Jour 4460 Blog 14: The "No" in Domino's Pizza

Domino’s pizza has been through many changes in the past few years. In my opinion, of the mainstream pizza chains, like Pizza Hut and Papa John’s, Domino’s pizza markets its products in the most aggressive manner. It revamped its pizza recipe, created artisan pizzas and added chicken to the menu. The company has also experienced some foul moments. Such as, when Domino’s CEO Patrick Doyle aired a commercial featuring an unappetizing photo of a pizza delivered to a customer in Minnesota. Another incident is when two Domino’s employees posted a video online of them committing unsanitary acts with food that was said to be on its way to be delivered.

Whether the topic of the company’s current campaign was positive or negative the message that came out from the company was always clear. The understanding I get from watching Domino’s commercials is the company wants to be honest with the public. There’s no vague jargon or flashy commercials. It’s almost like the Domino’s thought process is keep it simple.

In Domino’s latest campaign about it’ artisan pizzas, the company issue the message it will not alter any of the ingredients of its artisan pizzas for any customer. This is different for any pizza company because most pizzas are made to order. Telling a customer the pizza is perfect the way it is seems kind of…bossy. I do wonder how the company would handle if someone had allergies to a certain topping. Would they take off that topping in order to serve the customer and prevent a health hazard? Would they say, “I’m sorry we can’t change the pizza, but you can order something else”?

I think Dominos should write a book explaining bullet by bullet how to send a message to a public. After viewing or reading content the company has put out I don’t really have a lot of questions or any confusion because of the clarity of the delivery. If I do have questions, they are in regard to if the kitchen the commercial was shot in is real or if it’s a set that was put together.

After the scandal of two Domino’s employees violating food and posting the video to YouTube, the company respond by issuing an apology video and posting it on the same medium the two employees posted theirs on. A simple act, but very affective. Domino’s is a company that is really embracing social media. It also calls action to its customers so they are a part of the company (sending photos of their pizza in.)

Truthfully, I believe it is Domino’s marketing and PR strategies that helped up their status and sales (changing the recipe helped, too.) The pizza is still very greasy, though.

Usually, I would have comments about how the company could improve its communication strategies, but I have no suggestions for this company. Domino’s Pizza is on the right track. I just hope the company doesn’t lose site of the image it’s creating and continues to progress down this path.

Jour 4470 Blog 3: Lies Aren't Funny

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.