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...
If you could see inside my head, this is what it would probably look like...
15 February 2008
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)
