The Future of American Brands

With the expansion of countries like India and China in the marketplace it has become increasingly difficult for American companies to prosper amongst all its competition. Is it possible for these brands to differentiate themselves and still be American bred? Complaints that many Americans have is about the outsourcing of many jobs today in America. With jobs being outsourced it allows many brands to keep their prices affordable. In the electronics and car industry it provides a level of competence that is associated with the manufacturing done overseas as compared to America. The result of the expansion of these countries is the decline of the American economy. In the future many of the brands associated with America will become less and less American as all the parts are being outsourced from foreign countries. How much does the American value American made products? Many of us are not going to sacrifice our hard earned dollars to support American manufacturers unless it is of some benefit to us. Is this where the government should intervene? Should the American government make it increasingly difficult for companies to outsource like by adding excise taxes and other charges to companies that choose to, and grant incentives like tax write-offs for labor to those that don't. If this happened it could possibly raise the value and consumption of American made products and also allow companies to better regulate the production of the products being made. It would also raise the value of the American dollar and provide more jobs in the workforce.

PR Damage control

In class while discussing PR we briefly touched on major PR crisis that companies have faced, such as the cyanide in Tylenol and the syringes in Pepsi. This got me to thinking, how does a PR firm go about cleaning up these types of messes? Since cases like these can have a major impact on brand image it is imperative that companies act swiftly in managing these crises. The cyanide in Tylenol capsules crisis occurred in the fall of 1982. In this case seven people in the Chicago area were reported dead after taking Tylenol Extra Strength capsules. This was every company’s nightmare. Not only were the costumers killed by the product, the problem occurred because of product tapering after the product was on the self. Though Tylenol was not directly at fault for the deaths it scared people from using Tylenol. Before this incident Tylenol controlled 37% of its market share but after news of the deaths began to spread Tylenol's market share plummeted to only 7%. So what does a company do once involved in a crisis of this size? In the case of Tylenol they took several steps to control the crisis and repair brand image. First off McNeil Consumer Products, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, did an immediate product recall across the entire country. This recall amounted to about 31 million bottles, and a loss of more than $100 million dollars. They also halted all advertisement for the product. After the product was removed from the market and the crisis was over the company had to find away to reintroduce the product and restore their brand image. With the reintroduction of the product Tylenol took several steps to ensure that the product would now be tamper proof. When the product returned to the shelves it became the first company to comply with the new Food and Drug Administration mandate on tamper-resistant packaging. Tylenol also began promoting caplets, which are more tamper resistant. Tylenol also offered coupons and a price reductions to prompt consumers to start buying the product. Obviously Tylenol was successful in managing this PR crisis because it is still today one of the leading pain killers on the market. A second example of a PR disaster is the subway ads that were tied to the documentary super size me. In this case the disaster did not come from a situation that was out of the company’s hands, but instead was self induced by subways poor marketing decisions and inter company communication. This slip up began when subways German franchises decided it would be a good idea to do a cross promotion with the distributor of "Super Size Me." Seems like a good idea, right? People are aware that fast food can be fattening and people are aware of the current obesity problem in America. Unfortunately the ad did little to promote subways healthy food options and instead did more damage than good by being seen as incredibly offensive. In the ads there where cartoon images depicting hamburgers crashing into New York's World Trade Center and an overweight Lady Liberty. It’s not hard to see how these images would be offensive to Americans as well as non Americans. 9/11 was a tremendous tragedy and the image of hamburgers crashing into the world trade center seems like a rather twisted joke. I’m not sure who thought this was a good idea but it is clear that there was poor inter company communication at work here. Had the German franchises communicated properly with the subway headquarters here in the U.S. prior to releasing the ads I’m sure the ads would have been revised. So how did subway deal with this major foe pa? Subway had its Amsterdam office and German franchisees recall the promotion, and Subway PR manager Kevin Kane apologized from corporate headquarters on behalf of Subway's German franchisees. In my opinion that’s all subway could have done. This PR incident was in no way as huge as the Tylenol incident, but it goes to show that even minor marketing slip ups need to be managed quickly and efficiently in order to protect brand image. In both these cases the PR representatives had to act quickly in order to control the situation and protect the company from further damage.

The news we get on television and the news we get at websites such as BBC and New York Times is very different. First of all there is the fast paced nature of television. With news programs on TV they may be reporting on the same stories as what you would find at these websites, but you are not getting nearly the depth you get when reading the news on these sites. Since these shows have a limited amount of time, they cannot spend as much time on each story. There is also the issue of ratings. Since Television news shows cannot report on every story, they have to pick and choose stories that will give them the best ratings. This means that news programs may often go with the story that has the most mass appeal. This often leaves many important pieces of news with only a little air time, or none at all. News channels can also be very biased. Take for example Fox news. Fox news has for many years gotten a bad rep for being very skewed on the news it chooses to show, and how it is presented. Another issue affecting these programs is that many American news programs choose to focus more on American news only. Only a small portion of the program is devoted to world news. This leaves many Americans who get there news solely from these programs left in the dark about events happening outside the country. Of course most of these issues are directed more at news programs such as Good Morning America and ABC primtime news, not news networks such as CNN and C-Span, though some of the same issues can plague these news outlets as well.