Arizona’s recent approval of a draconian new immigration law has unleashed a tsunami of condemnation from President Obama; a long bipartisan list of legislators across the country; Hispanic, civil rights and public interest groups; the Government of Mexico; and late night talk shows among others, along with, as expected, an energized and often entertaining debate in the blogosphere. Arizona has courted such controversy before with its decision for many years not to recognize Martin Luther King Day. That legislative gambit led to a number of boycotts and the cancellation of a host of convention and tourist visits to the state.

While Arizona’s reputation is taking another hit (and there is likely a blog post or several on that topic), the age of social media has created a whole new set of issues for companies based in Arizona or even trading on the Arizona name. Amid the usual and widespread calls for boycotts of Arizona, there is a groundswell of chatter online (being breathlessly covered by the media) concerning the boycotting of Arizona-based companies and their products. U-Haul, Best Western and Cold Stone Creamery are among the Arizona’s corporate citizens being held out for possible retribution, but the antipathy is extending to companies that even have Arizona in their name.

AriZona Beverages, the makers of AriZona Iced Tea has come under attack even though the company was founded and is headquartered in New York. See Helen Kennedy’s piece in the Daily News and Robert Mackey’s Lede Blog in the New York Times.

As both pieces point out, the assault on AriZona Iced Tea appears to have started on the twitter feeds of Travis Nichols, a Chicagoan who posted a tweet suggesting a boycott because “it is the drink of fascists”. Whether comedic or not, Mr. Travis’ tweet has become a media hit and led AriZona Beverages to post a letter on its website assuring consumers that its only ties to Arizona were in its name and touting its bona fides as a family-run American company.

The Company should be applauded for reacting quickly to the online and media onslaught and trying to set the public record straight (its actual messages can be discussed at a later date). In this era of citizen journalism, where blogs and Twitter feeds make and take the place of news, companies are often confused about how and when to react, who to take seriously and how to enter a social media debate. Unfortunately, there are no clear rules of the online road. The efficacy and crafting of the appropriate response must be done on a case by case basis in consultation with a company’s business leaders, communications professionals and outside advisors. AriZona jumped in quickly to try to protect its brand and reputation. We will wait and see how other companies facing these calls for boycotts react.

Richard Tauberman can be reached at rtauberman@mww.com.

rtauberman Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media Arizona, citizen journalism, Social Media

It’s often said of great athletes that they are in part great because they make the players around them better; they force and inspire their teammates to elevate their game. Give Peyton Manning any wideout in the NFL. Give Steve Nash any forward in the NBA. They just play better, perhaps better than they thought they could.

This same principle has business application, particularly when we debate what it means to be a Responsible Company. Those companies with an integrated, strategic understanding of CSR know how the supply chain fits in, and know how to get their suppliers to play better.

Shaun Rein at Forbes hits on this notion, arguing that Apple hasn’t paid enough attention to the putative conditions at the manufacturers throughout its supply chain, primarily in some Asian countries where there are, at best, questionable workplace conditions. In particular, at a Taiwanese manufacturer called Foxconn, which reportedly has an egregious, inexcusable record on human and worker rights.

Rein asserts that Apple, under the leadership of Steve Jobs, has the “moral imperative to address concerns”. The moral imperative. The relentless pursuit of fat margins has moral consequences.

Sure, it ain’t easy to address this sort of thing. It’s very, very difficult. In the last two weeks, I’ve had just this kind of conversation with a client about its sourcing in other countries. Not every company has the same clout, the same leverage to force change on the same scale.

But what if more of the truly big boys committed to making just this sort of difference?

Rein uses the same illustrative example I would have in Wal-Mart’s drive to force its suppliers, globally, to be more environmentally friendly. You ever want to sell anything in our stores again? Here’s a list of environmental standards to meet.

Back to my “great athlete” analogy. The other side of that reputational coin is being in a position to affect a positive, socially valuable outcome, but choosing not to. The company you keep is important. Do you want to endure guilt by association, or make your team play better?

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks CSR, General Corporate Apple, supply chain

In what seems to be a never-ending approach to nickel and diming air travelers, airlines are now attempting to charge for any carry on bag that doesn’t fit under the seat, which means your roll-on Tumi with your suit for tomorrow’s meeting will now cost you $45 on many carriers.

Senator Schumer is asking the airlines to pledge not to charge for carry ons, and five airlines are on board – American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, United Airlines and US Airways. The question is why haven’t all of the others joined this pledge? Is the reputation of your airline really less important than a $45 fee?

While I don’t agree with luggage charges at all – they are a great way to encourage people to travel by car instead of air – I can at least understand that checked baggage does carry the expense of the people and equipment necessary to load and deliver that baggage. A carry on bag is just that…carried on….yourself. What’s next, swiping credit cards for oxygen masks and life preservers during the next Miracle on the Hudson?

In a recessionary economy with a business where every penny of increase in jet fuel prices translates into millions in expenses for airlines, it is easy to understand the impulse to charge for services….and we’ve seen the elimination of free meals, unlimited luggage and even pillows and blankets. But at some point, these decisions move beyond the realm of asking customers to pay for what is important to them – extra leg room or a meal – and into the business of taking advantage.

In any business, certain things are expected for a base price, and that definition can change. In most businesses, the expected features or services increase over time. It wasn’t that long ago that air conditioning or a cd player was considered an upgrade in a new car. Remember when internet access was only available in a hotel business center? A recent trip to the Westin Diplomat included free wi fi in my pool cabana as well as my room.

Beyond safety – which is a dealbreaker when you put hundreds of people up in the air for a living – service and value are key elements of reputation in the airline business. It’s how scrappy start ups like Southwest and JetBlue (full disclosure – an MWW Group client) became leaders. And it’s how some others will become as hated as the IRS on April 15 if they don’t think long and hard before they start assessing fees.

My take — your reputation should be worth more than $45.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters General Corporate airlines

Interesting news, companies like Goldman Sachs are citing negative publicity as a risk factor for the business in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Even more interesting, that several big banks think the solution to the public’s negative perception of the financial industry is to join forces to support a public relations campaign to change perceptions.  We are all for companies taking  charge of their reputations, talking about the things they do well and owning where they need to improve.  We believe that this type of communications is critical to helping good companies stay strong, deliver shareholder value, and continue to be sustainable businesses for their employees and their communities.  But, sometimes, the actions need to be apparent before the words.  The public’s perception of the banking industry is that the big banks have made big money on the backs of the public and are doing little to nothing to help Main Street get back on its feet.  True or not almost doesn’t matter, that’s perception.  Many community banks have weathered this storm by making themselves even more part of Main Street than they were before.  However, public opinion is that the big banks are just collecting bonuses and arguing their position in Washington D.C. Perhaps as these banks come together, they should think of how their actions can overcome the perceptions.  Do something critical for Main Street.  Make your commitment to growth clear and transparent.  Act, and then, by all means, tell.

cwinters Uncategorized