# data[].attributes.body
- Be sure you are logged in to Padlet so your post won't be anonymous.
- Click on the + sign in your Case's column.
- Put your Name where it says "Title"
- Click the upload arrow on the left to post the pdf of your visual aid.
Where it says "Write something..."
Copy and paste:
- your 3 discussion questions
- the link to your Panopto video in the Chapter [assignments] folder

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=14ab877f-bb15-450c-8ce4-acf9013cdf6d
1.Although BP’s timing was good, the message of shifting the blame was not. Do you think it would have been better just to make the apology video on June 2nd their first response?

2.Do you think it is fair that CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign?

3.Do you think the live feed video of the oil spill was necessary and a good communication tactic?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes, I personally believe BP should have been transparent and honest from the start, instead of placing blame and waiting to take responsibility for their faults. By shifting the blame, BP exposed themselves as a dishonest company, which immediately damaged relationships with their key publics. If BP made their apology video their first response, they would have had a better chance at keeping and restoring the relationships with key publics.

2. Yes, I think it is fair that CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign because he enacted dishonest (blame) communication from the company.

3. Yes, I think the live feed video of the oil spill was necessary in order for the organization to showcase its honesty and transparency with wanting to change and promote safer conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=e76735f7-7fd7-47cd-a485-acfa002cbb2d
1.Abortion is a hot topic in politics right now and is often directly connected to Planned Parenthood. Do you think the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have inevitably cause division?
2. Do you think the 24 hours of silence was effective? Do you think it was intended to minimize backlash or the time was used to make a  strategic plan to address the crisis?
3. I myself have recognized Komen's diminishing presence as an organization. Do you think "pink washing" is still an issue, or do you think partisanship was the rooted issue that led to their loss in media coverage?

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Victoria,

Great job on your presentation! Here are some of my thoughts regarding your questions:

1. I think any partnership with Planned Parenthood will cause division and discourse in the public and key audiences. Many people have very strong feelings towards Planned Parenthood, and it effects their decision on whether to support an organization if they have do have a working partnership with Planned Parenthood. That being said, in this case specifically, the partnership had already been in place, but the CEO’s decision called light to it and brought a lot of attention to it, which caused a division. I don’t think, in this case, that it was inevitable.

2. I think that in some cases a short period of silence can be effective and used to prepare a plan to deal with a crisis. In this case, I don’t think that the silence was an effective tool in dealing with the crisis and communicating with public, but at the same time, I don’t know that had Komen responded any earlier the outcome would have been much different.

3. I can definitely recognize the diminishing presence of Komen as well, and I think that it is in part due to “pink washing,” but I don’t think it is the only cause attributing to Komen’s declining presence. I think that it can in part be attributed to the sheer number of organizations that now exist with missions to fight similar causes and issues and the public now has so many more choices for where to donate.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily,

I really enjoyed your presentation! In regard to your questions, here are some of my thoughts:

1. I believe that BP did more damage to their reputation and public trust by trying to shift blame rather than take accountability. I agree that it would have been better for the organization to use their June 2nd apology video as their first response/communication to the public, as it would have shown the public that they were accepting of their mistakes and trying to move forward and do better. However, the apology video came much later after the actual spill, so I believe that the video should have been the first communication and should have occurred right after the spill occurred.

2. I think it makes sense that Hayward had to resign after this incident. While he is certainly not the only person to blame for the incident, he was also the face of the communication to the public in the months after the incident. It can be assumed that as CEO he had direct say in the communication, or lack of communication, that reached the public and with a lot of the communication containing incorrect information or trying to shift blame, I think it is fair that Hayward resigned.

3. I think that it was necessary because they public wanted it and asked for it, as you mentioned. The video would have been a good way to showcase clean-up efforts or help bring some transparency from BP to the public and was a necessary communication tactic.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought you had an awesome presentation!

1. The partnership with Planned Parenthood would have definitely caused a division given how hot and sensitive the topic is right now.  “Inevitable” is a very strong word to use in this case.  I slightly agree with the word choice given how sensitive the topic was.  A lot of people have varied opinions on this topic, so once the partnership was announced, there were bound to be some people who would be against this partnership, which could have led to split with all the negativity.

2. Silence in the public relations world is not very effective most of the time.  It did not seem to be very effective in this case either.  It appeared Komen wasn’t prepared to deal with a situation like this, so they needed to stay silent to figure it out.  While they waited to release a statement to make sure they said all the right things, it actually made the backlash even worse and led to more negativity towards the organization.

3. Breast Cancer Awareness demonstrated by Komen was very popular while I was younger.  I remember receiving many pink ribbons and wristbands as well as hearing about marches and 5Ks sponsored by them or created for donations for them.  This is honestly the first time I’ve heard about them since I was younger, and now it all makes sense.  Pink washing may not be as prominent an issue as it was back then, but it was still very effective, as we do not see Komen in the media as much anymore.  It could also be due to the amount of organizations that support the same cause in the present day.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!

1. Having an apology video as their first response would have been much better.  Not taking responsibility for what happened was much worse and created more backlash and negativity for BP.  Denying that it was their fault when they were clearly involved made matters much worse and it absolutely destroyed their reputation.  Apologizing right away would have saved their reputation a little bit, but instead they added fuel to the fire.

2. While he wasn’t the only one involved, I do believe it was fair that the CEO had to resign.  His organization had a terrible response to the incident.  There was a clear lack of communication and their initial response to the incident made everything a lot worse.  Having the CEO resign was the first step in a long process of rectifying behavior for the organization.

3.  I wouldn’t call the live feed video of the oil spill necessary, but I believe it was a good tactic to show everyone how BP was handling the oil spill and what it actually looked like.  Being transparent after the initial reactions and lack of communication was another great step the organization took.  It allowed everyone to see the situation and develop their own opinions.  It also showed BP did not want to hide what happened.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria, great job at breaking down the case!

1. I think that the Susan G. Komen Organization partnership would have inevitably caused division because as the book says, “Planned Parenthood inevitably drew lots of unwanted attention to any organization that did business with it...And that’s exactly what happened when anti-abortion groups eventually dissolved the link between Komen and Planned Parenthood.” Money generated by other supporters of the foundation, like Life Decisions International, was ending up in Planned Parenthood’s budget, and this causes division because there is a controversy that comes with Planned Parenthood as an organization. The argument of pro-life and pro-choice is a huge political and ethical argument and this foundation did not support its donations going towards Planned Parenthood, therefore using this company’s founding to support a cause they don’t stand for will cause backlash.

2. I think that waiting 24 hours backfired because they did not take a pre-emptive approach to rectify their actions. These were fraudulent activities being conducted on the behalf of the Susan B. Komen organization, by not safeguarding donor dollars. Even if these actions were taken to minimize the backlash, and utilize the time to devise a strategic plan addressing the crisis, they still could have released an initial statement explaining how they are working to fix their mistakes and what they plan to do to rectify their actions. Due to their dishonesty, they “saw steep decline and donations” in the annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure. The President, Liz Thompson also resigned and Nancy Brinker had to step down as CEO. Their actions weren’t justified in any way in my opinion, and they were quite manipulative. “Making mistakes” and taking “full accountability” came too late, and they only did it when their actions were brought to the public, which shows more care towards their reputation.

3. I think that it is a mixture of both. Many people feel that “pinkwashing” is a way for large brands and companies that support the Komen organization to simply profit off of survivors' suffering. Even though these brands are labeled as breast cancer awareness products, as you talked about in your beginning statement with the KFC chicken buckets, the brands supporting them could be leading to the detrimental effects of breast cancer. Choosing the right brands to sponsor them is a mistake they have constantly made, because they are relying on the number of supporters, instead of searching for the right matches to support the cause. I also think that partisanship played a role in diminishing the Komen organization’s presence and loss in media coverage because they were favoring Planned Parenthood, using other donors’ money to majorly support this organization’s cancer screenings, giving them $9,000,000 for funding. The Komen Organization was essentially not valuing all of its donors/sponsors.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  I don’t think an apology was going to rectify the many safety violations they caused, resulting in 11 workers dead and 17 injured. They made a “number of missteps during this crisis [and]... made it easy for environmentalists, politicians, media pundits, and others to cast BP as a fumbling, uncaring, and greedy multinational company.” Them not being transparent with the public from the beginning while finally accepting responsibility wouldn’t have helped them in my opinion if the apology video was their first response because they were still withholding information regardless.

2. I do think it is fair that he was forced to resign, because he put public life in danger, and put the reputation of the company over the safety and security of his worker’s lives. Although he is not the only one responsible for this crisis, he is a major player in rectifying the mistakes that happened afterward, and he was careless. Showing a lack of public care and trying to shift the blame is something that he chose to do as CEO, and therefore he is the figurehead of the company's message. He left BP scrambling for solutions and was essentially not fit for this job if this is his reaction during a crisis.

3. I think this was the first time the organization was actually starting to be transparent with the public instead of trying to withhold information and safeguard their own confidence. Ultimately releasing the video of the oil spill was necessary, and a good communication tactic because it shows their honesty, and openness to rectify their mistakes. It was also necessary to show others the intensity of this situation even if it was damaging to the reputation of the company because this is when they stopped changing information around both the disaster and the oil clean-up.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think the division would have been inevitable. In politics and in social topics, women's bodily autonomy and the control that they have over it is constantly debated. On top of this, there are many issues that women face at a much more common and prominent rate than men. Like the fear of having breast cancer or the fear of being pregnant. Not to mention the pink taxes that require women to pay for sanitary products that most men do not need to pay for. There is a lot of symbolism in the announcement for them to work with Planned Parenthood. In a way, it shows the power of women and the idea that women support women. However, to those who prefer the traditional patriarchal ideology, this is a threat to their vision of how society should be, hence why the division would be inevitable.
2. I think the silence in most instances are not the way to go. If silence must be taken as a course of action, it should be as short as possible. Even in this instance, the 24 hour silence did not go exactly in their favor even through the time of silence was much shorter than the wait times that many other organizations take. It was clear that 24 hours was not enough time to get their bearings in order, however, responses should not need much time to prepare if they are confident in their choices and confident that the backlash comes from a bad place. It is rarely successful for silence to work and therefore, should not be a common course of action in certain situations like this one.
3. It is very beneficial for organizations to have strong associations with easy-to-market attributes. Breast cancer awareness is a perfect example for this, because it is well known that pink is the color for breast cancer. However, along the same lines, this means its a very easy way for companies and other organizations to abuse this association and use it to their own benefit and gain the support and sympathy of those who believe they are supporting such a cause. Breast cancer has built a reputation of trust and support and so it's very easy for other companies to come in and try to gain this trust through efforts of associating with breast cancer awareness. I think this may be where a lot of pinkwashing comes from and so now it is hard for people to decipher what is genuine and what isn't. It would be a sad reality if partisanship was directly related to a decreased support for their organization and what they stand for, but it would not surprise me if that were the reality.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Although BP’s timing was good, the message of shifting the blame was not. Do you think it would have been better just to make the apology video on June 2nd their first response?
Though an apology is important, it is really hard to rectify a situation like this, so there may be options that are best, but none would completely erase the issues that lead to the backlash. Due to this, it is very much up for debate what the best course of action would have been. Regardless, the consensus is that there should not have any shifting of blame or denying responsibility because this action only worsens things. On top of this, it is crucial to address the manner in a mature way that owns the responsibilities with a promise to rectify things and prove that the issue will not happen again. This is what the apology video did with a much better job than their initial response, therefore, I do think it would've been a good idea if they only released the video first.

2. I think that it was fair for the CEO to resign because it is a solid action moving towards change. There are many things they could say to try and prove that they want to change and that they want to do better, but obviously, no one is going to believe them without actual change occurring through action. Having the CEO resign is the perfect first action to show that they are moving towards somewhere better. Even though this action could be seen merely as showmanship, it is undeniable that when a company changes their CEO, other changes are bound to come along with it as well.

3. Yes, a live feed video of the oil spill was a very good tactic. Because one of their issues involved transparency issues, having a continuous live feed makes it impossible for there to be any allegations of deception or editing. This makes the incoming information unfiltered and easily accessible to the public which improves their communications skills as well as trust in the community between the company and its publics.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily, great presentation!

1. I definitely think that making a response video on June 2nd rather than shifting blame immediately would have been more effective. If they had made the video sooner I think the situation wouldn’t have been as bad as it was.

2. I think it was the right decision for CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign. He may not have been the only one that contributed to the problem however I don’t think he is the right fit to represent BP. He was responsible for letting many people down and made a lot of poor decisions. He had an opportunity to lead with power but failed to do so.

3. I don’t know if it was “necessary” to show a live stream but I feel like it was the right move and a very strong tactic. The live feed helped regain trust after their lack of transparency in the initial response.

# data[].attributes.body
Loved your presentation and attention to detail in this case!

1. I do think that the partnership with planned parenthood would have caused division in the future. Over the past decade I feel that people have become much more vocal about their opinions and I could see social media playing a role in this division. I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing that people are now more willing to share their opinions but I do think it could cause issues for both organizations.

2. In this case I don’t think the 24 hour silence was effective. I think it some cases taking time to respond would have been effective but not a whole 24 hours. It may be the case where they felt like this would minimize backlash but thats not what ended up happening. I believe that it would have been possible to create a strategic plan to address this crisis in a shorter amount of time.

3. I believe that “pink washing” does still exist. It is especially seen in the month of October and off hand I can think of many brands that embrace pink and promote donations. I learned about “pink washing” a couple semesters ago and now whenever I see brands that say they donate part of their proceedes to breast cancer I second guess where that money is going to since so many brands are guilty of it. Although I think "pink washing" still exists I feel that "green washing" is more common now due to the fact that sustainability is an issue commonly talked about on social media.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I do believe that this partnership could have created a bigger divide throughout the public based on personal beliefs. Because Planned Parenthood and the topic of abortion is so controversial in today’s society, its introduction would in my opinion, inevitably created a divide.

2. In my opinion, the 24 hours of silence was used to make a strategic plan of action. Typically, silence does not help organizations in appearing as honest and transparent, so I do not believe it was a planned tactic.

3. “Pink washing” is still probably present, however I do think it has diminished since this case. Although this organization has diminished in terms of public presence since this case, pink washing probably only played a small roll in its demise. As more organizations have developed, people have chosen specific brands that their beliefs directly align with.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Although BP was effective in their timing throughout this case, perhaps it would have been beneficial to only post the apology video rather than placing blame. Publics are generally swayed away from brands who try to place blame on others rather than owning up to such issues.

2. I do think that it was fair that the CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign because blame inevitably falls on CEO’s in our society. Although they are not the only person taking action and making decisions for a company, when problems arise, blame is often placed on higher up members like CEO’s who take on that responsibility when they take their job.

3. I believe that the live feed was effective in this case because it helped promote transparency and honesty. Consumers like to feel like their needs are being met and addressed, so this helped fix the relationship the organization had with the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria,

1.I think that the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have been inevitably caused division due to the controversy surrounding the business. The political debate which has always gone on about whether or not planned parenthood should be funded or not has been occurring long before the partnership. The topic of abortion brings up many strong emotions whether you support it or not and with social media those opinions are amplified.

2. I do not believe the 24 hours of silence is effective in any situation. When the public is demanding answers and they are not given, it leaves only room for speculation which leads to false conclusions. A short statement acknowledging the situation should be sent out if there is uncertainty on how exactly to go about it immediately. Komen was defiantly not prepared to deal with this situation but staying silent was not the way to go as it only faced more backlash.

3.In my opinion “pink washing” still exists but to a lesser extent now. In the case of Komen, I do think its presence has significantly diminished as I haven’t heard about it since I was younger which could be due to the increase of companies that are like them as well.

# data[].attributes.body
1.BP’s timing was good as they responded to the matters quickly but shifting the blame was defiantly not the way to go about things. BP should have taken full responsibility as it only damaged its company reputation and made it seem as if they were only interested in avoiding accountability for the incident. It would have been better to just make an apology video on June 2nd as their first response in my opinion as it would have shown they understood the severity of the situation and was not only interested in saving the public image of them.

2.Yes, I do think it was fair that the CEO was forced to resign after the incident. Although he was not the one who was responsible for the incident, he was the face of BP and decided to put the reputation of BP over the safety hazard that was directly affecting the public. As the CEO of any company, people are going to look at you first when any scandal or incident happens and he did not do a good job of reaction crisis.

3.Yes, I do believe that the video of the oil spill was necessary and a good communication tactic because it provided full transparency of the severity of the situation. When having a live video going on and having the public be able to see exactly what was happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria! Great job on your presentation. To answer your discussion questions (1) I do believe that the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have, unfortunately but inevitably, caused division. Planned Parenthood along with abortion has always been a political topic. When doing any sort of partnership that could be considered political, I feel as though brands always have to expect some sort of backlash or division. Conversations about Planned Parenthood are very controversial and people have many different opinions on the topic. (2) I believe that the 24 hours of silence was not effective. When it comes to a crisis in communication it is crucial for a company to respond ASAP. Waiting any longer than the hour window offers the media and public the opportunity to tell your story for you. It is possible that this time period was used to make a strategic plan.  However, either way the Susan G Komen organization should have released some sort of statement. (3) I think that pink washing could have played a role in their loss of media coverage.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily! Great presentation! To answer your discussion questions (1) I do believe it would have been better for BP to make an apology video on June 2 instead of shifting the blame. It would have earned them positive attention if they handled it this way. (2) Yes, I do believe that it was fair that the CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign. He did not handle this major crisis appropriately and in turn should not be able to run this massive company. (3) I do believe that a video of the oil spill was a good communication tactic because it provided full transparency to the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on this presentation!

1) I do understand how the topic of abortion could influence the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the Susan G Komen Foundation. However, I would not go as far as to say division would have been inevitable. I believe the Komen Foundation had the opportunity to advocate for Planned Parenthood and further explain how the organization has helped thousands of women. The foundation's main goal was to help find a cure for breast cancer and support men and women who suffer from it. They were well aware that Planned Parenthood played an important role in providing women care and they refused to advocate for this partnership.

2) I rarely think silence is an effective course for organization's to make when a crisis occurs. It leaves room for the public to make their own opinions and assumptions about the organization. Komen's silence made the organization appear shady or suspicious. I do not think their silence was meant to minimize backlash, but I do think it they used the time to figure out a proper response. When associating your foundation with an organization that is politically controversial, and organization should be prepared for every outcome in order to get their story straight. This demonstrated that the foundation was not prepared.

3) I too have noticed Susan G Komen's decline in the media and the public. I believe it was a combination of "pink washing" and partisanship that influenced the public's opinions on the organization. I know many people who choose to donate to other cancer organizations because they do not fully trust the Komen foundation and what they do with their donations. Also, when you align your organization with a political view, it is hard to undo this process. This can lead to the loss of support from certain publics and even certain news stations, which would heavily influence Komen's media coverage.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily! Your presentation was really informative!

1) I believe that the video apology should have been their first response. This was a serious catastrophe that led to the deaths of workers. Many people were affected by this incident, so it would have looked better if BP had taken blame and performed immediate actions to rectify their behaviors to support those affected. As others have already stated, an apology does not change the fact that mistakes were made by the company that led to the loss of lives. It would have been difficult for the company to put themselves in a more positive light. However, by taking action and responsibility, they may have been able to gain back the trust of the public if they had been honest from the start.

2) I do believe it was fair that the CEO was forced to resign. Although he was not directly responsible for the incident, he definitely made the company look worse. To the public, the CEO represents what the company stands for. If he is lying to the public, or encouraging lies, then the public will assume that the company is dishonest. I believe having the CEO resign demonstrates the company's commitment to doing better and correcting their mistakes.

3) As other have said, the live video feed helped to promote transparency within the company. It may not have been "necessary," but it allowed the public to have a better understanding of what was truly going on. No one would have noticed if they had not done the live feed, but they used this tactic as an attempt to gain back the public's trust.

# data[].attributes.body
Incredible job on your presentation! Here are a portion of my considerations with respect to your inquiries:

1. I figure any organization with Planned Parenthood will cause division and talk in general society and key crowds. Numerous individuals have exceptionally solid sentiments towards Planned Parenthood, and it impacts their choice on whether to help an association on the off chance that they have do have a functioning organization with Planned Parenthood. That being said, for this situation explicitly, the association had effectively been set up, however the CEO's choice called light to it and pointed out a ton of it, which caused a division. I don't think, for this situation, that it was unavoidable.

2. I believe that now and again a brief time of quietness can be compelling and used to set up an arrangement to manage an emergency. For this situation, I don't believe that the quiet was a powerful device in managing the emergency and speaking with public, and yet, I don't realize that had Komen reacted any previous the result would have been vastly different.

3. I can perceive the reducing presence of Komen too, and I believe that it is to some degree because of "pink washing," yet I don't think it is the lone purpose ascribing to Komen's declining presence. I imagine that it can to a limited extent be ascribed to the sheer number of associations that presently exist with missions to battle comparative causes and issues and the public currently has such countless more options for where to give.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Emily,

Incredible presentation! 1. I unquestionably imagine that making a reaction video on June second instead of moving fault quickly would have been more powerful. In the event that they had made the video sooner I figure the circumstance wouldn't have been however terrible as it seemed to be.

2. I think it was the correct choice for CEO Tony Hayward had to leave. He might not have been the one in particular that added to the issue anyway I don't think he is the correct fit to address BP. He was answerable for allowing numerous individuals to down and settled on a great deal of helpless choices. He had a chance to lead with power yet neglected to do as such.

3. I couldn't say whether it was "fundamental" to show a live stream however I have a feeling that it was the correct move and an extremely solid strategy. The live feed recovered trust after their absence of straightforwardness in the underlying reaction.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria, great presentation!
I don't think that the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have caused division because both organizations were established to help women and through this partnership, they would have effectively been able to do just that. I don't think political judgements should've influences Komen's decisions.
Although I think the 24 hours of silence came as a way to buy them time to strategize, I dont think that it was effective because it gave room for people to come up with their own assumptions which essentially did more harm to the organization.
The organization was established for an honest purpose but I do think that along the way, they might have diverted from that purpose. I think the KFC campaign and the decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood are good examples of that. I think in today's media, the audience is very active and will call out brands for things such as pinkwashing but I do believe that it is still an issue prevelant today.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily! Great presentation.
Yes, I think that it would have been better to make the apology video their first response. No matter how quick they were to respond to the incident, I think what matters most is ownership. I think the video should have been their first response and should have come out sooner.

I think it was fair that he was forced to resign even though he wasn't entirely responsible for the spill because he wasn't being transparent with the company's communication with the public and was even deceiving them to believe that BP had no hand in this incident.

I  think the live feed video of the oil spill was a good communication tactic but not a necessary one. I think it was a step towards them taking ownership of the situation  but I believe that they could have also instead shown videos of them helping in restoring the community it had affected.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria, great job! You are so well-spoken and did a fantastic job breaking down the case. I particularly liked how you had a slide that emphasized the "things to remember" where you summarized the main points. That was really helpful.

1. I think the focus of Planned Parenthood as a place for abortions is really unfortunate since it makes that organization very politically charged when it shouldn't be. Both the organizations share a common goal: to help people medically. For me, it is hard to speculate whether this division was inevitable, prompted or not. I think our classmates made better points to that topic. However, I think the issue came from the timing of the break in the partnership. As you described, the new policy from Komen seemed politically charged since it was in response to pro-life activists wanting Planned Parenthood to be investigated. Komen made a mistake as a health organization when they chose to protect their own political image over protecting people through medical research and care. It's even more concerning when Planned Parenthood can be the only medical option for people in poorer communities.

2.  In this case, I think the silence was less effective than they intended. Like you state in your question, yes they probably hoped to pull together a plan and minimize backlash, but the silence is what caused most of the initial negative sentiment. Additionally, within 3 days - after the silence that was supposed to help them formulate a better plan - they went from backing their policy change to saying they would investigate more. I think it would have been beneficial to put out a statement saying the policy was under review, so they could have more time to investigate while still showing they care about what was best for everyone.

3. I'm sure a lot of things factor in to Komen's diminishing presence, including this incident with Planned Parenthood as well as lackluster PR and media relations. I will say pink washing is still a big issue. These poor pairings, like the KFC example you gave, diminish the importance of the cause. It is important to partner with businesses that emulate organization's mission and use it as not only a way to fundraise, but also educate the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily! Fantastic job,

1.Although BP’s timing was good, the message of shifting the blame was not. Do you think it would have been better just to make the apology video on June 2nd their first response? I think it's clear through the misinformation and the month-or-so of shifting the blame and disassociation, BP was just trying to see how much they could get away with. With that said, it is more so the lack of transparency than the blame itself. If there were actual facts about Transocean's equipment that helped publics understand the issue then it would be reasonable to share. It was the original communication mixed with no accountability that really put BP in a bad light. I don't think an apology video needed to be their first action, especially if that meant they were silent for a month. I think BP should have made a formal statement accepting accountability and disclosing factual information.

2. Yes, it was fair the CEO had to resign. Even though the oil spill was caused by multiple factors, it is the CEO's responsibility to be transparent and put into play effective policies and actions. You mentioned he alluded in an interview that the victim's families weren't actually grieving. This is just one example of him working at too low of an ethical standard. A change in CEO (whether or not it is fair) is also a symbolic "fresh start" for an organization that has suffered an incident that significantly hurt their reputation.

3. I think the live video feed was an effective tactic, but not necessary. I showed some ownership of the situation and a step towards transparency/disclosure of information. It also forced them to be more accountable with stopping the spill since people could see what was happening live. However, this does not make up for the lack of accountability in BP's initial response.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Victoria! Overall, the layout and design of your presentation was great and aided in my understanding of the case!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Victoria! Overall, the layout and design of your presentation was great and aided in my understanding of the case!

# data[].attributes.body
1. Even if the affiliation with Planned Parenthood had not been spotlighted during this new policy change, I still believe that Komen’s links to them would have inevitably caused division down the line. Because abortion is such a polarizing issue within the political sphere, pro-life or pro-choice groups were bound to find issue with Komen’s decisions. In this day and age, both sides of the aisle have branded some companies and organizations as being either ‘for’ or ‘against’ the values they represent. Since Planned Parenthood is such a divisive organization in the country, any company that is associated with them is bound to also become entangled with them due to underlying political reasons.

2. I do not think that the 24 hours of silence from Komen was effective. Komen’s strategy to keep their decision quiet from the public not only appeared untrustworthy, but it also seemed like they were trying to mislead their constituents and donors. In comparison to Planned Parenthood’s instantaneous response, Komen did not seem to have a communications crisis plan in place. Instead, Komen had to take a defensive response to the organization's accusations publicly. It is clear that Komen was not equipped to respond to a politically charged policy. Even if Komen’s actions were not politically motivated, the organization still should have had a counter-strategy in place to address the conclusions drawn from the public and media.

3. In addition to “pink-washing” and partisanship, I also believe that many people felt cheated out of their donations because of the amounts given to some of their highest-paid employees. When a director of a nonprofit organization has a higher salary than most doctors and lawyers, I think that this poses an issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Emily! Overall, great job on explaining the facts of this case!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Emily! Overall, great job on explaining the facts of this case!

# data[].attributes.body
1. From the start, BP should have had a crisis management plan set in place if a situation such as the oil spill was to ever arise. Therefore, I believe that the apology video should have been the organization's first response rather than their second. Although it came out months after the spill, BP should have taken responsibility from the moment it started rather than shift blame onto someone else.

2. When it comes to fixing the reputation of an organization, CEOs often take on a very visible role. Not only are they seen as the main spokesperson for a company, but personal investment by one of the most influential members of the organization can communicate a strong message to both employees and shareholders. Although CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign in this case, I believe that this was a fair move on BP’s part given his words and actions in regard to the crisis. In many of the press coverages, Hayward did not appear to possess the necessary compassion or care for dealing with the aftermath.

3. Given that the after effects of the oil spill were apparent for people to see personally living on the Gulf Coast, a visual such as the live feed video allowed others across the country to see what was happening. Not only was this a good communication tactic, but it also helped to foster a level of transparency between BP and the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. Yes, I do think the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have inevitably caused division because I think any partnership would. Unfortunately there is a very political and controversial image put on Planned Parenthood and any organization that wants a partnership with another who is in the spotlight like that should expect division.
2. I think the 24 hours was not effective. Although they most likely took this time to make a strategic plan in order to address the crisis, it negatively effected the image of the organization because it proved how unprepared they were and made it seem like the issue wasn't urgent enough to answer quickly.
3. Yes, I do think pink washing is still an issue and believe this along with partnership lead to Komen's declining presence.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Victoria I loved the layout of your presentation. And it was full of great information!

1. I think the partnership with Planned Parenthood would inevitably cause division. Abortion is a highly touchy topic, and many people base their judgment on personal beliefs and emotions. Since there is usually an intense response to discussions about abortions, yes, it can cause a division.

2. I think the silence was intended to make a strategic plan in order to address this crisis. While audiences want a response as quickly as possible in cases like this where there are many personal connections, they need time to evaluate correctly and respond appropriately. In some instances, people see organizations being quiet as an admission of guilt but sometimes remaining quiet and then speaking up when everything is understood and communicated correctly internally allows the audience to receive the best and most thoughtful information. While the 24 hours of silence may not have been effective, it did give the organization the time to put out statements and apologies that were the least offensive, and the most thought through.

3. I think pinkwashing is still an issue. Many companies wait until breast cancer awareness in October to promote or raise donations but do not contribute to the cause at other points. Like the KFC example, the products being promoted can contribute to breast cancer, which is a significant issue. I think the partisanship did lead to the loss in media coverage, but there was also an increase in companies that do different things for breast cancer awareness that might have outshined Komen.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Emily you did great on your presentation! And it was very informative.

1. I think it would have been better for BP to release the apology video as their original release. By trying to shift blame and dissociate from this event, it shows a lack of trust and, in my opinion, lowers their credibility. Not taking responsibility made the reactions to this situation even worse and made the whole situation worse for BP.

2. I think it was fair for CEO Tony Hayward to be forced to resign. Even though he was not the only person at fault, he has a different level of responsibility and accountability. Since he kept trying to shift the blame and not take some responsibility, it showed unclear communication. The CEO resigning was the first step in a long list of things to rebuild their reputation and correct this whole incident.

3. The live feed of the oil spill was not necessarily needed, but it was a great move to show transparency and rectify behavior after denying responsibility for so long. In this situation, posting a live feed was a great communication tactic that gave the public their own view that could not be edited.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Presentation!
1. I think the apology video should have been the organizations initial response. It was unprofessional to not have a response prepared, as well as not tried to shift the blame. BP should have taken responsibility from the very beginning within the apology video.
2. I do believe forcing Tony Hayward was a fair move PR wise on BP's part since he was the CEO, therefore basically the face of the company. Although this was not only his fault, it would have looked bad if BP did not make him resign.
3. Yes I think the live feed video of the oil spill was a good communication tactic because it showed honestly and transparency, two things greatly valued by the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation -- it was really interesting and very informative.
1. I think because of how politically charged the conversation is surrounding abortion in today’s political climate, there is a good cchance that the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have caused division. Considering Komen’s reaction and the actions they took in the case, even knowing the consequences it would have had for women who need the services offered at Planned Parenthood, they cut ties with them.
2. I think the 24 hours of silence was intended to be used to make a strategic plan to address the crisis, however it was not effective. During the 24 hours of silence, Komen was getting very negative attention while Planned Parenthood was the organization people were siding with. It put Komen in a negative light because of the way in which they broke the news and the little time in which they gave Planned Parenthood a heads up. Ultimately, staying silent made them look bad in the eyes of the public and caused people to lose trust, loyalty, and respect.
3. While pink washing was and can still be an issue, especially with something like the KFC campaign that is contradictory and harmful in its message, I think partisanship was the rooted issue that led to their loss in media coverage. They made a decision to cut ties with them directly not long after an investigation into Planned Parenthood began. Their actions clearly show their stance and what they are deliberately choosing to side with.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation!
1. I think it definitely would have been better to release the apology video as their first response. Although Transocean and the equipment played a role in the spill, it was under BP’s supervision and it was their work practices, ill preparation, and wrongdoing that allowed the spill to occur in the first place. They should have taken responsibility immediately in order to maintain public trust or provide regret that the situation had occurred and for the part they played in it happening.
2. I think it was completely fair that Tony Hayward was forced to resign. Although the crisis was not solely his fault, he was at fault for how the company he is solely in charge handled the situation. He is also responsible for the company’s practice and work violations that had built up until that point. As the person who is in charge of and the face of the company, it’s important that he takes accountability for the part he played and how he let it get to that point, as well as let the public see that action was being taken and that changes were being made.
3. I think the live feed video of the oil spill was a great communication tactic, primarily because it helped the company be transparent with the public and really understand and visualize what was happening, as well as grasp the extent of the problem. While it might not have been completely necessary, I think it definitely helped in terms of being completely transparent and allowing the public to have all of the information/visuals that they do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Victoria! You did such a great job on this presentation, well done!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Victoria! You did such a great job on this presentation, well done!!

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes and no. I believe that the pro-choice movement and stance has become increasingly popular toward the solidarity of women’s rights and them having the own individual choice to decide what happens to their bodies. I believe the partnership would showcase great CSR and attractive a lot of new followers, however there are many individuals who are also against abortion or do not know the entirety of what Planned Parenthood offers. Not wanting to explore that research could involve division for some individuals. This topic and discussion of Planned Parenthood brings up very strong opinions on both sides of the situation, which will inevitability lead to discourse between people. In regard to the organizations, I do not believe it would cause a divide; the result of this specific case occurred because the CEO of Susan G. Comen’s organization got involved in political discourse, which could have been avoided entirely.

2. I believe the 24-hour period of silence allotted for social media to blow up and for this case to go viral; which is something that is sort of un-preventable in our age of technology. I believe it’s as well important for companies or organizations to carefully craft apologies or statements, rather than just throwing something toward the public. However with that comes timely-ness, which only makes the statement more effective. The complete silence should not have occurred, there could have been some things addressed in preparation for a larger statement.

3. I believe that pink-washing is still an issue because in the beginning, companies would profit off of the marketing from breast-cancer awareness products, which in some situations is considered more important than actually raising money for cancer research. It is a pretty well-known attribute that the color pink represents breast cancer awareness; it has for decades. There is a very fine-line between this type of CSR and raising awareness, and also doing it to make a profit and present yourselves as a company that genuinely cares. The reputation of breast cancer and that awareness has become very engrained within a lot of different brands and companies, so it would be easy for other companies to join in and gain trust for their brand by associating themselves with breast cancer awareness. In light of more information coming out about corrupt corporations in general, it can be hard for consumers to decipher what is genuine and what is not.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Emily! Fantastic job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Emily! Fantastic job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe it would have been more effective if the organization incorporated accountability with the timeliness of their apology, yes. Shifting the blame was one of more detrimental mistakes that BP could have make, and definitely damaged their reputation by having a very defensive and diversionary response.

2. Yes I believe it is fair. He is the individual who most effectively and thoroughly represents the company and what they stand for. He is suppose to be the ultimate leader in that regard, and based on how this situation was handled, he should not be that face anymore. Although he did not necessarily cause the crisis, it is part of his job to rectify the situation as he is the main company spokesperson.

3. Yes, I think the video was completely necessary in presenting that information to the public.  It was able to foster open communication with their key publics and ensure individuals that they situation had been acknowledged and logistics were being worked out. In that regard, they used their resources of communication in a more effective way.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Abortion is a hot topic in politics right now and is often directly connected to Planned Parenthood. Do you think the partnership with Planned Parenthood would have inevitably cause division?
I think that the partnership might have caused division, but I also think that it could have been a good thing for Planned Parenthood to show that they do not only offer abortion services but a wide range of women's health services.
2. Do you think the 24 hours of silence was effective? Do you think it was intended to minimize backlash or the time was used to make a  strategic plan to address the crisis?
I think that the 24 hours of silence was an appropriate time to gather their response. To me, anything more than a day is too long.
3. I myself have recognized Komen's diminishing presence as an organization. Do you think "pink washing" is still an issue, or do you think partisanship was the rooted issue that led to their loss in media coverage?
I think it was a combination of the two. I think Komen is losing relevance because they do not take many risks as an organization.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Although BP’s timing was good, the message of shifting the blame was not. Do you think it would have been better just to make the apology video on June 2nd their first response?
Yes, I think that would have been better in the long run.

2.Do you think it is fair that CEO Tony Hayward was forced to resign?
Yes, I do. He was in charge of the corporation when a horrible occurrence took place.

3.Do you think the live feed video of the oil spill was necessary and a good communication tactic?
I personally do not think that the live feed of the oil spill was a necessary communication tactic. It would have been better to livestream their cleaning tactics.