Toyoda apologizes for Toyota -- so what?

Akio Toyoda appears before Congress to "apologize" for the safety malfunctions of millions of "his" vehicles.

I watched a brief clip on BBC News before reading their article about the hearing. My first impression -- sort of lackluster as far as apologies go. The most telling part -- when he blames "the pace at which we have grown" on their failed attention to detail. Excuse me, but aren't problems with 8.5 million cars more than details?

Well, according to the Washington Post, he gets into the meatier apology after the BBC News clip cut off. The article reports:

"They were nothing if not contrite, at least in words and gestures. Throughout hours of testimony, Toyoda and Inaba used words such as 'shameful' when describing what the company had gone through, and 'modestly' and 'humbly' to describe how they will approach their responsibility for safety in the future."

But this is what we would expect from an apology in front of Congress, right? Especially after they announced they are going to do a criminal investigation of the events preceding the full recall.

I'm currently taking a rhetorical criticism class where we will have a full unit of the course devoted to analyzing and critiquing apology speeches (as the professor notes they have become quite common lately). So hopefully we will take a look at this one.

But in the meantime, off the cusp this doesn't strike me as one for the rhetorical record books. Maybe because I'm tired of hearing them? Maybe because they have become so common that I have stopped believing that whomever is speaking is actually sorry? Sorry that someone got hurt, maybe. Sorry that they got caught, probably. Sorry that they lost a bunch of money, totally.

It's doubly hard for me to buy-into the apology after reports surfaced of a memo citing Toyota executives boasting about the $100 million they will save by convincing regulators to halt a 2007 investigation. I just hope we don't have another Ford Pinto debacle on our hands, because I do [did] like Toyota as a car company...like everyone else I guess.

Converting PowerPoints to Videos

I was recently sent some information by a colleague about software that converts PowerPoints to video for Web uploads. This is particularly helpful to us because we are currently in the process of archiving everything we produced throughout 2009 because I work for a non-profit honoring a centennial that is now over. The software is called the Leawo PowerPoint to Video Pro and you can get a free version that does basically everything you need it to do. You can only convert the .ppt file into a .wmv file but that's fine for Web uploads.

The quality of the video isn't great, but that could just be because the type face on the presentation I converted wasn't large enough. But overall, this is a really awesome and easy way to make Web videos since most people are more familiar with PowerPoint than something like FinalCut Pro or iMovie. This is a really great way for organizations, especially non-profits that rely heavily yon presentations for funding and community involvement, to showcase these pieces to also create more dynamic Web content for FREE!

Social networks help amplify and resolve public relations nightmares

The incident with Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines poses significant threat to Southwest's perception as the good guy of the airline industry and also potentially opens up a lot of discrimination questions about the organization. While traditional news organizations have reported on the story, the public relations problem really arose when Smith took to Twitter to air his grievances.

Because the social network can reach consumers faster than Southwest can issue a statement, the problem is able to spread. But this is not a bad thing for public relations. Southwest, like most companies these days, has a company blog. The company was able to respond directly to the Twitter outbreak by posting a quick response, allowing their reasons to be heard directly, and in a more personal manner than a traditional news brief would permit.

As the issue persists, the conversation is able to evolve in a more organic way as both sides are able to interact directly with consumers or fans to flesh out the problem. I think it is important to see the outrage directly from the person involved, but I also think it is important to understand Southwest's reasoning behind their choices. Without the social networks amplifying the situation, I think it would have been more easily swept under the rug by Southwest (of course it helps that Kevin Smith is famous, but arguably this could happen with anyone thanks to Twitter).

The fact that they are forced to respond in this way will perhaps encourage them to evaluate potentially discriminatory processes more carefully because their reputation is more threatened now. Though it may seem like Twitter creates more public relations problems for companies, I tend to think it helps companies be more accountable and better respond to their publics. As a public relations professional I think it offers a much more honest and open way to reach out to consumers and ultimately, when handled correctly, can turn the situation into a positive for the company.

Of course, the more severe the infraction, the harder it is to solve through social networks, but people are talking about the companies no matter what, so why ignore that?

The iPad could revive magazine industry

At the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference on Friday Wired Magazine announced it will be releasing content for the iPad this summer. Chris Anderson explains "I'm from the media world, and as you may have heard, we have lots of questions about our future. The good news is I think we found part of the answer...we think this is a game changer."

First of all, I appreciate his honesty. And because I believe he's brilliant, this statement gives me chills. I used to have a subscription to Nylon Magazine. Then it went digital and I stopped reading it. I was confined to my computer and the beautifully designed spreads lost their essence on the screen. But I understand why they went digital, and I wish I could have gotten more into it. That's why this announcement from Wired is huge for the magazine industry. If I can have the same content, design especially, to carry with me in the same way I would carry a hard copy magazine, then I think I would actually read magazines. I can have more than one subscription and not feel like I have to carry around a suitcase to read them on the go. And, honestly, it makes the iPad more appealing.

Social media boosts award show ratings -- what else could this mean?

According to AdAge, social media sites, mainly Twitter, are helping award shows get back on their feet. Live events like the Oscars and the Grammys had been on a steady decline from 2004 to 2008 according to the article. But trending topics on Twitter help audiences get involved in the shows and probably give them more of a reason to watch. That's not entirely surprising, because it seems popular (at least among my generation) to watch t.v. while playing around on the computer (mainly social networking) at the same time. So micro-blogging about what outrageous thing Kanye West does next is a natural extension.

But what's interesting to me is the implications this has on the reputation of social networking for advertisers and their clients. Last semester I wrote a research paper and conducted interviews with industry professionals on the rise of digital media and its integration into IMC campaigns. What I found was that agencies and corporations know digital is where the industry is heading, but they don't trust the medium and its seemingly uncontrollable messages. Compounding the problem is the difficulty firms have in equating social media activity to sales figures. Could social media's boost to award shows mean advertisers will trust social networking more?

It's hard to say, because trending topics on Twitter are still hard to quantify in actual dollars. Sure, if more people are watching the shows then they are more likely to watch the commercials. But I don't know if even that is necessarily true anymore. I mean, when do you think people are tweeting?

Regardless, I think this can only mean good things for social networking and its relationship with advertisers. The more companies start to utilize these sites as legitimate means of communication with consumers the better.

Jon Stuart on Bill O'Reilly

On February 5 the entire, unedited version of Jon Stewart's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor was posted on the Fox Web site. I didn't know the interview was happening in the first place, so I actually gasped out loud when I read BoingBoing's posting of the news.

I proceeded to watch the entire thing. I was hooked. This is like, a rhetorical clash of the titans. People with such opposing view points, who so openly despise each other are very rarely in the same room together, let alone in the same room with a video camera! I'm glad O'Reilly thinks highly enough of his ability to control and manipulate interviews to invite Stewart on and I'm glad Stewart has the confidence in his own intelligence and character to accept the offer.

Here's the clip in in full, I hope it brings you as much satisfaction as it brought me:

Democracy for Sale

By now, we've all heard about the Supreme Court decision to overturn centuries-old restrictions on corporate involvement in campaign financing. Basically this means corporations are not limited by what they can contribute to a political campaign, so huge companies like Exxon Mobil can pad the pockets of whatever political pawn they please, and their opponents will have little or nothing to do about it since they won't have the funds to fight back. Hooray progress!

But it's not just me who finds this disturbing. Murray Hill Inc., a public relations firm out of Maryland, announced on Thursday that it will be running for public office. In its press release, Murray Hill explains it will be the first "'corporate person' to exercise its constitutional right to run for office."

This company is using their talents to take a stand on a serious issue they disagree with. I can respect that. It may be peanuts compared to a Supreme Court ruling, but hey, this is still a democracy...right?

See below to watch Murray Hill's first campaign ad: