Blackfish: The Fall of Seaworld Samantha Adams Medgar Evers College Fall 2022’ This case study showed the rise and fall of Seaworld as well as the lack of good ethical choices and public relations issues surrounding the brand. It involves PETA exposing the brand for the mistreatment of its animals, and how the company ran its business. PETA tried many times to take SEAWORLD to court about the treatment of wild orcas, but they did not get the change they desired. PETA then released BLACKFISH which detailed the story of a male orca Tilikum who was responsible for the deaths of two SeaWorld trainers and a SeaWorld trespasser. At first, Seaworld refuted the film saying that it was not true and that they take care of all animals that are housed in Seaworld. They refuted the claims from PETA. A denial campaign was started by the company to essentially sway the view of the public. The company even interacted with its consumers that had questions via social media to deny any wrongdoing. The use of media antics backfired on the company as it only pushed the story more into the public light. Seaworld then decided to send in undercover employees disguised as employees to try to infiltrate the PETA organization, which is very unethical to do. After being exposed for animal abuse and unethical behavior, the company was left trying to piece back together a brand that was tarnished by bad ethical choices and many public relations issues. The use of bots played a significant part in the way Seaworld communicated with its consumers. With Seaworld being a brand that was known in many households, many people followed their social media for any information. Due to their momentous presence on social media, the company used their social media influence to respond to consumer questions regarding Blackfish. Seaworld used bots on Facebook and Twitter to automatically answer questions that mentioned the word Blackfish and its claims. This way of communication can be effective if there is a real consumer relations representative answering any questions that consumers may have. By choosing to use Bots, not only does it show that you are not taking the consumers seriously, but also that they are just trying to spread misleading information. Seaworld response to PETA’s allegations shed light on the possibility that what PETA was saying was indeed correct. Initially, an email was sent to critics refuting the claims. I believe that Seaworld tried to use their influence on society to sway the public and the critics into believing the documentary was a lie. By going on CNN to address the claims by PETA it gave audiences a first-hand look into what they thought was an honest VP defending its business from false claims. To take it a step further, Seaworld posted “69 reasons you shouldn’t believe Blackfish” which was a document that took about the film script and tried to create a list of rebuttals that would be in their favor. By doing so, Seaworld inadvertently brought attention to their brand. Rather than address the situation head on, the company attempted to deceive consumers even more. Seaworld’s behavior was ethical because they were not being honest. By having an employee pose as an activist to try to infiltrate PETA it shows the lengths that Seaworld is willing to go to deceive not only PETA, but their own brand. The idea that PETA, an animal rights group, sued the company for animal right violations then for the brand to send in an undercover employee who tried to “cozy up to PETA employees . . . in an attempt to incite illegal acts” (PETA, 2015) is very unethical. By Seaworld even sending in the employee, that alone shows the lengths that they are willing to go. This attempt to discredit PETA backfired on Seaworld. Not only did it show what the company was capable of, it showed a lot about the leadership at Seaworld. Instead of denying the actions of the employee, Seaworld’s VP claimed that PETA regularly participated in similar behaviors. This alone shows that the company did not care about the issue at hand, Seaworld only cared about its image. If a company is involved in a public relations scandal or they are having any issues, I do not think they should be advocating for themselves. I think the focus should be on reassuring the public about the changes you will be making to address these issues. When a company decides to advocate for themselves, they may find themselves denying the truth and decieving not only their consumers that helped build the business into the brand that it has become, but also their investors. If a company advocates for itself, there are no boundaries that they are not willing to cross to save the business. Traditional ethics prohibits a person from taking an advocacy role because that person is then “biased” and trying to “manipulate” people. (chapter 3 pg 99) You cant be an advocate for your one business because would will be blinded by the issues that are being presented to you. If the person is objective and reasonable if may be possible. The issue is that most business owners would turn a blind eye to issues if that means saving their business, there just needs to be an accountability factor that is presented on behalf of the consumers. The approach Seaworld took was not acceptable or ethical. I believe that Seaworld is still trying to manipulate its consumers by continuing to spread false hopes for change. If PETA did not expose the brand, they would still be profiting from the abuse and mistreatment of orcas. With the number of apologies and published promises of millions of dollars in multifaced campaign “to start that conversation with consumers and give them a place to go to get the facts about SeaWorld, about our animals, about our world-class animal care, and let them make up their own minds” (Kermes, as cited in Titlow, 2015) nothing Seaworld says or promises to seem to be truthful. After years of trying to defend a brand with lies, it will be exceedingly difficult to regain the trust of the public again. Especially after it was revealed that the breading program had restrictions placed on by The Coastal Commission and the change was not because the brand was listening to its consumers. I think the deception by Seaworld has shown itself to be extremely significant and it will take years before they can be trusted again. References PETA. (2015). SeaWorld caught spying: Employee tries to befriend activists; incite illegal acts [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/media/news-releases/seaworld-caughtspyingemployee-tries-to-befriend-activists-incite-illegal-acts/. Titlow, J. P. (2015, August 4). SeaWorld is spending $10 million to make your forget about Blackfish. Fastcompany.com. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3046342/seaworld-isspending-10million-to-make-you-forget-about-blackfish.
