Brandjack News

A Crisis I See in the Media is Not Necessarily My Crisis, Or Is It?

by Lilli Haicken

If one keeps up with the news or other media about happenings in the world or with your favorite celebrity one can always find a crisis of some sort. It may be happening in your backyard or half a world away. What differentiates each happening is whether or not your life will be affected by the crisis. And you would be surprised at how your life might be affected by a crisis far away.

Take the recent law passed in Indiana. This one law – one of many of a similar type – seems to call for the ability of anyone, be they an individual or a business, to be able to refuse to do business with someone on the grounds that their religious convictions do not agree with that person’s wants or desires. At least, that’s the interpretation of the law by today’s democrats and liberals. And now Mike Pence, governor of Indiana and a GOP favorite, is looking at a crisis created by the media over this law. Various groups are calling for boycotts of things happening in Indiana. The governor has responded in many news outlets to those who are criticizing the law and its timing. Social media is awash with groups calling for the repeal of the law or boycotts.

For those who live in Indiana, this probably is a crisis because they live and probably work in the state. They have opinions on both sides. There might be economic and social ramifications for the state if the crisis isn’t handled well. There will be political ramifications for Governor Pence. However, for someone like me who does not live in Indiana and has no reason to travel there or do business there, does this crisis mean anything? Because it might affect the stances of potential candidates in the upcoming 2016 elections, I should pay attention. If I understand what a law like this might mean for me doing business with people who take offense at my beliefs, then I can choose a candidate who can make it easier for me to do business without the interference of personal belief.

             Paying attention to crises and parsing out the meaning to you and your life could indeed make a difference. Just saying. 

Starbucks and Race Together

By Quentin Langley

No-one thinks it was anything other than well-intentioned, but that does not mean it was well-thought out. The idea was to start a conversation about race in America. Recent events have shown that this is much-needed. Not only was there a widely condemned instance in which a grand jury failed to indict a police officer who throttled an African American on camera on Staten Island there was an equally well-publicised incident in Ferguson, Missouri, where polls suggest black people and white people had sharply divided views on what happened. There is definitely something to talk about.

So Starbucks invited its customers to start a conversations with baristas about race. ("Barista" is Starbucks for "server"). But the corporation offered no training to to baristas for the conversation. Obviously, that's not to suggest that without training people can't have the conversation. Baristas are as welcome as anyone else to have opinions. But if you expect them to have opinions and to converse with customers - who might, of course, be academic experts in the subject, or have a lifetime's personal experience of belonging to an ethnic minority - then some sort of training would seem to be in order. Otherwise staff - excuse me, "partners" - will be left exposed.

Naturally, it also left Starbucks exposed to criticism over the lack of diversity in the corporate leadership team. 

As part of promoting the "third space" idea - somewhere that is not work and not home - Starbucks is probably right to tackle difficult issues. But this one could have been better thought out. 

[dot]SUCKS Is the New Brand Nightmare

by Lilli Haicken

Every time I think I have a handle on what brands can do to get on top of problems out there on the web, another genius comes up with something new. This time its a web extension - [dot]SUCKS - which is supposed to help foster brand criticism. The new extension goes on sale at the end of this month from Vox Populi Registry.

I suspect there will be a run from the brands themselves to buy up the extensions and prevent the kind of criticism the originator of the idea has. Although as Kevin Allen pointed out on his excellent post for PRDaily the other day, we humans have ways of getting around brands having more money than we do. cocacola.suck could become hellocokeyou.suck. Or any other permutation of the name of the brand. Do big name brands have enough money to buy up every permutation of their name? Can they really figure out every permutation? 

From the consumer end, I am sure we all out here have criticisms of the brands out there. I know I have many criticisms, and sometimes I even post about them - privately. Usually I just stop using a brand I don't like. Or if I have issues with a brand's ideals, I don't use them. But consumers have latched onto this two-way conversation medium and are trying hard to 'fix' things out there. McDonald's, for instance, has responded to consumers by announcing they will no longer use chickens given certain anti-biotics and have changed their sourcing for this item. A win for consumers? Maybe. 

What about celebrity brands? Or politicians? Or countries? Can they all buy up their own [dot]SUCK domains? What legal protections are there for international criticism? Can I, as an American citizen buy up putinyou.suck and create a website that Russians can see? and what's more, use? 

Consumer criticism in this day and age is critical for brands to monitor and respond to, and this new domain extension could be a new way to brandjack. Brands have more to fear out there. Nightmares are coming. Brands, beware. 

D&G, Sir Elton, in counter boycott calls

By Quentin Langley

Sir Elton John has called for people to boycott fashion brand Dolce and Gabbana after the group's founders expressed their opposition to in vitro fertilisation. Gabbana has previously been critical of same sex adoption.

Gabbana has criticised Sir Elton's boycott call and defended his own "freedom to speak" while calling on people to boycott Sir Elton's music.

Gabbana is plainly confused. Freedom of speech does not mean that other people have to agree with you and, if you express controversial views you must expect others to respond. Nor does the fashion chain have any particular right to have us buy their garments. If people wish to boycott D&G they are free to do so. But even if this were not so, even if criticising someone and calling for a boycott was an infringement of freedom of speech, then such a charge would apply equally to Gabbanna as to Sir Elton. 

Dolce and Gabbanna have made some fundamental missteps here. First they have involved themselves in a debate about a moral question when there was simply no commercial reason for them to do so. They are offending people and winning plaudits from almost no-one

Secondly, they are involving themselves in a moral question that is already settled as far as the vast majority of people are concerned. Abortion and gay marriage remain controversial. There are constituencies on each side of those questions. But IVF and contraception are almost universally accepted these days. Expressing these views will bring almost no-one to their side.

Thirdly they engaged in pointlessly and offensively emotive language, speaking of "synthetic children". Such language will be taken as not only judgmental towards parents - a charge they deny - but spiteful towards the children, something most people will not find it easy to forgive. 

Fourthly, they may have overestimated their own power in the marketplace. While fashion brands certainly have "fans", they are rather different from the fans of musical or sports stars. People may like their product while having little interest in or knowledge of the designers behind it. I doubt that many people will respond to their calls for a boycott, whereas Sir Elton's fans may be much more inclined to give weight to his views.

Sir Elton John and Martina Navratilova, who has joined his call, are both gay, but gay people are by no means the only people likely to be offended by this attack. Many couples undertake fertility treatment for all sorts of reasons. People personally touched by the issue of infertility are likely to have strong feelings about this. It is not just customers of D&G to consider, but their other publics as well. How many employees at D&G are gay? How many of their straight employees have had fertility issues? Neither seems likely to be an insignificant number.

 

The problem is the middling crisis

By Quentin Langley

Let us suppose that your house is on on fire. What do you do? The answer is obvious. You leave the house and call the fire brigade. 

Let us suppose in that case that you have burnt the toast. Evidently, the fire brigade is not appropriate in this instance.

But what if your carpet is on fire? There is no  doubt it would be embarrassing to summon the fire brigade only to have to tell them at the door that, actually, the fire had burnt out and there really wasn't anything to worry about. On the other hand, you would feel like a bit of a pratt if you tried to put it out yourself only to have it get out of hand and for the fire brigade to ask "why didn't you call us earlier?"

A major crisis is one thing - you need help. A minor crisis is something you might be able to handle yourself. It is the middle-sized crisis that could get worse or possibly just blow over that is the real test.

Let us imagine, then, that you work in corporate affairs for a major broadcaster and one of your most bankable stars has been involved in a fracas. I should stress, I am talking about a hypothetical situation here - in fact I will set out several hypothetical scenarios. I am not claiming that I have any inside knowledge about Jeremy Clarkson's fracas at the BBC.

Let us suppose that your bankable star punches someone out of the blue, then, when the other party is unconscious on the floor starts kicking and the other party later dies in hospital. Obviously, there will be a murder trial and if the star is convicted he will never work in TV again. Simples.

If it is just a drunken waving of fists and no-one is really sure which of them started it then requiring them both to apologise is sufficient.You can keep the police out of it. Again, simples. 

But what if your star has broken someone's nose or cheekbone? You can, maybe, press the other party to keep the police out of it, but with fairly serious injuries, that might not work. You can't really fire the victim, so threatening career consequences if the matter escalates is probably only a bluff. This requires very careful handing. Just how much of punishment - over and above any criminal charges - is appropriate. Would you really want to bring back a convicted criminal to a highly paid job? This one is much more delicate than the other two.

Careful engagement with social media is probably the best way to judge what your publics will stand.

Delta flubs Twitter response to crash landing

By Quentin Langley

USAir flight 405 skidded off the runway at La Guardia in March 1992 into Flushing Bay causing the loss of 27 lives.

Delta flight 1086 skidded off the runway at La Guardia in March 2015. It stopped at a barrier short of the river. There were no fatalities. 

There's no doubt that the first was the more serious incident, but Twitter was not involved. On this occasion passengers were able to tweet and upload footage to YouTube. First hand accounts are much more powerful than observer accounts. That's why the awful Brian Williams pretended to be on a helicopter which was shot down rather than merely observing the incident. 

Tweets are necessarily brief, but they are sincere and human. People want to know what the passengers involved saw and felt. Delta's tweets were informative, but full of jargon - "exited the runway" and "deplaned". The second offered a link to more information. The airports and the port authority reacted better. 

Delta's first tweet contained the important message: 

Our priority is ensuring customers and crew are safe.

But the relatively slow and infrequent responses from the Delta Newsroom, the use of jargon, and the absence of any @ replies to people who tweeted does not reflect well on the response. The main Delta twitterfeed does not contain any reference to the incident. 

 

 

New York Times, meet Wikipedia

By Quentin Langley

Gail Collins, columnist for the New York Times, has decided it is time to take down Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. She is going to have to do better than her first attempt.

In it she accuses the governor of being responsible for layoffs of teachers in Milwaukee in 2010. Walker took office in 2011. Democrat, Jim Doyle, was governor in 2010, though the New York Times is keen to stress it wasn't his fault, but due to a fiscal shortfall specific to Milwaukee, where Walker was the county executive at the time.

This is a fascinating error because it goes to the heart of media bias - in opinion writing, I should stress, not news, at least not in this instance. Collins dislikes Walker, his party, and his policies. She naturally assumes that if anything she considers bad has happened it must be Walker's fault. Blaming Walker is a line that is too good to check. Though it really would not have been hard to check Wikipedia just to find out if he was in office at the time.

Toyota brandjacked, linked to ISIS, by SNL

By Quentin Langley

Any day that Saturday Night Live spoofs one of your ads is likely to be a bad day. That the spoof is not only funny but deeply controversial and sure to generate a great deal of discussion.

Let's start with the ad:

 

It has already been heavily criticised. For obvious, and understandable, reasons, people believe that ISIS atrocities are too severe and too recent to merit the Saturday Night Live treatment, and that any attempt to make humour on this topic will cause deep offence in some quarters. People from western countries genuinely are flying off to join ISIS. 

From Toyota's point of view, the spoof could easily become so well known that the original My Bold Dad ad becomes unusable. The ad is current, with Toyota posting comment on it on its YouTube channel within the past few weeks. There is no comment yet about the spoof ad.

Olbermann and O'Reilly dragged into escalating Williams conflict

By Quentin Langley    

If you were reporting from the capital of a country at war, would you say you were reporting from a "war zone"? There's no way to answer that question without more details. If, during America's involvement in the Vietnam War, you have been in Saigon, then, yes. If you had been in Washington then, despite frequent demonstrations and riots, certainly not. Right now, Kiev, possibly, Moscow, no. 

So, does Bill O'Reilly have, in the words of Mother Jones, a "Brian William problem"? 

The timing and source of the allegations is suspicious. Social media has taken down a liberal news anchor then, almost immediately, a liberal blog makes similar, if rather weaker, allegations against a conservative host on Fox News.

The controversial claim is one that O'Reilly has repeated in various ways over the years, that he was in a "war zone" when he covered the Falklands Conflict from Buenos Aries. The fighting between Britain and Argentina took place entirely in and around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Island, which are hundreds of miles from Argentina and more than 1,000 from Buenos Aries. 

This is not quite, however, in the Brian Williams category of making a simply false statement about being in a particular helicopter. The Mother Jones examples are mostly of O'Reilly listing "war zones" he has been in, for example, citing:

"in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland"

It also cites a story where O'Reilly claims that his photographer was hit by a truck and was bleeding from the head while they were being chased by soldiers. It sounds very dramatic for something that was over 1,000 miles from the military conflict. Except that Argentina was a military dictatorship at the time. Soldiers were routinely on the streets. It is quite believable that one, as O'Reilly claims, pointed a gun in his face. Just weeks after the Argentinian forces in the Falklands surrendered, protest and riots in Buenos Aries and other Argentinian cities led to the military junta collapsing. The events which O'Reilly describes are quite credible for the period. This blog cannot attest to their accuracy, but unlike the William case in Iraq, and other allegations surrounding his coverage of Hurricane Katrina, we do not have specific people contradicting what O'Reilly says - just liberal bloggers who weren't there suggesting they may not be true.

The "war zones" claim is a stretch, at least for the duration of the Falklands Conflict itself, but the rioting that followed pitted the Argentinian military directly against their own people.

Was Northern Ireland a "war zone"? People were killed. There were soldiers on the streets. The number of deaths in thirty years was somewhat higher than the number killed by al Qaeda on a single day in 2001. On the other hand, the murder rate in Northern Ireland throughout the period was lower than that of New York City. However, it is certainly possible that O'Reilly saw rioters in pitched battles with the police or army, so "war zone" is a stretch but not absurd. 

O'Reilly has questions to answer, but he has not been caught in direct fabrication.

Keith Olbermann's offences are quite different. This is not fabrication, but offensive tweeting. He responded to a tweet about fundraising for charity at Pennsylvania State University with the single word "pitiful". He later claimed that he did not mean that raising money for pediatric cancer patients was pitiful but that standards of education at Pennsylvania State are. Still later he apologized:

I apologize for the PSU tweets. I was stupid and childish and way less mature than the students there who did such a great fundraising job.

Which is gracious and the right thing to say. He has been suspended by ESPN for a week.