Kendall Jenner would very much like to be excluded from this narrative*

Screenshot taken from @BerniceKing's Twitter account

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t seen or heard about Pepsi’s controversial campaign where the company co-opts social justice protests, with particularly tone-deaf allusions to the Black Lives Matter movement. You really have to go out of your way for Bernice King (daughter of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr.) to comment on your advertisement. All in a day’s work for members of the Kardashian-Jenner family.

PepsiGate

The Pepsi crisis has been covered in more depth with a specific focus on crisis management. Opinions on Pepsi’s response to the backlash vary, and I’d say it ultimately depends on which aspect you focus on, be it defending (👎) or pulling (👍) the ad – Ilse Weergang and Kim van Loon, respectively. But let’s back up. Pepsi isn’t the first brand to have hijacked a social issue. Pepsi isn’t even the first cola company to do so. In 1971, Coca Cola debuted a similar campaign depicting peace at a time of protests against the Vietnam War. If you didn’t see it on Mad Men, I’ll include it here. In fact, let’s have a look at both commercials. 

 

 

I’d like to buy the world a … frame

Okay yes, Coca Cola had the good fortune to run this ad in a world without Twitter, I know. However, other coverage on the Pepsi ad has been quick to make the comparison, stating that Coca Cola succeeded where Pepsi failed. But – barring the effect of scathing tweets – why?

Weergang and van Loon both refer to framing effects, particularly how Pepsi’s ad suffered from negative frames constructed by the public. However, if media content includes the proper cultural resonance and narrative fidelity, the message should be interpreted as intended [1].  

The devil is in the details

Frankly, in a society rife with racism and police brutality against people of colour, the image of a privileged, white woman walking up to a police officer and handing him a Pepsi to resolve a conflict doesn’t exactly scream ‘truce’. Though, one might (rightly) say that Coca Cola’s utopic message isn’t narratively sound either. It all comes back to public perception. A recent study shows that how media content depicts a CSR-message determines the public’s evaluation of the company. A strategic depiction results in “stronger company hypocrisy and negative communication intentions towards the company;” a double-whammy for Pepsi [2].

Why would the public perceive Pepsi’s ad as a strategic CSR-message? Adding insult to injury, Pepsi positioned their product as the ‘treatment recommendation’ to the conflict [1], intentionally constructing a narrative that trivialises social activism efforts. Intent is important here, as it implies that this crisis could have been prevented. This incurs severe feelings of anger and blame, which go on to drive the public response [3]. In contrast, Coca Cola positioning their product as a “tiny commonality between all peoples” can be considered as much less problematic.

So, did Coca Cola know something then that we’d do well to remember now? And is there really any way of knowing how well received the ad would be in today’s socio-political climate? 🤷‍♀️ But then maybe that’s the point: keep cultural contexts in mind, all ways, always. 

* With special thanks to Taylor Swift.

                 

[1] Van Gorp, B. (2007). Bringing culture back in: The constructionist approach to framing. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60-78.

[2] Shim, K., Chung, M., & Kim, Y. (2017). Does ethical orientation matter? Determinants of public reaction to CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 817-828.

[3] Zhou, Z., & Ki, E. J. (2018). Does severity matter?: An investigation of crisis severity from defensive attribution theory perspective. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 610-618. 

                

Fairouz Kasri is a Persuasive Communication Master’s Student at the University of Amsterdam. She plays various roles in the management of projects at SWOCC, the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Brands and Brand Communication. She’s passionate about ABBA, politics, pop-culture, women’s rights, and youth leadership development.

A lack of diversity was a precursor to the crisis:
 Reiterating Doritos, Pepsi cola controversies

A central tenet of the PR-profession is dealing with an onset crisis. This for instance was a central theme of Kim’s article exploring the crisis response for Pepsi’s ad (left below). This was also the case in Esmee’s article, which explored crisis response to Dorito’s publicized marketing idea (right below). This article builds on this work of Kim and Esmee, in that it recognizes that it is relevant to study crisis. Though, the focus shifts in this article from crisis response to crisis prevention. As it is arguably also true for the PR-profession that prevention is better than cure. The perspective taken in this blog is that workplace diversity can serve as a preventive measure to crisis.

PR and ‘handicapped people’: 

A PR-guide to language and practices

Question #1: Is ‘handicapped people’, the most politically correct term you can use in your communications as PR-professional? If so, elaborate. If not, what is a better term?

Question #2: What could be the role of PR in dealing with ‘handicapped people’ in your organization?

How to lose rides & alienate people: Uber versus Lyft

Screenshot taken from Uber's official Twitter account

Social media has become an extension of our lives. The world is at our fingertips 24/7, whether it’s to find out which Disney princess you are (you’re welcome)* or to get emotional about politics, or, if you’re me, both. When a certain someone’s “travel ban” went into effect January 2017, thousands turned to Twitter to protest (#NoBanNoWall). Notably, New York’s City’s cab drivers went on strike in solidarity. And Uber … turned off surge pricing? 

Shortly after, #DeleteUber went viral, as users reacted to the company’s attempt to make a profit during a time of public crisis.

When it rains (#DeleteUber), it pours (#DownloadLyft)

Uber’s then-CEO Travis Kalanick’s (non) apology surprisingly didn’t help; the public wasn’t convinced by Kalanick’s ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ approach. Uber dropped the ball, that doesn’t have to be insurmountable. But there’s dropping the ball and then there’s scoring an own goal. At the risk of being divisive, with all commercial and reputational consequences thereof, Lyft’s co-founders penned an empathic response to the ban that resonated with the public. Uber’s failure to read the room at a critical time paved the way for competitor Lyft to come out on top in the court of public opinion. 

Screenshot taken from user @EliBraden

From public crisis to corporate crisis

Let’s take Uber’s tweet out of context for a moment. No surge pricing = cheaper fares = good, no? Maybe, if not for timing and momentum. Flipping the focus of an issue onto yourself rather than the matter at hand is a special feat that has been under-researched. However, we come close to understanding this case when looking at a recent study on crisis interpretation as a result of source information.

While Van der Meer’s [1] study focuses on sources (in)directly related to the crisis, Uber came out of left field and created its own crisis. Though unrelated to the ban, the immediate, widespread outrage towards Uber is exactly what Van der Meer talks about. Particularly, rapid development and diffusion of online communication technologies have changed the nature of mediated communication and, consequently, public response to crises.

Unanticipated publicity 

This is further explained by the emotion-cognition dual-factor model of crisis communication [2] The model demonstrates that the relationship between crisis information processing and crisis emotions is influenced by framing effects and online emotional contagion. Another study finds that negative crisis emotions in particular incite online emotional contagion; specifically, indignation increases the likelihood of online word-of-mouth [3]. Thus, when the public constructs a negative frame around a crisis, they are more likely to propagate their opinions in online spaces, adding fuel to the fire. This explains Uber’s unanticipated online publicity, and illustrates why the effect of crisis emotions is an important factor for crisis communication 

There is no pleasing everyone, so that’s not something we can blame Uber for — personal politics aside. The biggest issue here? Uber focused on damage control, where Lyft recognised customers’ concerns. Public relations professionals need to better understand the “terrain around motivations, values and emotions,” [4] how this influences attitudes and behaviour, and, subsequently, reputation management.

* I’m Cinderella, in case you were wondering.

            

[1] Van der Meer, T. G. (2016). Public frame building: The role of source usage in times of crisis. Communication Research, 45(6), 956-981.

[2] Lu, Y., & Huang, Y. H. C. (2018). Getting emotional: An emotion-cognition dual-factor model of crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 44(1), 98-107.

[3] Roh, S. (2017). Examining the paracrisis online: The effects of message source, response strategies and social vigilantism on public responses.Public Relations Review, 43(3), 587-596.

[4] Trayner, G. (2017). Why values matter–how public relations professionals can draw on moral foundations theory. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 123-129.

             

Fairouz Kasri is a Persuasive Communication Master’s Student at the University of Amsterdam.She plays various roles in the management of projects at SWOCC, the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Brands and Brand Communication. She’s passionate about ABBA, politics, pop-culture, women’s rights, and youth leadership development.

The Diversity of Nude

Incorporating inclusion, diversity and equality into society are some of the biggest challenges we face today. Clearly, these issues existed before, but finally, minorities and disrespected populations are giving a voice to their frustration and are demanding attention - from the society, politics and the economy.

A campaign of empowerment

source: twitter.com

For years, and sometimes decades, the needs of anyone who did not fit into the 'mainstream' mold of society have not been heard. From an economic point of view, the long-standing ignorance of, for example, women, different ethnic groups, religions or sexual orientation all ask to identify market niches and to bridge this gap. An outstanding way of communicating an inclusive and diverse message is the NUDE-campaign by Nubian Skin, which creates lingerie and hosiery for a range of skin tones but especially for women of dark skin. The founder of the brand, Ade Hassan, speaks of “having something so simple like nude not represent you, feels very exclusive." She used Instagram and Twitter to spread the word and a report by the BBC considers her as one of the pioneers of the ‘inclusive nude’ fashion movement. 

Fortunately, not only has the economy become aware of deficits and gaps, but science is also embracing multidimensional diversity. One of the probably most important and influential interfaces in order to overcome these challenges is public relations, since it’s the profession’s highest goal to represent interests. “Communicating across, within and between, cultures: Toward inclusion and social change” is an excellent scientific example on how, but also who is communicating with whom. Most crucial is the message that whilst diversity is happening more and more, inclusion is the key to success. Achieving this inclusion requires empathic and socially responsible communication practitioners, who guide society through this complex and rapidly evolving environment. A valuable tool to achieve this goal are 'frames'. In particular, the study by van Gorp (2007), who sees the benefits of frames as a link between individual cognition and culture, strongly suggests that frames are a compelling invitation, a kind of stimulus to perceive a story in a particular way. Ultimately, a frame is used to place a story within a cultural context and let the story be told through the practitioner’s eyes. 

Talking about inclusiveness is not enough

Multiculturalism is not only an issue within frame theory, but also in relation to the profession of public relations. The feeling of not being represented is not just a circumstance that is reflected in the fashion industry, but has been scientifically studied in the field of PR. The study by Donnalyn Pompper shows a significant lack of African-American women who are practicing public relations, which displays a delay in incorporating a diverse work environment. This means that there is still no correct representation of minority groups that is consistent with the multicultural realities in the world. This imbalance has the consequence that interests are represented according to an Anglo-Eurocentric world view, and a marginalisation and stereotyping of minorities continues.  

source: shrm.org

It is a fact that diversity is part of our society, but better ways of how each interest group is represented have to be found — the feeling of exclusivity is simply notan option for our future.

________________________________________

About Alice Claridge

She is a master student at the University of Amsterdam for Political Communication. She likes to see social movements raising and people being excited by a good cause. Hopefully, more Public Relations campaigns will address such issues with creativity and engagement.

Scholarly sources on which this article is based on:

Gurchiek, K. (2018). 5 Ways Companies Make Multicultural Women a Priority. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/5-ways-companies-make-multicultural-women-a-priority.aspx

Pompper, D. (2005). Multiculturalism in the Public Relations Curriculum: Female African American Practitioners' Perceptions of Effects. Howard Journal Of Communications, 16(4), 295-316. doi: 10.1080/10646170500326582

Sison, M. (2017). Communicating across, within and between, cultures: Toward inclusion and social change. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 130-132. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.015

Van Gorp, B. (2007). The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back In. Journal Of Communication, 57(1), 60-78. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00329.x

About Elon Musk and breaching the bro level.

By now, we are the kings of social media, ready to snipe hashtags and ride bandwagons,
perfecting timing throughout our holistic communication strategies. Nothing we are not
prepared for, everything meticulously listed in excel spreadsheets and evolving power
points. Social media can be so easy. We almost got it figured out, right?

But what is your communication plan, your rhetoric fidelity and your one-hit-wonder-esque
witty comment to shoot you into some currently trending social-responsibility discourse really
worth, when your CEO decides to sh*t all over it and get high on television?
I’m looking at you Elon, the ‘Edgelord’, Musk.

After a line of controversies, Musk is now officially considered a ‘bro’ by internet memelords,
as his smoke session with comedian Joe Rogan seems to be the next logical controversy
after announcing to set Tesla stock at 420$ back in August. However, his shareholders
apparently didn’t think as highly of this little smoke session in the Rogan podcast and made
Tesla drop by 10% the same day on Wall Street. 

The case of Musk is not only interesting for the LULZ, but certainly tells us a lot about the
current state of PR, and specifically about the implications of CEO communications as an
increasingly impactful subfield, that ultimately requires the same level of professionalisation
we have hopefully managed to establish in our daily doings. 
 

Can you feel the Bern yet?

After Edward Bernays pulled the first trick of public relations by relabeling and extending
propaganda techniques, we are currently seeing the PR evolve even further towards a
conception of ‘Public Engagement’. The fundamental changes to media landscape, media
logic and to how discourse works in our society have irrevocably changed the sphere of
corporate communications. In times of social CEOs and leaders, social media is seen as a way to
humanize, and thus personalize, formerly monolithic and faceless organizations (Tsai & Men, 2017). In fact, research finds that responsive and assertive communication by CEOs
leads their followers to perceive them as ‘amicable role models and caring friends’, which in
turn increases trust, advocacy and satisfaction - and ultimately munney!
Linking this with the changes of media logic it seems like a requirement for modern CEOs to
engage in positive and ethical manners with the public, as they are the walking public image
and reputation of their organization, as well as a commonly searched source for
content-starved journalists.

What we have seen in the case of Elon Musk is him breaching the line of an ‘amicable’ friend
into the ‘bro’-sphere, which caused backlash not only in immediate economic reactions, but
may cause even further reputational damages through concerns of Musk breaking the
ethical role-model expectations public figures (and especially CEOs) are subjected to.

In this sense, I believe, that we as professionals need to understand the importance of social
CEOs and be clear and strategic about the approach, seeing it as an integral part of a
strategic communication framework, rather than a personal side activity the CEO interferes
with at free will.
The lines between untrustful ‘bro’ and amicable friend are apparently very fine, and small
missteps might snowball in their effects.
Probably we need to take our CEOs in hand for a while, extend our communicationplan.xls
by another sheet (I know you love it somehow) and walk the long ways of the social
together, making more amicable friends for our CEOs.