Public relations practitioners are often perceived in a negative light. Many people believe that they tend to construe the truth in order to positively reflect the company or organization that they are working for. In relation to risk management, the potential for conflict to occur in an attempt to balance every side of an issue may result in a risky or unfavorable ethical practice.
The balance of trying to keep everyone happy in a crisis situation is something that I personally find challenging in the field of public relations. PR pros have to manage to keep both the company and the public happy and provide the most accurate information without compromising the reputation of the company along with the public’s trust. Not only does that seem stressful, but it’s also a very hard thing to accomplish if there is a company goof.
And don’t get me started on ethics…
Transparency is something that companies are leaning toward these days but let’s be honest, there are few CEOs and company executives who are willing to openly disclose every aspect of their business. So what happens in the case of an emergency or company error?
Do companies accept full responsibility?
Point the finger?
Act in the company’s best interest or the interest of the people?
Let’s examine a case that focuses on the idea of the ethical theory, Egoism.
In 2011, Bank of America (BofA) made an announcement that the company would begin charging its members a $5.00 transaction fee on any purchase they made using their Bank of America debit card.
Yes, I said $5.00.
I’ll give you a second to process that.
Of course the company received tons of criticism following the announcement, even from U.S. President Barack Obama. When it came time for Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan to release a statement, members were anxious to find out the reasoning behind applying a transaction fee. Moynihan released a statement in an interview with CNBC including the following:
"I have an inherent duty as a CEO of a publicly owned company to get a return for my shareholders."
Moynihan followed with a statement saying that once customers and shareholders were fully aware of the reason behind the transaction fee, they would be more understanding as to why the bank has a right to make a profit.
The ethical theory that could be applied to this particular case would be egoism. In my opinion, it’s clear that Bank of America executives were concerned about the company’s potential to profit off of their members. It seems as if they tried to keep the members in mind by stating that members would understand of the fee following implementation, yet it still seems as if BofA’s profitability was the bigger goal.
One thing that I found surprising about BofA execs stating that consumers would be on board with a $5.00 fee, which came as a surprise to many, was when Don Vecchiarello, Bank of America’s VP Media Relations Manager, commented on banks charging overdraft fees and how consumers reacted negatively toward costly fees.
“Our customers told us they did not like surprise charges,” says BofA spokesman Don Vecchiarello. “Reaction has been very positive and our complaints about overdrafts have gone down.”
In my opinion, I believe that Vecchiarello, along with the media relations team, should have known that an additional charge would definitely reflect negatively in the minds of BofA members and shareholders.
I mean, come on.
Following the backlash of consumer criticism, BofA decided to get rid of the transaction fee, citing that customer outcry resulted in the company’s choice to pull the plug. In the end, I believe that BofA made the right choice in nixing the fee, although they had to learn the hard way that people do not want anybody messing with their money.
Until next time.
An Ad Major.
Brittani J. Wilkins
