Graduation is Friday! I have officially entered freakout mode.
Anyway, I am now a Tweeter. Check me out on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexrelates
Also, research is going well. 117 responses so far. Stand by for end-of-the-year wrap-up posts.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Update (and take my survey!)
Ah! Long time, no blog. I'd been caught up in school, work and other stuff, and before I knew it, it was March!
Anyway, I wanted to give a quick update on my research project for CSR-pedia. CSR-pedia is the project of my professor, Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, who has created a wiki to compile information about corporate social responsibility programs. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a built-in function of corporations dealing with their adherence to legal, ethical, and cultural standards. Dr. Ferguson has been a great help to me throughout the development of this survey, which will show us more about the information consumption habits of those interested in corporate social responsibility.
My survey attempts to document the way online CSR communities share and consume information about CSR, helping to pinpoint the types of CSR program information these communities want most, and in what type of media format they prefer to receive it. The goal is to build a foundation of information about CSR with which we can identify ways to improve CSR-pedia (or other CSR-focused Web sites).
If you'd like to take the survey, click here, or if you'd like a copy of the results, send an e-mail to csrsurvey dot wise at gmail dot com. I hope to have the results compiled and analyzed by May.
Anyway, I wanted to give a quick update on my research project for CSR-pedia. CSR-pedia is the project of my professor, Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson, who has created a wiki to compile information about corporate social responsibility programs. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a built-in function of corporations dealing with their adherence to legal, ethical, and cultural standards. Dr. Ferguson has been a great help to me throughout the development of this survey, which will show us more about the information consumption habits of those interested in corporate social responsibility.
My survey attempts to document the way online CSR communities share and consume information about CSR, helping to pinpoint the types of CSR program information these communities want most, and in what type of media format they prefer to receive it. The goal is to build a foundation of information about CSR with which we can identify ways to improve CSR-pedia (or other CSR-focused Web sites).
If you'd like to take the survey, click here, or if you'd like a copy of the results, send an e-mail to csrsurvey dot wise at gmail dot com. I hope to have the results compiled and analyzed by May.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Does PR deserve to be an academic discipline?
As a Public Relations undergraduate, I have to defend my unfinished degree about as often as I tell people I’m a PR major. Acquaintances struggling through organic chemistry or Arabic language courses might have questions like “Isn’t that what the guy in Thank You For Smoking does?” or “What do you do with all your free time?” or “Does it hurt to be inferior?”
I’m exaggerating, of course, and no one means to offend when asking questions about Public Relations, but I do sense that the hard sciences and even the humanities look down on us media majors. And why should Public Relations majors need to argue for academic legitimacy? It seems unfair. I go to college. I work hard. What’s the deal?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is that Public Relations is an academic discipline in its infancy. Edward Bernays, often called the father of modern Public Relations, taught the first course in Public Relations at New York University in 1923. Faced with respected fields like philosophy and mathematics that have been around for millennia, Public Relations really is the new kid on the block – the new kid who is kinda short and trying really hard to make friends. But even considering the relative newness of the discipline, Public Relations is a rapidly expanding research area and branch of learning – we should be proud of this.
Another reason for the disrespect from my hard science peers might be that Public Relations is a science predicated on fields like communication theory, sociology and psychology, which are already seen as nebulous and esoteric. Considering the criticisms already directed at our theoretical foundations, Public Relations researchers must work that much harder to show causal relationships grounded in hard data. As an undergraduate unburdened by the research responsibilities of graduate students and professors in the college, that’s easy for me to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I’m getting involved in research this year in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida and I hope I’ll be able to update here about my work there.
But hey, despite all the hate I may get from friends in other colleges, I really love my major for one reason: its potential for real-world applications. If you’re a PR major, this is the #1 reason why you should be proud of your degree. Shout it from the rooftops! Public Relations needs lovin’ too!
I’m exaggerating, of course, and no one means to offend when asking questions about Public Relations, but I do sense that the hard sciences and even the humanities look down on us media majors. And why should Public Relations majors need to argue for academic legitimacy? It seems unfair. I go to college. I work hard. What’s the deal?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is that Public Relations is an academic discipline in its infancy. Edward Bernays, often called the father of modern Public Relations, taught the first course in Public Relations at New York University in 1923. Faced with respected fields like philosophy and mathematics that have been around for millennia, Public Relations really is the new kid on the block – the new kid who is kinda short and trying really hard to make friends. But even considering the relative newness of the discipline, Public Relations is a rapidly expanding research area and branch of learning – we should be proud of this.
Another reason for the disrespect from my hard science peers might be that Public Relations is a science predicated on fields like communication theory, sociology and psychology, which are already seen as nebulous and esoteric. Considering the criticisms already directed at our theoretical foundations, Public Relations researchers must work that much harder to show causal relationships grounded in hard data. As an undergraduate unburdened by the research responsibilities of graduate students and professors in the college, that’s easy for me to say, but I’ll say it anyway. I’m getting involved in research this year in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida and I hope I’ll be able to update here about my work there.
But hey, despite all the hate I may get from friends in other colleges, I really love my major for one reason: its potential for real-world applications. If you’re a PR major, this is the #1 reason why you should be proud of your degree. Shout it from the rooftops! Public Relations needs lovin’ too!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
China practices crisis communications 20 years too late, and poorly
Assuming these men blocking a view of Tiananmen Square with umbrellas are doing so at the behest of the Chinese government, their actions represent one of the worst ways to deal with the media. (Background: If you weren't aware, today, June 4th, is the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre).
Because of the Chinese government's inane policy, the BBC has downright creepy footage from a country that is either:
1. evidently embarrassed of its own history and expressing this sentiment through policy,
2. so grossly incompetent that it actually believes umbrellas will prevent the media from filming, or
3. so grossly incompetent that it actually believes umbrellas will hide the story from the public eye a full 20 years after the Tiananmen Square incident occurred.
So, in trying to cover up its violent, authoritarian history, China looks more Orwellian than ever. How can Chinese officials justify this policy? Where are the apologies? If China expects to be taken seriously on the world stage (which it does), policies like the one shown in the video must end.
Because of the Chinese government's inane policy, the BBC has downright creepy footage from a country that is either:
1. evidently embarrassed of its own history and expressing this sentiment through policy,
2. so grossly incompetent that it actually believes umbrellas will prevent the media from filming, or
3. so grossly incompetent that it actually believes umbrellas will hide the story from the public eye a full 20 years after the Tiananmen Square incident occurred.
So, in trying to cover up its violent, authoritarian history, China looks more Orwellian than ever. How can Chinese officials justify this policy? Where are the apologies? If China expects to be taken seriously on the world stage (which it does), policies like the one shown in the video must end.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What the internet means for...everything.
Haha, wow, my old blog! Just how I remember it. Let me dust off the post button reeeal quick. Yup, still works.
Okay, so I've been thinking lately about the Internet, and because I consider myself a big picture person (I like to consider systems as a whole), I've been thinking about the big picture of the Internet. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's a mess.
The Internet is a mess. Virtually every aspect of the Internet is poorly understood and, therefore, poorly managed - the way we access it , regulate it, pay for it, view it, make money on it, control identity with it, communicate through it. Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but can you predict the outcome of any one of these problems we're facing right now? I know I can't. But sure, we're starting to figure out what works and what doesn't.
So what? Well, so a lot of things. For example, as an individual, using the Internet means walking in a reputation minefield. You know that scene in Grease where the news of Rizzo's unexpected pregnancy beats her back from the bathroom? Well, it's like that, except worse. My generation often treats the Internet like its own private social forum, but in reality the information is transparent and easy to share. Organizations have as much (if not more) to worry about than individuals; "isolated incidents" that once flew under the radar of big media can now blow up faster than alka-seltzer in a seagull.
And if you're not messing up your reputation online, your organization is probably, at best, basking in the mediocrity of its lifeless Web page. Which is fine. But it's no way to drive traffic, command attention or make money.
How can you use the Internet to its full potential?
1. Consider your goals as an organization. Could an organzational Web site or involvement in social media help you achieve those goals?
2. Consider your audience. What are they like?
3. Consider the value of your content. If you're a corporation, people aren't going to visit your page to view your canned advertorial content. There'd better be something to worthwhile to your readers - attention is difficult to keep.
4. Update! Content must timely or no one will care.
Later I'll talk more about how you can engage the online audience. In the meantime, to my readers (if there are any of you) - how has the Internet affected the way you consume media?
Okay, so I've been thinking lately about the Internet, and because I consider myself a big picture person (I like to consider systems as a whole), I've been thinking about the big picture of the Internet. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's a mess.
The Internet is a mess. Virtually every aspect of the Internet is poorly understood and, therefore, poorly managed - the way we access it , regulate it, pay for it, view it, make money on it, control identity with it, communicate through it. Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but can you predict the outcome of any one of these problems we're facing right now? I know I can't. But sure, we're starting to figure out what works and what doesn't.
So what? Well, so a lot of things. For example, as an individual, using the Internet means walking in a reputation minefield. You know that scene in Grease where the news of Rizzo's unexpected pregnancy beats her back from the bathroom? Well, it's like that, except worse. My generation often treats the Internet like its own private social forum, but in reality the information is transparent and easy to share. Organizations have as much (if not more) to worry about than individuals; "isolated incidents" that once flew under the radar of big media can now blow up faster than alka-seltzer in a seagull.
And if you're not messing up your reputation online, your organization is probably, at best, basking in the mediocrity of its lifeless Web page. Which is fine. But it's no way to drive traffic, command attention or make money.
How can you use the Internet to its full potential?
1. Consider your goals as an organization. Could an organzational Web site or involvement in social media help you achieve those goals?
2. Consider your audience. What are they like?
3. Consider the value of your content. If you're a corporation, people aren't going to visit your page to view your canned advertorial content. There'd better be something to worthwhile to your readers - attention is difficult to keep.
4. Update! Content must timely or no one will care.
Later I'll talk more about how you can engage the online audience. In the meantime, to my readers (if there are any of you) - how has the Internet affected the way you consume media?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Two minutes of pure cute
I'm sorry, but viral marketing just doesn't get much better than this:
He he he.
He he he.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Things that rhyme with turtle: curdle, fertile, girdle...
Wordle!
What a neat toy. This site generates word clouds from any massive block of text you feed it. Below is a word cloud built from the content of my blog:
Way cool.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Making YouTube work for you
This is exactly the kind of video media people need to post to YouTube:
In a little under three minutes, these two WGN anchors showed their unique personalities. They've thoroughly choreographed this handshake during years of commercial breaks. The video is quirky enough to make you laugh - but shows subtle dedication and professionalism.
At the end of the day, what can one local news station offer that other stations can't? All local news stations offers news, but many watch one station in particular for the people they recognize. Make your anchors likable and you'll keep all eyes on you.
YouTube is a way to make yourself stand out. Don't be surprised if this video goes viral.
In a little under three minutes, these two WGN anchors showed their unique personalities. They've thoroughly choreographed this handshake during years of commercial breaks. The video is quirky enough to make you laugh - but shows subtle dedication and professionalism.
At the end of the day, what can one local news station offer that other stations can't? All local news stations offers news, but many watch one station in particular for the people they recognize. Make your anchors likable and you'll keep all eyes on you.
YouTube is a way to make yourself stand out. Don't be surprised if this video goes viral.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Sometimes, "sorry" is the best medicine
If you've ever fought with a friend, you know how hard it is to make amends without one of you saying "I'm sorry."
Why should crisis communications be any different? Occasionally bad blood fizzles out, but companies in crisis usually have to be vindicated by the news media or make some sort of apology or announcement of regret before they can rebuild relationships with consumers.
When Fox had Hulu take down 3 seasons of the hit show "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," Hulu experienced some immediate backlash. Perhaps the negative response wouldn't have been so strong if it weren't for the popularity of the show.
But was the removal of the show really even Hulu's fault? Fox owns the rights to "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and rights ownership issues are dangerous territory - Hulu had no choice but to anger consumers.
But Hulu consumers weren't just angry that the content was removed - they were angry that it was removed with no notice. Recognizing the PR crisis at hand, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar issued a heartfelt apology and returned the shows to the site with permission from FX, giving users an additional two weeks before removing the episodes.
On the social news Web site Reddit, responses to Kilar's statement are varied and interesting. Most believe this is exactly how a company should behave in a crisis situation:
"If every company out there had this level of respect for their customers, there would be FAR FEWER incidents of deleting users' data.
Companies should regularly be grovelling at the feet of their customers. They exist solely thanks to the willing contributions of the customers, and without the customers, they are nothing.
And it's only recently that companies have really forgotten that."
-innocentbystander
While some users are baffled by the apology's intensity:
"This is a wildly excessive apology for such an event. It's not as if they deleted users' data or cancelled their vacations."
-acontorer
But the vast majority of Redditors agreed that the apology was appropriate, which shows how far an apology can go in winning back the trust of the public. As Kilar himself said, "Customer trust is hard won, easily lost."
Why should crisis communications be any different? Occasionally bad blood fizzles out, but companies in crisis usually have to be vindicated by the news media or make some sort of apology or announcement of regret before they can rebuild relationships with consumers.
When Fox had Hulu take down 3 seasons of the hit show "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," Hulu experienced some immediate backlash. Perhaps the negative response wouldn't have been so strong if it weren't for the popularity of the show.
But was the removal of the show really even Hulu's fault? Fox owns the rights to "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and rights ownership issues are dangerous territory - Hulu had no choice but to anger consumers.
But Hulu consumers weren't just angry that the content was removed - they were angry that it was removed with no notice. Recognizing the PR crisis at hand, Hulu CEO Jason Kilar issued a heartfelt apology and returned the shows to the site with permission from FX, giving users an additional two weeks before removing the episodes.
On the social news Web site Reddit, responses to Kilar's statement are varied and interesting. Most believe this is exactly how a company should behave in a crisis situation:
"If every company out there had this level of respect for their customers, there would be FAR FEWER incidents of deleting users' data.
Companies should regularly be grovelling at the feet of their customers. They exist solely thanks to the willing contributions of the customers, and without the customers, they are nothing.
And it's only recently that companies have really forgotten that."
-innocentbystander
While some users are baffled by the apology's intensity:
"This is a wildly excessive apology for such an event. It's not as if they deleted users' data or cancelled their vacations."
-acontorer
But the vast majority of Redditors agreed that the apology was appropriate, which shows how far an apology can go in winning back the trust of the public. As Kilar himself said, "Customer trust is hard won, easily lost."
Friday, January 9, 2009
Burger King: pandering to that elusive 18-34
Many Facebook users are "Facebook friends" with people they don't know or care about. This ironic reality of social networking is riffed on often by cynical young adults with more "Facebook friends" than real-life acquaintances.
That's what makes the Whopper Sacrifice such a clever strategy in Burger King's quest to win over those crazy kids with integrated marketing communications. The challenge Burger King poses to Facebook users: get rid of 10 Facebook friends for a free Whopper. Oh, the potential drama!
But why is "defriending" - that dreaded social slap-in-the-face - so offensive, especially if you honestly don't know your "friend" very well? After all, the taboo of defriending is what makes this campaign interesting. The answer looks pretty obvious; passively maintaining a Facebook friendship takes no effort, but one actually has to go out of his way to defriend someone. Ouch.
I gotta say, I'm pretty hungry after reading this website. Who will I sacrifice?
That's what makes the Whopper Sacrifice such a clever strategy in Burger King's quest to win over those crazy kids with integrated marketing communications. The challenge Burger King poses to Facebook users: get rid of 10 Facebook friends for a free Whopper. Oh, the potential drama!
But why is "defriending" - that dreaded social slap-in-the-face - so offensive, especially if you honestly don't know your "friend" very well? After all, the taboo of defriending is what makes this campaign interesting. The answer looks pretty obvious; passively maintaining a Facebook friendship takes no effort, but one actually has to go out of his way to defriend someone. Ouch.
I gotta say, I'm pretty hungry after reading this website. Who will I sacrifice?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
New year's resolutions 2009
I will learn to effectively use:
-Photoshop
-InDesign
-CSS
-HTML
See you all on the other side...
-Photoshop
-InDesign
-CSS
-HTML
See you all on the other side...
Friday, December 19, 2008
Hatin' on PR - Michael Arrington is done with news embargoes
Michael Arrington posted on TechCrunch Wednesday that he would no longer honor news embargoes, noting that his competitors already break embargoes regularly, hurting his readership. But even Arrington recognized the benefits of news embargoes done right. From TechCrunch, on "embargoed news":
"A lot of this news is good stuff that our readers want to know about. And we have the benefit of taking some time during the pre-briefing to think about the story, do research, and write it properly. When embargoes go right, we get to write a thoughtful story which benefits the company and our readers."
News embargoes are agreements between journalists and PR folks not to run a story until a certain date. They're more relevant to national stories that will garner a large amount of coverage: say, a multi-million dollar merger or an upcoming release of an innovative product by a major company.
Arrington blames PR firms for sending emargoed news stories to bloggers who aren't likely to honor embargoes - and he's right, this is a problem - but it's just too easy to extrapolate the actions of a few hasty, desperate PR people to the entire industry. I mean, are all PR people guilty of this?
Well, Arrington does mention that Microsoft and Google enforce their embargoes by denying known embargo-breakers releases. It's a splendid way to enforce an embargo - if you're a massive company that can throw its PR weight around. Smaller companies don't have that luxury.
Is there a solution? Well, it shouldn't be to throw out the news embargo entirely, as Arrington has done. News embargoes are valuable to both PR people and journalists. They help PR people get maximum coverage and journalists create well written and researched stories. What we need is to make sure PR people understand the blogs they're contacting.
News embargoes are likely to be respected by newspapers and magazines, but an obscure blogger who's eager to get some attention is much more likely to post a hot story early. The problem only gets worse when credible bloggers break embargoes.
For more insight, check out this post in POP! PR Jots, which also discusses Arrington's recent criticism of Lois Whitman and HWH PR.
"A lot of this news is good stuff that our readers want to know about. And we have the benefit of taking some time during the pre-briefing to think about the story, do research, and write it properly. When embargoes go right, we get to write a thoughtful story which benefits the company and our readers."
News embargoes are agreements between journalists and PR folks not to run a story until a certain date. They're more relevant to national stories that will garner a large amount of coverage: say, a multi-million dollar merger or an upcoming release of an innovative product by a major company.
Arrington blames PR firms for sending emargoed news stories to bloggers who aren't likely to honor embargoes - and he's right, this is a problem - but it's just too easy to extrapolate the actions of a few hasty, desperate PR people to the entire industry. I mean, are all PR people guilty of this?
Well, Arrington does mention that Microsoft and Google enforce their embargoes by denying known embargo-breakers releases. It's a splendid way to enforce an embargo - if you're a massive company that can throw its PR weight around. Smaller companies don't have that luxury.
Is there a solution? Well, it shouldn't be to throw out the news embargo entirely, as Arrington has done. News embargoes are valuable to both PR people and journalists. They help PR people get maximum coverage and journalists create well written and researched stories. What we need is to make sure PR people understand the blogs they're contacting.
News embargoes are likely to be respected by newspapers and magazines, but an obscure blogger who's eager to get some attention is much more likely to post a hot story early. The problem only gets worse when credible bloggers break embargoes.
For more insight, check out this post in POP! PR Jots, which also discusses Arrington's recent criticism of Lois Whitman and HWH PR.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Change.gov: a special blend of Internet and politics
A new tool on Barack Obama's Web site, Change.gov, lets anyone post a question in an open forum where users vote on their favorite questions.
The most popular question?
"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"
- S. Man, Denton.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a step back. This Web site raises more questions than just the ones posted by users. Can a Web site really bring about true transparency in government? And, to step back further: can a Web site enable serious dialogue between a nation and its elected officials?
First, a dialogue requires communication by both parties involved - in this case, the Obama administration and our nation. In media, we are sometimes tempted to think that by allowing an open forum on the Internet, we can reach everyone.
But this isn't necessarily true. According to an August 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 75% of adults use the Internet. This is a large number, but it isn't everyone. (As an aside, the numbers go up yearly. Check out this poll from 2006.)
And more important than who is represented in that 75% is who isn't. According to the same poll, 83% of 18-29-year-olds use the Internet, while only 33% of those in the 65+ demographic use it. Only 49% of those who make $30,000 or less per year use the Internet, while 93% of those making $75,000+ do.
Those with higher education are more likely to use the Internet; white people are slightly more likely to use the it than minorities; men are slightly more likely to use it than women.
The distribution of non-Internet users is not even across demographics - we miss sizable chunks of the population when we put any campaign entirely online.
Also, we should consider who is likely to visit Change.gov. I'd be willing to bet more Obama voters than McCain voters, more liberals than conservatives, more young people than older people.
Which brings us full circle: how did a question about legalization of marijuana end up at the top of the question rankings when only 36% of adults in the United States support legalization (versus 60% against legalization, according to a 2005 gallup poll)?
When you stack up the demographics of people who are online against those of people who support legalization, you see young people heavily represented in both groups. The question is ranked highest because of the skewed user base.
Back to defining the dialogue - can elected officials respond to Change.gov users' questions in a satisfying way, especially considering the skewed user base of the Web site? Supposing Barack Obama's campaign really did want to work toward legalization, it'd be interesting to see how much progress he could make.
He'd have to work with Congress to get federal drug laws repealed. He could also try to dissolve the DEA, which is a function of the Department of Justice. In the end, though, the laws themselves are in the hands of the legislature.
Obama will run into similar issues in trying to satisfy other concerns of Change.gov's user base. And if Obama disagrees with his constituents and does not fulfill their wishes, has he betrayed his own principles of transparency and open government?
Let me be clear: Change.gov is not a bad idea. It's a good idea. Transparency and open government are noble causes. But some people are expecting more than they're going to receive.
The most popular question?
"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"
- S. Man, Denton.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a step back. This Web site raises more questions than just the ones posted by users. Can a Web site really bring about true transparency in government? And, to step back further: can a Web site enable serious dialogue between a nation and its elected officials?
First, a dialogue requires communication by both parties involved - in this case, the Obama administration and our nation. In media, we are sometimes tempted to think that by allowing an open forum on the Internet, we can reach everyone.
But this isn't necessarily true. According to an August 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 75% of adults use the Internet. This is a large number, but it isn't everyone. (As an aside, the numbers go up yearly. Check out this poll from 2006.)
And more important than who is represented in that 75% is who isn't. According to the same poll, 83% of 18-29-year-olds use the Internet, while only 33% of those in the 65+ demographic use it. Only 49% of those who make $30,000 or less per year use the Internet, while 93% of those making $75,000+ do.
Those with higher education are more likely to use the Internet; white people are slightly more likely to use the it than minorities; men are slightly more likely to use it than women.
The distribution of non-Internet users is not even across demographics - we miss sizable chunks of the population when we put any campaign entirely online.
Also, we should consider who is likely to visit Change.gov. I'd be willing to bet more Obama voters than McCain voters, more liberals than conservatives, more young people than older people.
Which brings us full circle: how did a question about legalization of marijuana end up at the top of the question rankings when only 36% of adults in the United States support legalization (versus 60% against legalization, according to a 2005 gallup poll)?
When you stack up the demographics of people who are online against those of people who support legalization, you see young people heavily represented in both groups. The question is ranked highest because of the skewed user base.
Back to defining the dialogue - can elected officials respond to Change.gov users' questions in a satisfying way, especially considering the skewed user base of the Web site? Supposing Barack Obama's campaign really did want to work toward legalization, it'd be interesting to see how much progress he could make.
He'd have to work with Congress to get federal drug laws repealed. He could also try to dissolve the DEA, which is a function of the Department of Justice. In the end, though, the laws themselves are in the hands of the legislature.
Obama will run into similar issues in trying to satisfy other concerns of Change.gov's user base. And if Obama disagrees with his constituents and does not fulfill their wishes, has he betrayed his own principles of transparency and open government?
Let me be clear: Change.gov is not a bad idea. It's a good idea. Transparency and open government are noble causes. But some people are expecting more than they're going to receive.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Big media treading water
There's a special kind of irony that comes when a major newspaper reports on its own bankruptcy. It's not comedic irony - it's a quietly disturbing irony, foreshadowing drastic changes in the media world. The Tribune Co., which owns the LA Times, KTLA-TV Channel 5 and other newspapers and TV outlets, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection yesterday. They're not alone in their financial trouble.
NBC recently cut 500 jobs in its plan to cut $500 million from their budget next year. Viacom announced that it was cutting 850 jobs in an effort to save between $200 and $250 million next year. Even the New York Times is over $1 billion in debt right now.
Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling case for the imminent death of print media. He says bloggers have filled the gap in reporting to some degree but can't support true journalism like a newspaper can. And he's right.
But it's not all doom and gloom - newspapers are still in a transitional phase between print news and online news. We're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel already, with many newspapers stepping up online content and exploring the possibilities of online advertising. The survivors of this tough time will come out with tight new online business models.
Some trends that have come with an economy in recession and the transition to online news include:
- smaller newspaper staffs,
- consolidation of independent newspapers or studios into media conglomerates,
- and increasing reliance of news outlets on press releases and news agencies.
Check out this New York Times article for some more insight into the economic side.
What does this mean for journalism? Well, I can't really say - but I do think the worsening economy can only hurt investigative journalism, a cornerstone of any free society.
But for every column that can't be filled by a reporter, someone in PR might be stepping up to the plate with a release or story pitch. Bittersweet for us PR people. But more bitter than sweet.
NBC recently cut 500 jobs in its plan to cut $500 million from their budget next year. Viacom announced that it was cutting 850 jobs in an effort to save between $200 and $250 million next year. Even the New York Times is over $1 billion in debt right now.
Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling case for the imminent death of print media. He says bloggers have filled the gap in reporting to some degree but can't support true journalism like a newspaper can. And he's right.
But it's not all doom and gloom - newspapers are still in a transitional phase between print news and online news. We're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel already, with many newspapers stepping up online content and exploring the possibilities of online advertising. The survivors of this tough time will come out with tight new online business models.
Some trends that have come with an economy in recession and the transition to online news include:
- smaller newspaper staffs,
- consolidation of independent newspapers or studios into media conglomerates,
- and increasing reliance of news outlets on press releases and news agencies.
Check out this New York Times article for some more insight into the economic side.
What does this mean for journalism? Well, I can't really say - but I do think the worsening economy can only hurt investigative journalism, a cornerstone of any free society.
But for every column that can't be filled by a reporter, someone in PR might be stepping up to the plate with a release or story pitch. Bittersweet for us PR people. But more bitter than sweet.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The only Good thing at Starbucks
I normally can't be bothered to stop at a Starbucks, but halfway between Gainesville and Pensacola with the sun sinking low in the sky, the promise of caffeine was the only thing keeping my eyes open. So I stopped at a Starbucks in Tallahassee because, well, I do kind of like the Doubleshot on Ice. Starbucks has good espresso; everything else there sucks.
While waiting for the barista to dissolve unhealthy amounts of espresso and sugar into far too little milk, I picked up a copy of the Good Sheet, a fold-out newsprint magazine about the size of a CD case. A Starbucks exclusive, I might add. Here it is pictured.
I'd never heard of the Good Sheet before. I'm holding issue No. 11 in my hand. According to a short description on its inside cover, "Good is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. We make a magazine, produce videos, curate a website, and host events around the country." Good's magazine and website operate under a Radiohead-esque pay-what-you-want subscription policy, 100% of which goes to the non-profit of your choice.
According to the VP of Marketing at Starbucks, the Good Sheet started as a way to get people to talk about election-related topics like health care, education and gas prices. Now that the election is over, this issue attempts to spark discussion about our consumer culture (it's titled "Holiday Economy").
But this trendy, cute magazine got me thinking about something else. It caught my attention because it's small, strange and simple. Its design calls out to the Internet generation--my generation. We like colors and short blurbs and pictures. We don't want to analyze; we want the gist, the meat. And this magazine--littered with ASCII art, diagrams and ten-word captions--tries to satify our information-addicted society's hunger for instant understanding.
Also, I can put the little guy in my back pocket and take it with me. Like an iPod.
While waiting for the barista to dissolve unhealthy amounts of espresso and sugar into far too little milk, I picked up a copy of the Good Sheet, a fold-out newsprint magazine about the size of a CD case. A Starbucks exclusive, I might add. Here it is pictured.I'd never heard of the Good Sheet before. I'm holding issue No. 11 in my hand. According to a short description on its inside cover, "Good is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. We make a magazine, produce videos, curate a website, and host events around the country." Good's magazine and website operate under a Radiohead-esque pay-what-you-want subscription policy, 100% of which goes to the non-profit of your choice.
According to the VP of Marketing at Starbucks, the Good Sheet started as a way to get people to talk about election-related topics like health care, education and gas prices. Now that the election is over, this issue attempts to spark discussion about our consumer culture (it's titled "Holiday Economy").
But this trendy, cute magazine got me thinking about something else. It caught my attention because it's small, strange and simple. Its design calls out to the Internet generation--my generation. We like colors and short blurbs and pictures. We don't want to analyze; we want the gist, the meat. And this magazine--littered with ASCII art, diagrams and ten-word captions--tries to satify our information-addicted society's hunger for instant understanding.
Also, I can put the little guy in my back pocket and take it with me. Like an iPod.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Nissan tightens its belt
Nissan canceled its plans this evening to participate in the 2009 Detroit and Chicago Auto Shows. The company explained that the shows would not be the best use of the company's "marketing dollars."
Nissan isn't the only automaker tightening or reallocating its marketing budget. Mitsubishi canceled plans to attend the same shows, as did Ferrari, Suzuki, Rolls-Royce and Land Rover. General Motors recently canceled plans to advertise during the Super Bowl and Academy Awards and ended a contract with Tiger Woods. Some fear the Big 3 may end their partnerships with NASCAR. General Motors also pulled out of this year's Los Angeles Auto Show (the same show where Nissan unveiled the third generation Nissan Cube, pictured here
, which seems to have evolved to look more like other toaster-shaped successes, the Scion and the Element).
So what counts as a good allocation of "marketing dollars?" Depends what you want those dollars to do. An auto show is a chance for the movers and shakers of the industry to show off new products and cutting-edge prototypes to investors and the press. This might be a good idea for a company that's trying to promote a new concept, but even Nissan admits that they don't have anything new left to unveil in 2009.
Nissan is focused on moving product right now because an automobile is not an "impulse buy" anymore. During the tech boom and growth of the housing bubble, middle and upper-class families had room in their budget for a second, third or fourth car. But things are changing.
Any new car purchase is likely out of necessity. Nissan knows it needs to focus on the customer--the Wall Street Journal mentions that Nissan will put its marketing budget towards local campaigns. Good call, Nissan.
Nissan isn't the only automaker tightening or reallocating its marketing budget. Mitsubishi canceled plans to attend the same shows, as did Ferrari, Suzuki, Rolls-Royce and Land Rover. General Motors recently canceled plans to advertise during the Super Bowl and Academy Awards and ended a contract with Tiger Woods. Some fear the Big 3 may end their partnerships with NASCAR. General Motors also pulled out of this year's Los Angeles Auto Show (the same show where Nissan unveiled the third generation Nissan Cube, pictured here
, which seems to have evolved to look more like other toaster-shaped successes, the Scion and the Element).So what counts as a good allocation of "marketing dollars?" Depends what you want those dollars to do. An auto show is a chance for the movers and shakers of the industry to show off new products and cutting-edge prototypes to investors and the press. This might be a good idea for a company that's trying to promote a new concept, but even Nissan admits that they don't have anything new left to unveil in 2009.
Nissan is focused on moving product right now because an automobile is not an "impulse buy" anymore. During the tech boom and growth of the housing bubble, middle and upper-class families had room in their budget for a second, third or fourth car. But things are changing.
Any new car purchase is likely out of necessity. Nissan knows it needs to focus on the customer--the Wall Street Journal mentions that Nissan will put its marketing budget towards local campaigns. Good call, Nissan.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Here we go!
Hey all. I'm Alex Wise, a PR undergrad at the University of Florida. (Chomp)
I know I've started blogging a little late in the game. I'm spitting in the ocean. But I think the best way to learn about the world of social media is to dive in headfirst. And the best way to understand a changing world is to be a part of the change.
So this is my blog. I want to talk to you (and with you!) about public relations, marketing, business, news, and maybe a few stray posts about music. I'm excited that you're reading this. Let me know what you think!
I know I've started blogging a little late in the game. I'm spitting in the ocean. But I think the best way to learn about the world of social media is to dive in headfirst. And the best way to understand a changing world is to be a part of the change.
So this is my blog. I want to talk to you (and with you!) about public relations, marketing, business, news, and maybe a few stray posts about music. I'm excited that you're reading this. Let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)