Canned Food or Planned Diet?

When reacting to a moment’s notice of an unprecedented event that is being publicized, there may be various moves on both parties — the corporation, the associated faces of the industry, and the larger public.


In the case of canned content, the act of service may sound unauthentic or generic and forced by going against the grains of company values. The plugs may become repetitive to the point that it sounds like a robot spitting out word vomit and trying to milk the idea until it dies. And in some instances, the act may sound plagiarized, an example is Melania Trump’s speech that was accused of imitating Michelle Obama’s. It is easy to be judgmental in the case of canned content because of the way that the brand or a person is portrayed to the public. The scripted words may even sound like procedural action and people from various departments of the company may be putting words in the CEO’s mouth. Whether or not he/she may or may not even be aware of the causes that the company is taking action for. Businesses who wants to attain a good image have to break out of the cold Silicon Valley corporate culture. Not to mention, the related industries may turn their back on the corporation because they want to stay ahead of the game. With that, it will lead to a chain reaction that social media is known for to curate relevant opinions. That will result in provoking the general public’s criticism, which can have potential to ruin the company’s reputation.


On the corporate management’s end, they may be in for a huge opportunity to develop their face of the brand and stance when figuring out the process of what, how, and when to broadcast their views. In relation to that, I think the most important aspect to consider is the timing of the words and being aware of the general public’s side at a particular moment. This is when analytic tools or insider reporters are most useful because they act as aides to clear blurry opinions of the crowd. When corporations are putting the public’s interest at heart (ie. their consumers), it shows with their genuine approach through their content and the outcome of the public’s positive reaction. For example, if the company donates money to fund local shelters, it will not put their ethical practices on full display but rather a limited view of what the company supports. But another example that counters that is the Starbucks corporation and they way they do business. They go the extra mile to offer benefits for their employees like dental care and pregnancy leave; most recently, the CEO announced that they would be hiring Syrian refugees. Or in the case of Uber who funds Trump, this relation would create definite backlash. These types of companies would have to follow suit with their brand’s values, by planning their course of action to draw a strong message. I think empathy and compassion the most fundamental viewpoints, and for those companies that not only promises to follow through their values, but actually does will harness public opinion at its core.