Discussion Question: Any ethical issues?

Media Outlets Sponsor 'Virginia Shooting' Key-Word Search
New York Times, 'Inside Edition' Sponsor Results

April 17, 2007

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- The New York Times and "Inside Edition" are among those sponsoring Google key-word searches for the phrase "Virginia Shooting." While many mainstream media companies solicited user-generated media for early coverage of the grisly scene at Virginia Tech, others are now ensuring they're the go-to source for news. In another development, NBC's "Dateline" has set up a FaceBook group seeking out friends of the shooter. Click here to read article

Do you see any ethical issues with the practices of these news organizations?

Discussion Question: University in a Crisis

I have been talking about crisis communication in my Principles and Issues classes. I told one or both classes last week that while the university has somewhat provided faculty and staff with information about what to do in case of a hurricane, we are not prepared to handle something like a gunman coming into the classroom. I'm sure they weren't prepared at Virginia Tech. The biggest mistake the university seems to have made is not notifying students about the first shootings and having a campus lockdown when a gunman was on the loose.

From MSNBC:
"Not until 9:26 a.m. did the first warning to students and employees go out by e-mail, according to the time stamps on copies obtained by NBC News. By then, the shooting was over.

The first e-mail had few details. It said: 'A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating.' The message warned students to be cautious and contact police about anything suspicious.

Maurice Hiller, a student, told The Associated Press that he went to a 9 a.m. class just two buildings away from the engineering building and that no warnings were coming over the outdoor public address system on campus at the time."

What do you think Virginia Tech should have done? What do you think will be the fall-out from this incident?

Discussion Question: (RED) campaign

You might be familiar with the (RED) campaign through the (RED) iPod, the (RED) AmEx card, the MotoRazr V3m (Red) cell phone or the (RED) clothing sold at the Gap. While the (RED) campaign has raised $25 million for the Global Fund (which grants money to fight diseases such as AIDS), it is being criticized for the millions more its partners have spent on advertising. An article in AdAge said that $100 million has been spent on marketing (RED) products. An article in The Christian Science Monitor contends that number is actually lower and the person citing that number in AdAge was only making an educated guess. My first question to you is: Why don't these corporate partners just take that $100 million (or whatever it is) and donate it directly to the Global Fund?

The campaign has also been criticized for its lack of transparency. The transparency issue focuses on certain marketers not being clear about what is actually being contributed to the cause. The Gap says that half of the profits for the sale of (RED) clothing is contributed but is cagey about how that profit is calculated. Several salespeople interviewed for the Christian Science article said that they thought half the sales price was donated. While the Gap is doing a tremendous effort to fight AIDS in Africa, some have suggested that salespeople be more informed at the point of purchase. My second question to you is: How important is it for you as a consumer to know how much of the purchase price of your item is being donated to a cause?

For more information about the campaign, click below:
joinred.com

To read the article from the Christian Science Monitor, click below:
Christian Science Monitor article

Discussion Question: Anti-Smoking Campaign

The Singapore Health Board has started a new campaign to encourage people to quit smoking. They are using two actors (one a doctor and the other a woman coughing on her deathbed) to stage a demonstration during the business district at lunchtime. In another part of the campaign, a television ad shows a woman with brownish, deformed teeth, sores on her lips, and cracked skin. The slogan for the campaign is "Quitting is hard. Not quitting, is harder." They have seen a 500% increase in calls to the government's QuitLine. The campaign was so disturbing to kids that the ads must now be run after 8 p.m. with a message about graphic content. Could such a campaign be successful here? Do the think the fear appeal used is too strong to get people to believe this could happen to them? Would this work for you?

I found the ad on Youtube. It's somewhat disturbing. Click on the link below to watch it:
Singapore Ad