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.
Friday, December 2, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)