Discussion Questions: 

2. Understanding culture is very important so you do not offend a client or make them feel uncomfortable.  You want to have an open and healthy relationship with your client.  You could lose them if you do not understand their culture, which in turn could severely affect your reputation as well as your organization’s reputation.  It is best that all employees and organizations take the time to learn more about their potential client’s culture before making them an official client.

3. I think a big success in this case was Disney consulting Chinese “masters” for the “feng shui” of the park.  You did touch on it a little in the successes portion when you said Disney researched before opening the location, I believe this was a huge success as it showed that they did truly care about making visitors feel comfortable in the park.  Bringing in the “masters” changed the whole orientation of the park and “ensured harmony with spiritual forces,” making the park very comfortable for its visitors.

2.  I think it could have helped the organizations learn from each other.  It made it easier to see what other organizations did in this type of situation and how they reacted to this type of situation.  I think it would have made navigating this ordeal easier on the organizations who put themselves in this situation later on.  That is really the only way they could have used proximity to their advantage.

3. It depends on the severity of the situation.  I have not heard much about the Wells Fargo post or the H&M post since it occurred, but I still hear people bash Pepsi and Dove every now and then for the incidents that took place.  I would not say it permanently hurts an organization’s reputation, but it does cause organizations to lose many consumers.  

Bonus: I think she should have known what she was getting herself into.  She should have thought of the backlash it may have received.  She most likely did it just for the money did not care, so I guess I just convinced myself she should be held responsible to an extent.  She was the face of that horrendous commercial, so she should share some of the blame for just associating with it.  I would give her some responsibility, but I’m assuming it was Pepsi’s idea, not her’s, so Pepsi gets most of the blame here.  

2. I would have been very angry as an Angolan resident.  I would have felt like the organization did not care for me or my family or my country in general.  I think it showed that this organization did not care for my culture at all, which is very sad.

3. I think an organization should always consider traditions in a dire situation.  They should know how much culture means to someone and should come up with a way where the solution does not ruin the culture.  I think it is a fair way to operate.  I think this case also impacted the way the WHO handled the situation with COVID.  I think they saw the damage this case did and they did not want to put themselves in a similar situation.  So they definitely looked back at this case before proceeding with navigating the COVID pandemic.  

Great presentation!

1. This is a tough question because I can see the merit on adding more communication tactics to their response, but I also think an argument can be made that more communication tactics would have done more harm than good. I think overall, using social media to respond to the backlash was a quick and effective way to communicate with their audiences and allowed the organization’s to respond and move on. While other communication tactics may have demonstrated a more authentic apology, it also would have caused the public to focus on it for longer.

2. Learning from other situations and how other organizations respond to backlash is one of the most important aspects of any communications team, and the organizations involved in these crises were not proactive and preparing themselves with knowledge of how to respond to backlash should a crisis occur. Their proximity to other cases should have been an advantage, but because of poor preparation and research, the organizations weren’t able to use the advantage.

3. I think it depends on who the target audience was for each of these organizations. Personally, I don’t recall ever really seeing or hearing about the Wells Fargo or Heineken incidents, so for me there wasn’t that much of an impact. However, I do recall the other incidents and I know that even today the Pepsi situation is still brought up and talked about. Overall, I think there’s a lasting impact in terms of the level of scrutiny the organization’s now face in their communications and advertisements, but I don’t think the reputations of the brands have been too severely affected long-term.

Bonus Question: I think that Jenner should be held responsible, at least to some degree. If a celebrity partners with an organization, it is up to them to understand the messaging that they are helping to promote. While I understand that there may have been contractual obligations preventing her from leaving the commercial, she still should have spoken out and taken more of a stand after the commercial. While it was Pepsi’s idea and execution, Jenner still attached her name to the message and should, therefore, be held at least partly responsible.

Awesome job!

1. I definitely think that WHO should have released COMBI much sooner than they did. Releasing COMBI earlier would have improved the relationship between WHO and the communities it serves and would have allowed for easier communication. Additionally, taking so long to release a tool kit that could have helped so many is not just damaging to the organization’s reputation, but it endangers all those it could have been used to help. 

2. If I were in their shoes, I would have felt extremely disrespected and frustrated at how the situation was handled. I think I would have felt that WHO did not care about my culture or my people, and despite any help given in treating the virus, I think I would be very sad and upset about the whole situation.

3. I think it is absolutely fair to expect an organization like WHO to consider cultural traditions even in such a dire situation. For a global organization, understanding the cultures they interact with is key to build trust with those communities and should be done no matter the circumstances. However, I can also understand that in dire situations it may not be feasible or safe to observe certain cultural traditions, but the effort should always be made to keep to the culture/tradition as best as they can.

Great job!

1. If this crisis occurred in 2021, I think it would have been very different because of the use of social media. I think the situation would have spread much farther and more quickly and there would have been a lot of activism on social media. Dependent on how Disney formulated their response, I don’t know that they’re reputation would be any worse off today than it was when the crisis first happened. I think that today’s communication opportunities and tactics would have given Disney ample opportunities and resources to respond to any backlash and take corrective actions.

2. Understanding the culture of the communities an organization operates in is incredibly important because it allows an organization to communicate more effectively. Understanding a culture helps an organization avoid engaging in disrespectful actions and avoid making clients uncomfortable. The role of public relations is to be advocates for the community and serve the public, which can be an incredibly hard job if you don’t actually understand them.

3. I think a failure on Disney’s part was their lack of learning after their missteps with Disneyland Paris. One of the biggest issues with Disneyland Paris was their lack of cultural understanding and preparedness in moving the theme park to Europe. I think Disney partially learned from this experience, as there was clearly an effort to better understand the culture in Hong Kong, but as shown in this case, they still made some mistakes. 

2. I think that ultimately these organizations could have learned from each other based on the failed cases and tactics used to recover in each scenario. I think that these companies could have learned from each other by being aware of scanning their environment and implementing proactive outreach. I also think that learning from the depths of some of these cases, the brand and organizations involved in this case could have taken the time, especially Dove and Pepsi, to bring about more diversity in their staff and to prevent certain advertisements from coming off as “tone-deaf.” They are responsible for their messaging, so having a diverse multicultural range of expertise and opinions is another way that these organizations could have used the proximity to the other cases to their advantage. Having a wide perspective, makes you not only aware of your environment but socially adaptable. 

3. I think that these cases are definitely memorable, as they have caused a huge uproar in the past, but ultimately I do not think that these advertising mishaps have permanently affected these brands nor the relationships that they have possessed with their consumers. I think issuing timely apologies was a huge part of the reason for salvaging their reputations, and acknowledging the lack of cultural awareness is another reason why the advertisements do not continue to haunt the brands. I also think that consumers have already moved past the incidents because the companies expressed vocal commiseration, and the communication offices finally received the “‘🤬’ about avoiding racist messaging in commercials” (501). Prevention is key in these cases, and because they are not repeated offenses and were taken as a learning opportunity, I think that the brands were only able to recover. 

Bonus: In my opinion, I do not think Kendall Jenner should be held completely responsible for the Pepsi commercial. Yes, she had the option to decline the offer to appear in the commercial, but ultimately just like many other people, she most likely did not consider the repercussions because she was not culturally aware of her environment, just like Pepsi was not. I saw a lot of heat that she got for being a part of the commercial, but just because she is a celebrity doesn’t mean that she can see what is wrong with the project from the very beginning, just like the other background actors that participated in the advertisement did not either. I think Kendall learned from the advertisement backlash, but she did not create the messages behind the commercial and thought she was behind a message to implement change, so I believe the responsibility lies on Pepsi. 

2. I would have been scared especially because they were not taking the time to build trust with the Angolan residents, they were just trying to contain the virus. I know if I was in this situation I would be confused as to what was going on, and being left in the dark about a situation as serious as this one is detrimental to the entire community and environment, especially when we do not know the proper precautions or protocols to take. Being in a pandemic right now, there are so many similarities to this case, especially in the beginning where families were watching their loved one’s die, and couldn’t give them proper burials at the risk of the coronavirus, and visitation was not allowed and restricted for family members to see their elderly parents and loved ones. The way the organization handled the virus at first can make anyone fearful because they were not taking the time to express condolences for the Angolan resident’s loss, nor were they trying to respect their culture until they received the backlash, so I would have also been frustrated with the circumstances. 

3. This is something that I also went back and forth with, as the biggest issue was containing the virus, and preventing the spread, just like it is now in the pandemic we are living through, but I think that they still have a right to the Angolan residents to respect their cultures and express condolences for their loss. Bringing people in white hazmat suits without any proper background knowledge or education for the residents creates fear, and they were eventually able to implement the necessary precautions to prevent the disease, by respecting the Angolan culture and creating informational pamphlets in multiple languages, so yes they are expected to consider traditions and cultural barriers in a situation as dire as this. 

BONUS: I think that this case may have impacted the way WHO handles other countries with COVID because they were able to learn from the cultural insensitivity that they imposed on the Angolan residents at the beginning of the case and possibly take preemptive actions on breaking down the extent of the virus amongst various cultures. The way they handled this case could have played a key role in how WHO was able to break down language and culture barriers around the COVID crisis, in terms of containing the issue as well. 

1. I think if this case played out in 2021 there would have been more backlash and scrutiny from the public, especially coming from social media and living in an age where we face many environmental crises. Due to the extent of the case, given that it was proposed in 2021, I do not think giving out information leaflets would have been enough to support it, and there would have been more national attention and coverage drawn to it by protestors, due to many controversies that emerged when environmentalists began protests, such as air and noise pollution, labor issues, wild dogs, and overcrowding. This could have severely damaged Disney’s reputation in this day and age because people are not as merciful as they were in the past, nor forgiving. 

2. I think that an understanding of culture is important in public relations and communications to have multiple perspectives. In any crisis, we need to have a diverse understanding of the multiplicity of the target audience we are trying to reach. Understanding different demographics of people, gives us the upper hand on how to appeal to their emotions and interests, and allows for wider outreach messaging and damage control to be done. Without a proper understanding of culture, insensitivity comes into play, and reaching a wide variety of consumers becomes limited. Being able to understand and implement change based on multiple perspectives is an asset because it teaches us to appeal to a plethora of people, not just one category or genre. 

3. I think that the main failures were stated in the case, and in my opinion, it did not have too many successes with the cultural aggression claims and environmentalist backlash, but I think that another failure was not taking more respective action on the case. I think Disney just let the case play out, and I think that they missed the message behind all the backlash they were receiving. Sending out leaflets at first was not enough, and I think the biggest failure was not being more equipped with Chinese culture because the parks were blinded by bringing in consumer profit. They were also not respectful to environmentalists, as they could have conducted more background research on the Shark Fin Soup. I think an ultimate failure was not investigating the repercussions of the case and taking strategic action to better their expertise in the field. They did take the time to do the research they sought necessary, and bring in professionals for the “feng shui” design, but giving the resources at their disposal there could have been more done in my opinion especially when trying to translate a foreign culture into a western tradition. 

1. Yes, I think this since these weren’t received well that these organizations should have attempted to rectify that by using other communications tactics in order to better communicate with the public about their true intentions. 

2. I think that they should have done more evaluations of the other cases in order to figure out what to avoid or what to do. Using the other cases as reference would have allowed them to better evaluate how their ads would come across to the public. 

3. I think that it hurt them at the moment and some like the Pepsi commercial will be long lasting as a joke, but I’m not sure that it has permanently damaged their reputation. 

1. Yes, I think that since there was such poor interaction with the community and this disease was rapidly spreading the chances of having a similar incident occur was high. Should they have released COMBI earlier than there would have been steps in place to prevent another instance. 

2. I really would have felt disrespected and misunderstood. While I might be able to understand the job WHO had to do, it would still feel very disrespectful to my culture that manner in which they went about things. 

3. I think that it is important to respect customs or at very least try and work with customs so as to lessen the offense people might feel. While they might not be able to respect all aspects of the traditions, it doesn’t hurt to try while maintaining efficiency. 

1. I think that social media would have been a bigger factor in this case if it were happening in 2021. Considering how large of a factor social media is in everyday life now, I would only assume that the social media would have contributed to this case being more public known than it was. I think that the negative parts of Hong Kong Disney and their faults would have made their way to social media. I think that would cause more of a backlash on their social media, and seeing the way Disney uses social media to communicate now, I would go so far to guess that they would try and use social media to communicate about their actions in this case. 

2. Understanding culture is important because it helps to understand the client in which you are working for or the community in which you are trying to attract. In this case Disney worked really hard in trying to make their Asian guests feel like Disney respected their culture and included it in their decisions when creating Hong Kong Disney. 

3. Their biggest success was paying respect to the culture they were trying to attract and a failure that I think would be bigger nowadays would be their handling of the wild dogs. I love dogs so that bothered me in how they just said they were trying to do the right thing, but still ended up killing a lot of the animals. 

2. If I were an Angolan, I would feel upset and angry about the way the organization handled the virus. I think due to the current times, we can all relate this incident to what is happening right now. In both cases, we can say that nothing good came from delaying the release of information or trying to stop the public from understanding what was going on.

3. I think it is fair for organizations like WHO to consider traditions IF that is what the traditions prefer. I think it is not in their hands to decide what should or shouldn't be considered by a traditions so it should be outlined prior so that organizations like WHO know what the traditions expect and follow it accordingly.

2.I think these organizations could have used proximity to other cases to their advantage by learning and monitoring how other organizations were dealing crisis response. 

3.I think that these adversing mishaps have not hurt their reputations preeminently as the companies are still successful and have moved past the controversy. Their reputation was definitely hurt for a short period of time but in the long run they are still successful companies. 

2. Organizations could have used the proximity to other cases as an advantage by learning about them and preparing for any similar situation. Looking at any prior success or failures would have been beneficial and could have been used as a blueprint for any future plans. The most important thing to take note of is how these organizations faced backlash and gained back trust from the public. Communication tactics could make or break them in a situation and knowing what has and has not worked in the past would benefit an organization. 

3. I think these mishaps have definitely hurt their reputation permanently. While some consumers may move on, there will always be some that will remember the poor choices and actions of an organization and wont let them forget about it in the future. 

Bonus Question:

Although Kendall Jenner is old enough to know right from wrong and maybe could have seen why the pepsi commercial was wrong, she is working in an industry that is made to influence people and she herself could have been convinced it was a good idea due to the professionals around her. It was never anyone's intention to get her in trouble so she most likely trusted everyone she was working with. I think she deserves to take some of the blame but this isn't all her fault. From what I have seen she made it clear that she never meant to hurt anyone and has learned from this incident. 

1. I definitely agree that WHO should have released COMBI sooner than they did. It would have made relationships stronger and they would have gained more trust from the public. Releasing the information earlier would have also benefited the people who needed it when dealing with the outbreak. 

2. If i was an Angolan resident I would be frustrated and scared. The fact that WHO did not take their culture and beliefs into consideration is upsetting and disrespectful. 

3. Although their main concern is to contain and stop the virus, I do think that it is important to respect the traditions of the people you are helping. They are not going to want your help if it means they have to break tradition and in the end will not support WHO or cooperate with them. 

2.It’s important to have an understanding of cultures when working in pr and communications because you need to know your audience. There have been so many incidents in the past where organizations were not sensitive to peoples culture and ended up upsetting or offended a whole population. If you are going to incorporate someones culture you must educated yourself about the culture so that there will be no chance of offending people.

3. I think a success would be how Disney did price research and attempted to incorporate culture into their park. Their intentions were to support and celebrate different cultures. Although they failed and did not go about this in an ethical way for some parts, they did attempt to educate themselves. 

2. If I were an Angolan resident, I would have felt incredibly upset, angry, and scared. It would feel sort of like an invasion to have WHO workers who don’t speak the language or know the culture to come in and start conducting containment work in a disrespectful manner. They failed to be respectful of the burial customs, did not communicate with families about loved ones who had died or their whereabouts, and were not at all concerned with listening to residents at first, which would have made me more fearful.

3. I think WHO’s primary purpose is to help control outbreaks as well as educate citizens on health issues and diseases. When a WHO team comes into a country to help control a drastic situation, it’s not entirely realistic to expect traditions to be honored in their entirety, especially when it isn’t safe to do so. So in that respect, I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to expect them to follow traditions, however I think it’s important that at least they acknowledge them and do their post to honor them. If they are not able to follow burial customs, it is important to communicate this inability to to the natives who value those traditions and expect them when someone dies. Without communicating, the WHO team was mishandling burial customs and disregarding the culture’s traditions. I think if there had been more communication about why they couldn’t follow tradition, there would have been a little more respect for the people of Angola.

2. Considering the proximity of each of these cases to each other, these organizations could have examined what went wrong for each of the organizations and then used that to reevaluate their own messages that they are putting out. Learning from other organizations’ mistakes can be incredibly valuable in making sure that the organization doesn’t make the same mistake and works to do better and set a better example.

3. I don’t think that these advertising mishaps have permanently hurt their reputations, but I don’t think consumers have necessarily forgotten about them either. I think, if anything, consumers pay much more attention to the messages that a brand is communicating through their advertisements and keeps them in check by holding them accountable if something has not been communicated correctly or is offensive. For instance, with Pepsi’s strong brand reputation, I don’t think that commercial completely destroyed their brand and consumer base. However, for me personally, when I think of Pepsi I always think of that commercial. Although Pepsi has moved on as a brand, and consumers have too, I think it’s difficult to separate the brand form something as damaging as that commercial. I think it can definitely change people’s opinions on brands and cause them to watch them more carefully.

4. While I think most of the blame falls on the company and the creative/marketing/advertising team behind that commercial, I do think that some responsibility should be placed on Kendall Jenner. While the marketing team controls the messaging, Jenner agreed to be the face of that messaging and ultimately capitalized off of the message and its consequences. Her status as a celebrity also furthered the communication of that message. It doesn’t help that her image as a celebrity is one of extreme privilege and affluence. It’s not as if she didn’t know what the commercial entailed and the messaging it had before she walked on set. This might be a stretch, but it reminds me of when white actors voice characters of color. Obviously, this is offensive and definitely sends the wrong messaging, and those actors profited off of assuming a racial identity that was different from their own. Ultimately, Jenner should be held somewhat accountable — maybe not for the messaging itself, but definitely for her agency in deciding to be a part of it and her lack of social awareness.

2.If I was an Angolan resident, I would have been very unhappy with WHO. I would have also felt disrespect of the culture as death is handled in a very specific way to them and it is an important cultural practice for the Angolan people as they preform specific rituals. The way the organization handled the bodies showed a complete disregard for these sacred practices. 

3.It is understandable that WHO wanted to have contingency of the virus in the quickest and most effective way possible so I think there is both sides to the case study. Taking public health into consideration I think WHO was put in a difficult situation as it is important to respect the cultures of others but it does come down to life or death. That being said, I do think it is important to acknowledge that they understand how important death rituals are for the Angolan people and communicate their remorse of the situation.

2. Understanding culture is important in public relations and communications as you do not want to be culturally insensitive or disrespectful to cultures outside your own. It is important to understand what is considered normal in another country may seem taboo in a different one. Understanding culture also prevents crisis and avoids making foreign clients feel disrespected.

3. In my opinion, the successes of this case was learning for future to understand the culture in Hong Kong and how it differs from western culture. Failures of this case was Disneys huge lack of understanding cultural practices and norms in China and moving the whole theme park.

Bonus: Though Jenner did not create the messaging around the commercial, she could have declined the opportunity once the idea was presented to her. There is no way that she or her publicist / agent did not take into consideration how her appearing in this commercial could have gone wrong. I am sure Pepsi paid top dollar for her to be in the commercial, but it a decision that both of them will be paying for for a long time.