IRS Criticized for $60,000 Training Video

You would think that government agencies would learn the lesson that taxpayers don't like footing the bill for expensive training. About this time last year, the General Services Administration (GSA), which oversees purchasing and cost-cutting policies, was caught spending $822,000 at a conference in Las Vegas. Now, the IRS is being criticized for creating a $60,000 "Star Trek" parody video for leadership training.

Congressman Charles Boustany, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee's subcommittee on Oversight, echoed the criticism:

"There is nothing more infuriating to a taxpayer than to find out the government is using their hard-earned dollars in a way that is frivolous.  The IRS admitted as much when it disclosed that it no longer produces such videos."

Acting IRS commissioner Steven T. Miller responded to the criticism in a letter. He conceded that "A video of this type would not be made today" and wrote, 

"The IRS recognizes and takes seriously our obligation to be good stewards of government resources and taxpayer dollars. There is no mistaking that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources."

However, he also defended the Star Trek and other "training" videos: 

"The video series with an island theme provided filing season training for 1,900 employees in our Taxpayer Assistance Centers in 400 locations. This example of video training alone saved the IRS about $1.5 million each year compared to the costs of training the employees in person." 

 
When Miller refers to the "island theme," he means Gilligan's Island, of course.

Miller also touted a video, "When Will I Get My Refund?" which has been viewed almost a million times on YouTube.

Discussion Starters: 

• What's your view of the IRS' video series: justifiable business expense, flagrant misuse of taxpayer dollars, or something else? 
• What are alternatives for the IRS to get its points across? Could the agency use another approach for training on specific topics?

BP Skirts Wikipedia Rules to Edit Content

British Petroleum is accused of rewriting 44% of the company's Wikipedia entry, particularly about its environmental record. It's bad timing, as BP prepares for an April 5th federal hearing about potentially billions of dollars the company could owe in a class-action suit about the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Although the contributor explains his interests on his Wikipedia user page, "Arturo" has more influence than people  believe is appropriate. On his page, Arturo writes,

"I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose 'Arturo at BP' as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia. Per WP:ORGNAME, I believe that this username is appropriate, and I should point out that I will be the only person to use this account.

"Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, and in recognition of the ongoing debate regarding companies' involvement on Wikipedia, I will only be editing Talk pages and will not make any edits to encyclopedia articles. My primary goal in being active on Wikipedia through this account is to improve the overall quality of BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines."

True, Arturo does not directly edit Wikipedia pages about BP, but he does contribute content via his "Talk" page on Wikipedia. Apparently, this content is approved by BP executives. One logical concern is why Wikipedia editors are simply copying and pasting Arturo's entries.

On an editorial Wikipedia page, comments are flying about whether BP's actions are appropriate:

"A paid editor from BP is writing up material for the BP article and for the BP environmental section in particular.

"He does pay attention to the letter of the rules, but I don't think it is anywhere near the spirit, e.g. he checks with his higher-ups before responding to any questions."

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of BP's contributions: fair play, crossing a line, or something else?
• How, if at all, does this news affect your image of Wikipedia as a reliable source?

Hyundai Apologies for Ad Capitalizing on Murdered Baby

Hyundai Motor Company has apologized for a social media post linking car safety to a murdered two-month-old baby. The baby was abducted from an SUV and then strangled and buried in the snow. Of course, people were horrified by the event and took to Weibo, China's microblogging site for consolation and updates.

A post on Hyundai's Weibo account referenced the new Santa Fe SUV's safety features. The company says it was posted by a non-employee and has since deleted the post:

"A few thoughts following the Changchun stolen car and child incident: When buying a car it's completely okay to choose brands with better technology. Tianhe Buicks carry the OnStar GPS system, which can track down the location of a stolen vehicle at any time and automatically report it to the police. Feel at ease, have peace of mind, if you're going to buy a car, why not choose a completely safe Buick!!!. Sales Hotline: 024-86547880 86547881 QQ:521279389 2523275273 www.inthbuick.com"

 In an email to Bloomberg, Hyundai apologized:

"We pledge to be more vigilant in managing our social networking service accounts, while we send our deepest condolences to the victim's family. Hyundai Motor is a responsible corporate citizen that is not in the practice of taking advantage of tragic incidents."

According to Bloomberg, GM has been more reluctant to comment: 

"Dayna Hart, a Shanghai-based spokeswoman for GM, which owns the Buick brand, said the U.S. automaker is monitoring the situation and isn't ready yet to comment."

Aside from the egregious overuse of exclamation marks, the post does what other brands have regretted: "newsjack"-take advantage of news for the purpose of sales. Some strategies work well, such as Oreo's tweet during the Super Bowl. But many others have failed because of poor taste and inevitable backlash.

Discussion Starters: 

• What other companies have tried newsjacking and failed? 
• If you were consulting for a company, what criteria would you identify to help the management team decide whether to hook into something trending on Twitter or Weibo? 

Applebee's Receipt Goes Public

Unhappy with not receiving a tip, an Applebee's server posted the signed check online-and got fired. The customer, Pastor Alois Bell, crossed out the 18% tip automatically added for large parties and wrote "0%" with the note, "I give God 10% why do you get 18?" The server, Chelsea, posted the receipt to the Atheism forum on Reddit.

Bell apparently left a $6 cash tip, but the server, Chelsea, was still offended by the note. When Bell learned that the receipt was posted online, she returned to Applebee's and demanded that everyone be fired. Later, she regreted her actions, calling them a lapse in judgement: "I've brought embarrassment to my church and ministry."

As expected, social media reactions are mixed, with many comments criticizing Applebee's decision to fire Chelsea. The company posted this response to its Facebook page: 

"We wish this situation hadn't happened. Our Guests' personal information-including their meal check-is private, and neither Applebee's nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests' trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest's right to privacy."

In addition, the CEO posted a statement on Applebee's website, including the excerpt from the policy:

"Employees must honor the privacy rights of APPLEBEE's and its employees by seeking permission before writing about or displaying internal APPLEBEE'S happenings that might be considered to be a breach of privacy and confidentiality. This shall include, but not be limited to, posting of photographs, video, or audio of APPLEBEE'S employees or its customers, suppliers, agents or competitors, without first obtaining written approval from the Vice President of Operations. . . . Employees who violate this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment."

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your reaction to Chelsea's posting the receipt online? Was it her right, or did she misstep?
• Did Applebee's do the right thing by firing Chelsea? Why or why not? How do you assess the company's rationale-that posting the receipt was a violation of the guest's privacy?
• Read the CEO's statement. What do you consider his strongest and weakest arguments for terminating Chelsea?

Teacher May Be Fired for Posting Pics of Students

A teacher is under pressure for posting pictures of her students with duct tape across their mouths. What was intended as a funny moment within a class has become an issue for an Ohio school board.

When a middle-school student had trouble with her binder, 33-year-old teacher Melissa Cairns gave her some duct tape to hold it together. Instead, the student put the tape across her mouth. Getting a laugh from students encouraged others to do the same.

According to Cairns, the students asked her to talk a picture. She did. And posted it to Facebook with the caption, "Finally found a way to get them to be quiet!!!"

Another school employee reported her. Cairns removed the picture, as requested, but she is now suspended on unpaid leave, awaiting the school's decision. 

Discussion Starters:

• What about the teacher's perspective (in her video interview) makes sense to you? What doesn't?
• If you were the school principal, how would you handle the situation? 
• Imagine that you're a parent of one of the children whose picture was posted. What do you suppose your reaction might be?
• The CNET article refers to Cairns' "private" Facebook page. Is Facebook private?
• What could a school do to prevent this type of situation in the future?

Lance Armstrong's Doping Confession

After years of denying using performance-enhancing drugs, Lance Armstrong has finally admitted to doping. Although already under a lifetime ban of participating in Tour de France events and stripped of seven of his Tour de France titles and lucrative endorsements, the cyclist had held fast to his message: "I have never doped." He even sued some of his accusers.

But during an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Armstrong has finally come clean. The interview will air later this week with more details of the confession.

Things may get even worse for Armstrong. The federal government may join a whistleblower lawsuit to recoup money paid to Armstrong by the U.S. Postal Service to sponsor his cycling team. And if he officially admits drug use to the  World Anti-Doping Agency, he may face more lawsuits and fines.

Questions remain, for example, whether Armstrong will implicate others and what they may face.

Discussion Starters:

• Why did Armstrong choose to confess now? Why did he choose an interview with Oprah Winfrey to tell us the news?
• When the interview is aired, pay attention to Armstrong's word choices and language. Analyze his approach and delivery. What makes him credible now-or not?

Victims' Families Don't Appreciate Theater Invitation

The Century Aurora theater in Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58 injured, reopened a few months after the horrific shooting incident. To encourage people to return, the theater sent invitations to the victims' families for a "special evening of remembrance," with a movie showing.

The families didn't appreciate the gesture. In a letter to the theater company, they called the invitation "disgusting" and "wholly offensive to the memory of our loved ones." Coming just two days after Christmas, the invitation stung even worse for some families.

To the Management of Cinemark USA, Inc.:

During the holiday we didn't think anyone or anything could make our grief worse but you, Cinemark, have managed to do just that by sending us an invitation two days after Christmas inviting us to attend the re-opening of your theater in Aurora where our loved ones were massacred.Thanks for making what is a very difficult holiday season that much more difficult. Timing is everything and yours is awful.

You (Cinemark) has shown, and continues to show, ZERO compassion to the families of the victims whose loved ones were killed in their theater. You, Cinemark, have never once reached out to the families to offer condolences.

This disgusting offer that you'd "like to invite you and a guest to a special evening of remembrance on Thursday, January 17 at 5 PM" followed by the showing of a movie and then telling us to be sure "to reserve our tickets" is wholly offensive to the memory of our loved ones.

Our family members will never be on this earth with us again and a movie ticket and some token words from people who didn't care enough to reach out to us, nor respond when we reached out to them to talk, is appalling.

You (Cinemark) refused our repeated invitations to speak parent to parent with no lawyers involved. Instead, we get invited to attend a "special evening of remembrance" at the very theater where our loved ones lay dead on the floor for over 15 hours. We would give anything to wipe the carnage of that night out of our minds' eye. Thank you for reminding us how your quest for profits has blinded your leadership and made you so callous as to be oblivious to our mental anguish.

We, the families, recognize your thinly veiled publicity ploy for what it is: A great opportunity for you to distance yourselves and divert public scrutiny from your culpability in this massacre.

After reading our response to your ridiculously offensive invitation, you now know why we will not be attending your re-opening celebration and will be using every social media tool at our disposal to ask the other victims to ask their friends and family to honor us by boycotting the killing field of our children.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of the theater's invitation: a nice gesture, an insensitive ploy to recoup revenue, or something else?
• What could have been a better approach for the theater?
• How well does the families' letter express their perspective? What suggestions, if any, do you have for a revision?
• In the families' letter, they say that the theater has refused to meet with them. How, if at all, does this influence your perspective of the invitation?

Dr. Oz's Advice "Borders on Quackery"

Dr. Mehmet Oz was propelled into stardom by his popular appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Now, he has his own television show, which seems to be an avenue for promoting strange products.

For business communication students, the example reminds us how important it is to check facts. Does the board-certified cardiothoracic surgeon not review research of the products he promotes?

Slate describes Dr. Oz's enthusiasm for garcinia extract, which he says will finally help people "burn fat without spending every waking moment exercising and dieting":

"He then told his audience about a 'breakthrough,' 'magic,' 'holy grail,' even 'revolutionary' new fat buster. 'I want you to write it down,' America's doctor urged his audience with a serious and trustworthy stare. After carefully wrapping his lips around the exotic words 'Garcinia cambogia,' he added, sternly: 'It may be the simple solution you've been looking for to bust your body fat for good.'"

But garcinia cambogia has been studied for more than 15 years, and a JAMA article calls its anti-obesity results no better than a placebo. One of the study's authors, Edzard Ernst, said the product could have negative gastrointestinal effects and told Slate, "Dr. Oz's promotion of this and other unproven or disproven alternative treatments is irresponsible and borders on quackery."

Educated at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Oz presents himself as a credible source, but research does not support what he promotes. Slate compares more of Dr. Oz's recommendations to the "best available research." In most cases, his advice (e.g., to take zinc, Vitamin D, and DHA) doesn't match up. The so-called "Oz Effect"-people spending lots of money on products presented on his show-can be dangerous. As Ernst says, "Using bogus treatments for serious conditions may cost lives."

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• Watch some of Dr. Oz's show. In addition to his status as a doctor, how else does he present himself as a credible promoter of these products. Pay attention to his language, dress, mannerisms, etc.
• Why do people so easily believe Dr. Oz? What is the audience's responsibility in the "Oz Effect"?

"Gangnam Style" Rapper Psy Apologizes for Anti-American Song

Psy, the popular "Gangnam Style" rapper, has apologized for anti-American lyrics in a 2004 song.

At a charity event, Psy met with President Obama and addressed the recent reports of his earlier protest song, "Dear American." The inflammatory words included, "Kill those f---ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives/Kill those f---ing Yankees who ordered them to torture/Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers/Kill them all slowly and painfully." In a 2002 concert, Psy smashed an American tank. 

Although an online petition called for Psy to be removed from the "Christmas in Washington" event at the White House, the show went on as planned. 

Through MTV, Psy issued this apology:

"As a proud South Korean who was educated in the United States and lived there for a very significant part of my life, I understand the sacrifices American servicemen and women have made to protect freedom and democracy in my country and around the world. The song I was featured in -- from eight years ago -- was part of a deeply emotional reaction to the war in Iraq and the killing of two innocent Korean civilians that was part of the overall antiwar sentiment shared by others around the world at that time," the statement read. "While I'm grateful for the freedom to express one's self I've learned there are limits to what language is appropriate and I'm deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted. I will forever be sorry for any pain I have caused anyone by those words.

"I have been honored to perform in front of American soldiers in recent months - including an appearance on the Jay Leno show specifically for them - and I hope they and all Americans can accept my apology," the statement concluded. "While it's important we express our opinions, I deeply regret the inflammatory and inappropriate language I used to do so. In my music I try to give people a release, a reason to smile. I have learned that though music, our universal language we can all come together as a culture of humanity and I hope that you will accept my apology."

Discussion Starters:

• Was allowing Psy to perform at the charity event the right decision? Why or why not?
• What's your reaction to Psy's apology? What communication strategies does he use successfully-or not?

Tobacco Companies Have to Admit Deception

For at least the next two years, tobacco companies will place ads that admit they have been lying. A federal judge has ruled that companies such as Reynolds, Philip Morris (a division of Altria), and Lorilland will start spending some of their advertising dollars to compensate for "past deception."

The judge ordered "corrective statements" to appear on cigarette packaging, as commercials on major TV stations, as full-page newpaper ads, and on corporate websites:

• Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day.
• A federal court has ruled that the defendant tobacco companies deliberately deceived the American public by falsely selling and advertising low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes.
• Cigarette companies intentionally designed cigarettes with enough nicotine to create and sustain addiction.
• When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain-that's why quitting is so hard.

Curiously, the media outlets don't seem to include social media.

The tobacco companies tried to omit words such as "deceived" in these ads, but the judge's order stands. Still, companies may try to appeal the decision.

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of the judge's decision: is it fair, or does it violate the companies' rights (as they claim)?
• What impact, if any, do you think the advertisements will have on smokers or people thinking of taking up smoking? Could the advertisements influence some groups more than others? Which and why?
• Why didn't the judge include social media outlets for these ads? What, if any, difference would this make?

Strategy to Hide Emails During Affair Didn't Work

General Petraeus and Paula Broadwell saved messages as "draft" in a shared email account to avoid sending them, thinking they would be less traceable. A technique used by Al Qaeda terrorists (and teenagers), not sending emails prevents them from being tracked to IP addresses that are linked to specific computers and their users.

Another possible strategy to hide one's identity through email is to use public computers that don't keep permanent records. It's unclear which strategies were used-and failed-between the other players in this unraveling story: General John Allen and Jill Kelley. General Allen succeeded General Patraeus as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and Kelley is described as a "Tampa socialite." More than 20,000 pages (or hundreds) of "flirtatious" emails between the two are also under investigation.

Image source.

Related: "Trying to Keep Your E-Mails Secret When the C.I.A. Chief Couldn't" 

Discussion Starters: 

• What are the many ways in which draft emails can be made public?
• Critics question how well General Allen is managing the situation in Afghanistan as he sends so many pages of correspondece with Kelley. What's your view?

The Week of Sex Scandals

'Tis the season of sex scandals, apparently. Four stories in the past two days perhaps show the prevalence of sexual harassment and other improprieties at work-and the danger of false claims:

1) CIA Director David Petraeus resigned, admitting to having an extramarital affair with his biographer, a reserve Army officer. The affair was discovered, predictably, as the FBI was monitoring General Petraeus's email. In a resignation letter to CIA employees, Petraeus wrote, "After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."

2) Lockheed Martin's new CEO was asked to resign before he officially took office. Christopher Kubasik's "lengthy, close personal relationship" with an employee at a defense contractor was revealed by an "internal whistleblower." In a statement, Kubasik said, "I regret that my conduct in this matter did not meet the standards to which I have always held myself."

3) Waffle House CEO Joseph Rogers Jr. is mired in accusations of impropriety from his former personal assisant.  The woman claims that he sexually harassed her and tried to force himself on her throughout the nine years of her employment.

4) The BBC has issued an apology for broadcasting false claims of sex abuse by a senior political figure in the 1980s. In an on-air statement, the network admitted, "We broadcast Mr. Messham's claim but did not identify the individual concerned. Mr. Messham has tonight made a statement that makes clear he wrongly identified his abuser and has apologised. We also apologise unreservedly for having broadcast this report."

Did Trump Go Too Far on Twitter?

Apparently, Donald Trump was quite angry last night as he watched the presidential election results. He tweeted a series of comments criticizing the president and the electoral process.

A look at Trump's current Twitter feed shows that he deleted a few tweets, particularly those calling for a revolution. But others, such as calling the election a "travesty" and "disgusting injustice," remain.

In addition to these comments, Trump got into what seems like a one-sided debate with Brian Williams, NBC News Anchor. BloombergBusinessweek highlighted a few of his "taunting comments": 

There's this: "Brian, if I'm ‘well past the last exit to relevance' how come you spent so much time reading my tweets last night?" And this: "Brian-Thanks dummy-I picked up 70,000 twitter followers yesterday alone. Cable News just passed you in the ratings." And this: "Wouldn't you love to have my ratings?" An NBC spokeswoman had no immediate comment on Trump's tweets.

More than 1,800 people have signed a petition encouraging Macy's to drop Trump products from its stores.

In response to criticism, Trump said, "The fact is that there's a large group of people who like Donald Trump and what Donald Trump says. I have no regrets."

Discussion Starters:

• What's your reaction to Trump's tweets?
• Why do you think he choose to delete some tweets but not others?
• Also in response to the criticism, Trump cited his number of followers: almost 2 million. What does it mean to have followers on Twitter? Do you consider this to be a strong defense?

Criminal Charges for False Rumors About Hurricane

@ComfortablySmug may not be laughing since New York City Councilman Peter Vallone is pushing for criminal charges for spreading false information about Hurricane Sandy. Shashank Tripathi, who owns the Twitter handle, has since resigned as campaign manager for a congressional candidate. Tripathi also was a former assistant district attorney in Astoria, Queens.

Tripathi's tweets included false and accurate information, a mix that Vallone says is dangerous because it gives more legitimacy to the falsehoods.

Although Vallone admits this is a difficult case to prove, he's hoping it will deter similar behavior in the future. At a minimum, the criticism inspired Tripathi to issue this apology:

Tweets image source.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of Tripathi's tweets: harmless fun, potentially dangerous, or something else?
• Is the councilman taking the right approach in trying to press charges? What, if any, other consequences should Tripathi face?

Car Wash Company Tries to Balance Aid with Promotion

After American Apparel's failed attempt to capitalize on Hurricane Sandy, other companies are trying to do a better job. Splash Car Wash's email at least offers a service to people affected by the storm.

The subject line, however, sounds like an overstatement: "Public Service Announcement From Splash Car Wash." Is the company offering financial assistance? And, is a car wash necessary following a major hurricane? I would think that people affected are seeking shelter if they're displaced and food if they're hungry.

On the other hand, Business Insider describes streams of people wanting cellphone power and Wi-Fi access. Located in Stamford, CT, Splash could attract the 39% of Connecticut Light & Power customers without power in Connecticut.

Discussion Starters:

• What's our view of Splash Car Wash's email? Is this a successful advertisement for the company?
• What improvements could you make to the email? Consider the text and graphics.
• What emails have you received from companies about Hurricane Sandy? Which have been successful and why?

American Apparel Capitalizes on Hurricane Sandy

American Apparel has learned a hard lesson after using Hurricane Sandy to promote a sale. With this graphical subject line, the company sent an email to customers:

☁ ☂ ϟ Hurricane Sandy Sale! ϟ ☂ ☁ 20% Off Everything!

The email encourages customers to take advantage of the sale if they are "bored during the storm."

 

Backlash on Twitter was fast and fierce, with tweets promising to boycott the stores, telling the brand to "shut up about your #Sandy sale," and speculating that the company "will soon be hiring a new marketing director."

As of this writing, American Apparel has not responded to the complaints.

Gap made a similar but less serious faux pas. The company did respond to critics-sort-of:

UPDATE: In an interview with BloombergBusinessweek, American Apparel CEO defends the ad.

Discussion Starters:

• What's your view of American Apparel's ad campaign: a clever marketing approach, insensitive, or something else?
• Should American Apparel respond to the criticism, and if so, how?
• How effective is the Gap's second tweet in explaining the first?

Apple's Ad Sounds More Like an Attack

Apple followed the court order to post the Samsung lawsuit ruling, but the company followed only the letter of the law. Information Week and other sources call the notification on Apple's website a mockery.

Apple sued Samsung for copying its iPad design too closely when creating its tablet, the Galaxy. But the company lost the patent infringement lawsuit and, as a result, was required to communicate the decision, according to  Information Week:

"The court gave Apple seven days to post notification of the ruling in a font of no less than 11 pixels, with a link to the ruling, that must remain on Apple's U.K website for six months or until the court orders otherwise. It also required Apple to publish the same notification in the first five pages of the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine, and T3 magazine, in a font of no less than 14 pixels."

In the notification, however, Apple takes several stabs at Samsung. Apple quotes the judge's ruling about the Apple design:

"It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

Apple posts a link to the ruling, as required, but then ends with another blow to its competitor:

"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

Image source.

UPDATE: After being reprimanded by the UK court, Apple has replaced its notice with a revision.

Discussion Starters:

• Did Apple take the right approach for the company? Did the company do the right thing? What are the arguments for and against this approach?
  
• Should the judge have been even more specific in instructing Apple how to post the decision? Why or why not?

Wyclef Jean's Failed Haitian Charity

Haitian-American rapper Wyclef Jean's charity is now defunct, with questions of impropriety in its wake. A New York Times article, "In Haiti, Little Can Be Found of a Hip-Hop Artist's Charity," cites angry creditors wondering what happened to $16 million in donations and "trail of debts, unfinished projects, and broken promises."

According to the New York Times article, Jean was using funds for his personal benefit: 

"The forensic audit examined $3 million of the charity's 2005 to 2009 expenses and found $256,580 in illegitimate benefits to Mr. Jean and other Yéle board and staff members as well as improper or potentially improper transactions. These included $24,000 for Mr. Jean's chauffeur services and $30,763 for a private jet that transported Lindsay Lohan from New Jersey to a benefit in Chicago that raised only $66,000."

When accused of misdirecting funds, Jean said that he didn't need the money, offering as evidence, "I have a watch collection worth $500,000." This didn't quite endear people to his cause.

In his new book, "Purpose: An Immigrant's Story," Jean denies wrongdoing. Rather, he claims that he is the victim of "crucifixion."

A CEO letter that was posted on the charity's now-defunct website refers to "better accountability, more impact and greater financial transparency" and "a more disciplined Yéle Haiti." It's too late for that now. 

Image source.

Discussion Starters:

•  Read the CEO letter. Which parts are the most and least convincing?
•  Read the New York Times article. Which side of the story do you believe? 

Chase Misses on Philanthropy Program

AdAge ran an article lambasting the Chase Community Giving Program, a Facebook-based, philanthropic campaign.

The program certainly has had some success. If one measure of engagement is the number of Facebook "likes," then the page is a sure winner, with 3.8 million. Also, in 2012 alone (the program has run since 2009), 196 charities received $5 million in prizes, based on online votes.

But the article criticizes Chase's voting process:

"The same charges of voting fraud that have plagued the contest since it started also resurfaced this year, and Chase has been accused of conducting a secret vote count that allows it to block winners whose mission is not consistent with the bank's public image.   Even some of the winners were disgruntled, wondering whether the effort they had to make with their limited resources had actually left them worse off in the end."

Also, apparently a clerical error promised $10,000 in prizes to 15 charities that didn't win enough votes. Chase made good on the commitment but soured the program's credibility.

Chase's apology, shown here, received more than 6,500 "likes," but it may not be enough to offset comments such as this from a representative of a pet sanctuary:

"This mistake of theirs caused damage to each organization's ability to raise funds, since our supporters think we won 10K, and it damages the integrity of the organizations as well; people will think we did something wrong to cause us to lose the $10K."

B.L. Ochman, the author of the AdAge article offers this advice for companies running online contests: 

• [Understand that] Facebook is not a secure site for nominations or voting. 
• Acknowledge screw-ups openly.  ions stand to gain from engaging in productive conversations with both positive and negative responders.
• Don't be in such a hurry to announce winners. 
• Show us where the money goes. 
• Take viable steps to prevent cheating next year.

Discussion Starters:

• What else could Chase do now to redeem the program's credibility?
• Looking at the Facebook page, what suggestions do you have for Chase to improve its communications with online voters?

#FirstWorldProblems Become a Clean Water PSA

The Haitian charity "Water Is Life" has co-opted ironic #FirstWorldProblems tweets into a public service announcement for clean water. In the video, Haitians read the tweets, which are shown as captions. On the charity's website, Water Is Life, one of the photo captions reads, "Donate to help solve real problems."

The campaign is the work of ad agency DDB New York, which has been both applauded and criticized for the messaging. Business Insider posted an article, "Poor Haitians Reading #FirstWorldProblems Tweets Might Be The Best Ad Of The Year," calling the effect "both funny and moving."

Critics of the campaign accused DDB of misunderstanding the irony of the tweets: #FirstWorldProblems aren't problems at all-that's the point. But Matt Eastwood, who led the campaign, told Business Insider, "We totally understand the irony of it. People are doing it as a joke. It leads to a desensitization around the issue." He also said, "We knew we were going to upset a few people. People in Haiti don't have the luxuries these guys do."

In a press release, the agency described its mission:

 "DDB New York announced today that it is attempting to eliminate the #FirstWorldProblems hashtag on Twitter – the first mission to wipe out, instead of promote, a trending hashtag. #FirstWorldProblems showcases concerns that seem important to those living in wealthy, industrialized countries, yet are, in fact, trivial compared to the issues faced by those struggling to survive in many parts of the world. Though meant in jest, these tweets about "problems"-such as having to get up to change the TV channel or a phone charger that won't reach the bed - also reveal a lack of sensitivity or awareness about serious social and health concerns and the ways that social media users can help alleviate real problems."

AdWeek sums up the issue well: "Harnessing a spoof hashtag in PSAs to drum up press coverage, popular support, and donations-how first world can you get?"

  

Discussion Starters:

• What's your opinion of the video: funny, moving, insensitive, or something else?
• Do you think the ad will be effective is encouraging people to donate to Water Is Life?