Sephora: Crisis Communication

Sephora is a global company that includes more than 1300 stores in 27 countries. With all of these stores, it’s obvious that Sephora dominates the beauty market, so having an effective crisis communications strategy for its employees, investors, government bodies and various communities is of utmost importance.

Thousands of employees across the globe work for Sephora whether it is at their headquarters in San Francisco or one of their retail stores. By keeping their employees happy and well informed, their internal communication remains strong. Sephora uses a typical corporate structure with benefits for their employees such as retirement and 401k. Since Sephora is a privately held company owned by the French company LVMH (Louis Vuitton and Moet Hennessey), they do not have investors or such information for the public to view. After reading many employee reviews about working for Sephora, almost all reviews are positive. Overall, management keeps employees well informed on all company aspects and provides detailed training programs. Management and peers teach others from experience, and employees are compensated much higher than other retail stores.

Sephora appeals to a wide demographic of women, men, and teens of all ages, but they generally target their main market segment of women ages 20-30 and 30-40. By selling quality products, having exceptional customer service in stores and online, they stand apart from the crowd in the beauty market. The Sephora experience brings their customer back time and time again, just with service alone. Aside from their in store and online presence, they reach out to surrounding communities and demonstrate a strong corporate social responsibility. GoodGuide ratings have noted Sephora as being 34% more socially responsible than its competitors, rating them a 6.7 scientific rating, 7.4 core company environmental performance, and a 6 for social performance. These ratings are above average and in the green zone, representing their high corporate social responsibility.

Sephora does not currently have an employee or celebrity spokesperson for their company. Since Sephora carries over 250 different beauty brands, most of their advertisements are incorporated with other brands and their spokesperson. For example, all around their fragrance department, they have signage for all the latest fragrances such as Lady Gaga’s new scent, Fame. Displays like this is what differentiates other brands from one another, but the Sephora brand is represented by all the other brands as a whole. I do not believe having a spokesperson would help their business revenue, but having an identifiable model like Chanel Iman or Karlie Kloss for their website for how-to videos might capture their audiences attention.

If Sephora was to undergo a company crisis, their strong communication skills would be the most important strategy to come into play. For example, if one of their products caused a rash on someone’s skin, they need to act fast before something like this was found out by the public and put them in a negative light. This is where important crisis communications and public relations skills are put to the test. Having a strong team of employees that are properly trained on how to react and handle customer complaints will help maintain their image. By properly training employees in the beginning with all proper procedures, employees will know how handle most situations, whether it is in the store or something larger.

When faced with a crisis, being able to communicate with both insiders and the public is the most important thing. Before certain information is released to the public, employees should be well informed on the issue at hand. Secondly, the company should then be open and honest to the public about how they will go about fixing the problem and what specific changes the public will be expected to see. As many details as possible given in the beginning will only help the public understand the situation, rather than find out hidden details at the end.

Week 6 Wrap Up

Going back to week one (Jan 8^th), Tammy Thompson wrote her first blog titled, “Stop time: Ethics vs. Emotions.” Her article caught my attention because she has been working in the controversial industry of alcohol for the past nine years, and she has had personal experiences facing these same types of ethical dilemmas that we’ve talked about in class. I lack some of these “real world” PR experiences, and I felt her insight hit spot on describing what PR practitioners experience everyday, especially in industries that can be looked at as being unethical. What stood out to me in her blog was her personal experience regarding her mid-year performance review. What her supervisor said was true about “’stopping time’ – focusing less on getting things done (fast and in a hurry), but instead paying closer attention to how I get them done (with insightful consideration).” I find this true, and something I have fallen victim to myself. Instead of rushing through to get something done, we sometimes make mistakes in judgment. By incorporating this practice, along with an ethics theory like Bok’s Model, we can take things step by step, and analyze the best possible solution.

For week two (Jan.13^th), Kimmee Roleder wrote a blog titled, “It’s Only A Matter of Lies.” She went in great detail and told the story of how she was personally affected by a coaching decision at her alma mater, when she tore her ACL during her final year on a full athletic scholarship. Her top-ranked coach gave her the option to give up her scholarship or transfer, none of which are right in the university athletics system or good for Kimmee. It happens, athletes get hurt, and it’s the risk you take when signing someone, whether it’s college or profession sports.  The question for her was, to tell or not to tell? What her coach did was wrong, but was it in her best interest to blow this whistle? By attacking a person or college, this could “burn bridges” and potentially hurt her reputation as an athlete. Over the weeks we have talked about a variety of ethical dilemmas, especially in relation to the world of college sports, I would like to ask, would you have done things differently? I know if it were me, I would have been outraged by the outcome, and most likely acted differently. Even though the judgment call was on the coach, could you have prevented this same scenario from happening to other athletes at the college in the future knowing these ethical theories we’ve discussed in class?

During week three (Jan. 23^rd), Lauren Tilton and I both wrote about the  “Fan Can.”  In this case found in Chapter three of out text, it tells the story if the 2009 Bud Light promotion based on the color coordination of beer cans based on several universities nationwide. By reading her view, I found a few differences between our analyses.  We both came across the same dilemma, is the promotion of alcohol at universities unethical in itself? Lauren thought not, due to the fact that some students are of age, and have the right to drink responsibly if they chose, which I also agree with. But what I ask is, what would you think if you were the college affected? Her blog only stated the side of working for Anheuser-Busch. In my blog I noted two ethical principles- pluralism and Bok’s Ethical Decision Making Model, would you have used any ethical perspectives for helping determining your ethical decision as Anheuser-Busch? With such a controversial issue, we solely can’t rely on the PRSA’s Code of Ethics, because it really is just a general guideline to adhere by. If communication between Anheuser-Busch and the universities would have been established before the promotion began, do you think the outcome would have been different?

Week four (Jan.28^th), Terrance White wrote his blog entitled, “Do what you love, love what you do,” which focused on his view of the current definition of Public Relations, and how we could change it. We both made similar points in regards to how the current definition, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other,” and how social media has played a huge factor in how we need to restructure this definition due to changing times.  His new definition stated, “a strategy for organizations to communicate ideas to their publics and gauge public sentiment.” You mentioned how this definition improves upon the previous definition due to the fact you have incorporated “interactivity,” but what about building relationships, ethics, and defining what PR practitioners do? I feel that this definition could have been developed further because it lacked certain elements in regards to what PR means, which should be clearly addressed. As times have changed, so has the business of PR. Do you think after the completion of this course, you would reevaluate your definition?

Last week (Feb. 4^th), Avery Owens posted his blog entitled “Ethics Post 5: A New Frontier of Bullying.” Just like I said on my blog about the case of Megan Meier and the cyber bullies, he agrees with many of the same points I had; that both the Journal and the Post were ethically inclined to act how they did. The Journal and Pokin upheld the ethical issue of privacy in regards to not releasing the names of the neighbors, but the Post honored the codes of transparency, accuracy, and the community, by releasing the names of the culprits. The part of the blog I felt really resonated with the story of Megan Meier, was when he explained how cyber bullying happens on a more “watered down” level, not just on social media sites, but forums where things can be rated and posted by others. I thought this was a valid point, because we see this all the time, how people are teased for their opposing views. What I would have liked to see expressed more in the blog, is how these social media sites can prevent cyber bullying from occurring. Is a disclaimer enough? Or should we do more and have the government intervene.

Ethical Issues of Cyber Bulling

Megan Maier of Dardenne Prairie was a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide in 2006, all because of cruel messages on her MySpace profile. The bully, Josh Evans (who she had never even met) seemed to show interest in Megan early on. As time passed, the messages became hurtful and nasty things were said like, “The world would be a better place without you.” Little did Megan know, Josh was fictional, and a creation of a woman, her daughter, and old female employee that lived down the street.

The journalist who broke this story, Steve Pokin, of the Suburban Journals in St. Charles County, faced a huge ethical dilemma about when, and how much to say regarding this case of a child suicide. Wanting to wait until charges were filed, he held off writing the story, but, as he came to find out, the police, prosecutors, and FBI couldn’t find a law that had been broken.

With the guidance of his editor and lawyer, Pokin decided to not name the neighbors involved with Megan’s death in his article because no charges were filed, and the daughter was a juvenile suspect. Cases like this are handled much differently, because little of the evidence found could be proven, due to the fact anyone could have typed the messages on the computer.

Pokin and the Journal made a judgment call, not to reveal the suspects’ identities, causing a multitude of complaints and attention to the story.  They felt they were upholding the rights of the accused, who had not yet, at the time, been charged. Although the neighbor admitted the scheme to police, enough evidence was not uncovered to charge them with a crime. Because of this, an ethical dilemma was presented; do we open a can of worms and put people in danger by telling readers possibly too much information? Even though readers were outraged by the omitted suspect’s names, Pokin analyzed his decision by the use of Mill’s Utilitarianism principle. This principle states, “an act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end.” In this case, Pokin went against telling the whole story, hopefully making an ethical call not to harm the suspects involved. Even though the public may not have agreed with this, more damage could have potentially been done, had the community had too much information. It could have even put their safety in danger because of community outrage.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch took a different approach when reporting this case; they named the neighbors involved. Was this ethically correct? Instead of waiting for the story to eventually unfold, they assumed naming names was the right way to go about reporting this case. Journalists are supposed to uphold nine ethical news’ values, in which accuracy, confirmation, tenacity, and equity are particular rules they chose to honor in this case. Supposedly, an informed ethical decision may be made based on these guidelines, but what about in the instance of a minor? What about the potential harm from vigilantes in the community?  According to the theory of Communitarianism, the Post based their decision on community interest and that it trumped individual interest in order to make the best decision for society as a whole. They felt this community had the right to know all the details that had been discovered in this case, and if I was a parent, I would want to know the whole truth. Protecting other possible children’s deaths could very well be a good enough reason to let the public know the names of these cyber bullies.

This case involved a child’s death, which was tragic, and by telling the story his way, I feel that Pokin and the Journal were trying to bring the issue of cyber bullying to the community’s attention, not put the families and suspects in the eyes of the media and draw a negative outcome from a terrible situation that had already taken the life of a child.

Of the two ethical decisions made, I feel that I would have agreed with Pokin and the Journal. Since evidence was unable to be linked to a certain person, and charges were not filed, the neighbors have rights too that should be protected. Even though, as a reader, I would like to know as much information as possible, as a writer, I would want to do the ethical thing and uphold my morals. As a journalist, people may have disagreed with Pokin, but he was trying to protect both families involved, and write the story in the best way possible to be considerate to the family members mourning the loss of Megan. His story was to show the outcome of cyber bullying, not to create a public outrage against a 3 individuals, who had yet been charged with a crime, which could have resulted in more tragedies. 

Ultimately, I think social networking sites, like MySpace and Facebook, should intervene in circumstances like this, when they can.  When persons, either real or fictional, are allowed to do harm to another person, laws must be made to protect the victims.  Cyber bullying is not only cruel, as this case shows, it can also be very dangerous.  Freedom of speech is a good thing, but doing harm to another is not.  Just as kids at school have been punished for bullying another, cyber bullies should be punished also.  However, in cyber bullying, it is very difficult to prove who the bully is.  So, preventing it is a more realistic option.  When cyber bullying is reported to the networking site, they should do everything in their power to block any future transmissions between these two people.  Closing down harmful MySpace and Facebook posts should be done when their only purpose is to harm another individual and it must be done to protect our children.

Defining PR

Public Relations is defined in many ways, but the PRSA’s (Public Relation’s Society of America) definition mentioned in Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article, defines it as: “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” Living in the digital and social media age has made this definition nearly irrelevant when it comes to what we view PR as today. This definition had not been updated since 1982, and since then we have evolved as a society that uses the Internet to blog, Facebook, and Twitter. Word travels in nano seconds, whether it is true or fabricated, and there is someone with a camera phone everywhere to take a photo or video of any event that happens to provide proof. If PR was able to take away this new social media, PR could more easily be controlled, PR companies would have time to think out a solution, plan strategies and work out ways to make the public believe what they want them to believe.

With these new ways to communicate and document, PR companies find themselves in the middle of trouble almost every day.  Companies are now able to generate publicity statements across the many media platforms, allowing companies to spread information fast and efficiently, but it is becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to change the public’s perception of an event once it is spread like wild fire across social media.  In years past, PR was spread through newspapers, the evening news, radio and magazines, allowing PR companies much more time to arrange ideas and plan their next step.  Today it is much more instantaneous, and the faster the PR company can change the way a story is portrayed, the easier it is to stop a rumor before it spreads out of control.

I see this current definition as being problematic in our new culture because it is much too vague. It does not address the fact that PR today is a two-way communication between the company or person you represent in the public. Companies must now listen more and dictate less. A skilled publicist is a reputation protector, a marketing enhancer, and a crisis manager. The average person has so much more power to get their complaint out to the entire world than ever before. It also doesn’t address the paparazzi that are now everywhere, cameras in hand, to destroy reputations. Their drive to make money and gain fame on the one breaking story is more important to them than privacy or ethics. It also does not address how the public now plays a much more prominent role in the input of what is put out to the people.  PR companies used to be the ones to send out press releases to introduce an idea, now the public posts something and the PR companies have to work fast to get to the client, and then change the perception of what the public has already heard that was false or partially incomplete. Publicists must now protect their clients, fix their crisis before it multiplies, and limit their client’s association with others that could hurt their reputation.

Today, the public views PR as something that “spins“ the truth, when in reality, they are problem solvers, marketing managers, and their clients protectors; the new definition should incorporate this. PR companies must now take an idea that the public has spread through social media and turn it into something positive, something that will make their client look good without making the public turn on them and make them into villains. Truthfulness, honesty, and the ability to say “I made a mistake, and this is how I am going to correct it” is so important to the public’s perception of something.  The public no longer wants to hear excuses or blame, they want to hear solutions and honesty.

After our class readings, lectures, and discussions, I think this new definition would be a much more effective way in defining what PR is today: “ Public relations helps the image of an organization, person, or company, and solves problems by building relationships, earning trust, understanding problems, and implementing strategic plans to better clarify, explain, and educate the public. They also help protect the company by adhering to correct business ethics and proper associations in order to prevent problems and to and present the company in a positive image to the world, and to the individual consumer. “ In order to improve upon the previous definition, the new one needs to incorporate what PR practitioners do in a clear, concise manner. The old definition was for just everyone to get along.  The new definition addresses more of an understanding of how we create an image, keep trust and prevent events that may adversely hurt the organization. It also addresses the issue that it is a global enterprise; it encompasses how the world as a whole sees the company and how the company treats the individual consumer.  The skilled publicist will protect the reputation of the company, and prevent problems in the future.

My new definition applies that ethics plays a major role in public relations. By use of the words “building relationships,” “understanding problems,” and “earning trust,” we can tell everyone we are working together, listening, and will be honest, and earn trust. Any new definition must understand that once trust is lost, it is difficult to rebuild. It is better to be upfront, admit mistakes, and provide solutions, rather than blame and point fingers.

In Gerard Corbett’s article on ethical breeches, I feel the Facebook/Google smear campaign was the most problematic because of the size alone. Attempting to destroy another company to make yours appear better almost always creates a backlash again your company. It creates messy back-and-fourth accusations that could spiral out of control and can create mistrust of both companies in the eyes of the public, and eventually harm both companies’ reputations. Much like Republican presidential candidates, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, they have discovered that name-calling has only hurt both candidates reputation.

Although the PRSA and the FTC are monitoring PR practices, it will probably do little to no good unless PR firms are required to be licensed. As of now, only a small percentage of publicists belong to either organization. Like attorneys that misrepresent clients and do harm, publicists can also lose their license for ethics violations and be barred from practices. Advanced regulations for those in the PR business, licensing and punishment for violators are the only way this public relations field will improve and be an honorable and respectable profession again. PR was once a glamorous profession, but it has been so tarnished with the image of being “spin doctors.” It could be turned around with the PR license to practice or it could become more ridiculed if ethics violators are not regulated for poor standards.

Using the PRSA Code of Ethics

Case 3B-Tailgate Approved? The Rise and Fall of the Fan Can

The Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Code of Ethics applies to members of the PR community, looking for guidelines to go about making an ethical decision. In this case, I will be using this Code of Ethics to evaluate the case of Anheuser- Busch vs. colleges across the country that were featured in their Bud Light promotion for their campaign that was being associated with tailgating at college football games. The names and logos of these schools were left unused, but school colors were used to advertise this promotion. 27 colleges nationwide were chosen, and beer cans were color coordinated with the school colors. This promotion was brought about to increase sales during one of their biggest selling seasons, football since their brand’s sales had declined for the first time in 27 years, due to the economic recession beginning in 2007. 

The PRSA’s Code of Ethics is helpful in determining the ethical considerations of this case because the PRSA is known for a high level of public trust, and has the interest of the public good to determine what is ethical in any scenario. Members of the PRSA follow six fundamental beliefs that act as a guide in the decision making process. They are:

·      Advocacy

·      Honesty

·      Expertise

·      Independence

·      Loyalty

·      Fairness

They also have six provisions of conduct that are used to seek out the best ethical decision. They include:

·      Free flow of information

·      Competition

·      Disclosure of information

·      Safeguarding confidences

·      Conflicts of interest

·      Enhancing the profession

In this case, many issues from promoting underage drinking on college campuses, to alcohol regulations in advertising bring about strong opinions and a difficult ethical dilemma for Anheuser- Busch. They are obviously selling a product that, in itself, can be seen as unethical anyway. To the eyes of the colleges whose colors were featured in this promotion, many felt that they “infringed on trademark rights, and expressed concern about the social responsibility of alcohol advertising.“ Eight schools requested to be pulled from the promotion.

By using this Code, we are able to look at this dilemma from the perspectives of both Anheuser- Busch and the colleges that were affected. The Provisions of Conduct directly apply to Anheuser- Busch, and how they could have faced this issue. Free flow of information, meaning to maintain relationships with the media, govt. etc, was lacked in this case. Since they were only using school colors in their promotion, they did not ask permission from the schools first. Keeping lines of communication open is most important, and not to ruin open communication is essential. This goes hand-in-hand with disclosure of information which they didn’t do with the colleges. Anheuser-Busch probably knew that asking permission from the colleges would not be accepted, but they felt using colors did give them the right to do it because colors are not copyrighted.  Open communication builds trust with the public, and with this case, the schools that were used in their promotion. The Code also mentions, under this provision, the guideline, “a member shall reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.” I feel that if they had received permission from the schools, this would have been the more ethical way to approach this situation.  I also feel it was highly unlikely the colleges would have said “yes” if they were asked in advance.

From the eyes of the schools, this could also be seen as a conflict of interest. Many students attending these schools are under the age of 21, is it ethical to promote a product like Bud Light at these institutions? It could be seen as ethical since the colleges sell Bud Light at their games, but only to those 21 and older. But from the eyes of the schools, this could be promoting drinking for the underage drinkers on college campuses. Colleges know that their students drink alcohol, they just don’t want to be associated with drinking in the media.  Perhaps it should have been associated with advertising for a designated driver campaign for students that do drink.  Most importantly, I feel that Anheuser- Busch followed the guidelines of enhancing the profession. Promoting and selling beer in itself can be seen as unethical, we no longer see cigarette ads on TV, but they make sure to clearly acknowledge that their product can be harmful if consumed irresponsibly. Anheuser- Busch’s message on college campuses nationwide is, “If you’re 21 and older and choose to drink, please drink responsibly. If you’re under 21, respect the law; don’t drink. This is a great message to get out to the students. 

The PRSA’s Code of Ethics can also be seen as just general guidelines to adhere to when faced with an ethical decision. Since the selling and promotion of alcohol is so controversial, PR practitioners opinions may play too much of a factor when trying to solve an ethical dilemma like this. Anheuser- Busch may not have been ethical with the way they went about promoting this product, and not asking permission to use the schools’ colors they chose for their beer cans, but some could also think promoting alcohol is wrong. It’s too controversial of an issue to use these guidelines solely to determine an ethical decision.

Aside from the PRSA Code of Ethics, other ethical perspectives can also be used when determining the best outcome for the dilemma at hand. Two principles that stuck out to me would also aid in helping Anheuser- Busch make the best ethical decision possible in this case. First, pluralism- it is used to denote diversity in many different views, not one ultimate value. Every company and organization has different view points, especially on the subject of promoting alcohol. Often used in politics, this perspective can offer several values that may be equally correct, but they still may conflict with each other.  Lastly, Bok’s Ethical Decision Making Model is broken down into three steps:

1.    Ask yourself about how you feel about the actions?

2.    Ask yourself if there is another professionally acceptable way to achieve the same end goal without raising the ethical issue at hand? In this case, the promotion of Bud Light with the use of colleges across America in there campaign.

3.    Conduct a discussion with the parties involved and see how they would respond to the proposed act.

By going through these three steps, Anheuser- Busch would have been able to see how the affected schools and public would have reacted to their decision to be in their national campaign. As I mentioned in my first blog post, this is the way I go about making any ethical decision. Besides going to step by step guidelines that don’t necessarily work in every PR scenario, you are provided with the primary goal of maintaining social trust, and if you follow the steps, you are able to see the outcomes before the occur. In this case, I would have followed the steps to Bok’s Model, especially since the issue was so controversial.

Advertising alcohol is perfectly legal and everyone knows that college kids drink alcohol.  Is it wrong for one company to prefer that they drink their brand?  I think that the colleges objected to the ad solely for the fact that they don’t want the public to know that the students at their college drink alcohol.  Every college wants to be known for their education, not for being a “party school”, but banning a legal ad just because it might make the college look bad in the public’s eye isn’t the correct way to go about it.  Colleges could have asked that they include more information about responsible drinking, designated drivers, and drinking for those only over 21 in the ads may have made a win-win situation for both the college and Anheuser-Busch. 

Secrets and scandal

How does one determine what is right and what is wrong? You could think about past experiences that are similar, or maybe you would call upon the help of a trusted family member or friend for their input, many times it is up to the individual to weigh in his own mind what is the proper thing to do. The media is notorious for supposedly “leaking” information, causing secrets to be spilled, and the lives of others to be negatively impacted. I am not a journalist, so my view on this subject may be different than the one who wants to “get the story”. As a future PR practitioner, the dilemma of secrets still can arise.  A secret, by definition, is something that is only known to one or a few people.  Should I do what is best for my company and withhold information that can hurt others? Or do I spill information that could also hurt others? It can be a toss up, but in the end, I believe that information should not be told, unless keeping the secret would negatively impact a majority of society, in which they should have the right to know. Each secret would probably have both positive and negative impacts on others; secrets shouldn’t be leaked in order to hurt others.  A secret should only be told when it would help.  Although keeping a secret is sometimes very difficult, a person’s character is at risk if the leak is found out to be from them.

In any aspect of the media, the quality we value most is truth. Our readers, for the majority, will believe what the media says, and our sources look to trust us in what we say or print. In certain circumstances, telling a secret may be the ethical choice, even if you could be hurting someone in the long run. But what if the journalist withholds information? This could just as badly hurt someone; in the instance they could have helped the situation by telling the secret.

The best scenario I came across in the textbook readings, referred to model Naomi Campbell, and her supposed drug addiction.  She had been in the news countless times before for being arrested, being dropped from her agency, etc.; but this time, she was accused of being a drug addict. She had denied this on numerous occasions, insisting she did not take drugs, specifically cocaine. But a tabloid photographer from the Daily Mirror caught her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting in London. She later sued the tabloid for invasion of privacy, but being an international celebrity rid her of her privacy rights?

Even if the story was true, she stated that the article was “very damaging.” This could have been a problem she was trying to deal with on her own, but being in the spotlight makes some targets for leaking of their private lives. In the end, Naomi won the lawsuit and the judge even mentioned that celebrities should be entitled to “some privacy.” The Daily Mirror felt they were supposedly in the right when it came to sharing the story, since Campbell had in the past deliberately denied the use of drugs.

If I was the journalist in this scenario, I do not think I would have published the story. Even though she is a celebrity, I do believe they are entitled to some privacy, especially when it comes to personal health issues. If she was a drug addict, and attended meetings in order to beat her addiction, she had to accept it to herself first, not wanting the story spread for the whole world to read. Something like this could be damaging to the persons career and personal life. Would you want to be the person responsible for that? 

When thinking whether to share a secret or story, I like to put myself in the other person’s shoes.  In the case of Naomi Campbell, had I not told the story, would anyone have gotten hurt by not knowing? Do her fans have the right to know? In the scenario that actually occurred, I believe this hurt Naomi most, especially since it was regarding her health. Over time, I’m sure the story would have came out anyway, whether the Daily Mirror published it or not, but maybe it would have been from Naomi herself. Celebrities get a lot of attention from fans and media, and maybe if Naomi would have released this story, she could have turned it around to help other addicts in similar situations.

If I put myself in the Daily Mirror’s journalist shoes, I could have potentially ruined my career by letting this secret out if it wasn’t true. Perhaps she was leaving the meeting after trying to help a friend.  The article didn’t say anything regarding the picture he printed, but could it have been doctored? I’m sure fans and readers could have thought this was doctored, causing him to lose his media credibility.  

Especially in the world of the rich and famous, I believe secrets and scandal are inevitable. Many journalists devote their entire career to uncovering secrets.  As a media professional, it’s important to understand boundaries, always have credible sources, and make sure you have all the facts before reveling information. It’s a fine line whether to break a story or secret, that’s why you have to ask yourself the simple question, who would this hurt and whom does it help?

Ethics in Fashion

Ethical scenarios in fashion

As a recent graduate from the University of Bridgeport, with a degree in Fashion Merchandising, I am really looking forward to expanding my skills here at SHU in Communications. Unlike other students in this program, I don’t yet have all the real world experience in the media field, but I have had the opportunity to intern with two great fashion designers and I have also interned at a major fashion magazine. Even though I want to concentrate on fashion PR upon graduation, ethics will play a role in any business path I choose.

If I could have my dream job, I would like to be a Public Relations Director for a major designer brand. With that, I would deal with media outreach, events (fashion shows, store openings, etc.), and celebrity outreach. Since we would be exuding a certain “image,” we would need to make sure we are being personified in the right light. Fashion PR is different in the fact, that we may not have to deal with as many “fire putting out moments,” but we are the backbone of the brand, gaining exposure for the line, and making sure that the world knows who we are.

During a couple of my previous internships, I had the opportunity to be around when chaotic and unexpected ethical dilemmas arose. During this past spring 2012 season that showed here in New York, one of the designers I worked for, took his collection to display in Paris. While it was en route from London, his entire one-of-a-kind collection was stolen off the train. Because the collection was not yet in production, in reality it would be worthless to the thieves- who most likely took it for counterfeiting purposes. This is a common ethical problem the fashion industry faces, because counterfeits are so hard to spot, and so easily found.  At places like Canal Street in NYC, everyone knows why people go there to shop; it’s because of the designer goods at affordable prices. I can even admit that I have fallen victim to this in the past, but since I have worked in the industry, my thoughts and views have changed. Purchasing counterfeit items, rewards people that have stolen the ideas from the designer who brought it to the market. 

Another ethical problem that plays a huge part in the media is the fashion and entertainment issue of weight. From most designer’s standpoint, stick thin models are their desire, but that is obviously not the norm. What about that average teenager who idolizes the photos of models in the fashion magazines and in movies? Being that size is not realistic for the majority, so why does the fashion industry continue to use this size as the norm? What are they promoting? Luckily this has been something that some designers have fallen away from, but this is the back burning ethical dilemma fashion magazines, film, and brands are facing, when is it too much?

Time to make a decision

While working in the fashion industry, there have come times when I had to call upon my best judgment a make the best decision possible. Not only have there been choices between two good things, but also between two bad, or one good and one bad alternative. My best judgment has also come from my strong morals, my knowledge of what is right and wrong, and the questions and facts I know about the scenario. In order to make sure I make the best and most ethical decision about everything, I make sure I know all the facts, get as much information as I can before I reach a decision, and evaluate all options. The use of empathy is helpful, asking myself the question of “What would I like someone else to do to me?”

During this week’s assigned reading out of the textbook, I found that my way of solving an ethical dilemma similarly relates to Bok’s Model which uses a three-step process in order to make the best possible ethical decision. This is exactly how I approach things, I use my conscious to prove the “rightness” of my action, I seek advice and find answers to my questions, and create possible dialogue that could lead me in seeing how the parties affected would react to the decision made.  Just like the textbook said, it’s important not to fully rely on your conscious, because you need to analyze the problem from all angles. There is not always a right answer and a wrong answer, but weighing the pluses and the minuses to the solution, usually will lead me into making the correct decision.

While taking this class on Media Ethics, I would like to learn from real-life scenarios. I feel the best way to learn is from things that have already happened in history, and see how we could have changed them, or what we would have done differently. Studying public relations nightmares that have occurred and their solutions would help build experiences to rely on for future events.  Also, with a class from so many different backgrounds, I feel we have a lot to learn from each other’s experiences in their different fields.