Delta Air Lines recently announced that Jews and Israelis (or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith) will not be able to fly code-share flights from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia under the airline's new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines that is set to begin in 2012.
The bone-headed move is generating a firestorm of negative PR for Delta (which will probably force the airline to rescind the policy) and a stream of correspondence to the U.S. State Department from concerned citizens--regardless of religious affiliation.
I am opposed to the U.S. entering an "open skies" agreement with Saudi Arabia so long as that government maintains its policy of not allowing entry into Saudi Arabia of any American citizen who is either:
1) of the Jewish faith; or
2) has an Israeli exit or entrance stamp in his/her passport.
Saudi Arabia currently maintains both of these patently discriminatory prohibitions.
If Saudi Arabia or some other country had a visa policy that prohibited the entry of, say, Black American citizens, the State Department would never countenance entering a "open skies" agreement with a country that maintained such a patently discriminatory policy. Indeed, I would think the U.S. Government would not even allow the airline of that country to operate at all the United States, much less to do so with all the advantages of a "open skies" agreement.
Perhaps certain people in the U.S. State Department who administer such affairs believe that Jewish American citizens can be treated differently and that discrimination against them by a country like Saudi Arabia is acceptable merely because it is part of the Saudi "visa policy."
The U.S. State Department must act immediately to insist that Saudi Arabia abandon its two discriminatory prohibitions as a condition of enjoying all the advantages of a "open skies" agreement with the U.S. Now that the dispute has become public, it is up to Secretary Hillary Clinton to take the lead on pressuring Saudi Arabia to reverse these offensive discriminatory prohibitions.
In a statement to Religion News Service on Thursday (June 23), Delta said it "does not discriminate, nor do we condone discrimination against any protected class of passenger in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender."
Cowering behind the statement that it is adhering to the visa policies of Saudi Arabia, Delta's stance is hypocritical, feckless and indefensible. With the airline now publicly accused of implementing a "no-Jew fly policy", it's only a matter of time until the U.S. public forces the airline to do what the U.S. State Department should have done as soon as it learned of the proposed Sky Team Alliance agreement.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Why Big Oil Will ALWAYS Lose the High Profits-High Gas Prices PR Battle
Pity poor Exxon, "demonized" in the media for earning a record of almost $11 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011.
Pity Ken Cohen, Exxon's embattled Vice President of of Public and Government Affairs, whose pugnacious response sought to decouple Exxon's profit from increasing gas prices at the pump.
Pity them, because no matter how logical, reasonable or well-parsed Cohen's statement was, the American public will always equate rising fuel prices with higher profits for Big Oil.
From a public relations perspective, it's easy to understand why Cohen sought to explain how the two issues (Big Oil profits and high gas prices) are separate: By providing a coherent, rational explanation, he wanted to get ahead of the story.
The problem for Cohen--indeed, Big Oil overall--is that when gas hits $4 or $5 a gallon, the American public isn't coherent or rational. It's angry. And trying to defuse raw anger with rational thought is like trying to douse a fire with... gasoline. It makes it worse.
And this, friends, is precisely what Cohen's statement has done.
Here's what he said in the lengthy statement sent to reporters: "We understand that it's simply too irresistable for many politicians in times of high oil prices and high earnings-they feel they have to demonize our industry."
He lashed out at the task force recently created by the Obama administration to crack down on speculation in the oil market, adding the fact that federal and state taxes make up 40 to 60 cents of the price for a gallon of gas, versus the 7 cents per gallon that Exxon Mobil earns.
He further argued that most of Exxon's profit comes from its overseas operations, and that earnings in its refining business, which converts crude into oil and diesel, make up only 6% of its earnings.
What did the public hear? "We made $11 billion in profit this past quarter, and as gas prices continue to increase, we're going to make even more money next quarter."
Better he had endured the momentary media excoriation, saying nothing until tomorrow, when the media's (and the American public's) attention will be focused on the Royal Wedding.
Pity Ken Cohen, Exxon's embattled Vice President of of Public and Government Affairs, whose pugnacious response sought to decouple Exxon's profit from increasing gas prices at the pump.
Pity them, because no matter how logical, reasonable or well-parsed Cohen's statement was, the American public will always equate rising fuel prices with higher profits for Big Oil.
From a public relations perspective, it's easy to understand why Cohen sought to explain how the two issues (Big Oil profits and high gas prices) are separate: By providing a coherent, rational explanation, he wanted to get ahead of the story.
The problem for Cohen--indeed, Big Oil overall--is that when gas hits $4 or $5 a gallon, the American public isn't coherent or rational. It's angry. And trying to defuse raw anger with rational thought is like trying to douse a fire with... gasoline. It makes it worse.
And this, friends, is precisely what Cohen's statement has done.
Here's what he said in the lengthy statement sent to reporters: "We understand that it's simply too irresistable for many politicians in times of high oil prices and high earnings-they feel they have to demonize our industry."
He lashed out at the task force recently created by the Obama administration to crack down on speculation in the oil market, adding the fact that federal and state taxes make up 40 to 60 cents of the price for a gallon of gas, versus the 7 cents per gallon that Exxon Mobil earns.
He further argued that most of Exxon's profit comes from its overseas operations, and that earnings in its refining business, which converts crude into oil and diesel, make up only 6% of its earnings.
What did the public hear? "We made $11 billion in profit this past quarter, and as gas prices continue to increase, we're going to make even more money next quarter."
Better he had endured the momentary media excoriation, saying nothing until tomorrow, when the media's (and the American public's) attention will be focused on the Royal Wedding.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Attention! A Brief Post About a Little Blue Pill
Today in history marked a momentous step in male-female relations: In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved use of the little blue pill Viagra. As we all know by now, "Vitamin V" is a oral medication that treats impotence. Viagra took sex in a completely new... direction (I'll spare you the obvious applicable rhyming word for 'direction').
Anyway, Sildenafil (Viagra's chemical name) was originally synthesized and studied to treat high blood pressure. This little fact makes me wonder about the testing protocols scientists applied to the development of Sildenafil: I'd like to know exactly how chemists at Pfizer discovered that while Viagra had little effect on high blood pressure, it could induce penile erections.
Seeing the economic opportunity in the effect of Viagra, Pfizer elected (again dispensing with the obvious rhyme) to market the drug for impotence. Sildenafil was patented in 1996, and just two years later the FDA approved it for use in treating "erectile dysfunction," a fancy new clinical name for impotence.
The "little blue pill that could" was immediately successful: It flew off the shelves into the medicine cabinets of middle-aged men and of course the scripts of late night comics.
In just its first year, the $8-$10 pills yielded about a billion dollars in sales. Even the distinguished almost-octogenarian Senator Bob Dole marketed Viagra on TV, confessing to ED (one imagines, much to the chagrin of his long-suffering but suddenly happy spouse). This kind of direct-to-consumer marketing was new to the prescription drug industry and changed forever the sales and marketing of pharmaceuticals: Today, sales and marketing account for approximately 30% of the pharmaceutical industry's costs, in some cases more than research and development.
Viagra's success stimulated (come on, there's no other word for it) a wave of competitors (and equally embarrassing commercials for) Cialis (tadalafil) and Levitra (vardenafil).
As with many drugs, Viagra's long-term effects on men's health remain unclear ironically, Viagra warns those who suffer from heart trouble), but its popularity is unabated: The latest data says that more than 20 million Americans have tried it, a number which will no doubt get bigger (it's just too easy) as the baby boomer population ages... and they want to relive the Summer of Love (again and again and again).
Cheers, Little Blue Pill.
Anyway, Sildenafil (Viagra's chemical name) was originally synthesized and studied to treat high blood pressure. This little fact makes me wonder about the testing protocols scientists applied to the development of Sildenafil: I'd like to know exactly how chemists at Pfizer discovered that while Viagra had little effect on high blood pressure, it could induce penile erections.
Seeing the economic opportunity in the effect of Viagra, Pfizer elected (again dispensing with the obvious rhyme) to market the drug for impotence. Sildenafil was patented in 1996, and just two years later the FDA approved it for use in treating "erectile dysfunction," a fancy new clinical name for impotence.
The "little blue pill that could" was immediately successful: It flew off the shelves into the medicine cabinets of middle-aged men and of course the scripts of late night comics.
In just its first year, the $8-$10 pills yielded about a billion dollars in sales. Even the distinguished almost-octogenarian Senator Bob Dole marketed Viagra on TV, confessing to ED (one imagines, much to the chagrin of his long-suffering but suddenly happy spouse). This kind of direct-to-consumer marketing was new to the prescription drug industry and changed forever the sales and marketing of pharmaceuticals: Today, sales and marketing account for approximately 30% of the pharmaceutical industry's costs, in some cases more than research and development.
Viagra's success stimulated (come on, there's no other word for it) a wave of competitors (and equally embarrassing commercials for) Cialis (tadalafil) and Levitra (vardenafil).
As with many drugs, Viagra's long-term effects on men's health remain unclear ironically, Viagra warns those who suffer from heart trouble), but its popularity is unabated: The latest data says that more than 20 million Americans have tried it, a number which will no doubt get bigger (it's just too easy) as the baby boomer population ages... and they want to relive the Summer of Love (again and again and again).
Cheers, Little Blue Pill.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Definitive Post on Social Media: My Two Cents
Any conversation about marketing and communications strategy these days involves social media. This is as it should be; social media is an important component of any marketing (big M) and communications (capital C) strategy. In this blog post you'll discover why I (and many savvy marcomm pros) believe social media is way overhyped and overrated.
When you've finished reading this post, please add your comment.
This blog entry is inspired by a truly insightful article at TECHi.
To be done engagingly, effectively, and consistently, social media marketing must be a full-time job. Small business owners can't do it full time; they haven't the resources. The best they can do is hire someone, generally a self-described "Social Media Expert", who claims to know how to establish a small business' social media footprint but doesn't take the time to know the business. PR Agencies and Ad Agencies are falling over themselves to hire "social media managers", usually fresh-out-of-college graduates who've never planned or managed a comprehensive marketing communications strategy.
What small business owners need to do is FIRST, carefully consider their target audiences and available resources and SECOND, determine the social media platforms that give your business the most visibility. Don't rush to be on Facebook if you're not updating your status daily. Don't fly to Twitter if you're not Tweeting several times a day. Don't be on YouTube if you've got no compelling videos. Don't be on LinkedIn if you're not answering questions, participating in discussions, or completing your profile. Not all platforms are relevant or appropriate for every business.
Choose wisely, because if you seek to be everywhere in social media you'll get nowhere.
One social media approach doesn't fit all, and if some self-proclaimed expert suggests you need to be everywhere, she or he has just indicated to you their fundamental misunderstanding of the marketing and communications purpose of social media. It's one component of a carefully considered and thoughtfully implemented marketing and communications strategy: Not a panacea.
Small business owners, marketers, social media experts: What do you think?
When you've finished reading this post, please add your comment.
This blog entry is inspired by a truly insightful article at TECHi.
To be done engagingly, effectively, and consistently, social media marketing must be a full-time job. Small business owners can't do it full time; they haven't the resources. The best they can do is hire someone, generally a self-described "Social Media Expert", who claims to know how to establish a small business' social media footprint but doesn't take the time to know the business. PR Agencies and Ad Agencies are falling over themselves to hire "social media managers", usually fresh-out-of-college graduates who've never planned or managed a comprehensive marketing communications strategy.
What small business owners need to do is FIRST, carefully consider their target audiences and available resources and SECOND, determine the social media platforms that give your business the most visibility. Don't rush to be on Facebook if you're not updating your status daily. Don't fly to Twitter if you're not Tweeting several times a day. Don't be on YouTube if you've got no compelling videos. Don't be on LinkedIn if you're not answering questions, participating in discussions, or completing your profile. Not all platforms are relevant or appropriate for every business.
Choose wisely, because if you seek to be everywhere in social media you'll get nowhere.
One social media approach doesn't fit all, and if some self-proclaimed expert suggests you need to be everywhere, she or he has just indicated to you their fundamental misunderstanding of the marketing and communications purpose of social media. It's one component of a carefully considered and thoughtfully implemented marketing and communications strategy: Not a panacea.
Small business owners, marketers, social media experts: What do you think?
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
When Product Recalls Go Too Far... Or, "It's Someone Else's Fault I'm an Idiot"
I'm a big fan of the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). Its laudable charge: To protect the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products. At any one time, the CPSC's website posts bulletins of thousands of product recalls--product defects that can (and often do) injure or kill unsuspecting consumers.
The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
Many of the product recall notifications get posted by companies with integrity (hard to believe in the face of such overwhelming evidence of avarice that such a characteristic still exists in corporate America).
I'll admit to trolling the product recall notifications to catch a company's poor product engineering, or worse, gross negligence. But today I came across a product recall that were the threat not so serious would have caused me to guffaw.
Here's the headline of the notification, friends: The Gerson Company Recalls Glass Vases Due to Laceration Hazard
As it turns out, unbelievably, the glass vases can shatter on impact, potentially causing lacerations to unsuspecting consumers who ostensibly try to clean up the shards. The recalled vases, MADE IN CHINA (another shocker) are made of clear glass and stand about 4" wide x 20" tall.
Imported by the Gerson Company, of Olathe, Kansas, the vases were sold for about $15 at Michael's stores in the U.S. and Canada from July 2006 through March 2010. Thus far, the Gerson Company has received nine reports of the vase shattering, including nine reports of lacerations to the hands.
The remedy suggested by the company and the CPSC: "Consumers should stop using the recalled vase and discard them immediately."
So let me get this straight: Glass vase shatters on impact with hard object (presumably the floor or ground). Consumer tries to pick up glass shards. Hands get lacerated. Consumer calls company to complain. Company urges consumers to discard the vase immediately (presumably in the trash, where it can shatter and likely lead to further lacerations).
It seems to me that consumers bear some responsibility for getting their hands lacerated when they pick up shattered glass. Or have we reached the laughable point in our society at which someone other than us is culpable for any misfortune that befalls us?
The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30% decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
Many of the product recall notifications get posted by companies with integrity (hard to believe in the face of such overwhelming evidence of avarice that such a characteristic still exists in corporate America).
I'll admit to trolling the product recall notifications to catch a company's poor product engineering, or worse, gross negligence. But today I came across a product recall that were the threat not so serious would have caused me to guffaw.
Here's the headline of the notification, friends: The Gerson Company Recalls Glass Vases Due to Laceration Hazard
As it turns out, unbelievably, the glass vases can shatter on impact, potentially causing lacerations to unsuspecting consumers who ostensibly try to clean up the shards. The recalled vases, MADE IN CHINA (another shocker) are made of clear glass and stand about 4" wide x 20" tall.
Imported by the Gerson Company, of Olathe, Kansas, the vases were sold for about $15 at Michael's stores in the U.S. and Canada from July 2006 through March 2010. Thus far, the Gerson Company has received nine reports of the vase shattering, including nine reports of lacerations to the hands.
The remedy suggested by the company and the CPSC: "Consumers should stop using the recalled vase and discard them immediately."
So let me get this straight: Glass vase shatters on impact with hard object (presumably the floor or ground). Consumer tries to pick up glass shards. Hands get lacerated. Consumer calls company to complain. Company urges consumers to discard the vase immediately (presumably in the trash, where it can shatter and likely lead to further lacerations).
It seems to me that consumers bear some responsibility for getting their hands lacerated when they pick up shattered glass. Or have we reached the laughable point in our society at which someone other than us is culpable for any misfortune that befalls us?
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Egregious, Unforgivable Typos Drive Me Crazy
OK, so I haven't blogged since June. It's not like I have legions of followers eagerly awaiting whatever words I convey through the blogosphere. I mean, there are enough blogoprophets already. If you're seeking something profound, read the Bible. Or Mad magazine.
And now, to my irregularly scheduled blog entry.
And now, to my irregularly scheduled blog entry.
Today's topic: Egregious typos.
All these social media outlets have allowed "Everyman" to vomit more writing into the world--most of it worthless unreadable crap that punishes the eyes as it confuses the mind. Making matters worse, along with proper grammar, many of these would-be Heming(no)ways have wantonly disobeyed the sacrosanct rules of proper spelling: Your has become UR, night nite, tomorrow tmrw; the list goes on.
I've made my peace with the execrable spelling that emanates, like a putrid mist, from social media. But when I see a typo in a press release from a reputable organization, it really steams my windows.
Today's disappointment comes from Consumer Reports, which posted at PR Newswire this winner.
All these social media outlets have allowed "Everyman" to vomit more writing into the world--most of it worthless unreadable crap that punishes the eyes as it confuses the mind. Making matters worse, along with proper grammar, many of these would-be Heming(no)ways have wantonly disobeyed the sacrosanct rules of proper spelling: Your has become UR, night nite, tomorrow tmrw; the list goes on.
I've made my peace with the execrable spelling that emanates, like a putrid mist, from social media. But when I see a typo in a press release from a reputable organization, it really steams my windows.
Today's disappointment comes from Consumer Reports, which posted at PR Newswire this winner.
If you didn't jump at the click, you missed the use of the word 'waiver' when clearly 'waver' is the right word. But I won't throw the writer under the bus; instead, let's aim for the editors who missed this misuse: That is, the editors at Consumer Reports and the editors at PR Newswire. Shame on you all.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Editorial Decisions at Facebook Reek of Censorship
Today I had a confrontation with Facebook. The confrontation was based on a post I listed regarding the recall by Kellogg Co. of 28 million boxes of their sugar cereals (here's a link to the article in the Wall Street Journal).
Facebook's actions regarding my posts on this legitimate news story--one which certainly could affect the millions of people who enjoy sugar cereals produced by Kellogg Co.--smack of the worst kind of censorship. You'll read the postings below and decide for yourself, but as a marketer with some experience in the opaque relationships between social media companies and companies trying to sell products (like Kellogg Co.), Facebook's arbitrary and capricious squelching of the facts should alarm all of us who use the platform.
Here's my first post, made at 2:23 PM today:
Kellogg Co. today recalled about 28 million boxes of cereal largely marketed to children out of concern that unpleasant smells and flavors emanating from the boxes' plastic packaging could be causing nausea and diarrhea. Hmmm. Maybe it's all those processed foods in the box that's contributing to the nausea?!
The post lasted about 13 minutes on the news feed, when suddenly it disappeared.
Noticing that my original post has mysteriously disappeared, at 2:38 I posted this:
Conspiracy theory o' the day: Bruce posts on FB a true (but disparaging) comment about Kellogg Co.'s recall of 28 million boxes of sugar-infused cereal. Post is on FB for ten minutes. Post mysteriously disappears from News Feed but remains on Bruce's profile. Question: What is FB's relationship with Kellogg Co.?
Apparently my first post alerted the Facebook Censors, because my second post only lasted less than four minutes on the news feed.
I figured Facebook might want to see the actual source of this information, the venerable Wall Street Journal, so at 2:41 I posted the following:
Dear FB editors: Here's the link to the article about the Kellogg Co.'s recall. Please explain why you are selectively removing my factual posts. What you're doing is censorship, pure and simple. I'm sure Mr. Zuckerberg would have something to say about that.
My friends, like the USSR's Izvestia or Pravda, like the Dear Leader in North Korea, or like any of the other powerful regimes (legislative or commercial) that have throughout history sought with varying degrees of success to suppress the truth, it's painfully apparent that Facebook only wants you to see content that it deems appropriate.
Facebook's actions regarding my posts on this legitimate news story--one which certainly could affect the millions of people who enjoy sugar cereals produced by Kellogg Co.--smack of the worst kind of censorship. You'll read the postings below and decide for yourself, but as a marketer with some experience in the opaque relationships between social media companies and companies trying to sell products (like Kellogg Co.), Facebook's arbitrary and capricious squelching of the facts should alarm all of us who use the platform.
Here's my first post, made at 2:23 PM today:
Kellogg Co. today recalled about 28 million boxes of cereal largely marketed to children out of concern that unpleasant smells and flavors emanating from the boxes' plastic packaging could be causing nausea and diarrhea. Hmmm. Maybe it's all those processed foods in the box that's contributing to the nausea?!
The post lasted about 13 minutes on the news feed, when suddenly it disappeared.
Noticing that my original post has mysteriously disappeared, at 2:38 I posted this:
Conspiracy theory o' the day: Bruce posts on FB a true (but disparaging) comment about Kellogg Co.'s recall of 28 million boxes of sugar-infused cereal. Post is on FB for ten minutes. Post mysteriously disappears from News Feed but remains on Bruce's profile. Question: What is FB's relationship with Kellogg Co.?
Apparently my first post alerted the Facebook Censors, because my second post only lasted less than four minutes on the news feed.
I figured Facebook might want to see the actual source of this information, the venerable Wall Street Journal, so at 2:41 I posted the following:
Dear FB editors: Here's the link to the article about the Kellogg Co.'s recall. Please explain why you are selectively removing my factual posts. What you're doing is censorship, pure and simple. I'm sure Mr. Zuckerberg would have something to say about that.
My friends, like the USSR's Izvestia or Pravda, like the Dear Leader in North Korea, or like any of the other powerful regimes (legislative or commercial) that have throughout history sought with varying degrees of success to suppress the truth, it's painfully apparent that Facebook only wants you to see content that it deems appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)