Introduction In an intense protest or crisis, suitable communication and employment of social media can make a massive difference. Irritated customers not only file lawsuits against the corporation but hit wherever else they can. The company name may be discolored and brought down to its knees by the unconstructive publicity. To prevent this, every organization ought to have a consumer advisory panel and a crisis management lineup at its disposal (Honnungar, 2011) Robert Smith Robert Smith is very miscellaneous. According to the janitor, Robert Smith is a lonely but smart person.
For someone who has never laid eyes on him, his unattached personality has made him noticeable. His desk is always precise and his books intact. This shows he does not do much referencing. He is put across as gloom and mysterious. The secretary agrees with the janitor that Robert Smith is a shy man. She goes ahead to claim how casual he is.
She reveals about Robert’s work out sessions. In her clarification, he seems someone who was once outgoing but changed. It is impossible to make up who he really is. His boss does not like the earrings or the moustache Robert wears but his work is perfect. He is intelligent and confirms the janitor’s guess. Robert is a boring accountant who seems to have an air of speed.
He breaks a record in promotion and his job maintains the highest standards. His intimidating perfection gets into the boss as well. He even suspects him of being up to something and acting holy. Robert’s possessions make him look like a wealthy kid. It is only his coworker Felicia who he reveals to the truth. Robert came from a humble background.
His father was killed in line of duty when he was very young and lost his mother to cancer recently. He is the last born and is not in good terms with his elder brother and sister. Robert is very secretive and keeps personal stuff private. It is very strange how his coworker thinks differently of him from the others. She regards him as a warm and kind person with big dreams. She has even been to his apartment and knows all about his diverse hobbies.
The retired CEO is also very close to Robert Smith. They served in the military with his father and he was his university lecturer. The CEO got him the job but Robert worked upward on his own. Robert undergoes drastic changes when dealing with different people. That is why the interviews reveal contrasting aspects of him sometimes. He is an intelligent accountant who provokes feelings but unstable in his stand.
Each interview on Robert Smith tends to take an unexpected turn as his treatments change. His deep understanding of life and being a complex being, every interview is bound to expose a side of him no one would guess. He takes a stand on something and without warning, he transforms into something else. His earring, the moustache, the car and the dream to do something else more fun shows how much he loves amusing life. It is not easy to comprehend what kind of person he exactly since he does not reveal anything about himself to just anybody.
I would stick to the coworker and the CEO to get a better perspective of who Robert Smith is. They are closer to him than anyone else (Verity, 2004). McDonald’s Beef Fries Crisis McDonad’s is the world’s most outsized foodservice vending chain. It is well recognized for its French fries and burgers. It was ascertained that Mcdonalds‘ French fries and hash browns did have beef within them. By then, a number of unsuspecting vegetarians had devoured amounts of it. Vegetarian movements sued the company. The settlement caused incalculable clashes cropped up on who was to get a share of the sum allocated to the vegetarian community. McDonald Company agreed that they had made a communication mistake to customers and paid a $10 million settlement. In addition, they posted an apology to the public on their website for not being clear about their French fries and hash browns’ ingredients.
They prepared them with vegetable oil that included traces of beef for flavoring intentions. Hindus regard cows as holy and are against consuming beef. Complete information was not made available to Hindus, vegetarians and the whole public. They also promised to do a better job in future (Hitt, Ireland and Hoskisson, 2005) After the miscommunication, McDonald’s formed a vegetarian advisory panel of connoisseurs in consumer dietary trends that will counsel McDonald’s on pertinent dietary constraints and principles. Before, they argued that they made use of 100% pure vegetable oil.
These grounds made vegetarian clients to assume that it was secure. Others got incorrect information from the McDonald’s employees. The company should have made sure that its spokespersons had clear facts before spreading the word to the public. The public was round the bend at McDonald’s for misleading them while McDonald’s lay blame on the public for misinterpreting what they meant by the term natural flavor. The management reaction after the initial accusation must have been spontaneous and apologetic (Wiley & Sons, 2011).
BP Crisis BP is the lead oil and gas manufacturer in the U.S and the greatest deepwater operative in the Gulf of Mexico. When deepwater go up in flames and sunk, the public relations sought to ward off legitimate denigration instead of accepting liability for their blunder and making alterations. That was out of touch with the earth-shattering swing of social standards towards a more sustainable financially viable and environmental future. It designates underlying temperament predicaments in the organization of BP.
The CEO got into trouble for his repeated error of judgment and assumed cover-ups. BP should have given surety to the public when the crisis occurred. They down played the volume of the spill and the environmental smash up that transpired. They failed to block the well recurrently. They just could not get it done. Still, they projected an attitude of unyielding optimism.
Neither did they express authentic concern about the blow of its budding mess. Flow of information was not open or transparent (Havard Business Scoohl, 2004). Communication was so dishonest that the public lost conviction in BP. Workers lost their lives in the event. Families of the diseased needed to be attended to.
The sea floor called for urgent plugging. The ecosystem required instantaneous protection as well. BP should have put these concerns in mind and as the first priority to deal with the catastrophe. Social and environmental setbacks are public relations matters that must be finesssed. The company has tried to obstruct information about its inaccuracy by constraining traffic away from external and independent scrutiny. In reaction, BP coached a crisis management firm to covenant with the accident reply.
It also signed up a new leader of media relations to provide assist the vice president (Curtin, Hayman and Husein, 2005) Nestle Baby milk action and the public with endorsement from media disputed against Nestle’s argument that its infant milk ‘protects’ them. They wanted the company to do away with ‘protect’ logos and additional health alleges from labels as they destabilize the requisite point that ‘breastfeeding is best for babies’, taken up by the World Wealth Assembly. These logos were strongly opposed by independent scientific experts. They misguide because babies fed on breast milk alternates are more probable to become ill than breastfeeding babies. In situations of poverty, they are more likely to die.
Furthermore, Nestle’s venture was illegal. The international code bans idealizing illustrations and texts. Nestle’s response was defensive. Its marketing strategy was undermining advancement of babies’ health. UNICEF supported the protest with the claim that advanced breastfeeding practices and diminution of synthetic feeding could save further children. World health Organization insisted on the importance of primary six months of life breastfeeding.
They declared that these infants were less liable to die than those not breast fed in the opening month of life. Nestle’s stand is ‘moral deafness’ in Bird’s definition because the company has found itself in more than one case on violating the same code.In their defense, Nestle’s arguments drew attention from health ministers to international networks. Nestle had failed to comply with its accountability under the worldwide code of promotion of breastfeeding substitutes. The law clearly states that the manufacturers of these products were liable to keeping an eye on their marketing lines of attack to ensure they are conventional to the code.
Nestle argued that the logos distinguished the formula from other less sophisticated products. However, the term ‘protect’ is not used relatively but absolutely. This brought about the miscommunication (Katherine, 2004) Conclusion To be standard, a consistence must be observed. Robert Smith was wavering. Everything about him has two planes.
With a few, he is friendly but with the rest, extremely cold. This sent mixed signals about him. For instance, the public needed to know that McDonalds agreed with the accusations and that they cared. At the end, McDonald’s choice to be straightforward and to formulate long-term goals was the best remedy. On the other hand, BP’s crisis response team was more distressed with the spin than with adjustments within the company’s customs. The best thing to do is to make sure it never happens again.
Nestle did the same but in exaggeration. They violated a code and severally. Instead of changing, it defended itself. Good communication applications can be applied prior to avoid such occurrences. Even on taking place, smart reaction tactics can calm everything down.