Here's a new thread for your Monday, Nov. 8, blog assignment. You may respond to your classmates' posts or suggest a new topic within your post. Write a total of 600 words in one or more blog posts between now and 6:20 p.m. Monday. Feel free to write more. You'll get extra credit for thoughtful topics and well-written posts up to a total of 1,000 words. That's not as much copy as you think.
Good luck and good blogging. I look forward to reading your posts.
“Limning a Controversy”
ReplyDeleteErin McKean from The Boston Globe wrote another great article about word choice. Although this article is old, it’s still interesting and relevant.
On Sept. 7, The Baltimore Sun unintentionally garnered attention by using the word ‘limn’ in a front-page headline: “Opposing votes limn difference in race.” Angry from the writer’s word choice, a woman sent a letter to the editor, calling it “unbelievably arrogant and patronizing” to use the word limn, which she did not recognize. Having graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Maryland, it appalled her that the newspaper would use a word that highly educated people could not comprehend. The Baltimore Sun had used the word limn twice before in headlines and exactly 47 times in the paper’s history without fuss.
John McIntyre, the grammar and usage blogger for The Sun, supported the use of the word in the headline. McIntyre called it “neither scatological nor obscene,” and favored its position as one of the few short verbs.
McKean examines the word’s backlash over the years. Ben Yagoda, a writer, said, “It’s a word that has never been said aloud in the history of English.” In 2002, William Safire, a famous speechwriter, mentioned that limn was a “vogue word” and gave it a life span of “six more months.” Apparently, Safire had it wrong.
I’m interested in the clear division amongst readers. Some people become fascinated when they stumble upon new words, and some clearly become agitated and defensive. I tend to become intrigued when I encounter new words, such as limn.
On one hand, McKean says you should avoid using words that you’re not confident your audience will understand. An ambiguous headline can distract readers from grasping the point of the article. On the other hand, McKean acknowledges that commonly used words can “result in colorless and boring writing.”
What do you think? Do you become intrigued by unfamiliar words or frustrated?
A new law passed by an 8-3 vote this week in San Francisco, Calif. regarding children, health and fast food: In December 2011, McDonald’s Happy Meals will no longer include the free toys. This will make San Francisco the first major city in the U.S. to forbid free toys with meals that do not meet predetermined nutritional standards. Santa Clara County has passed a similar measure, which will go into effect on Dec. 1.
ReplyDeleteThe law will ban restaurants from including toys with meals if the food and drink combined contain more than 600 calories or more than 35 percent of the calories come from fat. Fruits and vegetables must be provided with all children’s meals that come with toys.
Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure, claimed, “We’re part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice.” On the contrary, Dayna Proud, McDonald’s spokesperson, said, “We are extremely disappointed with the decision. It’s not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for.” Although the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, opposed the measure, he could not argue against it; it was passed with eight votes (one more than needed to override a veto).
I understand the attempt to reduce child obesity rates; however, I don’t think McDonald’s should be punished for society’s trend toward overeating. McDonalds has, in fact, added healthier options to its children’s menu. Instead of fries and a soda, parents can substitute apples on the side with low-fat milk or apple juice.
Why can’t parents make more responsible decisions for their children instead of finding a scapegoat (McDonalds, in this case)? Will Halloween become ruled out next year, too? McDonalds has been serving toys with Happy Meals since 1979. Toys are part of the Happy Meal appeal and a significant part of the meal’s branding. I don’t think it’s right to use McDonalds, one of many chains offering toys with children’s meals, to make a point.
I’m curious to hear what you all think about this.
Alyssa makes good points. If you don't know what "limn" means, you know what to do. William Safire, who was my firm's client before he passed away (be careful when you work with us), wrote the New York Times "On Language" column for years. He was a speechwriter and public relations consultant to President Nixon (who?).
ReplyDeleteThe McDonald's ruling (well, it is California) is a strategic communication case study with ethical communication overtones. How would you advise McDonald's? Alyssa's made a good start by citing the menu changes. Careful. Eric Mar is good: "...an agenda of food justice"? How can you challenge that goal and language? Hint: You can. "Agendas" are always vulnerable. What do you think?
It's hot Coco time.
ReplyDeleteNot the cocoa you may reach for on a brisk New York night (filled with or without marshmallows, however you choose), but Conan O'Brien, who will be making his cable debut Monday night on TBS.
After the NBC mandated prohibition that legally barred O'Brien from appearing on TV, he is again returning to late night television and doing it his way. With just a day away from his TBS debut, buzz has been brewing. Who will his first guests be? What will he talk about? Will O'Brien keep the ginger beard and ditch the clean shaven look of yore?
TBS has enough faith in the new show that they are charging $30,000 to $40,000 for a 30-second commercial, on par with what NBC and CBS charges for their late night commercials on The Tonight Show and The Late Show with David Letterman. Some advertisers including AT&T, Coca-Cola, and Chevrolet already have tailored promotions coinciding with the first few weeks of the show. No one knows for sure how the new show will fare, though with TBS extending more creative freedom to O'Brien versus a network channel, Team Coco can tune in to see more zany and manic comedy than seen on the more reserved Tonight Show. Team Coco is primarily composed of the coveted 18-49 age demographic, which is one of the reasons advertisers have been shelling out so much cash on a show that has yet to air.
Since his departure from The Tonight Show, O'Brien has kept busy. The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour was a way to entertain fans across the U.S. and sort through his grief over The Tonight Show debacle. The comedy tour lasted two months and went to 30 cities.
Even if you never watched Late Night with Conan O'Brien or the seven month period when he hosted The Tonight Show, the way the situation was handled left the public sympathizing with O'Brien. So sympathetic in fact, that Team Coco (a moniker for O'Brien fans coined by Tom Hanks) emerged and it seemed O'Brien gained a larger following and more support than before the incident. He set up a Twitter account shortly after The Tonight Show ended and within 24 hours, he had 300,000 followers. By May, over a million had taken to following O'Brien's jokes on the social website.
While away during his mandated TV vacation, took to alternative methods besides television to connect with his fans. Conan O'Brien maintained contact with Team Coco with strategic communication and creative usage of public relations tools. From the time he left NBC to now, O'Brien has been honest and funny without ever having a disparaging comment towards NBC or Jay Leno, who resumed as the host of The Tonight Show after O'Brien left. Was O'Brien happy about how things ended? No. He was hurt and betrayed, yet he remained true to himself and is starting a new chapter in his career.
As stated in Reputation Management, “Reputation=Sum of Images= (Performance and Behavior) + Communication”. Based on this formula, I think Conan O’Brien will be just fine. He has consistently stayed true to his goofy self which has garnered him a loyal following.
Hell hath no fury like the spread of negative word-of-mouth through the digital sphere. Since New England’s food magazine Cooks Source, lifted “A Tale of Two Tarts,” an article written by Monica Gaudio in 2005 about the European origins of the traditionally American apple pie, Netizens have been cooking up a storm.
ReplyDeleteThe magazine, that has a small-scale circulation of about 20,000 subscribers, published the article without the author’s permission.
Gaudio posted on her blog that she first learned about the article’s misappropriation after a friend called to congratulate her on being published. “Flabbergasted,” Gaudio contacted the magazine because she believed the article was published by mistake.
After exchanging a couple of e-mails Cooks Source’s editor, Judith Griggs, asked what Gaudio wanted. Gaudio replied she wanted an apology on the magazine’s Facebook page, a written apology in the magazine, and a $130 donation to Columbia School of Journalism (about $0.10 per word), to which Griggs responded:
"Yes Monica, I have been doing this for 3 decades, having been an editor at The Voice, Housitonic Home and Connecticut Woman Magazine. I do know about copyright laws. It was "my bad" indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.
But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me... ALWAYS for free!" (sic).
If you can control your senses, let’s not get caught up in this train wreck of misspellings and grammatical blunders by a 30-year veteran editor. Instead, let’s look at this story as a case study of what happens to companies that insist on shady business practices and gamble with the power of the transparent and digitally connected world.
(To be continued on the next post)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFacebook
ReplyDeleteIn reponse to Grigg’s e-mail, people outraged by the editor’s response took over Cooks Source Facebook page, which reportedly went from a few hundred fans to over 5,000 since the story broke three days ago. Allegedly, Griggs posted this message on the magazine’s Facebook wall as it boiled with resentful posts:
Hi Folks!
Well, here I am with egg on my face! I did apologise to Monica via email, but aparently it wasnt enough for her. To all of you, thank you for your interest in Cooks Source and Again, to Monica, I am sorry — my bad! You did find a way to get your "pound of flesh..." we used to have 110 "friends," we now have 1,870... wow!
...Best to all, Judith (sic)
But some speculate Cooks Source’s Facebook page was hacked and the post is not legit.
Cooks Source “wall” was roasted with rotten “wall” posts. Alex Porras wrote “Cooks Source can see Russia from its pile of plagiarized content.” The magazine started a new Facebook page after it claimed their original page was hacked. As I was writing this entry; the original page was still generating lots of bad buzz- the last post was 31 seconds ago (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cooks-Source-Magazine/196994196748).
(To be continued)
(Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteDiscussion threads such as “List of Cooks Source article sources. Please add more” produced over 7 pages with links and comments by folks who sorted through Cooks Source’s past -website and magazine- articles found to have been plagiarized from other sources. The elaborate investigation, that Gaudio herself said would have taken her weeks to do, was done in a matter of hours. The list, posted by an anonymous user, is available on https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AmTaIPHPnkSedGFhbHo1d1FIR2oxNWJLaDZLeXhEVEE&hl=en#gid=0
Twitter
Cooks Source rogue Twitter accounts were instantly generated. The most popular Twitter hashtag created on the issue was #CrooksSource. Some tweets called on advertisers and subscribers to pull out from the magazine:
@aokcamp
Anne Marie OKeefe
All 20,000 subscribers should cancel. RT @mashable Magazine Plagiarizing Blogger http://on.mash.to/bYCufl #CrooksSource
YouTube
A hilarious YouTube video of viral proportions also was spawned by the controversy. The video was viewed more than 8,000 times since it was posted on November 6. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC-tVHLM99w)
(To be continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteConclusion
The angry Netizen mob contacted Cook Source’s advertisers asking them to pull back. A representative from Deano’s Pizza has posted this message on one of Cooks Source Facebook discussion threads:
… I have been bombarded with emails from people that I don't even know and although you think you are doing something for a good cause, you are also behaving unethically by threatening small businesses to get what you want... I would appreciate my email being removed from this list ASAP!
Deano's Pizza
After J David Sexton posted he would like to have a list of the magazine’s advertisers so he could boycott them for their “immorality,” Laura Puchalsky from 2nd Street Baking Co., an advertiser on Cooks Source, lashed out on David for calling the magazine’s innocent advertisers “immoral.”
Some advertisers said they will no longer do business with the magazine.
And for the record, the Web is not public domain. There is a mix of protected and unprotected content but generally, authors reserve the same copyright (lifetime plus 70 years after death) on their original works as they would on print.
Ultimately, an apology and a miser donation would have settled the case.
And a last word of advice, please write your e-mails carefully. They may end up all over the Web.
----
Now it's OVER!
In response to Alyssa’s post on The Baltimore Sun’s use of the word ‘limn’, I would agree with the angry reader’s response arguing that journalists should not use words the average reader is not familiar with. Newspapers are supposed to communicate news and while big words may make the writing look “smart” it actually makes the journalist seem like a bad writer. The purpose is to write for your audience (no matter what their education level is) not to show how large your vocabulary is.
ReplyDeleteSome people say it is sad that journalists have to write at a 7th grade reading level. They argue journalists are talking down to their readers by ‘dumbing it down’. In my opinion this is not about dumbing it down or speaking down to your readers, it is about reaching the largest audience possible and making it easy for them to understand the information as quickly as possible. Learning new words may be exciting, but personally when I am reading the New York Times on the subway the last thing I want is to get stuck on a word.
To make everyone happy, The New York Times online now features a tool where readers can click on words they do not know and get the definition. This is a great tool for online readers but I do not think it is smart to assume the average reader carries a dictionary around nor should they have to. People read the paper (such as the NY Times) to get the news and while they expect the topics to be complicated, they do not expect the writing to be.
As we discuss in class, word choice is important to the overall message. The words a writer chooses need to be thoughtful and succinct. If there is a shorter and simpler word we could use, we should. This is the point of the Fleish Kincaid Readability Index.
I think San Francisco’s new law banning free toys given with junk food, is a fair measure. Obesity rates in the U.S. are the highest in the developed world. I looked up statistics (http://tiny.cc/79soi) and found that nearly two-thirds of adults and 19 percent of children in the U.S. are overweight. Obesity rates have been rising steadily for the past 20 years for all ages, genders, racial/ethnic groups, and education levels.
ReplyDeleteDirect marketing to children under the age of 13 breaks the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) code of ethics. Though giving away free toys to children isn't covered by this code, I believe the same principles should apply. This marketing technique may be influencing children to choose unhealthy meals over healthier options. I think outlawing the practice based on ethics alone is justifiable.
I don’t think this law will necessarily eradicate the issue or lower childhood obesity but it's worth trying. I think the law is more likely to be effective in getting food businesses to create healthier menus. Companies like McDonalds should respond by changing the children’s menu to meet the prerequisites for offering toys. Most food chains are already making an effort to serve healthier menu options. They should use this law as an incentive to continue with that objective. I think the requirements are reasonable, and most businesses should be able to modify their current menu to meet the new standards.
I think this law has merit. At best, it will help lower childhood obesity, and at worst, it at least brings attention to the issue.
I recently learned how the Brooklyn Museum was using social media to engage its visitors. It's pretty cool stuff, and it can be applied to companies in both the for-profit and nonprofit business sectors. Here's a little bit about what I found:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the Brooklyn Museum has a mobile website. The site is mutually beneficial to both its patrons and the museum itself. It allows smart phone users to tag art in the gallery which enables them to earn points and prizes, and it also helps the museum organize its 94,000-record online collection to a Foursquare account. The Foursquare account offers tips for activities to do in the neighborhood and rewards mayors with special parties and other offers.
The museum’s site says the tagging feature allows has 3 aims:
1.) It encourages visitors to look at all the different collections in the museum. Participants earn more points if they tag works on different floors.
2.) It enables its visitors to get more out of the content. The museum recognizes the large quantity of information it offers, and it understands how it can become overwhelming to its visitors. It hopes that allowing people to tag art will simplify its content and make it more accessible. Users can also leave “tips” to let other users know about your favorite painting, exhibit or collection.
3.) It organizes the museum’s online collection. When a piece of art is tagged, it goes directly into the museum’s online collection. This helps the museum organize works virtually while bringing another interactive element to the visitors.
The museum also maintains a blog that offers behind the scenes views of events happening at the museum. The blog also serves as a platform of conversation between the museum’s staff and its visitors. Over 50 museum staffers and guest bloggers contribute to the blog, which makes people feel connected to the museum. It helps humanize the museum by putting faces and voices to the organization.
The museum also has accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Tumblr and YouTube. No social media platform goes untested.
The museum has used its YouTube channel to host contests. One example of this was the launch of “Target First Saturdays,“a monthly event that features a free program of arts and entertainment. The museum asked its visitors to create a one minute video of how they view the museum. The winners were selected by a panel that was appointed by the museum. The winning video demonstrates that people are happy to get excited and involved in the things they care about.
Promoting contests online is a great way to get people talking. These events also provide an array of user-generated content that the organization can use for promotion and to attract new audiences.
The Brooklyn Museum realizes that many people now communicate and connect through social media. By engaging in all types of channels, it builds up its physical and virtual presence simultaneously. Considering that many of these platforms are free, it doesn’t make sense NOT to be taking advantage of these tools. Plus, once you’ve gotten them started and established, the audience almost starts to drive the social media themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(On Brooklyn Museum Ctd...)
ReplyDeleteThere are a few challenges, however, to using social media to engage your audience. One issue is measurement: can you attribute your social media efforts to increased revenue? Secondly, it’s important to know if the organization is attracting new audience members or mainly engaging its current audience differently. The YouTube video contest serves as a prime example of this issue. Many of the participants were already passionate about the museum. How do you reach the people who don’t know about Target First Saturdays and get them involved?
Social media is definitely in its infancy. As time goes on and more companies find new ways to reach their audiences, many of the answers to these issues will be addressed. For now, it’s safe to say whether you’re attracting new or current audience members, it doesn’t hurt.
Have you seen any other corporations use social media in these ways? Do you think it is working?
Alyssa, I’d like to comment on the story you brought up from the Boston Globe and the Baltimore Sun. In full disclosure, I’ve never heard of the word “limn.” I had to Google it when I read your post. While not a long or complicated word, it’s certainly a rare one, and probably belongs on an SAT prep flash card for the vocabulary section.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Rudolph Flesch, who developed the Flesch Formula to measure the reading levels, the readability of newspapers vary. The New York Post is written at an 8th or 9th grade level, where the New York Times and Wall Street Journal would be appropriate for college students. It is obvious that each newspaper has a specific audience that they target, but with the decline in newspaper readership, can reporters afford to lose annoyed readers who are not up to snuff on their vocabulary?
As a general rule, I would discourage journalists from including unnecessarily difficult vocabulary. More importantly, they should avoid using these words in their headlines. Rather that attracting well-read individuals or curious readers, it may alienate the majority of the population, and keep them from reading an article. Looking at the Baltimore Sun story as an online piece, a journalist cannot afford to have his or her story passed by and not clicked on; some writers are compensated or recognized for their writing based on the number of page views a story has.
Alicia, I also read your post, and it sounds like we agree on this topic. I like the idea of an online tool that helps readers learn new words, and since newspapers are often read on computers and iPads, this is likely very useful. However, this online tool does not excuse the Baltimore Sun reporter for including “limn” on a front-page print story. Understanding that a journalist does not know where his or her story will end up until after it’s submitted to the editor, poor word choice in headlines should be avoided altogether.
In response to Alyssa/Elissa—
ReplyDeleteThe new regulation on McDonald’s toys definitely has its merits. Yes, (hopefully) it will help to lower childhood obesity rates and will teach children to eat healthier. However, I agree with Alyssa. Who is really to blame here? McDonald’s may be serving the food, but the meals are being purchased by ADULTS. If your child is overweight or you are simply health conscious in general, you shouldn’t be buying food for you or your child at McDonald’s. The toy doesn’t really seem to be the problem.
As Alyssa said, McDonald’s has been offering healthier options for a while now. Ronald McDonald even pitches healthy food. The problem is that kids don’t want apples and milk: they want french fries and Coke. Plus, to get to a McDonald’s, kids are taken by their parents. They aren’t choosing McDonald’s on their own. If the government really wants to make healthier foods more accessible to children, it should target school cafeterias. Kids can’t go to a different cafeteria, but parents can drive their kids to any fast food restaurant they please.
The message from the government seems to be “if you can’t make healthy decisions for your child, we’ll make them for you.” It’s the responsibility of the parent to use common sense. It’s definitely not the government’s responsibility to mandate it.
I recently read an article by The New York Times about how an increasing amount of college students are now taking online classes. One reason many classes are being offered solely online is that universities don’t have enough space to hold them on campus. Lecture halls can’t house the growing number of students. This trend is especially prominent in public universities that are dealing with diminishing state funds.
ReplyDeleteOnline courses have primarily been held to accommodate nontraditional students. These classes are most convenient for older students who can’t make it to campus every day because of jobs and families. Now, online classes are becoming more common for traditional students as well.
While online classes may have some merit, I think they’re less effective than those taught in traditional classroom settings. I think a huge part of education is founded in direct contact with professors and students. Interaction and engagement are fundamental to the learning process.
While I understand universities are trying to teach as many students as possible while still remaining affordable, it seems disadvantageous to students who learn best with personal instruction. Plus, if you’re sitting in your apartment watching a computer screen, you’re tempted to multitask and become distracted.
What do you think about this shift? How can universities best serve their students with limited funding?
A Great PR Move for the MTA: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/nyregion/01second.html?ref=nyregion
ReplyDeleteThe Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or MTA, is one of the most hated organizations in New York City. No matter what the MTA does, New Yorkers feel the need to complain about the subway, bus, and the rising cost of getting around the city.
With the recent re-write of the horrific PERB Mediation Panel statement, I was pleasantly surprised to read the above article in the New York Times. The MTA has launched an outreach campaign to visit residents of the Upper East Side and address their concerns as the building of the Second Avenue subway crawls along and disturbs the neighborhood. As part of the new campaign, the president of capital construction, Dr. Michael Horodniceanu, visited a first grade class near the construction site.
In my media relations class this summer, we talked about trying to pitch media who would be in favor of the topic, or on the fence. Similar to politics, it’s a waste of time to go after those who adamantly oppose your point of view. Dr. Horodniceanu knew that first graders would be interested in a visitor who would speak on a fun subject, and he crafted his messages and activities to appeal to his audience. It wasn’t hard to win over a classroom of 6-year-olds with a fun demonstration on concrete, and the MTA found itself with a new group of supporters.
In addition, the MTA had the foresight to invite the New York Times to the school visit. Given that coverage of the MTA is usually focused on rising prices, this article gives a positive example of the MTA’s activities and demonstrates its commitment the community. This story came less than three weeks after the New York Times reported that construction along the Second Avenue line left local residents without gas after a gas line was mistakenly shut off.
As we all concluded, the PERB Mediation Panel statement was a disaster. It would have been difficult for a team of lawyers to read, let alone a classroom of first graders. The story from the New York Times shows creative thinking from the MTA. Kudos to the MTA PR team on what was likely a great pitch and resulted in a successful placement.
For those of you who are not in Professor Garcia’s Communication, Ethics, and Law class, this week we discussed the current First Amendment case of Andrew Shirvell, the assistant Attorney General in Michigan. Because this is a current event that is directly related to communication law, I believe it is a topic we should all be aware of.
ReplyDeleteTo provide some background:
Andrew Shirvell is an assistant Attorney General in Michigan who has launched a campaign against 21-year-old Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan. Shrivell has created a blog called the Chris Armstrong Watch in which he calls him a “privileged pervert” and “Satan’s representative on the student assembly”. The blog even features a picture of Armstrong with a swastika on a gay pride flag and the word resign written across his face. Shirvell has also verbally attacked Armstrong at campus events as well as protested outside of his home.
While a case can be made for harassment, can a case be made against Shirvell’s speech and protests? Many are arguing no because of the protections provided by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This includes the protection of hate speech defined as “any communication which disparages a person or group based on a characteristic such as race or sexual orientation.”
On the other hand, fighting words, defined as written or spoken words expressed to incite violence, are not protected by the First Amendment.
The question becomes… is Shirvell’s speech considered hate speech or fighting words? Previous Supreme Court cases have shown that proving a case for fighting words is difficult, especially in cases of online speech (the internet along with print media have the most First Amendment protection).
In analyzing all of these factors I would argue that Shirvell’s speech is currently at the level of hate speech and is therefore protected by the First Amendment. My concern is that in protecting Shirvell’s speech, his actions will eventually incite violence. We have seen the consequences of hate speech in the last few months with the numerous suicides related to bullying and cyber bullying. At what point can you decide that speech is likely to incite violence and loose its First Amendment protection?
With the first hearings beginning in this case, I for one am looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
For more information on this, I would recommend watching Anderson Cooper interview Mr. Shirvell on Anderson Cooper 360.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwObjKZg9Jw
Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid I have to go to bat for my home state of California. We have always been a forward thinking state. The decision made this week by the San Francisco board of supervisors does not surprise me. In fact, I support it.
Childhood obesity is a problem in our country. Future generations of children face a life filled with medical problems associated with obesity, including heart disease and diabetes (not to mention skyrocketed health costs). A large factor of obesity is a poor diet and lack of exercise. There is no doubt that parents are the key player in this epidemic. In fact, in several of the articles I read parents take accountability for deciding to make fast food a part of their family’s lives. Some parents even said “poor planning” is the reason they stop at McDonald’s to pick up dinner.
With that said, I agree with you that McDonald’s should not be the only one blamed for “society’s trend towards overeating.” But I think it is important to recognize the company as a definite contributor. After all, they did introduce the option of ‘supersizing’ in 1993. Originally introduced as a promo for the movie Jurassic Park, the ‘dino-size’ option became a staple until 2009. Like Americans needed those few extra fries?
I find it hard to applaud McDonald’s for offering apples and milk as substitutes for fries and soft drinks while they continue to offer a Mighty Kids Meal. This child’s meal includes a double cheeseburger, fries & chocolate milk. The meal packs 840 calories and 37 grams of fat. It’s the equivalent of supersizing the Happy Meal. Why not go beyond substituting apples and milk and eliminate this meal option altogether?
This brings me to the question: why single out McDonald’s? My guess is because most people associate a Happy Meal with a toy. Toys are offered inside of children’s meals at competitors such as Burger King, Jack in the Box, and Wendy’s. But McDonald’s is easily the most recognizable brand. Maybe by targeting the largest fast food chain, others will begin to re-evaluate the options they are currently offering in a kid’s meal.
What’s the real reasoning behind banning toys from Happy Meals? Some think it’s to punish the parent or perhaps the child. But I don’t think so. Most kids want the happy meal simply for the toy - they don’t care what they eat. So when parents purchase the Happy Meal to please their child’s want of the toy, they consequently give them a 500+ calorie meal. By eliminating the toy option perhaps parents will be less likely to purchase the Happy Meal and as a result the child avoids the fatty meal. But is the toy really the problem? No, it’s the decision made by the adult to purchase the meal.
I’d like to point out that this is not the first time California has addressed the issue of childhood obesity. In 2003, legislation was passed banning soda vending machines from elementary and middle schools. Two years later, soda vending machines were banned from high schools. It is going to take baby steps to overcome the larger problem facing our society. And I believe California is on the right path. Responsibility should be placed back on parents to teach and encourage their children to lead healthy lives.
"Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color," said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children's health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment."
ReplyDeleteHmm well with enough nagging at mommy and daddy every youth in San Francisco can still purchase a double down sandwich at KFC, a Carl’s double six dollar burger, and Hardee’s Monster Thickburger; all three with around 1500 calories.
If there is a food justice agenda why are these items still on the menu in San Francisco?
Because this is a crusade against McDonald’s which as the leader in fast food sales has become the prime target for the obesity problem in America despite adding healthier options to their menu.
McDonalds launched the first happy meal in 1979 (it was created by two advertising firms btw). It consisted of a cheeseburger, 12 oz soda, small fries, and a bag of cookies.
Now parents can substitute the soda for milk or apple juice and the fries can be replaced with apple wedges. McDonalds has already made the necessary changes to their happy meal.
But Mr Mar seems to be implying that he doesn’t trust parents to choose what their children eat anymore.
There’s a bigger issue that Mar has not addressed. As long as there are families below the poverty line living in close proximity to affordable fast food restaurants obesity rates should remain the same– happy meal or not.
The Qantas Airline jet engine exploding, and the ensuing media coverage is why PR professionals are integral to a business’s success. Crisis communication is vital after a product failure and is a growing field due to the advent of social media. Major news spreads at an immense speed because of online sharing tools like Flickr, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, which allows users to upload video or write posts in real time. This is how the initial word got out about Qantas catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteMinutes after the engine blew, people were tweeting that the plane crashed and posted photos of plane debris. This is not what happened. The plane arrived safely in Singapore after an emergency landing.
Matt Wilson, a writer on Ragan.com, analyzed Qantas’ PR response to the misinformation on Twitter. The company waited over 24 hours before posting a message on its Twitter account. He thinks Qantas should have written a tweet immediately, stating the accurate version of the story. Instead, its profile remained inactive for the day.
Norman Birnback, a strategic communication specialist, speculates on why Qantas did not respond on Twitter. “The communications team in Sydney may not have thought to respond on a Twitter account in the U.S. because the accident occurred in Singapore but it's too easy for news to go viral.” He stated. Birnback goes on to emphasize how important it is for an international company to have a global PR strategy. All of its social media profiles must be connected, and PR representatives from every area should be authorized to update the accounts in an emergency.
Wilson concludes by saying there are pitfalls to responding on Twitter in the middle of a crisis, but any post is better than none at all. If the facts are not yet confirmed then the company can post updates on its investigation in the issue or link to any official commentary. He believes this is how Qantas should have reacted. The company responded through other media including television, Facebook and print articles, therefore the PR team should have either repeated statements or provided links to the sources. This would have given Twitter users the facts while avoided any misinformation.
I agree with Wilson’s advice. I’m surprised that the Qantas PR team ignored the erroneous tweets about the incident. Timing is everything. Someone should have monitored the online conversation taking place internationally and responded appropriately.
Eventually the news corrected itself on Twitter, but Qantas should have been the first to take action. A brand gains credibility when it gives a prompt and honest response to public concerns. This is especially important for Twitter, which is becoming a key news source for online users.
I'm puzzled by the use of the word “limn” in a headline for the Baltimore Sun. I'm also puzzled that the paper had the nerve to defend the word on their blog, although to be fair I’m sure McIntrye had some slimy Baltimore Sun editors breathing down his neck (that should tell you my general thoughts on the Sun).
ReplyDeleteI don’t mind seeing words in a headline that I don’t know the meaning of as long as I’ve seen them before. I’ve never heard of the word limn and I’m sure if I said it aloud I would butcher the pronunciation.
After looking at the definition I’m still not immediately sure what the headline means. Limn appears to mean “describe”. So opposing votes describe differences in race. Huh? That doesn’t sound much better.
This headline needs a complete re-write.
Yes, short verbs are good. But not when they insult the intelligence of the readers. Don’t tell me journalists can’t come up with creative headlines that aren’t overlong. This seems to be an instance where a reporter was showing off (if in fact the reporter wrote the headline).
Also, a great move on the New York Times part to allow readers to highlight individual words and get the definition. We have even less of an excuse now to not know what certain words in an article mean.
Power to the “Persons”
ReplyDeleteThe 2010 midterm elections set a record high for campaign spending. Upwards of $4 billion dollars were spent by corporations, unions, private groups, individuals, and candidates themselves. Why was this election different? Aren’t we in a recession?
In 1886 the Supreme Court recognized corporations and unions as “persons” through the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific case decision. This decision was made with respect to the fourteenth amendment, but the language extends into other amendments that clarify rights. For example, since a corporation is considered a “person,” it is entitled to the same freedom of speech as individual people.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing decision that limited corporate/union campaign spending, and ruled that since a corporation has the same rights as individuals pertaining to speech, it can indirectly spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, including advertising supporting or undermining candidates. In the advertising bought for candidates, corporations and unions are not required to disclose that it was their money that paid for and created the ad.
When the Supreme Court ruled unlimited campaign spending by entities was allowed, they assumed congress would pass legislation regulating the appropriate disclosure of whose money was spent where. With full disclosure of who paid for an ad, people can use better credibility judgment. The legislation regulating this never passed and, as far as I know, is still tied up in congress.
It is obvious that a corporation or union, like an individual, will fund candidates who further the corporation or union’s agenda and will help pass or not pass legislation while in office. Electing the “right” person to office can affect business plans or personal objectives. Will this candidate support cap and trade, health care, tax cuts, etc., are questions many “persons” asked this past week. And many “persons” with large budgets were quick to answer.
A corporation must be careful where it spends its money. The last thing it wants is to anger shareholders or customers who support another candidate or political party. By indirectly funding candidates through other organizations, unions and corporations have less fear about upsetting their audiences.
When receiving messages it is important to know the source. Some sources are more credible and less bias than other sources. What happens when the average American views a political ad with an obscure source (concerned taxpayers of America) or no source at all? Do they question the ad and launch a search party to figure out who funded it? My guess is no.
CONTINUE TO NEXT POST
Power to the “Persons” CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteIn my ethics, communication, and law class we discussed the implications of allowing groups to remain anonymous by indirectly (through another organization like the chamber of commerce) funding campaign ads. One of the main issues raised was that of influences from geographic areas different from where an election is taking place. A group from another region or country can support and indirectly advertise for a candidate without disclosing their identity or location. An entity (or individual) in one state could spend millions trying to influence another state’s election or even international entities with some extra money could attempt influence your vote without you knowing.
Is this ok? Some people argue it is. Corporations and unions traditionally have more money than the average American. So will their contributions begin to eclipse the individual’s political influence altogether? It is possible. Even so, I think corporations and unions do have a right to spend as much as they want on political campaigns. They have a right to support any candidate in any party and a right to choose whether or not to contribute money to them. What I disagree with is that corporations and unions can contribute millions indirectly to campaign advertising without having to directly disclose their business, for example, at the end of a television ad.
If you are a smart corporation or union, you should make decisions that reflect the wants and needs of your member, consumer, and shareholder base. This includes political spending. Don’t hide behind other organizations. Own up to your contributions. That goes for you individuals too.
Another issue that relates to the unlimited spending on political campaigns by entities is that many people believe it only benefits a certain political party. This is not so. Both parties can capitalize on this spending. One party may do better at this than another, but ultimately they are all playing on the same field. The real questions are, is it worth it? Can money really buy votes? Some people will argue yes while others, like Meg Whitman, may tell you no. She spent $142 million of her own money campaigning for Governor of California and lost to Jerry Brown, 54% to 41%. Maybe another $20 million would have done the trick?
Ultimately campaign spending by entities, individuals, and candidates is a gamble. You may win some, you may lose some. One thing to bet on though, is that 2012 is looking expensive, get your wallet ready “persons.”
Questions posed: Can money really buy votes? Does unlimited campaign spending only benefit one political party? Should there be full disclosure of sources in campaign ads?
What do you think?
I'm 22 years old and I still order off the Happy Meal menu. At my age, it has nothing to do with the toys. I agree with Mike that it seems to be a targeted attack against McDonalds.
ReplyDeleteI remember when Beanie Babies (yeah, remember those) were offered in Happy Meals. I would force my mom to buy me a Happy Meal whenever we were out so I could try to get the whole collection.
Mickey D's has definitely taken initiative to make their meals healthier for children. I also agree that parents should be the regulators of their children’s' diets. Fast food offers an enticing, cheap and convenient alternative to spending the money on groceries for dinner every night.
As an "adult" and shopping for my own groceries, I'm often really upset that the healthier choices are always more expensive. $5 for strawberries or $1.50 for a box of strawberry Nutrigran bars.
I understand the appeal of fast food, but I think parents should take the initiative and choose to feed their families as best as possible. If that entails scrounging up a couple of bucks and taking the family to McDonalds so be it, but when there, choose the right food.
The month most facial-hair-bearing men look forward to, "No shave November," is getting a makeover according to a new fundraising campaign.
ReplyDelete"Movember" is moving right on it to take the spotlight away from the beards warming men's faces all during the month. "Movember" is a fundraising campaign where men grow moustaches for the entire 30 days to raise awareness and research dollars for men's cancers.
"When we turned Movember into a fundraising campaign we came up with our tag line which is 'Changing the face of men's health.' So we literally challenged men to change their appearance and that becomes a talking point and the commitment they make over 30 days," explains Garone.
I think this is a great campaign. We discussed Susan G. Komen and their initiatives last week, but this campaign really focuses on men, for men. I think its focus is well-defined with a clear goal in mind.
Good stuff and good writing. Thank you. I think we're gonna have a food fight tonight over the McDonald's posts and last week's press release assignment. Keep the conversation going.
ReplyDeleteBut don't go out on a "limn."
ReplyDeleteIn my PR Week Breakfast Briefing this morning, I received an article about fast food marketing to children. Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity studied 12 well-known restaurant chains and 3,039 kids’ meal combinations. I believe the results, released this morning, are relevant to our discussion of McDonalds above.
ReplyDeleteOf the 3,039 kids’ meal combinations, only 12 met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids; only 15 met the guidelines for older children.
The worst meal, found at Dairy Queen, includes a cheeseburger, french fries, a sugar-sweetened soft drink, and a Dilly bar, totaling 973 calories. KFC came in second with its popcorn chicken kids’ meal, served with a biscuit, soda and side of string cheese, totaling 840 calories. Subway and Burger King provide two of the 12 meals that meet the nutritional guidelines: Subway has the “Veggie Delight” (285 calories), and Burger King has the macaroni and cheese meal (285 calories).
According to the study, the fast food industry has been increasing its advertising towards children. “Today, preschoolers see 21 percent more fast food ads on TV than they saw in 2003, and somewhat older children see 34% more,” said the lead researcher at Yale, Jennifer L. Harris. The most shocking statistic, in my opinion, is that the average preschooler sees three ads per day for fast food; teens ages 12 to 17 see almost FIVE ads per day for fast food.
The fast food industry apparently spends $4.2 billion on marketing and advertising in 2009, and the cost has proven to be effective. Nearly 40 percent of preschool-aged children ask to go to McDonalds on a weekly basis, and 15 percent ask on a daily basis. The study reveals that 84 percent of parents say they’ve taken their children to eat fast food in the past week.
Even though we’ve discussed that there are, in fact, healthier options to choose from at these fast food restaurants, healthy options are rarely offered by default. Burger King and McDonalds show the healthy sides, such as apples, and healthier beverages, such as low-fat milk, in their advertising targeted toward children; however, Yale has found that these places serve french fries with kids’ meals at least 86 percent of the time and soft drinks 55 percent of the time.
Maybe the solution is simpler than taking away the toy. Fast food restaurants should serve the healthier versions of the kids’ meals by default. Parents will then have to go out of their way to order the sugar-loaded sodas and grease-packed french fries.
Check out the full report at www.fastfoodmarketing.org , if you’re interested. You can also follow the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #fastfoodfacts.
I would argue that corporations and unions have an enormous stake in the elections and should be allowed to exert their influence through the funding and formation of PACs. If a candidate is likely to support legislation that is going to help an organization thrive then the organization should have the right to back the candidate. Just the opposite is true as well.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that federal disclosure laws prevent anonymous donations to PACs, although that information can remain anonymous for something like a commercial. Earlier there was a story about Target and its donation to a PAC called MN forward, which supported a Minnesota governor candidate. An activist group did its homework and broadcast the names of donors for all to see. (Feel like someone in the class blogged about this). Target took some heat and had to deal with consumer boycotts.
So it’s not as if corporations can completely hide their influence. But the Target case highlights the fact that organizations may not want to be as transparent about donations as they should be. I do wonder what communications people at corporations think about the company funding a political action committee that supports polarizing candidates.
To be fair it’s not even clear if it really benefits a company to form a PAC organization and support a political candidate. How effective are all these advertisements? Look no further than Meg Whitman.
In regards to Julia’s post about online courses:
ReplyDeleteI participated in online courses during my undergraduate years at a private university. Based on my own experience I believe the student does miss out on critical interaction with the professor as well as fellow students. The engagement between students and professors help develop critical thinking skills.
While looking into graduate school options I did come across a couple private universities that offered a similar program as NYU, but solely online. I thought it was a strange concept to teach public relations exclusively online with no direct interaction with professors. Some degrees or certificates I can understand, such as medical billing. But public relations?
I understand colleges and universities are operating on stricter budgets than in years past. But I believe the student is the one suffering from the shift in online classes. They miss out on the college experience as well as engaging class discussions. Perhaps colleges should consider offering a few less course sections so that all classes can be accommodated with physical professors and classrooms? Maybe they only allow nontraditional students to register for online courses? Or, I hate to suggest it, raise tuition to help cover the loss in state funding. Of course the last option likely won’t be well received by students.
I agree with Alyssa that children’s diet is the parents’ choice and responsibility. No one is forced to consume at any restaurant. The toy is a powerful treat to influence children but taking it away is not the solution. Children will eat French fries and greasy hamburgers as long as these items are available on the menu. Banding the toys giveaway with a meal will only turn a happy meal into a boring meal.
ReplyDeleteWe can’t deny the fact that obesity and diabetes have reached epidemic indexes in our society. Children suffering from these conditions account for a large and growing percentage among U.S. population. We need to take action and do some changes to seed healthy eating habits in youngsters. The way we eat as kids will determine the way we eat as adults. The new law forbidding free toys is focusing on the tip of the iceberg. Meals with poor nutritional value are a problem that needs to be address from a different angle. The lack of healthy food choices has even been an issue for the department of education. Public schools menus have been questioned in numerous occasions. ABC featured British chef, Jamie Oliver, in a TV show series called Food Revolution. Mr. Olivier visited several schools and reviewed the breakfast and lunch menus often finding that the meals were poor on nutritional value and high on caloric content. Some facts offered in the chef’s website indicate that obesity is the second cause of premature death in the U.S., the first is smoking. Poor eating habits, obesity and diabetes are problems with deeper roots. I think the government should spend its time more wisely and stop playing with toys.