If you work in a public relations position whose ethical
code do you follow in an unpredictable situation, your own or the company’s you
work for? In an ideal situation your
ethical beliefs should mirror or closely identify with those of your
employer’s.
However, that organization does have an obligation to
Corporate Transparency. Basically, the company should be open with the public
about its decisions and why they were made. A company that didn’t believe that
corporate transparency was a good idea was Virgin America in 2011. The company
attempted to try a new system to book flights. This new system was horrendous
for the company. Passengers were given the wrong boarding passes, customers
couldn’t access the website, flight crews were told the wrong times to come to
work and the phone system couldn’t manage all the incoming calls from
disgruntled customers. According to an article by Margaret Heffernan, “one customer said he was on hold
for four hours - and then was hung up on. When he complained on VA's Facebook
page, he was promptly kicked off. One poor woman was charged nine times for the
same flight.”
How did
Virgin America deal with these mass complications? Claiming that their
customers and staff were happy with the changes and were only experiencing a
few problems with the “smooth transition,” according to Heffernan’s article.
Virgin
America made many mistakes in this case. The biggest one was lying to the
public about the issue. I’m sure if the company was truthful about the issues
from the start the public would have been more sympathetic to the problems that
were occurring. Yes, there most likely would have been some tensions between
Virgin America and the public, but at least the company could be called honest.
Another mistake, was that the company didn’t act proactively in correcting the
mistakes that were occurring, such as, trying to make the customers who were
told the wrong gate or got charged multiple times for a ticket happy.
Trust
is one of the hardest things to build in any relationship. Virgin America
damaged that relationship severely with some and lost it completely with
others.
Another
aspect that must be thought about is do the means justify the ends. The theory
of Deontology states that some principles are right or wrong regardless of the
consequences. The new Turkish commercial for Biomen shampoo uses an old film
clip of Adolf Hitler at a rally is simply wrong no matter what comes out of it.
The premise is that men shouldn’t use women’s shampoo. I guess Hitler is
supposed to be the ultimate manly man.
Turkey’s
Jewish community is speaking out against this commercial, and with every right
to do so. It’s too soon to be poking fun at an event or a person who is
responsible for killing millions of people. An article on cbsnews.com says, “‘The
use of images of the violently anti-Semitic dictator who was responsible for
the mass murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust to
sell shampoo is a disgusting and deplorable marketing ploy,’ said Abraham H.
Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director and a Holocaust
survivor, in a statement.”
How
does the company who aired the commercial feel? “Jewish community leader Silvyo
Ovadya told Reuters that Biota Laboratories, which makes Biomen, said they will
not get rid of the commercial because the idea is humorous,” according to an
article on cbsnews.com.
I can’t speak for
anyone else, but using the image of a dictator that thought it was ok to kill
millions of people on the belief that they were inferior to sell shampoo is not
humorous. It’s disturbing and disgusting. That’s just my opinion, though.
In the
case of the Biomen commercial I believe that those who produced the commercial
didn’t take into account how the Jewish and other communities would feel about
the commercial use of Hitler. Common sense, to me, should say that it probably
isn’t the best idea to use one of the most hated men to sell something as
trivial as shampoo.
In the
cases previously discussed it seems that the company doesn’t take into account
their audiences feelings or point of view. When the public is your source
of income you can’t afford not listening
to their problems or concerns with what your company is doing.
In the
PRSA code of ethics it states under “Independence,” “We are accountable for our
actions.” People, especially professionals in public relations, shouldn’t have
to be reminded that they are accountable. It should have been learned while
growing up. Whether the outcome is good or bad it is always better to stand up
and take responsibility. Some things shouldn’t be questioned, though. Such as,
your company’s operations are being completely thrown off because of new software
just come out and say that. When looking for a way to sell a product don’t use
a vicious tyrant. Some things are in a grey area, others are clearly right or
wrong. The way the two previous cases went about business is clearly wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment