# 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
Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think PETA could have done more to promote viewing the documentary Blackfish? If so, what else could they have done?

2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=81a1143d-c924-4f71-9e8f-acfe0133d2c4

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=47ac24cd-c4ee-46e3-a73c-acff01678f08

Discussion Questions:

1. This case is so unique in its ability to blur the lines between which party was right and which was wrong. In your opinion, if you had seen Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, what would your reaction about SeaWorld be?

2. Should SeaWorld have stopped orca entertainment shows after the death of Dawn Brancheau or was it okay to wait until after the Blackfish documentary (roughly 3-6 years after her death)?

3. Was there anything else SeaWorld could’ve done better or differently in order to “fight” the Blackfish documentary controversies?

# data[].attributes.body
Fantastic breakdown of the case Zachary!

1. I think that PETA did a phenomenal job at promoting the viewing of their documentary Blackfish by posting on social media in anticipation of the CNN broadcast. As stated in the video, the CNN network amassed over 20.6 million views for the Blackfish documentary, so based on the millions of people who tuned in to see it, that shows the effectiveness of the campaign altogether. Even though the promotion of the documentary was not extreme, I feel like this was the best approach because it did not present PETA as trying to display a promotional tactic, but instead as an organization with an important message to share with the public. If we are going to be technical, they could have released a press kit to more print and news organizations, but overall I feel like the tactics were extremely effective as they used communication channels to publicize the documentary and blogged about the film’s limited theatrical release in July 2013.

2. I feel like PETA organizing a publicity stunt in downtown San Diego to draw attention to orca captivity in SeaWorld’s oldest park a few miles away was very smart. They did this by having a large crate that emitted high-pitched orca distress calls that were decorated with labels reading “Shipping to SeaWorld” and “Live Orca.” I feel like this tactic was extravagant, yet necessary. As an animal lover, this may seem drastic in other people’s eyes, but I feel like the fact that they went this far to gain media attention around the issue just shows the care and compassion they have for protecting wildlife. Using this unconventional method was disruptive in a good way because it caused people to evaluate the circumstances around orca captivity, creating interest and enthusiasm around watching the Blackfish documentary days before it premiered on CNN. It evoked an emotional response out of the audience they were trying to reach, and I am not surprised as PETA is known to pull extravagant stunts such as this one.

3. If I worked for SeaWorld and I had valid reasoning to promote the safety of orca’s within the theme park, I would show evidence based on the facilitation of the proper care these wildlife animals are receiving. It is hard for me to say how I would respond, as I agree with PETA in this case, but in terms of a response to the release of the Blackfish documentary, I would want to create a documentary in response showcasing wildlife safety, and the precautionary measurements that are taken for orca protection. I would showcase the positive aspects of how orca are treated at SeaWorld through the caring staff (if there are any). I personally would be honest with the public, because there is no way to hide animal cruelty and captivity with pretty words meant to protect a reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job presenting this case Eva!

1. If I saw the Blackfish documentary and then the Truth Campaign I would think that the Truth Campaign is nothing but a defensive response to a video that showcases orca captivity and amassed millions of views. In their response, it seemed like it was mainly based upon retaliation for the Blackfish documentary, and my reaction about Seaworld would be negative. I personally never liked the idea of animals being held in a theme park for the amusement of humans, and as an animal lover I am on PETA’s side, but the Truth Campaign would just make me think that SeaWorld is trying to use diversionary tactics to get the negative attention on their treatment and handling of orca wildlife. One of the reasons why I see it as defensive is because of the hostile language used such as when they say “Blackfish employed false and emotionally manipulative sequences concerning the collection and separation of killer whales” and another being that PETA’s film relied on “animal rights activists masquerading as scientists.” There are two truths to any case, but SeaWorld’s would not make me in favor of their campaign.

2. I think they should have stopped orca entertainment after the death of Dawn Brancheau because it would have shown their recognition of the dangers of orca captivity to humans, showing care for their staff, wildlife, and public altogether. By waiting it showed that they cared more about consumer profit, and only wanted to end it after the truth from the PETA Blackfish documentary was exposed. Stopping the orca entertainment show would have also prevented a lot of the negative backlash they got after Brancheau was tragically killed because it displays their care for the safety of the park’s guests. By not doing this they showed a lack of care for security regulations, and this tragic death just showed why orcas are not meant to be promoted for amusement.

3. In my opinion, I think there was nothing they could have done differently because this is an argument of what is morally wrong and right. In this circumstance, the tragic death of Dawn Brancheau should have been enough reasoning to stop the orca shows, and I think what they could have done differently is to just end them after her death. There is not a response that would have made me feel like orcas belong in captivity because they don’t. SeaWorld had a chance at promoting their concern around the safety and security of their guests but chose not to do so because of consumer profit, and ultimately that cost them celebrity supporters and the publics’ support. They could have come back from this by recognizing their mistakes, but instead, they have a permanent negative stigma around their reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion Questions:
1) What communication tactics do you think United Airlines should have used to provide a more in-depth response?
2) How can Dave Carroll’s video help other companies improve their customer relations?
3) In what ways could United Airlines also use social media to repair the situation?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=f36a93a2-c443-4f18-90f1-ad01000f6a50

# data[].attributes.body
What are some additional steps Carr-Jordan could have taken to create more awareness about her campaign?

Do you think it was fair for Mcdonald's to ban her from eight of their branches in Tempe, Arizona?

What could she have done in order to increase her credibility among the key publics?

# data[].attributes.body
Hey I thought you had an awesome presentation and explained part 2 very well!

1. I also found this case to be very unique.  I did touch on it briefly in the first part of this case study as well.  If I saw Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, I’d still be on the side of Blackfish.  While SeaWorld may have provided factual and credible evidence to deny all allegations and claims made in the Blackfish documentary, I still side with Blackfish as I also believe whales should not be kept in large tanks for entertainment purposes.  I just don’t think it’s right for the animal.  SeaWorld could provide all the evidence they want but at the end of the day whales do not belong in those tanks.

2. I do think SeaWorld should have definitely stopped the shows after the death of Brancheau.  While many believed it was an accident, someone died.  But it wasn’t just anyone, it was someone trained to take care of the whale.  At that point, especially given the whale’s history, SeaWorld should’ve stopped the shows immediately afterwards.  Though rules were in place to prevent it from happening again, there is always the possibility of it happening again somehow.

3. I think SeaWorld was done for after the release of the Blackfish documentary.  There was so much build-up leading to the release of the documentary.  PETA had been speaking out against SeaWorld for years.  Multiple incidents, including death, had occurred with the killer whale shows.  Then finally, a documentary that discusses it all in 80 minutes.  20 million people watch it in the span of 17 airings.  SeaWorld could deny it all they want.  They could provide all the evidence and facts as to how this documentary was wrong, but there was too much to ignore at that point.  So many more people began fighting for the cause.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Beyond Disgusting”: Bacteria Fighting Mom Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
“Beyond Disgusting”: Bacteria Fighting Mom Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
Wonderful breakdown of the case Prashansa!

1. I think Carr-Jordan did a phenomenal job at raising awareness and sparking national attention towards McDonald’s unclean conditions that young children were vulnerable to with her initial Facebook video to taking legal action as she testified at legislative hearings and spoke individually with elected officials. She obtained her first clear governmental result in her county in September 2012 when Arizona's Maricopa County officially approved a new section in the Environmental Health Code. I think possibly some additional steps could have been to get the CDC involved somehow, as it was stated that multiple pathogens posed as dangers to the children’s health and wellbeing. She could have also spoken with more news outlets if she wanted to gain more exposure, but I think ultimately she did a great job at spreading awareness.

2. I don’t think it was fair for her to be banned when she provided evidential truth and stressed necessary concerns about the safety and security of not only her children but other children's exposure to the infectious environment they were allowed to be in. McDonald’s even tried to categorize this as an isolated incident in a ploy to salvage their reputation, but I think that ultimately made things worse because they are responsible for the conduct of their fast-food chains. Therefore them banning her can be viewed as hostile and as retaliation by the public for simply being honest. In all fairness, I don’t think she would be taking herself or her children back to any McDonald’s after all of the legal action she took against them. Wendy’s might be a better option for them.

3. I think Carr-Jordan had a lot of credibility and even if she didn’t have very much with her educated background, she still had evidence and proof of concern. Her main credibility in my opinion lied within her being a mother who was concerned about her children’s and other’s safety, not her status within higher education. I also think she did a great job at creating exposure around the unhealthy conditions, for example, she contacted and did interviews with multiple publications and news outlets such as the Chicago Tribune who followed Carr-Jordan to the McDonald's playground and found the similar unsanitary conditions she had pointed out in her initial claims. I think overall there is nothing more that she could have done because she implemented every strategic action to bring attention to the key publics, more specifically concerned families.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought you had a great presentation!

1. I think Carr-Jordan did very well when it came to creating awareness for her campaign.  She maybe could have utilized more social media, thought Facebook was very popular during the time of this case.  Definitely using more mediums to create awareness would have helped.  I think she did well overall, especially utilizing a YouTube channel as well, as YouTube was becoming more popular during this time.  Collaborating with other people/organizations definitely would have helped as well.

2. I did find it very surprising that she was banned from eight McDonald’s in her area.  While she was fighting for a good cause, perhaps she did take it a little too far if she kept going even though McDonald’s disclosed their cleaning protocols and habits.  Eight seems very excessive but if she caused a scene at all eight I could see why they banned her.

3. Perhaps she could have collaborated with scientists who worked in microbiology who would back her claims.  Her doctorate was not in microbiology so many did not find her credible.  Perhaps if she collaborated with a microbiologist or some sort of microbiology lab/organization, she could have been seen as more credible.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!

1. I think United could have had a lot more fun with this, but given the time in which this incident occurred I could see why they did not have that type of response.  I think it could have been funny if United responded with their own song, but it was an apology song.  That would have been much better than their comment and one tweet about the incident.  But United could have done literally anything else besides what they actually did.  News releases on the incident, a video apology, a press conference regarding the manner.  Instead, they tried to treat this as one isolated incident in hopes that it wouldn’t happen again.

2. Other companies were able to see how United responded and how that response basically failed and made the situation much worse.  From that video, other companies were able to see how easy some things can go viral and how one isolated incident could lead to such controversy.  It is especially important in today’s age as things can spread like wildfire on social media.  Organizations need to make sure that their customer relations team shows that they care about every situation and are willing to fix it anyway they can.

3. United could have tweeted more about how they were going to fix the situation and shown rectifying behavior by announcing changes to their policies via social media.  They could have interacted with Carroll more on social media and made jokes about the video or released an apology song.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job at explaining the case thoroughly Lauren!

1. I think that some communication tactics United Airlines could have used to provide a more in-depth response to the key publics’ would have been to treat the issue as a priority. They should have handled Caroll’s case in a more respectful and accommodating manner initially, but I think that their response was delayed as they waited months to respond to Carroll’s claims. By ignoring the issue, it showed United Airlines’ lack of regard for the belongings of their passengers and makes me question what other things they do not care to pay attention to. They also could have tried to conduct a risk assessment of the issue through social media to try and repair the situation. They should have also provided vocal commiseration/ an apology for their actions and done employee re-training practicing to similar circumstances that played out in Caroll’s scenario.

2. I think that his video brought attention to how the baggage handlers were loading the luggage. Caroll’s bass player, also looking through the plane’s windows, saw his bass guitar being thrown as well, and when Caroll immediately alerted the plane’s flight attendants, they shooed him away, saying it wasn’t their responsibility. His video that went viral will ultimately make airline companies think twice about mishandling flyer’s luggage and the customer service etiquette that goes into respecting the passenger’s belongings. His video can also help companies implement stronger protocols and measures taken when guests are expressing genuine concern for their belongings, and be more considerate of the policies they have in place, such as United’s policy which requires customers to report damaged baggage claims within 24 hours of the flight. I think companies should learn to be more accommodating to their customers, especially since Caroll was unable to report claims within 24 hours since he was miles away on tour. His video paints a picture of the lack of customer care that the airlines had, so hopefully, companies learn from this.

3. United Airlines could have utilized social media to repair this situation by conducting a risk assessment as I talked about before, but also could have shown the strategic action they took to try and rectify the issue. Responding to the crisis on social media would have been a good start for them, but they also could have also expressed an apology to Caroll and the public. They should have shown on social media how they changed their customer service policies upon Caroll’s video gaining national awareness, down social media monitoring, and enacted in public engagement concerning the case. Unfortunately, their silence in the issue was very strong and they waited a long time to take corrective action.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lauren, great presentation! I really liked that you included the song, and you explained the interaction between the two parties very well. I also love the little guitar pick graphics throughout the slides, great touch!

1) I think there should have been a more in-depth initial response, like a news release or video statement that was longer than a tweet. I do think it was positive that United Airlines didn't boast about the donation they eventually made as reconciliation for Carroll, but I think they should have used formal media outlets (especially ones that picked up the viral video story) to explain what actions they were taking to improve their policies to avoid these issues in the future.

2) I think the biggest lesson here is the power of social media - or as Carroll's book was titled, the power of one voice during the age of social media. As you clearly stated in the background of United, this organization and many like it have been around for decades, and even though the internet has also been around for a while, organizations are still learning how fast things can spread digitally and how to properly respond. I think it was smart for other organizations to bring Carroll in to speak about customer relations. This case as a whole shows the importance of employee relations and morale and the effect it has on overall company performance.

3) Social media would have been a beneficial tool in order to respond where the conversation was happening. The video was posted on YouTube, and it spurred on commenters to also share their grievances. United could have used social media to join the conversation. As we know, two-way interactive communications has become both the norm and necessary. Obviously United couldn't personally respond to all the comments/complaints, but social media would have been a good channel to start a conversation about the consumer experience.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation Prashansa!

1. I think Carr-Jordan's communication efforts were well thought out and very effective in gaining awareness. It did not take long for news media outlets to pick up on the story and ask for interviews with Carr-Jordan. I think these stories/interviews were probably the best means to gain awareness. Her efforts included videos, a website, and a Facebook page that she constantly and consistently updated. I don't even think she needed to use any other social media outlets since her target, moms with young children, frequent Facebook more than anything else. If anything, she could have reached out to other mommy bloggers and pediatricians to spread the word to her target through additional credible channels, but clearly she gained awareness without these actions.

2. Fair is a tricky word in this case. Often times when customers are banned or kicked out of stores the argument is that it was/wasn't fair. However, stores have the right to ask someone to leave, especially if they are being disruptive (they are a business after all). In this case, Carr-Jordan had been to one of the eight stores multiple times and was approaching other consumers, thus being disruptive. Although it was a safety concern that the children of other customers did not play in the play area, from a business perspective I think it was fair to ban her, at least from the one location. Banning her from the other locations was more unfair, but they were owned by the same person, so I understand if he was concerned about one location he would be concerned with all of them. Was it smart? Absolutely not! Banning Carr-Jordan was a terrible PR decision on the owner's side because it made it look like he was trying to hide something which just created greater concern about the safety of the play areas.

3. Carr-Jordan had credibility through being a mom of four, concerned for her own children. Additionally, having professional bacteria tests completed added to the truth of her claims. However, Carr-Jordan was not a scientist, technically her swabbing and testing technique could be put into question, and what does she know about making an analysis of the results? I think having a primary and designated scientist that specialized in bacteria, pathogens, and potential illness would have increased her credibility. Yes there were professionals who agreed with her, but she did the interviews alone and referred more specific questions to professionals (some of which backed her claims on their own, not through personal collaboration). It was very smart for Carr-Jordan to only answer what she knew and refer more specific concerns to professionals, but I would have liked the professionals to have a single "face" or spokesperson within Carr-Jordan's communication efforts. By this I mean, one credible expert who was active on the Facebook and website, wrote informational articles, and participated in interviews with Carr-Jordan.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Zachary,

Great discussion on the case!

1. I think the way that PETA promoted the documentary was extremely effective in garnering a lot of views without making it seem like a promotional tactic for the organization. I think there is a fine line between too little and too much promotion, and I would say that in this case PETA did an excellent job in determining how much promotion was necessary. However, if more promotion was required, I would think that more press kits and press releases could have been sent to traditional media sources.

2. I think that in the right situation, using extravagant methods and unconventional tactics is a really smart idea, and I believe that was the case for PETA here. I think it demonstrated the care and passion that they have for this issue, and it was unconventional enough to gain a lot of attention by people who may otherwise have remained unaware of the documentary.

3. If I worked PR for SeaWorld, I would respond to the documentary with complete honesty, recognizing the mistakes and misdoings of the organization and try to be completely transparent. At the same time, I would make sure to highlight any positives, like precautionary measures taken by the organization to ensure wildlife and staff safety.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Eva,
Great job on the presentation!

1. If I had seen Blackfish before the Truth Campaign, I would most likely view the campaign as damage control and be more likely to believe the documentary. As I am already not a fan of SeaWorld or any type of amusement parks that use animals for entertainment value, the documentary and campaign just furthered my dislike for SeaWorld.

2.  SeaWorld should have absolutely stopped orca entertainment shows after Dawn Brancheau’s death. This would have demonstrated a deeper understanding of the animals in their care as well as shown respect and care for the welfare of the staff and wildlife of the park.

3. I don’t think there was anything else SeaWorld could have done. I believe it was almost inevitable for the organization to face controversy and public discourse over animal captivity and use for entertainment; the death of Dawn Brancheau and the Blackfish documentary only escalated the discourse around the park. This isn’t just a question of how to respond to a crisis, but questions of what is right and wrong when it comes to the care of wildlife.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Prashansa,
I really liked the way you explained the details of the case—great job!

1. I think that Carr-Jordan did a great job using the resources available to her to raise awareness of her campaign. I would say that the only other steps she could have taken would have been to use more of a mix of traditional and social media, and focus on getting more organizations, like the CDC, involved earlier. But overall, I think she did the best she could and it was a successful campaign.

2. No, I don’t think it was fair of McDonald’s to do that. It doesn’t paint a very nice picture of the organization and their reaction to Carr-Jordan suggests that they are trying to hide the truth. Additionally, Carr-Jordan had evidence that proved the dangerous conditions of the McDonald’s play areas and banning her suggests that the organization just didn’t want to deal with it.

3. I think Carr-Jordan provided a lot of credibility between her background, the background of the people that she consulted throughout her campaign, as well as the evidence that she collected. Additionally, her status as a concerned mom adds to her credibility in the campaign. I think the only way to really add any more credibility would be to add more scientists and credible voices to her campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Lauren,

Great breakdown on the case!

1. I think United Airlines could have done a lot more in their communication to demonstrate care for their publics and be able to reduce any damage done to their reputation. I believe that a more in-depth initial response, and a quicker response than the one they provided would have been very impactful. Their response should have included some form of news release or video statement, or another form of traditional media.

2. I think his video can help other organizations be aware of how impactful social media can be in spreading information, as well as demonstrating the need for proper responses to customer concerns. If an organization responds poorly, as United did, things can get much worse. It may drive an organization to implement stronger protocols and measures to make sure that customer concerns are heard, respected, and taken seriously.

3. United Airlines could use social media to repair the situation in participating in two-way communication with the public and allow them to really see how the public was responding to the situation. It also would have afforded the organization opportunities for more transparency and the ability to show the public that they care about their customers and their concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think PETA did a good job in promoting the reveal of the film Blackfish. Because they utilized tactics like the publicity stunt and major social media promotions, they seemed to gain the attention of consumers while giving them a taste of what the film was about. While they could have utilized more forms of digital media in the promotion of the reveal, their attention grabbing tactics generated a lot of traffic.

2. I think PETA generated more attention to Blackfish by using unconventional and extravagant methods to gain media attention. Being that they generated a larger following after the publicity stunt, I found the methods to be successful.

3. If I worked in PR for SeaWorld, I would begin by taking a look at the legitimacy of the claims being made in the film. After everything was fact checked, I would respond in a more sorrowful tone than the defensive one they actually responded with.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I had viewed Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign I would certainly be unsure of which party to trust. Because I have existing beliefs about the inhumane treatment of animals, I would probably automatically trust the film more.

2. SeaWorld definitely should have stopped all orca entertainment shows after the death of Dawn Brancheau rather than after the release of the Blackfish film. Because they waited until the reveal of the film, it made consumers question the trust of the SeaWorld organization. In turn, it forced consumers to focus on greater questions of the ethical consequences of captive animals.

3. Although there is probably more SeaWorld could have done to gain a more trustworthy image, the reveal of the film brought a lot of ethical questions to light. Rather than completely admitting to claims and addressing issues with animals in captivity, SeaWorld chose to focus on areas of the film that are misinterpreted and misconstrued to paint the organization in a negative light.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Some additional steps Carr-Jordan could have taken to further promote and generate awareness for her campaign is to have government involvement. She could have taken to multiple digital media platforms to further generate traction and awareness.

2. I do not believe it was fair for McDonalds to ban her from 8 different locations in Tempe, Arizona. I believe by banning her from several locations, the organization only painted a more guilty picture as thought they have things to hide. Rather than adjusting to meet the expectations of consumers, they dug themselves deeper into a PR crisis.

3. I believe Carr-Jordan could have added creditability to her case by being backed by other organization or possible government involvement. After having multiple credible sources backing her information, she would have gained a more legit following.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In my opinion, United could have better handled the situation. As many organizations turn to in times of PR crises, they could have organized a press release where they could have addressed concerns and updated their plan of action by showing honesty to the public. Most consumers like to see that brands are making changes to right their wrongdoings.

2. Dave Carroll’s video was a good example of a situation that would have been made better by being transparent and honest. His video starts a bigger conversation about the treatment of consumers and the trust between these consumers and organizations they trust and support.

3. United Airlines should have been better about keeping a constant flow of communication and information between consumers and the organization. By responding to consumers who were bothered by the situation they could have better established trust and would have enhanced their diminishing image.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation! This was a really interesting case to look into.

1. Other than using other forms of social media, Carr-Jordan could have reached out to more/other organizations that fight for the same cause.

2. Although I personally don't think it is fair for McDonald's to ban Carr-Jordan from eight of their restaurants, I do see why they chose to do that. They were being attacked by her and getting negative attention from the media for it, so why not just ban the woman from coming to your stores? In the business world, and when people are trying to protect their image, "fair" is a tough word/concept.

3. I think if she had teamed up with another organization or group that also focuses on child health and safety, or the cleanliness of fast food places, she would be perceived as more credible. I also think if her videos, website, Facebook etc. was maybe more professional, people would take her more seriously.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!

1. PETA did a good job having a variety of communication tactics to promote Blackfish and gain awareness on the issue at hand. I think the mix of social media, blog, and publicity stunts was effective in reaching a variety of targets and gaining interest. I also really like that they included viewing party guides. This allowed them to focus on the promotion of the movie itself rather than the social issue for audiences that are less likely to support the cause before watching the documentary.

2. In general, I think PETA's more unconventional publicity stunts are really clever. It can be hard, and expensive, to gain media attention for social causes, and then even harder to convince the public to support the cause. This whole process becomes even more expensive and time consuming when the organization is going up against a large corporation. PETA's stunts, like people painting themselves like killer whales, were an interesting and effective way to capture the public's attention.

3. This is a very difficult situation for SeaWorld, not only because the documentary took off and received a lot of support and views, but also because the deaths and injuries of employees was undeniable. It is especially difficult to convince external publics that you are dealing with animals humanly once they have been told otherwise. Many people don't actually know the the specifics of what is safe and what is detrimental to the animals' behavior and growth. I think I would have had SeaWorld be as transparent as possible as quickly as possible, and use visuals. Provide the public with behind-the-scene footage of how large the tanks are and how they take care of the animals. Instead of writing the documentary producers and PETA off as activists with an agenda, I would have SeaWorld focus on addressing their specific concerns. I don't remember if it was in part one or part two of this case, but I think one thing SeaWorld did well was use their own trainer testimonies. This tactic was especially powerful when they used the same trainers or ex-trainers that were used in Blackfish, some of which came out and said Blackfish falsely portrayed the purpose of the film and the trainers' stories. I think this was the most effective way to break down some of Blackfish's credibility. These specific testimonies should have been promoted more heavily.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Eva, I absolutely loved your presentation! The theme of your slides was awesome, and I like how you kept the information/bullets short and simple. Your diagrams are great, too.

1. I really appreciate your point about how the lines are blurred in regards to which side is "correct." I definitely struggled to "pick a side" while I read these cases. I think I would have immediately thought poorly of SeaWorld if I saw Blackfish first, especially since it is so powerful and emotional. I think it is harder to think critically about how truthful a documentary is when it plays into emotion so strongly. I agree with some of the other comments that seeing Blackfish and then SeaWorld's Truth campaign would make me be more apprehensive of SeaWorld's campaign as a cover-up. However, I said this in my comment for the other presentation, I think what makes SeaWorld have credibility is the use of trainer testimonials, particularly the testimonials from people that were featured in Blackfish and speaking against Blackfish. I also think, unfortunately, I would have been less swayed by Blackfish if I saw the Truth campaign first and went into the viewing thinking critically.

2. Personally, I don't think the captivity of animals solely for human entertainment is particularly ethical in and of itself. However, with that said, I don't think the death of Dawn Brancheau needed to lead to the end of all orca entertainment shows. Accidents happen, especially in high-risk occupations and working with large animals. I definitely think it should have led to a closer look at safety protocols and rescuing methods as well as the end of that particular orca's use in entertainment shows - at a minimum. If it was determined through this investigation that it orca entertainment was inhumane and dangerous, then the death should lead to the end of the shows. I think it also would have been smart to have a pause of the shows to complete the evaluation.

3. Honestly, I think their biggest failure was timing. There's not much else SeaWorld could do/say other than try to dispute the claims of Blackfish which they did with the Truth Campaign. Using trainers and former trainers, including some who were in Blackfish, to tell SeaWorld's side of the story was a powerful tactic and should have been more effective than it was. The campaign just came out too late. I think they should have issued written statements and made social posts along the same lines as the Truth campaign message, and then taken extra time to release the videos that were a part of the campaign. Also, instead of the videos being a major part of the campaign itself, I think they should have promoted the videos more heavily as original SeaWorld content.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation! I remember when this film came out and hearing all the hype about it.

1. As many of my classmates have said, I do agree that PETA did a good job at promoting Blackfish. Their methods of promoting the film were highly effective and caught the attention of many. From a PR perspective, they could have done more to promote such as great some type of media kit, press releases, social/digital media and traditional media.

2. In some situations, unconventional methods of getting your message across do well. Anything that strays from the norm usually gets a lot of attention. In this case, I think PETA did a great job at using unconventional methods to gain media attention.

3. I would go right into crisis comm mode if I were working PR for SeaWorld. I would definitely make sure to get a statement out as soon as possible, but also make sure that my facts and the facts out in the world were accurate and addressed properly before releasing my statement. Being transparent is what helps sustain your reputation, even if that means you admit to wrong doings. I would make sure that whatever statements are made by SeaWorld, that they are accurate, genuine, transparent and timely.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation! I find this case so interesting, especially after looking at part 1 of the case.

1. As with most things, there are two sides to every story. If i had watched Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, I would probably be torn between which side I felt was in the right, and which side I felt was in the wrong. However, I feel like the movie put a negative image and perspective in my head about SeaWorld, so I would probably trust the film rather than the Truth campaign.

2. SeaWorld should have definitely stopped orca shows after the death of Dawn. The fact that they waited over 3 years to put an end to orca entertainment shows where their priorities lie. Definitely lost a lot of respect and trust from the public.

3. SeaWorld was put in a very bad situation after the release of the movie Blackfish. Honestly, I don’t think they could have done anything differently in order to fight the documentary. IF they fought back too much, it would show that they are ignorant or that they care more about protecting their own image and reputation rather than the safety of their animals. If anything, they should have been more transparent and admitted to their wrong doings as well as discuss areas of the film that may have been misinterpreted or not accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked your presentation and how well you explained the case.

1. United definitely could have handled the situation better. One thing that is engraved in my head from being a PR major is that the timing of your initial response during a crisis/problem is extremely important, as well as making sure your statement or response is genuine and transparent.

2. A company’s reputation is both based on their actions, and how the publics views them. I thinkDave Carroll’s video was a good example of transparency and honestly, and also the impact social media has on spreading information to publics and consumers quickly and efficiently. Consumers like to feel as though a company genuinely cares about them and is honest with them.

3. United had a major issue with their communication during this crisis. Something that consumers and publics like to see is a company engaging with consumers online or in person. It creates a sense of trust and care, like it is a partnership between the company and consumer. Social media is the perfect way to bring the two together in a single space where consumers can express their concerns,and the company is right there to respond.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on this presentation!
1) I agree that United Airlines could have communicated a more in-depth response to the public. As stated in other comments, United treated this as an isolated issue when in reality it was much larger than that. Just because Carroll was outspoken about his incident does not mean that he was the only one this happened to. I think United should have committed to reevaluating their customer service policies and released these updates to the public. Carroll's video was viral, so it seemed inappropriate for United to have almost no formal response. While Carroll was doing interviews on national television, United remained virtually silent and allowed for Carroll to gain control of the narrative.

2) I think this video had a major impact on how organizations use social media to handle situations. I have seen airlines get called out on social media by unhappy customers and the airlines typically reply directly to handle the situation. Companies seem to have realized that social media has the potential to make almost anything go viral, and the last thing they want is for something negative about their organization being spread to millions. From Carroll's video, I think companies have learned to act quickly and efficiently to avoid a viral disaster.

3) One major way United could have used social media to repair the situation would have been to post a video statement and allowed for communication from the public. It would have been beneficial for United to ensure the public their voices were heard and that they were doing their best to improve their customer service policies. They could have also set up their own account specifically for customer service issues to give customer's multiple resources for dealing with issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zach really great presentation.

1. Do you think PETA could have done more to promote viewing the documentary Blackfish? If so, what else could they have done?

I think that they were thoughtful in their efforts to do a publicity stunt and used many social media outlets to promote the viewing of blackfish. Therefore I don’t they could have done more.

2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?

I personally don’t support PETA or their actions, but in this case, I felt like their stunts did help the greater cause.

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?
I feel like I would be put into a very tricky situation. SeaWorld didn’t handle things correctly both regarding the animals or their responses and I feel like I might have to step away from this specific case.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Eva Great presentation!

1. This case is so unique in its ability to blur the lines between which party was right and which was wrong. In your opinion, if you had seen Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, what would your reaction about SeaWorld be?

1. I think if I had seen the movie I would not support the campaign because it would feel like they are just trying to cover up their misdeeds.

2. Should SeaWorld have stopped orca entertainment shows after the death of Dawn Brancheau or was it okay to wait until after the Blackfish documentary (roughly 3-6 years after her death)?

1. I think that they should have stopped their entertainment when someone died based on the morally correct thing to do.

3. Was there anything else SeaWorld could’ve done better or differently in order to “fight” the Blackfish documentary controversies?

1. I think that their efforts in trying to fight against blackfish were the best way to combat the negative PR.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Prashansa! Nice presentation

What are some additional steps Carr-Jordan could have taken to create more awareness about her campaign?

She could have done more and partnered with other moms who are worried about the safety of their kids. I think that would have made it seem like a larger amount of people were upset by this instead of just herself.

Do you think it was fair for Mcdonald's to ban her from eight of their branches in Tempe, Arizona?

No, I think that the ban makes it look like McDonald’s doesn’t want to correct the problem or even address it.

What could she have done in order to increase her credibility among the key publics?

Instead of attacking them she could have also presented easy and cheap ways of fixing the problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great job with your presentation Zachary!

# data[].attributes.subject
Great job with your presentation Zachary!

# data[].attributes.body
1. PETA utilized all the necessary avenues in order to promote viewing of the Blackfish documentary. Between their social media, blog, news release, and publicity stunt in San Diego, PETA was able to attract a large audience with their messages. In addition, PETA also capitalized on employing ‘watch parties’ of the documentary leading up to the release of CNN’s broadcast. Given the number of people who tuned in to watch, PETA’s campaigning of the documentary was successful; in addition, given the number of celebrities who also posted and talked about it attracted more of an audience. Another possible promotion that could have been pursued is in the form of sending press kits to traditional news outlets; however, PETA’s communication tactics proved memorable.

2. Although unconventional publicity methods should be utilized sparingly and work well with an organization’s overall mission, PETA’s use of this strategy positively benefitted their goal. While their publicity stunt in San Deigo may have appeared extravagant, it was necessary to their mission of drawing attention to SeaWorld’s treatment of their orcas. Not only did the stunt demonstrate their commitment to their cause, but it was also able to draw forth an emotional reaction from people.

3. If I worked PR for SeaWorld, I would have made sure that a proper communication crisis plan was in place to immediately respond to the contents of the documentary. Instead of taking an offensive response, SeaWorld should have ensured that the facts and care of their animals were available for immediate review. Although the death and injuries of employees were undeniable, SeaWorld should have been armed with some sort of material or footage to show everything they were doing correctly in caring for their animals. In addition, in any crisis such as in this instance, SeaWorld’s statements should have been delivered to the public in a transparent and timely way.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zachary, great job on your presentation!

1.I think PETA did a good job at promoting Blackfish. I think using social media and the publicity stunts were useful tactics to get the message across and promote the documentary as much as they could.

2.Although it might come off as extravagant, I think PETA was simply trying to get their point across. Sometimes you have to get people’s attention by standing out and being loud which is exactly what the publicity stunt in San Diego was.

3.If I worked for Sea world I would make a statement as soon as possible and own up to any wrongdoings that have been brought to light instead of denying or defending the claims that have been made. The main focus would be saving Sea World's reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Eva, really enjoyed your presentation!
1.Although the Truth Campaign was able to defend some statements made in Blackfish, I don't think these animals belong in tanks. The Truth campaign was just a defense tactic to clear their name the best they could in order to seem transparent with the public.

2.A worker being killed by one of their whales should have been enough reason to close Sea Worlds doors. To wait until the release of Blackfish just increased the amount of wrongdoing done by SeaWorld and it makes it seem like they don't care about the safety of their employees.

3.I don't think there was anything else Sea World could have done. They had already lost this battle before they started and did as much as they could to clear their name. They had already lost the trust of the public. Maybe if they had responded sooner or stopped after the death of Dawn Brancheau they wouldn't have received as much backlash.

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

1. I think Carr-Jordan did a great job at spreading awareness considering she started by herself. News outlets picked up the story a few weeks after she made the Kids Play Safe website and she was in touch with the Chicago Tribune. I think she used all of the resources that were available to her.

2. I don't think it was fair to ban Carr-Jordan from the eight Mcdonalds near her. If she didn't speak up about the lack of cleanliness someone else would’ve and in the end she helped them realize the importance of sanitation and safety of their customers. Mcdonalds is one of the largest food chains in the world, this incident was not going to hurt their business but they acted as though she was a huge threat.

3.  She could have worked with someone who had a background in microbiology and research to help make her case more solid but I don't really think she needed any more credibility than being a concerned mother. Anyone can tell when something is not properly cleaned and she was looking out for the children using the playground.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think PETA did a very efficient job at promoting the viewing of their documentary as shown by their achievements and viewing numbers. Personally, I remember when this documentary came out and it made a lot of noise in my community. In fact, a group of people at my school started a petition to collect protestor signatures to send to SeaWorld since I live about 30 minutes away. Due to this, I think PETA did the best job they could have done in regards to promotional campaigns and don't have any suggestions for their campaign.

2.  PETA has always had extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention and this is something that they are known for. While sometimes controversial, I think it has become apart of their brand overtime to include extravagant and shocking methods to gain media attention. At this point, it is expected of them and their best way to stay on brand since this is the image they have cultivated. For this campaign in particular, I think that their media attention stunts were more tame than other ones they have done. However, they were just as effective.

3.  SeaWorld was in major trouble after PETA released the documentary. If I were in charge of the PR, I would insist that the only option is to promise a more transparent future and admit the faults and issues in the way that SeaWorld has been operating previously. This would include not only verbalizing the promise but doing events and fundraising to show promise towards the actions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. As someone who grew up visiting SeaWorld multiple times a month, I would have been initially very biased towards SeaWorld and trying to rationalize that they are a good company. Especially because I was much younger when the documentary and response came out. However, if this documentary and response came out now, I would not be surprised for a large company to be exploiting animals. However, PETA is also known for outlandish and extravagant claims and using shock-tactics to get attention from the media. While I would believe PETA in their claims against SeaWorld, I would still be wary of PETA's words.

2. I think SeaWorld should have been more transparent with the death of Dawn Brancheau and placed the shows on pause until they can gather public intel and feedback through research. The backlash would have been more likely to be prevented and also would have best catered to public interest.

3. I think SeaWorld did their best in a reactionary response so I do not think there is anything they could have done better in response to PETA and the  Blackfish  documentary. However, I do believe that SeaWorld could have done a better at proactive preparation for a communication crisis, especially since they knew what they were doing was not completely ethical. Beyond this, they could have stopped the issues that they knew the public would have problems with.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think Carr-Jordan did a good job creating awareness about her campaign. While her claims were very credible and relatable to those with children, I think the only thing she could have done was provide more than personal accounts and give some research that was formally performed. Formal research could have drastically boosted awareness about her campaign but beyond that, I think she did a good job on her own with the power of social media.

2. I don't think it was fair for McDonald's to ban her from their branches. I find that this approach is immature and not the right way to respond to this issue. It would have been much better to come out with a mature statement or apology and promise to change the issues that caused the problems in the first place. It is a defensive move that comes off childish and not a good response to the situation.

3. As I mentioned before, Carr-Jordan could have increased her credibility by having data or statistics supporting her claims. While many people would agree with her statements as is, it is always good to consider how much more convincing numbers and data is for those, especially those who are on the fence or can not personally relate based off of their own experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think there were more responses United Airlines could have provided to the public to remedy the situation. The public statements that they made were mostly from the CEO in the form of written statements. An apology video could have been utilized and more likely to be spread around the internet in response to the situation. There were many actions that reformed the guidelines in hopes of preventing another situation like this one, however, they lacked in a variety of response especially with the timing of each response.
2. Dave Carroll's video where he created a song and music video about the situation was comical and relatable to the average person watching it, making his side of the story more sympathetic to those viewing it. Due to this, the video went viral where many saw it and furthered called for action from United Airlines when they had refused to previously.. Other companies can take this example and learn from the customer relations by treating every customer with the respect they deserve. This would prevent viral videos or information sharing about how the company does not treat their customers well.

3. As stated before, United Airlines could have sent out more shareable content that people would have been more inclined to pay attention to rather than just statements to the CEO. It would have been nice to see them make a response video to the situation. Maybe it would have been nice to send out an apology in song form the same way the Dave Carroll responded to United Airlines in the first place. This would have come off as a more approachable response and connected with the audience more

# data[].attributes.headline
Amazing job, Eva! I loved the overall theme and layout of your presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Amazing job, Eva! I loved the overall theme and layout of your presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I have seen bits and pieces of Blackfish but had no clue about the Truth Campaign until learning more about it. However, given the fact about my beliefs on animal captivity combined with the viewing of the Truth Campaign, this documentary would have come off as defensive to me by trying to refute the story portrayed in Blackfish. My feelings toward SeaWorld would only become more negative given the claims set forth in the documentary along with the testimonies of former employees. Regardless of which organization's material I would have seen first, I would still be led to believe that SeaWorld’s care and continued captivity of orcas was not adequate or ethical.

2. SeaWorld should have immediately stopped orca entertainment shows following the death of Dawn Brancheau. Not only was it disrespectful to her memory to continue the shows, but it also put added pressure and stress on other employees who had to still perform in front of the public. In addition, it demonstrated that SeaWorld itself was insensitive to the feelings of the public and the orcas they were supposed to care for as well as their blatant disregard thinking that her death would not generate negative publicity. In addition, it also reveals SeaWorld’s overall character that the organization is more concerned with lining its pockets from park visitors rather than stopping to consider the implications of Brancheau’s tragic death.

3. In my opinion, SeaWorld could take no other actions in order to ‘fight’ the Blackfish documentary controversies. Death Brancheau’s death should have been a wakeup call for the organization to cease the orca shows and because they did not, it only added more fuel to the fire for PETA. In addition, in leading up to the release of Blackfish, PETA had already advocated extensively on animal rights, and the documentary’s release through CNN also showed how many people were tuned into the crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I think PETA did a really great job with their promotional tactics for the documentary. I do think part of its success is due to PETA keeping some mystique as to what the documentary would truly unveil about Sea World. In their press release, they used the word "mysterious" to describe the box used in their publicity stunt. It was obvious that their protest had something to do with Sea World and the treatment of their animals, but it  definitely intrigued audiences to find out exactly what was going on.

2) I have always felt unsure about PETA's tactics. For this particular instance, I do not think it was too extreme and it got their message across. However, I think some of their other protest have been too extreme, leading people to discredit the organization. While their protests get attention, I am not sure if it is for the right reasons.

3) If I worked PR for Sea World for this incident, I would have encouraged Sea World to reevaluate their facilities and animal captivity policies and make a statement as soon as possible. I would have also recommended that the organization committed to a transparent future and possibly open a charity fund for ocean life rehabilitation after an appropriate amount of time after the film release.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think that United Airlines should have made an apology video in response to the incident. Following the unfortunate event, they should have also introduced new policies that prevents similar incidents from happening in the future because clearly this wasn't an isolated case. Upon doing so, they could have released a statement or a news release informing the public about their reform.
2. His video can help other companies improve their customer relations as they will be more proactive in terms of making sure that they provide the smoothest and best experience for their customers. This video was definitely a wake up call for companies as a single video could cause a lot of harm to their reputations so knowing that can act as an incentive to do better.
3. Unites Airlines could have used social media to apologize for the situation and also consider doing a whole campaign on how they are trying to do better by like how i mentioned earlier, reforming their policies.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think PETA did a great job at promoting for the documentary. I remember when it first came out and many people were shocked by the actions of SeaWorld. This caused many people to protest and donate money for organizations helping save wildlife. I think they did a great job at keeping it under wraps what the documentary was exactly going to uncover too. It created suspense and the appeal to have viewers watch.

2. Before this case I was not too familiar with PETA and their extreme methods to drawing media attention. I feel like since they are such advocates to saving wildlife and our oceans, the way they advocate sometimes can get too at of hand and cause people to turn away from getting involved with PETA.

3. If I worked for PR for SeaWorld during the release of the documentary, I would have created a statement immediately. Then, developed a plan to change the treatment of sea animals and increase faculty training in order to create a more ethical facility.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I have not seen the documentary but reading about it has inspired me to watch it since I have been to SeaWorld as a child. I do think it was wrong of SeaWorld to a defensive initial response to the documentary a denied any wrongdoing to their orca captivity. Additionally, the Truth Campaign seemed like a slow process that should have been created immediately after.

2. I think it was ethically wrong for them to stop the orca shows after the documentary instead of after Dawn's death. To me, this shows that SeaWorld cares more about their public image rather than the treatment of their employees. I think the orca shows should have stopped after Dawn's death and made more of an effort to show their empathy towards to situation.

3. I don't think there was anything SeaWorld could have done with "fight" this situation but I think denying any wrongdoing after the release of the documentary only made things worse. Creating the Truth Campaign from the start would have solved this problem more.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think Carr-Jordan did a great job at creating awareness of this situation and doing research pertaining the the germs found in the play area. The only thing I think would have helped more was getting scientists to back her up and help her when creating her campaign

2. I think it was completely unfair for McDonald's to ban Carr-Jordan from eight of their locations since it shows they just wanted to avoid the situation rather than solved it.

3. Like I said in my first answer, I think Carr-Jordan would have been more credible if she had scientists or doctors backing her up. This would have also inspired more people to get involved and also joining Carr-Jordan in creating safe play areas for children.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think United was silent during most of this situation, especially initially before the songs were even viral hits. I think if they just had a better customer service team that helped Carroll with his guitar and his unpleasant flight experience this situation would have never even happened. After the songs went viral, United could have hosted a press conference answering questions from the public as well as showcase a plan they had for making United's customer service team better and more responsive.

2. These videos that went viral show how just one mishap in a bad customer service experience can explode in the news and media. Hopefully, other companies along with United boosted how they handle customer complaints in order to make sure every customer is satisfied and avoid an issue like this from happening.

3. For starters, United could have at least apologized on social media to Carroll and to the public for not having a solid customer service team. They also could have used social media to publicly display a new campaign or ways they were going to fix their customer service procedures.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation ! I remember watching this black fish documentary when It first came out on Netflix and I was in shock of the treatment these aquatic-animals face.
Regarding question 1, I think PETA did a great job at promoting the film because PETA used their large platform and following to share light on an issue many might have been aware of. I think the use of the press realse was the perfect amount of information to spark peoples intrest. PETAs  involvement  also allowed people to gain information and have a voice in this issue.
2. I have only ever head of PETA protesting people wearing fur and PETA could throw paint at them. I think the use of social media is  a great way  of sharing information especially because how wide spread it can be. I think PETAs tactics of using social  media shows the importance of their topics.
3-If I worked for the PR team with Sea world, the first think that would have been is an informal statement on social media or something. Just saying something shows that you care about the situation. Then I would have released an official press released and maybe a video of Sea world officials shedding light on the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Prashansa, great job on your presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Prashansa, great job on your presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that from a grassroots level, Carr-Jordan made some great strides in raising awareness for her campaign especially through Facebook and interviewing with various news organizations. Given the issue at hand, I believe that Carr-Jordan was able to garner a lot of support from other concerned parents. Some additional steps Carr-Jordan could have taken to create more awareness about her campaign was by possibly partnering with scientists or health organizations such as the CDC to strengthen and support her research. That way, no one would be able to deny what she was saying.

2. It was definitely unfair of McDonald’s to ban Carr-Jordan from eight of their branches. Not only is it an admission of guilt on their part, but by not allowing her to inspect their facilities, it makes them look like they are trying to hide the truth about their indoor playgrounds. In addition, McDonald’s practice of customer relations highlighted a weak point for the chain.

3. Again, I think that the incorporation of credible scientists or health organizations would have bolstered the message of her campaign and lent her even more support. Overall, however, Carr-Jordan was able to achieve such support given her status as a concerned parent and taking it upon herself to improve the safety and wellbeing of other children.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Lauren! Awesome job with the presentation - you laid out all the information of the case in a succinct manner!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Lauren! Awesome job with the presentation - you laid out all the information of the case in a succinct manner!

# data[].attributes.body
1. In terms of what could have been done on United Airlines’ part, a number of actions could have been taken to remedy the situation. The airline company could have conducted a press conference or interview speaking about the damage done to Dave Carroll’s guitar, and they could have used that opportunity to speak further on how they might improve customer relations in the future. In addition, they could have also posted a sincere video to YouTube or another platform apologizing for the situation.

2. Ultimately, companies should put their customers at the forefront since they are the individuals who are keeping them in business. The opinions and experiences of consumers should be one of the leading factors in how companies conduct themselves and their business. Therefore, given Dave Carroll’s experience with United Airlines, other companies could use this situation as a case study for how they conduct their own customer relations and whether any of their practices could be improved.

3. United Airlines should have proactively engaged with customers on the social media platforms where Carroll’s video was being shared in order to assuage their worries and elaborate on how a situation like his would be avoided in the future. By making themselves available on social media, it would have shown that United Airlines was trying to better their customer relations policies by being more open and transparent with the public.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Eva, great presentation!

1. Even though the Truth Campaign had the option to protect a few assertions made in Blackfish, I don't think the animals have a place in tanks. The Truth lobby was only a protection strategy to demonstrate their innocence all that could be expected to appear to be straightforward with people in general.

2. A laborer being executed by one of their whales ought to have been sufficient motivation to close Sea Worlds entryways. To stand by until the arrival of Blackfish just expanded the measure of bad behavior done via SeaWorld and it causes it to seem as they couldn't care less about the security of their workers.

3. I don't think there was whatever else Sea World might have done. They had effectively lost this fight before they began and did however much they could to demonstrate their innocence. They had effectively lost the trust of people in general.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zach! I really enjoyed your presentation.

1. I figure PETA worked effectively at advancing for the narrative. I recollect when it initially came out and numerous individuals were stunned by the activities of SeaWorld. This made numerous individuals dissent and give cash for associations helping save untamed life. I figure they worked effectively at staying quiet about it what the narrative was actually going to reveal as well. It made anticipation and the appeal to have watchers watch.

2. Before this case I was not very acquainted with PETA and their limit strategies to drawing media consideration. I feel like since they are such promoters to saving natural life and our seas, the manner in which they advocate some of the time can get too at of hand and cause individuals to get some distance from engaging with PETA.

3. In the event that I worked for PR for SeaWorld during the arrival of the narrative, I would have made a proclamation right away. At that point, built up an arrangement to change the treatment of ocean creatures and increment staff preparing to make a more moral office.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Prashansa, great job on the presentation!

1. I believe that Carr-Jordan worked effectively utilizing the assets accessible to her to bring issues to light of her mission. I would say that the solitary different advances she might have taken would have been to utilize all the more a blend of conventional and web-based media, and spotlight on getting more associations, similar to the CDC, included prior. Be that as it may, generally speaking, I figure she did all that could be expected and it was a fruitful mission.

2. No, I don't think it was reasonable of McDonald's. It doesn't illustrate the association and their response to Carr-Jordan recommends that they are attempting to conceal reality. Also, Carr-Jordan had proof that demonstrated the hazardous states of the McDonald's play territories and forbidding her recommends that the association simply didn't have any desire to manage it.

3. I think Carr-Jordan gave a great deal of believability between her experience, the foundation of individuals that she counseled all through her mission, just as the proof that she gathered. Furthermore, her status as a concerned mother adds to her believability in the mission. I figure the best way to truly add any greater validity is add more researchers and dependable voices to her mission.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I also agree that United Airlines might have conveyed a more top to bottom reaction to general society. As expressed in different remarks, United regarded this as a separated issue when as a general rule it was a lot bigger than that. Since Carroll was straightforward about his occurrence doesn't imply that he was the just a single this happened to. I figure United ought to have focused on reconsidering their client assistance strategies and delivered these updates to general society. Carroll's video was viral, so it appeared to be unseemly for United to have basically no conventional reaction. While Carroll was doing interviews on public TV, United remained essentially quiet and took into account Carroll to deal with the story.

2. I think this video significantly affected how associations utilize web-based media to deal with circumstances. I have seen carriers get called out via online media by miserable clients and the aircrafts normally answer straightforwardly to deal with the circumstance. Organizations appear to have understood that web-based media can possibly make nearly anything turn into a web sensation, and the exact opposite thing they need is for something negative about their association being spread to millions. From Carroll's video, I think organizations have figured out how to act rapidly and effectively to keep away from a viral debacle.

3. One significant way United Airlines might have utilized online media to fix the circumstance would have been to post a video explanation and considered correspondence from general society. It would have been helpful for United to guarantee the public their voices were heard and that they were putting forth a valiant effort to improve their client assistance strategies. They might have additionally set up their own record explicitly for client assistance issues to give client's various assets for managing issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Presentation!

1. While I think there is always more that could be done I think PETA did enough to get people talking. They did a great job at utilizing social media and their blog to build anticipation to the CNN broadcast and awareness to what Sea World was doing wrong. Their publicity stunts also helped to gain a lot of media attention. The CNN broadcast also did a lot in terms of gaining viewers for this broadcast. Utilizing the media made the campaign super effective!
2. I think it was an effective tactic to show the reality of the inhumane behaviors of Sea World. If they had used less extravagant tactics I don’t think it would have gotten as much attention as it did. I also don’t think it would’ve caused others to speak up as much as they did.
3. If I were handling the PR for Sea World I would be very transparent in my response and acknowledge everything that PETA had said. I would issue an apology to not just the public but especially employees. At the end of the day the death and injuries were evident enough that they had a problem on their hands.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zachary. Great presentation. 1. I believe PETA did a great job of promoting the viewing of the Blackfish documentary. Being that over 20 million people saw the documentary on CNN, I'd say the promotion for it was definitely a success. Social media is a very powerful tool and the best way to promote something these days so I am not surprised at the success they had in promoting Blackfish. 2. I think the methods PETA used were definitely extravagant but that is what helped to open people's eyes about the situation. Before PETA brought the matter to attention and before the Blackfish documentary, many people were probably not aware of what SeaWorld was doing and these methods helped bring that to the forefront. 3. If I worked in PR for SeaWorld at the time the Blackfish documentary was released it would be a very difficult time. Trying to make this situation seem any better than it was would be a very difficult task and personally I would not want to make excuses for SeaWorld even as an employee. What they were doing was very wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job with this presentation Eva!
1) If I had seen Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, I would be more inclined to side with the documentary. In my opinion, Blackfish did not seem to have much to gain other than support for animal rights. On the other hand, Sea World had everything to lose. I remember learning about Sea World's mistreatment of their orcas and thinking very badly of them.

2) I think it would have been wise for them to stop the orca shows after the death of an employee. It directly showed that these animals are not mean to be in captivity. They were not meant for tanks, which would lead to obvious behavioral changes. I think it should have been a sign for them that these shows needed to come to an end.

3) I do not think Sea World should have been defensive. It was clear that Blackfish had a massive impact on consumers' emotions. It made Sea World look even worse when they attempted to discredit the documentary. I think they should have committed to reforming their policies and treatment of their animals.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! I remember watching the documentary when I was younger and was so surprised with what was going on at such a globally recognized organization. I think PETA did a great job promoting the video and used unconventional way of promoting it, which only expanded the network it reached. As a worker of Sea World I think I would be incredibly disappointed in the organization I worked for. I think attractions that utilize animals as entertainment are always under scrutiny but Blackfish only emphasized the treatment behind closed doors, or even publicly, at Seaworld.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Presentation Eva! Very thorough and interesting.

1) I have seen Blackfish and have not seen Truth Campaign yet, but I think I would definitely change. my position.  I think the support of Blackfish gained more awareness for animal rights in general, the mission of PETA.

2) I think the best thing that could be done would be to stop the shows immediately. Clearly there were issues and developments needed to be addressed before proceeding with more shows if any. Waiting was only to make sure they made profits in the meantime which I think shows where their priorities are.

3) I think the best way to address the Blackfish controversy would be to take full ownership of how they contribute to animal rights issues, and show they were being conscious of how they treat their animals and be transparent on how they profit from it.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I do not think there was much more Carr-Jordan could have done as I believe she did an excellent job with her communication efforts. As others have stated, the outlets she used were very appropriate for the audience she was targeting. I think she appropriately utilized all other resources . The only other thing she could have tried to do is start a trend with a hashtag on social media to gain more attention.

2) Not only do I think it was not fair for McDonald's to ban her, I think it made McDonald's look even more guilty and wrong. It really places McDonald's in a bad light and makes it seem as though they have something to hide. I think it would have been wise for McDonald's to admit they were wrong and maybe try to team up with Carr-Jordan to demonstrate their commitment to a healthier environment for the children.

3) It is difficult to establish credibility about something scientific when you do not have a scientific background. Having a scientist directly by her side would have helped her credibility and boosted the concerned mother narrative.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Eva. Great presentation. 1. In my opinion, Blackfish is what really happened and the Truth Campaign is more of a try to cover it up kind of situation. The Blackfish documentary involves animal cruelty which is not something SeaWorld should try to defend itself from. They should own up to what they did wrong rather than try to make it seem like they did nothing wrong. 2. SeaWorld definitely should have stopped doing orca shows following Brancheau’s death. The decision to keep them going just shows you how little SeaWorld was concerned about the well-being of their animals, and trainers for that matter. Waiting until the Blackfish documentary definitely made the situation worse for them. If they would have stopped the orca shows immediately after the death, they could have avoided the Blackfish documentary all together. 3. I don't believe ‘fighting’ the documentary would be the right thing to do in the first place. I think in a situation like the Blackfish one, owning up and apologizing for your actions would be the best thing to do rather than make excuses.

# data[].attributes.body
Great work!
I think she could have done more and possibly worked with other mothers who were worries. If they expanded the platform and took power in numbers, it would have been a lot more effective. 2. I do not think it was fair of her to be banned, I think McDonalds should have taken more ownership, rather than putting full responsibility on her and making it seem like she was the only one at fault.  3. I think her credibility as a mother worked in her favor. I think her story and perspective was believable, and I think having a platform of other mothers worked in her favor for the end.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think United Airline could have done better. They did not release a press release and have been honest with the publics. They lacked in addressing the public and stakeholders which only left more skepticism. They need to prove of the change their stakeholders wish to see.

2. The video shows a PR fair and how this was an opportunity to truly address the concerns and disappointment in consumers.

3. United Airlines could have been much more consistent and timely in their communications. This only increased more disappointment and upset within valued customers.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Prashansa. Great presentation. 1. I think Carr-Jordan did a great job of exposing the unhealthy dangers of McDonalds. I think one thing she could've done better to spread awareness about the situation is spread the message across more platforms like social media. At the time of this case Facebook was more popular than twitter and instagram. I believe posting things to Facebook would definitely have helped her more. 2. I think being that Carr-Jordan was doing so much to try to hurt the reputation of McDonald’s it was absolutely their right to ban her from their restaurants. If I were McDonalds I most likely would have taken it a step further and banned her from every location rather than just those in Tempe, Arizona. 3. Being that Carr-Jordan’s doctorate degree was not in biology, she had trouble gaining as much credibility as she wanted. I think one thing she could have done to gain that extra credibility is team up with someone who is an expert in that field and willing to support you.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Zach you did great at explaining the case! Awesome presentation!

1. I think PETA did great at promoting the viewing of their documentary. Using social media and different tactics to draw attention worked great for them.

2. I felt that PETA is known for exaggerated stunts to bring attention to different causes. In this instance, I think the methods they used were necessary and effective. Some of their tactics were more extreme than the ones they used for this documentary.

3. If I worked PR for Seaworld, I would have released a statement that promised corrective actions and taking accountability for what happened. I would also include a promise to be more transparent about future operations to rebuild a strong reputation. I would also recommend donating to a cause that supports marine life or raising money as another way to show genuine promise and change.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!!

1. I have seen the Blackfish documentary, and it has turned me away from places like SeaWorld, and if I were to see the Truth Campaign, I see it as a way to change the narrative. I am inclined to think that they are trying to compensate for the documentary coming out.

2. SeaWorld should have stopped orca shows after Dawn Brancheau's death. An employee's death, especially one that was well-liked by other people, should have been the only reason needed to stop the shows. By continuing the shows, it created more liability and showed no compassion for their other workers.

3. I think that SeaWorld probably could have done something more. Nevertheless, with the documentary and how serious the ethical issues were surrounding SeaWorld, there was not much they could do to save their image. When this documentary came out, there was severe backlash and protest against orca shows. Had they acted earlier and after Brancheau's death, then they might have been able to salvage their image earlier had they been proactive.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lauren. Great presentation. 1. I think United should have responded in any other way than they did. Just a comment and one tweet shows that United thought this incident could easily be swept under the rug and forgotten about. 2. Dave Carroll’s video can help other companies in the future by giving them an example of how not to respond to these things. United should’ve addressed the subject right away and put it to rest immediately rather than try to downplay it. 3. United airlines could have used social media as a tool to show that they were sorry for the incident and that they were doing everything they could to make sure it would not repeat itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Informative presentation Good job Prashansa!

1. Carr-Jordan could have reached out and partnered with other organizations as a way to bring more awareness. More people being upset about the issue with her would have brought much more attention to her campaign.

2. I think it was unfair for Mcdonald’s to ban her from 8 locations. By doing this, it is clear they were trying to push the problem away. If the campaign had more awareness, they probably would not have banned her. If they had communicated a pledge to change cleanliness, it would have been a better reaction.

3. Carr-Jordan could have done more research to make her case stable. She also could have looked for other organizations that have research-backed up claims. I feel she would have had a lot more credibility with scientific statistics to back up the claims.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lauren! Great presentation. It was really interesting.

1. United Airlines could have released a press release promising to change their ways and re-train employees as soon as the issue happened. Waiting until a video went viral showed their customers that they did not care for the issue until it became big.

2. Dave Carroll’s video can help other companies improve their relations because it shows how to handle problems that go viral on social media. Today, many people use social media to voice their complaints because they know they can go viral. Having the chance to have a situation like this early on allows them to prepare and understand what to do next time someone uses social media to complain.

3. United Airlines can use their social media by posting a video communication that explained how they handle the situation and future situations. I think having that form of communication would be a great way to get the word out quickly and hold themselves to their promises. Using statements can only go so far, but uploading a video that can be shared would have been a great way to show remorse and correction.

# data[].attributes.body
I think PETA did a good job at promoting the viewing of the documentary. They were able to voice their opinions and inform people about the atrocious treatment of aquatic animals.

I feel like PETA uses these types of methods because they know it will be effective in garnering attention in the media. I do think that sometimes their tactics can get a little bit too extreme.

I would have released a statement saying that SeaWorld is making new policies for animal protection and rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I think my feelings towards SeaWorld would have still been the same because they weren't being ethical with the treatment of aquatic animals.

I think they should have stopped after the death of Dawn Brancheau because that should have been their wake up call to treat animals in a better manner.

I think that SeaWord lost its trust with people when the Blackfish documentary came out. I think their response just made them look more guilty.

# data[].attributes.body
1.I believe the PETA documentary on Blackfish was highly successful at promoting and getting the important message across with blackfish. The use of promotion on social media definitely helped get their documentary spread to a large platform and got viewers attention.Additionally CNN networking gained 20.6 million views for the documentary. Although Blackfish was highly successful, PETA could have also implemented more traditional media promotion such as a press release.

2. If used correctly, extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention can be highly successful which is seen in this case study with PETA. Their unconventional ways got viewers anticipating blackfish which lead to more media traction and their publicity stunt were captivating.

3. If I worked at PR for SeaWorld my first response would be to issue a statement of acknowledgment of the situation and to let the public know that they are fully aware of what is going on. Being transparent in situations like these is vital and admitting to wrong doing and future change is what would be my suggestion for crisis reaction.

# data[].attributes.body
1.My initial reaction to SeaWorld would be that the whole facility would need to be shut down and the animals would need to be relocated to a facility with the proper conditions to take care of them. The Truth campaign in my opinion was used as a defensive tactic as an attempt to cover up the immense wrong doings of orca captivity. After Dawn Brancheau’s death it should have lead to the immediate shut down of orca entertainment as they are wild massive creatures who are not meant to be in captivity in the first place.

2.I believe that orcas being used for human entertainment in entirety is not ethical as these creatures were not born to entertain humans at their expense. Following the death of Dawn Brancheau that should have been the tipping point for SeaWorld to change the way the facility was ran and re-evaluated if it was morally right to continue on. Dawn’s death should have been an immediate wake up call to show the consequences of Orca entertainment.

3In a situation like this there was nothing much SeaWorld could have done to combat the Blackfish documentary. There was hard evidence of the immense wrongdoings and the exposing of SeaWorld that a company could never come back from. SeaWorld lost respect as a company and from the public.

# data[].attributes.body
1.I believe that Carr-Johnson did a particularly good job of spreading awareness to her campaign already by launching a youtube video and posting on facebook the horrid conditions the McDonalds play pens were in and by backing her claims with scientific evidence from the labs she reached out to. Some additional steps that Carr-Jordan could have taken to create more awareness about her campaign would be to spread more awarnress on all social media platforms such as twitter, instagram, etc although for the time she did use facebook which was one of the top social medias.

2.I do not think  that it was fair at all to ban Carr-Jordon from the eight surrounding McDonalds and saw it as highly unprofessional. She was trying to spread a message across that the conditions of the playpens were extremely unsafe for children which is a serious topic and managers constantly ignored her requests for change and shut down her requests. Banning her from the location where she filmed her initial video could be seen from a business perspective as the right move but all surrounding eight was extreme and unnecessary.

3.I believe that Carr-Jordan did everything in her power to increase her credibility among the key publics. She included a scientific perspective by taking samples of bacteria found on the playpen to the lab which ultimately lead to the finding of harmful bacteria and pathogens for children. One suggestion I would have had was to publicly speak with the scientists who conducted the study as they are seen as more credible than a mom presenting the information received from the lab.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. I think United Airlines should have put much more effort into communicating with the public regarding the incident. They should have put out a statement addressing the situation publicly, as well as officially apologized for what happened and expressed concern. Without communicating in these ways, it can be off putting to customers and create a negative attitude towards them. It was good that they reached out to Carroll directly to make things right, but other customers might hear this story and be worried it could happen to them especially since they haven’t heard any honest response or public statement of accountability.
2. Carroll’s video can definitely serve as a warning and example for other companies and their customer relations. Companies should use this as a means for improving their customer services operations and the way in which they communicate and treat customers.
3. They could have released video statements from representatives or the CEO addressing the situation and vocalizing regret or commiseration. This would have communicated directly to the public in a personal way. They also could have taken an enduring, comedic route and possibly even created a song and music video in response to Carroll’s that discusses how they’re sorry and what steps they’re taking to do better.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Communication tactics I think United Airlines should have used to provide a more in-depth response would be  that they should have initially had a in depth response to the key publics such as a formal statement or news release. By simply responding with a tweet, it did not reduce damage control.

2) Dave Carroll’s video helped show other companies the power of social media and how fast word can spread. This sparked a bigger conversation about the dynamic between customers and companies. The video also provided complete transparency of the situation.

3) United Airlines could use social media to repair their situation by posting a statement online and ensuring the public that their voices are being heard and that change is being done to improve customer service. They could also use for contacting customers about their concerns.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. She could have joined or partnered with other organizations that revolve around health to spread the world in an effective way. By joining with an organization that has a bigger following, more people would have been reached.
2. I don’t think it was fair at all for Mcdonalds to ban her from all of those branches. It was clearly a direct response to her exposing the dangerous and harmful conditions of the play areas, and a very bad move on Mcdonalds part to ban her. Considering she made the harmful information and lab results public through social media, the public was aware of Mcdonalds shortcomings and by banning her instead of addressing the situation or apologizing, it puts them in a negative light.
3. I think something that would have helped significantly is partnering up with health organizations, large and small. By doing this, it could have established credibility and increased the support she was given for that specific cause. Collaborating with organizations, or even scientists, that have the same goals and values she does can make her and her statements more credible.

# data[].attributes.body
Really great presentation! It was very thorough and interesting.
1. I think PETA did an excellent job at promoting the viewing of Blackfish. They strived to get the public involved by utilizing social media and facilitating watch parties. Through their PR stunt, they were strategically able to get massive media attention and build a collective negative attitude towards Seaworld. They were very successful in promoting awareness and their strong reputation as an animal activist organization helped in gaining public attention and trust. Ultimately, I think they pulled out all the stops when it came to promoting.
2. I feel that PETA’s unconventional and extravagant methods to gain media attention were really impactful. With this particular issue, I think a large part of gaining the public’s attention and outrage was by being unconventional and appealing to them through pathos. Hearing something such as the potential sounds of orcas being transported to captivity can be gut wrenching to hear. I think by making the public uncomfortable or being in their face about the issue was an effective way in gaining their attention and outrage.
3. If I worked on the PR team for SeaWorld, I would respond to PETA and the documentary with vocal commiseration. I think due to the nature of the scandal, as well as the massive public and media attention, the only correct and effective thing to do would be to release official apology statements and news and press releases, through both social media and face-to-face communication. I think it would also be necessary to release a full plan of corrective actions that SeaWorld would be taking and be completely transparent concerning how they’re reevaluating their practices and values as a company.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a great presentation! It was really interesting to hear the other side of the issue.
1. I watched the Blackfish documentary when it came out and was not aware of the Truth Campaign at all. Even if I hadn’t watched the documentary,  seeing the Truth Campaign comes across as a little artificial to me. It takes away from any sort of accountability that SeaWorld could have, and lessens the authenticity their apology. Their original defensive responses also lessen the effectiveness of the Truth Campaign because their first instinct was to defend themselves rather than empathize with the concerns of the public. Personally, seeing trainers talk about how they’ve worked hard in their careers came across as very trivial to me in comparison to the wrongdoings exposed in the documentary. Ultimately, I think the lengths they went to to disprove the documentary, while interesting to  think about, furthered their defensive attitude rather than worked to do better as an organization.
2. I think SeaWorld should have stopped orca entertainment shows right after the death of Dawn Brancheau when it happened rather than after the documentary years later. By waiting until after the documentary comes out, it really shows how much they care about profits over the health and safety of their employees. It also shows the lack of responsibility they had in the situation through their decisions to carry on with the shows, fully knowing the dangers it presented. After seeing the documentary, and realizing SeaWorld hadn’t shut the shows down after what happened, it also makes the public lose trust and respect for the organization.
3. I think they could have framed their campaign in an apologetic and explanatory way rather than an offensive/defensive way. The way they presented their campaign and the “misleading” information in the documentary seemed to dismiss the actual issues and concerns. I think their campaign could have explained their point of view while also voicing how they were going to change as an organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Eva, great job on your presentation! 1) I actually watched Blackfish after watching Zachary’s presentation because I was so interested in learning more. I agree that there is a blurred line however, after watching the full documentary and watching that clip of the “truth campaign” it really just seems that SeaWorld is trying to downplay the death of Dawn. They are looking over their lack of training they provide employees with and all of the information they hid from employees prior to the documentary. Personally, I would find it hard to trust SeaWorld. 2) The live Orca shows should have stopped as soon as the death of Dawn occurred. This wasn’t the first time that an Orca displayed aggressive behavior. These animals are unpredictable and they had known that even before Dawn had died. SeaWorld not making immediate changed to the orca shows just illustrates their lack of consideration for the safety of their employees. 3) I think they could have taken more ownership over their actions and been more transparent. They should have issued an apology rather than being defensive.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! 1) I think that Carr-Jordan did enough in terms of her campaign. She did extensive research and a lot of outreach in terms of reaching different media outlets. She was able to generate national attention and bring about awareness. 2) I do not think it was fair for McDonalds to ban her from several locations. I think they did this as a way to try to hide from the situation and redeem their reputation. I also think they were worried about any other evidence she may uncover. At the end of the day she wasn’t doing anything wrong and had no right to be banned. 3) I feel that Carr-Jordan did have credibility in her efforts however getting scientist on her side would have increased her credibility as well. I think many people were impressed with her findings but there could have been more to uncover is she worked with a professional to uncover more bacteria findings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fantastic Job Zachary! You presented all the information very effectively!

# data[].attributes.subject
Fantastic Job Zachary! You presented all the information very effectively!

# data[].attributes.body
1. Given the reputation and work that PETA already does toward animal rights, it made sense for them to so effectively promote the viewing of the Blackfish documentary. I don’t believe they could have done more or done anything more effectively because the publicity stunts and popularity that drew from their social media platforms resulted in tons of individuals tuning into the documentary. They gained a massive amount of attention which was ultimately the goal of the campaign.

2. Within this specific case, PETA’s methods for increasing media attention and awareness were entirely appropriate. They way in which they presented this information, and used effective tactics to promote the documentary only increased the awareness of the harm and torture that these animals endure.

3. If I worked for PR at Seaworld, I believe the best way to respond would be the acknowledge the documentary, acknowledge the faults of the organization, and offer a genuine and apologetic statement by promising to change the ways of how their animals are treated. By offering vocal commiseration and enacting in rectifying behavior could be very helpful in somewhat helping the reputation of Seaworld; which as a result of this documentary, was heavily affected.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I remember watching the Blackfish documentary with my family a little bit after it first came out, and I was astounded and disgusted with every part of it. The documentary absolutely broke my heart, and I personally vowed to never support or visit Seaworld. Based on the predlcitmet that this behavior happened over so many decades, a truth campaign cannot necessarily fix all of the harm they’ve already inflicted. It seemed as though the campaign was created due to the overwhelming backlash that Seaworld was receiving, and the organization knew they had to respond in someway.

2. Seaworld should have stopped orca entertainment entirely after the death of Dawn Brancheau; the Orca involved in her death had as well been involved in two more individuals deaths, another trainer and a patron. It seemed as though it was not properly precautioned and overall dangerous and harmful to both the animals and humans. Once Tilkilum passed, the orca at the center of the documentary, Seaworld announced that they would no longer house these whales at their water parks.

3. Seaworld could have most definitely offered vocal commiseration and rectifying behavior in a much more timely manner after the documentary was released. The fact of the matter was Seaworld released countless excuses and called the documentary emotionally manipulative propaganda. The organization could have partnered with PETA or other animal rights groups in order to present good CSR and as well enact in better care of the animals they house.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Carr-Jordan could have taken steps further in involving government agencies in her campaign, such as the CDC, in order to increase the awareness of these harmful areas. However, for just being one person creating this massive campaign all by herself as first, and taking years to gain awareness and help, she did a great job.

2. It was entirely unfair for McDonald’s to ban her from locations, and only presents them having poor CSR and no remorse/plans to rectify the situation as an organization. She was simply advocating for cleaner areas for children and their families to play and eat in; after all that is McDonald’s main target consumer.

3. I believe she was able to very successfully increase her credibility among key publics as she grew her campaign with more individuals joining her, she presented her case and information on television programs and she initially before anything else, went to actual doctors to figure out what her children were being exposed to. The credibility she created in her campaign was very thorough and successful. It could have possibly helped her if she had more credible individuals join her cause, however she was very effective in presenting all correct information about these fast-food locations and what was happening behind the scenes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Lauren! Really great job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Lauren! Really great job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Some specific communication tactics that United Airlines could have enacted was focusing on a more time-efficient response, as well as treating the specific case like it was a top priority.  A response that involved some type of press release or a longer and more thorough statement on their social media platforms could have gone a long way.

2. Dave Carroll’s video demonstrated that one of the most important tactics a company should uphold is fostering that open communication, specifically with the individuals who are investing their time and money toward the organization. Due to poor customer service e and relations, Carroll shows how that trust and reputation can be tarnished and broken. His video could assist other companies in improving their own customer relations methods, and how important that factor is for businesses.

3. United Airlines had the entire opportunity to use their social media platforms more thoroughly to their advantage. Rather than just sending out a tweet that only allots for 140 characters, they could have uploaded a sincere and genuine statement and placed that through all of their platforms and through emails as well. In order to rectify the situation, United Airlines needed to send out that open communication that the behavior will change, and the problem is being fixed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do you think PETA could have done more to promote viewing the documentary Blackfish? If so, what else could they have done?

I think PETA did an effective job of promoting the viewing of Blackfish. I don't know what else they could have done to better promote it.

2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?
I think it is very true to PETA's brand, but also contributes to that brand of being over the top and extravagant, which sometimes takes credibility away from them as an organization.

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?
I think the only course of action is to acknowledge the documentary, apologize, and maintain total transparency.

# data[].attributes.body
1. This case is so unique in its ability to blur the lines between which party was right and which was wrong. In your opinion, if you had seen Blackfish and then saw the Truth Campaign, what would your reaction about SeaWorld be?
Having seen Blackfish, I don't know how much I believe the Truth Campaign. They both make effective arguments, but Blackfish had the advantage of being put out first.

2. Should SeaWorld have stopped orca entertainment shows after the death of Dawn Brancheau or was it okay to wait until after the Blackfish documentary (roughly 3-6 years after her death)?
I think SeaWorld should have immediately stopped orca shows. Only stopping them after the documentary made it seem less authentic.
3. Was there anything else SeaWorld could’ve done better or differently in order to “fight” the Blackfish documentary controversies?
I think SeaWorld did an admirable job, given the circumstances. I don't know what else they could have done.

# data[].attributes.body
What are some additional steps Carr-Jordan could have taken to create more awareness about her campaign?

I think the steps Carr-Jordan took to create awareness for her campaign were adequate, especially because she was only one person.

Do you think it was fair for Mcdonald's to ban her from eight of their branches in Tempe, Arizona?

I do not think it was fair for McDonald's to ban her, and I think it made them look far worse in the long run.

What could she have done in order to increase her credibility among the key publics?

I think getting additional professionals actively on her side would have increased her credibility among key publics.

# data[].attributes.body
1) What communication tactics do you think United Airlines should have used to provide a more in-depth response?
United Airlines could have utilized press conferences and other time efficient communication tactics to provide a more in depth response.
2) How can Dave Carroll’s video help other companies improve their customer relations?
Dave Carroll's video can help other companies improve their customer relations because it shows how important timely and open communication is.
3) In what ways could United Airlines also use social media to repair the situation?
They could have used social media to post a response to the situation in a timely manner.