BLOG 10

On April 13, 2006, Bausch & Lomb began to pull a product of theirs -- a contact lens solution called ReNu with MoistureLoc -- from the shelves of retailers after the CDC reported an upsurge in Fusarium keratitis, a fungal eye infection that can cause blindness. While the CDC couldn't conclusively link the infections to ReNu with MoistureLoc, there was a clear correlation between consumers who used the product and the contraction of the fungus.
This created a PR nightmare for the company. It is possibly the worst thing for a product to be the cause of harm to consumers. However, today the company continues to be a successful provider of goods with a healthy reputation among consumers. How is this possible? It is possible because the company was successful in using PR strategies to manage the crisis.
The main strategies that Bausch & Lomb used in this case were expediency, honesty, and alignment with core societal values.
The company acted quickly. As soon as they learned of the crisis, they halted shipments, pulled products from the shelves, and alerted the public to the issue at hand. They were honest in their approach. They made no attempts to keep the issue quiet. They did the opposite by publishing newspaper ads to the consumers from the top company executive, advising the public of the problem and openly apologizing for the unfortunate problem. They aligned themselves with the common values of society, which included a general concern for human well being and a basic desire to right the wrongs based on principle, not profit. Bausch & Lomb offered refunds for anyone who had already purchased their product, and assured the public that the company would do everything in its power to remedy the situation.
And then they followed through. Bausch & Lomb made promises that they kept, and people responded to that by maintaining brand loyalty after the matter was resolved. As a result, Bausch & Lomb went on to be successful and their brand is a household name today. In my opinion, their PR strategies accomplished what they set out to do.

BLOG 9

In my opinion, while social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook have their place in peoples' lives, they are not appropriate for use as news sources. The article about the election and related issues in Iran was a good example of the importance of such social networking sites. Twitter and other sites like it allowed the Iranian people to remain connected to the rest of the world, even through attempted government censorship and isolation. The sites became the sole way for outsiders to have an idea of what was going on in Iran, and for the Iranian people to convey the issues as seen through their own scope. Social media are a good source of information, but not necessarily a good news source. In other words, I think that social media are to be taken advantage of in that they do provide readers with information that they would not otherwise have access to. However, it should be taken into account that the information attained by using these sites is 100% unfiltered, unchecked, and biased based on the perspective of the writer. The information consumed via social media outlets should be done so responsibly and with discernment, and a shared understanding that the context is casual and opinion-based.
That being said, journalists should also participate in social media responsibly, and with the knowledge of the full weight carried by their position. It is common knowledge that journalists have access to news information first, and that they are professionally trained and highly educated. If journalists can manage to remain professional and insightful while using social media, then I think these sites can be seen as a good thing for them. However, if they cannot, then it will work to their detriment and the detriment of the readers as well. If professionalism and ethics are lost on these social media by news reporters then the news and social media will be discredited. The irony of the article about Obama's off-the-record commentary is not lost on me. There is a clear parallel between the President's inability to maintain anonymity in any situation and the journalist's inability to comment without "reporting."