Campaigns Through the Eyes of America and Spain

All around the world PR campaigns are being conducted to vie for viewer’s attention. Most recently, Chevy jumped on this bandwagon during the 2010 VMA's as explained in a blog by David Goldman. Inside the blog, Goldman discusses how Chevy strategically placed cars from their line up into different VMA acts, with the most notable being in the hip-hop group, N.E.R.D's set. The Chevy Cruze, which is reminiscent of competitor cars, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, Goldman further explained, looked ridiculous next to the rappers whom are noted for living a glamorous lifestyle. But this American campaign reveals much more than just a garish publicity stunt. One can decipher from where Chevy placed this ad, who their target market was and what American PR values as a culture. For example, people watching the VMA's are usually teenagers, most just learning how to drive in their 16's, therefore seeing the Chevy Cruze on stage will make this target tween market want to go to their parents and ask for this car. Thus, proving the campaign to be quite successful in my eyes. Goldman makes a great point though saying that it is "cheesy"  as pan shots of the crowd, where viewers expect to see only their favorite celebrities, would also get shots of the Chevy Camaro. Yet this type of "subliminal advertising" as Goldman calls it, does not seem like brain washing to me, but more as proper product placement. America has an infatuation with celebrates and fame. Just by placing this car among such images, is a great way to make a car seem more prestigious than it is. PR's aim is after all to raise positive awareness. How can one not raise this awareness if he or she does not use tools to show viewers how singular their product is. A product so special, it can hang with the stars.

Likewise, there is nothing ethically wrong with Chevy for being saturated in the media through hit programming. The Superbowl, a mass televised event bombards viewers with many ads. Some viewers just watching the Superbowl for these ads themselves. Although in other countries such as Spain, campaign ethics in PR are much different and thus Spaniards would view the Chevy PR plug on a more strict scale of ethics. Kaylen McMullen's blog, PR332 discusses the importance of getting to know someone on a personal level when dealing with business relationships in Spain. She continues to state Spain "appreciates face to face [contact] instead of actions by phone or email". Thus, seeing ads on TV or just using the media in general might be uneasy for the Spanish people to respond to. Additionally, PR campaigns in Spain are not as widespread, in fact according to McMullen, Spanish PR practitioners are only known for press releases with the majority having journalism degrees. Therefore, Spain might consider this ad placement cutting edge seeing as most PR efforts do not go beyond a pen and paper. One could even see not being able to go beyond the output level of PR in Spain as a restriction on what a PR practioner does, and thus as unethical to Americans.

Yet, similarities still exist. For example the fact that both the U.S. and Spain have high uncertainty indexes when it comes to how many people will be reached out of the target audience, (outcome) as well as which media outlets will pick up press releases (outreach). In the end, it's all just a matter of putting all ambiguity aside and carrying forth with the campaign hoping for the best. 

Research Results: Causing Confusion in the Universal Language of the PR Campaign

Research for PR campaigns throughout the world can be done for various reasons with one reason remaining unanimous over all, obtaining results. These results are necessary in order to feel self-assured that the practioner’s hard work and efforts did not go to waste in their PR campaign. That is why all over the globe measurement of results, as well as the interpretations of these measurements helps to define PR success.

Yet, in a recent study found in this UK edition of PR Week, PR professionals were said not to place much emphasis on measurement of their campaign results. In fact, in a poll of 100 large companies, 55% of the companies believed the proportion of a PR budget that should be spent on measurement was only between 1 and 10%.

Reasons why the numbers for measurement of campaign results are dwindling  world-wide comes to light inside this U.S. PR Week article, which includes many PR practioners do not want to take the time nor know how to measure their campaign results.  It all started with the controversial issue if PR practioners should be paid based on the results their campaigns bring. Known as PBR or “payment by results” Mark Westaby, chairman of the Association of Measurement and Evaluation Companies of Metrica argues that “attempts at PBR are frequently doomed to failure because the criteria for measurement are often misunderstood, poorly planned or even unrealistic”.

It also does not help that the U.K. PR Week study concluded that 22 % of companies do not define the business objectives they want to meet in a PR campaign before starting, a big part in helping come measurement time to see what exactly can be measured. Not defining business objectives can also lead to many problems such as wasting time and money which the textbook, Advertising and Public Relations Research, notes as one of the most important aspects when conducting research for a campaign. It’s no wonder research results are failing to be measured in campaigns if PR officials aren’t taking the rights steps to insure measurability in objectives is even achievable given the sources one has.

Possible ways the article suggests to fix this lack of research initiative includes setting a standard form of measurement to be used throughout the whole industry. Yet, Westaby of the U.S PR Week article thinks otherwise and said, "There is no way that the industry can have a standard. You can't shoe-horn results - a standard oversimplifies the problem”. Instead he suggests that the industry focus on education.

Personally, with a lack of measurement tools being the problem, I feel that a plausible suggestion is referring to levels of evaluation. For example how  Russian Standard Vodka used the "outreach level" to measure the results in the media to see how well their campaign was received. In the campaign here from U-Talk Marketing,  an evaluation that the company did for their recent ‘Originals’ campaign by hosting a concert sponsored by the vodka is posted as reaching  coverage inside of the “Metro, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Stylist, Daily Express, Closer, MSN, FHM, and Kiss 100” in which,  “more than 26 million opportunities was seen in print, online, radio and broadcast coverage”. Overall Russian Standard Vodka was happy with their results of reaching these noted media outlets, but I would argue that more measurement is needed to really see if these ads reached their target market. That is where the outcome level which measures the results in the target public on awareness, comprehension and attitudes should be evaluated as well. Has more validity in seeing if the campaign was successful since the product actually would have reached  its specific target.

Luckily, U.K. PR week concluded its study saying that that businesses are finding ways to outsource their research evaluation departments in which “56 % of companies said to be using an independent company to carry out media evaluation compared to only 33 % in the last four years”.  Even though measurement is something I believe PR practioners should be expected to do themselves, at least input is going into seeing how well a campaign is received. Additionally, this growing trend could mean the advancement of research evaluation and can bring forth more successful campaigns that PR officials can actually see results for worldwide.  Only time will tell. 

Research: Exposing Unethical Campaigns

Spin doctors, propagandists, liars, these are all are names that unfortunately some PR practioners receive for their fraudulent and unethical behavior in research compositions and promotions. A recent online study at the University of Missouri and Louisiana State University measured a group of 65 advertisers and their reactions in moral dilemmas in the “Defining Issues Test” or “DIT” standardized psychological exam. According to BrandWeek in this article, “advertising professionals ranked way down the list with a score of 31.64 out of 100, falling behind medical students (50.2), physicians (49.2), and journalists (46.3)”. Even more disturbing is when the practitioners were asked to assess ethical scenarios specific to their industry and campaigns. The advertisers' score of 22.7 was lower than those of high school students (31) and prison inmates (23.7). 

So what exactly are these “professionals” doing to destroy the ethical composure of PR campaigns? Withholding information is common amongst PR professionals and is perhaps one of the greatest malpractices of the industry as explained here in this article by Winifred Mburu. The article talks about how it took Firestone 6 years to admit that they knew something was wrong with their tires. Staring in 2000, the US government began investigating a report indicating that more than 300 car accidents had occurred because of Firestone’s tires. Firestone said they were working on the problem even though faulty tires continued to be advertised in campaigns and sold in stores. It was only when the government intervened three months later, Firestone finally recalled 6.5 million tires. Even more unethical was Firestone’s research records indicated that the company had evidence of complaints and lawsuits on Firestone tires as early as 1994 the article concludes, yet nothing was done to fix the problem earlier.

This Firestone incident violates what the book Advertising and PR Research Ethics, stresses is needed in order to ensure ethical research practices. The book explains that “full disclosure of methodology and results” be present without any of the data “fabricated, altered or discarded”. Personally, I agree with this and believe that consumers have the right to know the safety precautions of the tires they were purchasing. A disclaimer should have been noted in adverting of the campaign or a recall of the defeated tires should have been brought into action immediately in response. PR research attention is to aid campaigns not find out what information to hide inside the campaign regardless of what nation the campaign occurs.  Professional credibility is thus lost for Firestone and now seen to me as a company more interested in selling a product than in ensuring safety of their customers.

Although not all American PR campaigns have unethical backgrounds. Some are starting to act as “watch dogs” or “whistle blowers” in reporting unethical campaign behavior. In this article on PR Watch, a breast cancer awareness campaign, “Think Before you Pink” is discussed which aims to raise awareness of companies exploiting breast cancer as a marketing device to sell products. Raising most concern for the campaign is the Smith & Wesson's Pink Breast Cancer Awareness 9 mm Pistol. The “Think Before you Pink” research for the  pistol highlights a “2008 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, stating that firearms are the second most common cause of violent deaths of women, accounting for 29.2% of all violent deaths among females in the U.S. in 2008”.  Thus, ethics and research here are used hand in hand to combat an unethical campaign and to stop the deaths of women in America instead of implementing death as did the U.S. Firestone campaign. Campaigns like “Think Before you Pink”, therefore help to take away the spin-doctor reputation that has become a stereotype for PR professionals.

But what about research campaigns outside of America? Are these nations still remaining ethical when dealing with the composure of campaigns? Of course in other nations “pay for play”, and gift-giving is more acceptable and in some countries encouraged. But with the rise of global campaigns such as this, Japanese campaign against Wal-Mart, research is also being found to do things for the better like America’s “Think Before you Pink” campaign did abroad.

The article talks about a new organization called, WOM Japan, developed by adverting and PR professionals to promote the growth of word-of-mouth marketing. Their code of ethics specifically attacks American ethics of Wal-Mart for its skewing of data promoting a false interpretation of the product by hiring bloggers to write specific content on their products. This deception or deliberately providing a false statement of what the data may be telling you that is also referenced in Advertising and PR Research Ethics as an aspect of unethical research composition.

Overall, I hope organizations and campaigns that preach and respond to watch dog behavior increase all around the world. Serving as a new social epidemic, “watch-dog” campaigns can make the PR world more connected to strive to become ethical throughout.

First post: Blog Focus

I am going to focus this blog’s attention on public relations campaigns in America as well as other areas around the world. My aim is that once I research enough campaigns in the U.S. and other nations, I will be able to discover and come to conclusions about the differences and similarities between how each nation deals with their intended publics. I especially want to highlight the differences between ethics in United States public relations campaigns and other countries. But, only the most innovative and influential in my opinion, will be recorded here.

My personal opinion of PR campaigns is that the United States, in most cases, will promote products/people/ etc. professionally by respecting a company’s code of ethics more so than other countries around the world. This includes staying away from topics that exploit sexuality, racism, etc.

For example, here is a link to a website, Everything PR, which keeps current with many PR campaigns in the United States and beyond and can serve as a way to see my focus clearer. In particular, this is a link about a French McDonald’s campaign that is stirring some controversy for both Americans and the French. 
http://www.pamil-visions.net/mcdonalds-gay-friendly-ad-in-france/215604/

In sum, the article discusses the McDonalds ad that is trying to reach a new demographic of homosexual, young-adult males around the ages of 18-29. The ad which shows a father taking his child to a McDonalds to eat, suggests that the father does not know the son is gay, whereas McDonalds is accepting of his sexual orientation. The commercial ends with the words, “Come as You Are”. Many Americans such as political commentator Bill O’Reilly, as the article states, feel as if McDonalds is making a “political statement” more so than promoting a product. But, Xavier Giannolli, who is the director of the taboo campaign, disagrees and said his aim was “to acknowledge a social change, to ‘fit in’ if you want”.

My beliefs on the “Come as You Are” or “vennez comme vous êtez” campaign is that since this campaign is definitely getting people talking not only in France, but in the United States, McDonalds is proving to be very successful at promoting their company name. Regardless if this is a “political statement” or not, McDonalds is getting press time on TV, the Web etc. and that is important in the publicity aspect of the PR world. Thus, the people in charge at BETC Euro RSCG, the agency that designed the campaign, are attaining beyond satisfactory outreach levels.

On the other hand, even though the saying goes, “no press is bad press”, some not-so liberal Americans and French might disagree. The ad can be misinterpreted that McDonalds promotes homosexuality, which a lot of Americas and even French are still uneasy about. This would give a select target market within the McDonalds consumers a negative connotation with the product and alter a company’s reputation and sales. Consequently, altering the outcome level of the campaign as well.

Even more unfortunate is that McDonalds could defame its reputation beyond France and the United States seeing as I was able to pull up this article easily on my laptop. Sales could therefore dwindle in those countries as well all because of one ad placed in France.


Final word: be careful what your campaign is promoting, you don’t know who else will see it, where they will see it, and what they are going to think about it.