[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
- From: "Dean Sanchez" <DSanchez(at)fcci-group.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:07:17 -0400
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-Index: AcFAXPs/fNZeh3d1S4esobvDao/QxQAABO+gAC+0ONA=
- Thread-Topic: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe
ClearChannel is backpedaling on the list, now. Said it never existed
even though a regional senior vice president of programming had admitted
that it did. When will companies learn that it's better to admit it
made a (PR) error, than to deny its existence? If they said "sure, we
over-reacted, but we've corrected the problem" and go on, the issue
would be yesterdays news. Now, it's almost sure to backfire on them.
http://slate.msn.com/code/chatterbox/chatterbox.asp?Show=9/18/2001&idMes
sage=8318