The Damage is Done: Now JetBlue’s PR Team Must Clean Up the Mess

There is no question that running an airline is a difficult task; dealing with scheduling, impatient customers, and unpredictable weather conditions can create an extremely stressful situation. JetBlue, whose logo can be seen at the left, is no stranger to this situation considering the breakdown their airlines had about a week ago. Now is the time when JetBlue needs to communicate with its customers and reestablish a sense on trust. I thought it would be interesting to examine how different public relations professionals would handle the JetBlue dilemma. Jeanne Bliss, a customer leadership all-star who has worked for Microsoft, Allstate Corporations, and other businesses, lists the improvements that JetBlue needs to make in her blog MarketingProfs: Daily Fix. She stresses that JetBlue has to accept responsibility for the collapse in communication and reimburse their customers. In BrandSimple, Allen P. Adamson whose managing director of the New York office of Landor Associates advised JetBlue to expand beyond clearing the mess and find a model that will succeed for the growing size of their company. As a student of public relations, I could not find more current of a case study then JetBlue’s cancellation crisis, and I look forward to seeing how they proceed with their crisis management. Bliss and Adamson offer fascinating insight on what JetBlue should do and my comments to their blogs can be found below.

My comment to Jeanne Bliss’ blog:
I believe you have created an excellent outline for JetBule to follow. I agree that the company must take full responsibility for the lapse in communication, and do so in a humbling manner. If I was working for JetBlue, I would focus more on steps nine and ten of the steps you laid out. It will not be enough to say sorry for their mistake; now the company has to ensure that nothing similar to this instance will happen again. Before this past week, JetBlue stood apart from the rest of the bigger airlines who occasionally have horrendous time delays, but not anymore. JetBlue has the daunting task of gaining their customers trust back. I think the company should start a new advertising campaign describing how JetBlue is bigger yet better. The company needs to multitask by apologizing for what happened and by showing how another incident like the one that recently occurred is no longer a feasible option at JetBlue.

My comment to Allen P. Adamson’s blog:
It is true that JetBlue is expanding and they need to create a business plan that works for the growing size of their company. Although in order to do so, I believe JetBlue needs to reflect on their past business model and see what went wrong. JetBlue’s focus was on their brand and the image they portrayed. You said that JetBlue followed its brand’s image and made “flying fun, from its airfares to personnel.” If JetBlue had already established great personnel then why was there so much tension between the personnel and the passengers? The passengers to the right do not look like they are having fun. Granted emotions were high and people get fired up, but the personnel should have been trained to handle the situation. I am sure JetBlue will establish a new way to represent their brand, but they need to ensure that they will live up to what they create. In order to do this and gain the public’s trust again, JetBlue must explain why their original brand image failed in the first place.

To Some Public Relations is Unethical: In Reality, It Cleans Up the Unethical Mistakes Made by Others

For years now, public relations practitioners have faced scrutiny claiming their profession is unethical. In oppressors’ opinion, public relations is a deceitful practice that misleads people, but this accusation is false. According to the PRSA, the definition of public relations states “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” In addition, there is a public relations code of conduct which sets guidelines for the field. One of those guidelines declares “A member shall not engage in practice which tends to corrupt the integrity of channels of public communication.” . These guidelines set examples of how public relations practitioners should conduct their business affairs and reveals that they want to be true to their audience. Granted there are a few exceptions that stray away and fall into bad decisions. This small percentage should not have the control to create the entire image for all of public relations. In reality, the opposite of that situation is what most organizations strive to do with their public relations department. Steven R. Van Hook of All About Public Relations, claims “The Public Relations department is frequently the ethical heart of an organization.” Although it would be naïve to assume corporations and celebrities are the only people utilizing the benefits of public relations, the average every day citizen also partakes in the world of public relations. Hook articulates this opinion by declaring “PR is for us regular folks.” Despite having to work in a scandal obsessed industry, public relations as a business manages to maintain a respectable reputation that steams from basic principles.

If there are any questions as to the integrity of public relations tactics then the underlying issues leading to the public relations move needs to be examined, in particular, the actions of the journalists. In today’s competitive society, a journalist can overstep their boundaries and break their code of ethics to get the story. One of the most common examples of journalists disregarding their ethics can be found in the celebrity fascination the media has creating by invading celebrities’ personal lives. The latest development in this celebrity phenomenon is the controversy surrounding Britney Spears and her newly bald head as shown in the picture to the left. It is apparent the media’s overwhelming amount of attention and intrusion into her life pushed her to extremes that otherwise she may not have done if the media intensive spotlight had not been on her. Public relations practices are affected by this kind of content negligence, and it forces practitioners to switch for adaptation mode to crisis management mode. Crisis management is overtaking public relations due to the media, so really the media needs to reevaluate their values instead of the public relations industry.

Now that crisis management has taken a forefront in the public relations world, all practitioners must learn all the elements it entails. “Because of the way the modern media operates -- feeding on a staple diet of bad news, pouncing on any slips or slurs of the tongue -- every word uttered either at work or at play could catalyze a personal or corporate PR disaster,” this is how Gerry McCusker, a public relations analyst, believes the public relations field is changing. If someone wants to study past crisis management accounts then they should look into Levick Strategic Communications, the company displayed on the right. Levick was the crisis agency of the year in 2005 and their clients include Enron and Napster. This corporation believes “crisis management can no longer be a separate item, handled by a sequestered team.” It is clear the public relations community has had to adapt to the low tactics of the news society. Before public relations practitioners could concentrate on getting their client’s professional message out to their peers, and they were questioned about their ethics at that time. Now that the focus of public relations has been switched to crisis management the examination of public relations’ intensions is more severe. It is not the public relations profession’s fault that journalism, especially entertainment journalism, has shred some of their morals in order to make a deadline. Pubic relations is just adapting and moving with the change of the industry.

Viacom vs. YouTube: The Battle over Viewing Right

With Viacom’s recent demand for YouTube to take 100,000 clips containing Viacom content off their site, I decided to investigate into the blogopshere and uncover the reactions to this new development. YouTube is unbelievably popular and an integral component in public relations’ transformation into a technologically drive industry. If YouTube suffers a set back then the new age of public relations could suffer a setback. While Kamau High's blog displays YouTube’s rebuttal to the demand but, it is impossible to ignore Viacom’s advantage if the matter is taken to the courts. YouTube is claiming “it is not their right to control what and how viewers choose to view;” they say Viacom only has the power to decide how their films and shows are made. It is an admirable defense to Viacom’s command, but the real concern should be whether a judge will think the argument is applicable to the copy write laws. Putting legal affairs aside, Scott Karp believes the issue will dissolve due to the appeal of YouTube’s platform. For a while now, YouTube has been the new “it thing” on the web, but did it really expect other companies to not catch up? Private companies have seen the success of the new website and they must be planning to alter their own website to incorporate YouTube’s model. Both blogs composed cohesive arguments indicating the downfall of YouTube could be approaching, and my comments to those blogs can be found below.

Comment on Kamau High's blog:
Both sides of the argument are acceptably present here, but I cannot agree with YouTube’s rational for keeping Viacom’s clips. To be honest, the lazy part of me wants to side with YouTube. YouTube creates an enticing environment where any video clip can be seen in an instance, but then I ask myself is it fair to Viacom? Viacom spends the effort and expense to produce these films, so they should solely be allowed to distribute them. I would be curious to know how YouTube is avoiding the piracy laws. They may be able to avoid then now, but that may not be the case if Viacom takes them to court. According to this post, YouTube is asking its followers to boycott Viacom. My initial reaction was that YouTube might have some success with the boycott due to the esteem surrounding the trendy new site. After further consideration, I reversed my decision. Viacom’s cliental is composed of some of the biggest brands in movies and television today; those brands’ legacies and checkbooks would easily out due any rebellious stunt by a website new to the game.

Comment on Scott Karp's blog:
It is true that YouTube is in danger of losing their professional video creators; it is somewhat likely to happen if Viacom continues its quest. As for the private companies, such as Comedy Central, jumping on the bandwagon of embedding clips, I cannot believe they have not done it earlier. Many television stations are airing episodes of their shows on-line a few hours after the episode has premiered. ABC has their primetime shows available to watch on-line for free; incase someone misses the show and does not have tivo. Although, the act of private companies embedding their shows and Viacom taking away their clips will not result in the demise of YouTube because YouTube offers something the others do not. YouTube is filled with numerous amounts of home videos; some may show people dancing or acting silly while others may be cell phone clips of important events. These cell phone clips are being considered a new form of media; if reporters are not there to capture the actions then an average citizen can. Viacom cannot take away these kinds of clips, and I believe these clips create most of YouTube’s appeal.

The Super Bowl: Not a Sporting Event, But a PR Extravaganza

The battle has been fought. Athletes' bodies were pushed to their physical limits and emotions were at an all time high. The Colts came to victory. Will their conquest be remembered? Perhaps by the Colts fans, but the majority of people will remember the commercials. The Super Bowl whose logo is at the left is arguably America’s biggest sporting events, and it is popular all over the world. This year’s game was broadcasted in twelve languages and "seen in 232 countries and territories and viewed by an estimated 1 billion people," according to CBS News. Along with being seen by many people, "the NFL's Super Bowl tops Forbes' first list of the world's most valuable sporting events brands." With all of the esteem the Super Bowl has acquired, it creates a public relations professional’s dream, and everyone ranging from sports franchises to charities are partaking in the dream.

It is no secret that the commercials aired during the Super Bowl have become a phenomenon. The price tag attached to a thirty second spot reached 2.6 million dollars this year. Peter Hartlaub at the San Francisco Chronicle argues “the rise in publicity for Super Bowl ads… are no accident.” The purpose of increasing the publicity for the ads is to gain the attention of the various audiences such as females who traditionally would not watch the Super Bowl. A poll conducted by Harris Interactive uncovered that more women than men were going to watch the game for the ads, with twenty-seven percent of women saying they were tunning in just for the commercials. This result is not exclusive to women; fifty-six percent of adults said they would be viewing the game equally if not more for the ads than the game.

Although the Harris Interactive poll is new, the advertising agencies were already aware of the buzz about the advertisements. They have been making their ads in conjunction with the interest levels. In the radio story “Super Bowl Ads: Still a High Stakes Game,” Chris Arnold claims there is suspicion companies such as GoDaddy.com "submit ads that will be rejects." On GoDaddy's website, the company advertises the rejected commercials such as this basic instinct spot to the right as the rejected Super Bowl commercials. The company benefits from these incidents because it receive news coverage and publicity from being the bad ad that was not allowed to be aired. This is a good example of the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity. At the end of the day, more people knew the company existed than before the Super Bowl.

In the midst of this power struggle among advertising agencies, there are some organizations that benefit from the Super Bowl without having to spend millions of dollars on commercials. These organizations are the non-profit groups whose causes are adopted by the sports franchises or various companies. Whether the intentions of the franchises are to benefit the charities or get another positive remark in a news article, the charity wins support and awareness for their cause. There were many charity events leading up to this year’s Super Bowl game. The city of Chicago was a participant in the "Weekend of Champions" held by the Otis Wilson Foundation. Following in his city’s footsteps, Chicago Bears’ wide receiver Bernard Berrian teamed up with Reserve nightclub and choreographed an end zone dance. If Berrian did the dance then the Reserve owners would have donated five thousand dollars to any charity Berrian wanted. The franchises and players are not alone when it comes to doing philanthropic work through the outlets the Super Bowl attracts. Cadillac held its fifth annual Super Bowl Grand Prix where celebrities and athletes raced special go-karts. Pictured here is second place winner, Nick Lachey.The winner was given ten thousand dollars to donate to a charity, seconds place got five thousand, and third place received three thousand five hundred.

It would be pleasant to assume that all of these companies were contributing to charities solely because they are passionate about the causes. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the companies receive another piece of publicity from the event. Either way a significant amount of money is given to a good cause. If the real reasons behind the donations are to gain more attention then it is just another instance where the Super Bowl has become a media meat market instead of America’s finest football game. Although it is vital to remember the main reason for this event, the teams and players fighting to become chamopins.