Instagram (drug)wars

Drug cartel rivalry has been on the public agenda in Latin America for decades. Thousands of people have already been slaughtered, whereas bilions of dollars are made and laundered. Jup, the drug wars are still going strong. With the recent release of the Netflix original series 'narco's', portraying the lavendish lifestyle of the most famous druglord in history: Pablo Escobar, the narco's are even gaining popularity. In addition, the Pablo Escobar of today listens to the name of El Chapo, who managed to escape from a Mexican prison a couple of months ago (for the second time). El Chapo is the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, one of the leading organized crime syndicates in Latin America. Cartels seem to have picked up their battles again, and started another war. However, this time the war is a little bit more adapted to the era of social media.

A gold-plated AK-47 in a red Ferrari seems tempting

Recently, the children of the aforementioned drug lord El Chapo started to post pictures of their lavendish and luxury lifestyle on Instragram. As of today, everyone in the world can enjoy Latina girls in string bikini's, gold plated Kalashnikov's, luxury merchandise, expensive mansions and even exotic animals such as tigers, lions and reptiles on the Instagram account called 'Narcos. It might even not surprise you, as estimates say that El Chapo has a gross worth of 2.7 bilion euro's. However, the popularity of these Insta-braggers is rising and accounts such as @AlfreditoGuzma (El Chapo's son), @miauuu5_7_ (Jose Rodrigo, another famous 'narco') and @_IvanGuzman_ (another of El Chapo's sons) already have been copied dozens of times. The hashtags #narcolifsteyle, #narcos, #narcogram and #narcostyle have thousands of posts and appear to be inspiring to Mexican youngsters. 

In my opinion, the Mexican government fanned the flames by calling Mexican teens not to respond to these gangsters who brag about the profits of crime. There have already even been messages of young Mexicans 'reposting' the #narcolifestyle pictures. One user named @Arturo5_7, states he himself is not a narco, but is happy to promote the narco lifestyle, as "the Mexican drugcartels are more trustworthy than the local government".  The question that rises is what people can do to stop this. Do we need interference from the Mexican government? Does Instagram have to do something against these posh-criminals? You tell me. I, myself, am actually quite worried that social media will become the new way of recruiting young gangsters. For now, as nobody acts we still can enjoy the luxury lifestyle of the biggest criminals in te world. What do you think?

 

André Duijkers

Christmas comes early this year at Jumbo

Last year, Jumbo Supermarkten started a successful Christmas Campaign in which they raised money to give people who can’t afford it a nice Christmas dinner of lunch. For a lot of people it is not self-evident that they have a nice family dinner at Christmas, because they can’t afford it. Jumbo wants to support these people, that’s why they cooperated with some charity organisations like VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, Nationaal Ouderenfonds and Nationale Vereniging de Zonnebloem to realise this for people who can’t afford it themselves. The campaign was a big success. They’ve raised enough money to give 329.750 people a Christmas dinner and the company received a lot of positive attention on social media and a lot of media attention. They highlighted their image as a ‘family company’ and their willingness to take responsibility in society as a big company.

This year, a similar campaign will be launched by Jumbo, but Christmas comes early this year. In the press release they released last week they highlighted that they want to do something special for the refugees that are coming to Holland. Since the war in Syria took on extreme forms and the situation got out of hand in the Middle East, a lot of refugees from the Middle East decided to start a dangerous journey to Europe, hoping to find a better future for themselves and their children. In relation to the refugees that are coming to Holland, Jumbo started their campaign earlier to raise more money and help more people. They want to do something extra for the refugees having survived a dangerous journey. They recognized that some people within this group may not celebrate Christmas because of religious reasons, yet they still could use all the help and support they can get.

The early start of this campaign got a lot of media attention. Big news websites in Holland like nu.nl and NOS gave attention to the early start of the campaign. Personally I think it is a smart move from Jumbo to start this campaign earlier and to ‘lift’ on the attention the refugee crisis is getting in de media. The combination of a campaign that was a big success last year and by emphasizing the good cause they’re after by helping refugees, they created a perfect story for journalists to write about. Jumbo wants to create an image where they are seen as a credible, responsible family company. A campaign like this is supposed to support this image. Yet launching a campaign like this also brings a downside: people who have a negative attitude towards refugees are likely to not support this campaign this year. This can lead to negative comments and perhaps eventually negative media attention. What do you think? A smart move from Jumbo or something that could be a problem? 

By Anouk de Jong.

#Pietendiscussie

Sinterklaas or Sint-Nicolaas is a traditional holiday figure based on Saint Nicholas. It is celebrated annually with the giving of gifts on the night before the 5th of December. According to the myth, Sinterklaas has a servant which is called ‘zwarte piet’ or black piet. This servant is painted black and since a few years, there’s a discussion if it’s racism or not that the servant is painted black.

Last year the discussion concerned a big Dutch supermarket, Albert Heijn, because it was said in the media that they wouldn’t make use of zwarte piet on any of the sweets they sold during Sinterklaas. Consequently, there were some people who started using the hashtag #boycotah or #boycotalbertheijn. Many people said they wouldn’t go to Albert Heijn any more.

Albert Heijn didn’t respond to any of these allegations, but one day they placed an advertisement in a newspaper, see the link below. In sum, the advertisement states that they will have sweets with images of Piet on it, and that it’s not true that they won’t use any images. They let the public choose.

I think this is a good example of the power of the public, because they wanted to boycot Albert Heijn. Besides, I think that if the public hadn’t responded to the allegations, it wouldn’t have been a problem for the Albert Heijn at all because no one would have known about it. I’m curious if something like this will happen again this year, since the treats are already in stores now and the hashtag #pietendiscussie (pietendiscussion) is already back on twitter.

Danique van Hemsbergen

image advertisement

The hunt on one special glimpse of murderer Volkert van der Graaf

The murder of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn
In 2002 the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a gunshot on the parking lot of the Dutch Mediapark by Volkert van der Graaf. Van der Graaf killed Fortuyn because he saw the politician as a threat to the weaker parts of society. Van der Graaf was sentenced to 18 years in prison, but he is released on probation last year. He has strong restrictions, for example he is not permitted to search for contact with the family of Fortuyn and he is not allowed to be in touch with the media. But as you can imagine the release of Van der Graaf was a huge issue on the agenda of the media. Every journalist wanted to have a glimpse of Van der Graaf and take a picture of his first appearance outside of prison.

The hunt on the first picture
The NCTV is the organization that is responsible for the safety of Van der Graaf. It came out this week that this organization preconceived a picture of Van der Graaf's release to avoid the hunt on a first glimpse of the murderer. The picture was sold by the photographer to the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. Also it turned out that part of the Dutch Government was aware of this action to avoid the hunt. The family of Fortuyn is certainly not happy about this action as Van der Graaf officially has a media prohibit. Van der Graaf risks 6 extra years in prison by violating this prohibit. The government will debate about the situation and discuss which further actions should be taken next week.

Picture an information subsidy
In my opinion this situation is a perfect example of shaping the news by an information subsidy. The NCTV knew that there would be a hunt on Van der Graaf and set up a picture to influence the media agenda. By selling it to one specific newspaper the NCTV gave The Telegraaf unique access to very wanted information. On the other hand, it is not a very smart action regarding Van der Graaf's prohibits. Although he wanted to avoid media attention, he definitely gets a lot of media attention now and I wouldn't say it's for the better. I think the photographer gets out the best of this situation as he earned a lot of money by selling the picture.


Elsa Govaarts.

Newsjacking: Is it always a good idea?

Over the last few years, newsjacking became a popular activity among organizations and “public profiles” such as politicians or famous people. This technique is used in order to gather media attention and to attract new customers or fans and it consists in associating the brand  with breaking news or events. The  Italian twitter’s scene provides several examples of newsjacking, some of them are really successful, but others could be defined as PR disasters.

Maurizio Gasparri and his relationship with Twitter.

One of the most controversial and discussed Twitter account in Italy is the one of Maurizio Gasparri. He is a right-wing politician who is very active on this social network, indeed many people think that he is more active on Twitter than in the parliament.  Wired Italy dedicated him a very long article entitled “The Story of the Worst Twitter Account in Italy” in which they list the many embarrassing statements tweeted by Gasparri.  One of these statements went also international when The Guardian published an article about his tweet against English people after the match Italy – England of the World Cup 2014.

Ceres and the right use of newsjacking techniques.

Fortunately, in Italy exist also more talented  PR practitioners who can use newsjacking as a powerful tool for their brand. The PR and marketing department of Ceres Italy, Danish brand of beer,  is well-known for its successful campaigns using newsjacking techniques. They always follow the news, especially about politics, and try to take advantage from them. An example is provided by their advertisement campaign during the elections of 2013 where they suggested “Before vote and then drink. Not like last times”. Since Ceres in Italy is consumed mostly by young people, they direct their campaigns to that audience. Indeed, during the same elections there was an issue with Italian Erasmus students living abroad because they could not vote, so Ceres Italy organized symbolic elections and created also the hashtag #iovotolostesso (#ivoteanyway). This campaign gathered a lot of media attention and, consequently, it can be considered as a great example of newsjacking.  But, what happens when these ways of newsjacking meet on Twitter?

Gasparri vs Ceres

Source: Twitter

Last Friday, Pope Francis went to Cuba and he celebrated Mass on Plaza de la Revolución where there was exposed a big portrait of Che Guevara. This event was followed by Italian media which used the hashtag #PapaEnCuba. Gasparri could not miss the opportunity to share on Twitter his opinion about  the two important Cuban historical characters: Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.
Gasparri’s tweet means “Guevara was a terrorist, the Castros were criminals”. The day after the tweet was published by the politician, Ceres replied by saying “Guevara was a terrorist, the Castros were criminals and Gasparri has been a great minister.”. Surely, Ceres’ tweet was full of sarcasm but Gasparri did not get it, so he replied “That’s all true”.   Ceres did not wait to reply again, so they highlighted the fact that just a beer could have said that (meaning drunk people) and that Gasparri said that the beer was right. 

Source: Twitter

After this conversation, many people retweeted Ceres’ tweets and they also posted supporting messages for the Danish brand. For example, Giovanni Diamanti said “From now on, I’ll have just Ceres” or Simona Vargas tweeted  “Ceres I love you”. 

In conclusion, Gasparri’s newsjacking activity backfired while Ceres successfully applied newsjacking techniques and also took advantage of  Gasparri’s online bad reputation.

Do you think Ceres made the right choice by showing again what the company thinks of Italian politics? Or maybe this operation was a bit too risky because organizations such as Ceres should not show their political position?

Alessio Maggiore

The time Fiat got #blessed

September 22^nd, the first time the Pope Francis visited the US, was marked by a smart PR move – accidental, that is. In Maryland for what is already considered an historical visit, the Pope traded the usual limousine for a smaller-scale vehicle, a Fiat 500L. What would initially be just a more humble choice, turned out to be a smart PR move for the car manufacturer, that quickly took the opportunity to social media.

Known for his strong positions against capitalism and towards climate change issues, the public is already used to the Pope trading his bulletproof popemobile for more affordable and environmentally friendly cars. What’s more, the Pope Francis has also made a habit of leaving his car to greet people, one more reason for ditching the traditional mode of transportation. This time, the choice went for a Fiat 500L, a crossover version of the popular Fiat 500 – and the brand took advantage of it.

Source: Mashable

Right after images of the Pope in his new car of choice were released, Fiat responded on Twitter, using the hashtag #blessed, followed by a prayer hands emoji. However, the brand proceeded to emphasize the moment, by once again tweeting on the subject. This time, it included the hashtag #Fiat500L and referred directly to “His Holiness”.

In a time where Volkswagen faces serious challenges and Fiat predicts to have his market share increase in the American market, this episode offered the perfect conditions for a successful PR stunt. By paying attention to one of the hottest topics in the US right now, Fiat took advantage of the power such public figure – the Pope – has for the American audience, and rushed to translate that into an online buzz.

For PR matters, however, it also illustrates the symbiosis between the fields of public relations and the media and, specifically, how they manage to feed each other. On one side, Fiat took the images provided by the media and used them to promote itself on Twitter, in a somewhat ironic tone. On the other, this Twitter move ended up also prompting the media to talk about Fiat, as the online conversations about the Pope having chosen such modest car – and the reactions to it – soon became a news topic itself. For the car brand, this only meant one thing: people are talking about it. What’s more, it’s being associated with a positive figure, as if borrowing its social capital and transferring it into Fiat 500L.

Source: The Telegraph

- Sofia Baptista

The man who increased the price of a drug by 5000%, tried to defend that - and failed

Martin Shkreli, the 32-year old CEO of a pharmaceutical start-up, has not had the best of weeks and his attempt to dust himself off has made everything worse. Resentment within the medical field turned into public outrage when the New York Times published an article on Shkreli’s practices this weekend.

I’ll start off with a quick introduction to Shkreli’s business: Turing Pharmaceuticals. Earlier this year the newly founded company bought the rights to Daraprim. The drug, developed over 60 years ago, is used to prevent malaria and treat a parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis. People with weakened immune systems, such as AIDS patients and people undergoing chemotherapy, have come to rely on Daraprim.

Martin Shkreli - Source: Bloomberg

Before ending up in the hands of Shkreli, a dose of Daraprim cost about $13,50. But recently his company announced that it would raise the price to $750 a pill. That is a price hike of over 5000 per cent. For a critical drug.

Predictably, the internet wasn’t having it.

The most hated man in America

Shkreli’s private Twitter-account flooded with strong abuse and death-threats. Today, the BBC even dubbed him ‘the most hated man in America’.

Shkreli rightly found that he needed to do something, but what? The entrepreneur tried all sorts of bold “crisis-response strategies”. Not one of these you would see encouraged in any crisis management handbook.

Especially the first strategy, that might be labelled the “Eminem-quote on showing the finger”-strategy, apparently did not sort the wanted effects.

Source: Twitter

His second strategy might be labelled as “Unapologetically arguing with critics”. This Tuesday Shkreli attended multiple talk shows to explain his motives. Still the professional field remains very sceptical to say the very least.

Selling an Aston Martin at the price of a bicycle

The first argument he stated on CBS this morning was: "If there was a company that was selling an Aston Martin at the price of a bicycle, and we buy that company and we ask to charge Toyota prices, I don't think that that should be a crime".

He argues that it costs a lot of money to keep a drug company afloat, it is not only research and development costs. Business Insider counters this by stating that “the difference here is that other companies stick to raising money from investors the first few years before they bring a new drug to market”. Instead of charging patients for future research, right away.

Thanks for the extra paperwork, pal

"Half of our drug we give away for $1. So I think that shows our commitment to patients", Shkreli said to Bloomberg TV. He argues that his company will be practically giving away most of the drugs to the people who cannot afford it. But doctors call this claim frustrating and false when asked by VF.com.

Dr. Armstrong, professor of infectious diseases, said that even if the company would make the drug more affordable for patients who cannot afford the full price, this would still cause major problems. “[This procedure] requires heaps of paperwork, income statements, and barriers that make it difficult for sick people to be treated”, she said.  “When we have to do this for hundreds of patients, it’s a huge challenge. Our nurses are stressed to the bone.”

PR magic

Shkreli’s third argument for the increased price tag is that the drug is actually too old and too toxic for its patients and research is needed for new drugs. "They don't deserve a drug that's 70 years old. They deserve a modern medicine that can cure toxoplasmosis quickly".

This argument was quickly warded off by Dr. Armstrong: “We’ve taken a very good drug that was cheap, that had been effective for years and years, and completely turned things on its head to make it expensive completely for a profit motive.”

Finally, Shkreli announced on ABC’s World News Tonight that his company would change its pricing into something that’s “more affordable”, while still allowing the company to make a profit. Where this new, lower price will end up, he could not say.

Leaving the public with a drug that could still cost anywhere up to $749 a pill, a story that surely does not have its ending and me with a lot questions.

With a policy of blowing up the prices of important drugs, was this media crisis inevitable all along? Do some forms of policy leave us with a situation that no PR magic can solve? 

Or are there still thinkable crisis response strategies that could have provided Turing Pharmaceuticals with a proper way out of this crisis?

By Maarten Snijders 

The International New York Times, only available online today for the Thai readers. 

This Tuesday the subscribers of The International New York Times did not receive their copy of the newspaper. The Thai publisher of The International New York Times decided not to print this edition of the newspaper because of the article that was on the front-page.  

Fear leads to self-censorship

In Thailand there are strict laws concerning the royal family. Only criticising the King and his family can lead to imprisonment for up to 15 years. The enforcement of this law is not being shied away from. Though The International New York Times is not controlled by the government and thus not directly censored, the fear of imprisonment was apparently enough for the Thai publisher to take the huge step of not printing the entire newspaper of today.

What was the topic of the front-page article then?

The front-page article that lead to this decision was called: “With King inDeclining Health, Future of Monarchy in Thailand Is Uncertain”. It talked about the declining health of the King and what this would mean for the future of the throne. It discussed the possibility of the crown prince receiving the throne, because he would be next in line. However, the crown prince is known with the public as a playboy and would have difficulty living up to his father’s legacy. The daughter of the King is respected and loved by the public and would in case of her fathers death be the choice as next ruler for many of the Thai people. According to the law though, women are forbidden to rule the monarch.

These topics are just a few of many in the article, of which some clearly speak critically of several members of the Thai royal family. Which is why it has lead to the decision of the publisher.

Responses of The International New York Times publishers

On the decision not to print today’s paper, the response of the Thai publisher you would probably already expect by now. He stated that the content was too sensitive to publish. From The International New York Times office in America a separate message was sent to each subscriber that did not receive the newspaper. In this the publisher stated that it was not their decision to cancel the newspaper, nor did they endorse the decision and that today’s edition could be read online.

So though there was no censorship involved in this situation, The International New York Times their freedom to publish was limited by self-censorship of their affiliates in Thailand. This shows that the exportation of press freedom is even without regulated press censorship still very difficult to achieve.

Nine Hemmen