Look Sharp: Travel Safety Tips for Employees

Business travel can be a very stressful time. In order to help keep the stress level down, follow these six simple tips while you are on the road, at the airport, or in your hotel.

At your Hotel
· Ask the front desk to call you right before they deliver a meal.
· Keep valuables-jewelry, cash, etc. in the hotel safe. Better still; leave jewelry in a safe at home.

At the Airport
· Carry your purse close to your body, or your wallet in an inside front pocket. Better yet, wear a money pouch under your clothes.
· Avoid displaying expensive cameras, jewelry, and luggage that might draw attention. Your aim should be to blend in with the crowd.

On the Road
· Become familiar with your travel route before you start. Get a map and study it.
· Park in well-lighted areas only, close to building entrances and walkways.

(Due 10/4) Issue #5

Practicing Professional Blogging

We have been discussing tactics for professional blogging in class, and now it is your turn to try out those new skills on our course blog. Pick between question #1 from page 136 of your textbook and question #8 on page 138. While the prompts assign a certain amount of text for your response, try to stay under ten sentences. Each question requires you to do a little research, so give yourself a few minutes online to complete this assignment. Remember to focus on purpose and tone.

Blog #4

I believe that social media is a great way for companies to promote themselves and any products they have. And by allowing both positive and negative feedback is a great way for a company to grow and become more successful. If they cater to what their users and clients want, then they will have better comments. Of course, there is always the exception. There are always going to be those unsatisfied groups of people.

I think that AT&T handles the negative comments in a very professional manner. By replying to the comments, it shows that they want to learn why customers are unahppy as well as trying to fix the problem. It also show that AT&T genuinely cares about customers and reads their comments, both positive and negative. By not deleting their comments, AT&T shows integrity because they're not afraid to show that they aren't perfect. There are always going to be ways for them to improve, and feedback is the best way.

Obviously, when BP interrupted customers and their comments, it turned out ugly. There were more unhappy people because of it. I think that if a company were to intervene, that would allow more feedback and positive remarks because they are making a conscious effort to make cumstomers happy.

-Ashley Grubb

Issue #4

I believe that AT&T should not have sent a message on facebook in the fist place. But I also think the way that AT&T respond to the post on the wall was good. Bruce Turkel is right about the fact that people will talk no matter what. Weather it is on facebook or to their friends. By AT&T trying to talk to the customers about why they are posting angry post. Companies like BP who remove vulgarity for facebook it looks like they are trying to cover things up. AT&T was trying to find out what is wrong and how they can fix it in future. But BP is making customers think they have something to hide.

While I agree with Mr. Turkel when he says "social media marks the end of an era for companies," I'm not sure I agree that a company should just throw in the towel with regard to controlling a message. The means in which a blog is managed can be a reinforcement of image and ethics. A company should take pride in making access and communication with customers available and immediate but perhaps should not acquiesce on a certain degree of decorum. A company would not want to create a blog culture where interruption prevails over intervening but there would need to be some balance given that it is truly a public space.

Issue #4

I agree with AT&T’s approach to interact with customers. To ask for feedbacks on the face-book is a high efficiency way to get the comments, however, it is more risky to expose the bad side of the company to the potential clients. I think intervene is better than interrupt. Properly response the negative comments are always important, rather than delete the complaints or ignore them.
The benefits of intervene are that customers can feel their voices have been heard, and the company gets chance to save their reputation. To hear from customers’ comments can help company to fix the exits problems and to improve the products or service. In order to satisfy the customers’ needs, company ought to have a positive attitude to communicate with customers.

Issue #4

The amount of people using social media is amazing, and it's no surprise that businesses are using it to advertise their products. This, however, causes negative feedback from the public in the form of blog posts. Companies deal with these negative blog posts in three ways: limit the public's ability to comment, delete vulgar comments, or leave up the posts and address them. All have their advantages and disadvantages. limiting what people can post is the easiest solution, but is not the best for customers who have real concerns. I do think that some people say things on the Internet that they would never say in real life and also say some unnecessarily hateful comments in order to get attention. This is why deleting negative comments is effective, but it doesn't address some real issues that a customer might have. A post could be seen as overly negative when the author doesn't want it to appear that way. That is why I believe addressing wall posts is the best solution. It gives the image of a company of one that cares for its customers.

Issue #4

1. All companies should want feedback directly from their customer base. Good and bad feedback is very important to the success of a company because it tells them where they need to go next. I applaud AT&T on being brave enough to let their customers say exactly how they feel for everyone to see. Most companies would try to sensor and cut out negative comments ,but as the man stated people are going to say how they feel anyway.I like the fact that AT&T really took the comments and tried to fix the problems instead of acting like they were not there. A company that wants true customer satisfaction will take risk like this to make sure they are making the best products for their customers. Other companies wanting to step up thier customer satisfaction should take notice and follow AT&T's example.
   

Issue #4

I believe that asking for customer response is the best way to manage a business. It allows the company to know what they are doing right or wrong. Blogging just makes it simpler. Most people would not take the time to drive to an AT&T store just to fill out a comment card. But with a large amount of people having internet, it allows customers to voice their opinions quickly during the free time they do have. Companies should expect to get negative feedback because you just simply cannot please everybody. But, with asking for comments, the company should take what their customers have to say into consideration rather than ignoring a negative comment.

Social Networking and Negative Comments

The face of business is changing and social networking websites are on the forefront of the revolution. Businesses have found a new way to interact with million of their customers and this, like all customer service related interactions, has has created good, bad, and ugly. This blog specifically references the latter two and two schools of thought on how to deal with the negativity. The two opinions are that of intervention and interruption. Intervention is responding to comments and interruption is ignoring and removing any negative posts. In my opinion both approaches have pros and cons. Intervention is clearly easier to swallow from a consumers standpoint. We would all rather be responded too instead of being deleted. This gives companies an opportunity to address customer complaints and let them know what they are doing to correct the issue. From the companies standpoint, this can be enormously costly and futile to many ends, as not all complaints are working towards a solution because many of these companies must have the greater good and wall street in mind. Cletus in rural Arkansas may be livid about poor cell service but his carrier can't justify millions of dollars worth of towers in his woods if there are not millions of dollars worth of customers to pay for the improvements. Furthermore, many customers are shortsighted and refuse to accept any consolment that does not immediately rectify their issue. So is the only solution interrupting the comments with the delete button or not allowing comments to be posted at all? Occasionally yes, all the time... probably not. In my opinion a companies policies should be a reflection of their customer service principles. That's why companies like AT&T who can be easily substituted with Sprint, T-Mobile or Cricket are going to spend the extra time and money improving customer satisfaction because that is what is going to affect their bottom line most. Companies like McDonalds are not about customer service to their core. When I walk into McDonalds i don't search for a smile and a warm hello, i want a Coke and a warm hamburger! So if they don't let me post on their Facebook wall so be it, chances are i will be in the drive-through anyway next time I long for a Shamrock shake in less than two minuets for less than three dollars. If you disagree with a companies customer service practices than exercise your right to choose and let free enterprise and capitalism punish them in the long run. Understand you get what you pay for and companies are going to invest their money where it is going to pay them the most dividends and for many companies that is not in responding to Facebook posts. If you disagree feel free to let the CEO of McDonalds you want him to personally respond to your Facebook complaints and are also willing to pay $3 for your hamburger that used to be $1 and I guarantee he will friend request you in a heartbeat!...that is of course assuming the other 10 million customers agree.

Intervine or Interupt

I think that having a facebook page is a great asset for a company to have. It allows the company to receive feedback and also exposes the company to potential new clients. Although the advantages of this type of communication between a consumer and a company are many, primarily the ability to communicate problems and answer questions, there are also some drawbacks to the use of things like facebook. The use of things like facebook can degerate into places where people will go to just rant about how much they hate a company for no other reason than they had a bad experience. I believe that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of these types of programs and that companies that use them can only benefit themselves.

Intervene or Interrupt: Issue 4

I think that AT &Ts approach of answering negative comments is the most successful way regulate company pages. By simply removing negative comments, like BP, you never address the issues of your company. You simply ignore them. The same is true if you limit a user's ability to post. These last two regulating methods basically presume to understand the minds of consumers instead of letting the consumers speak for themselves.

The benefits of intervening include recognizing problems with your products and services, showing concern for the consumer, and attempting to ratify the situation. The downfalls include possibly losing business from consumers wanting different answers or wanting no answers in response. If the right tone is not used, the message can come across as scripted and cold.

The benefits of interrupting include allowing companies to remove offensive or vulgar language. By not removing offensive comments, other consumers' business could be lost. The downfalls include consumers feeling ignored or their voices unheard.

Blog 4- to intervene or to interupt

I think that intervening is better than interupting because it allows people who have read the comments to see the solution. It also allows people to see that the company cares about its customers and wants to fix complaints people might have.
I think that sometimes interupting is better than intervening because sometimes people just want to bad mouth companies and use volgar language that can be offensive for no real reason. In these ases I tink it would be best to interupt.
I do believe though that intervening is a more succesful way of reaching out to customers and dealing with any complaints people have because it allose for a solution to the problem.

intervene or interrupt

I think that the way AT&T is handling their customer complaints is smart. By intervening and allowing their customers to tell them their comment they are getting customer feedback without having a survey or something like that and they are then able to take action against the negative comments and resolve things or change ones feelings towards the company. Like if a customer says the service in one area sucks and AT&T says they have 97% coverage, then perhaps they need to try working on better coverage in that area or send out someone to that area to investigate whether or not they can improve something in that area to make the customers more satisfied with their service. Customers make business what they are, without customers it would be hard to sell anything, so if word of mouth gets around that business could be doomed unless they solved the problems. In my eyes the easiest way to learn about problems when working for a business is to let the customers tell you what they think about things.
So I think that intervening is better, because interrupting would be not letting a customer finish what they started to say. Me, as a customer to a phone business would want to finish what I started saying, not get cut off half way through. Any time I get cut off half way through with a business when explaining a problem, it makes me feel like the business really doesn't care what my problem is. Which makes it a one sided argument.

Issue #4 - intervene or interrupt

The practice of intervening negative comments is a better way to handle the disgruntled customers. When people are angry about a certain situation it is usually better to allow them to vent, but not necessarily on a page that was created by the company that is being complained about. The practice of interrupting customers, and answering their negative comments is opening a door that is probably better left closed. If people are aware that every time they have something negative to say about a company that it will get a public response, they will most likely abuse that privilege.

Issue 4

I think AT&T definitely has the best approach in dealing with negative comments on social networking sites. There are always two sides to every story. Interrupting customers, rather than intervening, seems really one sided and doesn’t allow constructive criticism. Intervening allows companies to address the issues that customers may be facing and just has a more personal feel. They might not be able to change every negative customer’s feelings, but a few words can go a long way. However, comments that are extremely negative or vulgar are probably better off left unaddressed.

Issue # 4

AT&T is honestly and openly doing the right thing. In America we have freedom of speech and if we want to say the f word to describe something we have full access to do so. I believe that what BP is doing by deleting the negative comments is wrong. If someone wants to express something in a negative connotation then so be it, but deleting it is just ignoring the problem. AT&T is doing a great job by at least trying to reply to all of the comments and trying to find out why they feel that way. They spend a ton of money trying to get people to use their product and it is refreshing to see a company attempting to keep their existing patrons. I do not see much of a downfall to what AT&T is doing of they get to reply to all of their costumers; I do however see a major downfall to what BP is doing as costumers feel like they are not important and can just be deleted.

Issue #4

When a larger company makes a blog welcoming comments they must be prepared for both the good and the bad. They can't expect the unhappy customers not to comment but welcome the happy ones. With even the best companies, like AT&T, there are always problems and mishaps. I think it's a positive improvement to have businesses with website pages such as facebook. I can understand and support limiting the language of comments but they should allow both positive and negative feedback. Allowing both shows the company the areas in which it can improve and allows them to address the issues with the customers. However, the unintelligent customers (profanity users) should be limited on how much they are allowed to ramble.

Issue #4

I feel that the way AT&T handled there regulatory duties of there company's page is very respectable. It shows that the company is open to constructive criticism and is truly ready to change. In comparison, I do not agree with BP's actions of deleting negative comments because it seems like if they delete the comment, they do not have to deal with it or not try to figure out the root of the problem. I do not think the tactics of interrupting their customers is preferable to companies who intervene, because at least companies like AT&T are trying to find the problems that the customers have and are trying to resolve them, as apposed to just deleting the comments. The benefits I see in the intervening process is actually answering the comments of the customers, whether they are wanting one or not. The disadvantages I see are that new customers or people who are thinking that they want to be part of this company can see the negative feedback. The advantages I see from interrupting the customers is that the negative feedback can not be seen and the company which does not make the company look bad. A disadvantage, as I stated earlier, is that the company is not trying to figure out why the customer said what they did, and just shrugs it off like nothing happened or was ever said.

issue 4

AT&T's approach shows that they care about what their customers think. Even with all the negative comments, I feel that they should respond and take it upon the company to make things better. I do not agree with deleting comments that are negative which is BP's approach. This just shows that they do not care how their customers feel if it is in a negative manor. The important part of building a company is allowing negative comments to help change the environment and or situation. They must intervene but not interrupt. The downfall of letting the negative comments be shown would include changes in people's opinion of the company, drop in sales, also people may not want to come to your business because of some of the negative comments about it. There is no perfect business, but many that are drastically changing for the better. Those companies that enjoy both the negative and positive comments from their customers are those companies who can better serve us.

AT&T: Slow internet, good customer service.

It's funny, there are tremendous athletes out there who are great at what they do but can't manage to cook their own dinner. Companies are the same way. Some may be the best at marketing phones or providing customer service, but horrible at retaining quality employees. A company may be great at responding to negative feedback, but not great at changing the conditions that generate that feedback.

AT&T has found a unique way to market themselves by responding to negative feedback rather then deleting it. However, when comments are received at a rate of thousands an hour, is a well thought out critique of a problem given any more credibility then "AT&T Sucks!"? Probably not, but that does not hurt AT&T's image because from a consumer's viewpoint, all feedback is being responded to.

It's reasonable to expect that all customers want their feedback to be heard, but very few comments will result in actual changes within a company. Therefore if a comment is disrespectful, illegible, and does not present a specific issue or call for a specific change, responding to it is a waste of resources. Also there is an issue of companies (such as BP) protecting their brand and their image. If a luxury hotel features a website with customer testimonials, what incentive would there be to post about the negative experiences customers have had? As mentioned in the article, these negative comments will find their way to consumers in other ways, on other websites. The very idea of a hotel featuring a link that states: "Read our rotten testimonials!" is laughable.

Every company has negative feedback, and some choose to respond to it publicly, while others respond privately or not at all. I do not think publicizing negative comments will be helpful to many companies, but perhaps since the concept is so new it will prove beneficial to companies such as AT&T.

Issue #4

I agree with the way that AT&T handles their negative comments. Deleting the comments would be a sign of weakness for ignoring the remarks rather than addressing them up front. Responding to their comments will be unexpected and most likely impress the customer. They will continue their service with AT&T, and spread the word about AT&T’s exceptional customer service. I believe that companies like BP who delete the vulgar comments are doing the wrong thing. However, it is much easier, and cheaper to hire one person to delete comments than 2 dozen employees to respond to angry customers.

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both. Deleting the comments would save the company from having to hire extra employees. It also would prevent perspective customers from seeing how unhappy current customers are. However, deleting the comments would make customers more angry and give the company a bad reputation for not addressing customer complaints. By responding to the comments the company is creating a reputable company with great customer service. This will attract more customers because they actually deal with your issue. On the other hand, the extra employees, time, and technology needed to respond to comments would be a downfall for this practice.

Issue #4

I like AT & T's approach of letting the negative comments stay and responding to them. I dislike companies who remove any negative comments. Its just not realistic. Not everyone will be happy with everything all the time and they tend to want to express that. Interrupting customers can be a good way to lose them. I, for one feel like companies should let consumers say what they think. It sort of seems to be a good way for businesses to let their customers know they have been heard and responded too. Kudos to AT & T for having the guts to take that on. It is refreshing in today's world to step up and do it. Thank you to AT & T for showing a human aspect.

Issue #4

I believe that there really is not a way to regulate a company's image whether it is their own pages or the pages other people create to voice their opinions both positive and negative about the companies in question. People are bound to find a way to voice their praise or aggravation with a company with or without the company's permission. The companies should take note of their customers' opinion, but otherwise should not make any comment, for it could cause more problems than it could possibly fix.
Take BP for example, people have found ways around being censored by creating pages to express their anger and frustration. All BP did by interrupting was further aggravate the audience, which is something they cannot afford at the moment.

Issue #4

Any company wanting to penetrate social networks should be aware of the consequences negative feedback can have on their image. Customers may enjoy posting information and responding to promotions, but if the site suddenly became a place for customers to voice nothing else but negative comments: its spells a public relations nightmare for any business. More than ever cyberspace has allowed information to be distributed rapidly and virally. The implications of a post gone wrong are tremendous, and any organization wanting to market on social networks should count the costs before they venture forth.

There are different approaches to dealing with negative feedback, and it’s hard to decide which avenue is best. British Petroleum, for example, takes and censors customers who are vulgar on their page. One has to understand that much of the outrage against BP was over the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, though. In this instance, no amount of consumer complaints would have shut the well down faster. But had the situation been different and BP had still ignored consumers when it had the ability to respond to their needs in some way, I believe that would have been a direct offense to the people providing feedback. If a customer walks into a business and tries to make a complaint, and employees ignore them or censor them in some way, it’s not right. BP didn’t try to do this, but a company should address customer needs even if they are voicing their concerns over cyber space.

AT&T did a great job of personally addressing thousands of negative comments on its Facebook page after sending out a mass message. It certainly succeeded in making customers feel like their voice matters, and kept them from going somewhere else and voicing negative commentary about AT&T. But it establishes a precedent that AT&T has to be able to maintain: That a customer can have their concerns addressed over social networking. AT&T could easily find itself dedicating more and more manpower to this media outlet and not see any return. It’s hard to make everyone happy and Facebook is probably the wrong place to address customer issues. But at the same time it is in AT&T best interest to maintain a positive public image, so it must maintain some level of response to customers.

Regardless of the consequences, addressing customer needs is a staple to maintaining a positive public image. Letting customers have a voice is important and it allows them to feel valued. A company simply needs to find a happy medium on how much power consumers have on their site. Disney and McDonald’s use this approach on their sites and I consider it the more balanced, favorable way to give customers a voice.

Issue 4- Intervension?

For years companies have been getting complaints and praise about their services/products. The only difference today is that they are doing it on a public forum that a billion people have easy access to. I think that some companies such as Disney, companies whose main audience is children, need to filter the comments they get, for obvious reasons. In my opinion, AT&T allowing customers to post on their wall, and responding in a professional manor, portrays the confidence the company has in its service and products. I agree that if customers have something to say and feel strong enough about it, it will be said. BP seems ridiculous in trying to limit the amount of criticism on their Facebook page; people now have groups dedicated to the demise of BP. Stopping negative publicity is a waste of time. Companies should listen to criticisms and actually take actions to improve. Microsoft’s entire advertising campaign for ‘Windows 7’ focused around different people, from all over the World, explaining how ‘Windows 7’ was their idea. It makes customers feel companies are interested in them, their wants and their needs. Just because a consumer had a negative experience or is not your customer now, does not mean you can’t change their mind.

I think intervention is the better option, as it forces company members to think critically about their own policies or products. In this way it forces them to understand the customer's point of view, so that they can form an adequate response, rather than simply dismissing the customer out of hand. In addition, it makes the customer feel that their voice is being heard rather than stifled, thereby increasing the likelihood that said customer will return. Companies that intervene are therefore more likely to retain their customers and provide better services. As others have said, however, the degree to which the company filters messages depends entirely on its customer base. A company that caters to children, for instance, would be remiss if it were to include profane comments on its message board. This may turn out to be a trivial concern though, as one wonders how often such a company would encounter vulgar replies on its message board anyway, as the majority of such comments are generally responses to companies that cater to the general population, such as AT&T. Still, a company cannot get by without taking its intended audience into account, and I believe that intervention is the best way to accomplish this, even if the content of the message board is regulated to some degree.

Issue # 4

While I commend AT&T for their forward thinking on social media, I am not convinced it is the right approach. The two dozen employees for AT&T may be able to respond to negative comments, but I wonder if they have the ability to change any AT&T policies? Will the employees work be presented to upper management who can then accomplish some positive changes?

I feel that the majority of people who are posting these negative comments are lost customers. Having an AT&T employee respond to them with a snappy comeback is not going to regain the customers business. Unfortunately, having a Facebook page full of negative comments will probably result in some lost future business for AT&T. I think it is better to simply have comments filtered before being posted on any company sponsored websites or social media outlets.

If a customer truly has an issue with AT&T, then they will probably call or email the company directly. Then, they will be connected with a company representative who may be able to actually fix the problem and retain the customers business.

Intervene

I do appreciate that companies like AT&T do try to take on customer comments. In marketing, there is the rule that if a customer is upset about your service/product they will tell 10 people at least, whereas, if you have a good experience they will only tell 2-3 people. Telling 10 people about a bad experience can be a domino effect, those 10 people that you tell will tell their friends about your experience so on and so forth.
I really do think that companies taking on customer's input and responding in this day an age is the only way to go. With blogging, facebook, and other media there is no safe way to get away from bad media. Companies trying to regulate what gets posted can be done, but if someone wants their message heard, it will be heard. The benefits of intervening and responding to customers is that most people just want to feel that they have been heard, that their issue is significant. The downfall to intervening is that dirty laundry is out for the world to see and once it gets posted its out on the airwaves and internet forever.

Issue #4

Any time you ask for the opinions/comments of the public, the majority of responses are going to be from the extremists who feel strongly about what you are asking. I feel that AT&T has done the honorable thing by intervening. They do not respond negatively to those who have made rude or negative comments on their Facebook wall. AT&T does their best to answer their questions, which may come as a surprise to the commenter who was probably not expecting a response. The situation goes to show that AT&T is providing their customers with excellent customer service. Only one possible downfall comes to mind for this tactic, and that is cost. AT&T has to spend a large amount of time on responding to these comments which could be costly in the end.

Companies who interrupt their customers by deleting the comments that they do not approve, or limiting the abilities of customers to post, are ultimately hurting themselves. It may make them look like they have a good reputation, but that’s only because they deleted everything that could hurt their image. By ignoring the customers they will never reach a solution. With the restriction that companies such as BP or McDonalds put on certain users, they are limiting any type of social responsibility. In comparison to AT&T’s approach, it is more cost effective to do this. However, it could potentially hurt relationships with customers in the end.

Talking Shock: Issue #4

Each and every company chooses to regulate their social media page in a different fashion. This is a freedom choice, some more ethical than others, just as freedom of speech. Companies such as AT&T are commendable. Customers are the future of all companies. Getting to the root of the problem will stem from customer feedback, in return allowing the company to address the problem. Customers can be harsh in addressing their concerns. Providing feedback directly not only shows the customer you care about their business, but are listening, and serious about correcting the problem at hand. From an ethical stand point addressing these concerns by intervening is courageous, and simply put, just doing the right thing.

Limiting or removing negative posts gives the overall impression of being ignored. How do you fix a concern or problem by not knowing about it. Many companies may feel public negative feedback will ruin the image of their company. Some like to coverup, and hide negativity to produce a false positive image. Masking the problem is not the solution companies should be taking. It shows bad ethics and morals as a business.

To each its own, it is freedom of choice versus freedom of speech. It is a choice each company will have to make, and equal consequences each company will have to live with.

Ignore the consumer and you will lose their business. Cater to the consumer’s needs or concerns and you will create an essential customer service. If customer service representatives hide behind the counter when they hear a complaint, then you would say they weren’t doing their job. The same principle should also apply to business websites. The advantages of intervention clearly outweigh the advantages of removing negative comments. Both positive and negative feedback will let the company know what issues they need to address; replying to this feedback will encourage more responses. Removing negative feedback can help protect the company image, but why then bother to ask the customers for their input?

Kenny Malone puts forward the following methods of dealing with negative responses on blogs and company websites used by different companies: companies like at&t take time and respond to each and every post, regardless of them being positive or negative, companies like BP take down posts that are negative from their blog pages, and lastly, companies like McDonald limit their users on the type of responses they can post. According to the first amendment of the US constitution, it permits the freedom of expression, be it positive or negative. One cannot stop or create boundaries on whatever a person wants to speak or express. When posting opinions on different company blogs, a user is exercising his freedom of expression, and is open to post whatever information he or she feels is in his or her mind pertaining the subject at hand. Therefore, when companies such as BP and McDonald, remove or limit responses, they are denying the freedom of expression of the people involved. Whereas, companies like at&t, in their practise of replying each and every post stands out as being courageous and not an escapist.

In removing negative posts and limiting the users on their feedback, companies may be able to get the information that is specifically required by them, but such information does not help in predicting the nature of the company's products in the market in real time. It gives a false picture, since certain consumers are being neglected and thus, in the long-run the company is losing a lot of profits due to their ignorance.

Using interruption as a tactic in response to negative postings is utterly cowardly. Since, it means the parties involved in such companies are running away from the matters discussed in those posts rather than facing them and solving those issues. I think intervening is a better method of facing negative postings, since it assures your consumers that you, as a company, are aware of the problem and are willing to do something about it.

Issue #4 Nichole Troyer

AT&T handled the situation with the negative comments great. I believe more company's like AT&T are going to the Internet to have the customers be more involved and receive feedback. Companies that try to interrupt their customers like BP are just cowards. They do not want to confess to anything bad. Almost like they want to hide their issues. The issues are there with all companies and companies should understand how to handle the negatives as well as the positives. Benefits to answering facebook comments are that the customers feel like they have a say in the company and that they will be taken care of. The downfalls is that some might write very negative comments just to say something. I am proud of AT&T to owning up to their mistakes and actually taking action to what the consumers want. After all without us their company wouldn't survive.

Issue #4

I feel that AT&T's approach to customer complaints is by far and beyond the best way to go about dealing with problems that customers face on a daily basis. For a customer to do something as simple as post a complaint on a company's Facebook page and get a response usually in the same day is very professional and shows that the company cares about what customers have to say. I have seen this exact same approach through Chipotle's Facebook page, as users posting complaints get a response from the Facebook team within minutes. While the benefits are numerous, the only con I can really see in this situation is that many complaints are in the eye of the public, so people know there are problems with the company.

An approach such as BP's, which simply removes the negative comments, doesn't really help the situation. It tries to cover up that there are many customer complaints by simply making them disappear. However, BP has done little to actually speak to its consumers and directly address their problems. This approach is pretty typical by companies, however I think that it would be very smart for a company like BP to reconsider. Responding to a customer's needs should be the number one priority to the company, and that is exactly what AT&T has done.

Blog #4

I agree with most of the people that have already posted that AT&T is using social media to actually interact with their customers and to listen to what they have to say. In the world that we live in, it has become commonplace to never get to even speak to a representative as a consumer to one of these big companies. AT&T I believe is acknowledging that although there might not be a direct line to call and voice your complaint, they are providing an outlet for their customers to be able to share their thoughts, no matter how bad they may be. The other companies that are deleting posts from their customers to me is saying that they do not have valid thoughts and that if you do not say something that we like then we will just simply delete you. The bottom line is that people get angry, especially at cell phone providers, and it is refreshing to see a company actually respond and try to resolve their customer's problems in a unique way. As the article stated, I do think that AT&T also has a leg up because they will be able to know the flaws in their devices and services through this outlet, and probably will be able to fix customer complaints more efficiently. Perhaps one day I might just jump into the 21st century and try this whole Facebook thing out!

Issue #4

I think AT&T did the right thing in intervening instead of interrupting the comments on their Facebook page. By intervening and responding to each comment it shows the customer that they truly want to understand and help fix the situation. Even though all the comments were negative the way AT&T handled the situation portrays them in a positive light. When companies like BP interrupt negative comments it makes them look scared, guilty, and unable to handle any negative publicity. However, I can understand companies like McDonald's and Disney having limits to what can be posted. Companies like Disney, that are children-based, are not going to want them to see comments with curse words in them. I think AT&T, McDonald's, and Disney handle situations like this correctly based on their audience; but companies like BP that delete negative comments are simply hiding and unwilling to confront the problem.

Interrupt or Intervene?

I think companies such as AT&T are right in intervening in the comments that customers post on the internet. On the internet, the information is already out there and interrupting the message is somewhat to me protrayed as guilt. The companies do not want people to see the negative comments made so other people could feel the same way. Therefore, companies such as BP leave continued problems unaddressed, which can become bigger problems.
While it may work for some companies, this approach may not work for all companies. The continued negative remarks could become unnecessary when more and more are made, but the ultimate goal is to satisfy the customers to be beneficial to the company.

I believe AT&T is handling the situation the right way. By addressing the customer’s negative feedback, AT&T has an opportunity to demonstrate to the customer that they care and that they are doing something to fix the problem. Also, by letting these customers respond on their facebook wall, AT&T has an opportunity to evaluate some of the weaknesses of their service. This gives AT&T the opportunity to hear instantaneous direct feedback and address it within minutes. By utilizing facebook, AT&T can also address many customers with the same problem using one response, instead of contacting each customer or addressing many concerns regarding the same matter individually.

BP’s strategy is much different, and much less effective in my opinion. By merely ignoring, or even deleting, negative feedback, not only is BP failing to address their customers’ concerns, but they are also ignoring an opportunity to improve their business by addressing some of their weaknesses. Deleting these facebook wall posts is simply sweeping any concerns under the rug instead of taking the opportunity to address the concern.

I like the idea AT&T had about intervening instead of interrupting the customer. However, this will not work with every company. For instance, when they stated that Disney and McDonald’s regulate what can be posted, I believe this is a correct move. All ages are actively involved with those companies. You do not want a child on that website who has access to such comments as “?#$% this company” and things of that nature.

AT&T is letting the customers vent their true feelings. In addition to letting customers vent, they are responding back to individuals quickly and professionally about how they can reconcile the matter. I believe this takes people by surprise: “I just told AT&T to go *&$% themselves, and they responded back to me about how they could make it better.”

It then went on to state that AT&T was responding back to customers till 4:00 a.m. This lets customers know that they are really eager to help address customer concerns. I believe they took the correct approach in intervening rather than interrupting. Plus, this creates more publicity for AT&T this way.

Issue #4 (due 9/28 before the start of class)

To intervene or interrupt?

In our discussion of professional blogging, we talked about different options for handling negative comments on a blog. In a recent radio segment for Marketplace, Kenny Malone discusses different ways companies deal with negative comments on their facebook pages. After either reading or listening to the story, how do you feel about the different ways to regulate company pages? Do you think the tactics of companies like BP who interrupt their customers are preferable to companies who intervene? What benefits and downfalls can you see to each practice?

blog 3

Bumiller's thoughts have a ring of truth to them. After sitting through hundreds of powerpoint presentations, I can understand why power point slides lack necessary information. It happens way to often that I bielieve all the information within a power point slide, and I don't ever stop to think that some of it may be false. I think we would all benifit if PowerPoints were more audience-based and hands on. When listening to PowerPoints one must keepmake sure the audience in mind, and make sure main idea point is presented accurately.

Blog #3

After reviewing this article, Bumiller's assertions do not seem too far fetched to be true. Having experienced sitting through numerous powerpoint slides given by professors or my fellow peers, it comes as no surprise that powerpoint seems to lack success in an area of relaying certain types of information. In the article, General McMaster stated that powerpoint gives off an illusion of understanding and control, which is entirely true. When someone is informing me about a topic such as the dangers of obesity or the importance of exercise, I tend to believe what they are saying is true because of how they present the information and also, they are either teaching or being graded on his/her presentation.

An audience-centered approach may help to fix some of the issues which were highlighted in the article because it would focus more on what information the audience needs and wants rather than several slides with bullet points that only touch on the topic and do not relay important information that may be needed.

Issue 3

After reading Bumiller’s article, I believe her assertions are valid. While powerpoint is an effective tool in presenting information in a school or business setting for its ease of use and understandability, I don’t believe it should be used in the military. Powerpoint has the ability to make people feel like they understand the point at hand when, in reality, they don’t have a clue what is going on. Powerpoint can dumb things down and detract from the real meaning of what’s going on. The only disagreement with Bumiller is that powerpoint is not the reason for all of the issues in the military. There are problems in the military that have nothing to do with a piece of technology, like Powerpoint. In order to have a more audience centered approach when developing powerpoint is to make the slides easy to read, concise, and provide only the necessary information.

Issue 3

I agree with the article. Power Point presentations can be very dangerous because they can can trick us into believing we completely understand something, when in fact, we do not. Power Point presentations do not give to many details but, they supply many visual aides that are useless most of the time. Also, a Power Point presentation that lacks enough quality information takes about as long as a typed up paper with the right amount of information.

Power Point presentations can be useful to present things that don't need to be 100 percent comprehended at the time. A great use for this is in sales when, a sales rep. is showing a product to perspective costumers. Power Points have no place in the military because, people lives are often at stake and, things need to be fully understood.

Issue 3

If the use of powerpoint in the military has been reduced to "just agony" and "dumb-dumb bullets" then one can most likely assume that the cause is operator error. The military has clearly developed an over-reliance on the use of powerpoint to convey a complete and compelling report of activities, when it is generally used as a summarizing or supplementing medium. But even if the use of powerpoint as a broader communication tool is effective in the military due to the unique circumstances of their working environment, they are using it poorly. In such complex circumstances, the audience centered approach is critical to ensuring that the audience decodes the information as intended. Since this requires effective encoding, time spent organizing the content of the message, defining the main idea, and limiting the scope of the message is imperative. Perhaps with improved tactics, the military can convert this enemy to ally.

Issue #3

I don't think Powerpoint is the enemy, however, overuse and misuse of Powerpoint can become an enemy. With how many different Powerpoint presentations military personnel see everyday its bound to become mindnumbing and repetitive at some point. Having a better mix of Powerpoint presentations and briefings by paper may help the situation become less hated. Reading this article I was surprised at how much use of Powerpoint there is with the military and government; I view Powerpoint as more of a tool for school and business usage. If the military uses Powerpoint less it could make the messages that each presentation holds much more effective in the long run.

Issue #3

I agree with Elisabeth Bumiller’s assertion. I didn’t realize that Power Point presentation has such disadvantage before I read this article. My opinion on Power Point has changed a little bit. I use Power Point for most of my college subject. Most of time, I just download it and use it in the lecture. I have never thought about how difficult for one to make it until I read this article.

Regarding the contents of the power point, it no more than bullets points, graphs or charts. The Power Point maker needs to figure out how to make it concise and easy to understand. But, it takes long time to summarize the information and design the graphs. Sometimes, not all of the audiences can fully understand the main points of the Power Point presentation. Because of it is too much personal understanding. For me, when I read my lecture slides, most of time, I couldn’t get the meaning of the bullet points. I have to find out the paragraph from my textbook. Sometimes, I just memorize the dryly bullets points for the test. I know, it doesn’t help me to learn stuff at all.

Based on this article, my experiences, and our in class discussions, in order to improve the efficiency of the presentation, it’s always good to apply audience-centered approach. It is better to find more support ideas and related examples to present, rather than spend such a long time to prepare for the Power Point.

BLOG #3

Bumiller's points were valid. I feel the assertions that PowerPoints "stifle discussions," "prohibit critical thinking," and "decrease decision-making" are true, based upon my own experiences in both high school and college course. I thought that Dr. Hammes' claim that PowerPoints made the audience feel like "hypnotized chickens" was an adequate analogy in describing this dilemma.

To make PowerPoints more effective in any realm, whether in the classroom, military, or common use, they must be audience-based and very interactive. When creating, delivering, and administering PowerPoints one must keep the audience in mind, and make them the focal point of the presentation. Having group conversations after each slide could be effective in getting your point through to the audience.

Chelsey

Issue #3

I feel that Powerpoint is necessary in any job position for the audience to get a clear understanding. But, a PowerPoint in itself will not be all that is needed. PowerPoints should be used for key points, but the person presenting these points should have a great amount of knowledge to back-up these key points. PowerPoints should not be the blame for any confusion or outbreak of war that has occurred.

The Blame Game

I agree with Bumillers assertions such as PowerPoint being very boring, and it can be a very confusing tool sometimes. PowerPoint just like any other tool of communication has benefits and drawbacks. Its benefits involve, provides a professional outline to presentations; it makes it possible for the speaker to look at his audience when describing certain actions, unlike the use of white boards in describing those actions; very importantly it makes it possible to distribute copies of presentation outlines to the audience before hand. On the other hand, its drawbacks are: distributing of the presentation slides before hand makes the audience be less attentive during the actual presentation, as it can be seen in the article whereby the Defense Secretary likes to get the slides a night before so as to speed up the actual presentation, and also the use of many graphics in PowerPoint make them less effective in communicating the relevant information.
I have had such an experience with PowerPoint as put forward by Bumillers. During one of my public speaking class presentations, I was rendered ineffective in communicating with my audience since my PowerPoint was malfunctioning. It had some graphics on certain slides, that were meant to make my speech more comprehensible, but those graphics did not load on the slides when I started the slide show. Therefore, making it difficult for me to come across to my audience effectively.
The major issue that is being highlighted in Bumillers article is that of disorganization. The only way to make PowerPoint more audience centered in this case is by,using larger fonts, and never using too much ,or annoying animations or graphics. Giving PowerPoint slides before hand is a good idea but more content of the presentation should be made vocal than written on slides. Although, PowerPoint have some of the major drawbacks in communication, but they serve the purpose excellently. Therefore, more cautious should be given when designing the slides than blaming the software.

Issue Three

I agree with some of my fellow bloggers that Bumiller was quite biased with respect to her portrayal of power point in the armed forces. This serves as an excellent segway to my main point in rebuttal; like any other communication medium PowerPoint can be exploited just as I feel the print medium was in her article. Although the feelings and examples provided in the article are likely an accurate representation of the situation; Bumiller injects too much of her own thought in reference to the cause of the frustration. She lists quotes and opinions of the situation but then seamlessly transitions to her own opinion that PowerPoint as a program is to blame as opposed to a more reasonable operator error theory. These PowerPoint authors are conveying the information they want in a way that sheds a favorable light in route it to their own ends. Just because PowerPoint is an exceptional program that allows them to do so (just as it is used to facilitate billions of dollars of sales obtained from PowerPoint driven sales presentations) does not by any means draw the conclusion that is it fundamentally flawed. The program allows information to be displayed in a way that is generally understandable, thus it allows biased incomplete information to be conveyed in a way that is generally understandable. The commonality there is information being conveyed in a way that is generally understandable and the difference in result is a direct factor of the inputs not the machine. To comment on the place of an audience centered approach in this situation, I feel the audience centered aproach would be creating a balanced and equal presentation of the facts which is what the audience is expecting. Findproof that PowerPoint is incapable of this and I will begin to blog my appology.

Blog #3 PowerPoint

What many do not seem to comprehend is that PowerPoint is not in fact the answer to all our presentation needs. Like any technology it proves effective when used appropriately, however; can have disastrous effects (as is clear by the article), when one is not familiar with it. I find PowerPoint to be a great tool, especially in education. If it does not work for military purposes, then it seems illogical to me that they still use it. If a product is not appropriate for the task at hand, why not change the product? The comment at the end about working late because of creating PowerPoint slides is ridiculous, a report or speech would have taken just as much time, if not more. Also, in any kind of presentation specifically one to inform/teach the audience, the presenter should construct it to be audience-centered. People always pay more attention and retain more information if they can relate to what is being said. Elisabeth Bumiller is truly an excellent journalist; when writing strictly political pieces. J

Issue #3

Elisabeth Bumiller's article over the perils of PowerPoint in the military brings about many good points. PowerPoint summarizes all information into bullet points that sometimes provides inadequate information to make decisions. This aspect of PowerPoint makes it very useful to clearly and efficiently communicate information to an assortment of people. This process works well in school because it notes the important information in a chapter, but one must also read the chapter to truly understand the material. This is the problem with PowerPoint, and it can be a big problem in military when it is imperative to communicate information to its full potential.

Through our discussions in class, it is evident that these PowerPoints would be much more effective if given a more audience-centered approach. Sometimes when making PowerPoint presentations, one forgets that it is not only necessary to communicate the information clearly but also with enough detail for the audience to truly understand what is meant to be understood. As stated in the article, Lt. Gen. David D. McKierran was frustrated when he was unable to efficiently lead his troops based on the vague PowerPoint slides given to him by the defense secretary. The defense secretary should have given McKierran a detailed, custom set of instructions for him to effieciently do his job. PowerPoint is a great tool, but it needs to be more than just bullet-pointed information if one wants to do an adequate job of communicating information.