With the wrapping up of the semester, I have to look back at my classes and what they provided for me.
One of these is the Twitter/Blog assignment of both my PR classes (ADPR 5910 and 5920). To combine both of these assignments under one explanation, students were required to fulfill a predetermined number of Tweets and Followings, a pre
While learning these social medias is extremely important in this major, I have an objection to the execution of them. I believe in application-based learning versus arbitrary number assignments.
Learning how to Tweet and follow is good. But I feel that a demonstration of your ability to do so is sufficient. Having to show regular use through a high-number assignment is overdoing it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily entail that you LIKE doing it, and having to show regular use is forcing excess. I, for one, don't like Twitter that much. But I can show that I know how to use it. I feel that a demonstration of use is better than excessive using.
The same goes for blogs. The blog assignment was not as numerous as the Twitter assignment, but it still left the feeling of excess. I feel I should be able to demonstrate blog usage (internal links, posting, HTML, etc). But more than two or three just becomes redundant after a while. While I understand the other half of the assignment was to show our opinion of different PR events and build a center to show knowledge, I feel that the more important lesson here is actually learning to use the interface, not wracking our brains for info.
In the end, proof of application is far more useful than arbitrary number assignments. After a while, in my opinion, it stops becoming beneficial and starts becoming masturbatory.
Friday, December 4, 2009
MySpace
Anyone checked their MySpace recently?
Probably not. Because with the Facebook and Twitter escalation, poor li'l MySpace has gotten left back in the dust. Anyone notice how if you want to post something to your social media site, there are automatic links to all sorts of social media....except MySpace? That's because it's getting neglected by the storm. Sad, but true.
How does MySpace come back?
Well, there IS one way. It involves throwing back to its roots. It's something that goes on all the time and people take for granted.
MySpace needs to start gearing more towards bands again.
Little known fact: MySpace was originally a freespace for bands to post their music and have an online profile. Then it became socialized (in the people sense, not the political sense) and now it's for everyone.
The search cap on the music search for MySpace is 1000, but if you search for "rock" you'll hit that cap immediately. There are HUNDREDS of thousands of bands on MySpace.--a fact that most people know but don't REALLY realize.
MySpace has done a good job pushing the music side of it, but I think that to compete, MySpace needs to make Music its centerpiece. Push that aspect and pull back on the personal social media side. By doing this, they'll stand a chance of not getting left in the dust, and rather taking a side road less traveled.
Probably not. Because with the Facebook and Twitter escalation, poor li'l MySpace has gotten left back in the dust. Anyone notice how if you want to post something to your social media site, there are automatic links to all sorts of social media....except MySpace? That's because it's getting neglected by the storm. Sad, but true.
How does MySpace come back?
Well, there IS one way. It involves throwing back to its roots. It's something that goes on all the time and people take for granted.
MySpace needs to start gearing more towards bands again.
Little known fact: MySpace was originally a freespace for bands to post their music and have an online profile. Then it became socialized (in the people sense, not the political sense) and now it's for everyone.
The search cap on the music search for MySpace is 1000, but if you search for "rock" you'll hit that cap immediately. There are HUNDREDS of thousands of bands on MySpace.--a fact that most people know but don't REALLY realize.
MySpace has done a good job pushing the music side of it, but I think that to compete, MySpace needs to make Music its centerpiece. Push that aspect and pull back on the personal social media side. By doing this, they'll stand a chance of not getting left in the dust, and rather taking a side road less traveled.
Twitter: Useful or Useless? (subpost: Blogs)
I've been required to use Twitter by two separate classes (a notion which I will address in another blog later). I already had a bias against Twitter prior to the class, so needless to say I wasn't thrilled. But I went in with a mostly open mind and tried it out.
I can see the usefulness of Twitter--instant broadcast of whatever you have to say to everyone and anyone. Companies no longer have to wait for slower announcements through radio, TV, or other bloggers: one Tweet and you've connected with the world.
However--and this is a big however--Twitter is also used by people who simply want to share their thoughts. On everything. One example is Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Simon loves Twitter. He posts everything that he does and thinks of immediately. I love Simon's Twitter so I hate to use him for example, but if he were anyone else--any regular everyday person--this would apply more.
It seems that half of Twitter's usage includes mindlessly posting your daily activities in hopes that others will care. And frankly, we have enough social media outlets that are used for that very purpose.
Active Twitter users (or "Twits" as I prefer): post useful things. Or else you drive Twitter into uselessness.
This ties into Blogs as well. Many will use blogs for information and discussion. But then there are those who use it as an online diary of daily events, and frankly I deem this a waste of internet space. I used to do this. I try my damnedest to not anymore. There are places such as Facebook and MySpace for things like that (more on MySpace later). Use the blog for insight or information dissemination.
I can see the usefulness of Twitter--instant broadcast of whatever you have to say to everyone and anyone. Companies no longer have to wait for slower announcements through radio, TV, or other bloggers: one Tweet and you've connected with the world.
However--and this is a big however--Twitter is also used by people who simply want to share their thoughts. On everything. One example is Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Simon loves Twitter. He posts everything that he does and thinks of immediately. I love Simon's Twitter so I hate to use him for example, but if he were anyone else--any regular everyday person--this would apply more.
It seems that half of Twitter's usage includes mindlessly posting your daily activities in hopes that others will care. And frankly, we have enough social media outlets that are used for that very purpose.
Active Twitter users (or "Twits" as I prefer): post useful things. Or else you drive Twitter into uselessness.
This ties into Blogs as well. Many will use blogs for information and discussion. But then there are those who use it as an online diary of daily events, and frankly I deem this a waste of internet space. I used to do this. I try my damnedest to not anymore. There are places such as Facebook and MySpace for things like that (more on MySpace later). Use the blog for insight or information dissemination.
H1N1
The battle against the H1N1 "Swine Flu" spread has been handled rather well, in my opini0n.
As far as the public can tell, information has been disseminated rapidly as it comes in regarding advances in protection, spread and containment.
But the question still remains: how could it have been handled better?
The answer:
Kill the Fear.
The main thing that has NOT been handled well is that the CDC has done nothing to quell the fear of the public regarding H1N1. Rather than initially telling them that H1N1 is simply another strain of influenza that is most likely to infect you and be harmful if your immune system is already low (truth), they fed the frenzy by promoting face masks in public, having you run to get your H1N1 shots (which have not necessarily been proven to work) and more.
Why cause panic when you can quell the populous?
Well how else are you supposed to sell your vaccines?
Yes, the problem here is that the CDC is still inherently a business. So while it DID want to help people with the problem, it also had to consider its fiscal standpoint.
Problem: I don't think they considered it well enough.
I personally think it would have been more ethical to calm the population and let them know everything about H1N1, still offering vaccines to all so as to prevent spread. Easy marketing: Winter is flu season. Get vaccinated BEFORE flu season to avoid having your immune system drop and expose you to H1N1.
I'm not saying that the CDC did anything inherently wrong. I'm just giving a better PR/Public information stance: full truth eases panic more often than not. And when your job is centered around diseases that can potentially kill, that should be your primary concern.
As far as the public can tell, information has been disseminated rapidly as it comes in regarding advances in protection, spread and containment.
But the question still remains: how could it have been handled better?
The answer:
Kill the Fear.
The main thing that has NOT been handled well is that the CDC has done nothing to quell the fear of the public regarding H1N1. Rather than initially telling them that H1N1 is simply another strain of influenza that is most likely to infect you and be harmful if your immune system is already low (truth), they fed the frenzy by promoting face masks in public, having you run to get your H1N1 shots (which have not necessarily been proven to work) and more.
Why cause panic when you can quell the populous?
Well how else are you supposed to sell your vaccines?
Yes, the problem here is that the CDC is still inherently a business. So while it DID want to help people with the problem, it also had to consider its fiscal standpoint.
Problem: I don't think they considered it well enough.
I personally think it would have been more ethical to calm the population and let them know everything about H1N1, still offering vaccines to all so as to prevent spread. Easy marketing: Winter is flu season. Get vaccinated BEFORE flu season to avoid having your immune system drop and expose you to H1N1.
I'm not saying that the CDC did anything inherently wrong. I'm just giving a better PR/Public information stance: full truth eases panic more often than not. And when your job is centered around diseases that can potentially kill, that should be your primary concern.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Entertainment and the PR nightmare
It's the scariest part of PR you can possibly imagine:
Entertainment PR.
How is this any scarier, you may ask, than political PR or corporate PR where millions of dollars or legislature can rest in the balance?
They say that PR is a 24/7 job. Entertainment PR is a 30/7 job, in that you might as well tack on an extra 6 hours to your day because you're going to need it. Entertainment PR is crazy. Capital Crazy, even, especially in mainstream entertainment PR (like pop music PR). Imagine doing everything you can to create a good image for your client, yet you have everyone surrounding your client and even your own client just waiting to tear it all down the moment you relax and step back for a moment.
Entertainment PR is a vicious world. People don't WANT you to make a good image for someone. If they see you doing it, half the time they'll aim to destroy it on-sight (i.e. paparazzi). And when you're trying to rebuild from the ruin, you get that Sisyphus feeling of pushing a boulder up a neverending, ever-slanting hill.
So how do you cope?
Frankly....you just go do it. If you don't, then it all falls apart and stays apart. It's your job as entertainment PR to make sure that it can stay together long enough to make an impact each time.
Have fun.
Entertainment PR.
How is this any scarier, you may ask, than political PR or corporate PR where millions of dollars or legislature can rest in the balance?
They say that PR is a 24/7 job. Entertainment PR is a 30/7 job, in that you might as well tack on an extra 6 hours to your day because you're going to need it. Entertainment PR is crazy. Capital Crazy, even, especially in mainstream entertainment PR (like pop music PR). Imagine doing everything you can to create a good image for your client, yet you have everyone surrounding your client and even your own client just waiting to tear it all down the moment you relax and step back for a moment.
Entertainment PR is a vicious world. People don't WANT you to make a good image for someone. If they see you doing it, half the time they'll aim to destroy it on-sight (i.e. paparazzi). And when you're trying to rebuild from the ruin, you get that Sisyphus feeling of pushing a boulder up a neverending, ever-slanting hill.
So how do you cope?
Frankly....you just go do it. If you don't, then it all falls apart and stays apart. It's your job as entertainment PR to make sure that it can stay together long enough to make an impact each time.
Have fun.
New York and Gay Marriage
Another state has joined the ranks to shoot down the proposal of gay marriage.
Much to my surprise, it's New York.
Needless to say, I was shocked when I learned this. New York, which made areas like the Lower East Side and Greenwhich Village famous for the gay community, denying one of their strongest and most vocal social groups what they've been begging for.
Between New York and California, I really wonder how the PR works on this. How do these states, which have massive gay populations--massive ACTIVE gay populations (active in the sense of vocal and involved, not actively gay. That's just a given)--, handle the public relations side of denying gay marriage?
More than just a political move, I see it as a bad PR move to do so. It reflects badly on these two hyperurbanized states when more "rural" states such as Vermont and Iowa can adopt gay marriage legislature and you cannot. It sends mixed messages and makes a community that has thrived for decades feel less comfortable and more hostile.
If this were a corporation, I would recommend just biting the bullet and passing the law. There has to be something bigger than the public can imagine working against it for this sort of legislation to be shot down in these areas.
Much to my surprise, it's New York.
Needless to say, I was shocked when I learned this. New York, which made areas like the Lower East Side and Greenwhich Village famous for the gay community, denying one of their strongest and most vocal social groups what they've been begging for.
Between New York and California, I really wonder how the PR works on this. How do these states, which have massive gay populations--massive ACTIVE gay populations (active in the sense of vocal and involved, not actively gay. That's just a given)--, handle the public relations side of denying gay marriage?
More than just a political move, I see it as a bad PR move to do so. It reflects badly on these two hyperurbanized states when more "rural" states such as Vermont and Iowa can adopt gay marriage legislature and you cannot. It sends mixed messages and makes a community that has thrived for decades feel less comfortable and more hostile.
If this were a corporation, I would recommend just biting the bullet and passing the law. There has to be something bigger than the public can imagine working against it for this sort of legislation to be shot down in these areas.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Obama, China and censorship
So, Obama has been censored by China, despite being invited to visit China.
“Southern Weekend,” a very outspoken publication in China, interviewed President Obama. And when citizens of China got their copy of the magazine delivered to them...it was missing the interview. Front and back pages simply missing from the paper, as if torn out. The Post Office claims that the magazines arrived that way.
This is not the first and only instance, either. Before he even made it over to China, entire sections of President Obama's inauguration speech were removed by CCTV. Xinhua removed any sentences that might allow their citizens to feel animosity towards China (words such as Communism were excluded from Chinese translations of the speech).
Obama's recent speech in China finally gave him a chance to discuss censorship and open-Internet policies. And even in lieu of China's repeated censorship of information, there were those who claimed that the mainstream was not concerned with internet censorship.
Let's look at public image. You're a nation that censors information. People are calling you out on it, internally and externally. Which of the following do you do:
a) continue censoring the people speaking out against your censorship
b) pretend like your population doesn't care
c) justify your stance
If you said C (as in China), congrats--you've got it right. I have no illusions: asking China to simply cease censorship is like asking Rush Limbaugh to tone it down for a bit. It's just not going to happen. But China CAN justify its position. "Why do you censor people, China?" "Well, we do it for ___, ____ and ____."
Basic PR: pretending that something isn't happening or isn't important when it's both is DUMB.
If you address the issue and show why it's happening, it's much better and helps your image a lot more.
Just for thought.
“Southern Weekend,” a very outspoken publication in China, interviewed President Obama. And when citizens of China got their copy of the magazine delivered to them...it was missing the interview. Front and back pages simply missing from the paper, as if torn out. The Post Office claims that the magazines arrived that way.
This is not the first and only instance, either. Before he even made it over to China, entire sections of President Obama's inauguration speech were removed by CCTV. Xinhua removed any sentences that might allow their citizens to feel animosity towards China (words such as Communism were excluded from Chinese translations of the speech).
Obama's recent speech in China finally gave him a chance to discuss censorship and open-Internet policies. And even in lieu of China's repeated censorship of information, there were those who claimed that the mainstream was not concerned with internet censorship.
Let's look at public image. You're a nation that censors information. People are calling you out on it, internally and externally. Which of the following do you do:
a) continue censoring the people speaking out against your censorship
b) pretend like your population doesn't care
c) justify your stance
If you said C (as in China), congrats--you've got it right. I have no illusions: asking China to simply cease censorship is like asking Rush Limbaugh to tone it down for a bit. It's just not going to happen. But China CAN justify its position. "Why do you censor people, China?" "Well, we do it for ___, ____ and ____."
Basic PR: pretending that something isn't happening or isn't important when it's both is DUMB.
If you address the issue and show why it's happening, it's much better and helps your image a lot more.
Just for thought.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)