Essentials for a Graduating Publicrelations Major

Understanding Ethics in PublicRelations:

Essentials for a Graduating PublicRelations Major

By Caitlyn Sincerbeaux

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Degree in Writing

PublicRelations Option

Thesis Advisor: Professor Briggs

Thesis Abstract

This thesis project is a collection of publicrelations research and materials focused on guiding recently graduated publicrelations majors through some of the ethical dilemmas of the publicrelations career.A hypothetical scenario depicting a client and publicrelations practitioner in conflict encourages the readers to place themselves in a publicrelations dilemma. Knowing what one should do does not always determine what one actually does. The thesis explores The PublicRelations Code of Ethics as it applies to agency public relation professionals. Publicrelations methods are presented to give graduates a better understanding of options in their decision-making and advising process. The advice comes from interviews with publicrelationsprofessionals and cases studies of well-known publicrelations challenges such as; Tylenol, Pepsi, Toyota, Union Carbideand BP. The case studies show the numerous options for handling a crisis.

Introduction:

When college students graduate, they take theirfirst step towards bettering their lives. Many enter into the “real world” with hesitations, anxieties and self-concerns. There has always been a right and wrong. However, differentiating between the two in actual situations can sometimes be confusing.

This thesis is designed to help guide recently graduated publicrelationsmajors through the difficult process of ethical decision-making. This thesis is to help publicrelations graduates understand what publicrelations ethics are. It is to guide them through the underlining ofthe rights and wrongs of the profession in uncertain cases.

Information and skills that are valuable to a publicrelations practitioner will be discussed, as well as helpful models, methods and theories that can help to guide publicrelations professionals throughout their careers.

The publicrelations field has evolved immensely, especially over the past twenty years. Public relations practitioners have to learn not to crumble under the pressure of keeping their jobs and to hold onto the footings oftheir personal moral foundation.

Severalpublicrelations case studies will be examined: Tylenol, Pepsi, Toyota, Union Carbide and BP crises. The decisions that were made in each of these caseswill be discussed in order to paint a clearer picture of the challenges that a publicrelations professional may face in her career.

First, let’s consider a scenario to think about while reading the information in this thesis. Later, we will come back to this hypothetical with a better understanding for the workings of the publicrelations industry.

Scenario:

Hypothetically, let’s say you become employed by a progressivepublicrelationsagency. You are placed in a group with other publicrelations professionals, all bringing different views and opinions to the table. Your group hasa new client,an up and coming children’s toy company. Your agency is now a retainer for the Toy Company, holding a contract with them for a 6-month period. They are a small company, employing just around fifty people, consisting of mainly their marketing and research departments. They have chosen to use outsourcing for both their manufacturing and public relations divisions.

The Company, PippoToys, is known but not as well known as they would like to be. In their attempt to outshine the larger well-known toy companies, your client, Pippo Toys, has recently launcheda testing distribution of their new toy. The toy, Safi, is a small, hand-held elephant made to look and feel just like a miniature real elephant. Safi is designed to make noise and even shoot water out from its trunk.

Over the course of several weeks, Pippo Toys’new toy, Safi, is now one of the most sought after items on the test market. However, during a consultation between your agency and Pippo Toys, your agency is informed by Pippo Toys that there is an issue with the manufacturing of Safi. Pippo Toys informs your team that the safety and health results on Safi have come back with failing results.

Pippo Toys discloses to your agency that they were under contact with an overseas company in efforts to try and boost both their company and the manufacturer’s profits. They admit that they did not use the best judgment when making their contact/agreement and that they are now aware that it was not the appropriate and most wise decision for their company to make.

Pippo Toys’now knows that their manufacturer made the new toys with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic. PVC is generally considered to be the most hazardous of plastics because it contains additives like phthalates; which can have serious adverse health impact on the development of young children (Washington Toxin Coalation).

Pippo Toys is now looking to your agency for assistance and guidance in the matter. You need to take into account that it is your team that now represents your agency. Your team’s goal is to find the best path for Pippo Toys before the matter turns into an irreversible crisis.

You have to ask yourself and your team, does your team advise Pippo Toys to inform the public of any hazardous materials used in the manufacturing of their products? Do you suggest that a recall of the toy be done before any further harm can be caused to the public? Does your team advise Pippo Toys to cut ties with their inexpensive manufacturer? Or, should your team suggest to Pippo Toys that it is the manufacturers’ fault, and focus on placing the blame and attention on the manufacturer?

You have to balance out your opinions with those involved in your team, coming to an agreement that all team members feel is the right decision for the agency and Pippo Toys.

Understanding the Codes of Ethics:

Since you are now part of the publicrelations industry it is important that you fully understand its ethical foundation. Publicrelations ethics focuses on the ethical implications of the strategies and tactics that are applied to solve the publicrelations and communications problems of organizations (Parsons).

The PublicRelations Society of America first introduced their Code of Ethics in December 1950. Codes of Ethics were created to provide publicrelations practitioners with guidance, guidance towards the goal of “emphasizing on serving the public interest, avoiding misrepresentation to clients, employers and others; and to the continuing development of publicrelations practitioners”(Fitzpatrick).

“We often look to professional codes of ethics to help us begin our search for answers to ethical dilemmas, recognizing that whereas we might find a direction, we do not expect to find the final answer” (Parsons). The PRSA Code of Ethics can only be enforced to a certain extent. “Without punitive measures, code enforcement falls upon the shoulders of individual practitioners who operate using ethical self-standards” (Wright).

The PublicRelationsCodes of Ethics, as set down by professional associations such as the Chartered Institute of PublicRelations, are really nothing more than conventions for behavior in applying moral standards to practical dilemmas (Parsons).These codes direct us to what the publicrelations world sees as important. “Publicrelations helps our complex, pluralistic society to reach decisions and functions more effectively by contributing to mutual understanding among groups and institutions. It serves to bring private and publicpolicies into harmony” (PRSA).

By viewing the important aspects of the field, we are able to form a connection with what we see as our own ethical responsibilities. By referring back to the PublicRelationsCode of Ethics you cancontinuously test your knowledge of it. Force the information into your head, layering information on top of information.

Different Segments of PublicRelations:

Practitioners of public relations come in four flavors;agency, corporate, solo practitioner and government. These divisionsare created to better understand the goals of each practice.

Agency Practitioner—An employee of a publicrelations organization, serving multiple corporate clients (yourpublicrelations agency representing Pippo Toys in the hypothetical scenario).

Corporate—An employee of a corporation -- serving them alone, as in the dedicated professionals in the employ of Tylenol, Pepsi, BP (British Petroleum), Union Carbide and Toyota Companies.

Solo practitioner/consultant—Considered to be a “hired gun,” serving corporate clients on demand. (these are private practitioners, small individualized consultants.)

Government/ public affairs—An employee of an institution, serving the public (practitioners working for State Representatives, University Affairs, etc.)

Examples of Public Relations Crisis History

In order to get a better understanding for public relations, let’s review some well-known public relation case studies. Keep in mind how you as a public relations practitioner would actually handle each case differently (Baker).

Remember that during the first 1 to 2 hours of a crisis, the team needs to assemble and gain an initial read of the facts, causes and possible responses (Gilman).

Dave Hogan, and APR / Abilene Biz contributor stated,“A cardinal rule in crisis management is to get out in front of the problem promptly.”

Tylenol

“Johnson and Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol poisoning in 1982 is considered the best-in-class response of modern crisis management…” (Gilman).

In 1982, the company of Johnson and Johnson was faced with an epic crisis that will forever be embedded into public relations history. The company’s widely known aspirin –Tylenol, had been tainted with cyanide, causing numerous deaths due to cyanide poisoning.

When asked his personal opinion on what is the best example of ethical public relations, Interim Associate Vice President for Institutional Advancement at Western Connecticut State University’s Paul Steinmentz said; “Tylenol, they could have said it was a madman, but they supported the victims and accepted the responsibility, saving the company.” Tylenol’s objectives were to maintain credible commitment to product quality and public safety and to minimize financial and reputational damage to Johnson & Johnson (Simpson).

Johnson & Johnson recalled and destroyed 31 million capsules at a cost of $100 million. The affable CEO, James Burke, appeared in television ads and news conferences informing consumers of the company's actions. Tamper-resistant packaging was rapidly introduced, and Tylenol sales swiftly bounced back to near pre-crisis levels(Crisis Management).

Then when another bottle of tainted Tylenol was discovered in a store, it took only a matter of minutes for the manufacturer to issue a nationwide warning that people should not use the medication in its capsule form (Crisis Management).

By Johnson and Johnson’s CEO and public relations department addressing the crisis from the start, Tylenol took the necessary steps needed to save the company’s reputation. They informed the public with all the information they had obtained, keeping the communication open and truthful at all times.

BP- British Petroleum

BP’s handling of the well explosion and subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is going to go down as a classic case of horrible corporate public relations (Simpson).

When asked what the worst example of ethical public relations was, Steinmentz said, “BP. They didn’t save any money by avoiding responsibility, they were looking for a scapegoat, and not until they were forced by the government did they take responsibility. If that was me (the CEO of BP) I would be in a shack down by the water till it (the oil) was all taken care of.”

Shortly after the incident a statement was released by BP stating, “This was a tragic accident that resulted in the loss of 11 lives and impacted the communities and the environment along the Gulf Coast region. We deeply regret this event. We have sought throughout to step up to our responsibilities. We are determined to learn the lessons for the future and we will be undertaking a broad-scale review to further improve the safety of our operations. We will invest whatever it takes to achieve that. It will be incumbent on everyone at BP to embrace and implement the changes necessary to ensure that a tragedy like this can never happen again” (BPReleases).

In this case, BP did not make the correct choice in their efforts to recover from the crisis. Their efforts of taking responsibility were not at the level that they needed to be. Rather than stepping up and admitting to the public their faults in the matter, BP’s attention was spent finding a scapegoat for the accident. Their focus was not on their public or safety, but rather on the alternative of delaying the truth behind the crisis.

BP’s outgoing chief executive Tony Hayward said: “The investigation report provides critical new information on the causes of this terrible accident. It is evident that a series of complex events, rather than a single mistake or failure, led to the tragedy. Multiple parties, including BP, Halliburton and Transocean, were involved” (BPReleases).

The cost of the response to September 17 amounts to approximately $9.5 billion, including the cost of the spill response, containment, relief well drilling, static kill and cementing, grants to the Gulf states, claims paid and federal costs. On June 16, 2010, BP announced an agreed package of measures, including the creation of a $20 billion escrow account to satisfy certain obligations arising from the oil and gas spill (BPConfirms).

Their approach was to wait and see what would occur next, which is not a course of action for a public relations practitioner to advise during a crisis of this level. Much as Exxon Mobil never completely out-ran the legacy of the Valdez oil spill, it’s likely that BP will always be stained by how it handled this accident (Simpson).

Toyota

Toyota had long been regarded as an example of quality in both manufacturing and customer service. Yet, when reports first began to emerge that there was a problem with a sticky accelerator in some models, the company basically stonewalled. After excuses, including blaming the floor mats, Toyota ultimately acknowledged a problem and launched a recall. But, in waiting so long to take dramatic action Toyota lost its gold-plated reputation as being a better kind of Car Company(Simpson).

On January 21, 2010, Toyota announced its intention to recall approximately 2.3 million select Toyota Division vehicles equipped with a specific pedal assembly and suspended sales of the eight models involved in the recall on January 26(Automotive Advertising Network).

Jim Lentz, president and Chief Operating Officer, TMS stated in a press release, “We deeply regret the concern that our recalls have caused for our customers and we are doing everything we can – as fast as we can – to make things right. Stopping production is never an easy decision, but we are 100 percent confident it was the right decision. We know what’s causing the sticking accelerator pedals, and we know what we have to do to fix it. We also know it is most important to fix this problem in the cars on the road.”

In addition, Toyota developed an effective solution for vehicles in production. Parts to reinforce the pedals were shipped for use by dealers, and dealer training was enforced.Many Toyota dealers worked extended hours to complete the recall campaign as quickly and conveniently as possible, some even stayed open 24 hours a day.The company also took the unprecedented action of stopping production of affected vehicles for the week of February 1, 2010 (Automotive Advertising Network).

“We are focused on making this recall as simple and trouble-free as possible, and will work day and night with our dealers to fix recalled vehicles quickly.We want to demonstrate that our commitment to safety is as high as ever and that our commitment to our customers is unwavering,” stated Lentz (Automotive Advertising Network).

The efforts of Toyota were there, but the timing was not as precise as it should have been. Toyota should have taken immediate action in their attempt to defend their company’s reputation. Toyota’s public relations department suggested the recall in a last attempt to save the reputation of Toyota from being completely tarnished by their hesitant actions. Since taking responsibility for their mistakes, Toyota has regained its reputation with the public.

Union Carbide

In the early hours of December 3, 1984, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal, India. According to the state government of Madhya Pradesh, approximately 3,800 people died and several thousand other individuals experienced permanent or partial disabilities (Bhopal “The Incident”).

The first report of the disaster reached Union Carbide executives in the United States more than 12 hours after the incident. By 6 a.m. in the U.S., executives were gathering with technical, legal, and communications staff at the company's Danbury, Connecticut, headquarters. Information was sparse but, as casualty estimates quickly climbed, the matter was soon recognized as a massive industrial disaster (Browning).

“The entire organization panicked and tight controls were placed over the response. It was a classic non-response in the hopes that the problem would eventually go away or media interest would subside,” stated a former worker from Union Carbide, who wished to be unidentified.