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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awesome job!

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

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

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

Great job on your presentation!

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

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

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

I really loved your presentation, great job!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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