Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Flog Research

1. "When Consumers Bite Back." Revolution 27 Oct 2007: 38.


Wal-Mart was also vilified for its involvement in a fake blog (or 'flog'). A freelance journalist wrote a blog about her travels across America in a mobile home staying in Wal-Mart car parks. She gave the impression that her quirky adventure had nothing to do with the retail chain. Naturally, the community of anti-Wal-Mart bloggers had a field day when it was exposed that she was, in fact, being sponsored by the corporation. The site has now been taken down.

McDonald's was also caught out using flogs in one of its marketing campaigns. The blog appeared to be written by a security guard who was so fascinated by a promotion that he wrote about it in his blog. However, another blog called Consumerist exposed the flog as the work of a PR agency.

2. "Blog Myths Exposed." PR Week 09 Feb 2007: 22.

Before Christmas, Sony set up a flog at www.alliwantforxmasisapsp.com to promote its PlayStation3 games console. The site was ostensibly written by two young boys, Charlie and Jeremy, as a way of convincing the latter's mother to buy him a PS3. Visitors saw through the ruse, and left little doubt - via posts - what they thought about it. Sony closed the site on Dec. 12.

3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816502/wid/11915829&GT1=8596

LonelyGirl15 news story


4.What We Should Learn From Sony's Fake Blog Fiasco
http://adage.com/smallagency/post?article_id=113945



Wal-Marting Across America – a travel flog about an RV making its way across the country staying Wal-Mart car parks. The blogger was sponsored by Wal-Mart and its PR agency, Edleman, to create viral marketing.

Sony’s alliwantforxmasisapsp.com – a flog established to promote Sony’s play station console. The site was said to be written by two young boys to convince one of their mothers to buy him a PS3 for Christmas.

McDonald’s – said to be written by a security guard who was fascinated with a McDonald’s ad campaign. The site was sponsored by McDonalds as one of its marketing campaigns and was later revealed to be the work of its PR agency.

LonelyGirl15 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonelygirl15

The Gap Between Advertising and Marketing, and PR

Although I have only been an intern at an advertising agency for a few weeks, there are a few things I have noticed that might help the advertising and marketing sides if PR was more involved in the advertising and branding process.

First, I noticed that many of my PR clients did not advertise with my employer. This means their advertising is done elsewhere in the absence of a PR professional. This point brings up my second point...

Some advertising campaigns cause PR problems because a PR practitioner isn't involved in the account planning process or the creative process. This leads into my next point...

Creatives nor account planners can be held completely responsible for causing such problems because they are not trained to think like a PR professional. It is, however, their job to be wise enough and experienced enough to involve a PR practitioner in the advertising and branding process.

If advertising agencies would consult an experienced PR professional in the process, the risk of losing money, time and a good reputation might decrease.

Chantix and Suicidal Behavior

Chantix, an anti-smoking prescription drug, is still being prescribed despite claims of suicidal behavior and sudden rage, resulting in some killings. Pfizer owns this drug and continues to make money off of this potentially dangerous substance. Several lawsuits have been filed, yet only warnings have been put out as opposed to recalls. Below is a link to an example of a warning put out by CNN:


http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/20/magazines/fortune/simons_smoke.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007112017



I really think this is a prime example of how socially irresponsible pharmaceutical companies can be. If there was even a hit of danger associated with a prescription drug, it should be recalled and fixed or banded from use until studies can confirm these claims aren't true.
From the Professional Conduct section of

The BusinessWeek Code of Journalistic Ethics

d. Gifts, meals, and entertainment.
"You may not accept gifts from companies, from their public relations firms or agents, or from any other supplier of information -- not a bottle of wine during the holidays, not a reduced-rate membership for your personal use. During company visits, you may accept mementos or sample products of nominal value (less than $25). But you must refuse, return, dispose of, or donate to charity any unsolicited gifts of more than nominal value -- the choice in the latter three instances being up to the sender, whom you must contact immediately. Obviously, you may not solicit gifts.

In addition, you generally may accept lunch or dinner only from a source with whom you are likely to meet often enough to return the favor (the one exception being an interview over a meal with a source at the person's offices). In all other instances, you or BusinessWeek must pay your tab.

You must use review copies of books, video games, and the like only for editorial purposes -- or else, as practicable, forward them to a person designated by the editor-in-chief for donation to charity. You may not sell such materials for any reason.

You may accept the use of a review or test model of a new product -- cars, computers, software, and any other products, including subscription services -- for only as long as your reporting needs require. In most cases, this means only a few days -- and not for an extended period.

In situations where a company with whom BusinessWeek has an editorial partnership offers you favors, you must comply with the McGraw-Hill Code of Business Ethics, which states in part: "No gift having more than nominal value and no loan (other than a normal bank loan) may be accepted from any person or fi
rm having current or prospective dealings with the corporation."

http://www.businessweek.com/ethics.htm

I found it interesting how specific some codes of ethics can be.

Cosmopolitanism

Anthony Appiah raised several good points in his book "Cosmopolitanism." His overall theme of everyone matters has really managed to open my eyes to assumptions I never knew I made. Several of his examples lead me to many realizations; however, his example of genital cutting was most clear. Despite the fact that this is quite a morbid topic, his message throughout the book was clear in this instant.

I always assumed that there were certain universal truths and morals no person should live without. Killing and inflicting pain on a person would be one of my so-called universal truths. But Appiah recognizes that in the United States, male genital cutting is absolutely acceptable, but female genital cutting is inhumane and torturous -- a bit hypocritical, I think.

Different cultures around the world have their reasons for participating in the rituals, traditions, customs -- whatever you want to call it -- just was we do in our culture. Why should we look down on female genital cutting and encourage male genital cutting?

Appiah isn't suggesting we start participating in female genital cutting, but he is saying we should understand why they do it and they should understand why we do male genital cutting. No one needs to agree with it, just understand.

He says once we understand, global issues won't be such an issue anymore.

I am still not exactly sure what to do once an understanding has been reached but I'm sure it couldn't hurt.