Dirty Little Secrets: Political Scandals

Political sex scandals are quickly becoming the most popular headlines of the new millennium. Jim McGreevey was governor of New Jersey until he admitted that he was a homosexual and unfaithful to his wife. Former Congressman Mark Foley headed to rehab after officials discovered his lewd e-mails and instant messages sent to teenage pages. Earlier this month, Eliot Spitzer resigned his post as the governor of New York when his involvement in a local prostitution ring came to light. Upon his succession to the New York governorship, David Paterson immediately admitted to past extramarital affairs. In the good old days, shock and outrage were the country’s automatic reactions, but Americans these days merely sigh when they open up their morning paper to find that their newest elected leader has a less-than-desirable past.

The question is this: do constituents really care about the personal lives of their leaders? It seems that as long as everyone is “open” about what went on and nothing illegal took place, anything goes. Sexual misconduct among politicians becomes a joke on late-night television; soon it’s pushed to the back of our minds by the next big scandal on the news. There’s a growing trend for shamed politicians to publicly condemn their immoral actions, apologize to their families and conclude with a sorrowful resignation. This is the “proper,” generally accepted method in the realm of public relations, evidenced by countless news conferences in which these officials follow an almost identical pattern. But from a public relations perspective, is there a better way for politicians to deal with scandals that could ruin their professional reputation forever?

Savannah’s Opinion: I am not so sure that there is any better way of cleaning up the dirty work of fallen politicians. Unfortunately, Americans are desensitized to political misbehavior and have learned not to expect too much from the nation’s leaders. Therefore, it comes as no shock when another sex scandal surfaces; instead perhaps just a bit of disappointment and thoughts of “Well, there’s another one.”

The key to building back a decent reputation is not in the few days that follow a fallout. It is in the weeks, months and even years after. A simple apology and resignation are good gestures, but not enough to wipe the slate clean. As with everything else in life, it takes time for people to move past and forgive a disappointment. If these politicians wish to continue a career in politics, they need to really take some time and work through their personal struggles. They should step out of the spot light for a while and let the chaos fade. Later, return to the public eye with a vengeance and be prepared to do what it takes to show Americans that they are worthy of a second chance and have risen above their mistakes.

The ultimate public relations strategy would be to avoid these situations all together, but of course, politicians are human just like the rest of us and will continue to make unwise decisions. Americans will never forget a mistake, but are certainly able to give second chances.

Sarah’s Opinion: I agree with Savannah; it takes more than just a well-publicized apology and a few tears to get back into the public’s good graces. Unfortunately, these days that only applies to really big and potentially illegal sex scandals, like the one involving Spitzer. Consider Bill Clinton: he messed up inexcusably, yet the public either has forgotten the Monica Lewinsky incident or has chosen to ignore it in the face of all he has done since his presidency. It takes time and a good publicist to win back the hearts of the American people (and more importantly, the press).

The flip side of the coin is the example of David Paterson. Here’s a guy who flat out admits that he and his wife cheated on each other (not to mention that he has “tried cocaine”). When I read his statement, I find myself nodding along and applauding him for being forthcoming with this information. Then it hits me. Is the fact that he admits to his mistakes before they are sniffed out something that is admirable? I’m not so sure, but I am sure that coming clean to the public in a humble fashion before journalists get a hold of the misdeed is much more acceptable than apologizing afterward. People like to know that their elected leaders have nothing to hide, or at the very least, that they can maintain the appearance of morality. If it’s the best they can do, I guess we’ll have to take it. Americans, say goodbye to “leading by example.”

Savannah Lanier and Sarah Yates

See these videos for more information:
“Eliot Spitzer Resignation”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYEUhIobuk

“Paterson Affair CS”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_B5jo3xZpU

Read these articles for more information:
“New York Gov. Spitzer resigns amid sex scandal”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4436155

“New NY Governor Admits Affairs Years Ago
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4478826

“It’s 3 a.m.” … Let the answering machine get it

The Background: The 2008 primary elections are approaching an end, and the fog is beginning to clear over which candidates will represent their parties in the upcoming presidential election. Prior to the March 4th primaries, John McCain had a clear advantage in the Republican vote, while Barack Obama held the lead over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic vote. Clinton, fearing her presidential nomination slipping away, heightened the aggression in her campaign tactics. She recently released a controversial commercial implying that the well being of America’s youth may be at risk with an Obama victory. She also claimed that her experience and savvy in national security qualify her as the best candidate. Obama’s camp quickly dismissed this ad as a scare tactic. He then released an eerily similar commercial citing his consistency in opposing the war in Iraq, clearly also referencing Hillary’s previous vote to enter the war.

The Issue: The primary issue surrounding this story is how effective such tactics can be in swaying the public vote and how such tactics reflect upon the candidates’ characters. Both candidates have been accused of using scare tactics in order to woo voters.  The Clinton camp has already declared victory in this commercial debacle.  Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, said the ad showed Americans “who’s ready and prepared to be commander-in-chief.”  He also said this commercial signaled a change in momentum in the presidential race.  But the question is whether voters will be turned off by fear or have a renewed sense of security behind a candidate.  Since the commercials were virtually the same, despite a few sentences, each candidate could have the edge. So far, they have caused quite the political firestorm with each candidate producing their own retaliation commercials in preparation for the March 4th primaries. Upon being posted on YouTube, Clinton’s ad has nearly 700,000 hits while Obama’s has just over 300,000 as of March 5. 

Anna Catherine’s Opinion:  When I first heard of these commercials, I was very interested, not only because of the upcoming election, but also because of the negative or positive tone that might come with these commercials.  I will admit that Clinton’s commercial was very strong and gave voters what they wanted to hear­­ -- that Hillary is experienced in national security and is ready to respond to any situation.  The part that I originally thought might hurt Hillary in this commercial was that she and Obama used the same canned images of children sleeping.  Would this make the Clinton camp seem like they are taking the easy way out in producing commercials, or is this just common procedure?  I still haven’t found the answer to these questions, but I think Obama having the same images makes Hillary seem like they are really taking the easy way out.  It showed that Hillary’s commercial really wasn’t that special to begin with and that Obama is just as prepared as she is.  Preparedness is key in these situations.  I am constantly amazed at how fast the different campaigns are to react to everything.  They are always quick to retaliate and “one-up” the other.  Obama’s camp was very quick to react in this situation, for which they are being praised.  Within hours, he had his own video out on the Internet with almost the exact same information.  But does that mean that Obama simply copied Clinton or was it all part of his strategy?  We may never know the reasoning behind this, but we will know the effects come November. 

Anthony’s Opinion: This approaching presidential election has had a distinct train wreck feeling to it since the beginning of the primaries. The Republican Party failed to groom a proper successor to Bush, leaving the GOP with a slew of candidates, half of which no one knew existed. With McCain emerging from this mixed bag of cartoon characters, the only drama left remains with the Democrats. As the two remaining heavyweights exchange blows, and as Clinton remains trailing, it comes as no surprise that she would try an unorthodox yet recycled method of scare tactics. The real surprise is that such tactics appear to have worked, as Clinton claimed campaign-saving victories in Ohio and Texas. Yet for all the huffing and puffing and mudslinging she has done, she still finds herself in an uphill battle. This creates an interesting question. When will a candidate emerge who abstains from the stale, exhausted opponent-bashing techniques of yester year and instead take the high ground? How refreshing would it be if the next generation of voters could have a good guy (or gal) to identify with and support?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdems015597475mar01,0,5244135.story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=879o1_pxO0c

 

The Sloppy Truth in Your Sloppy Joes

On Sunday, Feb. 17, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recalled 143 million pounds of beef making it the largest beef recall in U.S. history. All beef produced by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., a southern California slaughterhouse, since Feb. 1, 2006, has been recalled. Of this meat, 37 million pounds were sent to school lunch programs. Though the USDA believes that most of this meat has already been eaten, “recalls of this kind extend as far back as there is evidence of safety violations” (Slate). According to Fox News, many of the slaughtered animals were what the meat industry refers to as “downers”—animals that are too sick or injured to be used as meat for human consumption. These animals were reportedly abused as they were prodded into the slaughterhouse.

Roughly 150 school districts and two fast-food chains have stopped ordering beef from Westland, and the USDA is planning to further investigate the animal cruelty allegations. The president of Westland issued a statement on Feb. 3 saying that the company complies with all USDA regulations. Westland undoubtedly will have to work hard to regain its reputable image, and this situation leaves consumers wondering how was the USDA unaware of Westland’s procedures for two years?

Taryn’s opinion: This situation creates a public relations problem for two entities: Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As noted above, Westland has already lost the business of 150 school districts and two fast-food chains. With the public knowing that these practices have been going on for at least two years (it could be longer, but the USDA only requires slaughterhouses to keep records for two years), it will be incredibly difficult for the company to regain its reputation for quality. Westland’s biggest mistake is its lack of crisis management. The company’s spokesperson was not available for an immediate comment, and the company has not issued any major statements thus far. The USDA has handled the situation much better. The Department has been available for comment and has assured consumers it will immediately investigate the situation. However, the USDA still needs to allay the concern across America that it is not adequately doing its job. It is inexcusable that these practices have continued for the past two years without the USDA being aware of the situation. As for me, I wonder what else the USDA inspections have overlooked.

Katie’s opinion: I’ll have the veggie soup and salad combo for dinner tonight. Perhaps the worst part of this bestial monstrosity is that the mystery remains not only in the meatloaf, but also in the location of the bad meat. As of Friday, Feb. 22, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has yet to release the names of the companies that have received the moo-goo. Officials claim that this information concerns the businesses and their relationships with their retailers. Really? How many people think that “this information” concerns me, you and mad cow disease? And what puts the ketchup right on the hamburger is that officials are still searching for about 15 million pounds of meat. While I’m sure that the public relations situation could be worse, the USDA seriously needs to be more transparent. Trust is now the carnal issue between the consumers and the meat industry. Shutting down the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company was a good move, but it is not enough. Officials at the USDA report that the risk of illness from eating contaminated meat is low. However, they are not giving their publics a reason to believe them. And while I understand that no scandal could be big enough to keep America away from its Big Macs, an eager election year could pose a threat to the government program. Pressure is the last thing the USDA needs. Without a good, timely public relations strategy, the USDA stands to lose a lot of business and gain a lot of heat. The solution is simple. Build trust by being honest. If they keep up this murky behavior we’ve seen so far, the cows won’t be the only ones who are mad.

Taryn Ely and Katie Lynn McInnish

Sources:

Wilson, Chris. (Feb. 19, 2008). Why Recall Two-Year-Old Ground Beef? Slate. Rerieved Feb. 20, 2008, from http:// www.slate.com/id/2184701/.

Associated Press. (Feb. 18, 2008). USDA Orders Largest-Ever Beef Recall After Alleged Animal Cruelty. Fox News. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2008, from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330985,00.html. 

eBay Outrage: This Week's Boycott

Beginning Feb. 20, eBay will be rolling out changes that affect both its buyers and its sellers. Some of the changes include increasing fees, placing 21-day holds on PayPal payments and preventing sellers from leaving negative feedback on buyers’ accounts. After eBay revealed the upcoming changes, current eBay sellers expressed outrage toward the company. This led to a strike against eBay to take place from Feb. 18 to Feb. 25. This isn’t the first year that eBay has increased fees and been threatened with boycotts. In 2005 and 2006, buyers attempted to strike against eBay, but the strikes went virtually unnoticed. This year, angry eBay patrons have circulated e-mail petitions, created Facebook and MySpace groups and events promoting the boycott and posted YouTube videos in hopes to promote the strike to others. eBay spokesman Usher Lieberman said that eBay understands patrons’ concerns but feels the changes are necessary and for good reason. Additionally, eBay has stated that it is not worried by the proposed strike. We will have to wait and see if this year’s strike is any more effective than its predecessors.


Amelie’s Opinion: I think eBay is handling the situation well. From a public relations perspective, eBay’s spokesman Usher Lieberman was quick to provide a statement about the proposed strike in order to let customers know that eBay is listening to their concerns. While it is necessary to please customers, eBay must not immediately abandon its strategy. Instead, eBay should use its strategy to try to make the Web site better for its clients in the long run. Since the general public does not know the full reasoning behind the upcoming changes, we must believe that these changes have strong justifications behind them or eBay would not enforce them. By referring to eBay customers as “a passionate community,” Lieberman attempts to show that there is a sense of belonging with the Web site, and it is only natural to become agitated when changes are made. EBay should certainly listen to the concerns of its public, but the public should allow time for eBay to prove that its changes will make the Web site better in the end.


Erin’s Opinion: I agree with Amelie that eBay was quick to respond to boycott threats and explain itself to customers, but I think eBay should consider how the changes they make affect customers’ relationships with the Web site. I understand that eBay is a business, and its purpose is to turn a profit. At the same time, wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a company think about its consumer base before thinking of its profit margin? Maybe that’s a little too idealistic for corporate America. But think about all of the warm, fuzzy feelings that would be created if, instead of mandating increased fees and holds on money, eBay decided to give consumers options for how their account works. The whole purpose of public relations is to build two-way communication. That means everybody gets a little give and take. It seems to me that eBay is merely patronizing its users with statements about listening to the community but never even considering their complaints.

Amelie Smith and Erin Cornelius

Food Fight: Quiznos versus Subway

Recently Quiznos and Subway sandwich franchises have been involved in a legal battle over Quiznos’ “Quiznos Vs. Subway TV Ad Challenge” in which consumers were asked to submit videos depicting how Quiznos is superior to Subway. There was only one winning video that was shown in Times Square on New Year’s Eve 2006 and featured on a commercial on VH1. However, all of the other videos that were submitted were posted on a Web site called http://meatnomeat.com where anybody could view them at anytime, and many of them are still on http://youtube.com. Subway has since claimed that Quiznos is guilty of defamation and false advertising because the videos implied that Subway sandwiches have far less meat than a Quiznos’ sub. Subway says that Quiznos should have filtered the videos and only chosen ones that were not defamatory to be placed on the Web site.

The contest was obviously a public relations initiative on Quiznos part, because the initiative was to connect the customers with the product and the brand specifically. Rather than developing stronger relationships with their consumers in order to reinforce brand identity, Quiznos chose to knock the competition by associating the Subway brand with inferiority. The question is whether this PR tactic was ethical or not and whether or not it was a good idea from the start.

Katie’s opinion: The ethics issue of the contest is a hard one to pin down. Subway claims that while Quiznos is not responsible for any creative work done by its consumers, it is responsible for which ones it chose to keep. Subway is also going after some of Quiznos’ actual commercials, claiming that they are defamed in those as well because they are depicted negatively. However, my question is this: why is it OK for other companies to use comparative advertising to promote their products, but it’s not OK for a sandwich company? Companies that sell cleaning products, such as Lysol, and car companies, such as Toyota, put down the competition in their commercials all the time, and nobody bats an eyelash. I don’t think that the Quiznos contest was unethical because their claim that their sandwiches have more meat or are tastier can be seen as simply a matter of opinion; however, I do think it was a poorly planned PR tactic. Quiznos’ angle is that their sandwiches have more substance than Subway, which may seem like a good quality for some people. However, in a way it also supports Subway’s “less fat” advertising campaign that they’ve been promoting for the past few years. Therefore, I think Subway’s lawsuit is a petty one. Quiznos should already feel stupid enough without losing thousands of dollars in court.

Suzanne’s opinion: I think that the whole campaign makes Quiznos look weak. It seems to me that they were unable to come up with a creative marketing strategy without targeting their toughest competition. The biggest question to me is what was the screening process of the videos? If Quiznos was really involved in filtering the user-generated videos from what could defame Subway’s reputation and what could not, then I think it was wrong. However, if they simply posted every video that was submitted onto their site, then they had no control of the content. Personally I am Subway girl, and probably always will be. Although I am a bigger fan of Subway, I am trying to see this from a neutral standpoint. Subway’s lawsuit seems a little extreme because the videos are pretty lame. I think it is tacky that Quiznos specifically asked their customers to bash Subway, instead of simply proving why Quiznos is the best sandwich shop on the market. This whole lawsuit is giving both restaurants plenty of attention whether it’s the kind they were hoping for or not.

Watch this video for an example of Quiznos versus Subway advertising:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZIHvSSw6lbA

For more information, read this article about the lawsuit from The Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/28/technology/adco.php

Katie Dageforde and Suzanne Flanagan