Conveying The Message

When I think about PR writing, I think about one thing... a press release. Signing up for this class, I thought that is what we would be doing, practice writing many press release's. Boy was I wrong.

PR writing is so much more. Just from working on this team project (GO TEAM PENTAGON SOLUTIONS!) I feel that I have become exposed to many other facets of PR writing and planning. I feel a bit over whelmed by all that it in-tells, however, my view of a PR professional has expanded.

As I learned in a previous class, the means that the message is communicated is just as important as the message content itself. Don't get me wrong the content is the KEY to the effectiveness of any PR campaign, still, the means it is used to transmit is the ENGINE. In this new age of technology the means now goes far beyond newspapers, direct mail, advertising or public speaking. PR writing can include Twitter, text-messaging, blogging, Facebook, websites, YouTube, MySpace (someone, somewhere might still use this) and so much more.

The internet has revamped the way news releases are written. Companies like Google News, Yahoo News, MSN News, and AOL News regularly write news releases merely to be included in online databases.

In a article by Prentice Hall it states that "Social media news releases are also designed to reach non-traditional journalists such as bloggers and podcaster."

Remember, when conveying the message through the internet, be brief. According to Prentice Hall, reading on a computer screen is more difficult and tedious than reading on paper.

As we start into our professional careers, I am excited for what new possibilities we have to CONVEY the message and look forward to the new digital developments that will continually change how a PR professional communicates.

Doritos

I am sure that everyone in class knows about the Doritos' PR campaign and advertisements that have been a success for the past 5 years. The superbowl commercials that have been shown especially in the 2007 superbowl have been a staple to Doritos success. They did not just make commercials or portrayed themselves in a positive way, but they gave everyone something to look forward to. Most people who watch the superbowl watch it for the commercials instead of watching the game. Doritos is a big part of this social movement where commercials are becomeing more popular than the game itself. According to Ogilvy.com's top PR campains of the decade, Doritos was chosen as number one because they created a social change. Doritos made the splash of the decade in 2007 when they garnered 1.3 million media impressions. According to the IRPA (International Public Relations Association) Doritos created an online community of over 1 million and made a 12% leap in revenue the next year. Doritos did everything right in their effort to reach their target market of consumers between the ages of 18 and 45. They used ads that people can relate to in order to reach their audience. By using comedy, the idea of "Crashing The Superbowl" became the theme and put Doritos on the top for the time being.

Artistic Proofs

I'll try not to dive too deep into the concepts of rhetoric, but I've been pondering about the formation of messages. We're all familiar with the three different techniques of discourse, namely ethos, pathos, and logos. On of these facets stands out the most when it comes to the development and dissemination of messages: pathos (emotional appeal). There are several different ways that message constructionists us emotion to stir the audience to action. The two that stand out the most to me are fear and humor. It seems as though most every tv commercial tries to bank on making the audience laugh, or at least crack a smirk. These types of ads are at their best during the Super Bowl, where football fans demand to be entertained by the in-between time frames of the game. On other hand, fear appeals try and strike a chord with the hearts of the audience. The message is constructed in  such a way as to make the listener seek refuge or protection from a perceived threat or danger. Both types of messages seem to at least have a minimal effect on consumers. But I just have to wonder how big of a role logos (logic) and ethos (expertise) play in the messages we, as PR professionals, we distribute.
I suppose it depends upon the context of the situation. Certainly in a disaster or crisis, people are not seeking comedy or satire. This is a situation that calls for logic and reasoning. This is a time for facts and future plans. The same can apply to political arguments. While emotion may play a role in politics, citizens look for expertise, character, and logical solutions to problems.
I think it might to be too much to hope for to expect that we all seek a combination of all thee modes of persuasion when listening to messages. Is it ethical to only appeal to emotions? It's a subject on which I've heard many debates. I guess I can only try to use logic and character in the messages that I create myself. But who knows, maybe I'll change my mind in the future.

Free Agents

So I have finally found something that I feel is worthy of talking about on this blog! I don't know if any one of you in this class have had the privilege to hear of the new television series Free Agents; but if you have not then that is really too bad. I just finished watching the pilot of this new series and I was actually kind of captivated by it. Now I'm sure that you are all reading this and thinking, "what does this have to do with anything?". Yet in fact it has everything to do with our class. The reason is that the entire show is about a group of people who are working in a Public Relations Firm.
Do not get me wrong however, the show itself seems a little bit lame but the fact that it is all about us really got me interested. So I watched.
The story is all about recently divorced Alex (Hank Azaria from The Simpsons and Huff) who an absolute emotional wreck and cannot even make it through a day of work without sobbing like a pre-school girl in pigtails. In the pilot there is some stupid story filler drama about Alex hooking up with his co-worker Helen (Kathryn Hahn, "Hung") who also just finish burying her husband over a year ago (yes pun intended) but is still so neurotic that she has 22 photos of the dead husband glittering her room.
As you can see it follows an extremely unique story-line as an attempt to set itself apart from the rest! Ha! Ha! Ha! Not!!! Yet inspite of it's generic and somewhat drab papercutter plot line the show does have me legitimately snared by the crafty dialogue and setting that relates to why I'm posting it here on this blog.
I like television shows and movies very much. Almost more than I like myself. And so when I noticed this one related to our P.R. Class I changed my entire direction that I had planned to take with these blog posts. I hink that each couple episodes of this show might actually have enough meat inside of them that I can fill up a post each week with a little update of what has happened and how we can learn from this show. If it doesn't work or interest you then sorry stop reading because I gotta get a grade.
Thank you all and hope you get an opportunity to check it out.

P.S. Ashton Kutcher is going to be ok on two and a half men. He'll never be Charlie but I like what did to introduce his character as taking up where Charlie left off but not being the exact same guy. Still this is a shout out to Charlie fans everywhere! He'll be missed won't he?

The Journey of Branding in PR

Recently in my persuasion class we were talking about branding and how it has moved from identifying a product to an emotional connection. Because we live in such a saturated world, we cannot simply rely on those traditional forms of public relations and advertising we must push the envelope. We need to connect with our audiences, engage all five senses, take them on a journey, and invite them to a lifestyle they have always longed for. We have the power to create the world in which we wished we all lived in. How exciting, cutting-edge, exhilarating and terrifying! There is a lot of pressure involved in creating someone’s fantasy. However, I think that is exactly what drives us to do what we do best is the rush of adrenaline you get when you know you created something that a customer has only fantasized of. We get to make people’s dreams come true! Art Challis really made me think about why this is the career for me and as he was speaking I realized it is because I love to push that envelope. I want to create that experience for people. I want to be the one that takes a company from a business to “an experience”. I want to be the driver on this journey!  PR professionals are not the norm, we are the exception. We do not live inside the box, we draw new ones. We do not settle for good, we strive for perfection. That is why we are all here and that is exactly why we will all be the future of this profession.

How to provide the ‘Why’ 24-hours a day.

The way news is disseminated has particular implications for the PR profession. Specifically the way 'Why' is developed shapes the conversation more than any other portion of media. I wrote an essay for a competition this last week that discusses why Political Pundits are the 'ultimate independent journalists'. It's attached in full below.

The most important thing that can be gathered from the essay, is the conclusion that audiences demand a why. It is not enough anymore to simply give the who, what, where, when, and how. All to often when crafting our Press Releases we ignore the why portion, and news media is required to fill it in. If we can provide the Why for them, it allows us more control of the message.

"You’ve known the criteria since grade school: who, what, where, when, why and how. If you watch NBC News, read the New York Times, or listen to NPR, you will experience the same basic story. For example:

Washington DC: On September 19, Obama released his deficit reduction plan during a speech in the Rose Garden.

You are now informed. You have the who, the what, the where, the when, and the how. If you keep reading, you might even find out why. According to the New York Times, Obama gave his speech in response to falling poll numbers and an anxious base. Is that true? It must be. It’s on the front page. How do they know that though?

“The president laid down a marker today that is true to his beliefs,” said Jacob J. Lew…

This statement, found in the same article, seems to refute the original New York Times claim. It would appear Obama is simply doing what he believes. This creates a dilemma where either the New York Times is incorrect or Obama's spin machine delivered false information.

Neither the newspaper nor the president’s team is incorrect. The author is simply stating her opinion. Issues of this nature only occur when journalists try to pander their opinion as fact. More and more frequently this occurs. Audiences demand it.

When a news outlet attempts to add the why into their reporting, they do so at the risk of presenting absolutes. This is why we have editorial sections. This is why shows like The O’Reilly Factor exist. They exist to fill the void, to give us the why.

There does exist an error in this approach. How do you present these opinions in an ever-evolving 24-hour news cycle while avoiding confusion with facts? Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN have a precedent to deliver an editorial opinion during their hard news programs. They have found a way to do just that.

Individuals with in depth knowledge of the political process are called on to share their opinions on the latest political stories of the day. They await the beckon of the journalists and anchors in order to give the most controversial and imperative portion of the news story: why did this just happen, and why did it happen this way? These saviors of 24-hour cable news are known as political pundits, independent professionals.

Are political pundits always right? No. Do political pundits generally have an ideological bias? Yes. We all do. Yet they exist as the only solution.

Not only do they preform the research necessary for accurate interpretation of politics as part of their daily lives and routines, they also allow for the distinction of hard and soft news, of fact and opinion. We know that when they speak it is opinion shaped on their interpretation of the facts.

Although you could argue that pundits are not actually journalists, the independence and professional experience they provide allows them to be better news providers, and in effect the ultimate journalists."

Ambiguity (cont.)

Ben's comments below point out some interesting observations in the organizational realm. Whether strategic ambiguity is ethical or not, corporations frequently use this method of communication. There are several reasons why a company would use this sort of tactic on the organizational level, but I also think it stems from basic human psychology.
It's easier for us as humans to give simplified labels to objects, people, and organizations (especially those which we are unfamiliar with) instead of extensive lists of pros and cons. For example, think of the company BP. Most likely the first thing that came to your mind was the massive oil spill last year that thrust the company into the public eye in a negative light. If we were asked what our opinion of the company is, we would most likely describe our feelings of the Gulf oil spill. We probably wouldn't say things like "BP handled the gulf spill poorly, but they tend to have good gas prices," or "I thought the CEO said some pretty horrible things, but I do like their logo." For the most part, we tend to give attention to one particular aspect of something or someone. There are instances where we focus on several different characteristics, but we try and simplify the world around us into meanings that we can easily construct and identify.
It is for this reason I feel that strategic ambiguity is so prevalent in political, organizational, and even personal  communication. Just try and imagine if there were no political parties in government. As nice as that idea may seem, it would require that all voters carefully examine the policies and character of each candidate. Parties allow us to give labels in one of the most blatant ways. "I'm not voting for a Republican/Democrat." That is why politicians must try and give themselves a new label by using such phrases as "pro-family" or "pro-jobs."
It's important to remember that as humans, we try our best to simplify our world. We're not unintelligent, we just don't want to complicate our lives with matters we find unimportant. This notion requires us to think about how we should construct messages as PR practitioners.

Ethics of Ambiguity

In another class I’m in, we spent a good deal of time talking about strategic ambiguity. The theory has four major points: it promotes unified diversity, preserves privileged positions, is deniable, and facilitates organizational change.

Running for City Council got me thinking about the ethics of strategic ambiguity. When someone says that they are pro-family, what does that mean? It is extremely ambiguous. It could mean that you are against abortions, or that you are in favor of social services. You support non-discrimination, or that you are against gay marriage.

A lot of people, including myself at one point, think this to be unethical. You can use the same phrase to two different groups of people and have both groups take away something completely different. You can’t control what those people take away, and yet when you say it you usually mean something specific.

Then why do we use vague terms? When you start to get specific you turn people off. Who isn’t pro-family, or pro-jobs? And yet when you say those things, you aren’t actually saying anything. When you start to get specific you turn people off.

Instead, you want to give those that don’t really care, something to lash on to. Those who have the desire to learn more will. And those that accept the vague terms at their face don’t have a desire to dig deeper. Is this our fault? No. Ambiguity makes things simple to understand. It allows those that don’t want to spend their time being involved the chance to feel involved.

Along the same lines, the goal of ambiguous communication is to get intelligent people involved in things they know nothing about.

How large is the federal budget? How much do we spend on defense? Do you know the answers to these questions? Of course you don’t. And yet when Obama told America to let the professionals figure things out, we saw an immediate plunge in his approval numbers.

The people that follow politics, and the people that care about politics, are generally intelligent. There information level is the issue. Politicians use intentionally ambiguous terms to speak to your information level, while still respecting your intelligence.

Is this unethical? It can be. But its purpose is not unethical. It only become unethical once you use the ambiguity to lie. In our earlier example, Pro-Family, it is easy to see this happening. When standing before a pro-life group you can tell them you are pro-family in hopes of having them join you. But you can say pro-family while being pro-choice. This is unethical.

To avoid being unethical, you must understand the underlying connotations behind an ambiguous term, and use the ambiguous terms only to spread information. And that’s why we take PR writing classes; to learn how to be ambiguous ethically.

PR: The Ever-Changing Profession

As I have now entered my senior year as a Communication / Public Relations major I was simply taking a moment to contemplate this career path I have chosen.  Glamorized by various television shows and movies I initially thought I was finally going to be in my element with nonstop parties and events, I would truly be living the life everyone dreams of….Well once the early realization hit that I wasn’t going to be the next Samantha Jones I started to dig a little deeper and luckily found that my pot of gold was still there just disguised by a little dirt. Sometimes Public Relations is not glamorous but it is ALWAYS necessary and EVER CHANGING! That right there my friends is bliss because for someone who gets bored extremely and most likely unhealthily easily, my path could never stay the same from day to day! Ours most definitely will not…it changes every single day, hour and minute. With each person you meet you use different strategies and tactics and then get to navigate the maze all again the next day! How lucky are we? Thank goodness I have chosen something I have found a passion for and hope that passion will continually grows with my education. That being said, I found this article with some changes in PR that have already transpired over the years. 10 Newborn PR Tactics. I found it interesting and hope that you all will feel the same!

The next SJ

Amie

Father of PR? or Father of Propaganda?

Let's share this interesting video clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiKMmrG1ZKU&feature=related

In addition, his wife, Doris E. Fleischman, was the first female PR practitioner and they made the PR agency.
Obviously, made lots of money :)