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

Discussion Questions: 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

I loved taking a look at your case!

I really liked taking a look at your case!

Great job on your case study! 

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

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

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

Great job on your presentation!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Presentation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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