Starbucks has recently decided to combine two of its rewards programs into one: the My Starbucks card. Starbucks offers this card with the phrase: "Free drinks. Free syrups. Free soymilk. Free Wi-Fi. And best of all, free to join." It's not a new concept. Plenty of companies have these, even small businesses in the form of a punch card. Starbucks even had cards that were similar. The idea is that you register your card and put money on it to use at Starbucks. Then, after a certain amount of drinks purchased, you start to get free stuff. They have different levels. It's all explained in this article from The Coffee Guy (who incidentally gives a little more information about Starbucks in general). He seems to think it's a good idea. He says Starbucks is adapting and trying to help out its customers who come there often. As we know, many people buy coffee every day and Starbucks isn't cheap.
Is this a good PR tactic? I think it is. Some think this program will not create loyalty among patrons, but heck, Starbucks has plenty of people who are loyal. This is about rewarding those who are loyal. I think this says a lot about Starbucks. It is realizing its coffees can get expensive and it is offering benefits to those who still buy it. Is it enough to keep increase its customers? Only time will tell, but I think, overall, this program is a good thing and good PR.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Is This PR? - PETA
Ok so I don't want to become biased in my Is This PR? presentation but this one is about PETA, its controversial ads, and its responses to negative responses to these ads.
There are so many websites and blogs dedicated to anti-PETA rhetoric, like PETA Kills Animals and Anti-PETA (which is actually a website that contains links to other Anti-PETA websites/blogs). But the particular PR move from PETA that I am going to talk about has been written about by more than just PETA haters. Recently, they put up a billboard in Jacksonville, Fla. that depicted an overweight woman in a bikini with the words "Save the Whales" and "Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian." on it. This billboard has outraged people with its insensitivity to overweight people and to women. And there have been quite a few negative responses to the ad.
One of the most interesting things I found about this incident though is the lack of response from PETA and the responses I have been able to find have been insensitive and unapologetic themselves. Here's one from a woman who passed the billboard and felt personally offended - and the response from PETA she received. Here's another from Chattahbox that includes some quotes from the press release about the billboard (and here's the original press release). And, of course, here is one last article that directly mentions this ad while also talking about the power of social media to make this an even bigger issue than it would have been 20 years ago.
Overall, this is bad PR. PETA needs to learn how to make advertisements that don't offend the audience it is targeting. Also, a little humility in responses would help too. I know it's a radical group but this kind of PR won't get it anywhere.
There are so many websites and blogs dedicated to anti-PETA rhetoric, like PETA Kills Animals and Anti-PETA (which is actually a website that contains links to other Anti-PETA websites/blogs). But the particular PR move from PETA that I am going to talk about has been written about by more than just PETA haters. Recently, they put up a billboard in Jacksonville, Fla. that depicted an overweight woman in a bikini with the words "Save the Whales" and "Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian." on it. This billboard has outraged people with its insensitivity to overweight people and to women. And there have been quite a few negative responses to the ad.
One of the most interesting things I found about this incident though is the lack of response from PETA and the responses I have been able to find have been insensitive and unapologetic themselves. Here's one from a woman who passed the billboard and felt personally offended - and the response from PETA she received. Here's another from Chattahbox that includes some quotes from the press release about the billboard (and here's the original press release). And, of course, here is one last article that directly mentions this ad while also talking about the power of social media to make this an even bigger issue than it would have been 20 years ago.
Overall, this is bad PR. PETA needs to learn how to make advertisements that don't offend the audience it is targeting. Also, a little humility in responses would help too. I know it's a radical group but this kind of PR won't get it anywhere.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Employee Relations - Diversity
I've always been a big fan of diversity. One of the reasons I chose Clemson is because I know we have a pretty diverse student body (at least more than other South Carolina universities). I also understand that diversity is important, not just in universities, but in companies and organizations too.
DiversityInc. even ranks companies and put out a list every year of the top 50 most diverse companies. Here's the list from 2008. This site has articles about everything, for employers, employees, and even people who are looking for a job (or just want to know where to shop).
Another website I found that really delves into the topic of diversity in the workplace is HR World's blog. They cover a lot of the hot topics today, like religion, gender, and sexual orientation. On this blog, I found an interesting article about English-only rules. I had not actually heard of them but it really affects diversity in the workplace. Here are the EEOC laws on English-only rules. I understand the laws pertaining to this but I don't think that it should be used as a discriminatory tool against those who do not speak English or who do not speak English fluently. As globalization increases, people have to realize that languages are going to overlap. It is already shown that knowing another language can increase your chances of getting a job or getting a promotion. While it is not necessary to have completely bi-lingual companies, if you want to attract certain consumers (and therefore, increase profits), you must accommodate language-wise.
DiversityInc. even ranks companies and put out a list every year of the top 50 most diverse companies. Here's the list from 2008. This site has articles about everything, for employers, employees, and even people who are looking for a job (or just want to know where to shop).
Another website I found that really delves into the topic of diversity in the workplace is HR World's blog. They cover a lot of the hot topics today, like religion, gender, and sexual orientation. On this blog, I found an interesting article about English-only rules. I had not actually heard of them but it really affects diversity in the workplace. Here are the EEOC laws on English-only rules. I understand the laws pertaining to this but I don't think that it should be used as a discriminatory tool against those who do not speak English or who do not speak English fluently. As globalization increases, people have to realize that languages are going to overlap. It is already shown that knowing another language can increase your chances of getting a job or getting a promotion. While it is not necessary to have completely bi-lingual companies, if you want to attract certain consumers (and therefore, increase profits), you must accommodate language-wise.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Is This PR? - McDonald's and service dogs
About a month ago, a disabled veteran, Luis Carlos Montalvan, filed a suit against McDonald's. His reasoning pertains to his service dog that inspired Al Franken's service dog program for disabled veterans. Allegedly, McDonald's refused to allow his dog inside the restaurant twice, even though after the first time, stickers were placed on the doors stating service dogs were allowed. Then, as he says, he went to McDonald's (but they were closed) to take pictures of the stickers and he was beaten with plastic trash can lids by unidentified employees.
This incident has caused more than just a lawsuit. A veterans organization also started a "small, but passionate" protest outside the 5th Avenue McDonald's, where the original incident took place. Whether it was small or not, I'm sure that a lot more people know about the incident. And people have strong opinions about the discrimination. The story is presented a little fuzzy so many people have doubts about the credibility of the events. Others are just outraged at the alleged mistreatment of a combat veteran.
Whether the story is true or not, McDonald's handled it badly. Besides the original written apology by the first McDonald's manager, there seems to not have been any other apology given to Montalvan. Quoted from the article from Military.com, this is all that I could find about official McDonald's comments: "A spokeswoman for McDonald's USA said the matter is under investigation and that the company could not comment further, other than to say that McDonald's takes pride in making its restaurants accessible to all customers, 'including those with service animals.'" Since according to the story, McDonald's did not make its restaurant accessible to all customers, this just makes McDonald's look even worse. McDonald's should not have waited for the situation to get to a lawsuit level. They should have handled it at the managerial level (and also, at the employee/worker level). Workers should have been trained better to deal with customers who have disabilities and other special needs, like service dogs. If the problem had been dealt with earlier (and better), the lawsuit may not have been filed and McDonald's could have avoided a lot of negativity.
Verdict? Bad PR.
This incident has caused more than just a lawsuit. A veterans organization also started a "small, but passionate" protest outside the 5th Avenue McDonald's, where the original incident took place. Whether it was small or not, I'm sure that a lot more people know about the incident. And people have strong opinions about the discrimination. The story is presented a little fuzzy so many people have doubts about the credibility of the events. Others are just outraged at the alleged mistreatment of a combat veteran.
Whether the story is true or not, McDonald's handled it badly. Besides the original written apology by the first McDonald's manager, there seems to not have been any other apology given to Montalvan. Quoted from the article from Military.com, this is all that I could find about official McDonald's comments: "A spokeswoman for McDonald's USA said the matter is under investigation and that the company could not comment further, other than to say that McDonald's takes pride in making its restaurants accessible to all customers, 'including those with service animals.'" Since according to the story, McDonald's did not make its restaurant accessible to all customers, this just makes McDonald's look even worse. McDonald's should not have waited for the situation to get to a lawsuit level. They should have handled it at the managerial level (and also, at the employee/worker level). Workers should have been trained better to deal with customers who have disabilities and other special needs, like service dogs. If the problem had been dealt with earlier (and better), the lawsuit may not have been filed and McDonald's could have avoided a lot of negativity.
Verdict? Bad PR.
Employee Relations - Let's be thankful
In light of the Thanksgiving spirit, I think I'll concentrate on the idea of being grateful (and showing it) in the context of employee relations of a company. I think this is a pretty big part of employee relations. Of course it applies to all types of PR but it is particularly effective with employees because it is part of what keeps them happy. According to this article by Warren & Hays LLC, 70% of employees are "very thankful" for their job. This is good, however, the other 30% have different ideas. They even give a few suggestions on how to improve employee relations, such as conducting workplace surveys where employees can give their opinions anonymously. I think this would be really effective because by making it anonymous, employees can give their true opinions about the company without worrying about jeopardizing their jobs.
I also found another article, this time from Biz Coach Tim, that emphasized the importance of saying thank you to employees. While a lot of this article can be applied to all relationships in life, I think some of the advice works really well for employee relations such as these four steps to show gratitude (which are incidentally from another blog post from Kevin Eikenberry):
I also found another article, this time from Biz Coach Tim, that emphasized the importance of saying thank you to employees. While a lot of this article can be applied to all relationships in life, I think some of the advice works really well for employee relations such as these four steps to show gratitude (which are incidentally from another blog post from Kevin Eikenberry):
- See it – look for reasons to be thankful to your team
- Say it - they won't know that you notice what they do unless you tell them
- Write it - this is much more powerful than verbal thanks and longer lasting
- Share it - formal recognition is the greatest motivator of all.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Is This PR? - Miracle Whip v. Stephen Colbert
Recently, Stephen Colbert dissed Miracle Whip in a parody commercial on his show, The Colbert Report. Well, Miracle Whip responded, in a unique way. They bought all of the ad slots for the commercial breaks on the Thursday showing of The Colbert Report. In these ad slots, they showed their normal commercials but with modified voice-overs that talked directly to Colbert. Before the show, they also ran an open newspaper ad (that also appeared in several places on the Internet) that was addressed to Colbert and said that they "WILL NOT TONE IT DOWN." In an article from the Chicago Tribune, there is an overview of the "marketing opportunity" taken, complete with a quotation from spokeswoman for Kraft (manufacturer of Miracle Whip). This article also touches on the irony that in addition to producing Miracle Whip, Kraft is also one of the top manufacturers of mayonnaise.
So, PR? Definitely. Good PR? The ballot's still out on that one.
I have read several responses to the retaliation and the sentiments are mixed. There are two sides to the opinions on this PR tactic. On the one hand, this is a light-hearted approach where instead of getting angry at Colbert, Miracle Whip brought it back with humor. On the other hand, it is a campaign that it taking it too seriously. Contradicting, right?
Well I'll start off discussing the good. Even Comedy Central, the channel The Colbert Report appears on, said Miracle Whip's letter was "admittedly funny." It was. The letter, and following commercials, took Colbert's humor and turned it back around in a creative attempt to retaliate the "Colbert effect."
And then there's the bad. The main problem is people believe Miracle Whip is taking itself too seriously as a product. The commercial is trying too hard. You should give 110% right? Which in any other case besides PR would be true. In PR, however, you must strike a balance. This article from Warming Glow seems to think it's too intentional.
In the end though, I think that most of the people who did not like the commercials were people who did not like Miracle Whip in general. The humorous approach to something they could have turned nasty is Good PR.
So, PR? Definitely. Good PR? The ballot's still out on that one.
I have read several responses to the retaliation and the sentiments are mixed. There are two sides to the opinions on this PR tactic. On the one hand, this is a light-hearted approach where instead of getting angry at Colbert, Miracle Whip brought it back with humor. On the other hand, it is a campaign that it taking it too seriously. Contradicting, right?
Well I'll start off discussing the good. Even Comedy Central, the channel The Colbert Report appears on, said Miracle Whip's letter was "admittedly funny." It was. The letter, and following commercials, took Colbert's humor and turned it back around in a creative attempt to retaliate the "Colbert effect."
And then there's the bad. The main problem is people believe Miracle Whip is taking itself too seriously as a product. The commercial is trying too hard. You should give 110% right? Which in any other case besides PR would be true. In PR, however, you must strike a balance. This article from Warming Glow seems to think it's too intentional.
In the end though, I think that most of the people who did not like the commercials were people who did not like Miracle Whip in general. The humorous approach to something they could have turned nasty is Good PR.
Ethical Ice Cream (CSR in action)
When we were given the assignment to write a blog post about a company that uses corporate social responsibility, my immediate thought was one of my favorite ice cream companies, Ben & Jerry's. Ben & Jerry's has gotten a lot of attention on the subject matter of corporate social responsibility. They have an extensive mission statement that presents separate statements for social, product, and economic aspects.
I found several examples of their socially responsible practices in this article by an apparent B & J's enthusiast that include not using milk from cows that have been treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone which increases chances of infection (and therefore, pain) for the cows. They actually pay the farmers who raise the cows that they get their milk from NOT to use this hormone.
Another interesting example mentioned in this article is their ice cream flavor, American Pie. This ice cream flavor not only taste like an American classic, but is also part of a political media campaign of the company's. Here's an article from Junk Food blog that goes more in depth on the topic. Basically, the ice cream container features a pie chart that illustrates government spending. The purpose is to make people aware of the government's spending on things like nuclear weapons and the war. This is socially responsible, however, it may not be the best PR in general. As you can see from the comments on this post, some people feel that Ben & Jerry's is alienating half of Americans (conservatives). That said, I think it succeeded in informing people about the issue.
Another issue people have been criticizing Ben & Jerry's for is its recent acquisition by Unilever. As B & J's has always been pretty outspoken against corporations, this acquisition came as kind of a shock. Many consumers wondered if the company would still be able to continue all of its socially responsible actions. This blog post from Ideoblog seems to think Ben & Jerry's is still doing a good job. They are teaching their employees about CSR too.
In general, I believe Ben & Jerry's is doing a good job. I also think whoever does their PR is doing a good job too because the word is definitely out there about their socially responsible practices and stances.
Seriously, no company is perfect. As wonderful as it would be for every company to be socially responsible in every aspect, that's a perfect world and that does not exist. I believe that Ben & Jerry's puts in the effort in many aspects of its company and that is more than many other companies are doing.
Here is a quote I found while doing my search on more information for Ben & Jerry's. While it does not have to do with the company specifically, I think it illustrates the purpose (and importance) of CSR quite nicely:
I found several examples of their socially responsible practices in this article by an apparent B & J's enthusiast that include not using milk from cows that have been treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone which increases chances of infection (and therefore, pain) for the cows. They actually pay the farmers who raise the cows that they get their milk from NOT to use this hormone.
Another interesting example mentioned in this article is their ice cream flavor, American Pie. This ice cream flavor not only taste like an American classic, but is also part of a political media campaign of the company's. Here's an article from Junk Food blog that goes more in depth on the topic. Basically, the ice cream container features a pie chart that illustrates government spending. The purpose is to make people aware of the government's spending on things like nuclear weapons and the war. This is socially responsible, however, it may not be the best PR in general. As you can see from the comments on this post, some people feel that Ben & Jerry's is alienating half of Americans (conservatives). That said, I think it succeeded in informing people about the issue.
Another issue people have been criticizing Ben & Jerry's for is its recent acquisition by Unilever. As B & J's has always been pretty outspoken against corporations, this acquisition came as kind of a shock. Many consumers wondered if the company would still be able to continue all of its socially responsible actions. This blog post from Ideoblog seems to think Ben & Jerry's is still doing a good job. They are teaching their employees about CSR too.
In general, I believe Ben & Jerry's is doing a good job. I also think whoever does their PR is doing a good job too because the word is definitely out there about their socially responsible practices and stances.
Seriously, no company is perfect. As wonderful as it would be for every company to be socially responsible in every aspect, that's a perfect world and that does not exist. I believe that Ben & Jerry's puts in the effort in many aspects of its company and that is more than many other companies are doing.
Here is a quote I found while doing my search on more information for Ben & Jerry's. While it does not have to do with the company specifically, I think it illustrates the purpose (and importance) of CSR quite nicely:
"Money should never be separated from values. Detached from values it may indeed be the root of all evil. Linked effectively to social purpose it can be the root of opportunity."
--- Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Professor, Harvard Business School
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
