Cadence’s PR Blog

I found an interesting article concerning a disclosure from female pop vocalist Britney Spears after lip syncing at one of her concerts. The public audience was actually demanding a statement or explanation from Britney, but her spokesperson made the statement instead. He defended Britney’s case by claiming that it was “common knowledge” that she lip syncs at all her concerts. However, consumers of the tickets felt that they were mislead. This is where federal agencies tend to step in. If tickets or promoters of concerts do not disclose whether an artist will be live or lip syncing, they could be violating the Fair Trading Act. This goes back to our book on page 473 where the Federal Trade Commission act is discussed. Whether Britney’s PR people were poorly educated about the law or not, they have sacrificed more of Britney’s reputation among her fan base because they didn’t abide to the speech regulations in place.

Another interesting example that relates to PR and the law is the commercial ad campaign by Verizon Wireless that is currently running. The AT&T network gets bashed for not having a large network to accompany its flashy products, such as the iPhone. Supposedly AT&T is trying to claim libel in the case, but Verizon Wireless seems confident that they cannot fulfill the burden of proof because the information in their ads is factual. From what I have found so far, the ads have not been able to be stopped for that same truth. I think this is a smart attack made by Verizon because they don’t attack the products of AT&T; they only prove the inadequate service provided. This is smart planning because later on they may want to take on the iPhone in a contract, so relations with Apple are still important to keep positive.