# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=93e4d90b-9958-416d-99b6-afe700086eb6
1) What do you think Wells Fargo could've done differently?
2) Do you think that they handled this case well?
3) Do you think they used the correct campaign tactics?

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=6ec30a52-db3b-4391-a575-afe501756c70

1.) What research do you think could have been done prior to this crisis?
2.) Does this change your perception on how banks operate knowing they could be using your information without authorization?
3.) Do you think the CEO was the right spokesperson? Could anyone else have spoken up?

# 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. Wells Fargo could have been better prepared for a crisis of this magnitude. They were not prepared, they did not monitor their employees well enough. If they had better monitoring measures in place, this probably would have never happened.

2. At first, I do not think they handled the case well. Denial never helps, at least I do not believe so. However, besides that, I thought they did well in handling the case. They did things to try to build their customers trust back, and fix their reputation.

3. I think it is hard to label campaign tactics are either correct or incorrect. Instead, I would say that they were effective. They continued to try and show and prove their new culture.

# data[].attributes.body
1. There should have been a lot of research that took place prior to the crisis. Research should’ve been conducted with surveys of employees and customers with senior board members which would have helped analyze policies and procedures. Another thing could be risk management research that should’ve been conducted in order to identify risks that may face the company. Even employee behavior research could’ve been conducted to analyze their behaviors with sales practices.

2. It does change my perception on how banks operate especially given how well known Wells Fargo is as well. In my opinion it is harder now-a-days to partake in scandals like these but it’s still concerning to think about given we put our trust in bank employees so there is always a "what if."

3. I do think the CEO speaking out about this case was good, but I also think more people should have such as managers who were aware of the sales targets and the pressure on employees to meet those targets could have also spoken up and raised concerns with senior management. I also think regulators could’ve spoken up and taken more action earlier on the crisis to prevent all the harm.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think Wells Fargo could have done a lot differently. They should have emphasized a culture of ethics where employees are encouraged to speak about practices they witnessed. I feel like this could be anonymous and allows for better employee training. Another thing they could have done is strengthen their risk management practices and rebuilt their trust and reputation with customers and stakeholders.

2. I believe they ended up handling the case well and took the right moves in improving their companies reputation. They took responsibility, fired employees involved, and paid their fines. They also created several initiatives to rebuild trust. On the other hand it’s hard to come back from such a big scandal and rebuild  trust within the bank.

3. I believe the campaign tactics used by Wells Fargo were effective in communicating the bank’s message and actions to address the scandal. I do think they could have been more proactive in identifying and addressing the underlying issues.

# data[].attributes.body
1. After I read through the case myself, along with your presentation of the case, it became evident that not much research took place. I mean, I guess a company is suppose to trust their employees, but still - there should be some sort of checks. And hence - research! Maybe if some research was done regarding how employees were feeling, they would not have felt the need to do what they did.

2. I think it changes my perception a bit, but not completely. There are so many companies and businesses out there that have your personal information - including banks. I think this reminds me to have my guard up a bit, but it does not totally make me feel like I can never trust a bank ever again.

3. I think the CEO was the right spokesperson. However, I think it would have been beneficial for lower level employees to speak out, such as branch managers. I think that would have really resonated with the public.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Wells Fargo handled this situation pretty well after the fact. After they realized the effect that the crisis had on their customers they acted quickly. I think they obviously could have prevented this crisis from happening in the first place.

2. I think Wells Fargo handled the situation well. They addressed the issue and made changes within the company. They were also very transparent about what was going on and had a free flow of communication with the public.

3. I thought their campaign tactics were effective, especially the CEO apologizing and stating how they were making changes and making up for their mistakes. The most important thing is being open and honest and they were.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe there should have been way more research on the employees and screening done before hiring. Providing background checks could have helped them find red flags within their employees.

2. This situation did change my perspective on banks. I also think it’s a situation where customers have a choice on what banks they want to trust. This crisis with Wells Fargo would definitely change my perspective on them and make me more hesitant to trust them as my bank.

3. I believe the CEO was the right spokesperson. When a crisis like this happens within a big company, someone high up within the company should be the one to apologize. Customers will see this as a good thing. I believe other people within the company did go out publicly and apologize and state how they were going to change and prevent something like this from ever happening again.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Wells Fargo was raking in a lot of money while they failed to prioritize the needs of their employees. While good in theory, their practices were not ethical and made the employee liable instead of the company. They should have monitored the situation better and put a better system of checks and balances in places to observe what was happening day to day.
2. Wells Fargo initially had a very defensive approach which I think was a poor choice. After they fired the people that needed to fired, released an apology, and promised better practices in the future, then I believe they made up for their initial missteps.
3. I feel as though their campaign tactics were overall effective. They addressed the scandal and showed they cared about the consumer and stakeholders.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Wells Fargo was functioning on a very profitable but very flawed system and since it was making so much money, it failed to properly research the negative sides of the business.
2. I have lots of trust in banks as I know a lot of barriers exist to make sure they are adhering to best practices with my money. This case study did damage my trust in Wells Fargo slightly and I would probably lean toward another bank that might have a better reputation.
3. In theory the CEO is the correct spokesperson for this situation but I don't think Stumpf's approach was effective and he did not serve stakeholders or customers properly with his defensive actions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think Wells Fargo could have definitely handled this better by speaking up sooner and doing prior research to even prevent this from happening in the first place.

2. I think they handled the case pretty well. Maybe not initially, as they were long to respond and denied any problem. In the end, however, they were able to put steps in place to regain consumer trust and their previous reputation.

3. Yes, I think they used the 'correct' tactics in the end. The steps they put in place were effective and allowed them as a company to move on from the crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Not much research took place before this crisis, and it definitely should have. Research could have definitely been done to self-audit, or even call in others to audit to make sure this didn't happen/didn't get to the scale that it did. Employees should have been referenced or checked in order to make sure things were going smoothly (and legally).

2. Yes, it absolutely does. When you put your money in a bank, you're trusting that company to do what's right and protect your money. Since I know nothing about banking myself, I hand it over to the experts who I expect know best and are trustworthy. This case brings up a lot of worry for me about how banks use your information, as well as worst case scenario thoughts (what if fraud occurs? what if i lose my savings? etc.)

3. Yes, absolutely. For something this big, the CEO was definitely the right spokesperson, I just think he should have said something sooner. In addition, his statements could have been supplemented by statements from other higher ups as well, but ultimately I believe he was the right choice for the main spokesperson.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Wells Fargo should’ve had a better crisis plan in place to protect themselves from something like this ever happening.
2. I think that they handled this whole situation just alright. At first, they took a while to respond, which wasn't a great look, but in the end they took strides in regaining the trust of their customers.
3. I think they used campaign tactics pretty well in communicating their messages since they apologized for the situation and said they would be better going forward.

# data[].attributes.body
1. There should have been a lot more research on the employees on their past. Had they done more screening this could have been prevented.
2. While I still trust banks, it definitely changes my perception on them since you never can be 100% sure that your information is safe.
3. The CEO was the right person to speak up but more leaders in the company should have spoke out to protect their companies image.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) I think Wells Fargo should have done more research prior to this crisis about their customers and management/employee's.
2.) I think they did a good job handling this situation. They used a lot of different media tactics such as new releases, social media, commercial and a website.  They kept the public updated, were open and honest and were very apologetic.
3.) Yes, I think they could have used a face-to-face tactics though like holding some kind of fundraiser or informational lecture to show they have good corporate social responsibility.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think researchers could have checked in to make sure that their information is valid and correct and make sure their sourcing was reliable. More research should have been conducted prior to this case and more in depth research specifically.
2. This does in fact change my perspective on how banks operate and makes me reevaluate what banks to trust. It definitely makes me more hesitant to trust certain banks and makes me feel as though I would need to do further research on them.
3. I think the CEO was the right spokesperson as he gave the correct information in this situation. I do think the company would have benefited more from including employees to communicate about the situation and their stance on it.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Wells Fargo did not do the proper research and planning for this crisis and did not fully evaluate their situation. Their communication between them and their employees was not suitable and did not suffice.
2. I think they handled the case well considering what they were involved in. They put their effort into communicating back again with the publics and by trying to become a trustworthy banking company again.
3. I do think they used the right campaign tactics considering their situation. They tried their best to build back their company and regain the trust of their employees.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) I think that there could have been better research about public cross-selling practices since this was a large issue within the case.

2.) Yes, this does change my perception of banks, because money is very valuable to people, and with money comes corresponding bank information. I have heard stories of people most often in the 1900s storing money in random places in their houses because they did not trust banks, and while I never understood this logic, this case makes this logic even more valid to me than ever before.

3.) I think that an initial message from the CEO was a good move as they are the ones representing the company at the highest level. With this, having employees at lower levels speak would have shown customers that there is a is a shared common goal at every level of the company to create change at this disaster.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Wells Fargo could have had a crisis communication plan in place before the problem even occurred to ensure a prompt response.

2.) I think that Wells Fargo handled this case well considering they were able to pay their customers back and further regained their trust by starting their "Building Better Everyday" campaign. This campaign promoted the idea that this one setback would not demolish the previously positive reputation that they had and that clients could still trust the bank.

3.) I think that they did use the correct campaign tactics to an extent. To my understanding, they only used newspapers to promote this campaign which will only reach a certain audience. I think that in addition to newspapers Wells Fargo could have turned to online options such as social media, or email newsletters to reach a younger demographic.

# data[].attributes.body
1. They should have researched cross-selling and surveyed the employees/customers. They should have run tests to make sure the number of Wells Fargo's real clients matched up with the number of accounts being opened/closed. It was honestly a huge oversight by the government. They should have also run research on risk assessment at Wells Fargo to see if what they were doing would really help them or actually damage them in the long run (which it obviously would).

2. It absolutely does change my perception of how banks operate. They tell you what they do with your money, but at the end of the day how do you really know? No one is checking up on it from a third party. Banks don’t give access to anyone who isn’t bank staff. Even then, some of it is a high level that an average bank teller doesn’t know. They also have so much data they can do whatever they want with (if they don’t get caught) which is really scary.

3. It was defiantly a smart move to have the CEO be the spokesperson. A lot of ceos like to hide behind other members of the board or put blame saying they had no idea it was going on. But Wells Fargo’s CEO stepped up and took charge of the narrative.

# data[].attributes.body
1. They should have planned better for the crisis. They knew what they were doing was illegal, they should have at least had a crisis plan in case it got exposed what they were doing. Or they simply could not have done what they did. They should have also been more transparent with the public.

2. For the severity of their crimes, they actually handled the situation pretty well. They made steps to react to media ridicule and save their reputation. They also kept the public updated and ensured they were trying to fix the problem at hand.

3. They defiantly used helpful and relevant campaign tactics such as utilizing social media, a common news platform today. Also their marketing campaign, "Building Better Everyday" was a huge factor in the company's damage control.

# data[].attributes.body
1.     In my opinion, a lot more research should have been done. Hiring should have been prepared by much more investigation of the potential employees. By offering background checks, they could have been able to spot warning signs in their workers.

2.     Yes, this does change my perception on how banks operate. Wells Fargo is my current bank and this situation makes me more hesitant to trust them with my personal information.

3.     I believe the CEO was the right spokesperson. Someone in a position of authority inside the organization should apologize when something like this occurs. However, I do think that he should have said something sooner. Additionally, I think there should have been more employees communicating with the public.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  In my opinion, Wells Fargo could have been better prepared for this situation which would have allowed them to recognize the fraud earlier than they did. If they were monitoring their employees effectively this situation would not have happened.

2.  Initially, I did not think that Wells Fargo handled this particular case well. However, I think they made up for their original errors once they fired the necessary employees, issued an apology, and committed to improving processes going forward.  They addressed the issue and made changes within the company. They were also very transparent and open with the public about what was going on.

3.  Wells Fargo used effective and appropriate campaign strategies. They took full responsibility for their actions and apologized to the public. Wells Fargo showed that they cared about their customers and made a point to let the public know that they are making improvements in the future. Overall, Wells Fargo tried their best to rebuild their business.