpoint this may not have been the best thing to do because by making fun of these situations they were also making fun of their employees own set of ethics. Making their ethics seem inferior to the company's image.
In order to turn this whole situation around, I think that it would be wise for Southwest to either come up with a dress code, or stand behind their employees. As of now not everyone within that company is on the same page, and they very well should be before this clothing situation gets anymore out of hand.
In order to kill the press on the first incident, Southwest decided to make light of the situation in both a press release as well as TV commercials.
From a business standpoint I believe that Southwest was right in handling the situation the way that they did. By making fun of themselves they were able to get the press off of their backs and still save the face of the company.
From an ethical standpoint this may not have been the best thing to do because by making fun of these situations they were also making fun of their employees own set of ethics. Making their ethics seem inferior to the company's image.
In order to turn this whole situation around, I think that it would be wise for Southwest to either come up with a dress code, or stand behind their employees. As of now not everyone within that company is on the same page, and they very well should be before this clothing situation gets anymore out of hand.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
PRSA Code of Ethics
The PRSA Code of Ethics discusses what ethical obligations public relations practitioners should uphold during the course of their career and membership with the organization.
As far as the principles of freedom, stewardship, justice, humaneness and truth, I believe that the majority of the codes reflect the communitarian mode. This mode states that the communities well-being is as important as the organizations. The majority of the codes fall under the principles of humaneness and truth. By focusing on these two principles and referring to the people (the companies and general public we are serving as practitioners) the code of ethics takes on a communitarian mode. PRSA is concerned with the well being of the community and the people living within it.
Although the codes reflect a little of both utilitarian and communitarian viewpoints, I believe that the communitarian viewpoint comes out on top. Sure organizations would like to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people, but in these kind of situations not everyone will be happy with the chances PR practitioners take to ethically represent their companies therefore the communitarian viewpoint comes into play as the mode that most represents the code.
As far as the principles of freedom, stewardship, justice, humaneness and truth, I believe that the majority of the codes reflect the communitarian mode. This mode states that the communities well-being is as important as the organizations. The majority of the codes fall under the principles of humaneness and truth. By focusing on these two principles and referring to the people (the companies and general public we are serving as practitioners) the code of ethics takes on a communitarian mode. PRSA is concerned with the well being of the community and the people living within it.
Although the codes reflect a little of both utilitarian and communitarian viewpoints, I believe that the communitarian viewpoint comes out on top. Sure organizations would like to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people, but in these kind of situations not everyone will be happy with the chances PR practitioners take to ethically represent their companies therefore the communitarian viewpoint comes into play as the mode that most represents the code.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Southwest Airlines
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)