The pinch at the pump is on the tip of everyone’s tongues these days.  But coming in a close second is the rising cost of food.  Trips to the grocery store — and to the register — are becoming increasingly expensive, a trend that will likely continue for several reasons: 

1. Higher oil and gas prices are making it more expensive to produce and transport food to wholesalers and retailers; 
2. Food market speculation is contributing to a price spike in food futures and commodity markets, and it’s only expected to get higher;
3. Efforts to go green and reduce dependence on foreign oil by promoting ethanol use are driving up the cost corn and corn-based products;
4. And demand from abroad for staple foods like grains and rice are growing, while supplies are stagnating. 

So how is America responding to what has been coined by major media outlets as a “global food crisis?”  Rationing, rice rationing.  That’s right.  The nation’s largest warehouse retail chains, Sam’s Club and Costco, placed limits on bulk purchases of rice in late April due to the current supply and demand trends.  (Perhaps people would have complied with a simple request to cut back on their rice consumption for a month to help with the supply stockpile?) 

While the rice issue really is no laughing matter, it calls attention to a more important question for businesses in the agricultural industry at large:  What do mounting food production costs mean in the context of the current consumer spending slump?   

Some would argue in favor of subsidies as a viable solution.  While they do guarantee a relatively stable annual income for those in agribusiness - regardless of any market turbulence that may occur - it’s undeniable that they also keep some farms in business that otherwise wouldn’t [shouldn’t] survive.  (I will never understand why some people try to grow produce in places that it doesn’t belong.) 

However, the simpler way for Uncle Sam to get food prices back down would be to limit subsidies and adopt a more laissez-faire approach.  Fewer subsidies support the principles of free trade and ensure only the fittest in the free market survive.  After all, in reality the market doesn’t pity any industry, so why do farmers deserve a break?   (Bad weather is a business risk just like any other…)    

With or sans subsidy, big, well managed agriculture will always adapt and prevail.  Think about it.  Back before mechanized mega agriculture, half this country was directly tied into the production of food.  This was true as late as the early 20^th century.  With modern agriculture, about 3% of the country does what it used to take 50% to do.  

But what about the fate of local family farms, farmer’s markets and the like? It’s almost unfair to compare big brand food producers with local growers because each caters to a very different audience.  Let’s face it, although the number of farmer’s markets has nearly doubled in recent years, they will never serve as a base load source of food in this country.  They’re far too expensive and lack the market reach to be anything other than a local or regional food supplier. In fact, if we had to rely on them for 2000 calories a day per person in this country, nearly all of us would starve. 

However, that’s not to say that urban agriculture, grower’s markets and the increasing number of sundowners who moonlight as farmers don’t each have their place.  Exploring more direct marketing and distribution channels that play to the eco-friendly tune will likely also bode well for these newer forms of agribusiness.

Regardless of any government subsidies and/or farming legislation that may be enacted to bolster agribusiness, it is still we as the consumers who drive demand for one product type over another with the foods that we buy - and, inherently, where and how we buy those foods…and what types of producers supply them…and the prospect for big or small agriculture to thrive…and the prices that play out in the commodities market…and the cost of our food supply; the list goes on and on.  

Amazing what a tremendous impact such a simple decision like buying tomatoes can have when you really stop and think about it…(mass consumer education campaign, anyone?)…

From the JetBlue blunders that stranded passengers on snowy runways for hours without food, to the latest American Airlines MD-80 mishap stranding 300,000+ passengers, it’s no wonder that public sentiment about airline travel has taken a turn for the worse in recent years.  

The latest American Airlines debacle derives from a climbing trend of public frustration with the industry.  Thanks to outrageous airfares; countless flight cancellations; customer service slip-ups (not to mention external factors like heightened TSA restrictions adding to the aggravation equation),  public satisfaction with airline carriers across the board is at an all-time low, and brand allegiance is ripe for the picking.    

But what will it take to win travelers’ loyalty considering their overwhelmingly jaded attitudes?  What will people value most in choosing a future airline provider?  Cheaper prices; more amenities; better safety records; improved customer service; expanded flight offerings?  

From a public relations standpoint, the merger between Delta and Northwest couldn’t have come at a more opportune time in the wake of the American Airlines crisis.  It’s a prime example of a proactive step in the right direction to bolster consumer confidence amidst the industry’s painfully unstable times.   And more of these survival-style mergers could likely be on the horizon, given rising gas prices and shrinking - or in some cases crippling - profit margins, as evidenced by the onslaught of bankruptcies, including Aloha Airgroup, ATA Airlines, Skybus, and most recently, Frontier Airlines.   

Despite the tough times that airline companies have fallen on (and you know it’s bad when your own pilots are striking in protest of your safety records), beyond industry borders sympathetic ears are few and far between.  Customers are angry and cynical, and desperately awaiting a winged knight to swoop in and rescue them from their travel woes.  But considering the industry’s track record these days, chances are good they’d forgo the fairytale airline experience for an average, reliable alternative.  

And that’s the greatest shame in the way American Airlines handled the MD-80 situation. Had even the most basic principles of crisis communications been applied, American could have averted the ensuing PR disaster.  Instead, the company chose the path of inaction, and it severely compromised the integrity of the American Airlines brand in the hearts and minds of both existing and potential patrons.   

The bottom line:  In a turbulent market where brand loyalty is constantly up for grabs, a little effort will go a long way in positioning oneself against the industry grain.  But no effort at all in a relationship that’s already tepid on a good day is sure to engender a grudge not soon to be forgotten.   

Ever wonder how the media decides what makes the cut on the nightly news?  For those of us in the public relations industry, the tools of the earned media trade we’ve come to rely on (press releases, story pitches, etc.) may be taking a backseat to the newest spin on social media: iJournalism. 

What exactly is iJournalism?  Any digital news medium that allows members of the general public to upload reports, pictures, comments and videos about happenings that they deem newsworthy.  That’s right, journalism by the people, for the people. 

In a growing trend, major news networks like CNN are turning to user-driven content in an effort to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to current events and breaking news.  With CNN’s iReport platform, anyone can upload a “news” story and accompanying video or photo instantly - no censorship or authenticity verification required.  There’s even an “Assignment Desk” that is used to solicit stories on targeted subject matters.  

According to the recently launched beta site iReport.com, the media giant has received nearly 90,000 submissions from iReporters across the globe - 915 of which ended up being actual stories that appeared on CNN last month. 

Sure, on the surface it may seem like a great tactic to better engage the public in the media (not to mention the fact that CNN doesn’t have to waste its resources to generate interesting leads).  But certainly there are source reliability and accuracy issues to consider - both for the news networks whose credibility and reputations are at stake, and for readers who may unknowingly perpetuate false information in the media. 

So whether iJournalism is just the evolution of the old news tip line, YouTube’s latest competition, or social media caught on a slippery slope, either way it raises an interesting question to ponder:  If it’s true that we’re shaped by the media we consume, what happens when we become the media we consume?   

With advances in communications technologies, and the global inter-connectivity that has ensued, the lines between traditional forms of media are becoming a blur.  And so we find ourselves immersed in a social media melting pot; an eclectic blending of ideas and perspectives that, en masse, contribute to our shared understanding of the world we live in.  

Any type of media that relies upon interactions between people or the minds of many to gather and share info and resources in a collaborative manner falls under the category of social media.  Blogs, vlogs, discussion boards, wall postings, podcasts, instant messaging, picture/music sharing - they’re all forms of social media and they’re all playing an increasingly visible and meaningful role in our day-to-day lives. 

A far cry from traditional media and the days of communications hierarchies, social media has evolved into a limitless consortium of ideas and information that is continuously shaped by the input and intellect of those who use it.  Simply put, the messages we find in the media are no longer the products of a select few (reporters, opinion leaders, corporate executives and so on…).  With social media, anyone - regardless of age, education or background - can add to the conversation, if you will. 

As a communications company that focuses on public affairs, we (like everyone else) are inherently influenced by the meanings that exist in the media.  Yet thanks to social media, we also have the power to influence the content we consume by participating in the collective dialogue that drives it.   So to the social media savvy and novices alike, post on!  Join the digital discussion.  After all, if two heads are better than one, imagine what the minds of millions can do…