China Revisited: Santa, China, Obama

On a recent blustery afternoon, I ventured to the neighborhood Hobby Lobby in search of some ceramic Santas to get in the holiday spirit. When I arrived, it seemed I had two options: the "cheap" Santas, or the "pricey" Santas. The "cheap" Santas varied in disfigurement: some were missing eyebrows, others fingers, one an entire eyeball.

These Santas, made in China, were selling for under $10. The "pricey" Santas had more vibrant paint colors, more rosy cheeks, and most importantly, all of their digits and facial features. These were made in the United States, but were $20 more expensive.



I had just experienced a dilemma that I am sure plagues people all over the world when it comes to Chinese products: Do we forgo quality in favor of a bargain? Or maybe the problem we face is more domestic. Maybe the American appetite for schlocky bric a brac is so insatiable that we are willing to plunk down our dollars any time we see something cheap, thus creating the demand.

As Americans, we have been hearing negative things about the Chinese for years. While no entity is all good or all bad, it seems collectively we exude a holier-than-thou attitude towards China. From their "one child per family" mantra, to their stringent Communist regime, to their slave-like working conditions, we are fed negativity on a daily basis through our media and leadership.



In recent headlines, China has been outright vilified, namely for its imports, that include toys with lead paint, beads with trace amounts of GHB--also referred to as the "date rape drug", fish with enough mercury to turn someone into a human thermometer, and toothpaste with an anti-freeze ingredient in it. So the logical question seems to be one of the chicken or the egg variety. Is it that we love our cheap products so much we forgive egregious offenses and neglect to demand quality, or are we so reliant on China we can't say no? Either way, the blame is as much ours as anyone’s.

We know that China does not seem to place a high value on quality of products. From rising boycotts on Chinese toys to leaked evidence that there are sweatshops that exhibit "brutal" working conditions, China's international public image leaves much to be desired. But maybe the root of this condition is not a failure in the market mechanism of supply and demand, but a failing on our part to apply some common sense to what we demand. I, for one, can not imagine the developed countries of Europe in line at their local megamart picking through Santa's with missing appendages.

The U.S. reaction to this? There have been many different voices rising: namely politicians, bloggers, reporters, and consumers giving their opinion on what should be done to alleviate this problem.


Some recommend a tariff structure that will basically level the playing field, causing imported goods to be about par with American products, thinking this will eventually weed China out, or force them to "step up their game", and make products of comparable quality. The blatant problem with this is that not everybody can pay the higher prices for goods.




In one of the recent Democratic Debates, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois made the best recommendation: that the U.S. adopt a policy similar to that of Japan:

"You know what Japan does with the Chinese when it comes to, for example, food importation? They send their own inspectors over to China and they set up their own safety system and they say, "If you don't abide by our rules, you can't send food into Japan. Now, the question is, why doesn't the United States impose these same rules and regulations as Japan has? This is the biggest market -- this is the biggest market in the world. China has to sell here.”

Later on, Obama says something that rings very true:
“China is a competitor, but they don't have to be an enemy as long as we understand that they are going to be negotiating aggressively for their advantage.”

Yes, we don’t want China sending us products that are safety hazards. But, the fact is, we depend too heavily on China to “quit being their friend”-70 to 80 percent of our toys, for example, come from China. Critics have said that implementing these inspections may drive up prices, but on products that pose a huge risk, that seems a better option than death.
Ultimately, the consumers are going to select their favorite options. At the local Hobby Lobby, there are more $30 Santas left to collect dust on the shelf than $10 deformed Santas. It seems the market has chosen, and China isn’t to blame.

FCC Consolidation

In 2003, the new rules of the FCC were thrown out, even though President Bush threatened to veto Congress if they threw out these rules. Well, it appears the FCC is at it again: they are trying to loosen the regulations that currently forbid cross-ownership, so that in the future, media outlets (other than the ones grandfathered in) will be able to own print and broadcast media. This will give 6-7 media tycoons access to over 90% of the market. I don't know about you, but I don't want my news being determined by Rupert Murdoch of myspace fame. To sign a petition agains this, see:

http://civic.moveon.org/mediaconsolidation/o.pl?id=11826-6730547-.VQsfJ&t=4




In the Star Tribune, they had an article about this issue:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/12569816.html

And last year, there was apparently a report that villafied consolidation of media, that was quashed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-rintels/fcc-report-says-media-con_b_29452.html

Dangers of a Generation Lost in MySpace

For social networking purposes, sites like Myspace and Facebook are great, and they can also be a great source for companies to mingle with their markets...but there are dangers also that these social sites present.

It's not just that porn peddlers can post on your page, that creepy pervs can laciviously try to proposition adolescents, or that some black market exists where individuals will try to sell everything from viagra to xanax to you.

MySpace can be deadly.



Take the story of Megan Meier. This 13 year old girl is driven to take her life by a psycho pageant mom type who meddles in the lives of middle schoolers. She even is rumored to have started a blogspot called "Megan Had It Coming".



So even though MySpace is Goliath, doesn't it still owe some sort of transparency to the public it serves? Shouldn't there be a way to verify people are who they say? Maybe that is too much to ask, but Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire, you'd think he could make the site at least a little safer.

How do you trust a site that is built on lies? Tom, the MySpace friend who started it all, has lied about his age from day one.



So how do you trust a company that doesn't value honesty, even on trivial matters?

The answer is you can't. Even though this network seems to be an unstoppable beast, it is up to companies and individuals to realize that MySpace is not all good, and probably not the best company to mingle with to promote or publicize a business.

Tex Mex

While working at a certain gallery, the assistant museum coordinator had an idea: how about doing a Tex-Mex inspired exhibit, and calling it "Tex-Mex"? Well, immediately, I think everyone was a little bewildered as to how cuisine tied into an upcoming art show. Well, she explained that her idea was to recruit Texan artists who were of Mexican descent to display their art in the exhibit, and that the opening reception could have margaritas, nachos, and other Tex-Mex dishes. At this point in the conversation, I want to give her props for deciding to do an exhibit that highlights diversity, but at the same time feel the title and theme are exploitive in nature, even though her intent is cutesiness: it seems almost demeaning. Then comes the real zinger.





"Maybe we can go down to towns on the border and see what kind of artists there are. They will probably be thrilled at the opportunity..."

What?!!??!

As if to insinuate that all Mexican-Americans in Texas live on the border, or that they all are poor and would jump through hoops for a couple of pesos... Unbelievable...I responded that I have a friend who is a sculptor, makes his own glazes, does really beautiful work, is partially of Mexican descent,and she asked me his name. When I told her the Irish last name, she asked what he looks like. I told her he has blond hair, at which point she informed me, "no, he needs to look Mexican."

I think everyone in the meeting was shocked, as she seemed completely oblivious to how she sounded. The art director changed the subject, and we all agreed to go with a different theme.

Silkwood

I recently saw the story of Karen Silkwood as portrayed by Meryl Streep. It was shocking to me that Kerr-McGee, the plutonium plant she worked at, could get away with such negligence in regards to their plant safety. What really was creepy was how the samples taken from her home showed huge levels of plutonium, yet the ones that the company took were moderately low. Picture from SanDiego.edu archives





The plant was basically killing people for profit, or at the very least had no regard for their safety and well-being. As is often the case, the whistle-blower gets the most heat, as co-workers of hers were disgruntled over her attempts to expose Kerr-McGee's unsafe practices. She died suspiciously in a one car crash while trying to expose these wrongs. The plant finally closed in 1975, but the civil litigation went on for years. It makes you wonder how often this sort of stuff goes on in large companies that we DON'T ever get to hear about. Big companies seem like they accept dirty business practices, as long as profits are rolling in.

Union Carbide Case

In searching for a case study for my research project, I stumbled across a case I had never heard of that I found very interesting: the Union Carbide Case in India. Often referred to as the Bhopal Disaster, a gas leak at their plant resulted in 3,800 mortalities and several people left with severe disabilities. This ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court in India, and at the time Union Carbide was claiming that a disgruntled employee was responsible. Though they did send someone to respond the next day, it took them until the next year, 1985 to set up a relief fund, and that was only $120,000 initially. They later offered a settlement of $350 million, built a hospital, etc. Then in 2004, it turns out the government of India had profited some 357 million from the interest on the settlement given for the victims. It seems everyone was shady in this incident. I am interested to learn more about it.

In the picture, a photo of one of the children killed in the gas leak. 1984, BBC News.

A Day in the Life

I read recently that Heather Mills, estranged wife of Paul McCartney, had been fired by her publicist. This struck me as odd, but apparently it can be done in the celebrity arena just as much as any other. The reason seems to be that she went on a morning show and started crying about how cruel the media has been to her and how it's destroyed her life. Apparently the publicist felt very strongly that this sympathy ploy was a mistake.



Assuming that Heather Mills was telling the truth, that the media blitzkrieg has made her suicidal, etc. then why is it so wrong to tell the truth? From an ethical perspective, isn't this what a publicist would admire in a client? Despite everyone calling her a gold digger, I can't help but feel like her humanitarian efforts suggest that she can't be all bad. She has worked towards ridding the world of landmines, protecting animals from cruelty, providing prosthetic limbs to children who need them, etc.

Sure, Babs Walters spoke out against her and said that she was difficult, but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? It seems like just how in the corporate world publicists are retisant to stand up to the big guys, the same is true of the celebrity world, and everyone is kowtowing to Paul McCartney and his diamond dogs.

Teen Pregnancy and P.R.

In an article that came out in the Dallas Morning News, Robert Garrett revealed that Texas currently has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110507dnmetteenbirths.35daddb.html">
While the article focuses on statistics and Erandy Gonzalez, a 17-year-old expectant mother, what really stood out to me is the fact that Texas is still teaching abstinence in schools.
Relying on outdated legislation passed by then-governor Bush, birth control measures are not passed on to teens in middle and/or high school. To add reckless insult, Governor Perry has taken the stance that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, even though more and more minors are becoming mothers in this state than any other, the best thing to do is ignore the problem?!??
From a public relations standpoint, this strikes me as atrocious. This is obviously an issue that needs to be addressed and action needs to be taken, but the powers that be are picking now to dig their heels in. Doesn't make sense...what's more, they have this Cathy Adams woman insinuating that the only reason that California's rates are lower is because they are liberally aborting pregnancies. Ok, where is any factual evidence to substantiate this? Pointing the finger at others seems like the second least effective strategy in this debacle.
Sadly the pregnant teen profiled thought she was on the pill, and was actually taking estrogen pills. If she had been educated, would this have happened? Probably not.
Though nobody wants to talk about teens having sex, the pregnancy rates would lead us to believe that they are, and maybe if the governer and his staff took this opportunity to improve the situation instead of ignoring it, some parents, who may not be ready for babies, would have a little more piece of mind and protection.

Flastow, Skilling, and Lay: The Shifty Triumverate

In the documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room", we watched several shady aspects of the corporation that was Enron.

From the blackouts they were directly responsible for
to the millions of dollars they stole, to the thousands of employees
who lost their pensions, this Houston corporation managed to ruin the
lives of so many, all in the name of greed.

In the clips from the hearings,Skilling seemed like he was completely unaware, but his
response to a Harvard admissions professor in his youth, "I'm FUCKING
smart", definitely shows an arrogant bravado, the same kind that would
be a necessity in a scam of this magnitude.

href="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/e/images/enron-the-smartest-guys-in-the-room-9.jpg">style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer;
cursor:hand;width: 320px;"
src="http://thecia.com.au/reviews/e/images/enron-the-smartest-guys-in-the-room-9.jpg"
border="0" alt="" />






Fastow, another sleezeball, was trying to get banks and investors to fork out dough for his shell
corporation, all of which was going directly to him. The ethical issues
with this company are multitudinous, but greed is pretty universal in
big business it seems. What was so flamboyantly abhorrent was that they
didn't care that they were causing people to be without power, that
people were being harmed by fires, etc. As the movie says, the Enron
traders were saying "burn baby, burn! More money for us."
This rogue business actually adopted a company-wide policy of greedy
self-perpetuation: dog eat dog, every man for himself.

Even the public relations guy was slimy, almost as if they were bragging about what they got away with for so long. Pretty unsettling.

You would like to think that this sort of business model wouldn't succeed, but
they were the eighth largest company in the world for a while....
However, karma did eventually catch up to them, even if their consciences didn't.

Lance Stinks (And It's Not From Riding Bikes)!!!!

In Dr. Lambiase's Article in the Sunday paper, I gained a lot of insight into Proposition 15, when I really knew nothing of it.
Link:
What really stood out was the fact that Big Tobacco, a known cancer causer, was one of the main contributors to the "live strong" organization. Though I feel bad for Lance Armstrong that he had to endure cancer, I have never enjoyed or particularly agreed with the yellow banded wrists popping up across college campuses and high school gyms across America.

Here's why: this is a man that has not been living well.

Yes he has won the Tour de France a record breaking number of times, but he cheated: he took steroids (by some speculation that has been hushed by now). He had a devoted wife who stood by him through his fight with cancer, and he dropped her like a hot potato as soon as "All I Wanna Do is Have Some Fun!" crooner Sheryl Crow merited him a big enough celebrity to don the yellow band as well. Endorsements from Mr. Armstrong mean nothing to me, and to a lot of other people I imagine too.

Dr. Lambiase is absolutely right: living well is going to help in prevention of future cases more than anything, and the financial backing behind this proposition does not suggest healthy living!!! CIGARETTES KILL MORE PEOPLE EVERY YEAR THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE!!! Yet, this is one of their contributors. Of course they want more research done, so they can get a few more puffs out of these nocotine addicted lung cancer patients.

In Crazy Sexy Cancer, Kris Carr, a level 4 cancer patient, has managed to keep her tumors from growing larger for some time, which is a wonderful accomplishment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmjcKqXHJSM
She talks about the value of eating greens and practicing yoga-taking the time every day to get positive and be happy. Wouldn't someone like this have a more powerful message to send? Wouldn't this be more helpful and meaningful for a lot of people? Phillip Morris isn't going to help the cancer cause, but Whole Foods might...I think there are tons of inspirational stories out there from other cancer survivors who live with integrity every day, not just when the cameras are rolling.
Throwing money at a problem never solves a thing, but education never hurts. I hope lots of people read that Sunday article and it made them think.

Glengarry, Glen Ross: Lie. Cheat. Steal.

In David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross at the Dallas Theater Center, the audience got to enter a world of backstabbing, lying, and competitiveness as a group of salesmen try to claw their way to the top. The only character that merits any sympathy is Lingk, a customer who is almost hoodwinked out of his money by Roma, the Gordon Gecko of the office. There are elements of the characters of this play that make the viewer's skin crawl, not to mention gain the realization that sales is not an industry one wants to enter, or at the very least enter blindly...What was really interesting to hear was David Sauer's explanation after the play of where the title probably came from: the swamplands in Florida that are named after Scottish Highlands. So, this sales group in Chicago is selling swampland and using every trick up their sleeve to get the customer's check. Ultimately, they are doing something morally atrocious: selling land of virtually no value to people, and showing brochures to people that we can imagine are probably glossy and filled with photos of beauty. These characters fight over the leads, the fight over the phantom Cadillac, and ultimately, they are fighting over who can screw over the most people, the most thoroughly. We don't see any warmth or depth in any of the characters really, except when Levene starts to mention a daughter, but we never get to hear anything more about her. Mamet isn't trying to sugar-coat. In a play that seems like a hyperbole of the sales scene, it was almost disheartening to hear a fellow audience member mention in the Q&A after the play that the sales world is, in fact, like the one portrayed in Mamet's play. He mentioned how people will fight over leads, and how some people lie to get their way. In an industry that is commission based, people will do whatever it takes to get paid. The ethical problems with this logic are infinite. This is not fair, this is not just, it is not Honest, it is not humane, one could go on and on....In this play, for a couple of hours, we enter a world where we see the ugliest aspects of human nature, and the business that requires it.

Kairos in Apologies

In class last week we talked about how the timing of an apology is almost as important as the apology itself. Some examples of this: Countrywide and their faulty mortgages, and more recently Southwest Airlines and their brush-off from corporate in regards to their throwing a mini-skirt wearing passenger off of a flight. At first they ignored the media attention it was getting, then at the last minute, they did this sort of "aw shucks" shoulder shrug off. They tried to make it into a big joke, but the passenger surely isn't laughing. Then there was the issue with heavier passengers: they issued a policy that passengers over a certain weight have to purchase 2 seats. In a country that is riddled with obesity (latest studies have shown over a third of the population of the United States is obese) is it really a good idea to alienate your plumper clientele? There also seems to be a real rise in the trend of companies having fake blogs, or flogs, in order to promote their organization. Morally, this seems atrocious: it is dishonest and tricky puffery. Now, in perhaps a last minute dash to get some good spin out there, Southwest has announced this week that they will be changing the way they do business in a good way: they will now make it easier for passengers to hop on flights at the last minute without standby hassles. So, the kairos of Southwest reveals just how badly they are botching their relationship with the public: they need to deal with the "shit" as it hits the fan, or perhaps even beforehand, so their apologies don't seem half-hearted and vacuous.

PRSA Ethics

In the PRSA Code of Ethics, they list their values as Advocacy, Honesty, Expertise, Independence, Loyalty, and Fairness. The 5 Principles we have been discussing in class are: Truth, Humaneness, Stewardship, Freedom, and Justice.

These ideas are very similar, if not synonimous.
Stewardship= Loyalty
Justice= Fairness
Advocacy and Honesty=Truth
Freedom=Idependence
and perhaps Humaneness would go with Expertise, because arguably being a good PR professional means treating people in a human manner.

We talked a bit in class about service versus substance, and short term goals versus long term goals. In doing the case study on Apple, I noticed, that service very much took a back seat to substance, and that long term goals played second fiddle to short term goals. This being said, I wondered how many other organizations are the same way. Apple has been fairly successful, in spite of their lack of respect for their consumers. It seems to be about the bottom line, about selling products. This brings up a reasonable hypothetical: what if the ethically correct thing to do goes against your boss? For example Stephanie Baycock or whatever the iPhone spokesperson's name is had a really bad attitude in regards to slighted customers. Instead of echoing the Steve Jobs mantra, she could have said, "Steve, I really think this is going to make people mad, and I think the arrogance is inappropriate, and you can take this job and shove it if this is what kind of company Apple wants to be." Instead, she drank the Jobs kool aid and decided to be a bully too. So this brings up another question: do you leave personal ethics at the door when you join an organization? I don't think so. It is not necessarily so that you have to decide between having a job or having scruples. There are lots of organizations that know that dignity and integrity matter, even if Apple isn't one of them.

Lead Toys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlsvfXAQ5v8
In just the latest in a litany of Chinese product bashing, the American toy company Mattel has been in hot water lately for selling products manufactured in China that contain lead paint. Mattel, with super-products like Barbie, has had international media frenzy on their hands. But where does this leave China? They were also blamed for the pet food scare recently, and according to the above youtube reuters video for selling toxic fish and toothpaste. Is China the fall guy? Or are there really serious problems over there with the quality of exports? If Mattel knows that quality is a concern, should they still be manufacturing their products in China, and at what point to they directly take the responsibility? Some media outlets think that Mattel has used efficient public relations in this catastrophe, as the link shows: http://au.news.yahoo.com/071001/3/14kcb.html, but it will be interesting to see how Mattel, and China fair after the recent fumbles.

Jobs not the "apple" of consumer's eyes

Upon reading the Informationweek article by Antone Gonsalves and discussing the catastrophe in class, I can see why Steve Jobs is receiving hate mail.

Apple is great at plugging their products. If I had a nickel for every iphone advertisement... in the myspace generation, it's a given that this sort of product is going to be wildly popular: every new technological gadget seems to be a "must" until something better comes along. Remember the razor? It was outrageously expensive at first too, and now it's free through some wireless providers with a sign up agreement. The reason Motorola isn't receiving hate mail and Steve Jobs is? Timing. Apple waited 2 months to drop the price of the iphone. These people that waited in line to get this product feel like shmoes, and I can't say I blame them.
To add insult to injury, Steve Jobs is a real pompous ass. There's the snide: "We're doing our best to live up to your high expectations" and then there's the response " this is life in the technology lane". I would say that this attitude is unjust. He is essentially making people feel cheated, and then saying "tough suckers!"
There's also a lack of truth in all of this. A classmate of mine in another class has the iphone. He feels like a sucker. But he said that also, his phone malfunctions-not doing the things it is supposed to do, and has a lot of problems. Perhaps the iphone is being reduced because it is not as quality a product as they would lead you to believe? And how about the bills some users were receiving? Thousands of dollars in charges. Was Apple truthful in coming clean with it's product's shortcomings? Apple, and in particular Machiavellian Steve Jobs doesn't seem to have a communitarian approach to business at all. It seems a company driven by profit and spin.
And freedom? These wronged consumers have the "freedom" to invest $100 in a crappy Apple product. Why not just refund their money? They have to make sure it's coming back to Apple pockets.
He even brags at the prospect of getting more iphone users with the price cuts in his open letter, saying that iphone is "so far ahead of the competition." I guess if profit is all you look at Steve, you're right. But if reputation, customer relations, integrity, and truth count for anything, the competition has you beat.

It's Horseplay!!

In "A Scuffle, A Stonewall, and a Season", Scissorgate is discussed and disected. In this case study, we see a great example of how sometimes, rarely, an organization can successfully simply ignore a problem and hope it goes away. This is essentially what it seems is the message organizations give when they issue "no comment" statements to the media. This practice may be viewed as the typical "good ole boy" response, and particularly in the instance of the Cowboys, that seems accurate. However, it seems understanding the media is essential in effective public relations. Media is, by its very nature, a curious and invasive beast. Saying no comment is akin to saying "please interview every person within the vicinity of this event to figure out what really happened since we are being evasive, and dishonest". As is so rightly asked in the article "if it was accidental by-product of horseplay, why not tell details? If not, why not identify guilty parties as a part of the punishment?"
This lack of honesty on the part of an organization can lead to even further complications, and can set the organization to be subject to speculative and inaccurate muckraking. We see this happen all the time, not only with organizations, but individuals. For example, a few weeks ago, comedic actor Owen Wilson reportedly attempted to take his own life. Eventually his publicist released a statement, but in the day or two interim, no less than 1,540 articles (based on a google search) were published speculating why, with reasons ranging from heroin to a woman. Meanwhile, it's potentially ruining this guys career. Nine times out of ten, the media doesn't show sensitivity or compassion. "No comment" can signal the sound of the death knell, not only for the individual, but for the group.

Cosmo #1

In Cosmopolitanism, Kwame Appiah has some really valid points. He discusses how we communicate, what problems arise as a result of this, and how to proceed when perhaps, inevitably, differing views collide. He suggests that disagreements arise because: "we can fail to share a vocabulary of evaluation, we can give the same vocabulary different interpretations, and we can give the same values different weights (Appiah, 66)." In our classroom experiment, we saw how very different people even in the same place at the same time with the same purpose (being students) could vary so much. There were different cultures, races, religions, ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. If there are that many differences in just our class, the differences that exist on a global level must be unfathomable. Later in the book, Appiah goes in to the roll of middle class women in American society just a few decades ago. A woman running for a political office outside of a local election simply would not happen. Luckily that has changed. The same can be said for homosexual couples (Appiah 77). Though there still exist some groups that are opposed to women working outside of the kitchen, or two men wanting to get married, the fact of the matter is that starting the social conversation on these issues helped to make our society as a whole more understanding even if everyone does not necessarily agree. Why is this important? Because everyone does matter. People in the supply chains are no different. We discussed in class briefly the dogfood fiasco, and the mattel toy fiasco that seems to still be going on. When we work from the angle that everyone matters, we see that it is imperative not only that everyone is treated with respect, but that all parties are heard and understood.