# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=1a2487eb-3519-4ecb-8bea-ace5004aed6d

Discussion Questions:

Do you believe if the University had released the IRB researchers COI form, and the research agreement with the university and washington county public schools system they would have changed how the media was producing stories?

Did the Health News Review article escalate the situation more than necessary?

If you were a consumer of sports related beverages would seeing this issue make you skeptical of other studies related to sports drinks? Why or Why not?

References

Anderson, N. (2016). Study of chocolate milk’s benefits to athletes stirs controversy after panel slams findings. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/04/01/panel-blasts-u-md-press-releases-on-chocolate-milk-studies/

Holtz, A., Freedhoff, Y., & Stone, K. (2016, January 5). Release claiming chocolate milk improves concussion symptoms in student athletes is out-of-bounds. HealthNewsReview. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/news-release-review/concussion-related-measures-improved-high-school-football-players-drank-new-chocolate-milk-umd-study-shows/

Horcher, K. Elrich, B. [NerdAlert]. (2016, Jan. 23). School's Controversial Chocolate Milk Research Is Just Bad Science [Video]. Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDLss6xnvio

Rankings and Fast Facts. (n.d.). University of Maryland. https://www.umd.edu/rankings-and-fast-facts

Why won’t the University of Maryland talk about the chocolate milk/concussion study it was so eager to promote? (2016, January 11). HealthNewsReview. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2016/01/why-wont-the-university-of-maryland-talk-about-the-chocolate-milkconcussion-study-it-was-so-eager-to-promote/

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=0bb2f06b-8765-489b-a5b5-ace301784c58

1. Do you as a consumer feel the tactic to not disclose that the posts were paid was wrong? If yes, why?

2. Do you feel the response rate by L&T was necessary or do you feel it harmed their reputation?

3. How do you think the new requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communications & PR landscape?

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=d275e463-95fa-4ade-8acb-ace5003fd2e4

Discussion Questions:
1. What are other ways the FDA could raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes?

2. Do you agree it was unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products as children’s snacks?

3. Do you think its necessary for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products, or should it be up to the consumer to educate themselves on this matter?

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. I do believe that if the University released the IRB researchers COI form and the research agreement, the medias perception would've been different. Instead of trying to be secretive, if there was full transparency, the controversy probably could've been avoided all together.
2. I do believe that Health News Review article escalated the situation, however in a good way. By exposing UMD, it increases the chances of making sure something like this would not happen again not only at UMD but in general.
3. Yes, if I was an avid drinker of sports related beverages, I would be skeptical of other studies related to sports drinks after this case. I would make sure to do my own research about what I was consuming before just purchasing based of studies.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I do feel that as a consumer, we do deserve to know when posts are ads or not. It is simply a trust factor as it creates transparency between a company and consumers, as well as the individual who posts the ad. Without stating posts are ads, it seems as though the fact that they are is trying to be hidden.
2. I do think the response rate for Lord and Taylor was necessary because they felt they needed to take the time to form an appropriate response, therefore they took their time to make sure everything was said and said in a responsible way.
3. I think new requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communication and PR landscape greatly and in a positive way. Now that influencers and companies a-knowledge that a post is an ad, it creates a sense of trust between them and consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Other ways the FDA could raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes could be going into schools and educating students on the dangers of e-cigarettes. Although we do briefly learn about this in health classes, I think it would stand out more coming from the FDA.
2. Yes, I completely agree it was unethical for these companies to market their products as children's snacks. The fact that companies pray on the innocence of children in order to profit is very immoral.
3. I think both. I definitely think that it is necessary for e-liquids to state the side effects of using their products as it is only ethical, however I also think it is up to consumers to look into the products they are buying as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya! Great presentation! You added great information and made great points! I think that if the school released the IRB form, it would have changed the way the media reported the story. Honestly would have been the better way to go because it would have helped how unethical the situation was. It was the Health News Review’s job to report situation although it did make it a bigger deal. I don’t think it was an issue because it was necessary that attention was brought to the situation. This situation would have made me nervous about drinking sports drinks. It is really important to be aware of what your body is taking in.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya! Great presentation! I think it is extremely important to teach younger people how dangerous smoking is and how badly it can effect you long term. The FDA should raise more awareness about e-cigarettes especially because they are becoming more popular with the younger generation and they are so dangerous. I think it was a terrible idea for them to market their products like how children’s snacks are marketed. They should be marketing in a negative way not promoting it in a way that shows younger children that it is okay. I think it is extremely important for e-liquid companies to list every side effect and all of their ingredients because of how harmful they are. Most of the time a consumer won’t check deeply into it see how harmful the ingredients are, so I think all details should be listed.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela! Your presentation was amazing! You were very clear and gave great details about the information. I think its definitely debatable if it was wrong or not to disclose that information. Personally, I think it was wrong of them because it is a bad reflection of their company. I think it was not a great form of advertising and the restrictions from the FTC should prevent it. I think it is important to address the issues but in a mature way right after the situation happens. Taking too long to respond was also a bad look for the company. I think these new expectations will increase credibility in the PR world. It is so much more reliable and the use of social media is so helpful.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice job on your presentation! Here are some of my thoughts on your research questions:

1. Similar to my peers, I remember taking a health class that educated me on how bad cigarettes/drugs were for my health. With a new market of e-liquid products, it is important that the education system catches up to emphasize to younger kids how these can affect your health. The FDA should create a series of ads that schools can show students about how these products can effect your health. In my opinion, I think that graphic ads get a point across, so I think that they should focus on showing how these products can affect you over the course of a lifetime.
2. It was highly unethical for e-liquid companies to market their product this way to a younger market. The health effects these products cause are life-long problems and to market this to impressionable minds is terrible.
3. I definitely think that e-liquid companies should list the side effects as well as health problems that could occur based on using these products. Consumers must be notified of the risks, and then it is up to them to further educate themselves. Just like how certain medications warnings, e-liquid products contain addictive chemicals so it is imperative that these products are labeled.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job! I really enjoyed reading this case study, and I learned more information from your presentation!

1. In my opinion, I don’t think it was wrong to disclose for L&T to not disclose that the posts were paid advertisements. The ad was focused around a dress and the influencers posted pictures in the dress. Whether this was a paid post or not, consumers chose to look at this dress because it was on their social media feed so I think it would have become a trendy dress either way. In other words, the purpose of the ad remained the same regardless.

2. I think that for the year this happened in, the choice to stay silent while the FTC updated their laws was the right move. If L&T were to have made a statement that was insincere or contained inaccurate statements, it would have permanently damaged their reputation. Given that this was before the emergence of “cancel culture,” they made the right decision to stay silent until the new laws were put in place.

3. The new laws within influencer marketing have made it clear that consumer awareness is very important and will be protected over a company creating a misleading ad. Though it’s required for influencers to use hashtags like #gifted and #ad, I still find that these are often hidden at the end of posts, so it will be interesting to see if the FTC updates these requirements within the coming years.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job! Your presentation was very informative and your slides were easy to read!

1. If the university released the IRB researchers COI form, it may have changed the narrative around the study. Not following proper research protocol is unethical, and it made the study seem suspicious, which led to exposing the study’s inaccuracy.

2. I think the Health News Review article created a media frenzy, but one that was necessary to expose flaws in UMD and their study. By doing so, UMD now knew that they could not publish inaccurate studies in the future.

3. I would be skeptical enough to conduct my own research around the sports related drinks I purchase, in order to further understand what I am consuming.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya! Your presentation of the case was very clear in stating and analyzing all of the facts. Great job!

1. Along with its Real Cost campaign, the FDA could raise further awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes by sending representatives to schools to talk to young consumers about the product and the dangers of using them. In addition, they could also launch strategic commercials by placing them on children and teen oriented shows; in addition, they could also have pop-ups appear on popular apps used by this demographic to educate them about the impacts of e-cigarettes.

2. I agree that it was completely unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products as children’s snacks. Not only do children and young adults become the victims of this deceptive packaging, but it was also extremely unethical for these companies to advertise their products in such a way. As a parent, I would be extremely upset with the e-liquid companies as they would be putting my child in harm’s way with potential devastating effects.

3. I think all brands should be held responsible for disclosing all the possible side effects of their products, especially when it comes to brands selling e-liquids. Although consumers should educate themselves and be aware of both the ingredients and side effects of any product, companies need to operate to a standard.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela! Overall, I really loved the layout of your presentation, and your explanation of the case study helped me in understanding the content involved.

1. As a consumer, I expect that influencers and other individuals will disclose when their posts are advertisements. Not only does it form trust and transparency between the influencer and brand, but consumers sometimes rely on the opinions of celebrities when deciding whether to purchase a product. Therefore, the tactic to not disclose that the posts were paid for manipulated the consumer’s perception of the product.

2. Although the Lord & Taylor name was slightly impacted by the situation, their response rate did eventually address the issue of disclosure. While some may argue that they could have issued a statement quicker, at the time the FTC guidelines were unclear regarding the wording of disclosures on social media platforms. Therefore, once the FTC clarified the wording for digital ads, Lord & Taylor’s acceptance and subsequent response demonstrates their commitment to industry standards and upholding the new provisions.

3. Over the last few years, advertising through social media has drastically increased, forcing both the communications and public relations landscapes to address and adapt to the new requirements. In addition, the guidelines for influencer marketing have strengthened the trust shared between brands and consumers due to the resulting transparency.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya! Great job on your presentation - it was very insightful!
Here are my thoughts on your questions:
1. I think some other ways the FDA could raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes could be going to schools and educating young minds. I remember the National Guard coming to my school a lot when I was younger to educate us on dangers like this and it still stands out in my mind. There could also be more testimonials out there from actual younger people who have already been suffering due to e-cigarettes. There may be some out there but my recollection only includes ads from older people after a lifetime of smoking or ads geared towards teenagers with actors using make-up and props. It would be beneficial to actually hear from the young users of e-cigarettes who have faced problems.
2. I absolutely think it was unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products as children’s snacks. It honestly goes beyond unethical and into unlawful and sickening. It’s absurd to profit and benefit from the easy deception of children.
3. I do think it’s necessary for e-liquids to list all of the possible side effects of their products for multiple reasons. If medicines that actually help people have to list all of their side effects, then damaging chemicals like these should have to as well. And then there’s the point about children and younger aged users of the product. They are way less likely to educate themselves on the matter, so it should be spelled right out for them. It’s clear that companies that sell product like e-liquids profit off deception.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela! I really enjoyed listening to your presentation as it was very comprehensive and gave me a lot of insight on the case!
Here are some of my thoughts on your questions:
1. As a consumer, I feel as though the tactic to not disclose that the posts were paid was wrong. I think it’s important for a consumer to know when they’re being told the definite truth behind products or when it’s essentially a sponsored ad. From there, we can kind of make the decision on if we want to believe the posts or not.
2. I do feel as though the response rate from Lord & Taylor was necessary in the long run because it did work out. Sometimes it does benefit to take some time forming a response. There’s a huge possibility that if they rushed into giving a statement, then they would have glossed over new guidelines and information that was valuable.
3. I think that the new requirements for influencer marketing have changed the ethics of communication and PR greatly. It helps with keeping the consumer trusting of the brand, which is important. Trust in brands has grown with the new requirements and it’s a win for the PR industry.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Maya,

Awesome job with your presentation! Here are some of my thoughts to the questions you posed:

1.     Like a few of the other responses, I believe that the FDA should engage in educational programs in schools that teaches students about e-cigarettes, what their purpose is, and how using them effects a person’s health. Having conversations and programs about products like these is very necessary and important. I am a firm believer that the more students are exposed to and able to discuss topics like e-cigarettes (and other topics that many find taboo for school as well) will help students understand and learn about it, thus being less likely to experiment with those types of products outside of school.

2.     It was absolutely unethical for these companies to advertise their products as children’s snacks. Children are still young and learning and experiencing things for the first time so they wouldn’t know what questions to ask about products like these and what they really are; they can be easily swayed and persuaded, and it was so wrong for these companies to market their products like this.

3.     E-liquids should absolutely have all of the side effects listed on their packaging/products. I think there can be a lot of grey area on a question like this, but overall, it is extremely necessary for products to have all side effects or health implications listed because some people may not have the resources to find the information for themselves. It also protects the companies and manufacturers from certain liabilities when they make sure to provide and inform audiences.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Markela,

You did an awesome job! I love the way you laid everything out in your presentation; it definitely clarified some of the information and helped get a better understanding of the case.

1.     Yes, I definitely feel that not disclosing the fact that the influencers were paid to post about the dress (which they received for free) was wrong. It is so important for consumers to know when the promotions they see on social media are paid for because when there is compensation involved, the positive reviews might not be 100% truthful or unbiased. It’s easy for consumers to get excited over a product that an influencer posts about, but having all the information is necessary for consumers to make informed decisions.

2.     I think it was necessary for L&T to respond to the situation, but I think they way they handled it did not cause too much damage to their reputation. While their brand was impacted by the situation, I think that they were able to respond as best as they could, even though it was a bit late. I think the situation was confusing and L&T admitted that under the original guidelines, they didn’t technically do anything wrong. I think their response to the situation and being willing to learn and adapt to the new guidelines was beneficial to their reputation.

3.     I think the new requirements are extremely important and beneficial and have created more transparency for consumers when faced with social media marketing and PR. It means that communications teams and PR professionals have to take a lot more care in making sure they disclose all necessary and pertinent information, but it holds these professionals to a higher standard than before. It also allows for better trust to exist between consumers and the brands they engage with.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Kenya,

Great presentation! I really enjoyed how you explained this case and laid out all the information!

1.     I believe that in the University had released the IRB form, the way that the media was producing the stories would have definitely been impacted. With greater transparency, their intentions and the logistics of the study would have been better represented; however, I don’t think it would have majorly changed the way the conversation that happened. The situation was still unethical, but being honest about it would have helped.

2.     I think the Health News Review article escalated the situation, but I’m not sure it was more than necessary. It was their job to report on the study and the information presented and present any issues found in the UMD article.

3.     I think seeing this would make me a bit skeptical, but I already feel skeptical about sports drinks. I think its important to be aware of the things that you are putting in your body and it is important to do your research on things like sports drinks.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya! I really enjoyed listening to your presentation of this case study - it was very on point. This was a case that was very interesting to get more information on.
To answer your questions:
1. I do feel that the way the media was producing stories would have been altered had the University done a better job i.e., releasing the IRB researchers COI forms and the research agreement with the Washington County Public Schools. Proactive releases of informations like this definitely help with the output of media.
2. I think the HNR article did escalate the situation a necessary amount because attention should have definitely been brought to the situation. You can’t draw too much attention to a situation when it comes to things that should be taken seriously - like concussions.
3. If I were a consumer of sports drinks I would definitely be skeptical after reading and hearing about this case. I always kind of have been since my brother is an avid drinker of sports related beverages and this amps up the mistrust of the other studies revolving around them.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice job on your presentation! Here are my thoughts:
1. I think one way the FDA could raise awareness about the negative effects of e-cigarettes is to create commercials and social media campaigns, similar to the ones that have for tobacco products, and they should be targeted directly towards kids and teens. For instance, having kid-friendly commercials play in between shows on Nickelodeon would target kids in a direct way. Even partnering with a channel to have a segment to talk about the dangers of e-cigarettes. For instance, Sesame Street had a “Standing Up to Racism” town hall with CNN, which discussed difficult topics in a kid-friendly way. Having something like this would be educational and beneficial to kids in an engaging way. For teens, I feel like it would have to be social media influencers or celebrities that are popular or respected in order for them to actually be affected by the information.
2. I do agree that it was very unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products in this way. The packaging was incredibly similar to children’s products, and even having different flavors to seem appealing. By packaging them in this way, it appeals directly towards youth and children whose minds are very easy to manipulate and exploit. To market them in this way, and not include any information or warnings about the negative side effects, is incredibly irresponsible, misleading, and unethical.
3. I don’t think it was unnecessary at all to list all of the possible side effects of their products. If something is packaged in an appealing way, and the product is addicting, consumers won’t take the time or even think about looking up what the possible side effects and dangers are. I think if a product is as harmful as e-liquids are, it is definitely the brand/company’s responsibility to disclose all of the information for consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation! Here any my thoughts for the discussion questions:
1. I feel that the tactic to not disclose that the posts were paid was wrong. By not disclosing that a celebrity post is sponsored or an ad, it can manipulate consumers into purchasing something that they believe the celebrity is genuinely using. There is no way of telling that if the celebrity’s post wasn’t paid that they chose to wear the dress because they bought it themselves and liked the product. People are likely to trust celebrities that the are fans of, and pay attention to the products that they “like.” So by not disclosing that information, it is manipulating consumers into thinking that a certain product is actually used and purchased by the celebrities or influencers they follow. However, at the same time, the guidelines and regulations from the FTC at that time were unclear and so Lord & Taylor did not necessarily know any better.
2. I feel that their response rate wasn’t necessary and that it may have harmed  their reputation a little. Even though their inaction was strategic while they were compliant with the FTC and waiting for their new guidelines, it would have been beneficial to say something while the investigation was occurring or when the mistake was first addressed; even if it was something as simple as stating that they’re complying with FTC guidelines and looking for ways of bettering their marketing tactics in terms of social media influencers. Instead, they stayed silent until the FTC was done with the investigation and only made a statement a year after the launch of the campaign. I think by not saying something in the moment, it might leave consumers a little confused as to where the company stands on the issue of disclosure, and by waiting too long it might have turned consumers away. When they did respond, they failed to acknowledge their wrongdoing, so by waiting to respond and separate themselves from responsibility, they may have been hoping that people would forget about the incident.
3. I think the new requirements for influencer marketing has changed the communications and PR landscape in a positive way. By requiring influencers to disclose their payment or when a product is sponsored, it prevents any manipulation or deception among consumers and the general public. I really agree with your point about how it protects our rights as consumers and as users of social media. It also preserves transparency, honestly, and makes sure that all brands are acting in fairness and not creating unfair advantages for themselves (as you mentioned in your presentation).

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, Kenya! Awesome job on your presentation! You laid out all the points of the case in a succinct and easy-to-read manner.

1.  Not only was the University’s refusal to reveal the appropriate documents suspicious, but it also calls into question what sort of information was contained on the final IRB protocol copy as well as the COI form. What comments or other disparaging information was contained for UMD to delay their release to the public, whether it be legal or ethical complications stemming from their study. The University obviously neglected to practice transparency, and I do not believe that the media’s coverage of the case would have changed dramatically. Even if the appropriate forms would have been able, the media would have still framed the story in such a way to show the inaccuracies behind the study.

2. In terms of how the HNR article was drafted, I do not believe that it escalated the situation more than necessary. The reasoning behind this justification stems mainly from the fact that the reviewers’ jobs were to maintain the accuracy and completeness of university news releases; the UMD article could have brought harmful consequences to consumers who believed in the claims.

3. In this situation, even if I were not a parent or an athlete, I would be skeptical of other studies associated with sports drinks. As a consumer, we need to be aware and observant of what products are trying to sell and the ‘supposed’ health benefits that might be attached to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! A lot of information and very thorough!

I believe that the media's perception of the story would have been drastically different if there were better transparency. Whether the intention was to be secretive and hide things. If they had disclosed the information prior, and better represented their intentions and logistics I believe this controversy could have been avoided entirely.

I think the article was written rightfully and escalated it further for good reason. By claiming health benefits, it is important these facts are checked and cleared by medical professionals. The article not only drew attention to this particular case, but it set the tone for PR moving forward. Claiming health benefits can harm reputation but more importantly mislead consumers and those who have health conditions/concerns.

Yes. I do not purchase sports related beverages, however, I am already considerably skeptical of their benefits. Seeing this case further proves to me the need of regulation in PR and Marketing, especially in products that claim, or can, impact one's bodily health.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation!
1. On one hand, I think if they had released the IRB Researchers COI form, it would have made them seem a little more transparent. Without releasing the COI form, it appeared as though they were hiding that they received money to conduct the inaccurate study and put out a news release. However, it still would have shown a major conflict of interest in terms of being financially influenced. The media coverage would have still negatively portrayed them because of what the COI form would say. I think the only thing that would change would be the idea that they lack transparency and honesty.
2. I don’t think the Health News Review article escalated the situation more than necessary. Considering the University was financially motivated, and was given money to do a study that they didn’t really put effort into and ended up with many flaws, I think Health News Review was in the right in terms of providing the public with details of the situation. It brought attention to the problem and exposed the issues that UMD and the milk company was at fault for. I also think UMD’s “stonewalling” of HNR was effective because it exposed UMD’s lack of transparency to the public.
3. I would definitely be skeptical of other studies, primarily because of the lack of transparency and the funding given. With the milk company paying the University of Maryland to do the study, it makes you think if other studies have been financially motivated. Given that UMD is a well established, credible research facility, it makes me even more skeptical because we'd expect an institution like UMD to be trustworthy and reliable.  After seeing this issue, if I saw another study I would wonder: did they actually complete a full research study? Are they committed to the issue and care about it? Were they paid for it? And if so, how much? Did they profit from releasing the study or was it purely in the public’s interest? It would definitely make me think twice about the study and how the company and whoever is doing the study is benefitting from it, or what their true purpose/intention is.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, very nice presentation on a very interesting topic. 1. Although the FDA has been cracking down on e-cig products for the last few years, it seems like there hasn't been that much headway made with stopping the huge number of people that use them. 2. I definitely think it was unethical to market e-liquid products as children’s snacks. Children and vape products are two things that just simply don't go together and it is very unfortunate companies take advantage of uneducated consumers that way. 3. I think that e-liquid companies should have to list all possible side effects on their website where it is easily accessible for consumers to find our more about the product they choose to use.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela, Great job with your presentation! Very interesting topic. 1. I feel as if the tactics of not disclosing if posts were paid for is not wrong at all. The interaction the consumers have with the posts is not changed or effective whether they are paid for or not. Therefore, I do not believe it is wrong. 2. I believe Lord and Taylor waited a little long on their response time. Not responding to a situation right away gives outsiders looking in the opportunity to make assumptions about what is happening rather than the company giving them the facts right from the start. 3. I think the new requirements in communication and PR are definitely a positive. They allow social media influencers to continue to grow their individual brands with much more transparency than ever before.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya, nice presentation on a very interesting case! 1. I believe that if UMD would have handled this in a more professional manner by disclosing all information about the study from the very beginning. By not disclosing all information it makes it seem like UMD was trying to hide something from the public leading to more ridicule and backlash once the story did break. I think by disclosing all information from the beginning UMD could have avoided this situation all together. 2. I do not think the health news review escalated the situation any farther than it would've gone already. Health News was simply stating the facts of the case and giving all information needed to all persons involved. 3. I cannot confidently say that this doesn't make me question studies done on other sports drinks. Especially because this study was done by a reputable university and still was not fully truthful, it makes me question how accurate other studies are in portraying the effectiveness of sports drinks.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Kenya, Great presentation! This is the case I reacted to and thought it was super interesting 1. I think that if UMD just disclosed all the information about this study it wouldn't have exploded into the media. I think by them leaving out vital information and making false claims led to more media backlash. This crisis had a huge impact on the university's credibility which will always tarnish their reputation. 2. I think after the Health News Review came out it definitely heightened the situation, but I dont think that was a bad thing. Since the study made false health claims, I think the health department needed to get involved. 3. After this study, I think I would be a little skeptical of trying a new sports drink. This study showed how people can get away with making false claims and not go through much research before making these claims.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! I thought this case was really interesting and you did a great job discussing it. 1. I feel like at this time, sponsored ads were not a big thing on social media. It seemed like Lord and Taylor didn't have clear guidelines to follow when having influencers post their new line. I think now since this is so much more common, there are much clearer guidelines companies must follow when creating a sponsored ad for influencers. 2. I think a year after the crisis was way too late of a response time. I feel that they should have addressed it to the public right away and then after focused on the legal issues in order to make this right. 3. I think the requirements have changed alot since this crisis. Now, companies disclose to influencers the rules of their ads and influencers are required to disclose when a post is an ad, most commonly by using #ad on their post.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, I really liked your presentation! I thought this was a really interesting topic that you broke down very well. 1. I think the FDA should make it more clear that e-cigarettes are for people trying to quit smoking cigarettes. I think many young kids don't realize this and are attracted to the fact that its like smoking cigarettes but without the health effects that we learn in health class. 2. I think it was unethical that they marketing their products to kids. They obviously know that by making flavors of children's snacks younger kids would be more likely to try their products. 3. I see both sides to this issue. We all know that any type of "smoking" comes with some health consequences but I think there should also be some sort of disclosure to know exactly what these health risks are.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela, great presentation!
I think the tactic to not disclose the posts were ads was wrong because that is essentially deceiving people to believe that all these people actually purchased the product through their own will, which was obviously not the case.
I think that the response from L&T was very delayed and if they had done it earlier, that would have done them some damage control in terms of the criticism they received.
I think this incident really set a tone for how influencer marketing and sponsorship should be carried out on social media as we now see hashtags for ads everywhere . I think people now are more likely to call out influencers about transparency more than ever as opposed to believing everything they see. We see consumers playing a more active role in their media consumption habits.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, great presentation!
Some other ways that the FDA could raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes is by running PSAs between shows on TV regarding the effects of smoking on your body. Similarly, since most of the younger generation is on social media, they could run a social media campaign on different social platforms.
It was very unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products as children's snacks as they make it seem more appealing and more likely for them to purchase it. Also, the effects of smoking on the health and bodies of these children can be more detrimental and long lasting.
I think it is very much necessary for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products because brands owe it to their consumers to be 100% transparent and it would be unethical for them to not do so.

# data[].attributes.body
To answer your questions:
1. I think that releasing the IRB researchers COI form would have changed how the media was producing stories but it would still not be a positive change because the research itself did not give confirmation to all the health benefits mentioned in the new release. It would, however, lower the level of skepticism and suspiciousness that was expressed in the stories.
2. No, I don't think the Health News Review escalated the situation more than necessary because they were able to question the validity of the university's claims as opposed to blinding believing it and staying silent. I believe that the university wouldn't have conducted a research and found its flaws if it weren't for the articles.
3. I am already skeptical of such beverages that make all these promises of enhancing strength and energy. This would definitely add in to my skepticism.

# data[].attributes.body
Great work Maya!

1. I feel as though encouraging the public to speak with their health care providers, and forcing e-cigarette companies to have all of their detrimental effects written on the label are a great way to raise awareness. There needs to be more encouragement of discussion on social media platforms. Under every e-cigarette social media page, I think it should be a requirement for the brand to clearly state all of the damaging effects of their product in their biographies. The FDA should continue to use advertisements on television through “The Real Cost” commercials, and they are launching public education efforts to prevent youth e-cigarette use which is beneficial, but using native advertising might be a good strategy. Creating a blog might also be a great way to raise awareness where articles can be written by past e-cigarette users, initiating social media contests and rewards under endorsement could also be a way to encourage the public to quit, and creating a podcast taking advantage of the controversy around the product.

2. I completely agree that it was unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products like children’s snacks because they are targeting the young and influential minds of a demographic and generation that takes action based on trends. This is taking advantage of a young market, and it is deceptive. The company’s packaging/labeling was feeding off the vulnerability and young audience’s exposure to their products to fuel addiction, which is disgusting. Associating a product so harmful and detrimental to one’s health in the same category as a snack for children is hitting below the belt.

3. I think that it is 100% completely necessary for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products because as a consumer, we rely on a brand to tell us all there is to know about a product. As a consumer, you are unfamiliarized with a brand’s product upon initial contact, and most of the time do not take the time to do background research on the dangerous effects for products like e-liquids, which companies strive off of, so I believe the company must disclose all side effects. It should not be optional for details to be left out, especially where many young teenagers are unsafe and uneducated on product details.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I feel as though I would be bothered if I discovered an influencer was paid to promote a product  after purchasing  that item. It would make me question whether or not the item was really worth buying if the influencer did not buy it themselves. However, I believe that at the time of this case study it was unclear how not disclosing ads would affect consumers and the company. Today, it is very important to disclose whether a post is an ad or not.
2) Lord and Taylor could have responded quicker. By not responding for a year, they allowed other people to form opinions about the company without Lord and Taylor's input on the incident. While they did not admit any wrongdoing, they could have addressed consumers directly and acknowledged their concerns.
3) I think using influencers to promote products has both positive and negative effects. While the advertisements are able to reach more people in a precise and controlled manner, it can also lead consumers to unfollow influencers if the ads become too annoying or repetitive. In my personal opinion, when I see a celebrity or influencer promoting something, I am always wondering if they truly love the product or if they are just being paid to say they do. Sometimes, if I see "AD" in the post I just skip it. I think if companies use influencers to promote their products, they must be really careful with how they do it.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a great presentation!
1) As many other have said, it is important to teach children from a younger age the dangers of smoking. I know of some very effective PSA's that play on television that warn against using e-cigarettes. I also feel it would be equally important to reach out to high school kids as well. If they grew up with the image of fun, playful e-liquid packaging, they might not fully understand the harm of them.
2) It was very unethical for e-liquid companies to market their products similarly to children's snacks. It was very obvious that they were targeting an immature and vulnerable audience. By using child-like packaging, it made the companies appear so though they were disguising their product.
3) I believe it is the responsibility of e-liquid companies to disclose all necessary information. Often times, the ingredients are not listed in a fashion where consumers would know how to research the effects. Also, consumers are less likely to do research on their own as it is time consuming. They are more likely to trust the information given to them from the company. With products that can affect the consumer's health, it is very important for the product to list all possible side effects to avoid legal actions by consumers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Disclosure Is Always In Style Questions (Lord and Taylor)

# data[].attributes.subject
Disclosure Is Always In Style Questions (Lord and Taylor)

# data[].attributes.body
Fantastic work Markela!
1. As a consumer, I do feel that the tactics to not disclose that the posts were ads was wrong because it is convincing the public and key buyers that major influencers with large followings are not gaining some form of incentive/profit for creating these pre-approved posts. Having paid endorsers is a great tactic, and I understand that it can also be seen as a turn-off for consumers if it is disclosed, but this is an ethical issue because you do not want to give consumers the wrong impression that these dresses are becoming popular on their own. Lord and Taylor made their product seemingly look like a trend, which was deceiving and manipulative to get product sales. Advertisers are responsible for substantiating objective product claims, so the lack of transparency in the posts were misleading.

2. I do feel like the response rate from L&T was delayed and could have been handled in a more appropriate way because they knew that they were deceiving consumers by convincing them that their love for this dress was genuine. After consumers realized that the dress’ popularity arose from paid endorsers, this influenced their impression of the brand, but I don't think that L&T took a major blow to their reputation because as you stated in your PowerPoint, the company is one of the oldest department stores in the U.S. Therefore, a non-detrimental mistake like this would not impact L&T’s consumer engagement with their products. Just because the dress gained popularity in a manipulative way, doesn’t mean that people didn’t still like the design and style, so I think this is why it did not harm their reputation as much, despite them addressing their mistake a year later.

3. I think the requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communications and PR landscape tremendously, as I do not see an ad nowadays without a branded hashtag under a post, specifically for Instagram. I can see that influencers definitely have more leeway when promoting a product for a brand, and there is more transparency and openness around influencers supporting a product. I do see posts that are more subtle, for example, on TikTok where influencers will be discussing a topic specific to their page, but there are subtle hashtags implying a brand deal and the product hidden in the background trajectory of the camera frame. One specific brand that employs this tactic is the Coldest Water. It is a way for consumers to seek interest without impressionable force from the influencers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chocolate Milk Study Questions Kenya Bailey

# data[].attributes.subject
Chocolate Milk Study Questions Kenya Bailey

# data[].attributes.body
Amazing job Kenya!
1. No, I do not believe if the University had released the IRB researchers COI form, and the research agreement with the University and Washington county public schools system, that they would have changed how the media was producing stories because the research was flawed and intangible. Just because they release forms, does not make the study just, nor does it help that the study was a ploy for consumerism. Do I agree that it might possibly have changed how the media was producing stories in the slightest bit? Yes, I do, but ultimately the claims were audacious, and as a researcher, I would be embarrassed that my study could be so easily falsifiable. Not only were the claims of the chocolate milk preventing concussions a pure hoax, but it was completely dangerous and ignorant, especially using young impressionable high school football players as test subjects.

2. I do believe that the Health News Review article escalated the situation, but in the best way, because it shed light on a dangerous topic. Claiming that a product as simple as chocolate milk, and masking the truth behind being a large research institution was disgraceful in my opinion. I can truly appreciate that HNR provoked the University of Washington as many times as they did to get the truth around this chocolate milk fiasco, which rightfully pushed for an investigation report. HNR properly called out the University of Washington, and I am happy that they did because I am convinced that if they had not, the University wouldn’t have acknowledged the truth and staff changes wouldn’t have been made.

3. If I am being completely honest, I would be more skeptical and selective of the sports drinks that I choose from now on after seeing this study. I would be influenced by the major damaging effects and repercussions it had with its dangerous and outrageous claims of being concussion preventative. Most sports drinks that are marketed in the industry are full of sugar, including this chocolate milk which was later revealed to have 40 grams of sugar, so naturally, I have grown accustomed to the false advertising and the packaging of products like these already. Although this study would make me put my guard up when looking at sports-related beverages in the future, I wouldn’t completely cancel a product without seeing the ingredients, yet if ignorant claims are made to boost the product’s consumer potential like the chocolate milk, I would not waste my time.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya! Great presentation and really informative.
1) I believe that if UMD had disclosed the IRB researchers COI form it would have changed the way the story was portrayed in the media. That is not to say, however, that it would have made their "research" more credible. While the University would have been scrutinized for publishing invalid research, they would not have been seen as "suspicious" and would just be judged on their academic validity.
2) In my opinion, I think the Health News Review article was appropriate. One way or another, the research released by the University would have been looked into. I do believe that if the University had responded faster it would have been more beneficial for them. It is important that organizations take responsibility for their actions. If the product was still marketed as improving cognitive and motor function, it could have been a serious threat to the public and caused further PR damage for the brand.
3) I think I would be skeptical of any drink that claimed to have cognitive effects. If I were able to do research and find answers easily on the product's research and ingredients, then I would be less skeptical of the product. Food and beverage brands need to be 100% transparent about what they put in their products in order to gain customer trust.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation, I really loved your approach! 1) As a consumer I could see L&T not disclosing that it was an ad in influencers captions to be wrong. I am the type of consumer that appreciates when brands are open and honest even when it comes to marketing. From the brand's perspective, I don’t think they were completely aware that what they were doing was wrong. I feel that more research could have been done on L&T’s end. 2) It definitely impacted their reputation by waiting too long to put out a formal response. I don’t think it terribly harmed their reputation as much as it would have if this happened in 2021 however I am sure many consumers were surprised to find out their love for the dress wasn’t genuine. Many consumers would have appreciated a more immediate response and ownership over the problem. 3) Personally, I feel that Instagram was much more casual in 2015. If a brand did this same campaign in 2021 where none of the influencers they were using disclosed that it was a “paid post” they would get a lot more backlash. Another thing to consider if this happened this year is that the response time would have to be even faster in order to combat the negative press. With the popularity of influencer marketing brands are more aware of the requirements and implications. I feel that the requirements are a separating factor for influencers' paid and regular posts. I also think the requirements help ensure honesty for the brand.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job Maya! You were extremely informative and I honestly learned a lot from your slides!
1. I think the FDA could raise awareness regarding e-cigarettes similar to how children were taught about drugs when they were in elementary school. Things like DARE and other education programs could include e-cigarettes and make major points to how dangerous they can be for people's health and also teach how sly they can be with advertising and getting people to purchase them.
2. I completely agree that it was unethical for those companies to market their products as children's snacks. I find that label to be extremely manipulative and conniving of a company to do to such a vulnerable age group. It's dangerous that a product so harmful could be used to easily by a person who might not fully understand the affects of an e-cigarette.
3. With a product containing a drug with a copious amount of ingredients, it's a no brainer there will be side affects to using that product. It is on the companies' end to list every side affect that that product could possibly do to an individual. If a company puts that much effort into producing and marketing the product knowing the affects and target market they are trying to reach, it is fully their responsibility to list all the side affects. Listing these side affects is extremely important for a consumer to see because not every individual is going to research the product or what it could do.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job Kenya, your slides made it  make a lot more sense than the text!
1. I do believe that if UMD released the COI form & the research agreements that the media would have looked into the research a little less harsher and suspicious. Not releasing important forms/documents, etc. already shows off the bat untrustworthiness and suspicion, like said before.
2. HNR's article about the study absolutely escalated the situation way more than necessary. When one major media outlet publishes something that could potentially expose a company/school/etc., it's guaranteed that the pot will be stirred even more. I do think, however, that if HNR never released that article that UMD might not have gotten the consequences they learned from.
3. If I were a consumer of sports related beverages, I would already be a little skeptical of any article relating to a new sports drink that is extremely affective. It's already known that brands will do whatever it takes to make their product extremely believable and supported, but even with an affiliation with a major research institution like UMD, skeptics will be reading it. Now that a major school like UMD was caught red handed, it will for sure increase the number of skeptics in regards to sports related drink news.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job.

1.  As a consumer I do feel that the tactic to not disclose that the posts were ads was wrong. It is very common for an influencer to promote a product that they don’t use or even not like just because they will be receiving money to do so. In general, when an influencer discloses that they aren’t being paid to promote the product and that they genuinely enjoy it I would feel more inclined to buy the product. There has been a huge disconnect with influencers and their audiences because of the fact that influencers will promote anything that will get them paid.

2. I believe the response rate from Lord and Taylor did more harm than good in regards to their reputation. They decided to release an official statement a year after the controversy came out when in general it is always better to address it immediately to mend distrust with customers and concerns. Although it was good that L&T followed new guidelines they should have released that they were changing the way they practiced business as the scandal happened.

3. I believe that the requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communications and PR landscape by enforcing stricter guidelines and requirements such as putting #ad or #paidad after a promotional post. This creates more transparency with consumer and business relations.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Some ways the FDA could raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes would be with education in middle school and high schools. It is important to start education about the health risks of using these products at a younger age as kids become interested in trying new things that their friends are doing. This could be taught in health class alongside learning about the risks of smoking regular cigarettes. Because the e-cigarettes are a relatively new industry and is seen as a healthier alternative but many of the contents in vape liquids are either unknown or harmful for people. Advertisements for anti-vaping could also be put in place targeting a younger audience.
2) I agree that it is unethical for e-liquid companies to market their products as children's snacks because gives off the message that its ok and harmless because of its vibrant and alluring packaging. Targeting a younger demographic to sell vapes is manipulative and concerning as it is harmful for their lungs and a younger customer is naive and unaware of the health risks that come along with using the product.
3)I believe it is necessary for e-liquids to list all the side effects of the product as many would not take the time to research on their own how using their products could affect their health. If the information is laid out clearly on the packaging it will at least make the consumer think about  what exactly they are inhaling and how it can affect them.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I believe that if the university had released the IRB researchers COI form then it would have made the study a little bit more respectable. The study would have obviously been in favor that the chocolate milk would positively impact an athletes performance as it made the company look good. Following proper protocol in a study is vital which  did not happen in this case.
2)The Health News Review article definitely escalated the situation as it gave the study gain media coverage. The article essentially exposed the worst parts of the study. If this article had not been released however I do think it would have been easy for UMD to not speak about it as they already were delaying responses to journalists.
3) If I was a consumer of sports related beverages I would certainly be skeptical about other studies related to sports drinks. Companies always want to promote their products as being the best or most effective compared to other competitors and if that means making claims that do not align with what the product actually does a company will do it anyways.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Kenya, this was really informative!

1. I believe the delay was just another reason to produce the story the way it was. Say if all those forms and agreements were released; the context of this study still stands. The milk brand was filled with empty promises, like supernatural cows, even if all the forms were released and carefully examined, I still think it would have faced press for fraud.

2. For sure. I think the HNR gave the world a condensed version of the study and its wrongdoings in one highlighted piece. Which is perfect for a public to digest because it's easy enough to circulate. If this article didn’t get published, I'm unsure if people would have caught on to the UMD study’s invalidity.

3. It would. It is disappointing that a milk company wanted sales so badly that it manipulated a research institution to publish a report saying that its milk gave athletes “new capabilities”. I’d be far more skeptical of campaigns and partnerships knowing the money put forth to make untruthful press possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Markela,

Great Presentation.

I wrote about this case in my reaction as well and we agreed on some points! Especially for the SWOT, when it came down to weaknesses I found there were quite a few. This situation of improper influencer campaigns according to the FTC guidelines could have been avoided if L&T did more extensive research on regulations. It raised the question for me that if this research was done, wouldn’t L&T have crafted a sponsorship message to tell their influencers to include? That’s what needed to be done here and that information must have been available.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Maya, I think you did a really nice job explaining this complicated and deceptive case. E-liquid sales is a concerning issue. Those corporations have power and resources to invest in marketing campaigns. So it makes you think, if that much was invested it could be assumed there was a strong motive behind making the package look like you described; most suitable for younger children. It’s good there are unions like the FTC and FDA that can regulate companies making these types of products. It’s not right that these e-liquid companies can just create freely without doing extensive research on how to avoid getting their products in the hands of younger children, who it can really harm.

# data[].attributes.body
You did a great job on your presentation!

1. The biggest problem with E-Cigarettes is that they are appealing for a younger demographic as something cool and fun to do, while their main purpose is to help smokers deal with quitting their addiction. The best thing the FDA can do is to put programs in place to educate young people about the dangers of E-Cigarettes, so that from a young age they are informed and don’t end up going down the road to addiction.

2. It is completely unethical for e-liquid companies to market their products to children as delicious, fruity flavored snacks. By marketing and advertising these products are flavorful, young people who are not informed of the harms of the product will be inclined to try it, because it tastes good and looks cool.  Companies that market their product in this way are doing their consumer not only a disservice, but are not being truthful, honest and transparent.

3. The company should be responsible for listing all possible side effects. It is not my job as a consumer to have to do research on a product that may be harmful to me. If these companies are going to make products that could be potentially harmful, they should be required to list all side effects that come with using the product.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!

1. As a consumer I do feel as though I should be aware if content is paid or not. To me, someone posting about something they don’t care about just for money does not make me feel inclined to purchase a product, and also makes me think that the product might not even be worth it if they need to pay influencers to post about something they wouldn’t post about on their own. One of the most important things between publics and consumers is trust and honestly. By not disclosing that advertisements are paid is going directly against that trust and honesty.

2. Many companies fall victim to response rates when a crisis arises. Many companies feel that it might be better to wait it out and let everything settle down before putting out a statement, but in reality the quicker the response time the more respect, transparency and trust will come from publics and consumers. Ultimately if consumers and publics do not feel that a company is being open, honest and transparent, their reputation can be hindered. I think by L&T waiting longer than usual to put out a statement ultimately harms them. Consumers and publics do not like to be in the dark.

3. The PR landscape has completely changed with the advancement of social media and influencers. There is essentially a whole other platform for influencers in the PR world. Now that influencers have to say when a post is paid or not allows for more transparency and trust, which will ultimately lead to more success and a greater following.

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

1. I do think that if Maryland followed the proper protocol when releasing the study the media would have not been so against the study. I also think that if UMD was honest and apologized for their inaccuracy, they would’ve gotten more respect from the media.

2. Although I think the Health News Review was correct in their review, their article definitely shined a bad light on UMD and their study. I was actually surprised reading about the case and your presentation about how the article roasted UMD and the study. I do think this was necessary so that UMD acknowledged their mistake and knowing going forward the steps they need to take to be able to publish an accurate study.

3. This is a great question. I do think this would make me skeptical. While reading a study from a high academic college like UMD I was expecting their study to be accurate. After finding that a huge school like UMD can make mistakes in their studies, now I’m skeptical that other highly acclaimed colleges will publish inaccurate information as well. In the future, I will definitely read more into studies about sports drinks.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation and video!

1. The FDA could raise awareness is introducing their ideas to the curriculum of young children in elementary and middle school.  Having them learn about the side effects at an early age could prevent them from wanting to try it in the future.  Targeting a young demographic in any way could help them prevent issues in the future.  Showing family-friendly commercials on children’s television channels could also help.  Perhaps even having some shows introduce episodes on the matter could help prevent issues in the future.

2. It was very unethical for e-Liquid companies to market their products as if they were children’s snacks.  It could be very dangerous if a child got their hands on these substances.  The fact that they believed it was a good idea to do this is crazy.  It made it seem as if they were targeting children with their packaging.  Their packaging needs to show that their product is for adults and should be marketed as such.

3. I believe that e-liquids should list all possible side effects of their products.  If it could cause harm to an individual, they need to disclose that.  A person should also research the product too before using the product.  It could affect different people in different ways, so it would be good for a person to do more research on their own before deciding to use these products.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya! Great presentation! This case study brings to light a  developing issue in our society with the various vaping products available. To answer your questions, (1) There are many different ways the FDA could go about raising awareness towards this issue.  These new products, such as e-cigs and juuls, are becoming more popular amongst younger children. The FDA could begin to incorporate lessons into the health unit in schools to educate children on the harm that these e-cigs can do to people. Growing up, we learned about cigarettes and gateway drugs in health class.  Now a days, we are seeing less of cigarettes and more e-cigs and vapes. I believe it would be beneficial to alter the lessons they are teaching to children, on this topic, to address the more modern nicotine devices.  To answer your next question (2), I do believe that it was unethical for e-liquid companies to market their products as children's snacks. Using a fun and bubbly packaging theme, similar to children's snacks, gives people the idea that these products aren't dangerous or as  harmful as they really are. Using this theme in packaging makes people feel more comfortable buying the product.  Lastly, (3) I do believe it is necessary for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products.  In reality, people won't take the time to go out of their way to educate themselves on the side effects of nicotine products.  By stating the side effects on products and packaging, e-liquid companies save themselves from legal issues as well. All in all, very interesting presentation!

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

1. I do believe it is wrong that it was not disclosed that the posts were paid.  The fact that these influencers are getting paid to post about things that they do not care about or believe is crazy.  They are obviously just doing it for the money while their follows believe they are posting and promoting something genuine and something that they believe in.  Little did they know it was all for a paycheck.

2. The fact that they waited a little longer than they should’ve hurt their reputation a little bit.  Had they responded right away, their reputation could’ve been saved as it showed that they cared about their consumers and had been monitoring the situation very closely.  Instead, it seemed as if they were unprepared for the situation and did not know what to do or how to appraoch it and it hurt them.

3. The new requirements have made things in the communication and PR landscape a lot more clear.  It allowed influencers to adapt and continue to grow in the social media environment, but in a better and more transparent way.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey I thought you did a great job with your case study presentation!

1.  I do believe that if the University of Maryland released the IRB that was in charge of the study, they would’ve been more transparent about the incident and perhaps the media would have had a better understanding as to why the study was released.  It was very surprising to see the study be published without a lot of facts and data to back it up.  Perhaps if the media was able to see the forms and the IRB, the stories would’ve changed slightly.  I do not think the stories would have benefited the University of Maryland in any way though.  I think the more information that got released would’ve caused more reputational damage to the University.

2. I think the HealthNewsReview’s initial article was fine, but they kept pushing their agenda against the University of Maryland as time went on since the University was not responding to them.  HealthNewsReview was fighting for their own cause.  They review and promote health studies for the benefit of the public.  When they saw this study could be potentially dangerous to the public, they stepped in to do their job.  When the University did not respond or comment on the matter, they kept pushing their agenda as they believed it was very important for people to know.  At the end of the day, it was good publicity for them.

3. It really depends on what the sports drinks were reporting.  In this case, the University was promoting chocolate milk that helped with recovery from concussions.  I would’ve been very skeptical about that claim no matter who made it.  I don’t think there could be anyway chocolate milk or any sort of drink that could help the brain recover from a traumatic injury such as a concussion.  I fully believe the electrolytes in other sports drinks help with recovery, as there is science to back it up.  There was just no science to back up the University of Maryland’s claims in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela!
Great presentation! This case study was very interesting to read about because the issue of influencers not disclosing ad's on Instagram is something we see frequently.  To answer your questions; 1) As a consumer,  I do feel that not disclosing if an Instagram post is an advertisement is wrong. If influencers aren't transparent with their followers it causes a disconnect between the two.  There is a difference between an influencer posting a product because they genuinely enjoy it and because they are being paid to do so. To answer your next question, (2) I believe that L&T's response rate was definitely harmful for their reputation. Not responding as soon a possible leaves room for consumers to speculate and form their own, often negative, opinions on the situation. Lastly, (3) I think that the requirements for influencer marketing has changed the PR and communication landscape by making influencer marketing a more professional role in this industry.  These rules being put into place gives the influencers more of a set job role in the communications industry as opposed to run blog accounts for simple pleasure. Once again, great presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya!
Thank you for a great presentation. It was enjoyable to read and watch!

1. I think that if the University had released the IRB, it would have improved the transparency of the study and people would be more likely to understand why the results of the study were what was reported. However, I do think the general public would have been upset by the study entirely and would have been dismissed much earlier than needing to investigate and look into the study itself.

2. I think that the Health News Review was a much larger slap on the wrist than they were expecting but I think it was a good example to set for any other studies who might attempt to pull a fast one like this research study did. I do not think it was escalated more than necessary but I do think the issue would not have been as escalated had the Health News Review not release an article on it.

3. I think all parties should always be doing research when they decide to place mass amount of trust in a product. Therefore, I would be more skeptical of a product but if I do the proper research, it shouldn't be an issue. I do think after this incident, I would be more aware of the possible deception that exists in the studies but I think being more skeptical would be to my benefit.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela!
Wonderful presentation, thank you for posting it for us to read!

1. As a consumer, I feel that it was very wrong for them not to disclose that the influencers were paid or not. Honesty and trust between the consumer and producer is very important for the integrity and therefore, sales of a brand and by violating this, they shot themselves in the foot. Being candid and transparent is valued in a brand and it was misleading for them not to disclose the paid endorsement.

2. I think that more often than not, a faster response is better received. When it is clear that a person or brand is waiting to respond, it is clear that they are hoping that the fire dies down or that they want to choose their words carefully. A genuine apology should not take long to plan. It could be perceived that by taking time to plan an apology, they are continuing to scheme or find a way out. Especially if the company had recently breached the trust of the consumer.

3. The new requirements for influencer marketing goes to show how much technology and social media has changed the PR landscape. Influencers are now required to indicate that the post is an ad when they are paid to do so. I know for me personally, I automatically ignore posts that are endorsed by the product themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya!
Thank you for putting together this presentation. I enjoyed your slides and video!

1. One thing I think the FDA could do to improve their awareness in terms of the health effects of e-cigarettes is by continuing to use heavy preemptive measures rather than reactive campaigns about quitting. While I think they already do a good job at this, campaigning for younger demographics would be most effective to promote early abstinence. This can be done through school in the form of speakers and classes or children's TV channels like Disney and Nickelodeon can be more candid about the topic. Since kids would be much more receptive in those spaces, it would be the best way to target them.

2. I agree that it was highly unethical for e-liquid companies to market their products in packaging that is similar to children's snacks. They are a very vulnerable demographic and the demographic that they should be targeting has no need for it to be packaged as such. The true target are knowledgable and consenting adults so the packaging should reflect that rather than reflecting a much younger demographic who are much more receptive to the kind of packaging that they are familiar with.

3. I think it is necessary for e-liquids to list all of the possible side effects as well as for the consumer to educate themselves on the matter. I think that full and true consent comes from full disclosure as well as full knowledge of the potential side-effects and consequences. A lack of this information from either side is irresponsible and misleading.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya! Great presentation!
1. E Cigarettes are a growing threat to children very early. I believe one of the strongest suggestions one could make is conduct marketing campaigns paired with local governments to implement awareness to school aged children. This should be added to health programs in the same curriculum of drugs and alcohol as this becomes an ongoing threat to becoming a gateway toward other health issues.

2. I believe it was incredibly unethical to market these liquids to resemble children's snacks and drinks. By doing so, it normalizes the use of Ecigarettes in minors as well shows that the target market is this demographic of the youth. This is incredibly harmful both appealing to minors as well as standardizing the use of E Cigarettes in minors. It goes beyond being used by minors, but targeting them perpetuates an extreme threat of health crisis.

3. I think it is up to the producer to explicitly state the threats of using a product on their product. If there is serious risk it should be clearly stated and understood by consumers. I don't believe it is ethical for consumers to be tasked with researching every product used, if that research can be done a presented cohesively on products themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya! Great presentation! To answer some of your discussion questions:

I think that it would have helped to better explain things, but it wouldn’t have completely fixed the way the media was discussing UMD

No, I wouldn’t say that it did. The article stirred things up in the media, but I feel like it points out clear problems from the study

Yeah, I would concern. I think that it would cause me to second guess any new study promoting crazy health benefits. I feel like it would call into question the validity of the studies solely because of what happened with UMD.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela, Nice presentation! I liked the level of detail that went into your research!

1. Yes, I think because I would want to know if they are just saying they like the product because they are getting paid. I think there is an assumption that if someone is promoting a paid product there will be little said that is negative about the product. On that level, it makes the whole promotion by whoever was asked somewhat bias.

2. I think that they could have responded sooner than they did in the timeline, but overall I would say that their response was necessary in order to address the situation and clear themselves from the problem.

3. There is a lot more free-flow of information, as consumers, we are allowed to know what is a paid promotion and we are allowed to speak up when that doesn’t agree with us. I think that this new level of communications directly between consumers and stores has created a more complicated level of PR needed in certain cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, Great Presentation!

1. I think one way to raise awareness is to introduce educational programs across the country to school-age children about the side effects of smoking e-cigarettes. This would provide early intervention to the kids and allow them to see the repercussions should they want to smoke later on.

2. I think that it is very unethical to market the liquid as kids’ snacks. That is giving harmful messages to the children wanting to buy the products and of course, their health is being put at risk. I think that it is a very underhanded thing to market dangerous product as “kid-friendly”

3. I would like to see all the side effects listed, but even if that isn’t possible I feel that some of them should be listed. With cigarettes, there is now a warning it can cause cancer, but it still doesn’t deter some people from buying them. At the very least putting the warnings and the side effects on the packaging can make someone think twice about purchasing the product.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela, great job on your presentation! I really appreciated you adding insight about the influencer you follow at the end. I think it is important to note this individual change in addition to the industry growth.
1. I personally remember when the discussion about needing #ad or some equal disclosure was very prevalent and not required. Since this case was at the time when the guidelines were unclear and social media advertising was new, I don't think the tactic was wrong, especially if deception was not intended. However, I agree with a point made in the textbook that disclosing the relationship between brand and influencer makes the influencer more credible and is beneficial in the long run.

2. I think it was important for L&T to know the facts and the new FTC guidelines before responding. However, I also understand how waiting can make the company seem less transparent. I think the best response action and time should have been influenced by research since the #ad issue was prevalent among many companies.

3.  I think the increase of social media promotion and new requirements for influencers makes advertising and communications more interactive and transparent. This change emphasizes the importance of proactive PR since it is much easier for consumers to comment on a brand and its actions, and it is easier for negative opinions to spread.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya,

Great job on your presentation!

1.I think making this a part of the school curriculum and teaching kids at a young age will benefit them. The earlier they learn about the consequences the earlier they prevent kids from using the e cigarettes.

2.I definitely think it was unethical for the e liquid companies to market their products as snacks for kids. Knowing that it would attract that age group and lead to the usage of nicotine was wrong.

3.When it comes to listing the side effects, I think it is the company's responsibility to list all the possible effects someone can experience. If a consumer wants to go ahead and use the product knowing the possible effects then that is their decision. I personally think you should do some research to see what exactly you’re putting into your body but it shouldn't be our job to have to worry about looking up the side effects.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela,

Great job on your case study!

1.As someone who uses social media and is a consumer I do think it's wrong to not disclose that the posts were paid. To hide the fact that these influencers are getting paid seems sneaky and almost as though they know it's morally wrong. These influencers have gained a following because people admire their lifestyles and an ad is not a genuine post. Although from L&T and the influencers point of view I understand that its business and everyone is trying to succeed.

2.I think their response time was longer than it should have been because it could have given off the impression that this situation was not a top priority. In the end it seems the decision to wait until the FTC released their new guidelines didn't do much damage since they had a well prepared effective response.

3.The communications and PR landscape has become more clear and reliable. The use of micro influencers is becoming more and more favorable rather than using A list celebrities and I think these new guidelines will benefit the fashion industry when using social media.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, great job on your presentation. I really appreciate your thoughtful discussion questions since I feel like this is an important conversation.
1. Like most people, I think educating students at a young age and in the school system is important. I also think it would be beneficial for the FDA to support marketing initiatives like the national "Truth" campaign that funds content encouraging teens to reject smoking. I vividly remember seeing these commercials growing up and believe they helped lower smoking rates.

2.  Again, I agree with everybody that the packaging was unethical. More so, I think it is morally wrong for the e-cigarettes industry to have ever promoted vaping as a healthier alternative to smoking, especially when the long-term side effects were unclear, as others commented. I think ethics are especially in question when the e-cigarette boom happened at a time when smoking was actually decreasing (https://ourworldindata.org/smoking), calling to question the need for a "healthier" alternative.

3. Yes! Companies morally need to promote side effects. That is why commercials for medication always have the weird ramble of side effects at the end. I think it should especially be required for companies promoting drugs, like e-cigarettes. When I was abroad in London, I learned about differences in marketing in the UK compared to the US. One thing that stood out was how, in the UK, cigarette boxes must have warnings paired with explicit images of smoking side effects (it is not appealing packaging), and advertising of tobacco products is banned. I won't post it here because it can be unpleasant, but google "cigarette boxes uk" and you can see how anti-smoking their packaging has become.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya!
I really enjoyed your presentation. It gave me a ton of information and I think this case was really interesting!
1. I believe that the university was going to face some type of backlash no matter what but if they were to release more information it might have helped clarify the situation and prevent some negative feedback.
2. I think the HNR article was necessary to bring attention to the problem. As it was stated in the video you showed, concussions are not something to take lightly and if this “study” is not as accurate as it appears then the misleading results can cause real harm.
3. If I were a consumer of a sports related beverage I would definitely be skeptical but because most brands have information and data to support the benefits of their products I would continue to purchase them.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela! Great job on your presentation!

1. As someone who follows a lot of influencers, I have definitely been more aware of what are ads and what are not. I find it really hard to trust influencer's recommendations  because I know how much PR boxes and ads they do. Since the addition of #ad or #paid I have been able to differentiate between authentic suggestions or endorsements versus a true ad. I think this has truly shaped influencer PR.

2. I think response time is crucial and Lord and Taylor fell short. This shortcoming definitely harmed their credibility and harmed their perceived loyalty to their consumers. Although immediate response can also be harmful, waiting too long in this instance was equally as harmful as a quick response with little thought.

3. I think the new expectations for influencers has increased credibility in PR immensely. With a serious rise in influencer use, I think it makes PR more transparent and credible. Although originally it seemed annoying, I think social media has a new balance of credibility and freedom of expression. The balance was lacking and this has seriously changed social media marketing. It is no longer a matter of looking for the purpose or intention behind a post, as it is so much clearer with the new guidelines.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya,

I really liked taking a look at your case!

1. One of the biggest ways the FDA can raise awareness regarding the health effects of e-cigarettes it by educating people from a young age. I remember in school learning all about the health effects of normal cigarettes when I was younger, and with new forms of cigarettes being made it is important for educators to inform consumers of the risks of partaking in such habits. By promoting the negative health effects of both cigarettes and e-cigarettes from a young age could prevent the movement from growing bigger.

2. I do believe it was unethical for the e-liquid companies to market their products in a similar way as children’s snacks. Knowing that these products are harmful to children but marketing them in a way that appeals to them is very unethical and could have played a roll in the huge e-cigarette movement among teens.

3. While I think it is definitely important for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products, it seems almost impossible for them to do so. To some degree, it should be up to the consumer to educate themselves. Because everyone’s bodies will react to products differently, every individual should educate themselves to be aware of potential risks and interactions that could be harmful to them.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Markela,

I loved taking a look at your case!

1. After looking over the case, I do feel it was wrong of Lord and Taylor to not disclose that it was a paid partnership. Because many consumers rely on influencers to get opinions about specific products, showing that it is a paid partnership shows consumers that the opinions might not be as transparent about products as they are saying in the posts. Rather, influencers are being paid to say certain things that they potentially don’t even believe.

2. I think it is important for L&T to respond to the issues, but because they waited so long to address the issue it certainly lost some creditability. Addressing the issue much faster would have proved to consumers how seriously they took the problem.

3. These new requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communications and PR landscape because it makes influencer promotions more transparent for consumers. Now, consumers can trust influencer promotions when they know where the intent is truly coming from.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya

Great presentation! I really enjoyed looking at this case because it is a good example of a time where bad publicity could have been partially avoided had they addressed some of the issues earlier on. I think that had they been more honest and disclosed more information early on they could have avoided unwanted press. I feel like the article released by Health news review certainly escalated the situation by generating more buzz. Although it provided consumers some information, it created conversations that depict serious topics. In regards to the third question, I do believe it could alter people’s perceptions of safety when it comes to sports drinks. Although I don’t find myself super observant when it comes to ingredients and effects of drinks, a worldwide health movement has made consumers more observant as to what they are putting into their bodies.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya! You provided a great summary of this case, and I think you hit all the important points about the relationship between Health News Review and UMD. As a Maryland native, this case was particularly interesting to me since I had not heard about it even though I was in high school at the time.

My answers to your discussion questions 1 and 2 are pretty much the same as everyone else: if UMD proactively released more information, they could have prevented some (but not all) of the questioning of their credibility. I also agree that it was necessary for HNR to post the review since that is the purpose of the internet-based group. Like the video you showed stated, this was a time where concussions in football were a huge part of the news, making the timing and title of UMD's press release even more questionable.

As for discussion question 3, I don't think this would make me more weary of other studies related to sports drink because I would not classify the Fifth Quarter Fresh case as a study. They did not compare the effects of this new chocolate milk to other milks/beverages and it was not published or peer reviewed. However, it will make me more careful about conflicts of interest in any publication.
I think it's interesting how harmful this study could have been since, based on my experience and the background you provided, UMD is still a reputable research institution.

Do you think the timing of the release (when football-related injury was heavily discussed) affected the content and claims of the original press release?

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on the case study! It was clear and straightforward while remaining brief. (1) I do feel that any more prominent degree of receptiveness and straightforwardness by the university would have benefitted them emphatically. I don't believe it would change the result of the circumstance radically as it was all the while something that individuals could misinterpret and  in any event media sources could report that UMD was not being so exceptionally pernicious as they were real about their discoveries and examination. (2) The HNR article certainly heightened the situation, yet I don't think it was superfluous. As was referenced in the video you provided, this is a genuine case to make about an intense theme of football concussions. Without the article from HNR bringing up precisely what UMD fouled up, a great deal of harm might have been done to youthful competitors. With regards to something so genuine and particularly including minors, I believe it's practically the obligation of a distribution like HNR to be pretty much as brutal as they should be to transfer a reality. (3) I couldn't say whether it would make me distrustful of different examinations identified with a sports drink, however it would make me more perceptive. I would absolutely do my examination on an investigation to ensure I know where it’s coming from, where the data came from, and who subsidized the investigation. Cases like this exhibit the significance of being an investigator yourself.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, great case study and thanks for taking the time and exertion to break down this contextual issue. (1) Similar to some of the other responses I am a firm believer that the FDA should provide state-funded educational systems proof with regards to what occurs on the off chance that you smoke these nicotine products. Growing up I was taught cigarettes were bad for you and to not try them. However, ecigs have brought a whole new wonder to the world as to what the long-term effects of them are. It’s horrible to say but since my return to Poughkeepsie, I have seen a few young kids smoking these devices while on their bikes. It begins at school since that is the place where kids invest a large portion of their energy. (2) It is certainly unethical and morally wrong for these e-juice organizations to package their products to appeal to the younger demographic. (3) This is an interesting inquiry, however by and large I think my answer is yes it is vital. Those unaware of the risks need to know prior to starting before becoming addicted. So at least they are choosing to put themselves in harms way with full knowledge of the potential risks. Knowing the dangers may encourage them to not do it all and avoid becoming addicted.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed your case study.
Thanks for sharing! (1) Looking from the perspective of L&T I completely understand the company wanting to keep the public from knowing the full truth about these models. However, from a consumers point of view I feel as this deceptive advertising reflects bad for the company in that paying public figures to endorse their brand seems despret. Furthermore I believe that this type of advertising is in someway morally wrong and future restrictions by the FTC should prevent this type of marketing. (2) I feel as if waiting did hurt L&T a bit but ended up helping them in the long run when they were able to figure out the full details of the situation. Responding later allowed for them to defend themselves as well as provide full details of the event. (3) I wouldn’t say it had so much of an impact on PR with influencer marketing but rather the fashion industry itself. Prior to watching your case study I already thought companies were allowed to do this and that dozens of others have done it before. If this is the case then a lot of these industries have it coming for them and it could possibly alter communications as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Kenya,

I really enjoyed your presentation. After reading the case study in the text book, watching your presentation and viewing your slides helped clarify the issues at hand, even more.  To answer your discussion questions, I do believe that if UMD were to release official documentation confirming their findings it would have changed the way in which the media was producing stories.  If the University was willing to share documentation that supported their research claims it would have eliminated a lot of negative talk and speculation from the public.  In regard to the second question, I do believe that the Health News Review Article escalated the situation but I do not think it was more than necessary.  I think that it was important for this article to come out and highlight these specific health issues.  The conversation about concussions and its correlation to football players, especially at a high school or college level, is ongoing.  For an organization, as reputable as UMD to put out a news release making such a large claim they have to be prepared to provide proof supporting their accusations and be willing to discuss it further with the public.  To address the last question, if I was a consumer of sports related beverages seeing this issue would make me skeptical of other studies related to sports drinks because this study was paid for by the company promoting the sports drink.  It just goes to show that sometimes it is necessary to go the extra mile to research where information is coming from.  All in all, great presentation! This case study was very interesting.

# data[].attributes.body
Awesome job!

1. Personally, I do not feel as though the tactics of not disclosing the fact that the posts were paid was wrong because the overall messaging and purpose of utilizing influencers remained the same. Regardless of whether the consumer knew the posts were paid or not, the interaction the consumers have with the posts and the brand (Lord and Taylor) will remain the same.

2. I feel as though Lord and Taylor’s late response overall preserved their reputation because (1) they did not over communicate or rush their messaging when crafting a response, and (2) they were able to fully develop their communication to address the situation with the most professional messaging.

3. Overall, I think the new requirements for influencer marketing have impacted the communication and PR landscape in a sense that they now prioritize the rights of the consumer, and focus on protecting the consumer in regards to disclosing or releasing information needed for decision making.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation, I thought this case was super interesting. In our society any press is good press, however UM only honing in on this specific brand does put into question commercialism vs integrity. Regarding question Number 2 I felt that the article released by Health news review shed light on the issue. If it were not for the article being published many would have revealed the information that was given to them, not knowing the incentive behind the partnership. i feel in the moment it may have created more issue for Maryland and the Chocolate milk, but later to realize that the publics deserved to hear the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!! In our generation the e-cigarettes have been a fundamental part of our society. When they first came to the scene they were marketed as a healthier version but as more cases arise of harmful side affects of them, it is about time FDA created harsher guidelines for them. Regarding question one, I feel like the FDA could partner with younger users who have had traumatic experiences happen to them and have them share their stories. At times the only way to understand something is to try and put yourself in their shoes. Influencers have so much power over social media platforms and can make real changes in spreading awareness. To conclude on that I feel that on packaging on these tabaco products the risks need to be more highlighted. If a warning is more clear, it might make someone think before using again.

# data[].attributes.body
Amazing job, Markela! Especially for being the first one to post for the class, you captured every detail and were super informative! To answer your questions: 1. I do think it was wrong on their end because an influence literally has the potential of having an influence from their many followers. Not disclosing that their post is an ad may make them sound phony and fake. 2. I do thin the response from L&T was necessary but maybe too little too late. I'm sure they had many meetings in regards to ad disclosure. But companies learn from their mistakes and have grown since then. 3. I think the requirements have changed influencer marketing for the good. It lays down rules that it isn't a game and that there is responsibility and liability that comes with advertisements and social media influencers. Requiring ad disclosures on posts shows authenticity and that they are posting content that is paid content from a brand.

# data[].attributes.body
this was such a great case, mostly because Lord and Taylor was my first job. Looking back I feel like Lord and Taylor broke trust with many of their customers. They were trying to create a relationship with younger generations but in a dishonest way. If the followers of the influencers knew prior that the design Lab dress was an payed post I feel like the popularity the dress got would not have bee as intense

# 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
1. I believe that if the University had released all of the information initially, and overall had been more honest, there would have been a more lenient/not so heavy backlashed outcome. If there was full transparency in every outlet of the situation, the controversy could have been handled more effectively. Especially considering the fact that proper research protocol was not followed, it just added another layer of reason not to trust the accuracy of the situation, and that gave mass media something to run with.

2. The Health News Review article most definitely escalated the situation; this is the type of article that would gain more attention and be presented to more people who were not initially aware of this unethical study. All around, this is a much more trusted and reliable source that played a helpful part in exposing UMD. Although the article contributed to more media chaos, it set the precedent for UMD knowing that they could not continue publishing inaccurate studies and information.

3. Now knowing the information that the study was paid for and promoted by the company, it would definitely make me skeptical in the consumption of these types of drinks; this study is the clear example of a money grab. It is as well however dependent on other studies produced about these drinks, as well as the information presented. I would definitely have to do more research personally in order to be certain. It is always important to be cautious and know what exactly is going into your body.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In our current day in age, almost every celebrity or influencer has some kind of paid partnership or brand deal with certain companies that they’ll promote on their social media. At this point, I generally just assume that is it a paid for post. I do also believe that it is important to disclose that information just for ethical purposes in order to not mislead followers.

2. This was one of the first major cases of a big company using influencers to reach their target audience and put paid content on their platforms, so there were not any rules or guidelines to sort of abide by. They were unaware that what they were doing was wrong. The response rate Lord & Taylor received was a little delayed, but most of the backlash they received was definitely unnecessary and harmed their reputation slightly. As a company, they demonstrated that they were taking the appropriate amount of time to form an appropriate response and correct the situation.

3. Within the past 5 years, social media and influencer marketing has become very popular and a factor that most companies have to pay close attention to and be more attentive toward what is going on their platforms. I believe this situation that happened with Lord & Taylor opened the door for more companies to start incorporated these methods into their marketing; in other words, it strengthened the popularity of more companies using paid content to expand brand awareness. These new requirements have also built the trust between consumers and brands as it presents communication and transparency.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Maya! You had a fantastic presentation! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Maya! You had a fantastic presentation! 

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe other ways the FDA could raise awareness toward the health affects caused by using vapes and e-cigarettes is by disclosing all of the ingredients used to make these devices and it may be good idea to have representatives from the FDA to go into schools and educate young kids on the dangers of these devices. When I was in grade school, we had individuals come and give seminars about the dangers of cigarettes and other drugs; I feel as though those lectures should encompass e-cigarettes now instead of regular cigarettes because thats what tobacco companies are targeting toward young individuals now.

2. I agree completely that it is entirely unethical for these companies to be marketing their products toward children and presenting them as children snacks. If I had to make an opinion, I believe that tobacco companies are aware that younger kids know the dangers of cigarettes and from a young age had the stance of “I will never smoke a cigarette.” Knowing that, they have created all these new products with these funky flavors that younger people and teenagers would be more privy too, rather than a cigarette. It’s entirely unethical and they only goal is to make a profit.

3. I believe that it comes from both sides. On most products containing nicotine, they mainly list the warning that it is an addictive chemical, that you shouldn’t smoke while pregnant and they can cause cancer. The transparency should be presented on what the health effects are and as well what the ingredients are. I do believe however also, the consumer should educate themselves and be aware as to what they are putting into their body and the possible consequences of it.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, great job on this case study! In regards to your questions: 1. I don't know how much of a difference the University releasing the forms and agreement would have helped the incident. Even when disclosing the information, it was still morally questionable. 2. I think the Health News Review escalated the situation an appropriate amount, the University was involved in seriously morally questionable activity. 3. It might, because I would think that perhaps other companies also were not disclosing all the relevant information.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes, I do believe that the tactic to not disclose that the posts were paid was wrong because both the influencer and company have a responsibility to be transparent with their customers.
2. I understand in a way why L&T's response rate was so delayed, only because at the time it was an unprecedented situation. I still think they should have made it a biiger priority to respond to the situation, perhaps the harm to their reputation could have been avoided.
3. I think the new requirements for influencer marketing have changed the communications & PR landscape by reinforcing the focus on transparency.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Maya, great presentation!
1. I think emphasizing the harmful ingredients present in e-cigarettes and the lack of research on the harms of inhaling them would go a long way in educating people on the dangers of e-cigarettes.

2. Yes, definitely. Because no matter whether they admit to it or not, their marketing strategy was probably put in place on some level to appeal to children.

3. I think it is necessary for e-liquids to list all the possible side effects of their products, just as cigarette companies have to list all of their side effects.