My Lovely Blog

In my Case Studies in Public Relations class this semester, we have studied many different cases that demonstrate how to effectively and not effectively handle PR problems and crises. One case we studied was the Tylenol crisis Johnson & Johnson had during 1982 when capsules were tainted with cyanide. Johnson & Johnson did a great job of handling this crisis, and the event had no long-term effect on the company.

Because of this, I was interested when I read an article about a controversial advertisement they ran for Motrin, one of their products. The ad, which was on their website and in magazines, targeted mothers who wear their babies on their bodies in slings. The ad starts out with the line, “Wearing your baby seems to be in fashion,” and then goes on to say, “Apparently it’s a real bonding experience.” In a nutshell, it is trying to say that carrying your child on your body causes pain, which should lead you to take Motrin.

The ad caused a huge stir in the blogosphere, and apparently people were talking about it all over Twitter. Many mothers were offended by the ad, and people were calling for a boycott. Johnson & Johnson got word of this and decided to pull the ad. Even though they pulled the ad, it is still easy to find on the Internet. That’s the great thing about the World Wide Web.

I was interested to know how Johnson & Johnson reacted to this event in regard to addressing their publics.

According to the director of communications for one of the Johnson & Johnson divisions, they sent apologies to bloggers and important media on Monday, Nov. 16 and said they were taking “immediate action.”

The letter from Kathy Widmer, Vice President of Marketing for McNeil Consumer Healthcare, on their website reads like this:

“With regard to the recent Motrin advertisement, we have heard you.

On behalf of McNeil Consumer Healthcare and all of us who work on the Motrin Brand, please accept our sincere apology.

We have heard your complaints about the ad that was featured on our website. We are parents ourselves and take feedback from moms very seriously.

We are in the process of removing this ad from all media. It will, unfortunately, take a bit of time to remove it from our magazine advertising, as it is on newsstands and in distribution.

Thank you for your feedback. It’s very important to us.”

I think they did a good job of addressing this situation in a timely fashion. They addressed the necessary publics and apologized.

I even did a quick Google search on this issue, and was directed to a blog written by a mother who had left feedback on Motrin’s website. The next day she received an e-mail from Kathy Widmer in regard to her comment. I thought that was pretty outstanding that she received a response that quickly.

Hopefully Johnson & Johnson will learn from their mistake, but I think they should be commended for their quick response to this issue.

Social media is becoming increasingly more popular and prevalent in our country, as demonstrated by the success of websites like Facebook and MySpace. People have embraced these tools, and now many companies and organizations have jumped on the bandwagon and are using these platforms to promote their product and/or company.

The presidential election this month demonstrated the vast popularity of social media, as it had a large impact on the election.

Many will remember that news of Barack Obama’s vice presidential pick was delivered via text message to those people who signed up on his website to receive the text.

Although the campaigns still spent huge amounts of money on TV ads, many of my friends used YouTube to watch campaign messages from the two candidates.

Facebook is one social networking site that definitely tapped into election fever. There were hundreds of Facebook groups in support of both candidates, as well as ads on the side of the website reminding people to vote and promoting the candidates. On Election Day, there was even a special box at the top of the homepage where users could find their polling location and report that they had cast their vote. There was a running tally of users who had placed their vote that day, and by the end more than 5,000,000 Facebook users reported that they had voted.

Twitter had a special page dedicated to the election where users could voice their political opinions and ramblings all day long. Some of the people I follow on Twitter had updated their statuses from their phone to let their followers know how long the poll lines were where they were.

News stations even completely embraced social media throughout the election. I remember watching the news on Election Day and seeing pictures of the long poll lines that ordinary people had sent into the news station via phone.

I think one of the most significant things about social media in regards to politics is the fact that anyone can voice their opinion and state which candidate they are running for using these sites. I know many people who are more swayed by how one of their friends or someone they admire is voting, than TV ads or smear campaigns.

Obama’s campaign truly embraced social media, much more so than McCain’s campaign did. Obama encouraged his supporters to blog, chat, and he had an account on most social networking sites, including Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn.

This is something that I think helped Obama out a lot in his campaign. With young people so infatuated with social media, there is no question that his involvement and promotion of it helped garner support from the younger generations.

Social media is not looking like it’s going to fade away any time soon, so we might as well embrace it. Hey, Obama did, and look where he got.

I’m sure everyone knows by now that Gov. Sarah Palin has had over $150,000 in clothes purchased for her and her family by the Republican campaign. These clothes were purchased for her in an attempt for her and her family to look good while on the campaign trail. While she apparently hasn’t worn all of them, they are available at her disposal.

The purchase of these clothes has turned into a controversy for Palin and the Republicans because it is being used against her. Critics say she is being a hypocrite by wearing these expensive clothes, while at the same time, she is trying to portray herself as a down-to-earth hockey mom.

This scandal, if that’s what you want to call it, could have potentially shattered everything Palin has done to create the image of the down-to-earth hockey mom.

It came out on the website Politico that she had bills from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus for $49,425.74 and $75,062.63, respectively. I can’t think of any working mothers who might be racking up those amounts and high-end stores like Saks and Neiman’s.

While no one reported on how much male candidates have spent on their wardrobes in the past while on the campaign trail, there is no telling how much Obama and McCain have spent on their suits.
I really don’t take issue with the fact that Palin has been wearing clothes that cost that much. What do you expect for a woman who has just come onto the national political scene and is going on the campaign trail? She wants to look as good as possible, and you can’t blame her for that.

Apparently many others don’t take issue with this either, as sales for her Kazuo Kawasaki eyeglasses, which can cost as much as $700, have shot up.

I’m not sure how much this public relations scandal will affect her though. Her supporters probably realize that she will spend money on her hair, makeup, and clothes, but it might have caused some to recognize that she’s not “just like them” anymore. You can’t advertise yourself as a working mother who shares the same struggles as everyone else when you’re parading around in suits that cost more than someone’s monthly rent.

When Palin did address the fact that she’s spent ludicrous amounts on her wardrobe, she stated, “This whole thing with the wardrobe, you know, I tried to just ignore it. Because it’s so ridiculous.” She also said the clothes weren’t her property and would not be taking them with her after the campaign. She added that it was obvious there was a double-standard between men and women, assumingly meaning this wouldn’t have been an issue if she were a man. Palin told the Chicago Tribune that the clothes will be given back or donated to charity.