Case 1: Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter
The ethical dilemma behind Pepsi’s commercial starring Kendall Jenner is related to the usage of social movement as a marketing trigger for the company’s benefit. In an attempt to address the relevant social and political issues dominating the United States, a large company Pepsi launched an ad campaign featuring a white female star.
The cheerful representation of the clashes between protesters and the police is unrealistic and offensive to those exposed to the terror and unlawful arrests. The media practitioner at the center of the dilemma is the company’s public relations and marketing professionals who created and produced the commercial. Thus, the commercial implies minimized threats of protests and causes frustration and dissatisfaction in impacted stakeholders.
Firstly, Pepsi as a brand is a stakeholder that is adversely impacted by the advertisement. The short-term implications of their decision to roll the ad are decreased sale rates; long-term outcomes might be associated with more significant reputation losses and damage to positive brand recognition and customer loyalty.
However, since the company apologized for the imagery borrowed from the Black Lives Matter Movement and clarified its intentions, the outcomes might be milder (Victor, 2017). Secondly, the company’s public relations and marketing managers are personally responsible for the suggested and implemented ideas. The outcomes of their decision to launch the program might potentially lead to short-term and long-term damage to professional image and career complications.
Thirdly, Kendall Jenner is a stakeholder who has made a decision to participate in such a controversial ad campaign regardless of offensive and disrespectful implications it conveys. The young woman’s media career might be affected by the adverse social messages she delivers to the public. Fourthly, the police as an institution are involved as a stakeholder in this situation since police officers are portrayed as active actors predetermining the outcomes of protests.
In both short- and long-term perspectives, the police’s image might be subject to criticism, which might further complicate the already difficult relationships with the public. Fifthly, the community of protesters is at the center of the controversy since their real experiences are artificially translated into the materials used for the commercialization of Pepsi’s products.
Indeed, adding a beverage and cheerfulness to the protest depiction diminishes the value of “bold action” of fighting for rights and dignity (Victor, 2017, para. 8). Finally, the participants of the Black Lives Matter movement are particularly affected due to the trivializing connotations the cheerful ad creates for the aggressive and even oppressive police’s actions toward the protesters.
The responses to the stakeholders involved in the situation might differ depending on the character of their involvement. As for the producers of the ad, the company, and Kendall Jenner, it might be relevant to appeal to their moral sensitivity when making ethical decisions related to such important issues as social movements. Their apologies should be recognized as respectful efforts to correct their mistake, but it is also important to eliminate the socio-political theme from their marketing strategies.
On the other hand, the general population of protesters and the Black Lives Matter movement participants should be supported in their criticism. Such an outrageous usage of important socially relevant issues involving the lives and safety of thousands of people should be disapproved of to encourage strict distinction between commercialization and serious socio-political matters. As for the police, they should invest more into the improvement of the relations with the public by means relevant to the context of the problem without encouraging disrespectful and diminishing attitudes toward protests’ agendas.
Case 2: A Note to Our Readers
The case of Rolling Stone’s apology to the readers and everyone impacted by their inaccurate article about a rape on campus is an ethical dilemma involving multiple stakeholders. The note to the readers refers to the previously published article that investigated the rape at the University of Virginia, which was written solely on the basis of the claims of the alleged victim. However, a month after the original article accusing the administration of the University of Virginia of neglecting assaults on campus was published, new evidence occurred that changed the story’s implications.
With the introduction of the other side’s interpretation, it appeared that the woman who claimed to have been raped was not providing accurate data. The identified discrepancies allowed for dropping the accusations toward alleged attackers and the institution’s administration. The editors of the magazine apologized for publishing a story that caused much public recognition and response, although it was not accurate in terms of fact-checking (Rolling Stone, 2014). Thus, the media practitioner involved in the dilemma is the editors’ team of Rolling Stone.
The stakeholders impacted by the story and the published article that was is the subject of the moral dilemma are several. Firstly, the magazine as an organization and a media actor that influences public opinion is a primary actor of the situation. Since the editors addressed the inaccuracies in their work and apologized for their article with an intention to remedy the reputation of all affected individuals, the consequences of their decision might vary.
On the one hand, the readers might lose confidence in the magazine as a source of information. On the other hand, due to the continuous fact-checking and willingness to correct their mistakes, the trustworthiness of the source might increase. Secondly, the woman who accused males at the University of Virginia might suffer from victimization as the aftermath of inaccuracies in her story.
Thirdly, the university administration that had been accused of reluctance to address the attack might be subject to criticism from the public’s side. Fourthly, the man who was accused of leading the gang of attackers is a stakeholder whose reputation might be impacted by the story. Fifthly, Erderly, the author of the Rolling Stone article, might be subject to criticism due to the discrepancies in the story. Finally, the community of women who are victimized and sexually assaulted might suffer from such a portrayal of a problem in the media due to the implied mistrust of and stereotyping of rape cases.
The response of a communication leader to the stakeholders would be based on the sensitivity of the matter at hand. Indeed, the journalist and the magazine should be encouraged to eliminate similar blunders in the future while maintaining the policy of continuous checking for mistakes. The victim of the attack should seek legal investigation of her case while leveraging the accusations for consistent contribution to the movement for women’s rights.
The University of Virginia should be respected for the attention and investigation of the case. The actions of the accused attackers should be supported by accurate data that would ensure their innocence. As for the community of women subject to sexual assaults, they are encouraged to deliver their stories to the public in all honesty for triggering a relevant response.
Case 3: Papa John’s Founder Used N-Word on Conference Call
The moral dilemma addressed in this case is the usage of inappropriate, offensive language by the CEO of an internationally known company in the context of a conversation about the harmfulness of racism. The media practitioner in the situation is a professional responsible for public relations at Papa John’s company who was in charge of the organized conference call.
Overall, the head of the company, John Schnatter, made a mistake by referring to African Americans using the n-word, thus hindering the reputation of his organization and causing potential social unrest and public disapproval. Despite the fact that the word was used in the context of the conversation where Schnatter was asked about the opposition to racist groups, he failed to show respect to the minority group.
The analyzed ethical dilemma has impacted multiple stakeholders involved in the situation. Firstly, the overall African American community in the United States was impacted by such an incident, which demonstrates disrespect of a leader of a big company toward the people of this group. Secondly, people, who participated in the conference call, were the stakeholders who were directly insulted by Schnatter’s language.
Thirdly, John Schnatter, the actor himself, is adversely impacted by the situation since the public’s acknowledgment of his utterance was harmful to his career. Indeed, according to Kirsch (2018), Schnatter “resigned as chairman of Papa John’s” immediately after the incident (para. 1). His reputation as a CEO has suffered significant losses for his brand in the future.
Fourthly, the Papa John’s brand is another stakeholder impacted by the situation since the values and morality of the brand are associated with those of its leadership. Thus, economic and reputation losses might follow. Fifthly, the marketing agency Laundry Service was a stakeholder in a dilemma; the company’s decision to terminate cooperation with Papa John’s after the incident was illustrative of their ethics. Finally, since Papa John’s company is an international enterprise, its affiliations might also be influenced in terms of reputation on a global scale.
A communication leader’s response to each stakeholder might include several ideas. In terms of the African American community and the immediate participants of the conference call, it is necessary to address the actor’s lack of moral sensitivity in discussing sensitive matters. The community’s disapproval of such behavior should be supported to ensure the elimination of possible incidences in the future. As for Papa John’s CEO, John Schnatter, it might be appropriate to emphasize the necessity to treat sensible racial matters with more insight and respect.
An individual of such authority and public influence as a company CEO should bear responsibility for his or her actions and use moral judgment to put oneself in the place of victimized and offended people. The company, both domestic and international, should cultivate social responsibility and tolerance culture to compensate for reputation losses and ensure solid corporate ethics in terms of public relations. Finally, Laundry Service’s decision to terminate their contract with Papa John’s due to the incident should be appraised since such a decision will enhance the marketing company’s corporate ethical principles.
References
Kirsch, N. (2018). Papa John’s founder used the n-word on conference call. Forbes. Web.
Victor, D. (2017). Pepsi pulls ad accused of trivializing Black Lives Matter. The New York Times. Web.
Rolling Stone. (2014). A note to our readers. Rolling Stone. Web.