‘Distressed’ Dog Removed from Car

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
As much as I despise PETA, I cannot fathom why BGW would decline to comment.

SEAS has a conservation mission. The fact that an organization supposedly dedicated to animal rescue and care didn’t have anything to say about animal abuse on its own property by its own guests is either stupid, incompetent, or detestable. All they had to do was say that they are upset that it happened in their parking lot and looking into ways to prevent another such event.

Furthermore, ignoring groups like PETA is exactly what got SWO into the position it is in now. Did they learn nothing from Blackfish at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock, Alf33, Zimmy and 5 others
Nicole said:
As much as I despise PETA, I cannot fathom why BGW would decline to comment.

SEAS has a conservation mission. The fact that an organization supposedly dedicated to animal rescue and care didn’t have anything to say about animal abuse on its own property by its own guests is either stupid, incompetent, or detestable. All they had to do was say that they are upset that it happened in their parking lot and looking into ways to prevent another such event.

Furthermore, ignoring groups like PETA is exactly what got SWO into the position it is in now. Did they learn nothing from Blackfish at all?
Click to expand...
To be fair, BGW just declined to comment to the local news reporting the story, not directly to PETA. I'm sure if PETA addressed them directly instead of making a public statement, BGW would have responded.

I agree they should've said SOMETHING condemning the behavior just to look good, but I don't feel that they needed to, since you don't see WalMart condemning it in their parking lots. Not a perfect comparison, but I at least understand why they didn't want to get into a media battle with PETA and just decided not to feed into it, since PETA didn't go directly to them, they went to the public.

Not saying I disagree with you. I just understand why they didn't make a statement, and therefore by not making a statement they indirectly did make one saying they don't want anything to do with PETA.

I think they should've said something to avoid any potential backlash. But I feel as though this story will quickly fade into nothingness.
 
I don't think Nicole meant they should reply to PETA—I think she meant they should have replied to the inquiry from the media. And for the record, I totally agree with her.

BGW comes off looking like the issue isn't worth their time when they opt not to comment about a story. Marketing 101 says to control the conversation about your brand—that means staying engaged with the conversations and reporting happening around your brand every step of the way.

I consider the refusal to comment to the news media to be a massive blunder here. BGW had the opportunity to defuse PETA's aggression by saying "We hate this happened. It never should have happened. We are evaluating a number of options internally to better prevent our guests from doing something like this again in the future."

Instead, they are letting PETA control the whole story. It's a marketing blunder, plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Mushroom, Alf33 and 5 others
Yes I'm saying I agree they should've said something, all I am saying is I at least understand why they didn't, since a lot of places are tired of the whole corporate marketing necessities. In a perfect world, they shouldn't need to reply, but since the world is how it is, they should've replied to make them look good.

I tried to make it clear I am not disagreeing, but I guess I fell short.

I am completely agreeing they should've said something. I just understand why they didn't.
 
My point is that in the case of their orcas they refused to respond to the absurd claims from groups like PETA, and it ended up nearly destroying their brand. Making the same mistake again, when they are still seeing losses from Blackfish, is inexcusably stupid.

Any company leaders who are “tired of corporate marketing necessities” should find new jobs. It is irresponsible and unethical to refuse to combat false claims that can affect the bottom line. A lot of people are dependent on the company’s financial success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zimmy, horsesboy and Zachary
Unagi said:
peta_another.jpg
Click to expand...
Accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33, LudwigII and Unagi
Zachary said:
I don't think Nicole meant they should reply to PETA—I think she meant they should have replied to the inquiry from the media. And for the record, I totally agree with her.

BGW comes off looking like the issue isn't worth their time when they opt not to comment about a story. Marketing 101 says to control the conversation about your brand—that means staying engaged with the conversations and reporting happening around your brand every step of the way.

I consider the refusal to comment to the news media to be a massive blunder here. BGW had the opportunity to defuse PETA's aggression by saying "We hate this happened. It never should have happened. We are evaluating a number of options internally to better prevent our guests from doing something like this again in the future."

Instead, they are letting PETA control the whole story. It's a marketing blunder, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That kind of approach is how they dealt with the Blackfish "documentary". And we know how that turned out. They need to be out in front of stuff like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33, warfelg, Nicole and 1 other person
I would bet money that they aren't commenting due to liability reasons. Any good corporate lawyer would tell them to keep it zipped until the police investigation is complete. Bad marketing, maybe. But saying ANYTHING -- even something that may seem innocuous -- could lead to major problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ..… and Pretzel Kaiser
UnicornZiva said:
I would bet money that they aren't commenting due to liability reasons. Any good corporate lawyer would tell them to keep it zipped until the police investigation is complete. Bad marketing, maybe. But saying ANYTHING -- even something that may seem innocuous -- could lead to major problems.
Click to expand...
Actually it's hard for me to see something along the lines of "As a company that values the well being of animals we are deeply saddened and troubled that these events happened on the property of one of our parks. We are reviewing if additional signage or other steps might mitigate a repeat occurrence of this and remind all visitors that pet kennels are available at all parks." This addresses the issue from a PR standpoint without creating any direct allegation as to blame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33 and Zachary
horsesboy said:
Actually it's hard for me to see something along the lines of "As a company that values the well being of animals we are deeply saddened and troubled that these events happened on the property of one of our parks. We are reviewing if additional signage or other steps might mitigate a repeat occurrence of this and remind all visitors that pet kennels are available at all parks." This addresses the issue from a PR standpoint without creating any direct allegation as to blame.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but even that says a few important things:
  • The event happened on property that the park was responsible for
  • There may not have been sufficient signage
To you and I, this looks like NBD and a proper response...but a corporate lawyer would never approve that. The ONLY statement I could see them getting away with is the statement in their initial report, which is "We're cooperating with the investigation." For the record, I'm not saying that it's RIGHT to not say anything. It definitely opens the park up to some PR issues. But I do think this is WHY they've been silent since that initial interview.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Flyer and Ice
UnicornZiva said:
Yeah, but even that says a few important things:
  • The event happened on property that the park was responsible for
  • There may not have been sufficient signage
To you and I, this looks like NBD and a proper response...but a corporate lawyer would never approve that. The ONLY statement I could see them getting away with is the statement in their initial report, which is "We're cooperating with the investigation." For the record, I'm not saying that it's RIGHT to not say anything. It definitely opens the park up to some PR issues. But I do think this is WHY they've been silent since that initial interview.
Click to expand...
Accept both the park and police have said it happened in the parking lot on park property. It's a fact not in dispute. Th.gere also is no requirement or liability in not having signs so there is nothing wrong with saying they are reviewing that policy given that they are taking heat for it.
 
horsesboy said:
Accept both the park and police have said it happened in the parking lot on park property. It's a fact not in dispute. Th.gere also is no requirement or liability in not having signs so there is nothing wrong with saying they are reviewing that policy given that they are taking heat for it.
Click to expand...
The legal system makes no sense, we won't ever understand. It is unspoken corporate lawyer policy to NEVER admit liability, regardless of how obvious it is. It's whatever
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziva
The pro-pot advocates try to say pot is harmless. It DOES affect judgement and it makes one not care about important issues. Is THIS what we really need in the USA? I am pretty liberal but pot is destructive like other drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flyer
super7 said:
The pro-pot advocates try to say pot is harmless. It DOES affect judgement and it makes one not care about important issues. Is THIS what we really need in the USA? I am pretty liberal but pot is destructive like other drugs.
Click to expand...
My understanding from someone who actually knows details was the kid was slightly high snd hed priors when he realized he was about to be arrested and that the arrest would more serious given he was high, and had additional substance on him, and the annimal cruelty charge on top of it. He panicked and attempted to flee in the course of doing he officer pushed the officer away in a mild but aggressive manure. The standard for assault on an officer is rather low people have been arrested for as little as spitting on one it doesn't haveed to be a violent knock down brawl basically as soon as he laid his hands on the officer he could be charged. Often times these are charges thrown on to push the possible punishment higher and incentives a plea bargain to the charges that they really want to get the person on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pretzel Kaiser and jornor
My best guess is that they a) did not know about the kennel there, or b) they’re a motherfucking bitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad