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.

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.

]]> http://bloombr.prblogs.org/2008/11/11/social-media-meets-election/feed/ 0 http://bloombr.prblogs.org/2008/11/04/palins-pr-wardrobe-malfunction/ http://bloombr.prblogs.org/2008/11/04/palins-pr-wardrobe-malfunction/#comments Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:19:04 +0000 bloombr http://bloombr.prblogs.org/?p=24 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.

First of all, there is no question that Palin’s appearance was a ratings jackpot for NBC and SNL. Her appearance delivered the network the highest ratings of an SNL episode since 1994. With the election only a few weeks away, it seems the country was interested in seeing if the potential vice president was cut out for comedy.

For the past several episodes, SNL has done parodies of Sarah Palin starring former cast member Tina Fey. This time, however, the real deal was on the show. Palin appeared during the opening sketch alongside Alec Baldwin as well as on the “Weekend Update” segment where she danced to a rap.

Whether or not you agree that Palin was funny in the sketches or if she has a potential future career in Hollywood (if the VP thing doesn’t work out), I think this was definitely a good PR move for her.

Those who disagree that Palin’s appearance on SNL was a good PR move might say that it made her look silly and not serious or professional enough to be a vice president. While this might be true, it did make her look like a good sport and demonstrate that she finds humor in being mocked.

Since SNL targets to a 20-something demographic, as displayed by many of their skits, Palin’s appearance on SNL allowed her to show young voters a different side of her. Throughout this political campaign, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been aggressively targeting young voters more than the McCain-Palin ticket has been. While a guest appearance on a show such as SNL may not swing a vote, it definitely could change someone’s opinion of a candidate.

According to a study conducted by HCD Research and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, Sarah Palin’s appearance on SNL contributed to a favorability ratings increase among all parties. The study found that Democrats, Republicans and Independents all had more favorable opinions of Palin after they viewed her appearance on the show.

Critics of Palin will say that her appearance on SNL added fuel to the argument that she is merely a puppet used to attract attention, while fans will say she added a much-needed breath of fresh air to this political campaign. Regardless of your thoughts on whether her appearance was good or bad PR, she certainly contributed a huge ratings boost for NBC and also exposed herself in a more playful light to a younger demographic.

On the other hand, the NFL and the Dallas Cowboys have recently been put in a very bad light because of the actions of one player, Pacman Jones.

I am going to look at the situation involving the Cowboys and Pacman Jones from a PR perspective.

It all started in 2007 when Jones, who was playing for the Titans at the time, was suspended by the league for off-field issues involving a fight and a shooting at a Las Vegas strip club. Pacman took it upon himself to be his own PR practitioner and took out an ad in the Tennessean newspaper, reassuring fans that he would regain their trust and make up for his actions. He also said he planned to re-enroll in college and graduate.

The PR efforts were unsuccessful, as Pacman was traded to the Cowboys the following season.

A few weeks ago, on Oct. 8, Pacman was involved in a fight with his bodyguard in a Dallas hotel; however the bodyguard decided not to press charges against him. Immediately after this incident, both the league and the Cowboys had no comment.

The fact that both of these organizations had no comment on this incident, one of many in recent history for Pacman, is off-putting. Shouldn’t they have had something to say about the fact that this one man has shamed an entire league with his actions?

Owner Jerry Jones exhibited extreme spin control in the days following Pacman’s hotel incident. He was attempting to minimize the damage that this latest incident would do to the Cowboys organization and to himself for signing a known thug.

Jones was quoted as saying, “”If I suspended Pacman Jones over something like this, I would have had to suspend half the team over the last 20 years.” Um, yes, Jerry, but did you consider the fact that Pacman is coming off a season-long suspension and has been arrested six times?

Seemingly in a PR attempt to distract from the negative headlines involving Pacman, Jones made a trade on Oct. 14 to get receiver Roy Williams from the Detroit Lions.

Although this may have worked in taking people’s focus off of Pacman, it will be short-lived.

The Cowboys are currently in a public relations nightmare, which they got themselves into, and have not done a great job of getting themselves out of.

The actions of Pacman have hurt the image of the entire league in general. Two teams have given this man multiple chances, and it seems that the Cowboys have still left the door open for him if he wants to return after his stay at an alcohol treatment center

Twitter is a social networking site that allows users to send and read other peoples’ updates. The website asks users the questions, “What are you doing?” and the user then responds to that question in 140 characters or less in what is called a “tweet.” It is similar to the idea of a Facebook status update.

I was a little unsure of Twitter at first, as I didn’t really understand the point of it. Why would anyone care what I was doing right now, and how could this site possibly help me at all?

After navigating through Twitter and “following” several Auburn alums on it, I realize why my teacher wanted us to start using it. It is a great outlet for making connections in the professional world. Many PR practitioners actively use Twitter, and some of the most widely-known bloggers and journalists use Twitter as well. It has over 2 million registered users right now, and it only launched in 2006.

Even large media outlets have begun using Twitter. A few weeks ago, I was sitting doing homework with CNN on in the background when I heard them say the word Twitter. I immediately tuned in to the TV and discovered that Rick Sanchez, one of their anchors, was accepting viewer questions via Twitter. That really showed me the impact of social media and how much the mainstream media is embracing sites like Twitter.

I recently noticed that the Today Show even has a Twitter account. I immediately began following their updates when I saw this since I love the Today Show. One of their updates was asking for families that are cutting back on holiday spending for an upcoming story. I thought it was pretty cool that someone like me could provide an outlet like the Today Show with story leads just by using a site like Twitter.

Twitter is also pretty useful for journalists since it only allows you 140 characters to say what you want to say. If you are following a journalist on Twitter, you could pitch them a story they might find interested in this amount of space.

Twitter is a great tool for college students in PR since it allows them to make contact with many PR professionals. I have even heard stories of students landing internships at agencies because of Twitter.

The only downside to Twitter is something I read about called “brandjacking.” This is when a user makes up an account pretending to be a company, which could potentially be very harmful. Although Twitter is a fun site, it’s important to make sure you are monitoring your brand or name if you’re a professional.

Seeing the advantages of using a site like Twitter has gotten me even more excited about the field of PR. It’s a great way to make connections and learn about PR, and I will definitely be using it as I begin my career.

After months of much speculation, T-Mobile and Google announced last week that they have teamed up to launch a new smartphone. The G1 phone will operate on Google’s Android operating system, which many consumers have been eagerly anticipating.

The phone has a touch screen front and opens up to a full QWERTY keyboard. It also incorporates Google software including Gmail, Google Maps, and YouTube.

T-Mobile will be the exclusive carrier of the phone, which is meant to compete with AT&T’s extremely popular Apple iPhone. The G1 will go on sale in the U.S. on Oct. 22 and will be priced lower than the iPhone at $179.

Like the iPhone, which comes with iTunes software, the G1 will come loaded with Amazon’s digital music store.

The announcement of the G1 phone was a great PR move for both Google and T-Mobile. Google it seems has added their name to almost every niche in the marketplace to try to compete with companies like Apple. This is the best thing they could have done for themselves if the G1 phone proves to be successful and problem-free. The iPhone had many problems when it launched, so hopefully Google won’t experience the same thing.

T-Mobile, which is the fourth-largest U.S. wireless carrier, has made an excellent PR move by associating their name with Google. They have received a huge amount of attention for this partnership and for being the first to operate using the Android operating system. This will definitely raise the status of T-Mobile and put their name on a more exclusive tier.

T-Mobile will also be putting on a huge marketing campaign prior to the launch of the G1.

I think the G1 will be a great success for both Google and T-Mobile. Many people are not fans of the iPhone, including myself. I think a lot of people were turned off by them after all the problems users have experienced with the phones when they first launched. The G1 will be a great alternative to other smartphones such as the iPhone and BlackBerry.

I think that just being associated with the Google name will draw many consumers to want to buy the G1. Personally, I wanted one the second I heard Google was launching a phone. I had no idea what it looked like or what features it would have, but I wanted one just because I use all of Google’s other products, and Google is the only search engine I use. Since I don’t have T-Mobile as my cell phone carrier, it looks like I won’t be getting a G1 any time soon, though.

I look forward to seeing the G1 in person and seeing if it is successful or not. There is no doubt that this was a great PR move for both companies involved with its creation.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/09/23/google.phone.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

As I’ve been seeing these commercials, there have been a couple of them that have sparked an interest because they are concerning to me.

The first commercial that has concerned me is a spot for Velveeta cheese (well, I guess people consider it cheese.) It shows a woman perusing the grocery store with her shopping cart, and the narrator in the background is saying something about how in our day and time, it seems like everyone is cutting back, but not Velveeta. The point to the commercial is that while cheese packaging is getting smaller, Velveeta is still in the same size block it’s always been and cheaper than other choices. The ad ends with the slogan, “Forget cheddar, Velveeta’s better.”

I usually wouldn’t think twice about a commercial like this, but for some reason I did. Do they really have to throw in a political statement in a Velveeta commercial? The advertising company is not only using our weak economy to market Velveeta, but they are trying to compare it to actual cheese. Velveeta is a pasteurized cheese product and isn’t even in the same aisle as the other cheeses, so how can you compare the two?

The second commercial was one I’ve now seen several times. It is a commercial paid for by the Corn Refiners Association. They have started a huge campaign to try to get consumers to think again about buying products with high fructose corn syrup in them. I’ve seen their ads in magazines and newspapers as well.

There are a few commercials they have out now, but the one I saw shows two mothers at a party talking to each other. One mother has a huge jug of a Kool-Aid lookalike and is pouring it into a cup, presumably for her child. The other woman looks at her and says, “You don’t care what the kids eat? That has high fructose corn syrup in it.” The other woman responds with, “It’s made from corn, doesn’t have artificial ingredients and like sugar it’s fine in moderation.”

I really could not believe that the Corn Refiners Association was running a huge ad campaign to try to convince people that high fructose corn syrup is OK. They have had a big PR problem for many years since doctors have been telling us how unhealthy it is. Mothers are even told not to give their children fruit juice since much of it contains the syrup.

The line when the woman says, “It’s fine in moderation” is the part that kills me. Isn’t all food fine in moderation? And the fact that they have to admit that it’s OK only in moderation says a lot about the product. Trying to compare corn to corn syrup isn’t a good tactic, either. Corn is healthy on its own, but not when it’s processed and turned into something unnatural like high fructose corn syrup.

Maybe I’ve been watching too much TV, but I really don’t think either of these commercials are the best way to address and try to fix a PR problem. Consumers aren’t that stupid.

Now, I can’t even remember the last time I watched an episode of TRL or even caught a glimpse of one while flipping through channels. When I asked my friends tonight at dinner if they had heard that the show was being canceled, one of them replied, “I didn’t even know that show was still on.” It seems like TRL has lost its touch, but maybe I’m just too old to be watching it. Regardless, TRL was a great PR platform for celebrities and musicians.

TRL was somewhat of a cultural phenomenon with many events in pop culture history going down on its set. Who can forget Mariah Carey performing an impromptu striptease on TV, P. Diddy’s “Rock the Vote” campaign, or the debut of Carson Daly as a television show host? No matter what the issue, TRL was a go-to for celebrities to promote their causes. It was sort of like CNN’s Larry King Live, but for teenagers. When TRL concludes its run, there won’t be another outlet like it.

Some TRL fans might be questioning the cancellation of the show, but I believe the show has more than outlived its prime. The Internet has forced many media outlets to become obsolete, and it seems we can add music video countdown shows to that list. There are so many different ways to view the content that is shown on TRL now, particularly online. Teenagers are now so used to having everything at the snap of their fingers, so why would they sit on their couch and wait for an hour to find out what the No. 1 video of the day is when they can just go onto iTunes and find out on their own? And with the creation of YouTube, they can watch music videos all day long whenever they want.

There is no question that the ending of TRL will cause celebrities and their publicists to search for other outlets to promote their newest album to the teenybopper demographic. It is somewhat scary to see how much of an impact the Internet can have on such a long running show as TRL. I will always remember the glory days of MTV’s TRL and I am thankful for all of the juicy pop culture moments it has provided me over the years.

This past week, I saw something at the grocery store checkout line last week that shocked me. As I was checking out, I picked up the newest issue of US Weekly, just as I do every week. This particular week, Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential candidate, was on the cover cradling her baby with the headline “Babies, Lies and Scandal.” Because I read US Weekly to learn about the latest celebrity gossip and to get up to speed on what Britney has been doing lately, seeing Palin on the cover of this pseudo-tabloid made me rethink this political campaign. Has the election coverage become too much like celebrity coverage?

I did a little bit of research on the subject and discovered that the GOP chose People magazine to introduce Sarah Palin to America, while just a few weeks before, Barack Obama and his family were featured in the same magazine. I’m sure in the past presidential elections, candidates made their debuts on credible news shows or in popular newspapers. That by itself shows how much voters want to know about the candidates’ personal lives, just as we love to know about the personal lives of the celebrities.

Just this past weekend, Saturday Night Live opened the show with a skit in which Sarah Palin, played by Tina Fey, addressed the nation. Fey, who was a cast member of the show until 2006, came back to the show just so she could play the role of Palin. It is sometimes said in the entertainment business that you’re not a celebrity until you’re made fun of on Saturday Night Live.

It is blatantly obvious that this year’s presidential campaigns are trying to market their candidates as celebrities. The fact that John McCain even mentions the name Paris Hilton in one of his ads bashing Obama is clear evidence of this. The campaigns have made a smart PR move by doing this because they know that a lot of times personality wins over the issues. Our world has become so celebrity-obsessed, and the campaigns are using that to their advantage. Some people would rather read an article discussing the Obama family daily routine or Palin’s recipe for chili than an article discussing their stances on foreign policy or healthcare. You can’t really blame them though – one is definitely more relatable.

So, to answer whether the election coverage become too much like celebrity coverage, my answer is both yes and no. Yes because campaigns are pushing candidates to become more like celebrities just to attract candidates, when they should be pushing the issues. And no because political candidates are essentially celebrities when it comes down to it, and they always have been. Candidates have always been spoofed on Saturday Night Live and featured in People magazine. The campaigns have made clever PR moves, and you can’t really fault them for that.