Sp '23 PR Cases Ch 2-Ethics & the Law Discussion by Dr. Jennifer Robinette https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra - Step 1: Be sure you are logged in to Padlet. - Post your case presentation by clicking on the + sign under the appropriate column. - Review each case presentation. - Post at least one comment on each case. - Use your arrow keys to scroll over and down. en-us 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC 2025-11-09 21:00:33 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/2696.png TEAM 3 jrcommdoc https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650816 Siobhan Coakley, Thomas McGonigle, Benjamin Schreck, Madeline Ward ]]> 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650816 Team 3: Siobhan Coakley, Maddie Ward, Tom McGonigle, and Ben Schreck siobhancoakley1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650817 https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9eda2ffe-d756-4f6d-b616-af9f0142e2b0

1. How would you respond to the FDC's letters requesting that NEwhere change its packaging if you worked there?

2. How do you think NEwhere can repair their relationship with customers after this controversy?

3. What do you think NEwhere should do to fix their packaging in the future?]]> 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650817 kellylambertson1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650818 1. If I worked at NEwhere, I probably would urge my company to respond in a timely manner. Whether NEwhere planned to change the packaging or not, I would be sure to at least acknowledge the issue that is being presented, and say that we are looking into the matter. 

2. I think this is a tricky question, because I think the relationship that was harmed was actually between the company and non-customers. But, to focus on the relationship they have with their customers, I do not think much repair will necessarily need to be done. Yes, a controversy is never a good thing for a company. However, with the nature of this product, I believe loyal customers will be loyal customers.  

3. In the future, I think NEwhere should be sure to differentiate their products from other products on the market. As a company, I would think that you would want your products to be unique. I think NEwhere should focus on being unique, and make the product look a bit more mature.  ]]> 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650818 kaylabayardelle1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650819
  • I believe that it was pretty important for NEwhere to change its packaging. I would try and make it clear that I was taking in the concerns that the FDC had on the packaging and try to get it resolved especially because it does look like candy a child would be inclined to purchase or try. 
  • I think that the company will always have their loyal customers especially because it’s technically an addictive drug that their customers are purchasing. I don’t think that this situation was large enough to affect those who have been purchasing NEwhere products but potentially can affect customers in the future. 
  • I think they should make it more clear about what is in the packaging with a larger warning rather than their focus being on making it look like it’s regular candy. I also think it is important for them to try and not make it look as “kid-friendly” but more for adults only.

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650819     khayasokol22 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650821
  • I would address the situation rather than staying silent to give the public some sort of idea that you are looking into and handling the situation with proper care and attention.
  • In any crisis, to repair the relationship with customers is to apologize, own up to your mistakes and begin to create positive media attention for your company moving forward. 
  • The packaging should be honest about its contents while also being appealing enough off the naked eye to attract new and old customers.

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650821     meredithprudhomme1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650822
  • One of the best things a company can do in instances like this is to perform in a timely manner to not be perceived as deceitful. Even if the statement is vague, something like “We are looking into the matter regarding NEwhere packaging and want to develop a plan of action as soon as possible” will at least let the consumer know that the company is proactive. 
  • Although this was bad press, I still think the consumers of NEwhere most likely remain unfazed by this controversy. While the current customer base might not change their perception of the company, this situation could deter potential customers from buying the product. 
  • I think the packaging should emphasize what's inside. While the packaging can still be aesthetic it should not look like something that would appeal to a child demographic. 

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650822     ameliedaire1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650823 1. If I worked there, I would respond to the FDC's letters with urgency. The consequences they threatened if action was not taken were quite severe, so I would urge change to be made or at the very least a statement or response letter sent back asap.

    2. I think NEwhere can repair their relationship with customers by handling the controversy well and showing that they acknowledged the problem and are taking steps to ensure the prevention of future problems. Ultimately, this is all the company can do in this sort of circumstance. It is in the consumer's hands to see the action and steps taken (or inaction!) and decide whether or not the company can be trusted.

    3. In the future, I definitely feel as if the company should differentiate their packaging to not only stand out and represent who they are as a brand, but also to appeal to an adult audience (who the product is intended for) rather than to a kid audience.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650823     sophiaasaro1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650824 1. If I worked at NEwhere, I would most likely want my company to respond in a timely manner. I believe that it is crucial to address the situation as soon as possible when dealing with a circumstance like this. This will demonstrate to the public that the company is handling the crisis with the necessary care and attention needed. 
    2. I think NEwhere can repair their relationships with customers after the controversy by creating a statement to the public. I believe there shouldn't be a problem if the company expresses apologies and accepts responsibility for its errors. Customers of NEwhere will probably not be deterred by this controversy, especially if NEwhere starts to gain favorable media coverage in the future. 
    3. In the future, NEwhere should try to stay away from making their packaging appealing toward children. The company should differentiate their products from each other and create a more mature look for the product. Additionally, the company should make their packaging extremely clear and truthful. ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650824     Natalie Largey natalielargey1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650825 1. Since this is such a big issue, I would immediately change my packaging if I worked at NEwhere. Since this is an issue that could have lifetime consequences on younger generations, following the FTC would be the first thing to do. 

    2. I think NEwhere is going to have a hard time trying to repair their relationship but I think a step in the right direction would be to release a statement about the harm that can be caused. They should advocate for people over the age of 18 and strengthen guidance on who to sell too. 

    3. I think NEwhere should fix their packaging by obviously not making the public think that the product is innocent and adding a warning label to the product. 
    ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650825     marydougherty34 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650826 1. If I were to work at NEwhere I would respond politely and promptly to the FDC that we as a company are looking into other options for packaging. It is most important that we respond quickly so that no statements come out publicly hurting the brand anymore, especially with the fact that NEwhere isn't very well liked to begin with by those who aren't their customers.

    2. I think that NEwhere can repair its relationship with customers by again owning up to their damage and continuing to sell its products. After all, it wasn't the customers who got upset but those who don't purchase their products who gained concern.

    3. For the future, I think that NEwhere needs to have disclaimers on its packaging to inform new or inexperienced users that its products contain chemicals such as nicotine that are not suitable for children. That way too with this message, they are at less of a risk for legal troubles since they tried to warn people about possible dangers.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650826     Hannah Belleville hannahbelleville1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650827 1. If I worked at NEwhere I would respond by  communicating with others in order to gain their trust and respect. You need to be honest and transparent with certain issues. And by changing the packaging sooner rather than later, they are setting themselves up for success. I do think customer to company relationship is of the utmost importance though.
    2. I think NEwhere can repair their relationship with customers after this controversy by communicating with the public and being honest and truthful with their products and how they are made. That is all they are able to do in this situation and being honest and transparent with consumers will help the relationship with customers after this controversy.
    3. I think NEwhere should make their packaging more truthful about what is in it. Maybe by adding more labels that are clear about what is in the product and being honest and upfront about how they make their products. This will grab attention of the consumer and help them get their product out there. By creating bigger labels on the packaging, they should be able to gain the attention of more consumers and consumers will further trust them more.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650827     TEAM 2 jrcommdoc https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650829 Liliana Bencivenga, Violeta Ferradas, Natalie Largey, Anna Obsgarten]]> 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650829 TEAM 2: Liliana Bencivenga, Violeta Ferradas, Natalie Largey and Anna Obsgarten natalielargey1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650830 https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=882a6719-ebc5-43bf-ad2a-afa00160f823

    1. If you were a follower of said influencer who promoted this dress but did not discolse how it was a paid promotion, would you be more or less inclined to buy it? 

    2. How do you think the company should have responded in order to fix their media violation. 

    3. Do you think if L&T did research about FTC guidelines and disclosed the information about the paid promotion, people would be less inclined to buy the dress? ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650830     kellylambertson1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650831 1. While I understand how ethically, disclosure is important, I do not think the disclosure of the paid promotion (or lack of disclosure) would make me any more or less inclined to buy the product. If I like the dress, I like the dress! Personally, I am not a big fashion person, so the matter does not really strike me too hard.  

    2. I believe Lord and Taylor probably should have responded to the situation much sooner than a full year later. They should have been present, and transparent with their communication. 

    3. To be completely honest, I do think that sometimes when individuals seen posts by influencers that are paid advertisements, they feel less inclined to purchase the item. When it comes to clothing, I think people prefer to be unique. There is definitely a certain audience that would feel more inclined to buy the dress, however, I think most individuals would steer clear of the dress. The post might make an individual more inclined to explore that company’s website, but I think people would be less inclined to purchase that particular item. Disclosure is definitely necessary, just sometimes I think it could make some people less inclined to buy the item. It is very situational.  ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650831     kaylabayardelle1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650833
  • I don't think an influencer would make me more or less motivated towards buying a dress or any product for that matter. I definitely think it has an impact on some people, and many people now a days follow what most influencer put out on their social media, but in my opinion it wouldn’t change my thoughts on wanting to buy something. I do think it should have been more known that it was a paid promotion because thats just the basic business when it comes to what influencers are for. 
  • I think the company should have responded sooner than they did because in any case like this, even though it may be considered minor, being able to put down your side of the situation and share that you are analyzing it is always crucial to better ones reputation and shows that you care about any problem that may come up in general. 
  • I believe that most people feel more inclined towards buying products when they are being shown on influencers platforms due to fan bases and “followers.” While everyone has their own style and uniqueness in the fashion world, I also know of many people that buy something because an influencer has it or shared the product. Then there’s also the other hand where people don't listen to influencers about a product because its more clear that they are getting paid to promote it so I believe this argument is more opinion based on ones preference towards paid promotions and influencers. 

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650833     khayasokol22 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650834
  • I would be more inclined to buy it because I feel like when influencers post advertisements promoting a product it comes off disingenuous because you know they are being paid to post rather than knowing if they actually like the product. 
  • The organization should have responded openly and honestly. They should admit to their wrongdoings rather than putting blame elsewhere. 
  • I think people would be less inclined to buy the dress because it would make it seem like L&T is pushing the dress in your face by having to pay people to wear it. 

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650834     meredithprudhomme1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650835
  • Whenever an influencer I follow posts an advertisement or sponsored post, I am more inclined to tune out what they are selling. Although deceitful, I probably would be more willing to buy a product if I didn’t perceive it as a buy-out. But at the end of the day, I am a conscious consumer so I will only buy a product unless I really like it, no matter who’s promoting it. 
  • I think many of the issues of this case would have been resolved if Lord & Taylor was quicker with its response. They should have practiced more transparency in their communication with their key public and stakeholders. 
  • Honestly, I think if Lord & Taylor disclosed they were sponsoring a post, the difference in sales between them doing that and not disclosing the information would be minimal. Still, I think people would be more inclined to buy the product if it is not promoted as an advertisement. But finding out Lord & Taylor was deceitful in their marketing is a much larger loss of consumer trust than those few extra sales. 

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650835     1. Personally for me, I would still be inclined to buy it. I always assume if I see an influencer promoting something, most of the time it's paid. But seeing how this happened in 2016, I guess influencers were as popular as they are now. carolinesebastian1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650836



    ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650836     sophiaasaro1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650837 1. I do think that disclosure is ethically crucial. However, personally I don't think it would affect my decision on whether I would buy the dress or not. When I purchase a product it's typically because its my personal style or I like it for myself regardless who is promoting it. 

    2. I think Lord & Taylor could have avoided most of the problems they were faced if they responded to the situation much sooner than they did. The department store should have communicated better with the public. They should have responded clearly and honestly. 

    3. I believe that everyone has their own opinions on influencers and paid promotions. I think people would be less inclined to buy the dress because the potential consumer would know that the influencer isn't promoting the product because they love it but rather because they are being paid to do so. I know when I am looking at paid advertisements, I always keep that in mind. However, I don't think there would have been a significant difference in sales if people found out it was a paid advertisement. ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650837     marydougherty34 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650838 1. Personally, I would be neither more or less inclined to purchase the dress, because to me if I like the dress that I see, I am going to buy it.  

    2. I think that Lord and Taylor should have responded to the violation much sooner, as not demonstrating initiative early on will give future influencers the belief that they have the ability to control the partnership, which is not how it's supposed to work. By putting their foot down early on, Lord and Taylor will send the message that the violation was not okay.

    3. I don't think that in this case people would necessarily be less inclined to buy the dress, but they may be more weary of future influencers promoting products. This could be because they don't know what is within guidelines for promotion and what isn't.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650838     Hannah Belleville hannahbelleville1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650839 1. Hi Natalie! If I was a follower of said influencer who promoted this dress but did not disclose how it was a paid promotion, I would be more inclined to buy it, whereas if I knew it was a paid promotion I would be less inclined to buy it as I knew it wasn't because they favorited the product but instead were just doing it in order to receive some benefit.
    2. I think the company should have responded to the situation right away whereas waiting only caused more conflict and confusion among customers. Clear and present communication is necessary in order for them to succeed.
    3. I think if L&T did research about FTC guidelines and disclosed the information about paid promotion, people would be less inclined to buy the dress as they knew it was only benefiting the person advertising the product. There are some people that could see past that and still be inclined to buy the dress as they might favorite the product. But overall, I don't think people would buy the item as much if they knew of said paid promotion.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650839     TEAM 1 jrcommdoc https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650840 Hannah Belleville, Teresa Blangiforti, Meredith Prud'homme, Caroline Sebastian ]]> 2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650840 Team 1: Caroline Sebastian, Meredith Prud'homme, Hannah Belleville, and Teresa Blangiforti meredithprudhomme1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650841 https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=7e0e890c-f626-415d-a652-af9f0172a210

    1. If you were a prospective college student looking at the science and research department of the University of Maryland, would this case change your perception of the school? Would it deter you or inspire you to go? 
    2. Do you think this situation would have been minimized if the University of Maryland would have responded to HealthNewsReview’s initial post? 
    3. How do you think the University of Maryland handled the situation after they did a review of their research? Do you think the University of Maryland was justified to fire the people that they did? 
    ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650841     kellylambertson1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650842 1. If I was a prospective college student looking at the science and research department of the University of Maryland, I believe this case would change my perception of the school. I do not think I would want to be a part of a program that releases not properly researched and tested information. I feel like having my name attached to a program that has been at fault like so, as I feel like it would tarnish my credibility. Also, considering this particular case, I would feel less inclined to attend the school have been an athlete my whole life. The fact that this school allowed that report to be published and released, and then did not make a statement about it right away, just does not make me feel confident in the university’s ethical values. Therefore, it would deter me from attending the school and being a part of the science and research department. 

    2. Yes, I do think this situation would have been minimized if the University of Maryland would have responded to HealthNewsReview’s initial post. Even if the University did not have anything to necessarily say at the time, just acknowledging that they are looking into the matter, one way or another, I think would have helped. Timeliness is very important.  

    3. After they did a review of their research, I think it was good of the University of Maryland to make some staff changes. To me, this shows that the University means business, and will not tolerate mishaps as such; this was a justified decision in my eyes. I think it was a good thing that they recognized that protocols need to be established, though in my opinion, protocols should have already been in place.  ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650842     khayasokol22 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650843 1.) This case would definitely change my perception of the school. It would deter me from going because they were not transparent about the situation and this can affect the reputation of the school from an outside perspective and I wouldn't want to represent that.
    2.) I think it would have minimized the consequences and backlash they faced. By denying to speak after the post, it makes them seem not responsible for their actions or like they have something to hide. 
    3.) I think it was good that they looked into their own research and created a plan of action to fix its flaws. I think they are justified in firing and making staff changes because it shows that they are taking the crisis seriously and are taking necessary measures within the organization to make up for their mistakes and prevent future situations like this again. 



    ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650843     kaylabayardelle1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650844
  • This case would change my perspective towards the school because they chose to publish something without a full review of the case which then affects the schools reputation along with the team that they are representing. 
  • I definitely think that the situation could have been minimized if they responded to the health news reviews in a better time fashion. Even if they responded stating that they are looking into the product would make them seem that they care about what they are putting out and would potentially better their reputation. 
  • I believe it was good that the University decided that they needed to make changes when it came to staff. This shows that they care about what it being published and that there needed to be change in order to not make a similar mistake again. 

    • ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650844     Sophia Asaro https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650845 1. This case would alter my perception of the school. It would deter me from attending the school because they decided to release information that was not thoroughly researched. A situation like this could potentially affect the school's image from an outside perspective and I wouldn't want that to represent me as a student.
    2. I do think this situation would have been minimized if the University of Maryland would have responded to the initial post that was made. For example, I think that the negative effects and terrible backlash the school faced would have been reduced. The University's failure to comment after the post makes them look irresponsible for their actions. It is crucial to have a reliable spokesperson formulate a crisis reaction that is timely and suitable. 
    3. After the University of Maryland reviewed their research, I think they handled this situation well. I think it was a good idea they fired some of their staff that had something to do with the issue. It makes them appear that they care about their image and that they are doing things to improve it. Making staff changes will prevent issues from happening like this in the future. ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650845     Natalie Largey natalielargey1 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650846 1. This case would not cause that much of a change in my perception of the school. Obviously if I was a science student and saw that the department was not doing ethical research it would cause me to have a different view but, nothing would change in response to how I would choose a school. 
    2. I think this situation definitely would have been minimized because when ti comes to crisis communication, taking accountability is the biggest resolution. 
    3. After the review, I think it was definitely proper to fire the staff as this is a protocol that has to be taken for the reputation of the program. 
    ]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650846     marydougherty34 https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650847 1. If I was a prospective college student looking at studying with the science and research department at the University of Maryland, I would definitely have a changed perception of the school than before. Based on how they conducted their research and handled the backlash I would not be interested in studying at the University of Maryland as I would not want to be taught by a program that released data not backed by science and did not act professionally when confronted for their wrongdoing. 

    2. I think this situation would have been minimized had the university responded to HealthNewsReview's initial post. In PR it is critical to handle a crisis situation or backlash that may affect an institution's reputation immediately, to ensure fewer negative perceptions in the future.

    3. Once the University took ownership of its mistake and ran a review of its research, it did what was best and presented consequences to those involved by firing the educational leaders in the wrong. I think that it was the best move to remove them from the University as it showed initiative that the school will not stand for that kind of behavior and to assure prospective students that they will not be taught by those who conducted improper research.]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650847     To post your Case Presentation... jrcommdoc https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650849 - 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]]>     2023-08-29 13:03:20 UTC https://padlet.com/jrcommdoc/e03rtk4kaf96klra/wish/2676650849