Whole Foods is not only about eating, it is also about blogging

Whole Foods Market is like a little heaven for a food lover. There’re fresh fruits and vegetables; original dishes; an international food selection and a genuine commitment to organic food. 

John Mackey got it right: if a company wants to create a unique image and reputation, it needs everyone’s dedication, even the CEO’s.

 

John Mackey’s blog is fun and interactive. As a fan of the stores, I was wondering what the CEO had to say about it and what kind of interaction he could have with his followers. I was surprised to discover a blog not only dedicated to food and Whole Foods, but also about Mackey’s opinions on various subjects. Through his posts, we can tell that he is invested in his CEO’s position. It is not only the boss of a huge company, but he also is a prominent figure in the business area. He posted several videos of conferences in business schools or of interviews. He is always willing to give his point of view on what is happening in the American’s economic sector. 

So is it a smart move to be a CEO as invested as Mackey is? 

I would say that it is. With today’s constant evolving markets, standing out as a company is not that easy. It is kind of a contradiction since it seems so simple to be present on so many worldwide media. However, in the crowded pitiless Internet, being present is not enough to generate attention. Having a voice, especially as a company’s main figure, is essential and gives another aspect to the company. 

This kind of resource leads to even more investment from the customers. They feel like Whole Foods is more than just the local place they shop at.

What John Mackey does on his blog seems to be an asset to the company. It is matching Whole Foods’ mission and values, as well as it is giving the company’s a strong position within the food industry. 

One of Whole Foods Market’s strong principles is to be a community’s member everywhere there’s a store. Mackey’s blog provides consistency between these beliefs and these communities.

To what extend Freedom of Speech is free?

 

YouTube, owned by Google, contains billions of information through videos posted by worldwide users. It is a private company; therefore it has the right to choose whether or not some content should be posted. However when YouTube decided to ban the film mocking the Prophet Mohammed in Libya and Egypt, it was accused to react against the sacred First Amendment of the American constitution. The problem is that the conception of freedom of speech, as it is conceived in the U.S., is not perceived the same in every country, even Occidental ones. Some say that freedom of speech is not absolute; some others argue that it is inviolable and therefore everyone can pretty much say anything about anyone.

Another problem is that Arabic countries don’t understand why a government like the U.S., was not able to control the airing of that video. It is not that they were not able to do so, but that they couldn’t, because of the protection of freedom of speech. Moreover, it is technically impossible for a government to control a website as developed as YouTube is. Because it is a private company, government can't get involved with what they are posting. This process is hard to understand from Arabic countries standpoints, mostly because freedom of speech doesn't exist in these countries. Speech in general is controlled, especially on Internet.

But what about social media's responsibilities when it comes to such violent outcome?

In my opinion YouTube made the right choice when it decided to block users from viewing this video in Libya and Egypt. Although we can argue that the rules it applies to its users in the United States should also be applied abroad, there are some extreme cases. In this particular situation it seems in everyone’s best interest that YouTube acts differently abroad. In this case, we are implying the safety of a country and of U.S. representatives. This decision was made with the sole intention from YouTube, to calm down the situation and to take responsibilities toward the effects that one video created.

Blocking this video won’t resolve the situation, excuse what happened, or even minimize extreme groups from violently protesting it, but it is at least a step forward. Although this decision is and will be criticized regarding freedom of speech, I think YouTube made a smart but not easy choice.

Dealing with freedom of speech on social media can be delicate when users are from countries where speech is controlled, like in China for example. Some networks make deals with the government to be present but restricted; some others just choose not to exist in these countries.

Facebook has a specific clause in its terms of agreement about hate speech and violence: “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” But that clause doesn’t seem to be keeping users from posting violent or hateful messages without being banned. According to Facebook "Groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies." So that means that if an individual posts something hateful he will be banned, but if a group says something violent it won’t. In August 2011, there was a proliferation of pro-rapes pages on the social network that led to several petitions in the U.S. and U.K. to take them down. These groups were entitled for instance: “You know she's playing hard to get when you’re chasing her down an alleyway.” Although these pages were clearly encouraging rape, Facebook declared that these kinds of speeches were equivalent to tell a rude joke. This is an example of how social media can defend freedom of speech even when it clearly involves hateful and violent speech.

It is interesting for me to discuss the subject from an European point of view. Although freedom of speech and freedom of press is as essential in Europe as it is in the U.S., I don’t think we have the same conception of the matter. Indeed, although this is a sacred right, in France we consider that even when you have the freedom to express your opinion you have a responsibility not to be offensive. 

With the growth of social media comes the question of their responsibility with the contents posted on their platforms. As freedom of speech should lead the way when they’re dealing with that, social media still carry a great responsibility toward their users. That’s why they should regulate what it is posted on their network. Although they should promote freedom of speech, they have to take into consideration mutual respect. They shouldn't be the place where hateful and violent speeches can be expressed freely. There shouldn't be a place, on Internet or not, were violent and hateful speeches could be express.

The greater the audience is, the greater the responsibility of what is said is.

NBC failed coverage of the Olympics

The Summer 2012 Olympics took place in London from July 27 to August 12. NBC was the only channel broadcasting the games in the U.S. 

Theses games were unique in the sense that they were considered as the first social media games of all time. The use of Internet and social platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, has never been as important. That use made the games even more live and present than they ever were before.

NBC’s coverage of the game was largely criticized over the summer and as Lisa De Moraes from The Washington Post said, “one of the more popular sports of the Summer Olympics — according to the media, anyway — has been The Trashing of NBC.”

 

As there’s a five-hour difference between London and the U.S. east coast, NBC chose not to air the games live but to tape-delayed them. Not such a bad idea on paper, people were this way able to watch the Olympics on prime time and not during the day. And NBC was able to get even more viewers. The network only allowed its subscribers to watch the games live through their application or online.   

  

So where did the critics come from?
First, this tape-delayed airing was the first time NBC did that. They’ve been broadcasting it live for years without any problems. Critics rose against this delayed because viewers weren’t able to see the competitions at the same time they were occurring in London.

The second, and most important, issue with this coverage was the fact that NBC, although they were airing it within a few hours delay, keeps spoiling its viewers before the actual airing of the competition. Through promos, others show or worst, their own tweets, NBC kept airing images or videos showing athletes with their medals. Obviously, there were no points for viewers to watch the games anymore when they already knew the outcome.

The funny thing about these critics is how much coverage they got from traditional media, but the main place where “trashing NBC” reached its peak was on social media and especially on Twitter. The hashtag #NBCFail started appearing from the Opening Ceremony night.

Darren Rovell, a former NBC business reporter, summarized on Twitter the situation: "Context: NBC's ideal viewer is someone who doesn't get sports text alerts, doesn't appointment stream or get on Twitter."

It seems like NBC was caught up by the use of social media and the open critic place it allows. The network signed up for covering the future 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 Olympics. It is going to be interesting to observe their future coverage after this one was so criticized. Especially when social media will probably be even bigger at that time. Let’s wait for a real effort, to do good this time, from NBC.

The use of social media in the PR world

This past Wednesday we received a guest speaker, Prof. Christy Tuohey, in our digital writing class. Prof. Tuohey is in charge of the web development at Newhouse, as well as teaching journalism classes. Our subject of interest was social media.

As PR students and future practitioners, social media are platforms that we need to know and master so as to reach publics in an entirely different way that it used to be. Prof. Tuohey gave us an overview of all the existing social networks, their functions and their use. 

She mentioned an important point when she said that organizations need to be coherent on their different social media accounts.  I think this idea is essential and should be a guideline in our professional use of social media. Being present on several social media platforms for an organization, is part of their reputation and their image. They can’t act or spread messages without thinking of the logical link to their values and usual way to proceed. As social media are a new tool undergoing rapid changes, it is important to use them carefully. Among all the existing platforms, an organization has to thing first of which one is going to be the most useful to reach its audiences and spread its messages. Once this is done, an organization has to think of the content itself. What kind of messages is going to be more efficient toward the targeted audience?

Through this presentation, I will point out and remember that PR practitioners have to deal with social media with as much carefulness as any other media. Messages on Internet have as much impact as they would have on TV, radio or printed press. Therefore the use of social media, as useful as it could be for an organization, has to be done with professionalism and consistency. Although the urge to be present on every social platform is significant, these useful new tools need to be managed attentively.