Taking the Hassle out of Local 911 Services

In response to recent troubles with Tuscaloosa’s emergency medical response system, city officials are looking into consolidating the various 911 communication systems in the city and county.

In June, a communication error between the ambulance company American Medical Response and the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff’s Office may have resulted in the death of a 15-year-old near Lake Tuscaloosa. According to the Tuscaloosa News, AMR failed to contact TCSO after receiving a call from Tuscaloosa police regarding the subject having a seizure. Contacting TCSO would have allowed a sheriff’s office dispatcher to cut response time by sending volunteer firefighters, who were a short distance from the patient’s house.

On July 26, another response issue took place outside of city limits, with poor external communication to blame. Volunteer firefighters in the Abernant area called a medical examiner to declare an unresponsive patient dead. This was done without contacting their dispatcher at TCSO, and without the consent of the Tuscaloosa City Fire Department, who is required to be on scene to make the decision of calling to declare a subject deceased anywhere in the county.

With issues like these in mind, the city and county are working together to consolidate Tuscaloosa, Northport and county EMS dispatch systems by placing them in a central location. According to Mayor Walt Maddox, this consolidation would make communication smoother between the systems that already work and respond together.

“I think what happened [June 27] highlights the need for a review of standard operating procedures and probably justifies revisiting the entire issue of whether a consolidated dispatching system is in the best interest of this community,” Maddox said (Taylor, 2008).

Combining EMS communications into one system is a worthwhile consideration from a public relations perspective. For the emergency responders, doing so would result in fewer transferred calls, as well as increased awareness of what is happening in the county among the different areas of jurisdiction.

The consolidation would also serve to ease the minds of external publics. Many of the people who call 911 for emergencies don’t realize how many communication centers their call information may go to. Creating a central Tuscaloosa County dispatch office would help make 911 into the single, smoothly running entity that callers expect it to be.

Sources:
Taylor, S. (2008, July 3). “Officials study 911 overhaul.” Tuscaloosa News. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080703/NEWS/843566413/1007/NEWS02&template=printart
Phone conversations with Northstar EMS and Abernant volunteers (2008, July 26).

Miley Cyrus: No Longer So Squeaky Clean

Although some may say there is no such thing as bad publicity, tween idol Miley Cyrus may disagree.

In the past few weeks, Cyrus has gone from having a “squeaky-clean” reputation and the full support of parents to finding herself in the midst of a controversy involving a number of provocative pictures on the Internet as well as a “racy” photograph taken by Vanity Fair.

In some of the photographs circulating on the Web, the 15-year-old singer/actress appears with then-boyfriend showing her midriff and in others exposing a green bra to the camera.

The Vanity Fair edition in question has yet to be released, but photographs are already up on the Web. A spokesperson for the magazine said Cyrus had family with her all during the photo shoot who had all seen and approved the digital version of the photograph. However, a Disney representative accused Vanity Fair of deliberately creating a situation to manipulate a 15-year-old.

On Sunday, April 27, the Disney “Hannah Montana” star issued an exclusive statement to PEOPLE apologizing for a series of photographs circulating on the Internet as well as for the Vanity Fair shoot.

“My goal in my music and my acting is always to make people happy. For Vanity Fair, I was so honored and thrilled to work with Annie [Leibovitz]. I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed,” Cyrus said.

Prior to the magazine controversy, Cyrus was already getting complaints and commentary from parents and the conservative TV host Bill O’Reilly about the photos on the Web.

In the statement issued Sunday, she also went on to say that she was sorry for taking the other photos and appreciates the support she has gotten from her fans.

“The pictures of me on the Internet were silly, inappropriate shots. I appreciate all the support of my fans, and hope they understand that along the way I am going to make mistakes and I am not perfect. I never intended for any of this to happen and I am truly sorry if I have disappointed anyone.”

With her transition from young teen sensation to a young woman, many critics have drawn parallels to Britney Spears and urge her parents to make sure she doesn’t go down the same path, according to a CNN article.

However, other critics have wondered if this is just a ploy to see past her current market into the future and start looking to transition away from the pre-school children audience to capture a niche with the older crowd.

While I think the photos could be a step toward making inroads with an older group, I don’t think Cyrus has enough to gain at her present state that she would risk alienating her current multi-million dollar market.

From a PR perspective, Cyrus made the best decision possible in appealing to her fans’ and critics’ sympathy and directly addressing her mistake and apologizing for it. In her statement, Cyrus appeared sincere and honest, which makes it much easier for fans and parents to oversee her misjudgment.

While the Vanity Fair shoot was not that controversial alone, unfortunately for Cyrus it happened only days after news of her other images surfaced. I actually find the Vanity Fair situation understandable and easier to overlook than the other photos. I do not see how anyone, much less an actress with the number 1 cable show for children, could take provocative photos of herself and put them online for the world to see. My advice for Cyrus and other people in the media spotlight: Enjoy time with your significant other if that is your decision, but don’t document it with photos and post them online for all the parents of your 5-year-old fans to see. Have a little common sense.

Given what has happened, I think Cyrus has handled the situation well. I think if she avoids other scandals in the near future, her reputation will recover and she will be able to stay in parents’ good graces.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontentcnn

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/29/mileys.growing.pains.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText

Not So Naughty Auties

Billboards, television commercials, radio spots and magazine advertisements have lately been shouting startling autism statistics thanks to the organization Autism Speaks. April is Autism Awareness Month, and Barnes & Noble is spotlighting books on autism in its stores nationwide. The Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus even got involved in the Autism Speaks’ World Autism Awareness Day on April 2, 2008. There is certainly a marked push for understanding and recognizing the disorder driven by the startlingly high numbers of those affected.

Autism affects every one in 150 people. There are currently 1.5 million Americans affected by autism. The disorder ranges in severity and “impairs a person's ability to communicate and relate to others. It is also associated with rigid routines and repetitive behaviors, such as obsessively arranging objects or following very specific routines,” states Autism Speaks. As of now, there is no method of prevention, treatment or cure of autism, though early intervention to develop communication skills is helpful. 

With autism gaining recognition as a widespread disorder, the virtual world Second Life has a unique PR opportunity, thanks to David Savill, if it chooses to act on it. Second Life is a Web site that allows users to create and customize human figures known as avatars to live in a realistic online world. As of March 2008, the Web site boasted about 13 million accounts. One of these 13 million users is Savill, or Dave Sparrow as his avatar is known in Second Life.

Savill, 22, of England has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, an autistic disorder characterized by clumsiness and difficulty in social situations, including trouble recognizing and understanding facial indications, like a smile or frown. In response, Savill has created Naughty Auties, an online area in Second Life designed specifically for those affected by autism, including support for friends and family members.

Naughty Auties is modeled after a relaxing beach scene, a design that in addition to the comfort and privacy of personal computers, hopes to draw autistic users in with enough ease that they feel secure enough to communicate with one another. However, the Second Life area is not touted as a cure for autism, but simply a place for communication, free from face-to-face pressure. Savill has big plans for Naughty Auties’ future including virtual conferences given by psychologists about autism, uniting users simply by accessing Second Life, without the need of long-distance travel.

With the high numbers of those affected by autism, not only those with the disorder, but friends and family, Second Life can help this growing group as well as its own PR. Savill has written to Second Life and circulated a petition in hopes of any kind of donation to help Naughty Auties as well as publicity on the main Web site for Second Life. But it has thus far done no good. Savill’s first letter was answered two weeks later with a generic reply letter. His response to the generic letter wasn’t even answered.

Second Life is allowing an innovative PR chance pass it by, especially after negative publicity from child pornography scandals and virtual land lawsuits on its Web site. Second Life also needs to act fast before one of its virtual competitors, like Active World or There, seizes the opportunity. This situation can leave the Web site looking either callous and apathetic or innovative and accommodating, a decision so seemingly simple that an avatar could make it.

Mary Elizabeth Roberson and Caitlin Graham

Sources:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-1769

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life#Criticism

http://secondlife.com/

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

http://www.autismspeaks.org/whatisit/index.php

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/28/sl.autism.irpt/

 

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmTXGQ2BhUA

Delta Image Change: Fasten your safety belts, turbulence ahead.

One of the United States’ most widely recognized airlines has recently had to do some major image rebuilding and company restructuring.  Delta Air Lines’ brand identity was quickly “grounded” when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2005.  Not only did stockholders lose all benefits, but passengers also lost trust in the company.  It was then up to public relations and marketing practitioners to salvage the relationship between passenger and airline and ultimately create a new identity for the airline.  

Following the first crucial step in a public relations campaign, Delta did extensive research on what passengers were looking for in an airline and ultimately, how Delta could rebuild their trust.  According to Lisa Bennett of Leo Burnett U.S.A., “The campaign is about doing a better job of listening, responding, and finally rediscovering the Delta passenger-focused heritage. It is not designed to be apologetic or to be a declaration of overnight change,” stated Bennett, who heads up the global creative team. “It’s a promise. To listen. To respond.” Delta’s focus or purpose concentrates on financial stability and improving the customer experience.

AK’s Opinion

So has Delta succeeded in building consumer loyalty by improving the customer experience?  Delta has supposedly made an effort to revamp everything from the check-in to the in-flight experience. Delta has even produced a new in-flight safety video.  From the viewpoint of a frequent flyer, Delta has successfully rebuilt its image, but has failed to improve customer relations.

Although Delta has made it a point to release new advertisements, a new and improved logo and Web site, passengers are still dissatisfied with the way they are treated on Delta Air Lines. Delta has increased its profitability since bankruptcy in 2005, still being named one of the top 100 Fortune 500 companies, but really it had nowhere to go but up.  I will give the marketing and media team kudos for embracing the financial problem and making themselves transparent during the crisis.   While I was amused by the modern style of the new safety video, logo and advertisements, I was not amused when Delta lost my luggage on a recent trip.  Delta must learn to follow through with its message of customer satisfaction, especially considering its financial circumstances. 

Chelsea’s Opinion

A little over 10 years ago, I had my first flying experience aboard a Delta flight from Tampa to Atlanta. Without exaggeration, I’ll say that it was an absolute nightmare. The service was bad, it took forever to get through security and the flight itself was uncomfortable and far from pleasant. The experience completely turned me off to flying; I wouldn’t board another plane after that for eight years, another Delta experience that was, sadly, a letdown like the first. What I assumed would be a satisfying customer experience turned out to be a huge hassle. First, there’s the baggage issue—always a pleasure the lugging and lifting, then those security lines—endless waiting followed by more waiting and finally, the strategic wedging of one’s self in seats far too narrow, sometimes between two complete strangers, for a period of time exceeding five minutes that will feel like an absolute eternity. 

I believe it’s possible that experiences similar to my own shared by thousands of customers became a major factor leading to Delta’s 2005 bankruptcy filing and motivated them to restructure their corporation. And hopefully, with Delta giving a little more focus to enhancing customer experience, my next flight will be an enjoyable travel experience. Bottom line is that Delta really needs to start proving itself to avoid having to file Chapter 11 again.

Anna Katherine Owen and Chelsea Worley

See the new Delta advertisement and safety video here: 

Advertisement – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNW_3AIek0

Safety Video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpzUo_kbFY

 

 

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