Managing Crisis Usisng Pr Simulation SummaryEssay Preview: Managing Crisis Usisng Pr Simulation SummaryReport this essayEffective Communication Case Study AnalysisTo have effectiveness between an organization and its publics it is important to plan a system that checks for any message before it is released from your office. New releases
and other publicity material is designed to create a positive perception of your organization or client in the minds of target publics.Identify the different publics involved in the case studyThe different publics involved in this story “Theres a Syringe in My Pepsi Can”are the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), which is an intervening public, the media that reported on the first claims and gave Pepsi stance credibility. It also offers a method for communicating with large and dispersed stakeholders while the specialized press and online newsrooms are more useful in reaching more narrowly defined audience segments and stakeholders, including customers who purchased the products, consumers, investors, employees and the business press.
Differentiate between the internal and external publics involvedWhen I differentiate between the internal and external publics involved, the difference with the internal publics and external publics are the opinions and judgments of the internal publics interact with those of the external public, and the combination of the two identifies the frame of the enterprises communication. The Internal Analysis of strengths and weaknesses focuses on internal factors that give an organization certain advantages and disadvantages in meeting the needs of its target market. The internal publics also involve the employees, the FDA and the investors. The external publics involve the public and the External Analysis examines opportunities and threats that exist. The quality of the internal relations directly influences all external relations in terms of effectiveness of the relationship itself.
What impact did the communication have on the intended public?Todays consumers are exposed to a vast amount of information on a daily basis-everything from news reports on television, radio and in the press. Recent years have
seen an explosion in all forms of media. There are newspapers, national and regional, all which have become walking news from the brand of clothing we wear to the foods we eat. It is clear that the attitudes people hold definitely will impact the decisions on products and services they want. Therefore, if a report comes out about a Syringe being in a Pepsi Can that would have a negative impact on the company from the consumers, we would probably buy another brand of soda and the sales will go down. The confidence in Pepsi-Cola will then need to be rebuilt. They would also loose a tremendous amount of money in the interim.
Could the message have been communicated more effectively? How?The message could have been communicated more effectively when it was first reported on one local television station in Tacoma, Washington in 1993.At that point Pepsi could have recalled all the products. It could have ended there but with so many copy- cat people, once they hear the news it will spread to others and of course someone else will say the same thing happened to them. Within a week over 50 incidents of foreign objects, including sewing needles, screws, and a bullet, were found in Diet Pepsi cans. This phenomenon was reported in 24 states nationwide. The issue was now on a national level, and news media all over the country were reporting on the widespread claims. (Mansky, Amy)
Identify the different PR communication tools and techniques that were used to inform, influence, and motivate the public(s) in the case.The different PR communications tools were the media, television and newspapers. Pepsi could not see any rational reason for the reported incidents and decided against recalling the product. By insisting that its high-tech production lines produce cans of soda too fast to allow for entrance of a foreign object, the objects being described were not those commonly found in a factory, and that canning factories of the reported damaged cans were not the same. Pepsi was able to defend its position and activated a crisis communication plan that upheld its reputation and even won an award. In using the television and media when Pepsi was the target of a widely-publicized hoax claiming hypodermic syringes were found in cans
A new study finds that this strategy has created a significant problem. The high-tech production of soda in the UK and Europe are still unregulated. The technology used in Britain and Ireland to get drinks on the market cannot be used or expected to have successfully worked in this country. The new research, published in the Journal of the Food Labeling Society, suggests that by increasing the production of soda by about 300,000 litres a month by new and established products like cans, there are real problems in the process.There have been a number of attempts to introduce a similar high-tech production line from companies like Microsoft, Coca Cola, and Starbucks, but there is still no such line to be developed. In fact, a small group of the leading companies in the field are trying to develop similar products that can be safely sold to consumers in a less regulated area. One company, Encore, has already published some of the high-tech marketing plans being used by its European and US customers.The problem that the report illustrates is that it is completely different from the “public relations” claims in the previous two publications which, if done correctly, would make their point completely clear. The current system of promoting and promoting high-tech products was so poorly enforced that a large number of potential claimants, and the media which covers them, had little idea about it. This was especially true when the alleged problems in these high-tech producing and marketing processes began to come up too. It seems like every company from Coca Cola and Microsoft to Pepsi, Nike and Apple has tried similar projects at an increased degree of efficiency and transparency.