Tweeting Our Way into the New Year

As Twitter quickly grows as a preferred online hub for the dissemination of ideas, more and more businesses are joining the "twittersphere" in hopes of connecting with and influencing potential customers. The uber-popular social media site can be a great public relations tool for establishing and promoting a brand, but when done carelessly, it can also damage reputations. Several businesses have demonstrated the risks associated with using such an influential idea-sharing channel.

Earlier this year, McDonalds launched a PR campaign on Twitter with the intent of generating stories of positive customer experiences. On January 18, the company sent out two tweets:

When you make something w/pride, people can taste it, - McD potato supplier #McDStories

Meet some of the hard-working people dedicated to providing McD's with quality food every day -#McDStories

Armed with the newly created #McDStories hashtag and links to information about hardworking potato farmers, the company was ready for the positive customer stories to start rolling in. Instead, the PR plan seemed to backfire. Twitter users had a field day bashing the company though its own hashtag:

Dude, I used to work at McDonald's. The #McDStories I could tell would raise your hair.

One time I walked into McDonalds and I could smell the Type 2 diabetes floating in the air and I threw up. #McDStories

McDStories I just read that McDonalds chicken nuggets have a foaming agent in them, similar to products used for building materials.

#McDStories I lost 50 lbs in 6 months after I quit working and eating at McDonald's.

The branded hashtag was certainly a hit, but not in the way that McDonald's had intended. This PR disaster proved the dangers involved in allowing your audience to control your brand's conversation. The "throw it up and see if it sticks" mentality didn't seem to work so well. Chances are the fast-food giant will keep the ball in its own court and stick to paid advertising for now.

McDonald's made an honest attempt to build buzz around its brand. However, some companies just go for the cheap shot. In February 2011, clothing designer Kenneth Cole attempted to bring attention to his brand by making light of the political issues in Egypt. Using the hashtag #Cairo, he tweeted:

Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at http:/bit.ly/KCairo - KC

Needless to say, Twitter audiences did not find the humor as effective as Mr. Cole might have hoped. The tweet was shared and bahsed by thousands of people in teh several hours ithat it was up on the website. After deleting the insensitive tweet, the designer did fashion an apology via Facebook:

"I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I've dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor reagarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate." Kenneth Cole, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

While the apology may have helped, it was too late for Cole's reputation. A fake Twitter account @KennethColePR was created, and still exists, to further poke fun at Cole's online gaffe. Here's an example:

Our new slingback pumps would make Anne Frank come out of hiding! #KennethColeTweet

While some brands like Kenneth Cole and McDonald's simply failed at an attempt to positively influence audiences, other companies create poor reputations by just not paying close attention. This was the case for StubHub, which posted this message via its corporate Twitter account in early October:

Thank f*** it's Friday! Can't wait to get out of this stubsucking hell hole.

This was just an unfortunate case in which an employee simply forgot to log out of the company account before posting his/her personal messages. As if fleeting expletives weren't enough to shock audiences, the employee insulted the brand itself. StubHub did issue an apology, but the influence of social media proved too powerful to erase the incident from the public's memory.

These online screw-ups make it apparent that Twitter is a battlefield for influence. With so much possibility for negative imaging, is it worth the risk for brands to utlize social media channels? Some people will say any publicity is good publicity, but that can certainly be debated. 

So, what do you think? Is it worth taking the risk of facing social media scrutiny, or should some companies just steer clear of the "twittersphere"? 

~Scott Clark, Rodney Hardee, Thomas Smith

Read more »

We Should Legalize Marijuana in the State of Pennsylvania

Over the past 75 years, the United States has tried to prevent marijuana sales not only in the state of Pennsylvania, but across the United States of America. They have been very unsuccessful on preventing this from happening. During this time, there have been some states that have allowed marijuana to be legal in their state. Making sales legal is the answer to all prayers because the world wants to come out of this recession. 

Legalizing marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs. The underground market is making billions of dollars with having marijuana as one of its biggest imports. Why don't we just get on board with this billion dollar industry? We could make so much money.

If a person were to smoke marijuana, he/she might experience the following effects: hunger, happiness, or sleepiness. 

"If (marijuana) were unknown, and bio-prospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia; many of those chemical mimic vital molecules in the human body," according to an article in The Economist (Patients for Medical Cannabis.) What makes it so different that cannabis was not founded by scientists? Tashkin continues, "Early on, when our research appeared as if there wold be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects. But at this point, I'd be in favor of legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And, in terms of an intoxicant, alchohol causes far more harm."

Sources:
 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/ask-the-experts/ask-the-experts-legalizing-marijuana15474/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/marijuana-legalization-poll_n_2257106.html

Morgan, Scott. "Top Anti-Drug Researcher Changes His Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana." Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Prohibition. N.p., n.d. Web 12 Dec. 2012.

"Patients for Medical Cannabis." Patients for Medical Cannabis. N.p., n.d. Web 12 Dec. 2012

~ Scott Clark, Rodney Hardee, Thomas Smith

Read more »

Trending Technology

The number of products a company can produce in such a short period of time is truly astonishing. In this case, even a bit ridiculous. If you are an Apple consumer, you probably are no stranger to their never-ending production of seemingly "minor" changes. Take the iPhone for example. In early January of 2007, Steve Jobs had announced the initiation of a new revolutionary phone. He claimed to have "reinvented" the cell phone as we knew it. They launched the new iPhone in the United States on June 29, 2007. This distinct, multi-app, touchscreen phone was the first to run off its own iOS operating system. We soon found out this new invention was a prelude to an unexpected technology revolution. Having made millions of dollars in revenue, Apple had set the bar extremely high for all other competitors. Since the unveiling five years ago, they have manufactured six generations of the iPhone with 16 different versions of capacity space. 

What calls for such extreme overproduction? 

A successful company like Apple can afford to spend billions to overproduce these unnecessary creations, but why? As most of us know, Apple has a widely established name and has developed credibility with their consumers. Companies like this bank off of - and can take advantage of - consumers who long to stay up-to-date with the latest and greatest. Research and history tend to show that over 90% of iPhone users will purchase newer iPhone versions. In so doing, is Apply diminishing their previously established credibility? 

It is amazing how quick society falls for the most recent trends, so much so that they will disregard their (well-working) devices for any new bell or whistle they can get. Speculation suggested that people would succumb to Apple's perpetual changing fads. As evidence in the case of the new iPhone, refinements are not so much of an upgrade, in fact they are very minimal. Yet over 5 million models of the iPhone5 were sold on the first weekend alone. The length of screen, thickness, and weight of the phone is what Apple primarily says is different, but the difference in screen size is barely one-fifth.

However, after the anticipated release, reviews towards this costly device were not exactly up to par. Though they iPhone5 had some internal tweaks, customers still left disappointed comments. Collectively, most had the same concern: "How can someone tell if I got a new phone if it looks the same?" Samsung even aired several commercials mocking Apple for the insignificant changes they were trying to "pimp." 

The tremendous amount of influence advertisements and media has on us can be completely overlooked. Like this situation, people risk hundreds of dollars to a fulfill self-serving bias and can sometimes leave you with unsatisfied outcomes. Perhaps questionable intent, on Apple's side, can fall into play when company's like this feed of "people's everlasting desire" to keep up with technological trends. Obviously, Apply is a for-proft company; however, that profit is born from the consumer who feels satisfied with the purchase he/she has made. If that satisfaction diminishes, so likely, will Apple's profits.

~ Karrah Barber, Katherine Barnes, Kyle DeFazio, Cara DiPiazza, Sarah Refait

Read more »

Hold the Phone!

Put your phone down? That's what cell carriers, most notably AT&T are asking teen drivers to pledge to do while driving. As an increasing dependency on technology occurs, more drivers are finding it difficult to actually put their phone down for the time it takes them to get to their destinations. AT&T started its "It Can Wait" campaign in 2011 where it asks teens to sign a pledge that they will not text while they are driving their cars.

Read more »

Black Friday Madness

Every year, stores bombard audiences with Black Friday deals. Commercials start weeks before Thanksgiving and encourage shopping sprees. Traditionally, deals started extremely early on the morning following Thanksgiving, but in recent years sales have started as early as 8:00 p.m. on Thanksgiving night.

To convince us to find the energy to shop after the holiday, many retailers rely on the use of language to influence us. Instead of just saying "deal," they say "deal of the year;" rather than say "sale they call bargains "extreme price drops." Peter Darke, a marketing professor at York University in Toronto, says that getting a good deal can evoke a strong emotional reaction. He claims getting items at such a reduced price make the shopper fell like they are "rational, good, effective, and skilled." 

These efforts to persuade us emotionally certainly work. In 2010 alone, consumers spent a total of $39 billion on Black Friday. With emotional and possibly financial need to get the best deal, some people snap under pressure. Big retail stores, such as Wal-Mart, see their share of violence on Black Friday. Last year, the violence included robberies, gunfire and even shootings. Some say that the consumer is not solely to blame. Retailers create situations that induce chaos, and suddenly shoppers are left fighting over sale items. Additionally, the infowars website describes the circumstance where one woman in a Los Angeles Wal-Mart used pepper spray on a crowd to gain a "competitive edge."

So, here's the biggest question about Black Friday: is it a scam? Alan Dunn, writer for Business Insider, says it's not exactly a scam...but more of a sham. He argues that people need to better understand how to save money rather than spend money. Dunn explains people may buy something extravagant simply because it is on sale, and possibly increase any existing debt along the way. The reward of Black Friday seems to depend more on the consumer than on the actual sale or store. If shoppers spend wisely and know when to stop, Black Friday can be incredibly rewarding. However, those deep in debt already should avoid stores, as they may end up spending more than they should because of the allure of the deals. 

With the 2012 Black Friday now behind us, CNN reported that while there was a higher volume of people shopping, actual sales saw a slight decline. The article explains that this may be due to the early deals that start on Thanksgiving night. People are spending holiday money then, instead of waiting until the actual Black Friday. So while all of the attempts to persuade the public to come out to shop clearly had some success, not all customers were willing to spend. Did you get any Black Friday deals?

~Mallory Buohl, Elliot Lopez, Quatima Spearman, Aaron Spece

Read more »