# 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
3 Discussion Questions:

1. What PR strategies do you feel the KFC communications team could have implemented when dealing with the backlash from still having missing menu items even after absolving the main issue of the no chicken crisis?

2. Do you think that KFC should have used other outlets to spread their communication messages other than Twitter?

3. Did withholding information around how much chicken was destroyed in this crisis hurt the campaign?
Or
Do you feel KFC operating out of one warehouse influenced charities like FareShares refusal of their chicken donations?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=29c64b69-8861-43e8-ae97-ad050035dfe3

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do you think that timing was essential to the success of the campaign? Would it have been as successful if it were launched, for example, in 2021?

2. Would you find messaging from the United States Potato Board as trustworthy or biased?

3. Besides women with children, who else might benefit from the USPB campaigns?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=0c5b94c7-a09b-4328-8691-ad05012db610

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!

1. The KFC communication team could have implemented more outreach, perhaps allowing interviews with the media where the communication team could provide updates on the situation and also apologize for the incident.  Perhaps more press releases on their website explaining the situation would have helped them as well.  But overall, I believe KFC did a great job in terms of their communication in the situation.  I believe their utilization of social media, as well as creating a website that gave updates on which restaurants were open was very good in this situation.
2. KFC definitely could have utilized other forms of social media like Facebook, Instagram, and maybe even YouTube to spread their message as opposed to just Twitter.  I think it definitely would have helped reach more of their audience, though the news coverage on the incident helped spread the message as well.
3. It did hurt the campaign a little as nobody really knows how much chicken ended up going to waste.  I believe it is safe to assume it was a large number, given the fact they refused to comment.  Nobody likes to see food going to waste, especially if it could be used for a good cause, but maybe the situation could’ve gotten worse if they gave a charity spoiled chicken.

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

1. Timing was definitely essential in this case.  As you had said, the USPB had waited two years while potato consumption decreased.  It definitely would have continued to decrease had they not done anything to prevent consumption from decreasing even further.  Had this been launched in 2021, it may have been two late and they would not have seen the results they saw in the case.

2. It would come across as a little biased, as the organization’s soul purpose is to promote potato consumption.  But if they had credible sources, such as nutritionists and perhaps some scientists of some sort, they could definitely be seen as credible and trustworthy.

3. The USPB could have targeted nutritionists and those who seek to live a healthier lifestyle/are already living a healthier lifestyle.  The USPB’s goal was to promote the potato and how it can be used for a healthier lifestyle.  They definitely could have targeted more than just women and children in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The timing of this campaign was imperitive in its success, mainly because they decided to do it during a time when potato consumption was on the decline. If the campaign happened in 2021, the outcome would be different because potatoes are not necessarily on the decline.

1. I would say that the messaging from the USPB was trustworthy because it was targeted at health concerns and was easy to read.

2. In addition to women with kids, I think men with kids, or anyone that holds a parental figure stars would benefit from the USPB campaign.

# data[].attributes.body
3 Discussion Questions:

1. If you were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, how would you have responded differently in regard to his initial statement?

2. Do you believe that Starbucks handled the situation efficiently?

3. Is there any advice you would have provided to the CEO, Kevin Johnson, in this case that he did not do?

https://youtu.be/hm2Slcc_TEI

# data[].attributes.body
Fantastic presentation!

1. The Philadelphia Police Commissioner’s initial statement from a six minute video defending the police officers involved in the situation definitely missed the mark.  While he was basically just trying to say the officers were doing their jobs, I think he missed the mark by saying “they did absolutely nothing wrong.”  If I were the Police Commissioner, I would have apologized for the situation immediately.  Yes, the officers were just doing their jobs, but what they did was not necessary in this situation at all.  I think both Starbucks employees and the Philadelphia police officers unnecessarily escalated the situation and made it more than it should have been.  I would have immediately apologized and stated that what happened was not necessary at all.

2. Starbucks handled the situation a little well.  While I could understand the idea that they want to save seats for paying customers, what they did was very unnecessary and not justified at all.  The men were just having a short meeting.  That was all.  They were not being a nuisance, they were not annoying anybody or causing any harm.  They just wanted to meet with a friend and also use the bathroom, two very normal things to do.  The organization waited two days to respond and their initial response missed the mark.  I do think they did well with their rectifying behavior, firing the manager who called the police, then instituting new policies, then conducting racial bias training for all employees.  They did very well with that, but the situation should have never happened in the first place.

3. I would just say to respond to the situation faster.  I understand that an investigation needs to take place in order to get all the facts, but if you heard that the initial story was that the two men were just meeting a friend and then got arrested for basically not buying anything, then you should know that is wrong and should immediately apologize for what occurred and state that employees at that store will be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form, and then being that rectifying behavior that occurred.  Starbucks’ reputation definitely decreased more than it should have during the situation, and part of that was due to the two days worth of silence.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job Lily!

1. I think, legally, the police officers did all that they could and what they were trained to do. In retrospect they should have asked about the situation and realized that all they were doing was sitting in a coffee shop, but they did their job. That being said, I do not think that the police commissioner handled the situation the best way. There were a plethora of other things they could have and should have said instead of “these officers did absolutely nothing wrong”. Even if that was true it is pure defensive action and will not reflect well on the city of Philadelphia. I would have obviously apologized for the mistake and assure the public that it would never happen again. Owning up to something is much better in the long run than being defensive.

2. I do believe Starbucks handled the situation efficiently. Even though it took a few days, Starbucks did what only a small amount of companies would do in regards to their response. Instead of simply apologizing and moving on, Starbucks initiated training and issued multiple public apologies and a private one on one apology. They also assured everyone that the employee who called the police no longer worked at the company.

3. As we have seen time and time again, one of the biggest downfalls of any company is the slow response or lack thereof. In this case, it took 2 days for Starbucks to respond which gave the public even more time to be angry with the situation. We don’t know what would have happened if the response was quicker but we can assume that they might have had more control over the narrative if they didn’t wait until 2 days later.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job, I loved the images and screenshots of tweets you used to help show the story.

1. If the communications team conducted more with the public and the media the backlash may have been minimized. Reading statistics and tweets isn’t the same as seeing a face from the company apologizing and reassuring the public.

2. I definitely think that just using Twitter was a mistake on their part. Although they also had a website in use, most of the main communication was on Twitter which only reaches a certain audience and doesn’t find its way to everyone. Although, news outlets and the general public did pick up on the tweets and the word of mouth began.

3. I think it definitely hurt the campaign and KFC as a brand. There’s no way of knowing how much food was contaminated or how it was unsafe but as they refused to say, it could be much more than we think.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job presenting this in a clear and concise manner! I learned a lot from the presentation.

1. Timing was definitely critical and was used to their benefit. Potato consumption was decreasing steadily and would continue if something like this campaign wasn’t utilized. I think that if this happened in 2021 the outcome would not have been as successful. This campaign happened almost a decade ago and since then things have changed drastically including the publics view of any government association which may have caused an unsuccessful campaign.

2. Seeings as how the US Potato Board’s job is to “sell” potatoes and such, I think that a lot of their messaging would be biased. However, there are ways to show that you are an unbiased organization by including expert testimonials and that agree with your statements.

3. I feel like really anyone might benefit from the USPB campaign not just women and children, although I think it was a good idea to target that demographic since children consume and women buy/cook usually.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily! Great presentation! To answer your questions: 
1.  If I was the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I probably would have responded in a less defensive way because that paints the department in a bad light right from the start. I think forming an apology, no matter what the facts of the case are, shows the department as being more open, transparent, and responsible. The way it was handled in this case does the opposite. 
2. I do think that Starbucks handled this situation efficiently. Starbucks is very well-known for their missions and activism to make change, rather than just making simple statements and this was shown in this case. I think that the fostering of the training and level of communication given helped boost the efficiency of their response. 
3. The only thing I could think of would be to up the response time but, that being said, in some cases a longer time is needed to make a proficient statement. Starbucks put a lot of thought into their responses and obviously that took time. But it should always be in the forefront of a company’s mind to have a good response time. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily! Great presentation! To answer your questions: 
1.  If I was the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I probably would have responded in a less defensive way because that paints the department in a bad light right from the start. I think forming an apology, no matter what the facts of the case are, shows the department as being more open, transparent, and responsible. The way it was handled in this case does the opposite. 
2. I do think that Starbucks handled this situation efficiently. Starbucks is very well-known for their missions and activism to make change, rather than just making simple statements and this was shown in this case. I think that the fostering of the training and level of communication given helped boost the efficiency of their response. 
3. The only thing I could think of would be to up the response time but, that being said, in some cases a longer time is needed to make a proficient statement. Starbucks put a lot of thought into their responses and obviously that took time. But it should always be in the forefront of a company’s mind to have a good response time. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna! I really enjoyed your presentation on this case! To answer your questions: 
1. I think that the KFC team could have implemented more communication with the Publics via other media but they did a fantastic job, in my opinion, of utilizing social media and their website to communicate. But every case can always use more of something. 
2. Yes, I do. We see in a lot of cases that organizations stick to one social media platform but not everyone will see that content. As well as, nobody really thinks to go to a company’s website to see what’s going on anymore, I think. They could have had a better outreach than they did, if they posted on other socials. 
3. Obviously, yes, it hurt the brand. They had a good handle on the crisis but at the end of the day nobody would be pleased to not know the straight facts about something of this caliber. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie! Great presentation! To answer your questions: 
1. Yes, timing was essential to this case. I think that if this campaign launched this year then it wouldn’t have been as beneficial because of all of the drastic changes surrounding it in the last few years. If that makes sense…
2. I do think there would be some bias from the United States Potato Board, so I think some factchecking to see if it’s trustworthy would be necessary. 
3. I think that, besides women and children, any guardians of children could have been targeted as a beneficial demographic for the USPB campaigns. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily! I really enjoyed your presentation!
1. If I were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I definitely would have handled the situation entirely differently. Posting a 6 minute video stating that there was nothing done wrong when clearly there was just makes the police department look bad. Instead, I would have taken that time to post an apology and explain how the department was going to investigate the situation and figure out where the officers went wrong and how this could have been handled differently. This demonstrates responsibility and honesty on behalf of the police department, whereas this denial response is not a good look for the department.
2. I think Starbucks handled this situation pretty well. Not only did they take responsibility for what happened and apologize for it, they actively sought out ways to make it right and to remedy the situation. Choosing to close for racial bias training, for example, is a great way for the company to demonstrate that they were putting actions behind their words and making sure nothing like this would ever happen again. I think owning up to the situation and working hard to rectify it was a good move by Starbucks and ultimately allowed them to rebuild their reputation after this.
3. I think I would just recommend responding in a more timely manner and having a plan in place for situations like this to make that happen. Immediately, an apology should have been issued, even if the case was still be investigated. Therefore, the customers would know that Starbucks was aware of what was happening and was actively working on fixing the situation. Leaving too much time before responding can make the company look more guilty or like they don’t even care about the situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna, great job with your presentation!

1. I honestly think the KFC team did a good job with handling this situation, however I would have liked to see more direct communication with the media and telling them what was going on with the situation. This way, they could be perceived more credibly and also reach a wider audience so people would understand the situation. But other than that, I feel like it was handled really well through their website and social media platforms.

2. I think when it comes to social media, more is always better. Only using one social media platform can really narrow the scope of your audience since each platform has somewhat specific target audiences within it. If KFC had used Facebook and Instagram as well as Twitter, they might have reached a broader audience with their information and really put out there what they needed to say. It would have reached a lot more people this way, so I think it definitely would have been a great idea to expand this across platforms to reach everyone possible.

3. I think it definitely had to do some level of damage, since there was never any comment about how much food went to waste. Generally, people don’t like to know that food is being wasted when there are so many people out there who could really use that food. So I think withholding this information inevitably hurt the campaign, even if KFC tried to avoid that happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Awesome job with your presentation, Katie!

1. I think that timing was 100% essential when it came to this case as this was the time when the issue was most prevalent. If this campaign was lost this year, I think it would have been way too late and no one would really be that concerned about the issue anymore. In addition, I think that the media outlet they chose to promote this campaign (magazines) is much more outdated now than it was at the time, which means it would have reached a much smaller audience in 2021 and been less effective.

2. This is a really interesting question! I think that I would inevitably feel that there was some bias from a group that even just had the name including the word potato in it. I would think that this group would be advocates for potato consumption and could therefore misconstrue facts in their favor. However, the use of credible sources and such would make it easy to convince me that they actually could be trusted.

3. I think that this group was definitely the best target audience for this campaign. However, I think there are also multiple other groups that it could have reached as well. Entire families would have worked, considering there are some households where a man might also be fully responsible for the cooking. In addition, I think individuals who were very much active and in shape and live a healthy lifestyle could have been targeted in this campaign as this would make them seem more credible if more of that audience approved.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! I loved this case and watching your presentation explained it a lot better!

1. Overall I think the KFC communication team did a great job handling their insane chicken crisis. They could have definitely been more open with the public by using social media or tradition media to reach a wider audience before things got too out of hand, but overall I think their response and timing was better than most.

2. They could have used more traditional outlets such as writing a press release to send to journalist, articles in newspaper/magazines, as well as other forms of social media like instagram or facebook. That way a wider audience can be reached and it’s easy to find out information from multiple sites/resources rather than just one.

3. The unknown about how much food was destroyed/wasted during the crisis definitely hurt the company. As some of my peers have said, no one likes wasting food, or companies that waste food. We can assume that the food waste number was pretty large since no on commented on it, however, their response definitely helped clean up their image during the crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
Nice presentation! I found this case really interesting and your presentation was very informative!

1. Timing is essential to any PR crisis/case study, and this case is no different. Timing is really important when launching a campaign. I think if this campaign launched in 2021 it would have not been as successful because the timing doesn't make as much sense.

2. I can see both sides. Part of me trust them because they are the United States Potato Boardand if we can’t trust them, then who could be trust for our potato facts? But, I am always skeptical of bias and big organizations like that. It is always good to fact check.

3. Any type of guardian would be beneficial to the USPB campaign. Whether that is men, women, grandparents, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation! I remember this case so it was nice to look at it more in depth.

1. If I were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner I would have definitely responded in a less defensive and more genuine way. When any crisis occurs, especially one like this, I would have taken responsibility and apologized, then take the time to explain new protocols and how we can move forward from there.

2. Starbucks did handle the situation quite effectively. They are a very well known brand and continue to be up to date with social movements and supporting activism. They are known for not only making statements but for making changes to their company to show that they are dedicated to bettering the community.

3. As many of my peers have mentioned, response time is one of the most important things during any crisis, and the type of response. Genuine, and timely responses will help save any company during a crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I thought KFC's communication with the public was excellent. I love how the company used humor and wit to update customers about the chicken shortage. Their timing and imagery on their Twitter posts were great too. I think the only thing KFC could have done different was communicate with the public outside of Twitter as well.

2.  Like I said in my first answer, I think Twitter was a great channel to communicate with the public but using other outlets would have made their communication stronger. Some of their customers may not have a Twitter account (like myself) so those customers would be out of the loop with updates regarding the chicken.

3. Withholding information regarding how much chicken was destroyed and the amount of food wasted defiantly hurt the company. No one wants to support a business that mistreats their animals or wastes food that could be going to people who don't have access to it. The silence only made the public assume that they wouldn't want to know how much damage was actually done.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Since timing is such a critical component to any PR case, it made the difference in this one as well. I think the campaign wouldn't have done as well in 2021 and the timing of this case was perfect.

2. I think although the United States Potato Board could be bias, they are trustworthy too. With anything, more researching and fact checking should be done instead of only listening to one source but a big organization such as the USPB should be stating facts that are only truthful.

3. I don't think this campaign should be limited to just women. Men have also become the stay at home parent in recent years and could benefit from this too. This could go also go along with any type of guardian such as nannies or grandparents.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I were a Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I would have had a more sympathetic response and not have been so defensive. The two men were clearly innocent and the police were at fault. In any PR case, it is better to own up to a mistake made, apologize for it and make actions to change protocols or future incidents rather than being defensive about it.

2. I think Starbucks has a pretty good response towards this issue. They used multiple times of channels to communication their message and show that a problem like this will not happen again. Additionally, Starbucks is a brand known for the activism and outreach to the community. They have obviously learned from past mistakes.

3. I think the CEO's response was well though out and apologetic but just could have been a little bit more timely, especially since this incident caused protests and outraged customers.

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

1. I think the Philadelphia Police Commissioner was correct to defend the officers (to an extent) in this case because they were doing their jobs and they were not racially motivated. They did not know the situation or reasoning behind the call, just that there were two men who needed to leave the store. However, I think he missed the mark by blindly defending the situation before completely understanding what happened and why people were upset. For example, the Commissioner later mentions that he, personally, was unaware of the common standard that you are allowed to use the Starbucks space without making a purchase. This lack of knowledge was clear in his initial statement. He should not have said that they did "absolutely nothing wrong." I don't think the situation needed to escalate to an arrest since the two men were being cooperative and respectful, and there definitely didn't need to be 7 police officers at the scene. These specific details should have been addressed in the initial response. I think his later communication addressing the alleged racial bias of the manager was much more understanding of the situation, and I liked his point on having a better protocol for disturbance calls that might be racially motivated.

2. I don't think Starbucks's response was necessarily efficient because they couldn't avoid the immediate, physical protests at the store and there was no immediate reconciliation. I think the accountability taken by the CEO and the effort toward better bias training were successful and effective tactics, but not necessarily efficient. I think there could have been a bigger action taken sooner in addition to added training and reviewing policies. The training solves the long-term, but not the immediate distress.

3. As an individual, I think the CEO handled the situation very respectfully. Like you said, gold star for taking full accountability. This is a case where it would have been easy to blame the manager who made the call and define it as an isolated incident. Instead, the CEO took personal accountability, saying there needs to be better bias training, and that's management's fault not the employee's. He was also smart for allowing full access to credible third parties with the community's best interest in mind. For those reasons, I don't think I'd give him any advice other than having a more immediate apologetic action like donating to BLM or a community organization.

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

1. I think cases like this one often miss out on the opportunity of quality employee relations. If KFC had formal communication about the missing menu items, they could have helped the employees respond to customers better, thus containing the complaints inside the specific stores. There could have been clever responses or awards for customers who were particularly disgruntled by the missing menu items. I think their overall humorous approach was effective and fit the brand, so that could have been extended from Twitter to in-store.

2. I think showcasing the lighthearted responses on Twitter was a good tactic. This is definitely an effective channel to respond to complaints with humor. However, I don't know if it should have been the only outlet for more formal updates. Remaining off of traditional media channels like the news allowed the crisis to stay small and somewhat funny, so KFC should not have added too much media relations. For example, I don't think there was a need for a formal response through the media, a press release, or interview. However, I think having the updates link to their website and providing that webpage through other channels would have been sufficient to inform various consumers of the updates. I really liked your point about SEO for driving people to the website, too.

3. I don't think the amount of chicken destroyed negatively affected the campaign itself. This campaign was more focused on when they would have chicken back and be open/serving as usual. I think many consumers would care more about when they can get their favorite meal than how much waste was created by the crisis. However, I think it was still necessary to address in order to avoid another crisis. Although many KFC consumers may not directly care about waste, there are definitely groups and activists who would interpret silence on this topic as the company hiding something.

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

1. Timing is always essential with PR campaigns. I think some of the basics aspects of the campaign would have done well in 2021 (and 2020), though. For example, when COVID first hit, many people were taking up baking or trying to improve their cooking skills. This would have been a good environment for the recipes on new ways to use potatoes. However, aspects like addressing the health concerns were heavily based on specific concerns and when they were hot topics. It makes sense to address Atkins when it is becoming a new phenomenon or diabetes when there is a spike in concern. I think there are other health campaigns/concerns that would be more relevant to 2021 health trends. Lastly, the USPB was combatting a steady decrease in demand. If they had waited (and this campaign or something similar did not exist previous to 2021) the damage would have been done, and it might have been too late to increase demand.

2. I think the fact that it is USPB's goal to increase demand for potatoes can make them seem somewhat biased. It puts into question what lengths will they go to in order to meet this goal and increase demand. However, I find that because USPB is a national organization rather than a business, they are more trustworthy. They are not creating messages for a direct profit, but rather to benefit the potato process as a whole - farmers, distributors, etc. Additionally, their efforts are rooted in nutritional science and facts. Whether they continue this standard and use of fact will determine their trustworthiness. However, at the end of the day, advertising is biased towards the organization, yet I am still entertained and persuaded by it.

3. Having a narrowed target is very beneficial in determining the message and the media channels, so I think focusing on "Linda" really helped the USPB campaign overall. This doesn't mean this target is the only group benefitting. Anyone looking to provide food and cook more interesting meals that stumbled across this campaign could benefit from its information and message. As someone trying to improve her cooking skills (and a lover of carbs), I think even I would have benefitted from this campaign.
If you are looking for another target they could have based the campaign on, I think lower-class families would especially benefit since potatoes are cheap and easy to buy and cook with in bulk. Unfortunately, healthy foods and health food trends can be pricey and unattainable for poorer communities. But, as I stated previously, focusing on this target could drastically change the outcome of the messaging.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily! I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation, and definitely learned a lot from it. 1. If I were the commissioner, I would have taken into account the sensitivity of this situation. In doing so, I would also have tried to emulate this sympathy in my response, as well as taking responsibility for any wrongdoings. 2. I believe through Starbucks' initiatives to do better, and add better and more in depth training for their employees, their response to this crisis was carried out well. Instead of just saying they would do better, they enacted training for employees which went a long way to aid their reputation in my opinion. 3. I'm not sure what advice I would have given the CEO, but I would have definitely agreed with the enactment of training for employees. Additionally, I would have also emphasized the importance of empathetic responses in situations like this.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna, great job on your presentation! 1)I think that there should have been more formal outreach for the problem. I think they did a great job at addressing concerns on social media, but I think they could have even conducted a press conference to further explain the shortage. 2) I think that Twitter was the best outlet to spread their communication messages. I am sure they posted on other outlets such as Instagram and Facebook, but I don’t think they wanted this to be the face of their brand fro that period of time. Twitter allowed them to efficiently communicate back and forth with the public as well as post continuous updates. 3) It definitely did hurt them in the long run. It leaves people wondering just how much food was destroyed.

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

1. Yes,  I think that timing did play a big role in this case. Should they have tried to launch this type of campaign now it would have allowed too much time to pass. The window the USPB had was small and their response was made at a good time.

2. I would say since the messaging might be a little bias coming from the potato board, but since they are promoting helpful messages I would trust the messages that are coming from them.

3. Nutritionists who promote healthy eating,  primary care physicians, and anyone who might have been misinformed about potatoes before.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna! Really great presentation!!

1. I think that they should have come out ahead of the story by announcing that they were still struggling with some menu items not being available yet. They could have done more to communicate with the media about these issues before instead of after the fact.

2. I think that twitter was a great way to connect with the public in a way that allowed the company to respond to individuals directly. I think that Twitter was a great communications tool to use. They could have used some other social media tools, but since they only used one in this case Twitter was the best one to chose from

3. I think that they could have been more public about the chicken, but it didn’t seem like it hurt the campaign in a major way. I think that when looking back at it people might be more upset to learn about it after the fact which is why they could have talked about the situation while it was happening.

# data[].attributes.body
H Lily, really great job!

1. I think that in today’s climate, I wouldn’t have started out my statements with the tone that the commissioner did. I think that to be fair to all parties, it is important to start off statements about incidents like this with as little bias or favor to one side or another. I think a more neutral statement about investigating the incident would have been beneficial and an apology too.

2. I think that Starbucks could have asked their employees to undergo training beforehand, but it was good to see that Starbucks in investing in educating their employees after.

3. I think that they could have responded immediately by putting out one to two statements and then releasing all more statements later. But by having one or two statements about the incident would have helped their timing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Starbucks: Two Men Arrested for Doing... Not Much 

# data[].attributes.subject
Starbucks: Two Men Arrested for Doing... Not Much 

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I had been the Philadelphia police commissioner, I would have responded differently in regards to his initial statement in the case because he initially did not have an apologetic approach to the situation. Rather than being so defensive, the police commissioner could have addressed the issue from a more balanced perspective, taking into account the two men who were discriminated. Whether they felt responsible or not, the police commissioner should have crafted a well thought out apology in how this could be avoided in the future.

2. Although Starbucks should have had different protocols in action to avoid the situation in the first place, I felt as thought after the fact they were very proactive in making changes throughout the entire chain, not just that individual store. Being that they enforced new classes and trainer for Starbucks employees to ensure they are not discriminating, Starbucks proved to consumers they care about equal treatment.

3. The response time in this case could have been made faster, but it probably took a lot of time to carefully think of a plan of action from the perspective of Kevin Johnson.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily, great work on the presentation.

1. I believe that the Police Commissioner's initial statement to the incident was extremely insensitive and tone-deaf because he was failing to acknowledge the issues of racial profiling that has long prevailed in America. I think he did a right thing by admitting that he failed to  acknowledge the situation initially and that he will be introducing new policies within his department. I think his response to his initial statement was good but it should've have come sooner.
Starbucks definitely did not handle the situation efficiently at first as their response came nearly two days after the incident occurred and as you mentioned in your video, that is considered way too late in the PR world. However, they took many pro-active steps after releasing their statement on twitter.  however, I think there is definitely more work to be done and more awareness to be created than just half a  day  for racial bias training. They need to implement several policy changes and training to make sure such incidents aren't repeated in the future.

I think the CEO's response was good but it should have come right after the incident happened, although I do realize that there was a lot of communication planning that needs to take place prior to releasing a statement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Keep Calm and Carry on, With or Without Chicken 

# data[].attributes.subject
Keep Calm and Carry on, With or Without Chicken 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In terms of the PR strategies the KFC communications teams could have implemented when dealing with the backlash from still having missing menu items even after absolving the main issue of the no chicken crisis they could have utilized other forms of media to communicate their message. Developing a press release where they could apologize for the situation in a transparent and honest way could have helped strengthen their relationship with consumers.

2. KFC definitely could have utilized other social media platforms besides just twitter when communicating their message. Although I don’t feel like it is extremely necessary because they chose the social media platform that would best draw attention and convey their message, adding more platforms may have allowed their message to be heard elsewhere from other consumers.

3. Withholding information is always a negative in my opinion. Consumer want to see that brands are not hiding anything, and keeping information to themselves paints them in a more deceptive light.

# data[].attributes.body
1. In my opinion, the timing of the campaign was essential to it’s success. Being that they noticed over a two year time period that consumption rates had decreased, the organization knew they had an opportunity to turn that rate around and generate some traffic. If the campaign had been released in today’s day, it may not have seen quite as much success because the consumption rate of potatoes differs.

2. In my opinion, the messaging from the USPB was trustworthy because they focused on the health aspects of it. Although I am sure it was bias to some degree being that they represent the United States Potato Board, from a consumers perspective it felt very authentic.

3. Besides woman and children, other members of society might benefit from the USPB campaigns like health gurus and nutritionalists. Because the overall goal of the campaign was to promote the nutritional value of potatoes, targeting people with a health centered lifestyle would be beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna! You did a great job on the presentation and was really enjoyable to watch!
- I think KFC could have been more open and transparent about missing the menu items by coming up with a humorous away to address the situation. They could have also put out social media posts saying that these items will be back soon but put it in a very witty and clever way.
KFC could have definitely used other mediums to spread their communication messages. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Youtube might have been very beneficial to share creative content to turn this crisis into an advantage for themselves.
I do feel like  KFC operating out of one warehouse influenced charities like FareShares refusal of their chicken donations. I also think it's the lack of transparency about how the animals are treated and has a lot to do with their unethical treatment. There is also a stigma about Fast Food chains medicating their meat so that might have also played a huge factor in this decision.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie! Great presentation!!
I think it would have still been successful in 2021 if they saw that the consumption of potatoes was on decline due to health related reasons. This is because there are so many outlets available now for organizations to utilize. For example, sharing healthy food recipes and creative ways to use a certain fruit/vegetable has taken over TikTok and Instagram (IV Reel/Videos/Stories). I could see the USPB taking an advantage of that if they ran their campaign in 2021.
I think I would find it a bit of both because they are an established organization but at the same time they also have the responsibility to make sure potatoes are being sold which definitely has a huge impact in the way they present their messaging.
- I think a lot of the people who had a fear of consumption of potatoes must've felt a sense of relief after the campaign came out because it assured people that potatoes arent bad for you and that you could enjoy it guilt free. It also definitely benefited the businesses in the food industry that might have suffered due to the lack of potato consumption.

# data[].attributes.body
1.If I was Philadelphia police commissioner I would have responded much differently in regards to this initial statement. By insinuating the police were just doing their job and claiming “they did absolutely nothing wrong” does not take accountability for their actions whatsoever and shows no remorse for what happened and how it effected the men involved in the incident. A formal apology should have been immediately issued to the men and addressed to the public as well. Taking accountability is vital.
2.Starbucks did handle this situation pretty effectively as they took accountability and communicated to the public that changes will be made so that a situation like this would not happen in the future. By implementing retraining programs for their employees it did show that they are taking action. It is so important for a company to understand the problem then find ways to quickly address it.

3.Some advice I would have provided to the CEO Kevin Johnson would have been to have a quicker response time. Overall, I think it was good that Johnson spoke out and took personal responsibility for the incident rather than stay silent and let the manager of that particular Starbucks take on communication for the incident solely by themselves as people expect the CEO to speak on about things as they are the figurehead of the company.

# data[].attributes.body
1. PR strategies that the KFC communications team could have implemented when dealing with the blacklash would have been to communicate more with the public that they hear their concerns by either posting more on their social media or releasing a formal statement. Personally, I would have used more social media platforms as it allows a company to reach a wide audience quickly and effectively. Although they used twitter in response to the public more social media platforms could have been used to respond to this to get the message across different audiences.

2.As I mentioned before, using twitter initially is a great tactic to get the message across but it does not cover a variety of consumers. For example, older audiences mostly use Facebook as it is more popular rather than twitter. Additionally, their lighthearted response did make the situation more relatable and responding with humor can de-escalate situations.

3.I believe that withholding information around how much chicken was destroyed in this crisis did hurt the campaign because there was a lack of transparency which leaves people with questions that they can only assume the answers to. Not answering these questions such as exactly how much chicken went to waste or just how much food was contaminated leaves a certain amount of distrust.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe that the timing was essential to the success of the campaign as it came out when the issue was relevant of potato consumption was decreasing. In any campaign it is vital to know your timing and when it is most appropriate to release it as it will in turn be more successful.

2. I think to an extent there could be bias as the company will want success and it is a business. But I can also see how the USPB were more in tune with addressing the health side of it.

3Besides women with children, others who might benefit from the USPB campaigns would be people who are health conscious. Starchy foods have always been viewed as traditionally unhealthy so explaining the nutritional benefits of consuming potatoes to people focused on healthy lifestyles can be extremely beneficial.

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

1.By being defensive and saying that the police officers did nothing wrong only upset the public more and made the situation worse. Even though they were doing their job and responding to a call the commissioner should have still acknowledged the upsetting citation with an apology.

2.I think Starbucks handled the situation to the best of the ability. Right away the company made it clear that they do not condone any racist behavior not only by making statements but by making changes within the company with employee training. I think this showed how sorry Starbucks was for the situation and wanted to make it clear to the public that it will not be happening again.

3.Like many of the previous responses I think response time should be improved. Although they could have been taking the time to put together a well worded apology that will get their point across, you have to send your message in a timely manner

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna, really enjoyed your presentation!
1.Although they did a great job just using social media to reach the public and address the situation, I think they should have used other media outlets to communicate with people who were upset. I also think that the positive and almost joking tone KFC had in their tweets benefited them because it made them look as though they were not worried about the situation and it was an easy fix.

2. Yes, I do think they should have used other outlets so that they could have addressed the situation to everyone, not just twitter users. Not everyone uses social media so in order to reach the older generations they should have used news outlets to communicate.

3. Since KFC was not transparent with the public, it definitely hurt the campaign. The fact that food was going to waste can be really upsetting to the public and would definitely change their view on KFC and the company's morals.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie, Great presentation!
1. I think timing was definitely essential considering that the decline of potato consumption was an ongoing problem at the time. If the campaign were to begin in 2021, it wouldn't have as much of an effect and wouldn't be as prominent.

2. I would find the USPB to be trustworthy since they have a good reputation and their research has strong credibility. Although they aren't that well known, they haven’t done anything to make me question them.

3. I think anyone who wants to learn the nutritional value of potatoes would benefit from these campaigns. Other than women with children there can be other caretakers, fathers, nutritionists and young adults possibly learning to cook for themselves for the first time.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily. Great job on the presentation.

1. On the off chance that I were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I unquestionably would have dealt with the circumstance completely in an unexpected way. Posting a brief video expressing that there was nothing fouled up when plainly there was simply makes the police office look terrible. All things considered, I would have set aside that effort to post an expression of remorse and clarify how the office planned to research the circumstance and sort out where the officials turned out badly and how this might have been taken care of in an unexpected way. This shows obligation and trustworthiness for the police division, while this forswearing reaction is anything but a decent search for the office.

2. I think Starbucks dealt with the present circumstance quite well. In addition to the fact that they took obligation regarding what occurred and apologize for it, they effectively searched out approaches to make it right and to cure the circumstance. Deciding to close for racial predisposition preparing, for instance, is an extraordinary path for the organization to exhibit that they were putting activities behind their words and ensuring in no way like this could at any point happen once more. I think taking ownership of the circumstance and striving to amend it was a decent move by Starbucks and eventually permitted them to remake their standing after this.

3. I figure I would simply suggest reacting in an all the more opportune way and having an arrangement set up for circumstances like this to get that going. Promptly, an expression of remorse ought to have been given, regardless of whether the case was still be examined. In this manner, the clients would realize that Starbucks knew about the thing was occurring and was effectively dealing with fixing the circumstance. Leaving an excessive amount of time prior to reacting can make the organization look more liable or as they don't think often about the circumstance.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna! Incredible Presentation!

1. I thought KFC's correspondence with general society was incredible. I love the wonderful way the organization utilized humor and mind to refresh clients about the chicken deficiency. Their planning and symbolism on their Twitter posts were extraordinary as well. I think the lone thing KFC might have done various was speak with general society outside of Twitter too.

2. Like I said in my first answer, I think Twitter was an extraordinary channel to speak with the general population however utilizing different outlets would have made their correspondence more grounded. A portion of their clients might not have a Twitter account (such as myself) so those clients would be unware of present circumstances with refreshes in regards to the chicken.

3. Retaining data in regards to how much chicken was annihilated and the measure of food squandered disobediently hurt the organization. Nobody needs to help a business that abuses their creatures or squanders food that could be going to individuals who don't approach it. The quiet just disclosed the expect that they wouldn't have any desire to realize how much harm was really done.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Katie, incredible introduction!

1. Indeed, I imagine that planning assumed a major part for this situation. Should they have attempted to dispatch this kind of mission now it would have permitted an excess of time to pass. The window the USPB had was little and their reaction was made at a fun time.

2. I would say since the informing may be somewhat inclination coming from the potato board, however since they are advancing useful messages I would confide in the messages that are coming from them.

3. Nutritionists who advance good dieting, essential consideration doctors, and any individual who may have been misguided about potatoes previously.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie, loved your presentation! 1) I think timing definitely was successful in this case. I think if it had launched in 2021 it wouldn’t have been so successful due to new diets that are against carbs such as Keto. I think it was successful at the time because there were not as many things they had to fight against. 2) I do think that it is a bit biased but was also credible. They did a lot of formal research which made the messaging trustworthy. 3) I think targeting millennials would have benefited the USPB as well. This is an age group that is focused on healthy living so targeting them leaves the potential to change their opinions on potatoes.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily. Great presentation! 1. I certainly respect the Philadelphia police commissioner for defending his officers no matter what. However, in the situation he was in, I think it would have been better for him to begin with an apology from the beginning and take it from there as the situation develops. 2. I believe Starbucks responded well by firing the manager the situation occurred with. That showed the public that they weren't going to tolerate employees doing anything of that nature. Something I think Starbucks could've done better was respond to the situation sooner instead of waiting two days. 3. Advice I would have for CEO Kevin Johnson would be to respond to the situation a little quicker so that the public didn't have any time to develop their own and possibly false opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Jenna. Great Presentation! 1. I believe KFC did an excellent job with their social media and responding to the situation. However, I think something they could have done a little better was hear the public's complaints more and respond directly. This lets the customers know you care about them as individuals and are not just trying to cover yourself for mistakes made as an organization. 2. Being that twitter was one of, if not the most popular social media at the time, I think it was definitely the best option for them to go heavy on the Twitter response. However, I think they definitely could have responded through some other outlets like traditional media such as television. 3. I think withholding the information about how many chickens were hurt throughout this process absolutely hurt the campaign. Overall, people want to hear the truth and when they find out they are not being given that it will hurt the organization more than any twitter post could ever help it.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I understand why it would have been the police commissioner's reaction to want to defend his department, but I do not believe this was the right move. While in some cases it makes sense to get the police involved when a business wants to remove someone from the lot, this was not one of those moments. Along with this, the police escalated the situation. This incident demonstrated a lack of training for these officers. I believe it would have been better for the commissioner to take responsibility and issue an apology to the victims of the situation.
2) I personally believe Starbucks did an excellent job handling the situation. They remained loyal to their mission and established programs with organizations to further train their employees on this subject. They appeared sincere and honest while understanding the gravity of this situation.
3) As many have said, Starbucks could have been faster with their response. However, when it comes to a sensitive situation such as this one, it may have been better for them to wait. This way, they did not make false promises or come off as insincere when their statement was finally released.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Although the police officers were only doing their jobs and responding to the situation, they should not have been called in the first place. If I were acting as the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, there are some aspects I would have changed or fixed in regards to releasing an initial statement. While it was necessary to release a video addressing the incident, there are other phrases the commissioner could have utilized besides stating how “these officers did absolutely nothing wrong”. In this way, his speech conveyed a slightly defensive tone. Instead, he should have recognized the problems with this situation and committed himself and the rest of the force to doing better in the future.

2. I believe that Starbucks handled the situation efficiently in regards to its response and addressing the situation with training. Although it took them a few days to respond, compared to other large companies, Starbucks was also trying to craft a message that spoke to everyone, specifically to the two men involved. Not only did the face of the company - CEO Kevin Johnson - take responsibility for the whole company, but he also apologized both publicly and privately and committed Starbucks to conduct anti-bias training. This training was efficient not only in making Starbucks even more diverse and welcoming but also in establishing inclusive corporate guidelines.

3. There is not any other element I can think of that would have aided Kevin Johnson in addressing this case. Although there was a brief period in which they did not comment on the incident, Starbucks still responded to the situation in a timely manner with well-crafted messages.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I believe KFC did a good job with handling the situation. Keeping the situation humorous while still listening to the customers' concerns was clever and kept the situation light. In all honesty, it is ridiculous that a KFC would not have any chicken, so I think it was smart of them to play into that narrative. I think they could have been more interactive with their customers instead of just apologizing on social media.
2) Only using Twitter could have been damaging to the situation. While social media does spread quickly, it would have been more efficient for them to get their message out on more forms of media. I think it would have been a good idea for them to use News outlets more as it would allow for them to directly communicate with their audience without limiting their words.
3) I think it was both bad and good of KFC to withhold the true amount of chicken that was destroyed. As many have said, by withholding information, KFC was not transparent and this can lead to distrust from consumers. However, if the consumers knew exactly how much food went to waste this could enrage them more. I think it was a tricky situation, but both options had bad outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie. Great presentation! 1. I think the timing of this case was absolutely important. Had the campaign been launched in 2021 like you said I don't think they would've been able to draw as much of a response to it as they were able to. 2. Being that the USPD’s main purpose is to promote the consumption of potatoes it definitely leads me to think they are somewhat biased when it comes to the messages they were sending out. 3. I think anyone who enjoys eating potatoes would benefit from the USPB campaign. While women and children are sure to benefit, I don't think you can limit the benefits to just them.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a really interesting presentation!
1) I do believe that timing was essential for this case. It was beneficial for them to be preemptive in their actions. This allowed them to control the situation before it spiraled out of control. If this exact campaign was run in 2021, however, I do not believe it would have done as well mainly because of the development of social media. Diet trends tend to take over on social media, so I believe it would take more than just the "Linda" personality to market their product.
2) I most likely would have seen the  messaging as biased. Their product was in danger and they needed to act quickly. While I would have trusted that they were producing correct information, I also would have wondered if they were leaving certain things out.
3) I think the USPB 's campaign could have also benefited school districts. Potatoes can be cheap and make many different meals. Because of this, school district's could have benefited from marketing their potato-based meals as healthy to ease the minds of concerned parents.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great job on the presentation, Jenna! You included really detailed information and images that helped my understanding of the case.

# data[].attributes.subject
Great job on the presentation, Jenna! You included really detailed information and images that helped my understanding of the case.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Although I believe that KFC effectively used social media to address the crisis, they could have utilized other PR strategies. Some ideas would center around more outreach in regards to the press; by taking interviews, they could have utilized earned media. In addition, the communications team could have drafted more press releases explaining the situation to help reach a broader audience.

2. Given the situation, KFC could have definitely utilized other media platforms other than Twitter. During any crisis, companies should carry out a diverse media mix in order to reach a large audience through different mediums. In this case, KFC could have also used Instagram and Facebook given how visual these platforms are as well as the number of individuals who utilize these platforms.

3. I believe it did hurt the campaign slightly by not being transparent and open with the public about how much chicken was going to waste. Given the number of people who are starving, the throwing away of food in any situation is bound to foster negative sentiment. Although there was no way of knowing how much food had been contaminated, it still affected KFC’s image by not being more open with the information.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great job on your presentation, Kathryn! I really enjoyed the visuals!

# data[].attributes.subject
Great job on your presentation, Kathryn! I really enjoyed the visuals!

# data[].attributes.body
1. The timing was definitely essential in the success of this campaign. Due to the rise of the Atkins diet and diabetes awareness, these factors contributed to the decline of potato consumption. As a result, the USPB was justified in launching a campaign to negate these negative sentiments. Thus, it would not have been as successful and might have been too late if they launched the campaign in 2021.

2. Although messaging from the United States Potato Board would come across as slightly biased, the organization’s mission is to promote potato consumption. I think further input from nutritionists on the benefits of potatoes would have imbued them with more credibility.

3. Besides women with children, I think the organization could have also targeted single parents (male) with children as well as busy households that need quick, but healthy meals.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation Lily! Very effective and helpful video!
1. I think the police commissioner could have been a lot more apologetic and taken accountability for the situation rather than be defensive. The racial bias began when the police were called, however they should have crafted a more thought out response both taking ownership for their own actions and taking a stand for racism and discrimination at large in America and the role police have in this deep rooted issue in America. The communication approach should not be defensive but rather apologetic and transparent. 2. I think Starbucks handled the issue effectively. I remember when this incident occurred and I was shocked at the role of Starbucks considering their corporation is very politically active in social movements and prides itself on an accepting environment. I think, as I always say, a faster response time would have been more effective considering how much social media spread this video. However, the long term steps and communication tactics used were very effective in proving to their consumer and stakeholders that they did not condone the actions that occurred and they would strive to do better, not just in that specific store, but at large. 3. I think, like I said, a faster response would have been more effective. I do also think it would be beneficial if they made it clear that the specific store in question had additional training and attention regarding the discrimination that occurred. It was important that all stores were held accountable because when one team falls short, they all do, but I think showing that the specific store required more attention would have been very telling to the character of the Starbucks company.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Lily,

Awesome job!

1. If I were the police commissioner, I would have made the statement less defensive. While I understand the importance of pointing out that the police officers were in fact just doing their jobs, it was more important for the commissioner to offer more of an apology. I think his response to his initial statement was well formed but it should have come sooner.

2. I think that Starbucks handled the situation pretty well overall. Their response to the situation was decently timed and included apologies and steps to improve and ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. They didn’t just say they were sorry and move on, they actively took steps and made changes to show their commitment to their key audiences and the general public.

3. I think the only advice that I would give would have been to try and respond sooner; however, I do recognize that certain situations require a longer time to respond to. Overall, I think the CEO did a pretty great job in his response so I don’t know if there’s much else that I would have done.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Jenna,

Great job on your presentation!

1. I think strategies that the KFC communication team could have implemented when dealing with the backlash included more outreach and more media communication, but overall I think they did a great job with their communications.

2. I believe that KFC would have benefitted from using other media outlets rather than solely Twitter. It would have helped the organization reach more people and reach some of their audience not on Twitter.

3. Yes, I think the withholding of information would damage any campaign and this case is no different. Not being forthcoming with facts and the truth of a situation leads to negative perceptions and a lack of trust between the public and an organization. Additionally, in the past when organization’s try to hide or refuse to be forthcoming about information it usually means that what they are trying to hide may be much bigger than we think.

# data[].attributes.body
Great video! Very interesting point of view.
1. I think the communication team could have implemented a move diverse campaign beyond the "chicken crisis." Although that was the main issue, I think adding small informational blurbs about the issue not being entirely chicken could have been more transparent and showed that the issue did in fact persist but overtime it was improving.

2. I think KFC could have issued other platforms to show their news. However, if a lot of the backlash was coming from social media, I think it was effective to use the same channel in addressing it. In order to expand the audience, and as we have learned, there should be a diverse set of communication strategies using a variety of channels to "get the message out." Although it was humorous and brand fitting to keep the joke going on twitter, there should have been an expanded campaign than just Twitter.

3. I dont think withholding this information impacted their communication campaign, however, I always strongly encourage transparency. When details are left out, even when not important, it is usually used to protect reputation but when released it just creates a larger backlash. In this instance it was not an issue, however, I think this was risky.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Katie,

I really loved your presentation, great job!

1. I think timing played an incredibly important role in this case. If this campaign were to have been launched today, I do not think it would be as successful because of all of the changes that have occurred and the lack of prevalence the issue has today. Not to mention the way the campaign was communicated to key publics would have to be drastically different as well.

2. I think it would be impossible to remove all bias from the USPB messaging since their main goal is to promote potato consumption, but I do believe that it would be possible to make the messaging more trustworthy. It’s important to remember to always factcheck communications from an organization like this, and I think the use of credible sources and trustworthy persons would be incredibly beneficial to reduce any influence of bias on the messaging.

3. I think their target audience of women and children makes sense, but other audiences that would have been beneficial to target include family households and those who seek a healthy/active lifestyle.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie! Great presentation :)

1. I think the timing of the campaign was very time successful. Although the issue was not time sensitive or a crisis, there was a need to address the negativity toward potatoes and addressing the decreased in consumption. The timing was very effective, well researched and purposeful.l It would not have been as effective today because consumption differs greatly as well as the communication tactics used - magazines and cookbooks - I do not think would have reached as great of an audience today.

2. This is a good question! I think there is some trust worthy tendencies in organizations that are specialists in a certain topic, this case potatoes, being biased. However, I think it important to look at the facts presented, often thoroughly researched, and make sure the way a fact is phrased does not mislead or adjust the tone of the story being told. That is the only way to determine if a message is biased of trustworthy.

3. I think other than women and children, targeting primary care professionals or school systems could better direct parents and children creating more credibility.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily, great job on your presentation I remember this situation so it was interesting to see and understand more about it.

1. If I were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I would have initially apologized in the first statement and not as justifying and defensive as his response was. Understanding current tensions and taking accountability for the incident would have the first move to show regret and promote change.

2. I believe that Starbucks handled the situation well. They were quick to try and rectify the situation and apologize. I think they handled it better than other companies who have gone through similar scandals. Starbucks was smart, and they knew short-term solutions and quick promises would not work, so they made long-term goals they wanted to achieve. Doing this, I believe, helped their relations with their customers and solidified their customer loyalty too.

3. The advice I would give, like others have said, is to respond faster. In situations like this one where social media is involved, and high emotions are too, companies have to respond faster in some way to let their consumers know they are at least aware of what is happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. Even though I think KFC did a great job with this situation, one strategy that could have been used is more face-to-face communication. Having a spokesperson from the company do an interview or release a video statement would have been great for the company and giving their customers a face to put on the solution.

2. I think KFC using their Twitter and their website to spread information was good but not enough to reach everyone who is a consumer of KFC. Using primarily social media alienates people who do not use it and therefore does not get the same attention. They did use other media like advertisements and buying pages in papers. Using only Twitter as a leading source of information about this incident was a small mistake.

3. I think withholding that information did hurt the campaign. Hiding how much chicken was no longer edible and how much they had to destroy made recurring customers skeptical of KFC. Had they been transparent, they would not have been as harshly scrutinized for hiding that information. Doing this made customers feel uncomfortable and worried about their food, which hurt the fast-food chain.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Katie! your presentation was interesting you did excellent!

1. I think timing for this campaign was essential. Doing this campaign while potato consumption was declining was a mistake that made this campaign not as successful. Had they done this campaign in 2021 I believe it would have been a lot more successful especially since currently a lot more people are ok with eating potatoes and have a better understanding of how certain foods affect our health.

2. I would find messaging from the United States Potato Board as biased, seeing as their mission is to promote potato consumption and change negative views on it. If they had outside information and other sources like nutritionists, I would feel messages from them would be more trustworthy, especially if supporting information came from a third-party source.

3. Other people who would benefit from USPB campaigns would be guardians and fathers too. I feel campaigns from them could benefit anyone, but these groups are the best to focus on because parents and guardians are specific about what they feed children.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job at this!
1. If I was the Philly police commissioner, I would not have responded in such a defensive and quick manner. Of course every department wants to protect their own, but he was quick to be defensive rather than show cooperation in investigating the incident. Forming an apology would have shown that the department acknowledges what was wrong and that they will look into it. 2. I for sure think that Starbucks handled this very well. As a brand, they have always been progressive and open to change and hearing what their consumers want to hear from them. They are probably one of the top brands known for their activism. 3. I’d say the only thing would be the response time from them. Some situations happen so quick and gain so much attention it may be hard to react so fast.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job Jenna!
1. I think the KFC communication team could have had a stronger outreach to the public in this case. If they had a stronger outreach it would have shown that they were on top of this and were keeping things up to date with their communications responses. Other than that, I do think that KFC did a great job at communicating in this situation compared to how many brands have communicated during situations. 2. KFC for sure should have utilized social media uses like Instagram and Facebook despite Twitter being the most interactive/quickest. It shows that they would have been serious to put their communication and messages across all social media platforms to all of their consumers. 3. The campaign did get hurt from this as well as KFC as a brand. The public/consumer base may never know how much chicken went to waste or how unsafe it was.

# data[].attributes.body
Wonderful job Katie!
1. Timing for this was for sure essential for the success of the campaign. With the rise of diets and health consciousness, potato consumption was on a decline, no brainer. The USPB was justified in launching their campaign to alter these negative views. For the year 2021, it might have been already too late. 2. Messaging from the USPB could come off biased to many, but their main goal is pretty straightforward — to increase potato consumption. Their goal is to get their mission in action, thus showing that they would do anything to make that happen. 3. Besides women with children, I’d say that they could have targeted schools and single parents. They could have targeted schools since that’s where many children start to learn about nutrition, the food they ate, and health.

# data[].attributes.headline
Great Job on this one. I remember going to my local Starbucks and having it be closed because they were doing employee training. 1.) I think that the Initial video was needed to mention that the police officers were doing everything they needed to do in that situation and how we were also not there in the situation. Moments of stress minds are not always running effectually. However I do think they missed the mark and not addressing their wrong doings. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Great Job on this one. I remember going to my local Starbucks and having it be closed because they were doing employee training. 1.) I think that the Initial video was needed to mention that the police officers were doing everything they needed to do in that situation and how we were also not there in the situation. Moments of stress minds are not always running effectually. However I do think they missed the mark and not addressing their wrong doings. 

# data[].attributes.body
2.) I feel that Starbucks  did handle the situation very well while making training progrmas and bring in an outside team to  tackle  the issue. It also showed that a large company like Starbucks wants to make sure that their employees are educated and ensure that thing like this do not happen again.
3.)I genially think that the CEO handled the situation well because they took accountability and that they were taking actuon to make sure something like this does not happen again.

# data[].attributes.body
Regarding 1.) I think the PR team could have reached other channels. Since much of their black-lash was coming from social media if they would have go maybe into print media more would have been aware of the issues. However I do think KFC did a great job at communicating through their social media and staying relevant on the topic. 2.) Yes! in PR something more is better because there are some who do not use twitter, myself included. if they were to spanned across all platforms I feel like it would have been able to fix the issue sooner. 3.) Yes and No because both I feel like would affect the brand. their are many brands that disclose information from their consumers however sometimes the less you know the better.

# data[].attributes.body
Great Job on this one!

1.) I think Timing is important in any situation and I feel like if this campaign would have been done much better if it would have been done in 2021. With an already declain in potato sales the added campaign just did not reach its potential however their was a need to address the issue which I found to be helpful. 2.) I think the messaging could come off bias and much of their information was only trying to change the negative views when they could of used this time to tell you positive things about potatoes. 3.) I think this could have been a great time to target college students, because there has been the stenotype that we survive off of ramen. This could have bene the time to share helpful knowledge to promote a more healthier lifestyle.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lily, great job on your presentation! 1) If I were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner my initial response would have been much less defensive. I would have taken more time to review the matter and develop an understanding of how each public was effected. I would have offered an apology to the two men and taken further responsibility for the actions. 2) I do think that Starbucks handled the situation efficiently. I think they definitely recognized that their employee did the wrong thing and used the situation to teach others right from wrong. I think they proved to the public that they were making efforts to better train all employees to make sure something like this never happens again. 3) The advice I would give to Kevin Johnson would be to have a quicker response time. While some companies may benefit from taking longer, I think Starbucks had the tools to effectively respond to the situation sooner than they did. This story went viral very quickly so even a short detailed statement would have helped.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
1. If I was the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, I would have responded in a much less defensive way and would have offered vocal commiseration for the individuals involved and the promise to do better. I would have taken accountability for the people who work in my department and offered a sincere apology.

2. I do believe that Starbucks handled the situation much more efficiently than the police; the two men were not doing anything wrong, and this happened in their place of business. A company would good CSR would acknowledge the given situation and immediately engage inn behavior to fix the problem. The organization overall did a very good job with enacting rectifying behavior; by firing the manager who insisted to call the police, putting new policies in place as a corporation and conducting the racial bbias training for all employees. They were able to effectively handle a situation that should have never happened to begin with.

3. The only advice I have inn regard to this case is presenting an apology or acknowledging the situation in a more timely manner. The fact of the matter is they waited a couple days to note what had happened at one of their locations and that only gave more time for individuals to become more angry and take their backlash to social media. Of course, that is in most situations an unpreventable aspect, however it is very important that the response is time-efficient.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
1. I believe the communications team at KFC could have implemented more open communication with their key publics through different forms of media, rather than just relying on social. I believe their utilization of their social media platform, Twitter was very efficient, and most definitely fostered an environment of open-communication and concern, however they could have taken these notions to other forms of media as well, as well as different platforms. The level of reassurance from a face, rather than a tweet, could have as well minimized the backlash.

2. Yes, most definitely. Although KFC fostered that level of open-communication and engagement with their followers, they only did so on one platform. If they wanted to keep getting their messages and reassurance out to key publics, they should have taken their statements to Facebook, Instagram and even YouTube as well.

3. I believe the wastefulness and lack of comment on it definitely hurt the campaign and KFC as a whole. It is hard to trust an organizations food when something suspicious like this occurs and there is no comment.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Efficient time was most definitely important in this case in regard to its success. If this campaign happened in 2021, it would not have made as much of an impact and the outcome would have definitely been different.

2. I would definitely find this information trustworthy considering what this organization actually does and what their goals are; which seems to present as much correct information as they can about potatoes and as well promote the consumption of them. I believe with more credible sources, they can be seen as more trustworthy.

3. Other individuals who might benefit from the USPB campaign include individuals who wish to seek out a healthier lifestyle, college students since making potatoes is not a hard or extravagant thing to cook, I.e. super easy meal, and any type of guardian or parent who is responsible for feeding people.

# data[].attributes.body
1. If you were the Philadelphia Police Commissioner, how would you have responded differently in regard to his initial statement?

I would have responded to the situation in a less defensive manner, because an overly defensive response almost always makes the company look bad and like they are not taking ownership for their actions.
2. Do you believe that Starbucks handled the situation efficiently?
I think Starbucks handled the situation efficiently, especially compared to the police.
3. Is there any advice you would have provided to the CEO, Kevin Johnson, in this case that he did not do?
The main advice I would give the CEO would be to have a quicker response time, which is essential in PR cases like this.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What PR strategies do you feel the KFC communications team could have implemented when dealing with the backlash from still having missing menu items even after absolving the main issue of the no chicken crisis?
KFC could have benefitted from using additional communication channels instead of just using social media.
2. Do you think that KFC should have used other outlets to spread their communication messages other than Twitter?
Yes, I do. Communication from organizations is always more effective when it comes from a variety of different channels. It would have been more professional to use different outlets as well.
3. Did withholding information around how much chicken was destroyed in this crisis hurt the campaign?
Yes, it is always in a company's best interest to be completely honest with their publics.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Do you think that timing was essential to the success of the campaign? Would it have been as successful if it were launched, for example, in 2021?
Yes, timing was essential in this case. If it had been launched in 2021, it would have been too late and it would not have been as effective.
2. Would you find messaging from the United States Potato Board as trustworthy or biased?
They might come off as biased due to their mission, but the information they presented is trustworthy.
3. Besides women with children, who else might benefit from the USPB campaigns?
I think single parents and college students might have been a good target audience for this campaign because there is an idea that they have a hard time cooking.