# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=2b12df17-47e2-469b-9b78-acec00171a0c

1) How would seeing these types of videos by the HSUS impact your eating and buying habits?

2) What are your thoughts on the pork industry's slogan change from "Pork. The Other White Meat" to "Pork Be Inspired?"

3) Do you think this debate will affect other meat industries, such as chicken or beef? What can these industries learn from the Pork Industry?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea,
This presentation was really detailed and I learned and understood the case much more from it!

1. The video about gestation crates that the HSUS made definitely impacted my eating and buying habits. There is a way to consume meat that is not at the cost of torturing innocent animals and I believe as a country we have yet to find that way. Videos like this will force us to find that way faster than we would have without them.

2. I think the change was not necessarily needed but “be inspired” definitely has a more cheerful ring to it which might make people less inclined to investigate the pork industry.

3. I think this whole case will 100% effect the other meat industries and how we consume meat as a whole. Animal cruelty is never the answer when it comes to meat consumption. One of the biggest take aways I was thinking about from this case was that it probably cost the companies way more in legal fees and image destruction than it would’ve been to simply get rid of gestation stalls. In the future, I think all meat industries will understand that destruction to their image will hurt their company much more than if they adhere to the animal safety laws in place.

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=353660f5-ae2b-4263-ad7f-aceb011c6dba

1. What did the New York Times story on January 26, 2012 uncover about the Apple subcontractor Foxconn?
2. What was FLA the right move for Apple?
Was the Foxconn factory tour for ABC's Nightline anchor Bill Weir the best solution for building trust and understanding?

# 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
Hi Alexa,
I really enjoyed your presentation and the work that was put into it! It was such an interesting case to explore.

1. The NYT story uncovered the unsafe and mentally dangerous working conditions happening at Foxconn. The front page story had interviews with employees and executives to further prove the story.

2. Adhering to and joining the FLA was probably the best move Apple could make and still keep their status as one of the most successful companies in the world. It also became the first tech company to join the FLA, setting an example for more tech companies.

3. I don’t know if I would say it was the best solution but it was definitely something straightforward that they could do to build trust and understanding with the general publics for sure.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The most pivotal discovery that was uncovered in the New York Times story was that Foxconn implemented unfit and dangerous working conditions.

2. Joining the FLA was a smart move for Apple in order for them to preserve their reputation and remain a successful company. By being one of the first tech companies to adhere to the guidelines of FLA, Apple set a standard for other companies and Apple competitors.

3. Personally, I think presenting an honest and straightforward tour of Foxconn’s factory was a smart move in order for Foxconn to reconnect and build trust with their supporters again. By showcasing the below-standard working conditions, Foxconn acknowledged their wrongdoings in that sense, along with their ambition to make it better, and be more transparent with their publics.

# data[].attributes.body
1)In the past, I have already seen videos like the one the HSUS published and for those reasons I cut out eating red meat completely. I already try to limit my meat consumption to a minimum because of the way animals are treated in big corporations factories. Even if you aren’t a vegetarian, there are ways to consume meat that are more ethical such as buying meat from local shops.

2)My thoughts on the pork industry slogan to Pork Be Inspired was most defiantly a strictly tactical move to make the industry be viewed in a better life. Most big pork industry companies as explained in your presentation want to give off the illusion  that they care about animal welfare and follow a moral code but in reality the pigs are in terrible living conditions.

3)I do believe that this debate will definitely affect other meat industries such as chicken and beef because the same problems that are happening in the pork industry are also occurring with chicken and beef companies. I think the Pork Industry set an example and shed light on to the horrors that are actually going on and this coverage will make the general public hold meat industry companies to a higher standard and expectation as to how they are treating the animals. If change does not happen this will only hurt the companies already damaged reputation more.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The New York Times story uncovered that Apple had factory workers in unsafe and dangerous conditions that no one should have to work in.

2.Joining the FLA was 100% the right move for Apple or at-least a step in the right direction. This was a tactical move in order to maintain or mend their reputation and try to show their consumers that they care and want to raise their standards as a company. By joining the FLA apple also raised the bar for other technology companies to follow in their footsteps.

3.Showing the Foxconn factory was a good solution in my opinion because it creates transparency and shows that the company is willing to fix their previous issues. This allows consumers to feel better about the product they are purchasing and employees are able to work in better conditions. I do believe Apple themselves should have formally released a statement that they acknowledge their wrong doings as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea!
Thank you for the presentation and great post!

1. I had to watch very similar types of videos to these in health classes in middle school and high school. As someone who is enjoys red meats and other meats in general, these types of videos would not make me stop eating them but I would highly reconsider how much meat produce I buy and where it is coming from. Though I am someone who enjoys eating meats, I would definitely prefer to do so in the most ethical and environmentally friendly way that I can.

2. My thoughts on the pork industry's slogan change leaves me slightly confused as I think there was probably a more efficient way to get the target audience to understand it's new position. As someone who would be looking at this slogan at face value, since that is all of the time most advertising gets, I would understand how "Pork. The Other White Meat" was created but I don't think I could say the same for their new slogan. In my opinion, this slogan would need to make the reader curious enough to look into the slogan and campaign on their own time since the slogan does not get the full message across initially.

3. I think other meat industries, while competitors, are indirect enough to get by unscathed. I think that they might face calls for reformation by those who look at the changes being made in the pork industry but since some people are only satisfied by some meats, I am not sure how much the other industries would have to budge when asked. I do think that there is a lot of lessons that the other industries can learn from the pork industry, should they choose to listen. The world is moving towards a more eco-friendly and ethical direction and they should keep up in order to maintain a good image.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa!
Great presentation and thank you for making it.

1. The January 26th, 2012 story by the New York Times uncovered that the Apple subcontractor Foxconn had their workers in unsafe environments and conditions that were unethical and dangerous.

2. Apple put themselves in a position where they were required to make changes and improve conditions. The most public way to do so was to announce that they were joining the FLA. I think this was their best option because it is a public organization that has a stronger promise of change and reformation than if they just made a statement saying that they "want to do better". Because the FLA is a pre-established organization with tangible and trusted policies, this was a more concrete response that the public would be more likely to trust.

3. The Foxconn factory tour was a way to promote transparency and show that they are dedicated to being more honest moving forward. Because I do think there were other options and other ways that they could have gone and avoided giving the tour, I have to say that I applaud the honesty that the tour provides. This kind of honesty can be difficult to find in any industry, especially with large companies and putting all of their cards on the table is a rare occasion.

# data[].attributes.body
https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=be88063b-5d3c-49c6-abc3-aced00dff2a7

1. Is there anything you think WIETA could have done better?

2. Do you think the campaign would have been dramatically less effective if WIETA hadn’t responded to HRW’s report within the day? Give examples of how or how not.

3. Was it necessary for WIETA to attack HRW in their response? Do you think this helped or harmed their reputation?

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa,
Great presentation! Watching your video helped me to further understand the issues at hand. To answer your discussion questions:

1.) The New York Times Story in January revealed that Apple factories possessed unsafe working conditions. This information was discovered through interviews with former Apple executives and employees.

2.) I think that the teaming up with the  FLA was the right move for Apple because it showed the company's dedication to fixing this massive issue. The FLA came in and created new factory guidelines to ensure safe working conditions in Apple factories.

3.) Lastly, I wouldn't say that Foxconn Factory tour with Bill Weir was Apple's best solution for building trust and understanding, however, it was definitely helpful. The tour of the factory definitely showed Apple's willingness to be honest with the public, but I do believe they had other options. While I don't think it was a bad idea, I don't believe it was the best idea.

# data[].attributes.body
HI Chelsea! Great presentation. Your explanation of the Pork Industry case study gave me a better understanding of what was taking place. To answer your discussion questions. (1) After watching the videos posted by the HSUS, it would negatively impact my buying and eating habits. The videos created by the HSUS tug at the publics heart strings and brings emotion into the situation at hand. Every time I would go to buy pork in the food store or order it at a restaurant, I would automatically think about these videos. After watching these clips and becoming more educated on the gestation stalls, I would feel guilty supporting this industry. To answer your second questions (2), the new slogan "Pork Be Inspired" doesn't necessarily sit well with me. I feel like the word "inspired" in this phrase is somewhat of an ironic word choice. The word "inspire" is associated with positivity. This case study on the pork industry is not inspiring by any means. It is a topic that makes people upset. The pork industry should  have created a more appropriate slogan, in my opinion. Last but not least, (3) I do believe that this debate will affect other meat industries. More specifically, I think that this debate will cause people and other organizations to take a deeper look into other meat industries for signs of animal cruelty and inappropriate protocols. If anything, other meat industries can take this as an opportunity to edit any of their processes and to be transparent with their stakeholders and consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought your presentation was very well done!

1. These videos would not make me stop consuming meat, but I would look for more humane alternatives.  I have heard about the horrors of farms and other places that use unethical and inhumane methods to produce meat for consumption in the past.  It has made me reconsider things but now I only use companies who promise either organic meat or meat from humanely treated animals.

2. I had heard of the “The Other White Meat” slogan when I was younger.  I did not know until this case that it was changed.  While “Be Inspired” does invoke a positive attitude, it doesn’t really flow well in my opinion.  It’s not as catchy or memorable.  But the slogan did need to be changed.  It leaves me wondering what the other options were, if there were any.

3. I do think this will affect other meat industries in the long run.  I believe many organizations will start looking into how animals have been treated on their farms/facilities and make a change if they see that they are going down the same path that the pork industry went down.  Other meat industries can learn to treat their animals more humanely and learn to work more ethically to prevent themselves from entering a similar situation.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a great presentation!

1. The New York Times story on Foxconn showed the horrors of working in the factories of China.  It mentioned the countless suicides and explosions and how the workers were overworked and underpaid.  It showed how unethical and cruel the Foxconn company was.

2. I do believe it was the best move Apple could have made in this situation.  They had avoided joining it for the longest time despite talking about the organization numerous times in the past.  This showed that they were willing to let their guard down and take the next step into becoming a more ethical company to save their reputation.  Being the first tech company to join the FLA is just another large title Apple could use to market as well.

3. I think it was the best decision so that people could see for themselves what the factory looked like and could get a better idea of what was happening there.  You could read something in an outlet like the New York Times and start to develop your own picture of what things looked like there and assume the worst.  Letting people see for themselves what it was like allowed them to develop a better opinion of the situation.  It also allowed Apple to be more transparent, something they had not done for a long time.

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

1. I don’t believe WIETA needed to attack the HRW as hard as they did.  While there could have been exaggerated and manipulated claims, WIETA still had to introduce the Ethics Seal program, showing that some change needed to be made to their organization in some capacity.  There probably should have been some sort of other way to defend themselves rather than just attacking the organization that made the claims.

2. I agree that it would’ve been less effective if they did not respond to the report as soon as they did.  I feel like strategic inaction is very hit or miss.  Sometimes it helps, but other times it makes things worse.  In a situation that involves human rights, I feel like having a quick response is very important or else the situation could get worse.  If WIETA did not respond right away, perhaps the HRW would have pushed their case more and more people would have seen it, causing more backlash to WIETA damaging their reputation severely.

3. I think the aggressive response helped in the fact that it really pushed their innocence in the case to an extent.  Their response came very quickly so they were either very prepared for a situation like this or the claims were false so it was easy to respond in a timely manner.  Attacking a credible organization such as the HRW may have hurt their reputation slightly, but the rectifying behavior of WIETA changed that very quickly.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia,
I really enjoyed your presentation! It helped me to gain a better understanding of this case study. To answer your discussion questions:

1.) I think that the one thing WIETA could have done better would have been to not attack a reputable organization such as the HRW. Other than that, I think they handled the situation pretty appropriately. They responded to the accusations promptly and forth the new ethical seal. These actions show WIETA's commitment to bettering their company.

2.) I do believe that the campaign would have been much less effective if the WIETA did not respond as quickly as they did. Not responding ASAP allows other people to speak out before the company has the option to address the issue. If WIETA waited any longer to respond, this PR scandal would have been a lot messier.

3.) I think that it was unnecessary for WIETA to attack the HRW in their response. The HRW is a very reputable organization, so by attacking them, it is only adding fuel to the fire. By negatively mentioning them in their response, WIETA may have harmed their reputation more than helping it. However, I believe that the swift actions they took to address the problem, in the first place, may have saved their image from this.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation. While reading this case study I was in awe how apple in ingrained in our daily lives and the fact that this case got so much press people are still so supportive of apple.

Regarding to question 1, the New York times article under-covered the very harsh working conditions of the manufacturing companies (FoxConn)  and the over all lack of human rights for these workers. They discovered many incidents, like explosions and deaths.

The FLA did a deeper investigation and found hundreds of violations on their core conduct issues.  The FLA allowed apple to get more on the right track

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Chelsea, Great Job !! Your slides kept me intrigued the entire presentation!!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Chelsea, Great Job !! Your slides kept me intrigued the entire presentation!!

# data[].attributes.body
Regarding question 1, if I wear to be completely honest, watching the videos did disturb me but like others had mentioned I am human and would still consume meat. However I do feel more self aware of the issue around meat slaughtering and the movement of animal rights. 2, I think it was a much smarter move changing the slogan because it leaves a more positive connotation in someone mind. Although it is still promoting the meat consumption, it doesn't explode the many issues that people have with pork and other meat products. 3, I feel like this will effect the meat industries however in a more positive way! I feel like this study allowed more publics to be educated and create accurate options.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Sophia, Great Presentation and slides!! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Sophia, Great Presentation and slides!! 

# data[].attributes.body
For question one I feel like like the one thing that the WIET could of done better was not attack the HRW in their report, This came off defensive and could lose the trust of many consumers. 2, I feel like the situation from a PR lense was handed very well since they did relpsond in a very quick time manner. Since responding so quick they were able to control the story more and if they would of waited the situation could have escalated. 3, The HRW already having a strong repuation I think the WIET attack was unprofessional and partically made the situation worse then it needed to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Sophia, great job! I was really engaged with this presentation and learned a lot more than I gained by reading the case study.

1. Compared to the other cases seen this chapter I think WIETA did a good job with their response but could’ve done without the attack to HRW. It’s almost better to say nothing than to attack the claims/claimer so this very well could’ve harmed their reputation.

2. I definitely think the campaign would’ve been less effective if they weren’t so quick with their response. This shows that they were listening and immediately wanted to fix their problems. Responding quickly also makes sure that their voices are the first to be heard.

3. HRW did nothing wrong except put this information available to the public so the attack on them from WIETA definitely harmed their reputation even more after the report came out. It was unnecessary and as I mentioned above would’ve been somewhat better if they simply didn’t say anything rather than attack the claims.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Chelsea,

Great job with your presentation. The way you laid everything out and explained the details of the case really helped aid my understanding of the situation. Here are some of my thoughts regarding your questions:

1. I think seeing videos like these by the HSUS definitely impact my eating and buying habits. I think there is a balance between eating meat and getting that product out to consumers with the proper treatment of these animals. I think that these videos will continue to push consumers to demand for better practices from farmers and other producers, even if it does bring a higher cost for consumers to get the product.

2. I think the change in slogan was a good idea. “Pork Be Inspired” definitely has a nicer ring to it and I think makes more sense than their original slogan. Also, it painted the industry in a much better light and was overall more positive, which is a good image to portray to consumers.

3. I do think that this debate will affect other meat industries, like chicken and beef. Not only is society in general becoming more aware of the processes by which they get the food they consume, but people are more willing to pay more or choose certain brands over others if it means that fair practices are being employed. I think that other meat industries can learn from the pork industry by understanding that animal cruelty is not okay and consumers won’t stand for it. They can also learn that finding better, more sustainable, and fair practices will be better and more cost effective in the long run, rather than fighting the change and dealing with legal fees/issues and negative brand hits in the short run.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Alexa,
Great job on your presentation. I really enjoyed how clear and concise you made everything. Regarding your questions, here are some of my thoughts:

1. The NYTimes article exposed Foxconn for their unsafe and unfair working conditions. The article highlighted employee and executive interviews that demonstrated examples of the working conditions and how detrimental, both physically and mentally, working in these factories was.

2. FLA was the right move for Apple because not only was it the right thing to do by its factory workers, but it demonstrated a sense of accountability and Apple’s leadership to hold themselves to a higher standard than they were previously. Additionally, Apple was the first major tech company to join the FLA which set an example for other companies and what consumers should demand of the tech companies they engage with.

3. While I cannot say if the tour of the factory was the absolute best decision, I can say that I think it was a very smart move and definitely helped to show transparency and willingness to do better. It allowed consumers and audiences to look inside and see what was going on which allowed for trust and understanding to be built by seeing Apple take accountability and recognize their wrongdoings and show consumers the steps they were taking to improve.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Sophia,
Awesome job on your presentation. You did really well in laying out the details of the case and what was happening. Here are some of my thoughts in regard to your questions:

1. I think that overall, WIETA did well with their response. However, the one thing they did that I do not agree with/wasn’t done well was their attack of HRW. Not only would this be seen as incredibly defensive, but HRW is a pretty reputable organization, which would make WIETA’s attack seem much worse.

2. I think that had WIETA not responded as soon as they did, their campaign would have been less effective. I do not believe that strategic inaction is a response that should be used often, but rather saved for very extreme circumstances. It is better to try and respond as well as you can. Holding off on responding can allow for other voices to frame a narrative, which is then much harder to overcome, and responding quickly shows that the organization is listening and engaging and wants to do better.

3. I do not think it was necessary for WIETA to attack HRW in their response and I don’t think it helped their reputation. I think it added a sense of unprofessionalism and would have been better if WIETA said nothing at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia! Your presentation was super informative!
I definitely think that WIETA did a great job in terms of responding to the HRW report as the WOSA news release was sent out the day the report  was released.  I do, however, believe that they shouldn't have attacked HRW the way that they did because it can easily be taken in a negative light, especially considering the history of South Africa. Their timing was great but I think that their approach should have been a little different. Instead of calling out HRW, they could have provided more examples of the positive things the organization is involved in and the value they add to the lives of the South African workers. The most effective component of their response was definitely the introduction of the ethical seals. That shows that they were holding their wine producers accountable to provide fair treatment to all workers.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia!
Thank you for your analysis and insight!

1. I think WIETA could have done a better job at transparency and being honest. While the intentions were good, it's clear that WIETA had no actual real interest in helping protect the wine workers and rather it was a front that they put up in order to present the image that they were doing good for the workers. Overall, there were many ways that they could have improved the function of WIETA like executing real investigations on whether or not they were being treated well. It would not have taken them much digging to find the truth.

2. I think the campaign would have been less effective if they had not responded in a timely manner. Staying silent for a long time before releasing a statement can come off as suspicious and less genuine because people are aware that they are crafting a message rather than being honest with what they want to say. When there is a crisis in communications, time is of the essence. People would much prefer an honest answer rather than a message crafted to fit exactly what it is that they want to hear.

3. No, I think it wasn't necessary for WIETA to attack the HRW, I would argue that it probably hurt them. As the saying goes, you should not fight fire with fire. Also attacking the HRW comes off as defensive when there is a right for the HRW to call them out. It also gives a sense of immaturity and in a situation where there are lives and the well-beings of others at stake, people do not want to hear about petty arguments that seem like the backlash from a scolded child. The mature thing to do is to accept what they did wrong and work on correcting it rather than fight those who were calling attention to the issue in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea! Great work!
Seeing these types of videos by the HSUS would definitely make me not want to purchase products by such organizations. Even if you are a pork lover, it is now easier than ever to find alternatives that is more ethical and humane. As there are so many options, it's easier to boycott brands whose values don't align with mine.
I think the change in slogan does have a more positive tone to it than the previous one. But I don't really think that a change in slogan would make any difference to an informed consumer who is aware of the inhumane practices of the industry.
I think this debate would shed a light on the meat industry as a whole as this incident is definitely not an isolated one. I believe that this will push the other members of the meat industry to be more proactive in terms of implementing ethical practices so that their organizations isn't the next to be scrutinized.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job! I found your explanation of the different sides very helpful and informative. To answer your discussion questions:
1) I think videos like the one produced by HSUS are important for keeping the public informed, so each individual can make their own buying decisions. Personally, I am a firm believer in supporting locally sourced products as a way to practice sustainability. Meat from a local farm is better for the environment than corporation-produced meat alternatives. However, these buying changes can be expensive and are not always affordable. I think this can be seen through a larger scale where many people found gestation stalls inhumane, but continued to purchase meat from the pork industry.
2) I agree with most people about the new slogan "Pork, Be Inspired." It feels out of place. The pork industry should focus on providing food in a way that is affordable for consumers and humane towards the animals. I don't think "be inspired" communicates that message.
3) I definitely think this incident should shine a light on other meat industries. I think it makes consumers more aware, giving them reason to question these mass producers. It is cases like this that creates a consumer conscience which can start to affect all industries, even outside the food industry. It's controversies like the gestation stalls that make me question the ethics behind anything I purchase.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation! You definitely highlighted and analyzed the case very well and clearly.

1. The WIETA should not have attacked the HRW like they did. I think the WIETA could have definitely responded better to the negative comments. Although they did respond promptly, the way in which they responded was more on the aggressive side, which impacted their reputation.
2. I definitely think because of the WEITA’s response time their campaign was more effective. If they hadn’t responded so quickly, their reputation, transparency and public’s trust would have been hindered. Especially with crisis communication, it is important to be the first to respond so that you can write the narrative, not allow others to create a narrative for your company/organization etc.
3. I don’t think an attack was necessary, but I do think that a prompt response was necessary in this case. Although intentions were good, attacking a well respected organization like the HRW is also not a good look on the WIETA. It’s understandable that the WEITA wanted to protect themselves, but at the same time two wrongs do not make a right. Instead, they should have acknowledged where they were wrong, and told their side of the story.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa, great presentation. You did a good job evaluating the Apple incident from a wider PR perspective. I think you made some great insights about the ethical and legal issues as well as the communication tactics (or lack of).
1. Everyone else already covered the fact that this release uncovered unethical working conditions. I just want to add that I think this article also uncovered, in a broader sense, the issue with relying on large corporations rather than supporting local/community businesses. Like you said in the presentation, these unethical conditions are not unheard of with other large companies like Nike and Zara.
2. Again, I agree with everyone here that joining the FLA showed an initiative for change from Apple, which is important for building trust back. I also think becoming the first tech industry to join gives Apple another strength.
3. I definitely think the tour was a way to be more transparent and promote the free flow of information. By providing this tour, Apple admitted that there were issues and committed to fixing them, and it showed external publics that they had nothing to hide. However, I don't know if it was the best solution. You did a great job describing the negative consequences from a lack of communication (besides the email to employees), and I think providing more written/spoken statements and addressing the public's concerns early on would have been beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job! Your presentation was very clear, easy to follow, and explained the case very well!

1. The NYT article uncovered that the working conditions at Foxconn were dangerous and unsafe to employees.
2. The right move for Apple was joining the FLA. This definitely helped them preserve their reputation and remain a successful company. Along with that, since they were the first tech company to join the FLA, they set a great standard for other tech companies, which also helped their reputation.
3. I can see both sides. I do think that a tour of the factory showed Apple’s transparency and was a step in the right direction for gaining trust from publics, consumers, investors etc. However, shining a light of poor working conditions might have not been the best option for them, it depends on the way you want to look at it. I think there could have been other, equally or more successful options, but I do like their transparency and efforts to not only acknowledge their mistakes but learn from them and change them.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job! I particularly liked your break down of the organization's response, especially the reactive response. I think you did a really thorough job overall.
1. I agree with the statement that you made in your presentation that WIETA could have diversified their communication tactics for a better response. I think they could have provided more information and visual elements explaining the accreditation process, so the publics could better understand why the HRW might have found issues without it being a wider organization problem.

2. I definitely think the immediate response is what made this particular PR response so effective. There was no time for the audience to speculate or larger news organizations to take hold of the story. It shows the opposite tactic of the Chocolate Milk study from UMD we looked at in chapter 2. With the UMD case, their research also underwent a critical review, but they withheld information and put off a formal response which negatively affected their credibility. I think WIETA risked facing a similar outcome if they did not respond so quickly.

3. I found it very interesting that you kept using the word "attack" when describing their response because my initial read through of WOSA's news release was not so emotional. I thought the CEO did a good job of presenting facts and examples debunking some of the HRW's negative claims and examples of WIETA's successes. However, I do think the quote you pulled out for your presentation (about how the HRW's review could affect workers) did show some of the more emotional language and tactics. With that said, because I thought the news release was informative, logical, and based on evidence, I would say it was necessary to explain WIETA and WOSA's side of the story. I appreciate your insight on the news release; it definitely made me reevaluate the specific language used.

# data[].attributes.body
I loved your presentation! Very interesting case and your analysis and explaining was great.

1. I’ve seen a ton of videos about how disgusting our meat industry is, however I can’t imagine not eating meat. As I’ve gotten older and more educated about processed foods and where our food actually comes from, I have made more conscious efforts to chose healthier, more humane meats/food. I do think that as more videos like this one come out, people will be really turned off by meat.
2. I personally think both slogans are not great. I think the old slogan, “Pork. The Other White Meat,” just sounds bad and doesn’t feel genuine, it sounds more like a marketing strategy to get people to think differently of meat. The new slogan “Pork Be Inspired” doesn’t make any sense to me either. It doesn’t make me inclined to purchase pork or think differently of the industry. They definitely could have come up with a better slogan.
3. As information comes out about how our meat is produced and packaged, I think people will look at other meat industries such as chicken and beer and see if their regulations and animal treatment is the same, worse, or better. I do think people have more trust in chicken and beef, but regardless I think the meat industry as a whole should prepare to make changes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. These types of videos by the HSUS impact my eating and buying habits in that it makes me think more about what I am buying when I am actually purchasing products. More now than ever, consumers wonder about side effects, impacts, and other possibilities that could influence purchasing behavior.

2. I agree that the slogan change was a good and effective decision because It gives the brand a more positive connotation. Because the original slogan had more of a negative tone, changing it to be more uplifting attracts a more loving audience.

3. I think this case has had an impact on the meat industry as a whole. Now more than ever consumers are conscious of the products they are buying and how they are impacting the world. Other brands within the meat industry and food industry in general can learn about possible negative impacts through studying this case.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The New York Times story on January 26, 2012 uncovered that the Apple subcontractor was practicing unfair and unjust working conditions for many employers. Being that Apple is such a big name company that is so lucrative and common, people all around the world were surprised about their unfair conditions when it was revealed on the front page of the New York Times.

2. I believe joining the FLA was the right move for Apple because it was about maintaining a positive reputation. As a brand that is globally recognized as successful, it is important that they maintain this positive reputation. I feel that their actions showed that they did care about bettering themselves, and took the leadership to do so.

3. I believe the honest tour given of Foxconn was extremely helpful because it made them look more transparent to consumers. It helped rebuild any lost trust of consumers. It proved to consumers that they are willing to take necessary steps to better the organization.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Perhaps WIETA could have been more involved in ensuring the working conditions and wages were fair throughout the entire supply chain. As Reese briefly mentioned, WIETA turned a blind eye in terms of some of the major findings initially discovered about current day wine working conditions.

2. I believe it would have been less effective if WIETA had not responded to the report as fast as they initially did. Being so quick to respond showed consumers that they care about ethically sound organizations. This helped solve the issue in a quick manner rather than slowly uncovering issues.

3. Although it generated more attention, I do not think it was necessary for WIETA to have attacked the HRW in their response. Although it helped show organizations and consumers that they were ready to take on the situation, it also generated unnecessary guilt.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa. Nice work on the presentation!!
The New York Times released an article exposing Apple's unsafe working conditions which was discovered through interviews with former executive and employees.
I think joining FLA was a good move made by Apple because it shows that they were taking steps to ensure that their workers are being treated fairly. Also, Apple being the first tech company to join the association really set an example for other organizations in the industry to follow.
The decision of having ABC's Nightline anchor Bill Weir visit the Foxxcon's Chinese factories was a decision that might have done both harm and good to the company. The employees at the factory revealed the brutal working and living conditions which definitely exposed the company's lack of fair treatment of its employees. However, this was obviously a much needed step because it was a step towards transparency, and gives off the sentiment that Apple is trying to do better.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea, I think you did a fantastic job at breaking down the case study!

1. After seeing these videos by the HSUS, I am solidified in my decision even further to not eat pork. Seeing these types of habits are truly heartbreaking, and would have forced me to use alternative suppliers if I were someone who does eat Pork. I also would minimize my meat consumption, and look to healthier vegan alternatives that essentially taste the same, but are humane. I understand that not everyone would be impacted after seeing pigs in gestation crates, but I would hope that people will look to more human sellers/farmers.

2.  I think that the initial slogan name, “Pork. The Other White Meat” sounds so careless and the lack of empathy for animal cruelty amongst pigs truly shows. I think it just gives more emphasis on the distaste that comes with mass production, and although there is no way to really market killing pigs as wholesome, this slogan is an immediate turn off, and it shows lack of care and consideration for humane practices. The slogan “Pork Be Inspired,” in my opinion sounds a bit forceful, yet optimistic, even though it is a ploy to sound more considerate, it does take the spotlight off of pigs being slaughtered, and makes me think more about inspiration for meals.

3. I do think that this debate will affect other meat industries because the pork industry is not the organization that uses inhumane practices for garnering their animals. Chicken and beef industries, specifically poultry farming, typically have a lot of regular abuse that goes into farm raising and 9 billion chickens are killed in the United States every year, so there is no doubt that cruel tactics come out of this sad reality. I think that the chicken and beef industry can learn from the Pork industry in that people are so specific about where their food comes from and how it is raised. More people are searching for organic, cage free, farm raised, no antibiotic sources of natural meat, and places that are free range. These industries need to be aware of the key publics and the ethical/legal implications that come with animal cruelty.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed watching your case study video Alexa, really insightful!

1. The New York Times shed light on the abusive, toxic, and mentally harmful working conditions and environment of employees in China working for Foxconn. It gave awareness of the dangerous living conditions of their employees and first hand accounts on allegations of harsh chemicals used in the factory, employee malnourishment, and extensive work hours, which has resulted in Foxconn employees committing sucide because of the ethical issues within the company.

2. Apple joining the Fair Labor association was the right publicity move and ethical move altogether. It solidified the promise Apple made in defending the rights of their employees that have been subjected to these abusive working conditions. This was the right move for maintenance of their reputation and them being the first to do this will not only look good in the public eye, but encourage other technology brands to follow suit. Having the FLA closely monitor Apple’s supply chains also makes it known to the public that they care for basic human rights, creates transparency, and are protecting the employees affected by inhumane practices.

3. I think it was a step in the right direction to promote transparency, but you can only see as much truth as the media shows you through specific lenses that are carefully crafted to work in the company's favor. Doing the tour shows the care they have for their employees, and the remorse they had for the toxic work environment that was created in the Foxconn factory. Acknowledging their mistakes, showing advocacy for their employees, and building relationships with the consumers was the right move to rid of any residual suspicious behavior.

# data[].attributes.headline
Developing Wines With a Conscience: South African Wine Industry Case Study

# data[].attributes.subject
Developing Wines With a Conscience: South African Wine Industry Case Study

# data[].attributes.body
Really amazing job Sophia, your analysis of the case was really informative!

1. I think that WIETA handled themselves in a very responsible and professional manner and was tactful in their response to HRW’s allegations against the working environment within the South African wine industry. I do think that they shouldn’t have denied the allegations and claimed that HRW wrote their article in a “biased manner.” This type of criticism is defensive and can confirm the public’s perception of them as unethical.

2. I think that WIETA responding to HRW’s report in one day shows the care that they have for their organization’s reputation, and shows tactfulness when it comes to Crisis Management. If the early preemptive action was not taken I do think that the campaign would have been dramatically less effective because it would have allowed further negative coverage based on the HRW report. By acting quickly they were able to rectify the claims and ensure practices that would be beneficial for the employees and wine producers. Their environmental scanning is what made the crisis management more effective, and if the swift issue identification was lacking, then WIETA wouldn’t have worked as fast to establish better wages and environments for workers.

3. I do not think that it was necessary for WIETA to attack HRW in their response, and I think that it harmed their reputation more instead of helping it because they were defensive, and still made the necessary changes upon HRW’s report. It shows the public that HRW was telling the truth, and action was only taken once the report came out, which in my opinion further damaged their consumer’s perspectives of them. Attacking HRW for telling the truth was wrong, and did not help them in any way, it only showed their denial for allegations which they eventually ensued crisis management for. It also demonstrated their inability to maintain a socially responsible stance when the truth is involved. Other than that they handled the case very well and tactfully.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia!

Great presentation! 1) I think that WIETA could have taken more appropriate action especially in their response to the HRW. In my opinion I felt that they were more defensive rather than providing factual information in their response. What would have helped them most in their response would be to change their tone.

2) If WIETA waited longer to respond I think it would have been less effective. That being said, if they waited longer I think there would have been the opportunity to develop a more thought out response that could potentially improve their reputation. 3) I do not think it was necessary for WEITA to attack HRW. The attack in their response makes it seem like they are hiding something giving them a guilty look even if they aren’t. I don’t think it was necessary however in this situation I don’t think it had negative repercussions.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexa,
Great job on this!
1. The NYT on January 26th, 2012 uncovered the absolute brutal and inhumane conditions that workers at the Foxconn factory were living in and how much of a physical and mental toll it took on their health.
2. FLA was the right move on Apple's end. It helped Apple keep their reputation at ease and assured the public and critics that Apple as a whole is investigating these conditions and will take action. They were also the first major company to join the FLA which was a big move.
3. I wouldn't exactly say it was the best solution but it was big of a company like Foxconn to be okay with letting the media, especially someone a part of a major media company like ABC, enter their grounds. To show what's going on and acknowledge that they need to do better and will fix their problems is a big move on their end.

# data[].attributes.body
Hey Sophia! Great job at this.
1. I think that the WIETA could have taken a far less aggressive and defensive approach towards the HRW's report.
2. Yes, I do agree that it would have been dramatically less affective if they didn't respond to the report by the HRW. If they didn't respond to the report/responded later, it might have changed things up even more and the HRW's report might have reached a broader audience.
3. I don't think that the WIETA's response to the HRW was necessary in the aggressive tone they used. Their aggressiveness may have ruffled their reputation a little but, but their quick actions might have saved them in the long run.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on this presentation! well done!
1. What did the New York Times story on January 26, 2012 uncover about the Apple subcontractor Foxconn?

That there were unsafe working conditions for their employees

2. What was FLA the right move for Apple?

Yes, it makes them look like they are caring about their employees and wanting to do what is not only right, but also ethical and safe.

Was the Foxconn factory tour for ABC's Nightline anchor Bill Weir the best solution for building trust and understanding?

Yes, It makes the public feel as if they have an inside view on what Apple is doing. I think that by allowing cameras inside  it can also make the public feel as if they have nothing to hide.

# data[].attributes.body
Chelsea, you made this super informative! Great job.
1. I've seen similar videos in the past from animal rights groups and documentaries. Seeing these kinds of videos, just like the one by the HSUS, make me think about the kind of food I'm eating. I don't eat pork as much as I used to, but these videos always have me second guessing if I even should try  them. It makes me wonder the treatment of these animals, what they feed these animals that might be in the meat, and the chemicals they put into them.
2. I think that the slogan change of "Pork Be Inspired" has a more lighter approach to their brand and slogan. It comes off a little more uplifting and gentle
3. This case for sure has had an impact on the meat industry for years to come. Their industry is meeting a consumer world where they are becoming more conscious of what they are eating and are becoming more aware of the kinds of chemicals that are put into their food. From looking at this case, other meat industries/companies can learn from this and see what went wrong and their actions so if they run into something similar they will know how to handle it and get through it.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. Although I will never cut  meat out of my diet, the video by HSUS has definitely made me more conscious of what I put in my body and the meat industry in general. Although I have seem similar videos to this one, I feel this video solidified how important it is to know where our food comes from.
2. I think changing the pork industry slogan from "Pork. The other white meat" to "Pork be Inspired" was a smart move as the new slogan has a positive ring to it, therefore making the industry look better.
3. I definitely do think this case will have an effect on the meat industry in general because although not discussing pork in specific, it is important to know where our food comes from, especially meat. Now more than ever people are conscious about this therefore calling for the meat industry to become more transparent.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa! Loved your presentation!
1. On January 26, 2012 The New York Times uncovered the dangerous and unhealthy working conditions at Foxconn.
2. I do think joining FLA was a smart move for Apple because it allowed them to preserve their reputation and as we know, remain an extremely successful company.
3. Yes, I definitely think the Foxconn factory tour was a smart move because by acknowledging their mistakes and discussing them with complete honesty, it allows them to build a transparent and trusting bond again.

# data[].attributes.body
Really informative presentation!
1. The only thing I think WIETA could've done better with was to avoid attacking HRW. I think it would've been more mature and the smarter decision to avoid even saying anything at all.
2. Yes I think the campaign would've been different and less effective if WIETA did not respond at all/when they did. By responding so quickly, it proved they care and were listening to the public while also being the first to speak out, setting the record straight before others spoke,
3. I do think it was unnecessary for WIETA to attack HRW, therefore harming their reputation even more. By attacking those who simply just made information public is a bad look for WIETA, making them look sneaky.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Chelsea! Overall, your presentation did a great job in explaining the facts of the case in a well ordered and easy-to-read manner! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Chelsea! Overall, your presentation did a great job in explaining the facts of the case in a well ordered and easy-to-read manner! 

# data[].attributes.body
1. After watching the brief clip you included in your presentation, my stomach was turning at the thought of how those animals suffered. Although I am not a vegetarian or vegan, I rarely eat beef or pork. When I do, videos such as this drive my buying habits to search for companies with ethical practices and standards of taking care of the animals.

2. On one hand, the original pork industry marketing slogan was clearly successful for a number of years, although it is true that consumers did not need to be reminded of the “healthy” qualities of pork every time. However, sometimes new tag-lines do not always imply a better alternative. In my view, the old slogan communicated so much more, whereas the new slogan might not inspire someone who does not eat pork often to buy the product.

3. Although these other industries are indirect competitors, they may also face calls to either reform or enact better measures to safeguard against animal cruelty and ensure a higher level of living for animals. In addition, these industries can learn from the pork industry to be transparent with their internal and external publics.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa,

Great Job on your presentation!

1. The New York Times story revealed the horrible, dangerous working conditions at Foxconn.

2. Joining the FLA was the right move for Apple to make in order to save their reputation. It showed that they acknowledged any wrongdoing and wanted to get rid of any flaws within the company. Along within saving their reputation, Apple being the first tech company to join was another success to add to their list.

3. I think allowing ABC inside the factory for a tour was a smart move to show that they were honest and wanted to gain back the trust they once had from the public. I don't believe it was the overall turning point in earning people's forgiveness but they definitely benefited from that decision.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Alexa! Great job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Alexa! Great job on your presentation! 

# data[].attributes.body
1. In 2012, the New York Times story discovered that Apple’s contractor, Foxconn, had harsh working conditions, promoting a dangerous environment for its workers.

2. I believe that this was the best option for Apple to pursue in terms of fixing their reputation and image. Because the FLA is an established organization that has experience in dealing with and improving these types of situations, Apple was correct in joining to not only promote a greater sense of transparency but also to have an outside coalition inspect the working conditions. In addition, since Apple became the first technology company to join the FLA, it set a precedent for other companies to follow suit.

3. Although there might have been possible alternatives to building trust and understanding with Apple’s publics, the broadcasted factory tour was a step in the right direction. What better way than to attract attention to a company than to appear on the news to give a peek inside what had previously been kept quiet? Ultimately, it did show Apple’s willingness to be more open with the world and ensure a better level of transparency.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea, great presentation. 1. I can't imagine that after seeing these videos by the HSUS, a person wouldn't stop and think about the food they are purchasing. As someone who eats meat i dont think it would make me cut it out of my diet completely but I would make sure I'm getting it from an ethical, well respected producer. 2. Changing the slogan to “Pork, Be Inspired.” definitely sounds better than the original slogan but I don't think it was necessary or benefitted them in any major way. No matter the slogan anything about pork isn't really going to personally catch my attention. 3. I can definitely see this affecting other meat industries in the future. They all look at each other to either compare or compete and I think this situation will definitely have other industries taken a closer look at their production to see if it would cause the same upset.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi Sophia! Overall, awesome job on your case study presentation!

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi Sophia! Overall, awesome job on your case study presentation!

# data[].attributes.body
1. I think WIETA’s strong offensive response was not the right move in addressing the problems and concerns made about their organization. Although they responded to the accusations, the wording of their message could have been less harsh. In addition, some of what the HRW found had to be somewhat true given WIETA’s launch of the Ethical Seal Program.

2. In any situation, it is pertinent to respond to a situation right away before it has time to fester and damage an organization’s reputation. Therefore, I agree that it would have been less effective if WIETA had not responded so quickly. While some of the text from the news release could have been worded more positively, any situation involving human rights should be addressed immediately.

3. In the moment, I believe WIETA was trying to negate what was said in the HRW report and justify their ability in ensuring the industry’s support for measures relating to workers’ protection. In addition, because their response arrived so quickly, it shows that they were ready for the situation. Although attacking an organization such as the HRW may have hurt their reputation slightly, how they rectified their behavior shows their commitment to establishing an ethical reputation.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia, Great job on your presentation.

1. I think one thing WIETA could have done better was their response. There are more mature ways to handle the situation instead of attacking HRW. They should have just defended themselves gracefully to not cause anymore problems.

2.  2. I definitely think it would have been less effective if they did not respond quickly. The faster they acknowledge the problem the more honest and innocent they appear. If they were to take their time to respond it would have been suspicious as if they needed more time to come up with an alibi.

3. 3. Like i said before I don't think attacking HRW was the best decision and only caused harm. There are ways to defend yourself without showing aggression. Usually when someone responds like that it means they know they are in the wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
Sadly I think WIETA turned a visually impaired eye to a portion of the discoveries from the HRW exclusively due to benefit. As we saw from states from WOSA, South Africa is an enormous supporter of the vast economy. That is a tremendous impetus to keep those grape farms ready for action no matter what. Detecting some benefit over individuals arranging. 2.I think it relies upon your insight into the harmony between serious and fun times in the current country (South Africa). The HRW plainly was researching this issue for a nice measure of time to really discover motivation to actually proceed to cover these deceptive working conditions. There are other basic liberties associations, similar to Amnesty International that would have still gotten this report since it relates to underage laborers and heartless working conditions. 3.I don't think it was fundamental and it made them look dubious. The HRW has a reason behind their work, so assaulting them seems like you can't confront what they find.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) The New York Times Story in January uncovered that Apple manufacturing plants had unfit working conditions. This data was found through interviews with previous Apple chiefs and workers. 2.) I imagine that collaborating with the FLA was the correct move for Apple since it showed the organization's devotion to fixing this huge issue. The FLA came in and made new production line rules to guarantee safe working conditions in Apple processing plants. 3.) And lastly, I wouldn't say that Foxconn Factory visit with Bill Weir was Apple's best answer for building trust and seeing, nonetheless, it was unquestionably useful. The visit through the industrial facility unquestionably demonstrated Apple's ability to be straightforward with the general population, however I do accept they had different alternatives. While I don't think it was a poorly conceived notion, I don't really accept that it was the best thought.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I think recordings like the one delivered by HSUS are significant for keeping the public educated, so every individual can settle on their own purchasing choices. I am a firm devotee to supporting privately sourced products and services as an approach to rehearse manageability. Meat from a nearby homestead is preferred for the climate over company-created meat choices. Nonetheless, these purchasing changes can be costly and are not generally moderate. I figure this can be seen through a bigger scope where numerous individuals discovered development slows down coldhearted, however kept on buying meat from the pork business. 2) I concur with the vast majority about the new trademark "Pork, Be Inspired." It feels strange. The pork business should zero in on giving food in a way that is moderate for shoppers and altruistic towards the creatures. I don't believe "be roused" imparts that message. 3) I unquestionably figure this episode should focus a light on other meat enterprises. I think it makes shoppers more mindful, giving them motivation to scrutinize these mass makers. It is cases like this that makes a customer heart which can begin to influence all businesses, even external the food business. It's contentions like the incubation slows down that make me question the morals behind anything I buy.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Alexa, Great presentation it was interesting to watch!

1. The NYT story uncovered unsafe working conditions that were actually harming the employee's physical and mental health. The story also had multiple quotes and interviews that shared first-hand experiences from the employees.

2. Joining the FLA was the right move for Apple then. Making a positive change and joining an outside organization to watch their factories and make sure employees were being treated fairly showed consumers that Apple wanted to make a positive and necessary change. By joining the FLA, Apple once again set a new precedent for technology companies.

3. I believe there could have been a better option for touring the Foxconn factory. Having Weir was excellent to show the company's willingness to be transparent. I think using someone that has no connections within companies would have been better. Since executives from Apple and ABC knew each other, it could have caused a major conflict of interest. Nevertheless, allowing Weir to tour the facility was a significant step in the right direction.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Chelsea your presentation was very informative and engaging! Amazing job!

1. Seeing videos by the HSUS would probably negatively impact my buying/eating habits. I am already plant-based, so seeing these videos reinforces my decision. If I were to still eat meat and see videos by HSUS, I would either stop eating meat altogether or try to reduce my consumption to only seafood. I also think I would try to buy ethically sourced foods directly from farmers or the grocery store's best options.

2. I feel the change was not exactly necessary for the industry, but it was a good move. Having a simple slogan with positive words was smart and made consumers associate positive connotations with the new slogan.

3. I believe this debate will affect other industries. In any industry, there are negatives, and I feel for the meat industry; specifically, there are always ethical issues. The problems range from how the animals are cared for, what they are fed, and much more. If more videos come out about terrible treatment, then the other industries will suffer. I have already seen negative videos about the chicken industry, and I feel it will not be long until another scandal shakes the entire meat industry. The other industries can learn how to approach future problems and make conditions for animals humane so that consumers feel comfortable purchasing different meats.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia loved your presentation!

1. I think WIETA did what they could at the time. I would have recommended not to attack the HRW report because that put them in a bad light. Staying silent and making positive changes, and highlighting the changes would have been a lot better and possibly less damaging.

2. I think the campaign would not have been as effective had they not responded as fast as they did. By WIETA responding within the day showed they were listening for public concerns and were willing to make changes if necessary.

3. I do not think it was necessary to attack HRW in their response because, to me, attacking a source that is calling out issues shows guilt and shows that something is wrong. Attacking HRW harmed their reputation because HRW had done their job and made the information available to the public. WIETA would have been put in a better position had they not responded at all and just followed up with the changes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Is there anything you think WIETA could have done better? Unfortunately, I think the most common concern is timeliness. I do think WIETA landed a signifiant amount of credibility from the CEO as well as respect and trust due to the almost immediate response. This shows the effectiveness of environmental scanning. The only potential area of improvement, I think, would have been a message in between the new ethical standards seal and the immediate news release. I think being transparent saying they were working to find a way to prove they support ethical standards and are working to do better would be an area of improvement.

2. Do you think the campaign would have been dramatically less effective if WIETA hadn’t responded to HRW’s report within the day? Give examples of how or how not. I think the timeliness is what gave WIETA such positive results. If there had been any longer of a wait time, it would appear that they were hiding realities and not being transparent. If they had, for example, responded a week later it would seem more like they were trying to make sure no more truth could come out, like worse conditions than even expressed.

3. Was it necessary for WIETA to attack HRW in their response? Do you think this helped or harmed their reputation?  I think this actually helped WIETA. I think the tone spoke to emotion, and the attack seemed more of being offended than a defense mechanism. Passion is what differentiated this attack, in my opinion People feel very strongly about human rights and work conditions, speaking from emotion catered toward both HRW and WIETA because they both have passionate supporters.

# data[].attributes.body
1.The New York Times published, front page, about the conditions of workers who work for Foxconn and in turn Apple. This included interviews with employees and executives, unveiling unethical and inhumane conditions. This was very surprising to many readers, given they are such a widely supported and highly regarded tech company.
2. Joining the FLA was definitely the right move to maintain a positive reputation after this crisis. This showed that their company was dedicated to doing better and improving the situation for their employees, and in turn, their customers.
3. I don’t think thnk this was the best solution , however, I think it was a step in the right direction as it promoted transparency. Especially from a big media outlet like ABC, I think this showed accountability and transparency. I think this made a big move toward putting the consumers and publics first, before profit.

# data[].attributes.body
1) How would seeing these types of videos by the HSUS impact your eating and buying habits?
I am almost 100% vegetarian because of videos like the one shown in your presentation. I have been eating plant based for a very long time, but I remember seeing a video in elementary school similar to that and it really affects your willingness to eat meat. The inhumane conditions make me more aware of how I look at my sources of food - both locally and ethically made or found.

2) What are your thoughts on the pork industry's slogan change from "Pork. The Other White Meat" to "Pork Be Inspired?”

I think changing the slogan definitely changed the tone. However, I find it almost ironic. I dont think anything about the meat industry, especially the pork one, inspires me. If anything, it inspires me to go 100% vegetarian. I think it definitely is more uplifting and positive but I also find it misleading if there is little intention to make the serious changes needed to be made in the meat production industry.

3) Do you think this debate will affect other meat industries, such as chicken or beef? What can these industries learn from the Pork Industry?

I think the most important lesson that can be learned is that consumers care where things are produced and the way in which they are. The most important way to gain consumers, is to build trust in publics and take the extra effort in building mutual respect and loyalty. Transparency is key, and taking steps to build ethical sourced food and communicating those steps is the only way to gain traction.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Viewing these videos from a consumers perspective would most definitely change the eating and buying habits of specific products. Speaking from personal experience, thee are certain meat production companies that I refuse to buy from or support because of their inhumane treatment of animals. I believe  it’s really important to be cautious about where the food we eat comes from and how its handled. Seeing these videos would make me entirely reconsider my purchasing habits.

2. I believe the pork industry’s slogan change was not only a smart marketing ploy, but all around in much better taste than their first choice. The first slogan was all around just very unprofessional and was due for change.

3. I would like to hope that this debate will affect other meat industries and they way they treat their animals and produce food. I believe that other prominent meat industries should pay attention to this research and can lean a lot from this specific case. I think that with public pressures as well from consumers about the environmental harm that these companies cause will spark a spark and debate as well.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a great presentation- awesome job!
1. Seeing these types of videos would definitely be a jarring experience and impact the way I think about pork consumption, and animal consumption in general. It would make me reconsider my consumption choices and really think about the larger impact my purchase is making. It’s difficult to support something, and know that you’re actively supporting it through purchases, when it’s something that makes you emotionally upset or disturbed by it.

2. I think this was an interesting attempt to reframe the pork industry’s brand. While the new slogan expressed a positive message, it did not erase the negative realities of the pork industry and its practices.
3. I think this debate will, and already has, affected other meat industries. It makes you wonder what controversial or questionable practices other industries are utilizing that we don’t know about. From the pork industry, other meat industries can learn from their response and about how to better address the concerns of consumers. Rather than having defensive and offensive responses, the industries can instead really listen to the consumer and take productive action towards fixing it.

# data[].attributes.body
Great presentation!
1. The New York Times article revealed that Apple’s subcontractor Foxconn was mistreating their employees and creating/providing an unsafe work environment.
2. I think FLA was a beneficial move for Apple. By having FLA conduct an internal investigation, it shows that they’re taking the allegations seriously and adamant on figuring out what areas of their business are at fault and unethical. It helps them adhere to high ethical standards in their factories, and identify issues that are detrimental to their workers.
3. I think the Foxconn factory tour was an effective way to let consumers see into their workplace, however I would still be wary of trusting them. The tour exposed the harsh reality of the working conditions that workers were put in, as well as their living condition they were living under. While being transpact is valuable, it can also work against a brand by highlighting their faults and failures, and ultimately impact consumers’ point of view and opinion of them.

# data[].attributes.body
Great job on your presentation!
1. I think one thing the WIETA could have done better is the way they responded. By having an offensive and defensive response, it expresses to the public that a company is more concerned with saving/preserving their reputation. Since they rectified some of their behavior and addressed some allegations, we know that they’re taking initiative to correct the issues. However, their responses focus on how the information was manipulated and the process in which it was conducted and published. If they had taken accountability in the response, or at least acknowledged the existence of these issues in general, it would have worked better as a response.
2. I don’t think the campaign would have been less effective if WIETA hadn’t responded to HRW’s report within a day. For example, by addressing it right away, it shows that WIETA cares about these problems and is actively looking to solve them. However, if they had taken a little more time to respond - even if it was the next morning - then maybe they wouldn’t have had a defensive/offensive response, and it would have been received much better.
3. Ultimately, I don’t think it was necessary for WIETA to attack HRW in their response. At the end of the day, HRW’s report concerns larger issues within the industry that should be of importance and priority to WIETA, regardless of whether they believe their organization to be at fault. I think by attacking them from the get go it harmed their reputation instead of helping it in the way they had intended it to. However, they did follow through with actions and solutions to improve their company and practices, as well as made efforts to be transparent.

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Sophia! Great job.

1)Something I think WIETA could have done better was not respond in a defensive way to the report from HRW. This made the company seem that they were more concerned with how the public perceived them and maintaining a reputation.
2) If WIETA did not respond to the situation as soon as they did then I think that their efforts would have been much less effective. When a company is involved in controversy, it is always better to respond quickly and address the issue rather than keep silent on it as it leaves people open with questions and having to interpret the situation.
3)WIETA should not have responded the way they did to HRW as it looked unprofessional. Although they did respond quickly with their actions attacking HRW only made their reputation look worse.

# data[].attributes.body
1) How would seeing these types of videos by the HSUS impact your eating and buying habits?
Seeing these videos would definitely impact a consumer's buying habits, especially in the short term. Unfortunately (for pigs), I don't know the lasting impact the imagery would have because people tend to forget.

2) What are your thoughts on the pork industry's slogan change from "Pork. The Other White Meat" to "Pork Be Inspired?"
I find the decision to change the slogan kind of strange, only because pork is not an especially inspiring industry or product.

3) Do you think this debate will affect other meat industries, such as chicken or beef? What can these industries learn from the Pork Industry?
I think this debate will effect other meat industries because similar issues are present in the other meat industries. Maybe the other industries will learn to listen to their consumers and make appropriate changes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What did the New York Times story on January 26, 2012 uncover about the Apple subcontractor Foxconn?
The New York Times story uncovered poor and unsafe working conditions for the workers in Foxconn factories.
2. What was FLA the right move for Apple?
I think working with the FLA was an effective tactic for Apple to take to not only do damage control, but demonstrate their commitment to changing their ways for the better.
3. Was the Foxconn factory tour for ABC's Nightline anchor Bill Weir the best solution for building trust and understanding?
I think that the tour was somewhat effective in terms of appearing more transparent to their consumers. However, I think consumers could possibly still be wary of trusting the tour because it was obviously set up and thus might not show the true working conditions.