I guess I can't wrap my mind around the current public relations disaster facing Disney over its new show "Sofia the First" and the question of the main character's heritage.
"Sofia the First" is a television movie hoped to spawn a television series for the Disney Channel. Sofia is a princess in a fairytale land, Enchancia, the next in a long line of Disney princesses that have come far from the days of "Sleeping Beauty" and "Snow White".
Now, in addition to your typical caucasian princesses (Belle, Ariel, Aurora, etc.), you have Mulan, Jasmine, Tiana.
And Sofia?
I'm not hispanic. I'm your run-of-the-mill WASP, but I thought myself intelligent enough to understand what the fiasco surrounding poor Sofia was.
Apparently, Sofia's mother, Miranda, is dark-skinned and hails from a country inspired by Spain. Miranda is clearly latina. Sofia is of admittedly mixed race, and is lighter of complexion than her mother.
A week ago, Disney said she was a latina too. That's when the backlash began, when the Hispanic community spoke out against the company for being too coy about Sofia's background, or complaining the princess was not Latina enough.
What was probably seen as a sure thing from a community relations standpoint suddenly became a crisis.
Disney's response? A week later, they say that Sofia isn't latina... or anything else. She's simply Sofia, a fairytale girl from a fairytale land.
In my opinion, this response was not at all appropriate. If Sofia's mother is clearly of Hispanic decent, then Sofia is too, even if she is of mixed race. Isn't that what makes America so special, its melting pot of races and cultures?
I think Disney should have played on this more. Instead of saying "well, she is but she isn't...", they should have explained that Sofia, like so many children in today's United States, is of more than one ethnic background.
Plus, there are plenty of white-skinned latinas out there. It isn't so far fetched a notion that Sofia would be at least half Hispanic and have light skin.
Disney's approach should have been different when they realized the outcry this was causing in the greater Hispanic community. Their response of "yes and no" was not at all proper crisis communications and in turn hurt their community relations. Unfortunately for them, the Hispanic community is a fast-growing one and this could hurt their sales numbers.
I'm certain my daughter, Sofia, will watch this show, if only because the princess shares her name and it is spelled the same way. I don't care what the princess' race is, as long as I don't deem the show as a whole offensive.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
A good PR move for the NFL
We all know it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And any NFL fan who wasn't aware might well have become familiar with the designation in the past few seasons because of the addition of pink to uniforms across the league during October.
However, on October 7, Indianapolis Colts player Reggie Wayne chose to don an orange mouthpiece and orange gloves in support of leukemia awareness instead of the pink worn by other players.
Colts head coach Chuck Pagano's battle with leukemia became public shortly before the Colts - Packers game that week and Wayne took up the orange to support the coach.
The NFL has a reputation for being sticklers for proper uniform wear, but in a good move for the organization, they chose not to fine Wayne for his adoption of orange.
Wayne did not completely ignore the traditional pink - he did wear pink on other parts of his uniform. But I think it's fantastic that he chose to wear orange, even if it went against the NFL's uniform policy.
The pink sported throughout the league in October is great, but it is a sponsored campaign and perhaps just a part of the everyday drill in that month for players without an immediate connection to the disease.
By donning orange for leukemia awareness on October 7, Wayne was making a personal connection with the disease. While pink is immediately identifiable with breast cancer, most of the other cancer colors are only known to those who have a connection to the affliction (my dad is currently fighting Hodgkin's lymphoma, the color of which is purple - I had no idea until he was diagnosed).
So, kudos to the NFL for choosing not to fine Wayne for this move. While Wayne was fully prepared to pay a fine if one was levied against him, if the NFL had chosen to punish him for the move, I think the outcry would have been great.
Since the NFL has already dealt with a lot of negative media relations following the replacement referee fiasco, I don't think they want to continue with any more bad press.
And, kudos to Wayne for continuing to wear the orange in support of his coach in successive games. It is a great community relations move, showing the bond between player and coach and perhaps making them seem more human to fans.
No doubt those afflicted with or impacted by leukemia appreciate it.
However, on October 7, Indianapolis Colts player Reggie Wayne chose to don an orange mouthpiece and orange gloves in support of leukemia awareness instead of the pink worn by other players.
Colts head coach Chuck Pagano's battle with leukemia became public shortly before the Colts - Packers game that week and Wayne took up the orange to support the coach.
The NFL has a reputation for being sticklers for proper uniform wear, but in a good move for the organization, they chose not to fine Wayne for his adoption of orange.
Wayne did not completely ignore the traditional pink - he did wear pink on other parts of his uniform. But I think it's fantastic that he chose to wear orange, even if it went against the NFL's uniform policy.
The pink sported throughout the league in October is great, but it is a sponsored campaign and perhaps just a part of the everyday drill in that month for players without an immediate connection to the disease.
By donning orange for leukemia awareness on October 7, Wayne was making a personal connection with the disease. While pink is immediately identifiable with breast cancer, most of the other cancer colors are only known to those who have a connection to the affliction (my dad is currently fighting Hodgkin's lymphoma, the color of which is purple - I had no idea until he was diagnosed).
So, kudos to the NFL for choosing not to fine Wayne for this move. While Wayne was fully prepared to pay a fine if one was levied against him, if the NFL had chosen to punish him for the move, I think the outcry would have been great.
Since the NFL has already dealt with a lot of negative media relations following the replacement referee fiasco, I don't think they want to continue with any more bad press.
And, kudos to Wayne for continuing to wear the orange in support of his coach in successive games. It is a great community relations move, showing the bond between player and coach and perhaps making them seem more human to fans.
No doubt those afflicted with or impacted by leukemia appreciate it.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
The dog days of Michael Vick
According to a report from the NFL, Michael Vick has confirmed that his family does have a canine companion in their midst.
Just 5 years ago, Vick's image was tarnished by a scandal involving his financing and participation in a dogfighting operation, Bad Newz Kennels.
Vick was released from the Atlanta Falcons, suspended indefinitely from the NFL and served time in prison.
When he was reinstated to the NFL and signed by the Philadelphia Eagles, and even now, several seasons later, his ability to return to football and his involvement with the Humane Society of the United States/remorse for having participated in such cruelty has been a subject of hot debate.
So, it comes as no surprise to me that a tweet Vick sent out of his family became the topic of intense scrutiny when a box of dog biscuits was spotted in the background. Vick's supporters are passionate, but those who feel he should never be forgiven are even more so.
According the NFL, Vick evaded the question of his dog ownership for a short time before admitting that he does indeed have a dog and he "wants to break the cycle of cruelty".
The question is, is Vick being sincere in his desire to move forward in a positive way and should he be allowed to have a dog in his life again after admitting to such acts of cruelty? Many people convicted of lesser acts of animal cruelty are banned from pet ownership for a period of time, sometimes a lifetime.
This question is sure to become a hotly debated one as word of this spreads through Facebook and Twitter.
And it's a topic of enough interest for the NFL to put the short news brief on the front page.
Just 5 years ago, Vick's image was tarnished by a scandal involving his financing and participation in a dogfighting operation, Bad Newz Kennels.
Vick was released from the Atlanta Falcons, suspended indefinitely from the NFL and served time in prison.
When he was reinstated to the NFL and signed by the Philadelphia Eagles, and even now, several seasons later, his ability to return to football and his involvement with the Humane Society of the United States/remorse for having participated in such cruelty has been a subject of hot debate.
So, it comes as no surprise to me that a tweet Vick sent out of his family became the topic of intense scrutiny when a box of dog biscuits was spotted in the background. Vick's supporters are passionate, but those who feel he should never be forgiven are even more so.
According the NFL, Vick evaded the question of his dog ownership for a short time before admitting that he does indeed have a dog and he "wants to break the cycle of cruelty".
The question is, is Vick being sincere in his desire to move forward in a positive way and should he be allowed to have a dog in his life again after admitting to such acts of cruelty? Many people convicted of lesser acts of animal cruelty are banned from pet ownership for a period of time, sometimes a lifetime.
This question is sure to become a hotly debated one as word of this spreads through Facebook and Twitter.
And it's a topic of enough interest for the NFL to put the short news brief on the front page.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The importance of a good crisis communications plan
In January 2012, the SPCA in Cattaraugus County came under fire from a group of individuals claiming the animals in its care were neglected and the shelter was mismanaged.
Up front, I want to note that I have been involved with this SPCA since 2000, as a volunteer, as an employee and as a board member (I remain a volunteer). Although my personal connection to this shelter, and moreso, its animals may influence my words here, I come from the viewpoint of a communications professional.
One would have thought that the SPCA board and staff would have, after things settled down from this event, addressed the matter of responding to such situations. In fact, this exact subject was brought up by myself during my time as a board member, but nothing was ever drafted and things continued on as usual.
Until August 2012, when the above group of individuals partnered with "Animal Allies of WNY" - the group that had brought about sweeping changes at two western New York shelters in the past year - to again attack the SPCA's care of its animals and the management of the shelter.
Putting aside my own feelings about the allegations, the first thing that came to my mind was "how is the SPCA going to respond to this?" I had since resigned from the board of directors and had been the only person on the board with real-world public relations knowledge. I had done interviews on behalf of the shelter and was the chair of the board's PR committee.
If a crisis communications plan had been in place, there would not have been frantic phone calls to board members and volunteers seeing if they can speak with a reporter or put out a release; in fact, I think things may have calmed down by this point if a good plan had been in place.
Such a story has tremendous public interest, and that can spark a media frenzy that lasts for days. All businesses and organizations need to be prepared for such an event, even if one may never occur.
Being able to respond promptly, so that you don't appear to be hiding from the media, and being able to tell your message concisely and calmly can make the type of impression on the audience that makes them think there is more to a story that just this event.
Being prepared, being positive and taking a proactive stance is essential in crisis communications. That means laying out in advance the channels of communication - who will speak to whom and when - as well as creating talking points around a variety of issues.
These talking points can be modified in the future to fit a specific occurrance if needed, but it gives anyone who might be communicating with the media a set of key messages to convey, and helps to make that message flow across all channels.
In the case of the SPCA, there was no plan in place to direct who talks to the media and what message they were trying to convey. Consequently, board members and employees were interviewed in a hurried fashion and fell back on several tired accusations in ititial communications instead of being positive from the start.
Up front, I want to note that I have been involved with this SPCA since 2000, as a volunteer, as an employee and as a board member (I remain a volunteer). Although my personal connection to this shelter, and moreso, its animals may influence my words here, I come from the viewpoint of a communications professional.
One would have thought that the SPCA board and staff would have, after things settled down from this event, addressed the matter of responding to such situations. In fact, this exact subject was brought up by myself during my time as a board member, but nothing was ever drafted and things continued on as usual.
Until August 2012, when the above group of individuals partnered with "Animal Allies of WNY" - the group that had brought about sweeping changes at two western New York shelters in the past year - to again attack the SPCA's care of its animals and the management of the shelter.
Putting aside my own feelings about the allegations, the first thing that came to my mind was "how is the SPCA going to respond to this?" I had since resigned from the board of directors and had been the only person on the board with real-world public relations knowledge. I had done interviews on behalf of the shelter and was the chair of the board's PR committee.
If a crisis communications plan had been in place, there would not have been frantic phone calls to board members and volunteers seeing if they can speak with a reporter or put out a release; in fact, I think things may have calmed down by this point if a good plan had been in place.
Such a story has tremendous public interest, and that can spark a media frenzy that lasts for days. All businesses and organizations need to be prepared for such an event, even if one may never occur.
Being able to respond promptly, so that you don't appear to be hiding from the media, and being able to tell your message concisely and calmly can make the type of impression on the audience that makes them think there is more to a story that just this event.
Being prepared, being positive and taking a proactive stance is essential in crisis communications. That means laying out in advance the channels of communication - who will speak to whom and when - as well as creating talking points around a variety of issues.
These talking points can be modified in the future to fit a specific occurrance if needed, but it gives anyone who might be communicating with the media a set of key messages to convey, and helps to make that message flow across all channels.
In the case of the SPCA, there was no plan in place to direct who talks to the media and what message they were trying to convey. Consequently, board members and employees were interviewed in a hurried fashion and fell back on several tired accusations in ititial communications instead of being positive from the start.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
