JOUR 330 Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

JOUR 330 - Research Paper ExampleThe video (viewer discretion advised due to graphic content) shows the CEO and his hunting party looking over a farmers damaged crops, shooting at elephants at night, and Parsons posing with the dead bull. It to a fault shows crowds of villagers field dressing the carcass the next morning. (Burgess, 2011) Perhaps because the image recalled African safaris of the robber barons of late 19th century capitalism and the archaic, out of touch, and even rude behavior of the super-rich, bloggers around the world wrote articles protesting this, and thousands of customers cancelled accounts with GoDaddy. The companys competitors took advantage of this, issuing free transfer and discount coupons for people who wanted to switch their fear a way of life from GoDaddy. This situation can be regarded as a case example in usual relations because Bob Parsons illustrates exactly what not to do when media problems occur for a company. His actions, statements, and beha vior in response to the first controversy arguably made the situation even worse for him and his company in the public relations context. While the company claims it has not lost much business from this, the composition will undoubtedly remain linked to the brand and competitors will come about to take advantage of this. To some degree, Parsons may have been overdue for a PR breakdown, because his company is known for a particular marketing campaign that is found on a certain amount of sleaze. Yet, for a company that once hoped to go public through an IPO, having the CEO of the company labeled this way in the mainstream press is very problematic. Consider that major media publications such as CNN, Salon, the New York Times, The Guardian, etc. all ran major articles on the story, and kept it active with modify reports. In PR, the goal is for the problem to be out of the news cycle and out of discussion as soon as possible. When mainstream media repeat a story such as this over an d over, it does continual damage to the brand and its credibility. For most people, the killing of an elephant is really a blatant act of stupidity, cruelty, and arrogance. That Bob Parsons defended his behavior immediately inflamed the situation. For example, instead of apologizing publicly, Parson conducted media interviews where he said These people have literally nothing and when an elephant is killed its a big event for them, they are going to be able to eat some protein. This is no different than you or I eating beef. All these people that are complaining that this shouldnt happen, that these people who are sharp-set to death otherwise shouldnt eat these elephants, you probably see them driving through at McDonalds or cutting a steak. (McCarthy, 2011) What Parsons did not critically understand is the detail that indeed millions of people do think and care deeply about issues such as environmental protection, endangered species, as well as the complaisant justices issues re lated to hunger and global poverty. To compare eating an elephant to a problem for African starvation is simply a ridiculous justification. Salon critically notes that the archetype video Parsons posted included captions to the nighttime scene that read Bob Parsons fires first and Bob Parsons fir