The case mentions that Nestlé rejected one public relations agency's proposals because they were too militant. One of those proposals was for Nestlé to try to infiltrate opposition groups. What do you think of this tactic?
What will be an ideal response?
This tactic is unethical on several levels. It certainly involves the subversion of
truth. If the outcome of such a tactic changes the relationships between these
groups and their stakeholders, it could also be argued that it would corrupt
channels of communication. It could also be disastrous from both a public
relations and legal standpoint if this infiltration was uncovered
You might also like to view...
The most common nonverbal greeting, especially in business, is the handshake
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The UNICEF campaign used a hashtag word that attempted to do what?
a. summarize a campaign goal b. introduce a new concept c. invent a campaign name d. create harmony
Saying "athalete" instead of "athlete" is an example of adding an unnecessary sound to a word.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
______ type of story involves integrating interaction between the reporter and the anchor during a live newscast.
A. VO/SOT B. Reader C. Package D. LOS