Personal Qualities vs PR Qualifications Debate and Guest Speakers...

Let me start by saying that the guest speakers, previous graduates of our program, were quite helpful and personable. As I am returning to the States, most of what they had to say was not directly relevant to me, but they had some general advice that could be applied to job searches in general. I wish I had known, however, that their presentation was going to be more of an informal Q&A with a brief introduction, as I would've thought out some questions to ask. I hate being put on the spot to think them up...it always seems like the silence gets a bit awkward when you are mentally scrambling to produce a question. Then I start thinking, have I taken too long? do they think I'm not interested? am I wasting their time? etc...

Also, the debate was confusing. Possibly because both sides seemed to be saying sort of the same things and talking circles around each other without coming to an easily discernible point. Okay, so maybe that was me, and I was having trouble following the discussion as I was expecting a bit more formal of a debate with both groups at the front of the class and the speakers facing us, but I was sitting behind one of the groups, who spoke with their backs to me, and they were hard to hear. And there seemed to be a lot of irrelevant facts being thrown onto the table that were not logically connected to any argument, at least in my opinion. Actually, I know someone else agreed with me on that point, as she mentioned it.

So basically, I think that this pair of groups has little experience in formal debating. Which is not really their fault, of course. But I took debate in junior high and high school, and, as such, was expecting a structured debate--not a group squabble, with people interrupting others with questions about their facts without letting them finish speaking (quite rude form, actually!!).

That being said, however, I do think the team supporting the motion that success in PR is predicated more on personal qualities and connections than on PR qualifications presented more persuasive statistics. Yet as I have mentioned before, statistics can lie. The fact that most current PR practitioners do not have PR qualifications probably does, as Michaela rightly pointed out, have more to do with the fact that many UK upper management PR personnel did not have an option of taking courses when they were first starting out. But now that courses exist, it makes sense to study PR if you wish to pursue a career in it. Also, the fact that 77% of PR graduates find a job within six months does seem persuasive on the against the motion side of the debate...but how many of these positions are above entry level? If all of these positions are entry level, does that necessarily denote "success"?

And then, even the team supporting the motion that PR qualifications were irrelevant seemed to be saying that some educational background in an allied field was important. So maybe PR qualifications themselves are not necessary, but relevant qualification and education is. And the point I was trying to express, but couldn't quite articulate, is that if most agencies require an educational background in a related field, then you are bridging over into the realm of qualifications rather than pure personal qualities and contacts. In other words, if writing, speaking, and teamwork skills are required, and these are more often acquired or honed as a result of some sort of education in the communications field rather than say biology or physics, then we are still talking about qualifications, not personal qualities. A natural gift for communication without lots of practice is rare, I would propose. And even natural tendencies are further enhanced by educational opportunities and can erode without them.

I think of personal qualities more in terms of personality than education, myself. So perhaps my issue with the debate is just a question of semantics within the debate topic. And further to that point, how does one define success? Is it just the ability to get an entry level job upon graduation or looking for work, or is it the achievement of management level within a company or agency, or is it a personal happiness issue? A little explanation of the term success would have allowed for a more informed argument and subsequent class polling. One team seemed to be talking about the ability to acquire an entry level position, and the other seemed to be speaking of the ease of switching from allied fields of study. No one seemed to talk about income levels or stress levels or ability to change between sectors without qualifications or ability to move up the ladder to management...but all of these could be considered factors of success to some people.

At the end of the day, I found neither team very convincing. I held the same opinion going into the debate as coming out. I chose the devil's advocate position, but without really supporting the motion one hundred percent. Irrelevant is a very absolutist term, and as I've written before, I don't favor arguments from these positions. I would have been happier with a more-than/ less-than type of debate. It is my opinion that personal qualities are more relevant to being hired than a piece of paper, although the paper is certainly important in most job applications for skilled working positions.

Selling yourself in an interview, however, is generally based on a host of abilities and experiences that don't necessarily come across just by waving a diploma. Many people earn degrees who can't apply the things they learned in practice. Many other people have relevant experiences in other areas which they can highlight to make up for the lack of diploma in the field. So it really depends on how stringent the company in question is on the requirements for earning a position. If they insist on degrees in PR, obviously even those with related experience but no degree are not going to make the cut. But if a company just wants basic communication skills backed up by some sort of diploma, then any communications degree should do, or really, an aerospace engineering graduate who was an active member of Toastmasters or some such organization might equally fit the bill if they can demonstrate their abilities adequately.

For instance...although this is not a PR example...bear with me, I have a point: I worked for Royal Caribbean for nearly two years as youth staff. The company prefers to hire candidates who hold education degrees, but they will take anyone holding a bachelor's degree with at least five years experience working with children and who can demonstrate good communication skills and a fun "entertainment"-type personality, as youth staff are part of the company's shipboard entertainment division. So I was able to get the job with an English degree rather than an education degree, although it was a bit more work to convince them to hire me. And while the majority of youth staffers are education people, I still worked with an aeronautical engineer, a mathematician, several sports & leisure and travel & tourism graduates, and some psych and poli sci degree holders, as well. The important thing to the company was the demonstration of relevant experiences and skills, not the stated degree preference. Yet notice that they did require a degree of some sort, the earning of which implies a person's intelligence, trainability, dedication and strength of purpose all fall within company standards.

So, I would say that although some educational background and experience is important to gaining entry into the PR industry, I wouldn't say that I agree that it must be a PR degree (as I believe was the point of the motion-supporting team). That being said, however, a PR degree can't hurt your chance of gaining a position if you are being compared with a relatively equal competitor with a degree in some other field, as the hiring company would have to expend fewer resources in your training than your competitor's.

Podcasting is Pretty Easy…

Guide to Podcast Production: Step-by-Step (ish!!)

 

Okay y'all, I went online tonight and went through all the steps again, so I am including details as exactly as I can. Possibly some of it is really self-evident, but I am trying to cover all the levels of familiarity y'all might have.

Part A: Download Audacity, a free recorder and editor program.

• Go to http://audacity.sourceforge.net
  
• Click on "download Audacity 1.2.6"
  
• You need two items from this page, the Audacity 1.2.6 Installer, and the LAME MP3 Encoder.
  
• Click on "Audacity 1.2.6 Installer"
  
• Follow the steps on the installation wizard…basically save the file to your computer, then open it and it will install.
  
• Go back to the "download Audacity 1.2.6" page.
  
• Click on "LAME MP3 Encoder" to go to the LAME download page.
  
• Click on either the first option "for Audacity on Windows" or the third option "for Audacity 1.2.6 on Mac," depending on what kind of computer you have.
  
• LAME is a compressed zip file. When you download it, you will need to extract all files from the folder for it to work properly. If you save the LAME file to your hard drive, use the Windows file view, and it should give you an "extract all files" option on the left hand menu under folder tasks. There is an Extraction Wizard that will do all the work, just follow the dialogue box. If your computer is running an older version, you may have different options, but I can help you if you run into trouble.
  

Part B: Record your Podcast!

• Remember some tips…write out a script first so you stick to a focused message.
  
• Check that your microphone in your computer is working with the Audacity program; you may need to adjust the volume.
  
• Run a test podcast of the "check one-check two" variety and play it back before you record your actual podcast.
  
• After you record your podcast, you have two options: save it as an Audacity project, or export as an MP3. Both are located under the file menu on the recorder box.
  
• To post it to a blog, you must export it as an MP3. The other is if you want to go back and edit the recording within Audacity itself.
  
• Name your file and save it to your hard drive.
  

Part C: Getting Media Storage Accounts and Publishing Software

• Go to www.ourmedia.org and register for a free account. Write down your password!!
  
• You can also register for a free account on a linked website called Internet Archive at www.archive.org, which is helpful if you want to eventually embed the podcast into your blog rather than a hyperlink to your OurMedia account.
  
• Get the software that speeds the upload process to the media storage sites at http://spinexpress.com. Click on the green "download now" button and register for a free account before it will allow you to download the software.
  
• TIP: I used the same email account, password, and user ID for all 3, which made it easier!!
  

Part D: Uploading Your Podcast to Media Storage

• Open your SpinExpress program.
  
• Click on "publish" on the lefthand toolbar.
  
• There are two steps. The first is to browse your hard drive for the MP3 file of your podcast. Once you have selected it, you need to choose a destination site from the dropdown list. For our purposes, use OurMedia, obviously!!
  
• Click "publish" in the window under the two steps.
  
• A Publish Wizard pop-up box should now appear. It has many steps, but the dialogue in each step should make it clear. I am going to guide you through it now, but I may not catch all your questions…so if I leave anything out, again, email me.
  

1. Read the info on the first screen and push next.
   
2. Enter your login information for either ourmedia.org or archive.org. It really helps at this point if you have signed up for both!
   
3. Read the information on the licensing page and push next.
   
4. Fill in the publishing form: title of your podcast, your name (for creator, copyright holder, and poster), the year, a short description of what your podcast content covers, some key words that would help someone find your podcast in a search of OurMedia's site, and select audio from the dropdown list for file format. Push next.
   
5. You may be asked to fill in more information: a copyright statement, such as 2008 by Candace Hughes or whatever, the publishing location (I used UK), the type of audio file (spoken word most likely, unless you got fancy and did yours to acoustic guitar!!).
   
6. If you are asked to select the type of MP3 file you are uploading from a long drop-down list, you can find out this information by holding your cursor over the file icon for your MP3 on your hard drive. For example, the one I did for my class was 128 kbps MP3.
   
7. After you fill in this information, the file will upload on its own, and the progress bar will turn completely red when it is finished. This should only take a few minutes unless you have a slow Internet connection. When the bar goes red all the way across, push next.
   
8. The file is now uploaded to OurMedia and Internet Archive (if you chose to get the latter account as well), and a list of links to your file will appear.
   
9. Write down these links just in case you need them!!
   
10. Click Finish.
    

Part E: Posting the Podcast on Your Blog.

• If you chose only the OurMedia account, you can now post the hyperlink to your podcast in a blog entry. Do this by typing in your link (or cutting and pasting), highlighting it, and pushing the chain-link icon at the top of the post editor. You may need to paste your link in a pop-up box with the entire URL address.
  
• People who come to your blog can now listen to your podcast by following the link to OurMedia and listening to the podcast on that site.
  
• If you chose to join Internet Archive as well, you have another option. You can download the code for a mini-player containing your podcast by following the link to your podcast on that site.
  

1. Click on "embedding and help" which is an option in small print just under the title of your podcast in the main box at the center of the page.
   
2. Three boxes of code should appear. The one you choose depends on the speed of the connections to play back and the type of MP3 you uploaded, but in most cases, the first box should work. Try the second and third options in turn if the first one doesn't work!!
   
3. Copy the complete code in the top box. Go to your blog post editor and past the code into the entry text area.
   
4. Publish your post, and you should see a mini-player appear on your blog. If it doesn't, try the other code options.
   

That's it…you should be able to do a podcast and post it to your blog. Please email me if you run into any problems, or any of the other members of the new media module!

CSR: A Lecture, a Book, and a Question...

Last week's guest speaker on CSR was really good. I liked the real-world examples from his everyday working life. Very cool, as it was more concrete than some of the books I've read on CSR (my newest dissertation idea). I am reading a book, however, that is very good, and although it deals with marketing, some of the ideas in it are applicable to the CSR issue. It's called Marketing to the Social Web by Larry Weber. It's full of concrete detail, as well. But more importantly, it really stresses the idea of transparency by businesses who use social networking as PR / word of mouth marketing tools. Which is really the complete opposite of how PR started out, what with Bernays advocating the behind-the-scenes manipulation of the masses. Interesting how business practices in general have gotten more ethical in the past century. Yea forward progress! Okay, so back to the CSR lecture. I can't decide what part I liked the most...the handy bullet point list of why CSR has come into being in the past decade--especially great for the dissertation!!--or the 5 complaints about / excuses for not using CSR. However, I am not sure that one would have to be a specialist to create a good program for a company. I mean, as a consultant who specializes in creating such programs, of course it makes sense for Mr Garfunkel to make such a statement. But really, since, as stated above, the core elements seem to be voluntary social / ethical best practice carried out with transparency, then it seems to me that such a program could be conceived by the communications team. Is Mr Garfunkel perhaps falling victim to the depiction of PR as insubstantial spin?

Diversity Communications...

The presentation by Zena Martin, managing director of Acknowledge Communications, on diversity communications and "engaging diverse markets" was quite interesting. But I was thinking...if public relations practitioners, advertisers, and marketing specialists are all aiming to tailor their messages to specific groups of stakeholders/audiences, then why did Ms Martin have such a struggle when opening her business? Wouldn't it make sense that these specific groups might be different in more than just age or political affiliation or geographic location? That maybe they also differ in ethnicity, religion, spoken language, country of origin, sexual orientation, etc? And wouldn't it naturally follow then that a company should take this into account when developing its communications with the public in order to engage as many of its potential customers as possible? Unless of course, they are offering a very niche product to a rather homogenous group of users.

Still, it just seems quite logical to look at the diverse audiences one is trying to reach and consider the best ways to reach them, possibly by utilizing a specialist consultant such as Martin. When she put up the statistics on the consumption power of the Afro-caribbean, Asian, gay and lesbian, and retiree segments, I was boggled by the amount to which it added up, particularly in the latter segment, which spends nearly 300 billion pounds each year!! Why oh why would it not be in a company's best interests to reach out to these niche audiences, particularly if they compose a major portion of your consumers?

I never really considered before attending this presentation that England might not be big proponents of diversity communications, as it is a country that celebrates its cultural diversity...at least it does in the marketing material!! But Martin's statistics were quite convincing in showing that England doesn't do as good of job as advertised. Which amuses me, honestly, as I come from Texas, in the Southern United States, a region stereotyped by outsiders as narrow-minded, racist, under-educated, etc. Yet I've grown up with signage in both English and Spanish, and the kindergarten classes teach simple words in both languages. In my hometown, there are even Korean/English and Vietnamese/English signs on buildings, and it's not a town that I would characterize as overly progressive. Surely with all the racial tensions we experience in the South (esp as portrayed on TV), we should be behind the times in diversity communication? But it turns out we're not...

But I would predict that diversity communications catches off quickly in areas it was not previously utilized, however. If we are to keep up in the global village of business, if we are to engage audiences of different ethnicities on a national level as well as multinational for very large companies, then it makes sense to try to target your audiences in ways that appeal to their subculture. And that will enhance company reputation, attract brand loyalty by previously overlooked market segments, increase sales...ah, the healthy bottom line!!

And then after the discussion we went back full-circle to the women v men in pr debate from the previous week. How to attract more men to pr? And, keeping in mind the week's presentation on diversity: How to attract more ethnically diverse practitioners? Well, it's my contention that it's important to work at the about-to-go-to-uni-but-have-no-idea-what-to-study level to attract more students to study pr period. To attract more men, have some male practitioners go on recruiting drives. To get diversity, show potential students that diversity exists and is respected in the field. Offer bursaries and scholarships through the professional organizational bodies. Do some pr industry pr, for heaven's sake!!

Notes on a Survey Taken Recently...

Today I responded to one of the University-wide appeals to participate in a research survey. I was thinking at the time that it's kind of like the particularly American phenomenon of being a former waitress who tips well every time they eat out regardless of service because I know how hard it is for waiters and waitresses to make ends meet without the tips (cause their base rate in the States is under the minimum wage, as they are expected to make most of their money from tips). In other words, as I am about to embark on a research study of my own, possibly utilizing an electronic survey, I know that it is sometimes difficult to obtain good results due to a lack of responses. So I thought I'd be a good girl and answer the survey. Of course, the incentive to be given a chance to win an I-Touch didn't hurt anything, either. Note to self: bribery works!!

At any rate, the survey was basically on work personality-orientation. I've studied the topic before in psychology. There are four basic types of personality according to most sources: driver/leader, creative/dreamer, analytical/detail-oriented, and social/compassionate. Supposedly, by taking a personality test, you can figure out which is your main affinity, and business managers can utilize it to discover which candidates would best fit into their work culture or to form effective project teams.

But I don't really trust the research. First, the questions are very abstract and assume a non-situational dependence. For instance, say you were asked to rate your priorities in producing an independent report. These might very well be things such as planning the report and meeting a deadline, communicating effectively, producing an error free document, and trusting your own capabilities. They might not be working on a team effectively, considering long-range business goals, worrying about the company's bottom line, or following company rules on sexual harassment (the latter because you do this all the time anyway, I hope, and this is irrelevant in a solo-produced project).

However, the questions on the work-personality survey don't account for how your priorities change once you are given a task-specific topic versus a nebulous, vague topic of general priorities. For instance, if you were to rate a series of answers as most like you to least like you, and were given choices that are both task-specific--such as producing error-free work and making convincing presentations--and general goals--such as following company procedure and getting along well with others...what do you choose? Shouldn't they all be important? Don't you, at various times, concentrate on each one? And isn't it true that if you say the least important to you is producing error-free work as you know you will always do this regardless, but maybe the most important is dealing well with others as this is often a life-long learning process for us all, you might look to a company like a person who is interested in gossiping with workmates and produces sloppy work, but can also recite policy 45 paragraph 2 on command and is just so darn likeable with the clients that it's hard to get rid of you? Is that a good impression you'd want to make? And is it even accurate??

Take the follow-company-procedures example. If this is offered with three other options, it might not be selected, as it's a matter of course. Or it might be selected because when you take the survey you are in the process of reviewing the efficiency of existing procedures and discussing with your manager how best to revise them. But selecting this option when applying for a position with a company could mean one of two things: you are a rebel or a person who won't follow blindly inefficient or shady business practice. One is negative, one is actually quite positive (barring, of course, that the company in question isn't knee-deep in unethical business practices). But how do you actually convey your exact personal philosophy, or in other words, whether you are a rebel or an ethical spokesperson, in a 4-choice closed questionnaire?

Let's look at it this way, as it's all in the wording. Take the above example and let's think of four hypothetical options for what is most and least like you.

On following company procedures, I am:
a. a blind follower even when I know that the company is doing things illegally because keeping my job and not making waves is important.
b. generally interested in following the rules, but if I identify an inefficient practice and think I could improve company performance, I would address this with my manager.
c. always questioning authority because I always think I know best.
d. afraid to point out possible alternatives to inefficient company policies because I don't want to be told 'this is the way it's always been done'.

Well, now, that presents quite a different view of things doesn't it? Where are your priorities now? But what if the question instead said this...

In my job, I would describe myself as most like and least like the following:
a. a follower of company rules.
b. a producer of quality work.
c. a caring and enthusiastic team member.
d. an innovative thinker.

In the last scenario, wouldn't a perspective employer want to know that you can think up new ideas, play well with others, and give them good results on assigned tasks? Might it not be such a bad thing, in this particular case, if you said that you were least interested in following the rules? But then again, they don't want to hire a thief or unethical employee, either. And that might be the reason that a candidate really selected option a.

So, basically, I think that trying to figure out worker personality with most existing surveys is somewhat questionable, as they all tend to try to nail down which category you fall into without taking into account that a closed questionnaire may not be the best assessment of the complexity of personality, and that the answers a person chooses may more accurately reflect their concern in what the company would think of each selection than whether they are actually true of a person's personality...and then would the latter even cover the question of accuracy all of the time in every possible situation?

I once completed an assignment in an undergraduate rhetoric class on persuading an audience on some educational hot button topic at the time...I can't remember exactly what the question was now...but the relevant point is that we had to use the same set of statistics to support our arguments for both sides of the issue. It was surprising at the time how easily that can be done. But now, I think it was a valuable lesson. Social science statistics do not always accurately reflect the complexity of a situation, and rarely are they capable of quantifying the human element.