Taco Bell & Personality Branding: A large burrito, extra media

Hey everyone! Long time, no talk. Well, we’re going to change that today, and we’re going to shake up the topics as well. I’m here to tell you all about a company that I love, even if I’m not crazy for their product. That company is Taco Bell.

Taco Bell is one of the best-known names in fast food, but they’ve hit more than their fair share of speed bumps along their journey to ubiquity. In the fallout of a lawsuit in 2011 (which was later dropped) over whether or not the beef the brand uses can legally be called “beef” due to the presence of additional fillers, the company experienced a dip in sales and a decline in consumer reputation. This inspired the Taco Bell team to roll out with three new product lines and – for our analytical pleasure – a fiercely compelling social media campaign.

There are three trends that you’re supposed to focus on when creating an effective brand personality through social media, and Taco Bell totally nailed all of them:

1. Personality attribution – what kind of “person” do you want your brand to be?
2. Tone and language – how will your brand “sound” to your publics?
3. Interactivity – what kind of engagement will your brand have with its followers?

Let’s dive into each of these a little deeper.

Personality Attribution

Studies have shown that there are several key brand personality traits that influence consumer perception, and Taco Bell has carefully picked which of those traits and qualities they wish to project. Taco Bell has also exemplified the traits of excitement, authenticity, and commitment, which have worked to influence consumer purchasing behavior based upon their perceptions of the company as innovative and likable. Taco Bell has also placed a premium on transparency, which is crucial in building trust around the brand. Most of these traits are exemplified in their social media messaging, which we’ll get to in a sec. But first…

Tone & Language

One of the key moves that launched Taco Bell’s personality branding success was its command of the irreverent language and tone that defines its millennial target audience.

By utilizing their social listening tech and cultivating an on-point brand personality, the company is able to use their messaging to project that persona and connect with their audience.

Two-Way Communication and Interactivity

Now, this is where Taco Bell really shines. Personality attribution and tone/language help to set the stage for this trend – the aggressive, entertaining, and downright hilarious messaging that the company pushes through its social media channels.

Taco Bell knows their audience, and strives to mirror their online behavior. The company has stated that it wants to convert its “followers” to “friends,” and in order to do that, capitalizing on the brand’s personality and voice is a necessity. Taco Bell achieved social media dominance by using social listening tactics to stay relevant in conversations, actively participating in trending topics, utilizing reciprocity in social engagement, and going outside the social media sphere to have real-life interaction with influencers and fans.

Basically, all of Taco Bell’s hard work and social media listening skills have paid off, and they’re currently reaping the rewards of their efforts. Revenue for the chain is up, they’re ranked among the most social brands, and they’ve achieved tremendous success on their social platforms.

You go, Taco Bell!!

 

 

 

Artist’s Gonna Leave Leave Leave Leave Leave: Spotify and the Streaming Revenue Controversy

I’m sorry in advance that this is the second Taylor Swift post on this blog. I promise that I’m not usually like this – she’s just been doing a lot of really cool things lately regarding ~law and the media~ and I’ve been all over that like syrup on a stack of pancakes.

Now, with that said…

Taylor Swift has removed her entire catalogue from Spotify.

The Cat Princess herself, not giving a hoot about Spotify and gazing upwards into the future of massive record sales coming her way

 

This means that I can no longer turn on “private streaming” and rock out to songs tailored for preteens while pretending I actually hate her. As a broke grad student, I’m super upset. However, TSwift’s decision 1) Makes a lot of financial sense, and 2) Provides AMAZING fodder for bad jokes!

Let’s look at the reasoning why Our Lady of the Swift has told the world’s favorite streaming service why they’re never, ever getting back together (I am so sorry, I can’t help it).

 

REASON 1: EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED (FINANCIALLY)

It used to be that, years ago, boys and girls would flock to record stores on the days that albums were released. Now, most people patiently wait for the new albums to leak, go on iTunes, or be available for streaming. Services like Spotify allow for labels to receive some revenue for songs that are streamed, but it’s a paltry price at best.

 

REASON 2: OUR SONG (ISN’T MAKING ANY MONEY)

It’s estimated that labels receive one penny or less per song streamed – and that doesn’t even account for what portion of that goes to the artist. Swift’s posse has said that she’s collected less than $500k from Spotify over the past year for her music. While I personally would do terrible things for that sum of money, it’s a laughable sum compared to the other forms of revenue within the music industry.

 

REASON 3: (ARTISTS NEED TO HAVE THEIR) EYES OPEN

One of the biggest factors driving the push away from streaming services such as Spotify is that artists, by essentially giving their music away, feel less of a sense of pride in their work. Swift says that by demanding album sales through the discontinuation of streaming services, artists are reclaiming the value of their art and being appropriately compensated for it.

 

With artists like Jason Aldean now following our blonde heroine’s lead, I wouldn’t be surprised to see if other large artists will pull their music from streaming services prior to a new album release. It seems like Spotify is simply going to have to…

SHAKE IT OFF.

 

Okay, that’s it. I’m done. I’m so sorry.

 

 

Movie Digest: Terms and Conditions May Apply

In today’s online world, we aim to make things as quick, simple, and streamlined as possible. What the average consumer isn’t aware of, though, is that the click-through terms and conditions that almost every website require the users to waive many privacy rights that, a mere 15 years ago, would have been considered fundamental. The documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply goes into what the implications of these click-through agreements are, and outlines just how pervasive the fine print truly is.

 

Prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, the world of online privacy was simpler and less aggressive about collecting your online information. Cookies were used to anonymously track user data, and companies voluntarily listed their privacy policies on their websites. However, after the attacks on 9/11, the world of online privacy turned on its head with the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. Language that said online entities were allowed to track and collect your information to “prevent or investigate criminal acts” became the norm, and with that came a new era of governmental influence on the way the internet works.

 

Companies quickly realized that anonymity of information isn’t a profitable business model. Once it became evident in the early 00s that user information is a lucrative endeavor for online companies, entire fields of business have been devoted to harvesting and using this information that users have waived the rights to. AT&T was one of the earliest corporations to engage in wiretapping to aid government agencies, and despite multiple promises by politicians, there’s nothing to prove that these procedures have ceased for any of the telecommunication companies.

 

What this documentary brought to light was the abundance of information that people voluntarily give about themselves on the internet. An Austrian teen proved how much information Facebook truly collects about its users when, after badgering the company’s Ireland office for the data from his profile, the company handed him a document with over 1000 pages. This document detailed everything he had ever done on the website, which he had only used sparingly for a three-year period. He found that every action he had ever done that involved Facebook was preserved in his data profile – even information that he believed had been deleted. Online companies have the right to retain this information and even information that has been wiped from a public profile is still able to be seen by governmental agencies that get ahold of your data files.

 

Even more pervasive than Facebook, however, is the online trail each of us leave without ever realizing it – and just how easy it is to track that data trail. Surveillance technology conventions occur with regular frequency and are attended by dozens of vendors, and each offers technology that allows the purchaser to track every move of an online target. One product, called Finfisher, targets individuals and tracks their every digital movement. It was even used during the riots in Egypt to trace the moves of the rebels and even predict their next motions. This is due in part to the fact that cell phones hold more information about our personal lives and actions than any other device, even our laptops. Technology is readily available to hack into your online profile and analyze your every move, as long as you’re able to accommodate the price tag.

 

Overall, this documentary opened my eyes to the depth of government involvement in our everyday lives online. The point of the film was to make the viewer think twice about posting on Facebook, and that goal is certainly

All in favor, say “woof”

John Oliver’s talk show, Last Week Tonight, has been highly regarded as one of the most biting new shows in the “news satire” field, but he took it to an entirely new level on Sunday with his depiction of US Supreme Court oral arguments – played by dogs.

In an article on the WSJ Speakeasy Blog, the author contends that the oral arguments by the Supreme Court are paralyzingly boring.  However, the author implies a question that has been expressed by countless other bloggers, television personalities, and even by John Oliver himself in the clip: Why must the Supreme Court place a prohibition on recording devices in its courtroom?

Many have an issue with the fact that the most prominent court in our nation is also one of the most secretive, particularly when it comes to the few decisions that it hears and publishes opinions for. Oliver contends that the reason he created this bit to begin with is to draw the attention of the American public to the importance of the Supreme Court opinions. However, I disagree that creating a visual aid for the arguments is the best way to go about creating public interest.

The Supreme Court says that they don’t allow visual recording of the arguments for fear that the words will be taken out of context. However, that risk is still present with the audio recordings. I disagree with the author (and the media as a whole) that Supreme Court arguments should be recorded, simply because the act of having a camera facing towards you when you’re doing anything of importance changes the way you behave.

It’s been proven that the presence of visual recording devices alters behavior, and although it usually changes people to behave better, that could have disastrous consequences for legal authenticity. Part of what makes the Supreme Court so revered is that the judges are appointed for life, they (purportedly) are free of bias, and because of this, they are the ultimate interpreters of the law of our land. If anything about this free-flowing legal idealism is altered, the entire scheme of our justice system changes, and not for the better.

Although I disagree with the implications of the Supreme Court being recorded in future arguments, I’ve got to admit – seeing Ruth Bader Ginsburg adjusting her glasses made me absurdly happy. Check out the clip below:

Albums that aren’t yet “out of the woods”

On October 13, Taylor Swift released the second single, “Out of the Woods,” from her upcoming album 1989.

With all the publicity that she’s been getting for her new music, I can’t be the first to express surprise at the fact that this album hasn’t leaked yet. And, as someone who (until recently) didn’t consider herself to be a Taylor Swift fan, I’m a little disappointed that snippets of the new material aren’t yet floating around the dark corners of the Internet.

The lack of album leakage for 1989 made me begin to think about what the implications are for copyright and sales statistics once the album actually is finally released. Much to my surprise, leaked albums usually aren’t detrimental to album sales, and it seems to be a pretty close split between artists who are upset about leaks versus artists who don’t mind.

When I searched for our lady TSwift’s leaked album, however, I had an interesting message pop up on my google search:

I’ve had to do a decent amount of research on the DMCA for my law classes, and it’s interesting to see the type of forms and arguments used when filing a copyright violation notice under the Act.When you follow the link to ChillingEffects.org, the page that comes up is a list of ten copyright violations for upcoming albums (generally for lesser-known artists, but includes the likes of T-Pain, Lenny Kravitz and Taylor Swift) an extensive laundry list of website URLS with the “offending” leaks. The complaint was submitted by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, and effectively worked to put a hold on the further activity of those links (and the allegedly illegal content within them).

The issue here arises such that when a company sends a cease-and-desist notice to a website, they’re constricting the free speech rights of the website owner. Whether or not the owner has been engaging in illegal activity is an entirely different story, but the DMCA imposes regulations when a web poster has circumvented copyright regulation measures regardless of whether or not a copyright violation exists. Although I’m a believer that copyrighted works should be protected, I take issue with the fact that it’s possible to be found in violation of a law when you’ve committed no foul play.

So, while the rest of us go about our daily lives and trudge about until we can legally get ahold of the shiny new pop persona of America’s most popular blonde chanteuse, I’ll remain content with humming along to YouTube videos.

Get to Know Her: Emma Watson

This week, we’re going to highlight a woman whose name has been as prevalent in political discourse as it has been in movie theaters: Emma Watson.

While most people know Watson as the witty and hyper-intelligent sidekick in the Harry Potter series, her life off-screen has become just as influential, if not more. This is because she currently serves at the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, and has been making waves over the past few months on the topic of gender equality.

Watson’s support of the UN HeForShe initiative, launched with a rousing press conference September, kicked off a movement that has led to increased conversation regarding equal rights and feminism. Although feminism and equality are generally looked at as “women’s issues,” Watson opened the door for men to join the conversation. She formally invited them, through her speech, to participate in a dialogue surrounding equality between the genders, and caused the internet to be abuzz with discussion after her talk.

Because of Watson’s intervention and support, the UN’s goal of reaching 100,000 men to join in solidarity with the HeForShe movement was accomplished in just three days. This is a staggering statistic, and shows how Watson’s use of her star power allowed her to reach and impact an audience that otherwise would not have been interested. This proves that celebrities who have media prevalence can create positive political and legal change, as channeling their influence can lead to profound impact on the general public.

Watson graduated from Brown University in 2014 with a degree in English Literature, and shortly thereafter was appointed as the UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. She has promoted education for girls in impoverished countries, and beginning her work with HeForShe is undoubtedly a step in the right direction with her long-term plans and passion of gender equality.

Recap: Wednesday’s #PRWritingNH Twitter Chat

This past Wednesday, I was lucky enough to moderate a Twitter chat for my PR writing class with professor Kate Brodock. Although I’d participated in twitter chats before (AdWeek and Chelsea Krost host great chats every week), this was my first time at the helm of such an endeavor.

Earlier in the week, the classes had come up with six questions to ask the chat participants over the course of the 40-ish minutes that the chat was expected to run. Here’s the list:

1. How has the creation and widespread use of social media changed public relations and our jobs as PR practitioners?
2. What role does data and analytics play in PR and why is it important?
3. How can you make sure a companies voice is consistent on Twitter and other social media platforms?
4. How can companies effectively  prepare for crisis communications? What processes can they put in place?
5. What company do you  feel is doing a good job in PR and why?
6. When tweeting, what are some components you should include?  What should you avoid?

I expected there to be plenty of active participation amongst class members, and I was overjoyed that everyone participated enthusiastically. What I wasn’t expecting, and what was a pleasant surprise, were the participants of the chat that came from outside of our class.

Tuned in to #PRWritingNH. Hoping to learn lots for my position as the VPPR of my @Toastmasters local club. #TwitterChat

— LaTonya | The Journey to 10,000+ Steps (@SisSpeaksLife) October 1, 2014

Christina here from a healthcare org. Some of you may end up in the charitable sector – maybe HC. Happy to pop in. #PRWritingNH

— Patients Canada (@PatientsCanada) October 1, 2014

These two participants became active in conversations with the students, and their contributions as professionals from outside of our classroom were valued within the chat.

The Twitter chat served as an educational tool in learning how to moderate online content, and what a struggle it truly can be. I didn’t realize how all-encompassing (and a little stressful!) it could be to monitor the responses that pour in after posting a question, and the difficulty in sifting through those responses in a timely fashion to reply or retweet.

One of the most interesting elements of the twitter chat, in my opinion, was keeping up with the sidebar conversations that inevitably erupted between members. Question 5 elicited some of the most passionately-fueled responses, and a group of students became involved in a conversation about Apple’s proficiency in public relations. The variety of opinions on the matter was unexpected, and the conversation between the 4-5 main students involved carried on for around 10 minutes. It developed into a spirited debate, and it was interesting to view the progression of the conversation from a moderator’s standpoint.

Overall, seeing how an online conversation can add to one’s real-life understanding of a topic was an eye-opening experience. I look forward to twitter chats in the future, and I have a newfound understanding of their potential and importance in an industry driven by social media involvement.

“Celebgate” Attorney and Google Begin Legal Tango

On October 1, 2014, Google was reminded of how poor a choice it is to not reply to your email in a timely fashion.

Martin D. Singer, a partner in the law firm that represents over a dozen of the celebrities whose photos were leaked over Labor Day weekend after their iCloud accounts were hacked, sent an email to Google and YouTube executives stating the grounds and demands of a lawsuit in wake of the leaked photos. Martin’s 4-page email details how Google failed to take measures to prevent the spread of the leaked photographs, and by doing so, was in violation of copyright law.

The primary ethical issue here is that Google has been on notice of the demand to remove the photographs for over four weeks, and their lack of action is blatantly in violation of their own codes of integrity and honesty. Singer’s letter highlights the discrepancies between Google’s mantras and their actual conduct, and makes the fierce allegation that the online giant was only looking out for their bottom line – not their ethical line.

As for the legal basis of the suit, Singer is choosing to implicate Google on charges related to the violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which mandates the removal of copyrighted material by ISPs upon request. By saying that Google had knowledge of the stolen copyrighted material and continued to disseminate it online by allowing for the pictures to be searched and refusing to take down the websites that hosted the photos, Singer claims the corporation has violated copyright and privacy law.

Twitter has been buzzing with news of the $100m lawsuit:

Celebrity attorney threatens Google with $100M suit over photo hacking: http://t.co/yLKl4fIraw #WhatsTrendingTODAY

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) October 3, 2014

Google Responds to Jennifer Lawrence Attorney's $100 Million Lawsuit Threat http://t.co/w7c1Ij18jL

— The Hollywood Reporter (@THR) October 2, 2014

…although some are skeptical of the celebrities’ intentions.

It was cool when they were standing up for themselves over leaked nudes. Now they're just capitalizing and milking it http://t.co/h97Lvcw5f4

— Taylor Martin (@caspertek) October 2, 2014

Huh, I guess they're afraid to sue Apple because Tim Cook might take away their iPhone: http://t.co/rJ6quZSM1X

— Eric Johnson (@emjohnson17) October 2, 2014

All in all, the right to privacy for the impacted women has undoubtedly been breached, but in the “wild west” of copyright law on the internet, the chances of a lawsuit of this magnitude being successful aren’t high. This story is only just beginning, and the coming developments are likely going to have an impact on internet copyright law in the long run.

Seven Things That Made Me Yell At the TV When Watching “How To Get Away With Murder”

I’m going to be honest here – I’m not the biggest fan of most television shows. When I want to sit in front of a glowing box and numb my brain, I prefer to watch HGTV and cry at the fact that House Hunters is actually scripted television (how dare they?!). So, when I sat down to watch the series premiere of How To Get Away With Murder last night, I had high expectations.

As someone who’s been through the meat grinder that is your first year of law school, I was curious to see how the notorious 1L was depicted on the small screen. I was terribly, terribly disappointed, and I had to be restrained from getting up and shutting the TV off halfway through the episode. Here’s what made me nearly throw the cable box out the window.

 

1. They missed the huge blood spot on the floor when they were cleaning.

HOW DID THEY NOT SEE THE MASSIVE PUDDLE OF BLOOD?!

 

2. Only gunners wear suits to class.

Do less, people.

 

3. Those classes are WAY too large. What kind of school is this?!

Most first-year law classes don’t have more than 60-70 kids in them. This class had at least 100.

 

4. There were about a million ethics violations in and out of the courtroom.

I can’t even begin to list them. The entire courtroom scene would have every lawyer and judge in front of the ethics bureau for a suspension hearing.

 

5. No sorority girl would let a maintenance guy just walk into your house.

Nobody called for him? DON’T LET HIM IN!

 

6. The first day of class is NOT like The Paper Chase.

The teachers try to scare you, but it’s not as intense as that.

 

7. Law students do not have time to commit a murder.

We barely have time to bathe. Disposing of a body is a LOT to ask.

 

More than that, though, I was annoyed at the image of the legal profession that this show, amongst others, provides for the general public. Law isn’t as conniving, vicious, and heated as television makes it seem – on the contrary, most of the time law is pretty calm and based on paperwork and research. A very minuscule percentage of cases actually do make it to trial, and even then, cases are typically settled outside of the courtroom. There are times that law can be sexy and entertaining, but this show amplifies it to an extreme and creates a negative image of the criminal defense field.

Although the show was entertaining, I don’t think that I have enough patience to refrain from yelling at the TV every Thursday. What did you guys think of the show?

Not Giving It Up So Fast – Robin Thicke and the “Blurred Lines” Copyright Controversy

For a man who rose to fame by crooning “I know you want it,” Robin Thicke needs to take a step back and consider what he wants in the legal battle surrounding his hit single, “Blurred Lines”.

In an article from The Hollywood Reporter, the unsealed depositions of Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams are made public in light of the current lawsuit between Thicke and the estate of Marvin Gaye. Gaye’s estate has claimed that Thicke’s single is an unauthorized derivative of Gaye’s 1977 classic, “Got To Give It Up.” In the disclosed documents, however, both Thicke and Williams state that Thicke had little to do with the actual writing of the controversial song – mainly because Thicke was extremely intoxicated for the majority of the songwriting.

The transcripts show that Gaye’s counsel played a mashup of “Blurred Lines” and “Got To Give It Up” on top of each other, and apparently, the result was entirely disastrous. You can try for yourself and see if you hear any similarities, but to my untrained ear, it doesn’t seem as if the two songs don’t share anything other than a similar, but not identical, bass line.

In fact, the article focuses on how these celebrity depositions seem to be more of a distraction from the actual issue of the case – the copyright infringement suit.

In order to pass their motion for summary judgment, the Gaye estate as the cross-claimant to the suit must prove that Thicke’s song is substantially similar to Gaye’s. What the general public is taking from the deposition disclosure has nothing to do with that fact, and the bulk of the media attention surrounding the pending litigation has been in regard to Thicke’s substance abuse.

The most important point of the article is how the depositions don’t do anything to refute the claims that the songs are in violation of copyright law. While the deposition reveals how Thicke says that he admires Gaye, he states several times that the songs are very different and points out the differences between the songs within the transcript. Simply taking inspiration from a song isn’t a violation of copyright law, and the article even says, “[h]ow all this fits into the ongoing lawsuit is an intriguing question in and of itself.”

Although Thicke’s and Williams’s statements are certainly shocking, they aren’t particularly relevant to the legal matter at hand. This article does a good job of recognizing that fact, and helps to bring the legal argument back into the forefront of the audience’s mind by placing the legal discussion at the end of the piece.