Ghostwriting: The ethics of using a Quentin Miller to reach communication objectives

While some of you are enjoying your summers abroad or off vacationing with family and friends, others have been occupied with the drama between rappers, Drake and Meek Mill. For those of you who have a life during the summer: don’t worry, I have you covered. Recently, I’ve been occupied with trolling the Internet and analyzing the beef between the two. It all started when Meek Mill called out Drake for using ghostwriter, Quentin Miller, to write popular tracks on his latest album, If You’re Reading This, It’s Too Late.

Ghostwriting is viewed as a dishonest practice in the rap world… but what about in the communications world? The practice of writing material for another person, without a byline, in exchange for profit is common in organizations that have PR professionals working to meet communication objectives. The public is typically aware of ghostwriting when it comes to speeches and autobiographies, but in some instances ghostwriting can be deceiving.

5 Questions To Check Your Ethics

PRSA has dubbed the month of September Ethics Awareness Month. Ethical practice is something briefly mentioned in some PR classes, but is rarely delved into at great length. Many of the misconceptions about public relations stem from the belief that practitioners do not strive to live ethically.

As public relations professionals, it is critical that we are ethical in our practice. The many misrepresentations of our industry mean that we are constantly under a magnifying glass. Also, the power of our services is heightened immensely when we practice ethically, as it increases the amount of trust between us, our clients and our publics.

To help keep yourself on the right track, here are 5 questions you should ask to check your ethics.

1. Am I following the PRSA Code of Ethics?
2. Am I disclosing all necessary information to my clients and my publics? Read up on disclosing the right way, here.
3. Could this potentially be a conflict of interest for myself or another client?
4. Am I protecting the free flow of information?
5. Am I making responsible decisions for myself and my client?

The answers to these questions should be obvious, and should be used as a guide to practice your profession ethically. To take the ethics code on the go with you, download the PRSA Ethics App to help keep yourself in check.

(image source)

The Ethics of PR and Social Media

The discussion of ethics never fails to emerge in one of my courses at least once a semester. This semester, it was brought up in my Social Media course, which is a special topics class within the public relations track here at Temple University. This course is designed to provide an understanding of social networks and basic proficiency in the use of social media in public relations, reputation management and competitive messaging. With this in mind, it is no surprise the ethics conversation was bound to come up.

Every aspiring PR pro knows that PRSSA has their own Code of Ethics that members must adhere to but, after graduating, is ethics truly ever discussed again? I would like to think yes, but in reality, I do not think it is a popular topic of conversation once we enter the workforce unless, that is, if you violate your company or organization’s ethical ideals.

The ethics of PR discussion, though seemingly a common sense conversation, is vital to be a successful public relations professional. Here are the top six, easy to remember ethical standards every PR pro should live up to, especially when it comes to social media management work

1. Honesty: This is a no brainer. Being honest means not exaggerating an opponent’s or competitor’s weaknesses, only forwarding (or from a social media standpoint, “retweeting or sharing”) information that has been verified, and choosing to not spread rumors or falsehoods.
2. Transparency: We have all heard of incidents in which an employee poses as a “customer” on a site like Yelp! and writes a rave review of their own company. Don’t do it. Be transparent and you will have real customers speaking your praises for you.
3. Respect: Always avoid stooping down to aggression or nastiness. Do not use you company’s Twitter account to bash another company of product. People love spreading drama.
4.  Privacy: Be sure to respect the privacy of your company when you are on a public platform.
5. Relevance: Do not change the subject when dealing with an irate customer leaving snide comments on your company’s Facebook page. Be sure to answer the question or concern at hand and engage the consumer.
6. Responsibility: To put it simply, always take responsibility. Never delete a tweet or try to hide a mistake. Address it and take action for or against it. 

Ethics & PRSSA Twitter Chat

This past Tuesday, Temple PRSSA participated in PRSSA National's second Twitter Chat of the fall semester dubbed "Ethics & PRSSA". The monthly #PRSSA Twitter Chats are a great way to stay connected with fellow PRSSA members and interact with professionals. Hosted by the @PRSSANational Twitter account, each month features a different discussion topic relevant to students and Chapters, featuring a monthly guest professional or National Committee member.

PRSSA encourages Chapters to participate in the monthly Twitter Chats by turning the Chats into an event for its Chapters. Promoting the Chats as a resource of information and a way to engage with other students across the country is a great way to get members involved.

PRSSA has released the remaining dates and topics for the 2013 Twitter Chat schedule. All will be at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will use the hashtag “#PRSSA” on the following dates: Tuesday, Oct. 1 with “Growing Your PRSSA/PRSA Relationship”; Tuesday, Oct. 15 with “Maximizing Your National Conference Experience”; Tuesday, Nov. 12 with “Leading Chapter Growth”; and Tuesday, Dec. 3 with “Do It the WRITE Way.” Recommended tools to use while participating in a Twitter Chat are TweetChat, TweetDeck or the Twitter platform with the #PRSSA hashtag.

To check out some highlights from "Ethics & PRSSA," please click this link: http://storify.com/prssanational/september-twitter-chat-ethics-and-prssa

Did you participate? Let us know in the comments below!

South African PR Firm Cuts Ties with Oscar Pistorius

This past summer, a great deal of the buzz coming from the 2012 London Olympics centered on South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius. Stepping onto the track with two prosthetic legs, Pistorius captivated audiences with his incredible determination to compete and left the world in awe of his effortless dashes around the track. However, on February 14, 2013, people all over the world were shocked to hear that Pistorius was charged with the murder of his girlfriend. 

A little over a week ago, South African public relations firm, Vuma Reputation Management, announced that it would no longer represent Oscar Pistorius. Janine Hills, head of Vuma Reputation Management, felt that the Pistorius family was in a “stronger position” to handle media issues, although Vuma will continue to provide guidance. 

One question comes to mind when faced with an issue like this: Is there a time when it is appropriate to cut ties with a client? Simply put, yes. In the case of Oscar Pistorius, Vuma Reputation Management felt that they had done everything they could to help Pistorius and his family, and had prepped them to handle the media themselves. Due to the murder accusations against Pistorius, there is only so much a firm can do to help the image of their client because of the severity of the crime.

Additionally, it is important for a firm to consider whether or not the client has breached their ethical or moral code of conduct. If Oscar Pistorius is found guilty, he will have committed an illegal act. A public relations firm does not want to damage their own reputation to support a criminal and has to decide if it’s worth risking the company name.  

Cutting ties with a client does not always have to be a nasty experience. Overall, it’s about being honest with them. If you feel that you can do nothing more to help a client, it’s best to suggest that he or she is served by someone else, and help them in trying to find a new firm. In the case of Oscar Pistorius, a “handover process” has been underway since the first week in March.

Do you think Vuma Reputation Management did the right thing by severing their client relationship with Oscar Pistorius? Comment and let us know what you think!

This guest blog post was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Tessa Cohn.

Where Do We Draw The Line?

This past Friday we all heard the news of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. 26 people were killed in the shooting that rocked the country and changed the lives of many. On the day of the tragedy, parents of the children  flocked to the school, understandably anxious to hold their children and make sure they were all right. Unfortunately, 20 sets of parents were not able to do so.

Throughout the day, news stations covered the scene nonstop. Twitter and Facebook went into overdrive with constant updates and live streams of press conferences from the police force on the scene. President Obama emotionally responded to the tragedy and expressed his condolences to the parents and family members of the deceased, on behalf of the nation. 

But on the home front, as parents were arriving at the school to pick up their children who just witnessed a shooting, reporters from major news stations like CNN and CBS were interviewing the 5-10 year old students who were luckily able to escape the massacre. Most were unable to really express what happened besides hearing screaming and gunshots. Conversations have been going on about how parents should explain the shooting and how such a traumatic experience will effect them in the future. In the meantime, national news stations were desperate to cover all the bases, even if it meant interviewing shaken up, traumatized children.

What do you think? Was the media right to interview the young victims of the shooting? Or should they have drawn the line given the circumstances?

PRotecting Your Morals

Public relations professionals seek to represent their clients in the best way possible. Most PR pros work long hours and make many sacrifices just to see their client's vision come to fruition. But when working with clients, does everyone really deserve representation? While not every client is ideal to work with, are there some that should be denied representation completely?

Public relations firms, like any other business, have to make a profit in order to function. Sometimes, these profits will come from less than picture perfect clients. However, that firm will also have to protect its own image and reputation. By representing an unethical or immoral client (such as a leader who brutalizes his or her people), the firm representing them can easily become associated with their clients image. All professionals and businesses are only as good as their reputations, and maintaining that reputation must always be at the top of their agendas.

Here are 4 tips to maintain your morals while practicing PR:

1. Know your values- Decided beforehand what you will and will not stand for. If you don't know what your own beliefs are, you may find yourself in a situation you can't get out of.

2. Know your workplace- Does the firm you practice in have a history of working with clients that go against your values? Make sure you do research on where you work and who you work with to avoid finding yourself in a conflicting situation.

3. Know your client- Before taking on a new client, be sure to have done some background research. Remember, who you represent can be a direct representation of who you are.

4. Know what's happening- If you don't know what's going on in the world, staying wary of unrepresentable clients may be hard. Stay up to date and make sure the people you work with are informed as well. A lack of information is never helpful.

What do you think about working with clients who go against a professional's ethics?

More Bad PR for News Corp. Shows Lingering Effects of Unethical Behavior

Murdoch-owned News Corp. is making headlines again this week, further demonstrating that unethical behavior does not pay.

The mother of a terrorism victim filed a lawsuit yesterday accusing the News of the World of hacking her son’s phone after his death. The lawsuit is the first legal action filed by a relative or victim of the 7/7 London train bombings, according to the Huffington post, but it probably won’t be the last.

The lawsuit is the latest in a long series of very public attacks against News Corp. after British investigations uncovered a slew of phone hacking, bribery and ethical violations by News of the World journalists. Charges have been levied against the media conglomerate by shareholders, victims, police, parliament and (especially) other media outlets.

This is just another lesson about the lingering effects of unethical behavior. News of the World had a daily circulation of 2.7 million before closing its doors this past August. To put that in perspective, one in every 23 people in the UK read the News of the World each day. The most-read U.S. Newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, has a daily circulation of 2.1 million. This scandal has already cost the News Corp. millions of dollars.

James Murdoch, the executive of News Corp and son of Rupert Murdoch, will head back to British parliament to testify for a second time in the upcoming days as the future of the media conglomerate remains in jeopardy. News Corp.’s mistakes should be a clear lesson to both journalists and public relations professionals: there is no room for unethical behavior in our professions.

Disclose!

The Federal Trade Commission has been cracking down on companies that are not forthcoming about paying for their endorsements. In 2009, the FTC adopted guidelines "making clear that many of the rules that apply to advertising and testimonials in the print world are still going to carry weight in the sometimes confusing and chaotic world of blogs and other new media," Joe Mullin explains in an article for paidcontent.org.

Recently, Legacy Learning Systems was fined $250,000 for commissioning positive reviews of its educational DVD designed to teach audiences how to play the guitar. The company and its affiliate marketers failed, however, to disclose that the company had sponsored the praise for its product.

This situation raises an important point for PR practitioners: we are in a unique position--and have a personal responsibility--to make sure our companies and clients are disclosing information properly.

Says PRSA board member Marisa Vallbona in an article on prdaily.com:

"'Tell--don't ask--the blogger to disclose the fact [that the review is sponsored] in his or her review. Otherwise you're asking the review to be considered fake and putting your and your client's reputation at stake.'"

Think critically!

As a student of public relations, I have learned a lot about crafting messages that will be received by both internal and external audiences. My coursework has also stressed the importance of being an active and critical consumer of the media.

I recently received an email from my credit card company encouraging me to donate to Japan relief using my credit card. Once I opened the message, I was given the option to donate either using my credit card, or by donating my reward points.

One one hand, I saw the campaign as a brilliant way to raise awareness about the huge need for relief in Japan. I also thought it was a smart way for the company to attach itself to a good cause.

However, as I thought about it more, I began to question the ethics of such a message. Particularly if people donate using their credit card, the company stands a chance of profiting from interest fees on the donations.

A closer look into the campaign revealed that the company itself had donated $5 million to relief efforts. This reaffirmed my original belief that the campaign was in good conscience, but I still couldn't help feeling a bit skeptical.

What do you think, is it ethical for the company to attach itself to a relief effort from which it could also benefit monetarily? Or is this a good example of corporate social responsibility? Either way, the campaign is a good example of the need to think critically when interpreting messages.

If you would like to donate to American Red Cross relief efforts in Japan, you can do so by clicking here. The site also provides a list of cash donation sites and the names of many organizations working to provide relief to the victims in Japan.

Facebook Releases More Personal Information

Some people are skeptical of using third party applications on Facebook due to reports of Facebook granting the developers access to personal information, but others continue to use the applications freely. However, the information these applications can access may have just become a little more personal than some would like, including your home address and cell phone number.

Personally, I do not have my address and phone number listed on my Facebook page because I didn't find it necessary to share that information with all of the Facebook world. Many of my Facebook friends do have this information listed, as they may feel more comfortable than I do about sharing it with all of their Facebook friends. Sharing the information with your network of friends is one thing, but sharing it with the developers of third party applications is much different.

To be fair, Facebook does request your permission before allowing the applications to access your information. However, I have to wonder how many people will click "allow" before realizing what information they are agreeing to share. According to an article on Switched.com, Facebook claims sharing the information makes it easier for users to register with other sites. In my opinion, it just seems like another way for spammers to gain access to us.

How do you feel about Facebook sharing this information?

Michael Vick's Endorsement Redemption

NFL quarterback Michael Vick once endorsed big name products such as Nike and Coca-Cola. After his arrest in 2007 for his involvement in dog fighting, he lost all endorsements. A few weeks ago, Vick appeared in an advertisement for the first time since his arrest and his return to the field as the Philadelphia Eagles' quarterback.

Vick's first new client is Woodbury Nissan, a New Jersey car dealership. While certainly a lot smaller scale than his former clients, it's a start. The dealership's executive manager said the response from their customer base has been mostly positive, but still negative from animal activists.

Vick's recent performances on the football field and seemingly good behavior off the football field have helped improve his image with many people. However, many people still feel that his involvement in dog fighting is unforgivable and should not be overlooked.

The ice is now broken for Vick to begin endorsing products again. It is likely that more companies will now begin considering Vick for marketing deals. Do you think Vick has redeemed himself enough with the public to begin representing brands again or will his past have a negative impact on the brands' images?

To read more about Vick's endorsement deal, check out the article on Philly.com.

Provocative in Pink?

Victoria’s Secret is known for its sexy and provocative line of bras, panties, and other intimate apparel and primarily targeted an older audience. In 2004, it launched its new Pink collection for young college students ranging from 18-22 years old. This line was designed to be cute and playful but some of their recent sleepwear contains sayings filled with strong sexual innuendos.

According to Anthony Hebron, spokesman for Victoria's Secret parent Limited Brand, the collection is intended “…to capture the spirit of the young with Pink.” Sayings like “Let’s get Naked,” “Unwrap Me,” and “Sure Thing,” are not exactly the ideal ways to describe the spirit of the young.

Victoria’s Secret’s image as a whole is provocative, but its Pink collection was supposed to be less provocative and for a younger crowd. This raises the question of where to draw the line between the two collections. The Pink’s collection has a lot of youthful colors and prints but sayings such as “Noise Maker” and “Naughty Not Nice” put a different spin on the cute and playful image Victoria’s Secret claims to be marketing.

The majority of girls who buy from the Pink collection are in college, high school and even younger because of the girly image of the collection. Perhaps Victoria’s Secret should reformat which audience they really want to target with the Pink collection and design appropriately.

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Jesenia Lepiz.

Public Relations for Potentially Dangerous Products

For public relations practitioners, positioning their client’s product or service to the public as a must-have is often challenging. This is particularly true if the client is offering a service or product that is potentially harmful. The New York Times recently published an article, A Safety Kink in Hair Relaxing, which examined whether the popular Brazilian Blowout treatment was dangerous because it contains low levels of formaldehyde, a cancer-causing agent if present in high levels. The article made me wonder how PR practitioners develop a communications plans to promote a client’s potentially hazardous product. From the article, it seems that convincing the public to purchase a potentially hazardous product, like the Brazilian Blowout, requires a public relations plan centered on image rather than down-playing the dangers of the product.

As PR practitioners in training, we are constantly reminded that our job is not to spin, but to present an honest image of our client’s product or service, in hopes that honesty translates to customer loyalty. While journalist Terry Pristin cited in his article that one stylist stopped offering the treatment because of its potential dangers, other stylists claimed that the demand and profits from the service was too great to lose. What is surprising is not that the stylists offered the service after reports surfaced that it contained the carcinogen formaldehyde, but that their clients still requested the treatment. Why would people knowingly put themselves at risk? In one word: image.

Perhaps looking at the way PR practitioners present other harmful products will better illustrate this point. Take cigarette companies, for example. Although any media promoting the product must legally let the public know the product is harmful, cigarette companies still earn millions each year. How are they able to do so, even after numerous studies on the dangers of tobacco? They present smoking as a cool thing that independent people do. By presenting the product as representative of a type of lifestyle or image (i.e. an independent person or in the Brazilian Blowout case an attractive person) some people will overlook the dangers of the product, just to attain an image society deems attractive.

While it is up to the individual to decide whether they will use a potentially harmful product, is it ethical for public relations practitioners to advocate the use of such products? Would you represent a client with a potentially dangerous product?

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Shari DaCosta.

Is The Media Glorifying Teen Pregnancy?

I’m sure many of you have watched, or at least heard of, the MTV reality show Teen Mom. The show’s ratings have skyrocketed and it is the #2 most watched television series in MTV history, second only to The Jersey Shore. The show is reaching a huge audience, but not without controversy.

The stars of the show (“typical teen moms”) have been made into celebrities overnight and are now featured on dozens of magazine covers. Many people think MTV and the media are being extremely irresponsible by glamorizing teen pregnancy. Others think that the show sets a good example, showing the consequences of premarital sex. The debate goes back and forth, but with teen pregnancy on the rise in the United States, many want a clear answer about the impact of the media.

According to Family First Aid, the United States has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births in the western industrialized world. Teen pregnancy costs the United States at least $7 billion annually. Thirty-four percent of young women become pregnant at least once before they reach the age of 20, and eight in 10 of these pregnancies are unintended. The statistics are staggering, but with all of the sex displayed across televisions everywhere, why wouldn’t teenagers be influenced by it?

According to MTV’s website, “Each episode interweaves these stories revealing the wide variety of challenges young mothers can face: marriage, relationships, family support, adoption, finances, graduating high school, starting college, getting a job, and the daunting and exciting step of moving out to create their own families.” It is true that some of the teen mothers are shown dealing with struggles, but most teen viewers cannot relate to these girls. Many teen and pregnancy organizations are extremely concerned about the impact turning teen moms into celebrities could have on teenagers. “Putting the stars of these reality shows on a magazine cover puts them on the same plane as any actress, singer, or other celebrity,” The Parents Television Council Director of Communications and Public Education, Melissa Henson, said. “It is sending the message to girls that if you get pregnant as a result of being sexually active; you could end up on TV or a magazine cover.”

I must say, I agree. We shouldn’t forget that about a decade ago, the sexual content in the media today would be completely unacceptable. Is it a coincidence that teenage pregnancy rates are higher?

Although the profits for MTV’s hit show Teen Mom are high, the image this show gives the network as a whole is controversial. Is the negative image that could result from this show worth the high ratings for MTV?

GQ's GLEE Cover Controversy

GQ is receiving mixed reviews about their November issue, which features provocative photos of GLEE cast members. The magazine is aimed at adult males, but the television show is geared toward a teenage crowd. The actresses in the questionable photos are in their twenties, but they play high school students on the show. They are shown in the magazine wearing provocative clothing and posing suggestively.

This situation may remind you of Miley Cyrus' magazine cover controversy in 2008. The 15-year-old posed for Vanity Fair wrapped in a bed sheet, appearing to be otherwise topless. While both Cyrus and the GLEE actresses appeal to a young fan base, the GLEE actresses are several years older than Cyrus and the characters they play on the show.

GQ included the photos of the actresses to sell magazines to their target audience, which is not the same as the audience for the show. The actresses are young adults, and old enough to make choices about the personal image they wish to portray. In similar incidents, it has been argued that such photos help actresses break away from their childish image and gain more adult acting roles.

Was GQ wrong for including provocative photos of the actresses because of their young fans or was the magazine just catering the photos to their target audience? Is it wrong for female actresses to express their sexuality if their fan base is mainly teenagers?

To form your own opinion, read more and see the photos here.

Poor Candidate or Poor Public Relations?

As you may have seen in recent news, Alan Grayson, the Democratic representative for the state of Florida, has debuted a political commercial that implies his opponent, Daniel Webster, is a member of the Taliban. In the clip, Webster is portrayed as a sexist, controlling and misogynistic conservative who claims wives should “submit themselves to their husbands.” While Mr. Webster’s quote is taken directly out of a speech he delivered, Grayson pushed the code of Public Relations ethics by publicizing the small excerpt completely out of context.

In what Webster had intended the public to hear, he explained how he valued the unification of a family and making moral decisions, which may not necessarily be what is said in the Bible. He tells husbands to move past meaningless sexism and see their wives as equals. In the actual speech (clip available here), Webster said:

“So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, 'She should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, 'love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it' as opposed to 'wives submit to your own husbands.' She can pray that, if she wants to, but don't you pray it.”

Any informed voter would have taken the time to cross reference the three-second phrase used in Grayson's ad with Webster's original speech. The speech had intended to show Webster's family values, but instead it gained him the unjustified nickname of “Taliban Dan.” The creators of this commercial believed they could tear down their opponent by misrepresenting him and trying to persuade the public he would control the senate in the same way he “controls” his wife.

One would like to believe all voters take the time to research the validity of each campaign before casting their votes. However, this is not always the case. For the sake of public affairs, and specifically the upcoming Florida election, we are lucky this commercial has received the attention it has. Had this commercial not made the nightly news, many voters may have believed what they were told and cast a vote based off of ignorance and misguidance.

As a Public Relations fan, do you think the creators of this commercial were successful? Do you think they have done well by Grayon, or will the backlash from the commercial negatively affect his campaign?

Perhaps this article touches upon a commonly asked question in the world of PR: Is it better to get negative press than to get no press at all?

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Meagan Prescott.

Verizon Wireless: Doing the Right Thing or Making Settlement?

Verizon Wireless has announced that they will be refunding 15 million customers who were wrongly charged for data use. Current customers will receive the refunds on their next bills and former customers will receive refund checks in the mail. Most customers will receive amounts between $2 and $6.

Verizon Wireless began their press release about the issue with "Verizon Wireless values our customer relationships and we always want to do the right thing for our customers." Of course Verizon wants people to interpret their action as a decision to "do the right thing," but is it the truth? According to a New York Times article, the FCC has been receiving complaints from Verizon Wireless customers about the overcharging since 2007. Three years later, Verizon is finally paying up as part of a settlement.

Every company wants to appear ethical and make their customers feel valued, but actions speak louder than words. I have a feeling the customers who have been waiting on refunds since 2007 would not agree that Verizon valued their relationship and wanted to do the right thing for them.

Do you think the statement Verizon made in their press release helped to promote an image of integrity or did the opposite?

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Elle magazine celebrated its 25-year anniversary this month with four covers, each featuring a popular Hollywood actress. While three of the covers were graced by full-length profiles of Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, and Lauren Conrad, the fourth one was a cropped, mid-chest shot of a lightened Gabourey Sidibe. It was apparent that Sidibe’s cover was somewhat lightened to match her fellow cover mates. Sibide’s cover brought up questions about whether the cropping and lightening was done on purpose due to her differences from the other actresses.

Elle’s editor-in-chief, Robbie Myers, is speaking out on behalf of the magazine and the photographers, Joe Zee and Carter Smith, who shot the pictures.

As for dealing with the negative feedback from the public, Myers is denying that the magazine lightened Sidibe’s skin by claiming the lighting in photos taken on the street looks different from the lighting in those taken in a studio. Myers is standing by the magazine’s decisions about the photos and their choice of artists. Defending the magazine is one thing, but defending the artists as well is a step further.

Although the magazine is adequately speaking out in defense of the covers, the situation could have been avoided altogether. The photos could have all been shot in the same formats or in equally different formats to keep the public from making any snap judgments.

Click here to check out the covers and decide for yourself whether Elle was right or wrong in this situation.

This guest blog was written by PRowl Public Relations staff member Jesenia Lepiz.

New Jersey School Buses May be Next Stop for Advertising

Pending its legislative fate, a bill could allow New Jersey school districts to raise money by selling advertising space on school buses.

It has been proposed that the school districts would put half of the money generated from the advertising toward transportation costs and the other half toward any other areas school district officials saw fit. This funding could help school districts restore losses incurred by aid reduction, such as cuts in staff and programs.

On the other hand, advertising on school buses directly undermines the efforts of organizations such as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), which strives to end the commercialization of childhood. The school boards plan to approve the age-appropriateness of the ads, but there is more to be considered than content.

One of the issues addressed by CCFC is "Marketing without Borders," the attempts of marketers to infiltrate all aspects of children's lives with brands. Advertising on school buses would be one more way for marketers to gain access to the impressionable minds of children.

Marketers could benefit from school bus advertisements by using the opportunity to reach a demographic of children living in a specific area. Financially strapped school districts could use school bus advertisements to help revive their budgets. But how ethical is advertising on school buses?