I have created a new approx 7-min podcast in regard to the question "does new media pose any serious challenge to traditional media?". Give it a listen and tell me what YOU think!
If you could see inside my head, this is what it would probably look like...
29 February 2008
28 February 2008
Women in PR...the Debate
Here's the debate's premise as stated in class: "women will always work in PR, but will never run it." Despite the fact that this ended up being a rather more emotionally charged issue in a class with only 3 men and 20+ women than I was expecting, I personally don't see this to be a valid premise for a debate.
It's the absolutes "always" and "never" in the premise to which I take exception. I was so frustrated last night when I got home from class knowing that I learned a name for that logical fallacy at some point in my undergraduate career in one or many of my rhetoric and speech classes, but all of my books on these subjects are by necessity back home in Texas. I have so many of them that it would've been ridiculous to ship them all over to London for six months, and who knew which ones I'd want to look at and when? Ah! It was somewhat amusing, however, sitting at my desk with words like enthymeme! syllogism! warrant! evidence! Aristotle! Toulmin! screaming around inside my head and no books to refer to in order to shut them up. The amusing part being, of course, the newest smug I-told-you-so that I intend to rub-in to my sister and boyfriend, who generally can't get enough of making fun of me for keeping all my textbooks, which I do so I can refer to them later...ha! I love being right!
Anyway, being as I was lacking the resources in paperback, I instead googled "logical fallacy" to see if I could come up with the name of the problem I was thinking of, but to rather disappointing results, I must admit. There were some pretty good lists of fallacies, some with 42 different listings and examples, but none with the "argument from absolutes" that I was looking for, unless it was talking about moral absolutism vs relativism, which wasn't what I had in mind. And I still can't remember what it is called--obviously not absolutes, but something else. I'm thinking it's in Toulmin and has something to do with the questionable acceptability of warrants without qualifiers, but I'll have to keep looking.
Although, I suppose it could be just lumped into the invalid deductive reasoning category and left at that. At any rate, if you see a random, all-caps exclamation in the middle of another blog entry, be forewarned that things I am ruminating on tend to spring to mind unpredictably in the middle of an unrelated activity, and the all-caps thing would mean that I've finally remembered this annoyingly just-out-of-reach term. However, it's more likely that I'll be taking a shower or shelving books at the library or be out with friends in the middle of a busy street in central London than writing my blog when this happens--the last two in particular, as they have more of an embarrassment factor when I go to shouting random words.
Okay, so if you want to check out some of the sites I visited, I am including a couple links below. It may help you in your argumentation, if you have never learned any of these before. Or it may remind you of things you've almost forgotten, like it did for me:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
Anyway, to my point...yes, I did have one...the way the premise is stated now, it really only takes one woman in a position to run PR to overturn the whole proposition. Cori related the names of 3 female CEOs in class.
Done!
But then, being me, I started thinking that the phrase "will never run" needed more clarifying anyway. Call it an argument from definition. What is meant by 'run'? Be in the majority of senior management PR positions or CEO's of consultancies of the industry as a whole across all geographical areas? Or be in some management positions period? In England only? hmm...that would definitely change the structure of the argument.
Also, Michaela pointed out that the vote on the issue before and after the debate was virtually the same (if you discount the fact that the team opposing the premise all voted for themselves afterwards, and whether they really convinced themselves or were just giving a show of solidarity to their team is a more relevant question since the voting was a show-of-hands).
I think that audience opinion remained the same because both teams chose to argue from facts exclusively. Facts may elucidate opinions, but they do not generally change them; emotions do. There is a pyramid (of course there is, isn't there always some type of pyramid or square grid in communications theory? why can't we ever see a trapezoid or something, just to change it up?!) for the types of appeal to give in arguments (it is from Aristotle, in case you didn't know and were curious). One point on the pyramid is logos...the facts (which both sides used, as mentioned above). Another point is ethos...an appeal from an authority or one based on the credibility of the speaker. The last point is pathos...the appeal to the emotions in the audience (ahhh! beware the mob!). The best arguments use a mixture of all three appeals, particularly since the pathos appeal is generally the most effective in inspiring action or a change in behavior; both sides of the women in PR debate would have benefited from using it in their arguments.
And, just to put some ethos behind my last statement, Roger Haywood, PR guru, wrote this in his book Manage Your Reputation (see my bookshelf on the left sidebar for a thumbnail), "Sometimes, managers rely too much on logic and believe that all decisions are made on a rational basis alone. The factor they may overlook is that decisions are influenced by opinions and attitudes. It matters significantly what people feel..." (that's on p. 11, by the way).
Lastly, I just wanted to reiterate my point about the average age of the male-centric PR management currently in place, particularly in the UK and the US. I don't know for certain, having not done much actual research into the subject, but I would venture an educated guess that a lot of these guys got into the game when it was unfashionable or, indeed, actively discouraged, for a woman to work outside of the home. Many are nearing retirement age. I find it hard to believe that if the PR industry is 70% female, as someone gave out in class, that if even a mere 15% of the upper management of the industry were to retire Baby-Boomer style within the next 10 years or so, that they would be replace--each and every one--with the males that comprise the 30% of practitioners. Some will, yes. Of course they will, your sex shouldn't determine your viability as a management candidate. But probability and statistics tell us that women should get the majority of those roles. If they don't, then the PR industry is actively engaging in sexism when making its management decisions, and I know that in my lawsuit-happy country (the US in case that description didn't give it away!!) that that is grounds for a class-action lawsuit.
Which reminds me of another point that made my skin boil. What was the survey and who mentioned it in class? Something about CEOs and managers being reluctant to hire replacements for themselves amongst the female contingent because they might go on maternity leave?! Uuuughhh! Really?! Whatever happened to the progress women have made in many countries with daycare provisions?
Well, at any rate, I guess it will be interesting to watch as it develops...
It's the absolutes "always" and "never" in the premise to which I take exception. I was so frustrated last night when I got home from class knowing that I learned a name for that logical fallacy at some point in my undergraduate career in one or many of my rhetoric and speech classes, but all of my books on these subjects are by necessity back home in Texas. I have so many of them that it would've been ridiculous to ship them all over to London for six months, and who knew which ones I'd want to look at and when? Ah! It was somewhat amusing, however, sitting at my desk with words like enthymeme! syllogism! warrant! evidence! Aristotle! Toulmin! screaming around inside my head and no books to refer to in order to shut them up. The amusing part being, of course, the newest smug I-told-you-so that I intend to rub-in to my sister and boyfriend, who generally can't get enough of making fun of me for keeping all my textbooks, which I do so I can refer to them later...ha! I love being right!
Anyway, being as I was lacking the resources in paperback, I instead googled "logical fallacy" to see if I could come up with the name of the problem I was thinking of, but to rather disappointing results, I must admit. There were some pretty good lists of fallacies, some with 42 different listings and examples, but none with the "argument from absolutes" that I was looking for, unless it was talking about moral absolutism vs relativism, which wasn't what I had in mind. And I still can't remember what it is called--obviously not absolutes, but something else. I'm thinking it's in Toulmin and has something to do with the questionable acceptability of warrants without qualifiers, but I'll have to keep looking.
Although, I suppose it could be just lumped into the invalid deductive reasoning category and left at that. At any rate, if you see a random, all-caps exclamation in the middle of another blog entry, be forewarned that things I am ruminating on tend to spring to mind unpredictably in the middle of an unrelated activity, and the all-caps thing would mean that I've finally remembered this annoyingly just-out-of-reach term. However, it's more likely that I'll be taking a shower or shelving books at the library or be out with friends in the middle of a busy street in central London than writing my blog when this happens--the last two in particular, as they have more of an embarrassment factor when I go to shouting random words.
Okay, so if you want to check out some of the sites I visited, I am including a couple links below. It may help you in your argumentation, if you have never learned any of these before. Or it may remind you of things you've almost forgotten, like it did for me:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory
Anyway, to my point...yes, I did have one...the way the premise is stated now, it really only takes one woman in a position to run PR to overturn the whole proposition. Cori related the names of 3 female CEOs in class.
Done!
But then, being me, I started thinking that the phrase "will never run" needed more clarifying anyway. Call it an argument from definition. What is meant by 'run'? Be in the majority of senior management PR positions or CEO's of consultancies of the industry as a whole across all geographical areas? Or be in some management positions period? In England only? hmm...that would definitely change the structure of the argument.
Also, Michaela pointed out that the vote on the issue before and after the debate was virtually the same (if you discount the fact that the team opposing the premise all voted for themselves afterwards, and whether they really convinced themselves or were just giving a show of solidarity to their team is a more relevant question since the voting was a show-of-hands).
I think that audience opinion remained the same because both teams chose to argue from facts exclusively. Facts may elucidate opinions, but they do not generally change them; emotions do. There is a pyramid (of course there is, isn't there always some type of pyramid or square grid in communications theory? why can't we ever see a trapezoid or something, just to change it up?!) for the types of appeal to give in arguments (it is from Aristotle, in case you didn't know and were curious). One point on the pyramid is logos...the facts (which both sides used, as mentioned above). Another point is ethos...an appeal from an authority or one based on the credibility of the speaker. The last point is pathos...the appeal to the emotions in the audience (ahhh! beware the mob!). The best arguments use a mixture of all three appeals, particularly since the pathos appeal is generally the most effective in inspiring action or a change in behavior; both sides of the women in PR debate would have benefited from using it in their arguments.
And, just to put some ethos behind my last statement, Roger Haywood, PR guru, wrote this in his book Manage Your Reputation (see my bookshelf on the left sidebar for a thumbnail), "Sometimes, managers rely too much on logic and believe that all decisions are made on a rational basis alone. The factor they may overlook is that decisions are influenced by opinions and attitudes. It matters significantly what people feel..." (that's on p. 11, by the way).
Lastly, I just wanted to reiterate my point about the average age of the male-centric PR management currently in place, particularly in the UK and the US. I don't know for certain, having not done much actual research into the subject, but I would venture an educated guess that a lot of these guys got into the game when it was unfashionable or, indeed, actively discouraged, for a woman to work outside of the home. Many are nearing retirement age. I find it hard to believe that if the PR industry is 70% female, as someone gave out in class, that if even a mere 15% of the upper management of the industry were to retire Baby-Boomer style within the next 10 years or so, that they would be replace--each and every one--with the males that comprise the 30% of practitioners. Some will, yes. Of course they will, your sex shouldn't determine your viability as a management candidate. But probability and statistics tell us that women should get the majority of those roles. If they don't, then the PR industry is actively engaging in sexism when making its management decisions, and I know that in my lawsuit-happy country (the US in case that description didn't give it away!!) that that is grounds for a class-action lawsuit.
Which reminds me of another point that made my skin boil. What was the survey and who mentioned it in class? Something about CEOs and managers being reluctant to hire replacements for themselves amongst the female contingent because they might go on maternity leave?! Uuuughhh! Really?! Whatever happened to the progress women have made in many countries with daycare provisions?
Well, at any rate, I guess it will be interesting to watch as it develops...
27 February 2008
Dissertation Dilemma...
I am not good at the distilling ideas thing, I have discovered. I am very good at coming up with broad, vague ideas. But bringing them into focus is an area that heretofore always involved brainstorming with colleagues. I've long been known as the "ideas girl" but never as the "details and practicalities guru." Despite the fact that I am a dedicated list-maker and diary-keeper!
I am determined to change this with the dissertation project. I look on it as my chance to boil down my vague ideas (reputation-crisis management at either Disney or Royal Carribean) into a workable topic suitable for surveys, interviews, etc. I am more interested in Disney and their steps to protect themselves from the various screw-ups of their teen talents. But then again, it might be tempting to go with Royal Caribbean, as I actually worked on a ship during a reputation-crisis and saw the management plan in action firsthand.
Now, hmmm...see what I mean? How indecisive am I? Well, I suppose I am temporarily going with the Disney plan to coincide with the essay due on our dissertation topics next week. But I can keep the other one in reserve in case my original plan gets knocked down as unsuitable.
I love the reputation-crisis management topic, however. It involves all the gory dirty details from disciplines I find so interesting: philosophy/ethics, psychology, anthropology, communications (obviously) / persuasion. Then there are the crossovers into practical business considerations, such as management, marketing, finance, human resources. Can't wait to get started...best get the show on the road and choose a topic!
I am determined to change this with the dissertation project. I look on it as my chance to boil down my vague ideas (reputation-crisis management at either Disney or Royal Carribean) into a workable topic suitable for surveys, interviews, etc. I am more interested in Disney and their steps to protect themselves from the various screw-ups of their teen talents. But then again, it might be tempting to go with Royal Caribbean, as I actually worked on a ship during a reputation-crisis and saw the management plan in action firsthand.
Now, hmmm...see what I mean? How indecisive am I? Well, I suppose I am temporarily going with the Disney plan to coincide with the essay due on our dissertation topics next week. But I can keep the other one in reserve in case my original plan gets knocked down as unsuitable.
I love the reputation-crisis management topic, however. It involves all the gory dirty details from disciplines I find so interesting: philosophy/ethics, psychology, anthropology, communications (obviously) / persuasion. Then there are the crossovers into practical business considerations, such as management, marketing, finance, human resources. Can't wait to get started...best get the show on the road and choose a topic!
Stakeholder Class Deja Vu
You know what I find amusing? That academics of various disciplines who write books on their chosen topics are often so insistent that their fields are non-overlapping. Why does it matter if they are or they are not? Shouldn't strength be drawn from one discipline's similarities to another, particularly if relevant research in one field has already been published that could help support one's theories, conjectures, hypotheses, field results, etc in another area?
Take the stakeholder class discussion, for instance (not that Michaela was insisting this was different practice from other disciplines as mentioned above...for that I was more thinking about the book I'm reading by Roger Haywood called Manage Your Reputation:...). When we were talking about segmenting markets or audiences into various types of groups by means of demographics, memberships, etc, I had massive deja vu of sitting in undergrad classes at Texas A&M for my English rethoric degree: advanced composition, modern rhetorical theory, scientific and technical writing, interpersonal communication, social psychology, western thought, folklore, introduction to speech. The same goes for classes I took at Midwestern State University in pursuit of an English literature degree: persuasion, myth of modern individualism, even history and aesthetics of film. And here, I've heard the terms in connection with traditional media, new media, marketing, and advertising.
I think this particular class session and its attendant flashbacks just really drove home how much I already knew about public relations theory before starting my course...yet I came into the program thinking that I was really behind everyone else. I suppose I was a part of the latent public, not quite aware of what I knew? I think it would be more helpful in university studies to stress the similarities between disciplines rather than draw attention away from them...as it only allows the student to reinforce what they are learning with that which they already know.
Take the stakeholder class discussion, for instance (not that Michaela was insisting this was different practice from other disciplines as mentioned above...for that I was more thinking about the book I'm reading by Roger Haywood called Manage Your Reputation:...). When we were talking about segmenting markets or audiences into various types of groups by means of demographics, memberships, etc, I had massive deja vu of sitting in undergrad classes at Texas A&M for my English rethoric degree: advanced composition, modern rhetorical theory, scientific and technical writing, interpersonal communication, social psychology, western thought, folklore, introduction to speech. The same goes for classes I took at Midwestern State University in pursuit of an English literature degree: persuasion, myth of modern individualism, even history and aesthetics of film. And here, I've heard the terms in connection with traditional media, new media, marketing, and advertising.
I think this particular class session and its attendant flashbacks just really drove home how much I already knew about public relations theory before starting my course...yet I came into the program thinking that I was really behind everyone else. I suppose I was a part of the latent public, not quite aware of what I knew? I think it would be more helpful in university studies to stress the similarities between disciplines rather than draw attention away from them...as it only allows the student to reinforce what they are learning with that which they already know.
23 February 2008
Hey Nielson
I was on my Google Desktop today surfing my RSS feed link to Mashable.com (like a good girl for my new media module, haha!), and I came across two posts from a long while back (okay, one was late January, so that's not too bad, but the other is old news from September! I am so behind the times on this one) that I thought I'd take this opportunity to comment on. Both posts have to do with a new social networking site called Hey Nielson that launched last September on which users can share their comments/opinions and ratings of movies, tv shows, music and the internet. I want to say that I must have heard of this site in a vague kind of way, because the screen-capture shots look familiar.
However, I didn't really pay attention at the time, but now that I am taking my optional modules, I feel that the content of this site are relevant to both. As Nielson is the company that publishes pop culture ratings reports that influence programming on tv and radio and decision-making in Hollywood, this is the user's chance to put in their two-cents and potentially influence the influencers! When I think about how many times a show I and all my friends absolutely loved being canceled due to falling ratings, this is a tool I would've loved to have at my disposal. It also allows decision-makers in these entertainment industry areas to have a virtual, continuous focus group!
And actually, that is what the second post I mentioned was all about: an online/real-time focus group on the commercials presented during the Super Bowl. This has the potential to be a really amazing tool for companies, but on the other hand, it also seems like a potentially huge privacy nightmare for its users. But then again, it's the debate about Facebook and Myspace all over again, isn't it? Don't put things online that you would be ashamed for your grandma to see or could damage your ability to get a job. The same would apply here, as the ratings and comments each member gives are attached to their profile and remain connected with them. Still, I think I may just surf over to this site and check it out.
If you want to read the articles I mentioned, use these addresses:
mashable.com/2007/09/20/hey-nielsen-2/ (the original post about the site)
mashable.com/2008/01/28/hey-nielsen-super-bowl-ratings/ (the focus group posting)
However, I didn't really pay attention at the time, but now that I am taking my optional modules, I feel that the content of this site are relevant to both. As Nielson is the company that publishes pop culture ratings reports that influence programming on tv and radio and decision-making in Hollywood, this is the user's chance to put in their two-cents and potentially influence the influencers! When I think about how many times a show I and all my friends absolutely loved being canceled due to falling ratings, this is a tool I would've loved to have at my disposal. It also allows decision-makers in these entertainment industry areas to have a virtual, continuous focus group!
And actually, that is what the second post I mentioned was all about: an online/real-time focus group on the commercials presented during the Super Bowl. This has the potential to be a really amazing tool for companies, but on the other hand, it also seems like a potentially huge privacy nightmare for its users. But then again, it's the debate about Facebook and Myspace all over again, isn't it? Don't put things online that you would be ashamed for your grandma to see or could damage your ability to get a job. The same would apply here, as the ratings and comments each member gives are attached to their profile and remain connected with them. Still, I think I may just surf over to this site and check it out.
If you want to read the articles I mentioned, use these addresses:
mashable.com/2007/09/20/hey-nielsen-2/ (the original post about the site)
mashable.com/2008/01/28/hey-nielsen-super-bowl-ratings/ (the focus group posting)
15 February 2008
2nd Life Video...and Social Network Escapism
It's been nearly two weeks since my PR and Social Media class watched a BBC special on Second Life called "Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love," and can I just say that I still feel disturbed about it?
Namely the Virtual Adultery section. The other part on Cyberspace Love was odd, but more power to the two lovebirds who found each other on the site and got married in a virtual ceremony before even getting engaged in real life. But that other part...errghh! I know I am not alone in the class in thinking that the woman who was married and conducting a cyber-affair was way out of line. She was a housewife mother of four in her mid- to late-30s whose oldest child was a young teenager, so it was obvious she and her husband got married and started having a family really young. However, although I can sympathize with her mid-life crisis, I just was so disgusted by her spending up to 12 or so hours a day talking to her virtual boyfriend while ignoring her family and home. Granted, I am not in her same situation, so perhaps I am judging too harshly, but I think that you have to make peace with your decisions in life, and she chose to have the family / housewife thing. If she's bored, she should take up a hobby like painting or dancing or something, not trawling the online communities for Londoners to develop crushes on!
It was so sad when the husband was saying that his children realized that their mother wished they had never been born and that she was so unhappy that they tried to be good kids for her. What happened to a mother's unconditional love? And the part where she goes over to London to see the guy after they had "broken up" to see if she had made a mistake by not choosing him over her family earlier (hello! you did when you ignored your family you moronic twit!)...she didn't know if she was coming back to her kids or moving away for good, and she didn't even care how that would effect them. Omg...there is a difference between a mid-life crisis and utter, complete selfishness! No respect for her at all!
On a tangentially related topic, although I don't subscribe to the reactionary, hysterical theories that social networking is going to detrimentally effect real-life human relationships and cause us to all become isolationists incapable of face-to-face communication, this video still disturbed me, as it could be argued that without the social network of Second Life, Mrs Cheatypants would have had a hard time justifying her actions. However, I think she would've found another way to express her unhappiness, so I really think that it's all in the attitude and desires of the network user. If you are using the online community to create an image of yourself that is free of the flaws you perceive in your real life, to escape from your problems or self-esteem issues or family life or whatever, than yes, you are going to become an isolationist incapable of face-to-face communication due to your addiction to the social network. But those people have always existed. They just escaped in other ways pre-social networking.
As long as the majority of social-networkers are using it for a fun way to keep in contact with far-flung friends, do a little self-publicity, connect with like-minded people, and otherwise engage in the whole global village phenomenon, I don't see social networking as a bad thing. And for the escapists out there who lead closeted lives anyway, well, then, it might be a useful tool for them, too, as most of them are harmless people who are unhappy with their lot in life. But this virtual adultery business, and related issues of cyber-stalking and identity theft, are just as fingers-down-the-chalkboard irritating to my personal moral code as the real-world versions. Get out of the relationship if you feel you must cheat to make yourself feel better! And the others...well, those are criminal actions, yeah? Okay, stepping down from soapbox now. Cheers!
Namely the Virtual Adultery section. The other part on Cyberspace Love was odd, but more power to the two lovebirds who found each other on the site and got married in a virtual ceremony before even getting engaged in real life. But that other part...errghh! I know I am not alone in the class in thinking that the woman who was married and conducting a cyber-affair was way out of line. She was a housewife mother of four in her mid- to late-30s whose oldest child was a young teenager, so it was obvious she and her husband got married and started having a family really young. However, although I can sympathize with her mid-life crisis, I just was so disgusted by her spending up to 12 or so hours a day talking to her virtual boyfriend while ignoring her family and home. Granted, I am not in her same situation, so perhaps I am judging too harshly, but I think that you have to make peace with your decisions in life, and she chose to have the family / housewife thing. If she's bored, she should take up a hobby like painting or dancing or something, not trawling the online communities for Londoners to develop crushes on!
It was so sad when the husband was saying that his children realized that their mother wished they had never been born and that she was so unhappy that they tried to be good kids for her. What happened to a mother's unconditional love? And the part where she goes over to London to see the guy after they had "broken up" to see if she had made a mistake by not choosing him over her family earlier (hello! you did when you ignored your family you moronic twit!)...she didn't know if she was coming back to her kids or moving away for good, and she didn't even care how that would effect them. Omg...there is a difference between a mid-life crisis and utter, complete selfishness! No respect for her at all!
On a tangentially related topic, although I don't subscribe to the reactionary, hysterical theories that social networking is going to detrimentally effect real-life human relationships and cause us to all become isolationists incapable of face-to-face communication, this video still disturbed me, as it could be argued that without the social network of Second Life, Mrs Cheatypants would have had a hard time justifying her actions. However, I think she would've found another way to express her unhappiness, so I really think that it's all in the attitude and desires of the network user. If you are using the online community to create an image of yourself that is free of the flaws you perceive in your real life, to escape from your problems or self-esteem issues or family life or whatever, than yes, you are going to become an isolationist incapable of face-to-face communication due to your addiction to the social network. But those people have always existed. They just escaped in other ways pre-social networking.
As long as the majority of social-networkers are using it for a fun way to keep in contact with far-flung friends, do a little self-publicity, connect with like-minded people, and otherwise engage in the whole global village phenomenon, I don't see social networking as a bad thing. And for the escapists out there who lead closeted lives anyway, well, then, it might be a useful tool for them, too, as most of them are harmless people who are unhappy with their lot in life. But this virtual adultery business, and related issues of cyber-stalking and identity theft, are just as fingers-down-the-chalkboard irritating to my personal moral code as the real-world versions. Get out of the relationship if you feel you must cheat to make yourself feel better! And the others...well, those are criminal actions, yeah? Okay, stepping down from soapbox now. Cheers!
I Love Scott Westerfeld!
Okay, I admit it. I adore his books, even if they are actually marketed for the young adult reader. I wrote about him once before on this blog, in regard to a book called The Extras. Well, now I'd like to mention another one of his books, which is called So Yesterday. It has been popping into my mind the last few weeks during the Principles of Marketing lectures.
The basic premise of the book is that a boy called Hunter (in a fit of Charles Dickens name-choosing, I am sure) works as a "cool hunter," or, in other words, his job is to find innovations in clothing styles worn on the streets of New York and report them to his boss, who runs focus groups for Nike. In a No Logo moment (good book also!), Hunter does not name any brands by name in the book, but alludes to them like this: "a certain company which markets coffee and has green-and-white circular shop signs." I thought that aspect of the book was intriguing, as well, since you can pretty well always tell which companies he is talking about. Goes to show you how strong some of the branding is in today's marketing environment. But back to the storyline...he meets this girl called Jen, who is, in his words, "an innovator on the cool pyramid," who has her own style and tends to black out all outward facing labels on her clothing. He invites her to one of the focus groups, where she causes a ruckus by actually inputting new info into the discussion (turns out that the Nike focus groups tend to employ the same people over and over in this book, which allows them to grow a little stale in their thinking...ahhh!). Then there is this whole mystery that unfolds when Hunter's boss is kidnapped, and all he and Jen can find is her mobile phone and a warehouse full of shoes with the Nike label crossed out. It turns out that this whole kidnapping and shoes scenario is masterminded by a group determined to rage against the label machine! Haha...
Anyway, this book kept popping into my head for several reasons. First was the No Logo allusion, a book I read and enjoyed last semester, and which we have briefly mentioned in class. Second was the cool pyramid described in the book, which is pretty well exactly like the diffusion of innovation curve we studied, with the early innovators (Jen), early adopters (Hunter and his co-workers), early majority (Nike), late majority (the rich kids at a party in part of the book who are targeted by the anti-label group) and laggards (Hunter's parents; he mentions this in the book). Third, the whole mystery-solving part of the book uses a lot of techno-gadgetry and the social media to keep the plot moving, which was cool, considering that I am taking the social media and pr module. And finally, further to the last note, Hunter got his job by writing a blog about fashion trends and their link to popularity in American high schools, which his boss found while scanning the marketing environment for Nike. Ah, a blog can get you a job! Hooray!
It was totally wicked to read a book over the holidays that I can now relate the theories from my classes to...way more fun than memorizing dry graphs! So yea for Scott Westerfeld!
The basic premise of the book is that a boy called Hunter (in a fit of Charles Dickens name-choosing, I am sure) works as a "cool hunter," or, in other words, his job is to find innovations in clothing styles worn on the streets of New York and report them to his boss, who runs focus groups for Nike. In a No Logo moment (good book also!), Hunter does not name any brands by name in the book, but alludes to them like this: "a certain company which markets coffee and has green-and-white circular shop signs." I thought that aspect of the book was intriguing, as well, since you can pretty well always tell which companies he is talking about. Goes to show you how strong some of the branding is in today's marketing environment. But back to the storyline...he meets this girl called Jen, who is, in his words, "an innovator on the cool pyramid," who has her own style and tends to black out all outward facing labels on her clothing. He invites her to one of the focus groups, where she causes a ruckus by actually inputting new info into the discussion (turns out that the Nike focus groups tend to employ the same people over and over in this book, which allows them to grow a little stale in their thinking...ahhh!). Then there is this whole mystery that unfolds when Hunter's boss is kidnapped, and all he and Jen can find is her mobile phone and a warehouse full of shoes with the Nike label crossed out. It turns out that this whole kidnapping and shoes scenario is masterminded by a group determined to rage against the label machine! Haha...
Anyway, this book kept popping into my head for several reasons. First was the No Logo allusion, a book I read and enjoyed last semester, and which we have briefly mentioned in class. Second was the cool pyramid described in the book, which is pretty well exactly like the diffusion of innovation curve we studied, with the early innovators (Jen), early adopters (Hunter and his co-workers), early majority (Nike), late majority (the rich kids at a party in part of the book who are targeted by the anti-label group) and laggards (Hunter's parents; he mentions this in the book). Third, the whole mystery-solving part of the book uses a lot of techno-gadgetry and the social media to keep the plot moving, which was cool, considering that I am taking the social media and pr module. And finally, further to the last note, Hunter got his job by writing a blog about fashion trends and their link to popularity in American high schools, which his boss found while scanning the marketing environment for Nike. Ah, a blog can get you a job! Hooray!
It was totally wicked to read a book over the holidays that I can now relate the theories from my classes to...way more fun than memorizing dry graphs! So yea for Scott Westerfeld!
Ethics, Mission Statements, and Charity Corruption...
Someone said in the class on ethics that quitting a job when the requirements change and the company dealings no longer align with your ethical views is a bit idealistic, and that in the "real world" you just suck it up and get on with it (okay, it was phrased more articulately than that, I am going with a summary). I disagree. With a few exceptions when I was desperate for money to pay rent (i.e. agreeing to work for McEvil Empire), I generally am very conscientious about checking a company's mission statement, vision statement, press room, etc online before I ever apply for the job. I am the sort of person who won't enjoy working somewhere if the company culture doesn't jive with my moral outlook, and why go through all the hassle of sending a resume, filling out an application, sitting an interview, and going through training just to quit six months later because it's a dead end job or one that makes you miserable? I don't think that's a totally unreasonable position to be in. I have quit several jobs for similar reasons...I won't give details, but let's just say that I know that I am better off.
Now, upon further reflection, I do admit that once I get in a position in the "real world" that involves, say, paying a mortgage, supporting children or my older family members, etc., I probably would stick with a job despite changing circumstances. However, I would start looking around at other comparable options that would be more fulfilling. In my opinion, when your job starts to sour, that's called opportunity knocking.
Oh, and the scenario about charity corruption reminded me of the struggles that the American Red Cross had after one of the world wars...I don't remember which, offhand...when word got around about how the soldiers were mistreated, etc, etc, and most people lost faith in their services and the donation pool pretty well dried up. It took them years to restore their reputation. So I was thinking that you would definitely do research on a plan to stem the tide of corruption based on the findings of that independent auditor...but yes, of course, with her involved. I think it would be a necessary part of the crisis management of the situation to have a plan to curb the corruption in place before going to the media and admitting you had a problem.
From the scenario outline, the corruption problem was only sketchily outlined, so it would be hard to make a recommendation of action based on the information given. For example, what kind of corruption? Nepotism? Donation money used to buy drugs? Bribery of officials? Sub-standard work by subcontractors? Lack of central oversight? Cultural misunderstandings of policies? What? How extensive was problem of the "many cases" found by the auditor? Everyone? All regional managers? From the top down? Only in some geographic locations? The "investigation" recommended by my group, and I am sure, the other group as well, was more about understanding these issues so as to make a clear media relations plan than it was about stalling and angering the auditor.
Interesting class though...
Now, upon further reflection, I do admit that once I get in a position in the "real world" that involves, say, paying a mortgage, supporting children or my older family members, etc., I probably would stick with a job despite changing circumstances. However, I would start looking around at other comparable options that would be more fulfilling. In my opinion, when your job starts to sour, that's called opportunity knocking.
Oh, and the scenario about charity corruption reminded me of the struggles that the American Red Cross had after one of the world wars...I don't remember which, offhand...when word got around about how the soldiers were mistreated, etc, etc, and most people lost faith in their services and the donation pool pretty well dried up. It took them years to restore their reputation. So I was thinking that you would definitely do research on a plan to stem the tide of corruption based on the findings of that independent auditor...but yes, of course, with her involved. I think it would be a necessary part of the crisis management of the situation to have a plan to curb the corruption in place before going to the media and admitting you had a problem.
From the scenario outline, the corruption problem was only sketchily outlined, so it would be hard to make a recommendation of action based on the information given. For example, what kind of corruption? Nepotism? Donation money used to buy drugs? Bribery of officials? Sub-standard work by subcontractors? Lack of central oversight? Cultural misunderstandings of policies? What? How extensive was problem of the "many cases" found by the auditor? Everyone? All regional managers? From the top down? Only in some geographic locations? The "investigation" recommended by my group, and I am sure, the other group as well, was more about understanding these issues so as to make a clear media relations plan than it was about stalling and angering the auditor.
Interesting class though...
07 February 2008
SEO Press Release for PR and New Media
This post originally held an SEO press release for my new media class, but I had to remove the content, as the hypothetical company name in question is actually used by an existing business, and I didn't want to complicate things for them if an actual search engine explorer happened across my fictitious press release and believed it to be accurate.
So I thought that in its place, I would write a few words on the importance of SEO in current pr practice. SEO, for those who have not yet encountered the term, stands for search engine optimization. It is a technique that hyperlinks up to 10 key terms (well, you can do more, actually, but best to keep it under 10 items for simplicity) in a press release or article that lead back to a particular company's main website.
And why is this important? Research shows that users of search engines such as Google generally select one of the top three to five websites listed in the search results. Gord Hotchkiss's eye-tracking software identified the most promising positions on a search results page for catching a surfer's attention in what is called the "golden triangle." The term gets it's name because the most looked at positions are colored in yellow, with the least looked at in blue. The position shows that the top left corner is most often looked at, and the bottom left corner is least. This is similar to the X-scanning theory of readers, which shows readers to scan a static page from the top left to bottom right, then the top right to bottom left. This is why, for example, that alcohol and cigarette warnings and other types of fine print on advertising is often located in the bottom left corner...try it out in a magazine!
Further research on search engine optimization and the "golden triangle" shows that the top 3 organic (not advertised) search results have 100% visibility, with the 4th position gaining 85% visibility, and 60% visibility for the 5th position. Google statistics show that click-thrus for the top organic search result are at 28%, falling to 12% by the third result, and a small 3% for the fifth position. Any position past five are really a shot in the dark for gaining attention, unless the searcher is very dedicated.
So what lessons can be learned? Optimizing your website's search engine results depend on gaining a strong rank and position on the page. The more trackbacks and mentions for your page generally result in a higher position. Thus, in order to capture the best position for attracting users to your site means that you up your chances in increasing traffic to your site. The best thing? It is an inexpensive way to increase your profile on the web!! And the good news? It is easy to learn how to do. Current software on the market, such as Microsoft Office, allows content-generators to highlight key words and right-click to hyperlink them to a website's URL. Then the content can easily be saved in HTML format (it's a save-as option) and uploaded to a website. You can even choose to produce the page as a blog post in Word and Publisher 2007! Even the least tech-savvy people can be taught how to do SEO press releases in an hour or two, given that they have a working knowledge of the aforementioned programs. After that, it's all about keeping up the practice and updating material on a regular basis to stay in the top 5.
So I thought that in its place, I would write a few words on the importance of SEO in current pr practice. SEO, for those who have not yet encountered the term, stands for search engine optimization. It is a technique that hyperlinks up to 10 key terms (well, you can do more, actually, but best to keep it under 10 items for simplicity) in a press release or article that lead back to a particular company's main website.
And why is this important? Research shows that users of search engines such as Google generally select one of the top three to five websites listed in the search results. Gord Hotchkiss's eye-tracking software identified the most promising positions on a search results page for catching a surfer's attention in what is called the "golden triangle." The term gets it's name because the most looked at positions are colored in yellow, with the least looked at in blue. The position shows that the top left corner is most often looked at, and the bottom left corner is least. This is similar to the X-scanning theory of readers, which shows readers to scan a static page from the top left to bottom right, then the top right to bottom left. This is why, for example, that alcohol and cigarette warnings and other types of fine print on advertising is often located in the bottom left corner...try it out in a magazine!
Further research on search engine optimization and the "golden triangle" shows that the top 3 organic (not advertised) search results have 100% visibility, with the 4th position gaining 85% visibility, and 60% visibility for the 5th position. Google statistics show that click-thrus for the top organic search result are at 28%, falling to 12% by the third result, and a small 3% for the fifth position. Any position past five are really a shot in the dark for gaining attention, unless the searcher is very dedicated.
So what lessons can be learned? Optimizing your website's search engine results depend on gaining a strong rank and position on the page. The more trackbacks and mentions for your page generally result in a higher position. Thus, in order to capture the best position for attracting users to your site means that you up your chances in increasing traffic to your site. The best thing? It is an inexpensive way to increase your profile on the web!! And the good news? It is easy to learn how to do. Current software on the market, such as Microsoft Office, allows content-generators to highlight key words and right-click to hyperlink them to a website's URL. Then the content can easily be saved in HTML format (it's a save-as option) and uploaded to a website. You can even choose to produce the page as a blog post in Word and Publisher 2007! Even the least tech-savvy people can be taught how to do SEO press releases in an hour or two, given that they have a working knowledge of the aforementioned programs. After that, it's all about keeping up the practice and updating material on a regular basis to stay in the top 5.
06 February 2008
Public Relations and Propaganda...
To me, the difference between public relations and propaganda is pretty clear cut, and it has everything to do with intentions. I know that pr involves spin and distraction, and for the most part, I accept that as good business practice as far as protecting the company reputation goes. However, some pr choices I've read about are extraordinarily unethical, as far as I'm concerned. Reading the books Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry and The Silent Takeover: Globalization and the Death of Democracy have completely blown my mind and changed the way I looked at some companies and governments, as well as the pr industry as a whole.
That being said, though, I think that propaganda is in a whole other book altogether. And to continue my horribly strained metaphor...and bad pun, haha!...I think everyone should read these books: Propaganda and the Public Mind and Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. I liked them both, and they have lots of food for thought. But for what its worth, I think that propaganda is a conscious agenda of misdirection and manipulation of the truth. Outright lying in most cases, actually. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to war between countries, although this is often the case, but also it can be part of a war on a movement or school of thought, i.e. a war on environmentalism or a war on terror. I also think that in an information society, a government using propaganda against its citizens (or a company against its detractors) is a pretty heinous abuse of power, since it involves concealing information that rightfully should be available to the public.
It occurs to me that I must sound wicked cynical and paranoid (DON'T TRUST ANYONE!) and maybe I am somewhat...or maybe I'm just discouraged by my government's recent descent into propaganda for breakfast lunch and dinner!
That being said, though, I think that propaganda is in a whole other book altogether. And to continue my horribly strained metaphor...and bad pun, haha!...I think everyone should read these books: Propaganda and the Public Mind and Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day. I liked them both, and they have lots of food for thought. But for what its worth, I think that propaganda is a conscious agenda of misdirection and manipulation of the truth. Outright lying in most cases, actually. It doesn't necessarily have to be related to war between countries, although this is often the case, but also it can be part of a war on a movement or school of thought, i.e. a war on environmentalism or a war on terror. I also think that in an information society, a government using propaganda against its citizens (or a company against its detractors) is a pretty heinous abuse of power, since it involves concealing information that rightfully should be available to the public.
It occurs to me that I must sound wicked cynical and paranoid (DON'T TRUST ANYONE!) and maybe I am somewhat...or maybe I'm just discouraged by my government's recent descent into propaganda for breakfast lunch and dinner!
Crises...eek!
As far as global reputation goes, I think that yes, a company can be effected adversely by the reputation of its home country, even if the company itself is exemplary in its operations abroad. So perhaps a war being declared by a company's home country wouldn't be a reputational crisis for the company itself, and it is certainly outside the company's control, but I do think that it would be a type of crisis for the company's international operations, particularly if these fall in areas directly effected by the war.
For example, if the citizens of, say, Australia, wanted to protest the actions of the government of, say, Italy, then the Australians might boycott all businesses owned by Italian ex-patriots or companies based out of Italy. This is often the easiest way to show disagreement with the political actions of a foreign government, even if the businesses targeted with the boycotts do not themselves support the action of their home government and even if they have a good reputation in the global community. Thus, the boycotts outlined above are not over the individual company's reputation, but that of its home country, yet these boycotts would still effect the bottom line of the company and thus be somewhat of a crisis, according to the definition of the term given in the class presentation:
I was also thinking about the last hypothetical scenario we acted out in class, about the company that imports GM food and was linked to the schools which all the children who got sick and died attended. It was suggested that the company might come out and apologize and make a big fuss about withdrawing GM food from their imports in order to salvage their reputation. However, I stand by what my group said as a statement for the company...i.e. express regret over the situation but don't accept blame and mention a temporary measure of withdrawing GM food, but not a permanent one.
Here is my reasoning...1) accepting blame means that even if your company's product (which in this scenario was put forward as a possible cause but not a definitive one) is later found to be blameless in the crisis, it opens you up to lawsuits because if you accept the blame and apologize then it is the same as admitting that you think your product is faulty.
2) announcing that you will never again import GM food during the middle of the crisis when you have not been declared a definitive cause of this mysterious illness also means that you think your product is faulty. Even in the face of protests over GM food, you should maintain only a temporary halt on imports awaiting further analysis because otherwise, you are saying to the world that you should never have imported the products to begin with, that you were wrong to do so, and that you always suspected this was a dodgy thing to do.
3) if your product is later found not to be the cause, then you can go ahead at that point, if you so chose to act on the GM food protests, and come out with another statement saying that you had always stood by your products, but that due to the current concern over GM foods you were withdrawing them from your imported product line. Thus, you will salvage some of your company's reputation because you both stood behind your original products and responded to public opinion. Plus you never accepted blame for the situation and didn't open yourself as a target for lawsuits.
4) if your product is determined to be the cause, then you would apologize (duh!) and withdraw the products. It may be too late to save your company at that point...think of all the children you killed with your imports!!...but you could at that point issue a statement saying how horrified you were with the situation and that you never knew that GM foods were such a risk and now you would petition the government and industry to ban imports...blah, blah. You would be emphasizing your victimhood (I mean you are, essentially a victim of circumstance and bad luck) as well, so that possibly, possibly, you could squeeze thru the crisis with a damaged but not irretrievable reputation and bottom line.
Hmm...as a sidenote, did the scenario even say that the children who got sick actually ate the school lunch? I don't think so. Just that the same company catered their dinners. That just reinforces my opinion in my mind...
For example, if the citizens of, say, Australia, wanted to protest the actions of the government of, say, Italy, then the Australians might boycott all businesses owned by Italian ex-patriots or companies based out of Italy. This is often the easiest way to show disagreement with the political actions of a foreign government, even if the businesses targeted with the boycotts do not themselves support the action of their home government and even if they have a good reputation in the global community. Thus, the boycotts outlined above are not over the individual company's reputation, but that of its home country, yet these boycotts would still effect the bottom line of the company and thus be somewhat of a crisis, according to the definition of the term given in the class presentation:
"•A turning point
•An event that affects the bottom line or reputation of an organisation"
I was also thinking about the last hypothetical scenario we acted out in class, about the company that imports GM food and was linked to the schools which all the children who got sick and died attended. It was suggested that the company might come out and apologize and make a big fuss about withdrawing GM food from their imports in order to salvage their reputation. However, I stand by what my group said as a statement for the company...i.e. express regret over the situation but don't accept blame and mention a temporary measure of withdrawing GM food, but not a permanent one.
Here is my reasoning...1) accepting blame means that even if your company's product (which in this scenario was put forward as a possible cause but not a definitive one) is later found to be blameless in the crisis, it opens you up to lawsuits because if you accept the blame and apologize then it is the same as admitting that you think your product is faulty.
2) announcing that you will never again import GM food during the middle of the crisis when you have not been declared a definitive cause of this mysterious illness also means that you think your product is faulty. Even in the face of protests over GM food, you should maintain only a temporary halt on imports awaiting further analysis because otherwise, you are saying to the world that you should never have imported the products to begin with, that you were wrong to do so, and that you always suspected this was a dodgy thing to do.
3) if your product is later found not to be the cause, then you can go ahead at that point, if you so chose to act on the GM food protests, and come out with another statement saying that you had always stood by your products, but that due to the current concern over GM foods you were withdrawing them from your imported product line. Thus, you will salvage some of your company's reputation because you both stood behind your original products and responded to public opinion. Plus you never accepted blame for the situation and didn't open yourself as a target for lawsuits.
4) if your product is determined to be the cause, then you would apologize (duh!) and withdraw the products. It may be too late to save your company at that point...think of all the children you killed with your imports!!...but you could at that point issue a statement saying how horrified you were with the situation and that you never knew that GM foods were such a risk and now you would petition the government and industry to ban imports...blah, blah. You would be emphasizing your victimhood (I mean you are, essentially a victim of circumstance and bad luck) as well, so that possibly, possibly, you could squeeze thru the crisis with a damaged but not irretrievable reputation and bottom line.
Hmm...as a sidenote, did the scenario even say that the children who got sick actually ate the school lunch? I don't think so. Just that the same company catered their dinners. That just reinforces my opinion in my mind...
Scouts...
I've still been thinking about our first class of the semester, and how the Scouts apparently have such an old-fashioned, laughable image in the UK. How very sad. I suppose that it may have a bit of the same kind of image in the States, but in a good, nostalgic kind of way, and the thing that is most attractive about the Scouts in my area is the camping/outdoors aspect. I suppose it's the whole "rugged individualist" culture of Texas they try to inculcate in its children...? While I admit that I do know a few people who don't like camping that did grow up in Texas (gasp!), it's just one of those things that everyone does for a cheap, fun vacation.
I was also thinking about the leaders themselves in my community...most of them are mom/dads whose children are in the troop or religious leaders who start a troop with the children in their churches. That's why I mentioned in class that you might recruit seminary students. I don't think that means the Scouts would be embracing a specific religion, but rather just matching their strengths with that of another group, as most future church leaders tend to enjoy working with children or youths. But since it was brought up that the Scouts aren't into religion, I thought I'd include the following, which is part of the UK Scouting Association's Policies:
Policy: The Religious Policy of the Association
The Scout Movement includes members of many different forms of religion. The following policy has received the approval of the heads of the leading religious bodies in the United Kingdom.
All Members of the Movement are encouraged to :
- Make every effort to progress in the understanding and observance of the Promise to do their best to do their duty to God.
- belong to some religious body
- carry into daily practice what they profess
If a Group is composed of members of several denominations or religions, the Beaver Scouts, Cub Scouts, Scouts or Venture Scouts should be encouraged to attend services of their own form of religion.
Anyway, as was discussed in class, though, I feel that the idea of recruiting new volunteer leaders based on the idea that it will improve their cv or that it is in line with their future careers is a better idea than aligning the Scouts with extreme watersports.I mean, I see the logic that it would attract a wider range of students to volunteer as troop leaders, but the thing is...extreme sports are not something that children of the Scouting age can generally legally participate in. Okay, surfing, yes...that is actually a badge available in the UK, I looked it up. Diving? Well, maybe, because you can be certified at 10 years old, so maybe that could be a new badge the whole troop could earn together, but it couldn't be for the younger kids. Canyoning and all those other things listed, though...that might attract student volunteers who are into extreme sports, but how many parents are going to want their children going for these activities? And they don't exist in the Scout badge book, which is the purpose of most activities in Scouting, so the whole book would have to be updated to reflect a new focus on extreme watersports. I just don't find it very feasible. Maybe surfing and diving, but I think the rest would be out. And just so we're clear, I looked up all the adventure badges currently available in the UK, and here they are:
Adventure activities:
Climbing, Hill walking, Hiking, Explore a town or area you don't know, Orienteering, Plan and undertake a journey by public transport, Caving or pot holing, Pony trekking or horse riding, Cycling, Sailing, Canoeing, Water-skiing, Surfing, Dragon boating, Bellboating, Sub-aqua, Canal boating, Rafting, Pulling, Gliding, Powered aircraft, Hovercrafting, Stunt kiting, Hot air ballooning, Paragliding
Hovercrafting and hot air ballooning...how cool!! Well, perhaps you could use the adventure aspect to attract new Scout leaders, but I think it would be misguided to focus on extreme sports, especially when there are some pretty kickin' adventure activities already in the Scout guide. However, I think it would be a better public relations effort to recruit Scout leaders based on the future career goals of uni students than attracting them with sports not even in the handbook yet. At the end of the day, there are not too many people who enjoy working with kids...so you would need to find the ones who do and target them. That's the number one reaction I get when I tell people about working at a summer camp--it's not laughter, it's not 'oh man what a loser job'--it's more like 'are you crazy? I could never work with kids...more power to you!'. I think that's the attitude you really need to conquer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
