Blog #2

Disney and Marvel vow boycott if Georgia enacts ‘religious freedom’ bill: http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/20419.aspx

            The Walt Disney Company recently took a preemptive measure to protect its reputation as an inclusive company. A spokesperson for the company issued a statement saying that, if the state of Georgia passed a bill that would allow discrimination against the LGBT community, Disney subsidiary Marvel would pull its movie production from the state.

The statement said: “Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law” (Winchel, 2016, para. 9). The bill, in a nutshell, would allow organizations to refuse services and employment to individuals whose religious views or life practices do not match what the organization believes or practices (Winchel, 2016, para. 4). This bill has been called discriminatory and anti-LGBT.

While the bill has not been signed into law as of March 24, 2016, Disney and other media companies have already stated that they will discontinue filming in the state if discriminatory actions are made law. This statement is a preemptive measure to show that Disney supports inclusive practices, and will not tolerate discrimination. Though Coombs (2007) states that the most important aspect of handling a crisis is stakeholder protection, another important aspect is reputational protection (p. 165). In a time of crisis, an organization needs to work to protect itself. If the aforementioned bill gets signed into law, it could cause a crisis situation within the state of Georgia. By making the statement it did, Disney removed itself from a potential crisis by stating that it will remove its filming from the state, thus cutting business ties with the state.

Coombs (2007) stated that “the words used and action taken by management affect how people perceive the organization and/or the crisis” (p. 171). Disney built up its reputational capital by positioning itself as an inclusive company that will not support discriminatory practices. In the case that Georgia does sign this discriminatory bill into law, Disney and the other brands who have stated that they will pull business from the state have protected themselves from the effects of this potential crisis.

As a global organization, Disney is often in the spotlight, so by taking this preemptive measure to distance itself from potential crisis, the company is able to build reputational capital by proving its dedication to inclusive practices, and protect itself from any reputational damage that could potentially occur from the situation.

References

Coombs, W.T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and            application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10       (3), 163-176.

Winchel, B. (2016). Disney and Marvel vow boycott if Georgia enacts ‘religious freedom’ bill.  Retrieved from http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/20419.aspx

Blog #1

http://mashable.com/2016/02/09/why-facebook-free-basics-failed-india/

http://mashable.com/2016/02/10/marc-andreessen-india-free-basics-colonialism/#4iTmo14EXiq2

http://mashable.com/2016/02/10/mark-zuckerberg-distances-facebook-from-marc-andreessen-s-comments-about-india/#D3JKjdDAlqqWv

            In the fall of 2015, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pitched an idea to connect over 600,000 villages in India via fiber optic internet. The idea was to provide free internet access to developing areas of the world. However, this pitch, an idea entitled Facebook’s Free Basics, was rejected by these very villages, resulting in India banning the idea entirely. While Zuckerburg believed that India needed more connectivity, what he did not do was research and listen to his Indian audiences about what they would want. As a result, an idea that looked good on paper did not translate well when put into practice.

            Zuckerburg himself expressed disappointment in the fact that his plan did not work. However, it was Facebook board member Marc Andreessen who truly offended the people of India. During the fallout and ban of Free Basics, Andreessen tweeted that “Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades,” sparking outrage among the people of India, as the tweets touched on a subject that is sensitive among the population of India, given the country’s history. Zuckerburg reached out and explained that Andreessen’s comments did not reflect the views of Facebook. However, the damaged reputation was only further damaged by the comments Andreessen made.

            This particular case of insensitive comments directly correlates with what we are learning in class about the importance of the “local” versus the “global” (Pal & Dutta, 2008, p. 162). While the global trend is toward connectivity and access, at a local level this does not always work. However, instead of taking the time to do audience research and listen to what the local level wanted, Zuckerburg applied a global view to the situation and made assumptions that ultimately caused his plan to fail. Andreessen’s comments also represent a globalized view instead of a localized one. He was speaking as an upper-class white male, not as someone who could or should have been a voice for the people of India.

            A public relations professional could take away a lot of valuable insight from this case. First and foremost, Facebook, under Zuckerburg’s leadership, should have done more research into whether Indian villages wanted connectivity, what exactly they wanted, and what was the best way to pitch this idea to the people who would potentially benefit from it. Pal & Dutta explain that, while a technoscape may help connect more people and increase knowledge flows, both tangible and intangible, a public relations professional has to look at the differences in connectivity among different populations (2008, p. 166). The population that Facebook was attempting to connect may not have known anything at all about the internet or why it would be beneficial, yet this was not taken into account by the company.

In looking at this situation, it is clear that Zuckerburg and Andreessen were both viewing the situation through a modernist perspective, because they were attempting to use a traditional worldview of “everyone should have internet access” to frame the situation. However, what they should have done is look at it through a postmodern view, in which there are differences among different populations. Do the villages of India need internet access? Maybe, maybe not. But with a bit more research into the differences and ideologies of that population, Zuckerburg could have figured out the best course of action to roll out his plan, according to what the people actually wanted.