PREP 16

I think Kobe Bryant handled the situation respectfully and professionally. His choice of words were not appropriate, however was said due to being in a heat of the moment type of situation. In this type of situation, one can say things they do not mean. By showing interest in the LGBT community, Bryant was seen as someone who cared for those a part of this social group.

I would not drop him from a sponsor's point of view. We all have said things we should not have said in the heat of the moment. Bryant exemplified good character by apologizing to both incidents. Financially, dropping Bryant as a sponsor would only cost them money. Being a super star athlete, Bryant provided the company with a large fan base and great deal amount of revenue. Firing Bryant would only hurt the company.

I would have advised Bryant to pay the fine. Financial success is obvious, making $100,000 not a big fine. Bryant paying the fine also shows his sincerity towards the issue. I think Bryant should have paid for the fine not because he is rich, but because actions speak louder than words. In this case, paying the fine allowed fans to see a side of Bryant some have never seen. On the court, Bryant is viewed as rockstar in the basketball world. Off the court, Bryant is like any other person who struggles with voicing their opinions in a peaceful matter.

PREP 15

Long story short, MSNBC attempted to be discrete in informing viewers of their sponsorship Starbucks coffee. Some one who did not know a lot about starbucks could have known there was some sort of deal between the two based off the constant cups of Starbucks coffee occupying the reporters' hands each morning. Were they wrong in not mentioning their sponsorship with the coffee comply? No, I agree with their idea in not mentioning their deal. What were they suppose to say? "Oh by the way, in case you couldn't tell, we're getting paid to advertise Starbucks so thats why we only drink their coffee." I don't think mentioning their sponsorship with them would have benefitted them in any way.

With respect to the Schultz interview, I would have advised MSNBC to either not make any sort of mention about Starbucks or design the interview to be a way of introducing the sponsorship. From a viewer's point of view, it appeared the interview was simply another interview discussing another successful business. If they wanted to make it known to viewers Starbucks was the official "brewer," they should have designed the entire interview over the partnership.

If I were the CEO, I would have advised Schultz to act as if they were meeting for the first time. I think if Schulz were to inform viewers of the sponsorship, it would have came off as if there was tension between the two. I would have advised Schultz to focus on the product. I would have also advised him to say something about how he enjoys seeing a Starbucks cup sitting on the news desk each morning. In my opinion, this creates a non biased interview.

PREP 14

In regards to the Arab Spring, I would have advised Kenneth Cole to refrain from making any reference towards the outbreaks. The idea was clever in the sense of capturing attention but was highly offensive. As his PR agent, I would have advised Kenneth Cole to tweet support towards the victims of the Cairo outbreaks. Kenneth Cole could have potentially attracted customers by showing compassion and support towards this issue. I also would have told him to not tweet something about his new clothing line in the same tweet. Kenneth Cole made the wrong decision in using a highly sensitive topic to poke fun at for advertising purposes.

I would advise him that self promotion combined with humor is not a good combination. I would advise to take a policy that only promotes positivity and would not stir up controversy. Because people can take humor in all different ways, I would advise Kenneth Cole to have all of his tweets proof read before tweeting them.

PREP 13

I think the CEO was fine in speaking his opinions on gay marriage. He had the right to his opinion and should not be restricted to sharing that because he owns a successful fast food company. Sharing his opinion may have taken away some business but it is evident it did not decrease Chick fil a's sales. I think it was okay for him to share his opinion because Chick fil a is based on Christian values.  He was holding his values for not only himself but also his business. I think his approach was not disrespectful. Had it been any other social group, the public's reaction would have been different.

Had I been advising Cathy, I would have probably had to be unbiased. His and my values are the same and would have agreed with him. However, as a PR person I probably would have advised him to refrain from saying what he said. Cathy's statement was not disrespectful but it did target one specific group. If asked what his opinion on gay marriage was I would have advised him to say he simply did not support it. There is no harm is saying you do not support something.

PREP 12

I think they could have taken a much gentler approach in addressing the public. I think it was good they were honest but should have addressed the public with more consideration. In dealing with war, the public is already going to be on edge. The only thing they should have done was respond as to why the benefits for using the drones would have been. An aggressive approach may work for majority of cases but not in this instance.

I would add more to the benefits of using drones. I would also take a slower approach to using them. I wouldn't immediately throw them in the public's face. In this case, the public reacted aggressive because the PR people took an aggressive approach. The whole ordeal could have been prevented or at least reduced had the PR not used full force.

PREP 11

I think Smith was right in making the decision to go public. He had valid reason for going public, since it was evident Goldman Sachs was being shady. Although it did appear Smith was slandering the company, I think there would have been no other way to go around it. Goldman Sachs is a large company. When dealing with large companies, something big is bound to happen when one of its top employers quits. I don't think it was unethical for Smith to come out publicly about what he thought of Goldman Sachs. 

I believe Goldman made the write move by sending out a memo to the staff about the controversy. However, I think they could of done even more than just a memo being sent out. I think they should of done something to show their employees how much they appreciate their work they do for the company. I think hiring a new PR person was a good move on their part. It was evident there current spokesperson was not benefitting them. I also think it was best for Goldman Sachs to stay out of the public light.

For future reference, I would advise Goldman Sachs to have an excellent PR department. In being a large company, any sort of news will be made a big deal. I would also advise them to focus more on their work environment. Take notice in what your employees are doing and how they are feeling. Happy workers makes not only happy customers but also better work. I think Goldman Sachs should work more from within in order to maintain strong ties with their employees.

PREP 10

If I were Ketchum, I would have advised ConAgra to approach the idea in a different way. I would have told ConAgra to tell the bloggers they would be eating high quality food and Marie Calendars. For example, they could have been successful by telling the bloggers they would be eating both kinds of food but would not know until the meal was completed. They would have been able to gather results and I do not think there would have been a negative reaction. I would have also advised them to not have used cameras without notifying the bloggers prior to the meal. I think ConAgra had a good idea but did not plan it well.

I would have structured the invitations to the bloggers as some sort campaign saying Marie Calendars is equivalent to high quality food and would like to invite them to test their theory. I would not have lied to the bloggers, saying they would be treated to a meal with only high quality food. I think if they had used the method I mentioned earlier they would have had a good response. I also think they could have gained great material for advertising purposes.

PREP 9

I think Romney had good intentions in acting amazed with the ordering process at Wawa. No, he probably should not have acted as if he'd been living under a rock but I don't think he had intentions of giving off the impression he did. I think MSNBC's handling of the Romney incident was taken in the complete wrong direction. It made it look as though MSNBC's intentions were to put Romney in negative light. In handling MSNBC from Romney's side, I would have advised Romney to respond to MSNBC's comment as if was mis read and not a big deal. I think the fact that this one incident at a gas station was made into some huge ordeal was stupid. I think MSNBC was wrong in attempting to make Romney look as if he was too good to be shopping in a place like Wawa.

If I were Andrea Mitchell I would have handled the incident with a relaxed approach. In reporting the incident, I would have acted as if it were no big deal. I do not think this incident was anything worth reporting. I think it had bad intentions. In the end, the only positive that came out of it was good advertising for Wawa. This story should not have been blown up like it was. There are numerous accounts of celebrities acting as if they've never experienced something as simple as going to grocery shopping. This incident in particular was an ordeal because it dealt with a presidential candidate who did come from a wealthy background.

Prep 8

If I were Sleepy's, I would have double checked the facts before distributing it to the public. Its evident that Sleepy's wasn't concerned with the actual numbers. Instead, they were more concerned with advertising their company. If I were Sleepy's I also would have made sure my research surveyed a large number of people in each career. Based off the results, it appears they didn't question a lot of people. Good research takes a decent amount of time and requires a large amount of people. It looks like Sleepy's rushed the research in order to publish the article as soon as possible.

I'm honestly surprised the New York Times published the research. I would not have published it simply due to lack of information. The numbers did not differ enough to show any drastic comparison. It was also clear that a small portion of people were surveyed. Before publishing the article, I would have had Sleepy's conduct a second portion of research. The article itself was somewhat of a disappointment in providing readers with factual information. I think this article could been a good if they had taken more time to gather information. In this situation, the lack of people surveyed took away from the article.

PREP 7

I do not know a lot information about all of the cited cases but I do feel Nancy Grace had no reason to be voicing her opinion. In all of these cases, Grace appears to have no good intentions in becoming involved with each of these cases. In each of the cases, Grace appeared somewhat irrational and cruel. I do not agree with any of Grace's opinions in these cases. Each of these cases involved a serious crime, and did not require any sort of criticism from Grace. It also appears that Grace made on valid point or offered any necessary information.

The public relations implications for Grace's network were that she was very outspoken. Her approach is like no other in grabbing the media's attention. Along with this, Grace delivers a strong message. In any situation, Grace shows no sort of hesitation in voicing her opinion. Her attitude may appear to be offensive but she does receive feedback from her viewers. The conclusions that can be drawn from Grace is that she gets the job done at voicing her opinion. Regardless if she is right or wrong, people listen.