Everyone rags on restaurants (4460)

Communications strategist Simon Salt gave a presentation to my social media class this week, and I asked him how companies are responding to customer complaints that pop up on the Internet. I wanted to know if companies could tell the difference between customers who were truly upset about a bad experience and who were complaining just for the sake of it. He said that when dealing with a whiner, ask yourself two questions:

1.    Is public complaining the only thing the person does (griping on multiple sites)?

2.    Is the problem fixable?

If it is fixable, Salt said, take the conversation out of the public forum as soon as possible.

This is probably the best that companies can do as far as battling the swing of negativity that seems to be coming more and more from the public. People seem to be reacting more negatively to customer service experiences, and I think there’s a reason.

It seems as though the more big corporations took over, the more the shopping experience became roboticized and impersonal. Sales representatives at corporate businesses didn’t remember customers’ names or greet them in any way that hadn’t been previously scripted. Customers grew to feel marginalized and powerless, so the only way to be heard was to gripe. I know from experience that the closer your relationship to the customer, the less likely they are to become upset. Corporate culture has put the customer at arm’s length and ruined the customer experience.

I’ve worked in restaurants for close to 13 years, and I’ve learned a great deal about complainers. Out of all the different jobs I’ve had, from factory worker to dishwasher, data entry and reception work, people complain in restaurants exponentially more so than they do in any other business where a customer-provider transaction occurs. Part of it is the situation. When someone arrives at a restaurant at 6 p.m., he or she has likely had a crappy, stressful day at work, and his or her blood sugar is probably rock bottom since lunchtime was five or six hours earlier. (For those of you out there who work in restaurants and don’t know: if something goes wrong, just get food on the table – give them something to snack on.) The other part of it is that complainers at restaurants are chronic restaurant complainers. It’s almost part of their personalities to complain at restaurants. I’ve been able to study this behavior pattern by working in different restaurants that are frequented by the same customers.

Combating negative comments on the Internet is a serious problem for independent restaurant owners. The restaurant business is one of the hardest in the world to succeed in on one’s own, let alone in a country whose citizens gain their power through finding a voice on the Internet. Everyone looks at restaurants online, and a majority of potential patrons decide whether or not to try one based on customers’ reviews that litter dozens of websites. This is a shame, because the customers writing the reviews are almost never credible journalists or individuals with any culinary level of expertise, and an independent restaurant can be buried by online reviews. Corporate restaurants can contact the complainers and offer coupons or free food, but small business owners can’t afford to give things away to anyone and everyone who complains.

This all goes back to Salt’s questions. Will trying to make the whiner happy even matter, and is the problem fixable? This is a great way for restaurants to approach online complaints, but what can really be done? Restaurants get caught in the undertow of the sea of customer complaints, and I’ve worked in too many that don’t have the means to handle all of them. Salt said the answer is that customer service problems must be addressed when complaints arise, but I think it’s a bigger issue than that. Simply blaming it on the front line if the battle is lost is pretty shortsighted. Blame it on the side that started the war.

I appreciate the outlet for free speech that the Internet has provided. Oppressive dictators have been ousted and countries freed because of its power. But there is a problem with anyone out there being able to say whatever they want whenever they want. Restaurant critics were best when they were trained, published, credible journalists who had experience in the culinary world. I’m not saying that someone who has a bad experience isn’t entitled to an opinion and an outlet to express it, but too many people use the Internet just to rant.

I don’t know exactly what’s going to evolve out of this situation, but it’s really unfair. Will most independent restaurants close while only the big money corporate chains and hoity-toity places survive, all just because some jerks have been given the power of a critic? Will people start ragging on companies just to see if they can get something for free? Who knows? But the next time you’re reading reviews online, think about how much you know about the people writing them. Maybe you’d be better off reading an article in an accredited online news outlet.

American Airlines poorly handles hysterical flight attendant incident (4460)

Something crazy happened today. An American Airlines flight was about to taxi off from DFW Airport on its way to Chicago, when a flight attendant on board started ranting over the loudspeaker. At first, the passengers thought that the flight attendant had just forgotten that the PA system was on, but then they realized that she was trying to communicate something to them. According to reports, she made remarks about the plane crashing and referenced 9/11 and the airline’s union issues.

Greg Lozano, a passenger on the flight, heard her say over the loudspeaker, “Hey pilot, I’m not going to be responsible for your crash.” Shortly after that comment, another flight attendant attempted to take the microphone away from her, and a scuffle ensued. The flight attendant fought back and began screaming as the other flight attendant and some passengers wrestled her into the first row. She struggled against them, and it took several adults to restrain her. She continued to scream until authorities removed her from the plane. She and the other flight attendant who took the microphone from her were each transported to different hospitals.

The plane went back to the gate, changed out the crew and took off for Chicago at 9:46 a.m. No passengers were harmed during the incident, and the plane arrived safely in Chicago.

The news media picked up on the sensationalist value of such a bizarre story and have been reporting on it throughout the day. CNN has been airing an iReport of the incident taken by one of the passengers. The video shows passengers crowded around the front rows of the plane and maniacal screaming can be heard. The flight attendant can be heard screaming, “Get off the plane!”

As reports of the incident started surfacing today, I went to American Airlines’ newsroom on its website to see what sort of information was being made public. I couldn’t find anything. There wasn’t even a news release about the facts of the incident available as of 8 p.m., almost 12 hours after it occurred. This seemed strange to me under the circumstances. If CNN is reporting a story about something that happened with your company, calling the sounds that the flight attendant was making “demonic” and showing video of panicked customers, shouldn’t there be some kind of public information available? I’m no public relations veteran, but if I worked for American Airlines, I would have immediately pooled the facts of the situation and issued a news release for the media. You can’t just leave such bizarre behavior unaddressed, especially in a country full of people who are pretty paranoid, and with good reason, about the safety of air travel.

ABC News published a statement issued by American Airlines which reads, “This morning Flight 2332 had left the gate at DFW bound for Chicago, when an incident occurred involving some of the cabin crew. The aircraft returned to the gate, where it was met by Department of Public Safety officers. Two flight attendants were taken to local hospitals for treatment. We continue to investigate the details and circumstances and will have no further comment at this time.

We will ensure that the affected flight attendants receive proper care, and we commend our other crew members for their assistance in quickly getting the aircraft back to the gate so that customers could be re-accommodated. Our customers were not in danger at any time.

The cabin crew was replaced. The flight departed for Chicago at 9:46 a.m., and is scheduled to land around noon. We apologize for any inconvenience to our customers and we appreciate their patience and understanding."

This is an acceptable reaction by American Airlines, but the statement is minimal and only accessible on a few of the news outlets’ websites. When Diane Sawyer is reporting a story about something that happened with your company entitled “Rage on the Runway,” in which she uses wild, sensationalist language regarding the incident, you should have more information accessible to the public and definitely on your company’s website. The PR department should have published a fact sheet, including a more detailed timeline of the incident, and links to other information, such as on board emergency protocol for flight attendants and whether or not tranquilizing materials should be administered to hysterical individuals. Have something written and available about what could be done if something like this were to happen midair. Make available a 24/7 call center for potentially traumatized passengers. Delineate the steps being made to ensure that this will never happen at your company again.

Customers need to know that a company has customer safety as a top priority. They deserve more than a few cold sentences about an incident that could have jeopardized their safety. American Airlines failed to cover all their bases on this and let the news media have a field day with a sensational incident. They should have combated the media coverage with comprehensive information on their website.

Bad PR.

Sources:

“Flight attendant’s outburst delays flight,” by Mike M. Ahlers via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/travel/dallas-airpot-flight-delay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

“Attendant outburst called ‘demonic’” by The Situation Room via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/03/09/tsr-oleary-attendant-outburst.cnn

“Rant on American Airlines Flight Ends With Flight Attendant in Hospital,” by Jim Scholz, Matt Hosford and Genevieve Shaw Brown via ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/flight-attendant-rant-sends-american-airlines-flight-back/story?id=15886557#.T1rCBnl62So

School shooting handled well by administration (4460)

A boy opened fire in the Chardon High School cafeteria in Chardon, Ohio on Monday morning. Three students were killed and two were injured when the shooter fired indiscriminately into the crowd of students gathered around the tables at breakfast time.

Unfortunately, school shootings are not unheard of in our country. We have had to witness all too many tragedies exactly like this one. It’s hard enough hearing about them in states far removed from where they took place - but imagine being there. Imagine being a high school student whose life is threatened one morning before first period. Imagine being the teenager who witnesses another student being shot in the head. Imagine being a parent of a child who is trapped in a building with a rampaging gunman. Imagine being a teacher who has to take control somehow.

In a crisis like this, police and school administrators have the difficult responsibility of handling the situation best for all involved. Communication has to take place quickly, and saying the right thing the right way is paramount. Luckily, the Chardon Local School District had a crisis plan in place.

Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, more and more public schools throughout the nation are training for school shooting incidents, much like they do for fire drills. Lockdown drills are required for Ohio public schools, and Chardon schools had been practicing for a few years. Parents were notified in a mass message on Monday morning as to the details of the situation and the location of the evacuation site where they could pick up their kids. Law enforcement officials communicated with the press as updates on the case became available.

We’ve learned in our PR classes that appointing the head honcho of a company or organization as the spokesperson in a crisis situation is a bad idea. Usually the bigwigs lack the social finesse needed to communicate directly to the public. This was not the case in Chardon.

Chardon Local School District’s superintendent Joe Bergant was the perfect spokesperson to handle this crisis. He met the press on Monday afternoon to communicate the details of what Chardon schools were going to do in response to the tragedy. In his presentation to our social media strategies class, Chief Pathfinder Steve Lee of QuickSilver Interactive Group said, “The first thing you need to talk about in crisis management is people.” Bergant did just that, and with touching sincerity. First he thanked the local law enforcement officers for their quick response to the emergency, then he expressed pride in the teaching staff for handling the situation as well as they did. Next he offered condolences to the families of the victims, and informed the public that there would be a candlelight vigil held for anyone who wished to come on the following evening. He announced that grief counselors would be available to anyone who needed them, be they students, teachers, staff, parent or community member, and gave them the times and places that they would be available. He then invited parents to join their children on Thursday to walk around the school and reacclimate before classes resumed on Friday.

“Hug your kids,” Bergant said. “Kids, hug your parents. You news media, when you get the chance to get home, do the same. We’re not just any old place, Chardon. This is every place. As you’ve seen in the past, this can happen anywhere.”

Bergant was the perfect spokesperson. He was collected, well-spoken and genuine. Great crisis management. Excellent PR.

Sources:

“Ohio high schoolers head back to class after fatal shooting,” by CNN Wire Staff via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/justice/ohio-school-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

“Chardon High School shooting shows value of school security, crisis planning,” by Ken Trump via newsnet5.com. Retrieved from http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_geauga/chardon-high-school-shooting-shows-value-of-school-security-crisis-planning

“Video: Chardon shooting: Supt Joe Bergant at press conference,” via irishcentral.com. Retrieved from http://www.irishcentral.com/video/?videoTitle=Video%3A+Chardon+shooting%3A+Supt+Joe+Bergant+at+press+conference&clipSynID=3309512

“Chardon superintendent: ‘Hug your kids,’” via cnn.com. Video retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/02/28/bts-chardon-reopens-presser.cnn

“Latest Chardon School Shootings Press Conference,” via myfox28columbus.com. Retrieved from http://myfox28columbus.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wtte_vid_16365.shtml

Should the traditional news release still be taught to PR students? (4470)

We talked this week about whether or not PR students should still be taught to write a traditional news release. I think they always should for a few reasons.

Understanding inverted pyramid style of writing should be essential for anyone going into any journalism-related field. It’s the most efficient form for news stories. It makes it easy to obtain vital information quickly. PR professionals have to be consummate consumers of news while operating on a stressful, tight schedule. Training on how to look at a news story, most of which are written in inverted pyramid style, helps PR professionals pick out the important details of stories quickly so that they can get through a great deal of news daily.

Also, there is still a strong possibility that reporters would like to use the meat of the news releases for their stories. Most reporters would not admit to the cut-and-paste reporting technique, but I think it happens often. This might be important going into the era of online up-to-the-second news reporting. If a reporter needs a story in a flash and the PR professional has a news release prepared and ready to go public, it would be easy to use it verbatim.

Learning how to write an enticing lead, and how to include the important information without losing the reader by just stating basic facts, is very important for PR students. Granted, as phone and email pitches are becoming the preferred way for reporters to receive news, students still learn the writing flair needed to persuade through writing other kinds of messages. There is finesse, though, in writing a complete news release story. There is an important structure and flow to news release stories that is only learned through practicing writing them.

What university PR programs should do is follow the lead of UNT’s Mayborn School of Journalism. Our PR students have to go through a news reporting and editing class that teaches students what it’s like to be a news reporter. They are assigned to a beat (a certain topic such as crime and safety, arts and entertainment, politics, science, etc.), and have to write real news stories pertaining to that beat. Students work on a deadline and have to interview a minimum of three sources for each story. They learn what life is like for a real reporter. This is invaluable experience for someone going into PR.

Something I would suggest to my PR professor: bring in a news reporter from a major publication as a guest speaker. I know they’re always busy, but a reporter might jump at the chance to teach PR students how not to annoy reporters in the future. Or, if the reporters and editors would go for it, have the PR students spend some time in the newsroom of the school paper. As much as they can, it is important for PR professionals to understand what reporters do.

Classical ethical theories and modern advertising (4470)

We all know what advertising does. It’s meant to win the consumer. Consumers are won by attraction and persuasion. To win the consumer, advertisers either boast the real properties of what’s being sold, or they make fantastical promises about what the product or service will do for anyone who buys it.

Ethical dilemmas arise beginning with what advertising is. It’s a paid means to inform the public of a product or service, and to form the message in a way that persuades individuals to do or buy something. The inherent nature of persuasion is shady. It’s biased, one-sided. Unlike traditional journalism, advertising is meant to do one thing: present the only side of the story in its own interest. Is it ethical to present only one side of a story, or is that considered intentional deception?

This falls into the realm of the ethical theory of egoism. Since advertisers only show the one side of a situation in an organization’s interest, might all advertising be seen as self-serving? In his book “Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies,” Louis Alvin Day writes, “Morality involves taking into account the interests of others; an entirely selfish person cannot, by definition, make ethical judgments.” Can advertising be classified as entirely self-centered, and therefore unable to be ethical? Possibly, but advertising must exist, and therefore should be subject to applied ethics and handled on a case-by-case basis.

An ad for the American Cancer Society urging women to remember to get mammograms each year; is that self-centered for the organization? Well, yes. And no. This is why advertising has to be examined case by case. This ad is not unethical because it is protected by the theory of utilitarianism. The theory asserts that if the breach of morality is less than the greatest benefit, then the act is ethical. So even if the ad brings in donations for the organization, the greater good of society is served by the medical health issue awareness that the ad brings to the public.

An ad for UNICEF is not considered egoistic because it falls in the category of communitarianism. The ethical theory of communitarism protects ads that support a sense of community, in this case a global one, over the needs of individuals. Although a UNICEF ad will bring money to the organization, it serves the greater good by creating a communal bond. The greater good is served by bringing people together to help those in need.

Another consideration that must be made by advertisers is that of ethical relativism. This is particularly important in a global market. What would be perfectly acceptable content in one country might be offensive in another. The British Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the UK banned Tourism Australia’s campaign because of its offensive slogan: “Where the bloody hell are you?” The ethics of whether or not to use that kind of verbiage depend on the region and audience for the ad.

These are the types of ads that are considered ethical in regard to classical ethical theories. The ads that ruin the credibility and reputation of the field of advertising are the ones that are no more than a modern medicine show. A majority of modern ads promise a fantasy outcome to buying the advertised product or service. These ads make such outrageous claims that it’s hard to believe that anyone would fall for them. But they do.

The Axe body spray ads are a prime example of fantasy advertising. The theme of the ad campaign is that Axe products for men, when applied, will attract women. The first ads featured nerdy guys who used Axe products and were subsequently chased and preyed upon by attractive, ravenous women. The ads continue with the theme to this day, although there has been controversy and public debate about the ethical implications of advertising that uses sex to get consumers to buy products. The campaign is purely egoistic, throwing out the ideas of truth and fairness by exploiting consumers with a lie and portraying sexist ideas.

Advertisers these days must also consider social issues. Ads that disregard hot button social issues such as gender stereotyping, child sexualization and eating disorders are considered unethical. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority banned an ad featuring an anorexic-looking model, calling the ad “socially irresponsible.” Advertisers have a responsibility to heed the research and growing evidence of women’s health problems in correlation to exposure to ads. The psychological problems of poor body image and eating disorders among women have been linked to how women are portrayed in modern advertising.

Advertising is an important and necessary part of life. Consumers rely on different media to bring them information about products and services, and ads are a way of doing just that. Ads will never be perfectly ethical at all times - each one can be argued, no matter how innocuous it might seem. Advertisers themselves are incapable of being perfectly ethical because anything viewed or heard could potentially offend someone somewhere. That sets an impossible standard for moral purity. But individuals in the advertising field can take responsibility for what is conceived and published. That’s the best way to be ethical.

Sources:

“Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies,” by Louis Alvin Day

“Breast Cancer TV Ad,” Video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrVTGdNQTqA

“UNICEF: For Every Child,” Video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPWr6Eg_dC4&feature=autoplay&list=PLB8A59A42D5B08487&lf=results_main&playnext=2

“Brits ban ‘bloody hell’ TV ad,” by Jano Gibson and David Braithwaite via The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brits-ban-bloody-hell-tv-ad/2006/03/09/1141701625132.html

“Where the bloody hell are you?” Video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0lwGk4u9o

“The AXE Effect – Women – Billions,” Video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9tWZB7OUSU

“Watchdog bans Drop Dead ad featuring skinny model ,” by Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith via Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1103077/Watchdog-bans-Drop-Dead-ad-featuring-skinny-model/

“The Impact of Media Images on Body Image and Behaviors: A Summary of the Scientific Evidence,” Report retrieved from http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/uploads/file/The%20Impact%20of%20Media%20Images%20on%20Body%20Image%20and%20Behaviours%206%20Nov%281%29.pdf

Infants' Tylenol recall handled well (4460)

McNeil Consumer Healthcare announced today a recall of Infants’ Tylenol Oral Suspension, a grape flavored liquid medicine that comes in one-ounce bottles and is accompanied by a plastic dosing syringe. After receiving customer complaints about the functionality of the product, McNeil decided to issue a voluntary recall of over half a million units.

The way the product works is that the medicine bottle itself has a seal at the top into which the dosing syringe is inserted to pull the medicine into the syringe cleanly, without dripping all over the place. The problem that customers were experiencing was that when they inserted the syringe into the seal, the seal itself would break off and fall down into the medicine. The situation was in no way dangerous, just inconvenient.

McNeil made an excellent decision. Even though the problem with the product is not dangerous, the recall boosts the reputation of the Tylenol brand as being dedicated to the satisfaction of its consumers. It sends a message that even a slight irritation customers might experience with a product will not be accepted.

The news of the recall broke a little after noon today, and all the national news outlets have been reporting on it. The company has presented a wealth of information for the public at www.tylenol.com. The news release on the website offers a description of the problem, an apology from the company’s president, contact information and refund information. The news release also contains a link to frequently asked questions and a link to a YouTube video, which demonstrates how to use the product and offers refund information for consumers who experienced problems.

This was handled incredibly well. The New York Times reported that only 17 customers complained before McNeil decided to recall all 574,000 units. That shows a great concern for brand image and customer satisfaction. Not only does the recall itself show a commitment to 100 percent customer satisfaction, but the information presented by the company is comprehensive, transparent and easily navigable.

Good PR.

Sources:

“J & J Consumer Health Unit Recalls Infant Tylenol,” by AP via The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/02/17/business/AP-US-Johnson-Johnson-Infant-Tylenol-Recall.html?_r=1&ref=business

“J & J’s McNeil Unit Recalls Infants’ Tylenol,” by Aaron Smith via CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/17/news/companies/tylenol_recall/index.htm?hpt=he_c2

“A Message to Parents and Caregivers From the Makers of Infants’ TYLENOL,” news release via tylenol.com. Retrieved from http://www.tylenol.com/page2.jhtml?id=tylenol/news/subp_tylenol_recall_9.inc

“How to Use Infants’ TYLENOL SimpleMeasure,” video via YouTube TYLENOLOFFICIAL’s Channel. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/tylenol

Waking nightmare: First Tweetchat (4460)

I decided to participate in my first Tweetchat last night. For those of you who don’t know, a Tweetchat is an online discussion of a designated topic at a scheduled meeting time, using the forum of Twitter.

I was mentally unprepared for what was about to ensue.

It was a cold night, so I built a fire, put on some Al Green, poured myself a glass of cabernet and settled into my big, soft suede couch with my laptop on my crossed legs. I was ready for a pleasant discussion.

Then it began.

It started off smoothly enough. Little smiling faces in squares started popping up to join the conversation, introducing themselves with polite and enthusiastic greetings in the area of text beside their photos. This was old hat to them.

I was hesitant at first. I watched for a few minutes, indecisive about whether or not I belonged. But then I started to feel like a creeper, a voyeur - someone on the outside looking in at others who were unaware of my presence. I decided to take the plunge.

One of my classmates was already there. She had made her introduction; a quick sentence about being a college student and that this was her first Tweetchat. In all my glorious awkwardness, I jumped in and said, “I’m like Lindsey.”

No one responded to me.

The number of people joining began to wane, so the moderator started the discussion by throwing out the first question. I don’t remember what it was, because a second later, the question was buried way down in my news feed by fast-moving tweets.

I started to panic.

I have to participate in Tweetchats for a grade in a couple of my classes. I have to join the discussion and save screenshots of people responding to me. My college career flashed before my eyes: “In over your head. Can’t keep up. Won’t pass. Can’t Graduate. Back to waiting tables.”

I pulled myself together and realized that this was just my first attempt and the assignment wasn’t due for six more days. Breathe. Breathe.

I thought to myself, “Screw the assignment. Just use this opportunity to figure this thing out.”

My eyes widened as I frantically tried to keep up with the tweets scrolling at a breakneck pace on the left of my computer screen. I’d be halfway through reading one tweet before it vanished, with a new set of five tweets where it was just a moment ago. I read and read, trying to figure out what was happening in the little snippets of information that I could catch every now and then. Then I realized something: I had no idea what these people were talking about.

The assignment required that we find a Tweetchat that pertained to something in the field of journalism: news, advertising, public relations. My professor had given us a website to go to to find a schedule of journalism Tweetchats. I had accidentally found one that was being held by seasoned news reporters who had started their own online newsrooms. I had no idea what any of them were talking about. I wasn’t supposed to be there.

Then I thought of something my professor had told us the week before. PR professionals have to have the ability to be in a huge room full of experts, on any given topic, and be able to carry on a conversation with each of them.

Sigh.

I hopped in and started asking questions. Then a miracle occurred: people started talking to me. I’d fire something out, then I’d get a reply in my mentions column. It was actually pretty fun. And I learned a lot about the sacrifice that reporters make when they commit themselves to a story that only that reporter wants to tell, and that will take a great deal of time and energy. It was a lesson in principles and determination, and I have a newfound respect for journalists.

But my next Tweetchat is going to pertain to PR. I’m not lazy or this-is-my-field-centric, but I’m still a little scared.