Defamation: Comparative Law and Practice

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Porter’s Five Forces in Public Relations
Competitive Rivalry
Power of Suppliers
Power of Buyers
Threats of Substitutes
Threats of New Entrants
Public Relations in Practice in Case of a Crisis
Elements of Defamation
Works Cited

Porter’s Five Forces in Public Relations

Public relations can be viewed as one of the most important departments of the organization. Initially, taken as an operational agency in the marketing department, public relations has increasingly gained relevance in the public forum and it is currently regarded as a strategic department which is related to the marketing department (Merkle 38). It is currently a department on its own. Porter’s five forces model can help guide the operations of the PR department in a demanding business environment. Taking into account each of the five forces, the PR department can employ a number of approaches.

Competitive Rivalry

In this case, the level of rivalry can be high or low. In case the level of competition is high, the PR must make use of different methods that might help differentiate the firm from others. The PR department, in collaboration with the marketing department, should devise ways that would give the firm a competitive edge in the market. This means that the department should strive to offer unique services that would differential the firm from competitors. This can be in form of a quick response to customers and always maintained interactivity with the buyers, even after the purchase is made in order to eliminate any possible post purchase dissonance (Kurtz 16). Even if the competition is low and the firm enjoys market leadership, the PR should continue devising new creative ideas that would help it maintain the market leadership.

Power of Suppliers

The power of suppliers is another issue that the firm should take into consideration. If the suppliers are few and they have a strong influence in the industry, the PR department will have a duty to ensure that the firm develops close relationships with them with the aim of ensuring that the supply is kept flowing steadily. This is because it may not be easy to move from one supplier to another. The PR, in conjunction with the procurement department, should develop positive relationships with suppliers to ensure continuous supply.

Power of Buyers

Buyers may have a strong or weak influence on the market. When the buyer is a large organization with a large purchasing power, it may have a strong influence on the market. In this case, the PR will have to establish liaisons with the marketing department to ensure that the firm positions itself in the market. In this case, the firm should prove that it is aimed at offering customers high quality services. In case the power of the buyer is relatively limited then it would still be advisable that the PR department maintains a positive outlook to ensure that the customers associate it with the best quality.

Threats of Substitutes

In some markets, some substitutes may be very close to the firms’ products. There is a risk that in case the firm does not perform the expected standards, it would be forced to close its operations due to the presence of substitutes. The PR in collaboration with the marketing department should develop value proposition that will make the company unique in the market.

Threats of New Entrants

When there is a threat of new entrants, the PR should ensure that the firm has a strong bond with the customers through positive and close communication.

Public Relations in Practice in Case of a Crisis

In the world of business, integrity is the most important ethic in case the firm wants to succeed. Armstrong (67) says that without integrity, a firm may build a foundation in quicksand. In this case, it would be very easy to fall in case of a slight ‘tremor’ in the market. Kotler (72) reports that Toyota had to recall all cars that had been produced in various outlets across the world when it realized that just a few vehicles had some problems with the breaking system. The problem with the breaking system had a negative influence on the firm. However, its quick response to recall all cars in the market was beneficial, though it was costly. The market was convinced that the company had its interest at heart and was not profit oriented. This saw the firm maintain the market lead.

The real estate developers are at the same scenario as that of Toyota’s. The Sunrise, for instance, has an obligation to respond to customers’ concerns appropriately. It is true that there is a pressure from banks to pay the loan taken from them. It is also a fact that suppliers, including Chemco, need their pay. Customers who purchase goods from the firm need clarifications on the products used in making the property. This is because they may easily demand for a refund or replacement of the flooring system. The firm must respond to all these issues with high integrity (Cunningham 56). It is tempting to take a shortcut out of this issue. This would mean that Sunrise would only need to deny vehemently that it used the toxic product in constructing the property. Since Chemco needs money from Sunrise and it would like to maintain positive working relationships, it would most certainly stop interfering and play along with this strategy.

The fears of customers would be settled and they would happily move into the apartments as soon as possible. The remaining units would also be sold easily and Sunrise will be in a position to meet all its financial obligations. However, this glory would be short-lived. The same inspectors may pay a visit to the units and confirm that the toxic material was used. The customers would completely lose trust and there would be little left for the firm but to pack and leave the market. In case the inspectors do not come, the customers who moved in would be affected and this would raise questions. The customers may consider taking a court action in order to be compensated by the firm for providing wrong information in the market.

There might be no any other option but to tell the market the truth. The best way would be to reach out quickly to Chemco and advice it to go public and inform the customers about the incident. Chemco can even consider hiring another quality surveyor to recheck the products for safety standards. Chemco should be advised by Sunrise and other real estate developers to find ways of lying off market fears. Sunrise should then inform its customers that it actually used Chemco’s evergreen laminated floor system but following the revelation, it would replace the system as soon as possible. It is costly to do this but it is the best option that would ensure future progress.

Elements of Defamation

Defamation refers to writing or saying something, which is not true. This is usually considered malicious. For one to be accused of malice, Kenyon (78) says that there are some elements that must be there in the defaming statement or the process of making such statement. Below are the elements of defamation.

The statement must be false. There should be a proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the statement made is false. It is therefore important to note that if someone spreads a given piece of information about another whether it is positive or negative and the information is true then that would not be treated as defamation. The statement must be untrue in context and content.

The statement must have been told to the third party. It must be proven that the lie was told to an individual who is not the plaintiff. It would not hold therefore if a person were to say something that is not true to the complainant. As Kupferman (46) says, the statement must be made available to the third party through print, oral or any other available channel of communication.

Defamation arises in case the defendant was acting out of malice. There must be a proof that the defendant was acting out of malice. It is necessary to prove that the reason behind the defendant making such a statement was to harm the plaintiff’s character. If the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must prove how this statement would harm him or her.

The statement must have caused damage to the plaintiff. The statement made must have harmed the plaintiff’s character.

Works Cited

Armstrong, Garry. Marketing: An introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.

Cunningham, Barton. The stress management sourcebook. Los Angeles: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Kenyon, Andrew. Defamation: comparative law and practice. New York: UCL Press, 2006. Print.

Kotler, Phillip. Marketing Insights from A-Z: 80 Concepts for Every Manager. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2003. Print.

Kupferman, Theodore. Defamation–libel and slander. New York: Meckler, 1990. Print.

Kurtz, David. Contemporary Marketing: Designing Customer Oriented marketing Strategy. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.

Merkle, Judith. Management and Ideology. California: University of California Press, 1980. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!