I know I've been unavailable, but I thought you'd blog in the meantime. I seem to recall an assignment of three blogs a week for a total of 600 words—and three tweets a week. Some of you are doing that—and some of you aren't.
The idea was to comment on your colleagues' posts and suggest new ones, even though I'm the one who starts new posts.
Speaking of blogs, has anyone visited the nytimes.com After Deadline writing blog lately? It's always interesting and amusing if writing well interests and amuses you. See if there's a topic that would make a good blog post here.
If not, see if there's a nytimes.com Opinion article or column that piques (or peaks?) your interest and tell us why.
I've enjoyed reading your posts so far. They're thoughtful and well-written with just a few tweaks needed.
Let the blogging continue—or begin. Please.
I read an opinion article in today’s New York Times regarding the firing of Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR. I strongly disagree with NPR’s quick decision to fire Williams.
ReplyDeleteNPR fired Williams after he made the following statement on Fox:
“I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Within hours of the statement, Williams no longer worked for NPR.
In my opinion, NPR fired him rashly and without deliberation. NPR most likely thought firing Williams was the right thing to do, yet it didn’t even have time to analyze the situation before taking extreme action; it was a knee-jerk reaction. Williams said how something made him feel; he didn’t advocate hate. Is he wrong to worry about Islamist terrorists?
Vivian Schiller, President of NPR, thinks Williams violated journalistic ethics by stating his opinion. She also stated that he should have spoken with his psychiatrist about this issue, a rather rude comment.
Garrison Keillor, whose show is broadcast on NPR stations, frequently makes outrageous comments, such as describing Republicans as “the party of hairy-backed swamp developers…fundamentalist bullies with bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists…” Why does he get away with it? Even if he does not work directly for NPR, he is still on the station, and this impacts NPR’s image.
Similar to the situation of CNN firing Rick Sanchez for his comments about Jews, NPR should have waited a little longer before making a dramatic decision. The public, who I assume NPR was trying to please by firing Williams, is not happy with the decision. The public is similarly suspicious of the decision to fire NPR’s only African-American on-air personality. Outlets are no longer objective, and there is room for opinion. As long as inappropriate comments, such as Imus’s infamous “nappy-headed hoes,” are not said, outlets should not make drastic decisions without waiting it out.
Do you think NPR did the right thing?
I’d like to comment on Richard Edelman’s blog post on 6 A.M., titled “Changing a Life.” After providing updates on the firm and the office, Edelman closes every staff meeting with a special offer: $2,000 to any employee who quits smoking. Upon commitment, each individual who agrees must sign a contract and return the money if he or she smokes before six months. The most interesting part is that the offer is based solely on word of honor, not blood tests or persistent check-ups.
ReplyDeleteI am very impressed with Edelman’s ability to humanize the organization with this offer; Edelman clearly understands business’ role in enhancing employees’ personal lives, which in turn improves employees’ work ethic. I find Edelman’s offer to be a form of corporate social responsibility, honoring the triple bottom line: people, planet and profit.
I can also tie this in to Assaf Kedem’s guest lecture from our last class. After working for many prestigious organizations, he mentioned that he is most impressed with the personalization Alliance-Bernstein gives to its employees. Instead of labeling each individual with an employee number, it recognizes each person by his or her own name. The representative from human resources told Kedem, “You are a name, not a number.”
I feel as if happiness with one’s workplace increases efforts put into one’s job. By recognizing employees’ as individuals and rewarding personal efforts, workmanship will improve.
I would like to pose a question that I hope will elicit some responses from my classmates: What qualities and characteristics make a good PR professional?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most important attribute that a good public relations professional can have is curiosity. Our clients and companies expect us to have a deep understanding of their products and services. We need to gather information in order to effectively write, pitch, and communicate information with our different audiences. As a result, we become experts on a variety of subjects, even if we don’t have formal training in them. Curiosity is critical in driving a PR person to learn more and more about these subjects. In my brief career, I’ve been an expert on cancer, exercise equipment, diabetes, baby bottles, and back-to-school fashion. I can only imagine what other fields I will be exposed to as my career progresses.
PR professionals should also be excellent writers. As we’ve seen in this course, writing helps to shape the public’s perception of an organization. Writers should look beyond the basics of grammar and syntax and consider a company’s tone and style when developing communication.
Finally, those working in PR should also have the ability to multitask. We live in a fast-paced world that often requires professionals to be working on a handful of projects at one time. Multitasking should include the underrated skill of listening. Gathering information on industry trends, current events, and a company’s internal struggles will help communicators effectively do their jobs.
As PR professionals (or soon to be practicing), we are taught in our NYU classes to always be moral and ethical. So imagine my surprise while looking at the news, I stumbled upon an article about PR agencies in China spreading rumors for clients.
ReplyDeleteThe article on MSNBC.com discussed one story in particular, about a man who enlisted a marketing firm to spread rumors about a competitive business’ baby formula in order to boost sales. The man and three of the marketing firm’s employees were arrested over the matter after about a month after the costly campaign was started.
Citing very strong competition, many Chinese companies are willing to use immoral tactics to gain an advantage and some PR agencies will assist in this effort. "There is a mentality in China that one of the ways you do PR is to get bad stories out there about your competitors," said Alistair Nicholas, chief executive of AC Capital Consulting in Beijing, which advises companies on their public image. "PR is played in a pretty dirty sort of way in this market sometimes."
I understand that standards and guidelines may differ from country to country, but this issue in China sets the PR profession back. For every ethical standard followed (or hopefully followed), there are the anti-PR and write it off as merely spin. This shady affair in China will overshadow any recent good moments in PR for some time. This is yet another reason for future PR practitioners to adhere to ethical codes.
Miryam, I didn’t know about the current PR practices in China, and was also appalled by this story. A Forbes blog chronicled the issues surrounding the Chinese milk industry, which will likely make an interesting case study for the field of public relations.
ReplyDeleteTo summarize, a Chinese milk producer spread rumors about a competitor and lied about the health effects of the competing product. Falsifying health information is clearly unethical, and could put the public in danger. I wonder if the milk producers have hired new agencies to manage these communication crises. In a sense, they would be turning to those who got them into the mess in the first place.
From my perspective, it seems that U.S. PR strategies strive to make their products look at good as possible. But, they never go as far as defaming a competitor, and sometimes avoid directly comparing themselves with others. With the exception of Apple’s Mac versus P.C. campaign, directly comparing products is not always successful, and can make the company on the offensive seem desperate. Slanderous tactics would be more likely to take place in today’s political campaigns. While corporations tend to play nice, politicians focus on taking down their opponents.
Overall, I agree with Miryam – this is an opportunity for PR professionals worldwide to reflect upon the ethics of our work. We can’t afford to tolerate this behavior, or our industry will lose its credibility.
Forbes Blog: http://blogs.forbes.com/gadyepstein/2010/10/21/creating-a-scandal-for-a-fee-the-dark-arts-of-chinese-pr/
The case Miryam cites is called "Pay for Play" in public relations. Alas, it's still common despite PRSA, IABC, IPR and other codes of ethics. A colleague of yours in the program said it often occurs in Brazil. You'll discuss this issue in your ethics classes. Several students have written capstones about it. It comes down to human nature, which, as I hope you know by now, doesn't always reflect the best in humans.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment on the Juan Williams firing and specifically the fact that NPR fired him for violating its code of ethics. At first glance we could say this is a victory for public relations and ethics codes everywhere.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wonder is if NPR is trying to adhere to its set of established principles and rules or if they used the language in the code as a strategic opportunity to rid itself of an employee that it had long been looking to remove.
Williams had been appearing on Fox News for some time now. I’m under the impression that NPR allowed him to make the appearances since in NPR’s own code of ethics it states that “NPR journalists must get written permission for broadcast appearances or speaking engagements, whether or not compensated.” But why let him appear on Bill O’Reilly at all?
But there’s a bigger issue here. Aren’t some of these codes of ethics just an enormous cop-out to increase public confidence in an organization?
There are many organizations who feel the need to attempt to be transparent. I’m guessing NPR is one of these organizations, particularly since many find NPR to be as biased in its reporting and coverage as FOX news is.
What bothers me is I don’t believe NPR follows this code as closely as it could. I laughed when I read their first principle; “Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest.” NPR hasn’t lived up to that principle, although to be fair not many news companies have.
check out the code at http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/ethics/ethics_code.html
I’d like to hear from other students about Starbucks’ new plan and how it will affect Starbucks’ overall reputation and image. Starbucks gets 70% of its business before 2 p.m. (http://usat.ly/dg7jdb). In an effort to gain greater evening business, the coffee chain has decided to make significant changes, including the addition of wine and beer to the menu.
ReplyDeleteWhile some of Starbucks’ new efforts, such as its environmentally-responsible LEED building certification, will be easily accepted, I’m not sure how the alcohol will fare. Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, created the coffeehouse concept after traveling to Italy. He was impressed by the sit-down, relaxing atmosphere where people spent hours on end, while coffeehouses in the United States catered to on-the-go consumers. I assume this same European model has been considered with the addition of alcohol to the menu, as Europeans are capable of responsible drinking.
I understand that Starbucks is trying compete with McDonalds and Dunkin’ Donuts by tapping a market neither of its competitors would attempt; however, I strongly believe Starbucks would lose its positive image. With drunk people surrounding you, how could you retain the image of Starbucks as a safe, comfortable environment? Let’s be real here – Many Americans would not be hitting up Starbucks to unwind after a long day with a glass of wine. We tend to do things in excess in America.
Also, the Starbucks brand has always been based on giving consumers that boost in the morning; now it wants to calm people down at night? What do you all think of Starbucks’ new initiative? Do you think it will be a success or failure?
Alyssa,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Starbucks is gambling with its traditional business model by introducing beer and wine to their menu; however, if they market it correctly they will be successful.
They have already begun research and chosen test locations to see if it will work. Their main goal is to attract more people to the stores in the afternoon and evening hours and by serving wine, beer, and cheese in a relaxing atmosphere, I believe, they can accomplish that. The key is, keeping the atmosphere relaxing and welcoming so all guests, whether enjoying coffee or beer, are comfortable.
Alyssa, you are correct when you say intoxicated people taking over the coffee shop would offend the traditional Starbucks crowd. This is why Starbucks needs to market their initiative to people who are looking to relax and peacefully unwind at the end of the day, not to people looking for their next hangover.
From what I have read, in the test stores they have redesigned the bar area where people pick up their coffee to include a larger bar area for guests to enjoy the new beverages. What I am interested in figuring out is how late they will serve alcohol at the stores. I would recommend a last call at 11:30 P.M. This would help preserve their atmosphere because it’s a late enough time for people to enjoy a few glasses, but an early enough time to keep people from potentially disturbing the peace.
Could this initiative fail? Yes. Could it be a success? Yes. Assuming they are strategic about it, I’m leaning toward success.
The debates are heated, the commercials provoking, and town halls are taking place—it’s midterm election time. A time where Americans can vote for incumbents or new comers, and freshen up on what issues are important to the country.
ReplyDeleteAll elections are important, but with the state of U.S. recovering from recession this election is crucial. Americans should vote for the best person to represent them, but that is not always easy because of how some campaigns are run today. Instead of focusing on what policies a candidate believes in and what potential they have, many campaigns focus on tearing down the character of the opponent.
This mudslinging is sometimes accurate and verifiable, but in some cases it’s information crafted and spun by the opposition. These commercials and accusations can confuse voters into voting for the “lesser of two evils” instead of the best person for the job.
Will the false accusations and contrary advertising of political candidates ever cease to exist in politics? Absolutely not, so voters should learn and make a point to educate themselves on the policies and values of each candidate regardless of their political party stance and negative press they have received.
What do you guys think about negative campaigning?
P.S. Educate yourself and don’t forget to vote.
I came across a story a few days ago about a man who tweeted about his local grocery store while on a recent shopping trip. A PR specialist employed by the grocery chain retaliated against the customer for the bad feedback. The story became widespread news shortly after. While reading the story a question came to mind - with the increase of social media platforms how do businesses address employees commenting or representing the company through the use of private social media accounts?
ReplyDeleteThe PR specialist for Price Chopper responded to a tweet made by Jonathan Hoster from her personal Twitter account. She also emailed his employer from her business email address to notify them of his behavior. Price Chopper received backlash and negative mentions on Twitter based on the PR specialist’s behavior. The Director of Consumer Insights, Heidi Reale, was quoted as saying, “…it was an associate who went rogue.”
With the increase in social media usage among employees how are companies to handle these types of situations? Price Chopper participated in an open forum with a group of students and customers to help defuse the situation, but would not comment of the actions taken against the employee who attacked Mr. Hoster.
Many companies create social media policies to regulate employee behavior. In this case the employee intentionally used her Twitter account to address Mr. Hoster’s comments. What about when employees make comments about their company on personal time and on a private social media account? Should the company be allowed to take action against the employee for potentially damaging the company image? Where does everyone else stand on this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that the NFL's flip is actually a flop in the making.
ReplyDeleteWe discussed last week in my media relations class the viscous hits that NFL players take and how the NFL would respond to these hits. My professor argued, and I agree, that the NFL cares very little about player safety.
What it boils down to is that the league wants to expand the NFL season to 18 games.
This of course will be universally opposed by NFL players who can barely withstand a 16 game season. A longer season would decrease the amount of years a player could play and increase the physical toll on their bodies. And the NFL has continually proven that once its players have left the game broken that it cares little for them.
So the NFL must work hard to change the players’ perceptions.
Preventing violent hits, along with tougher concussion rules, makes it seem that Roger Goodell cares about the health and safety of his players. I’m sure come March when he negotiates with the players union he will stress all the NFL has done in the realm of player safety in an effort to get them to accept an 18 game season.
I do think we are going to see an evolution of how the game is played and it will turn the NFL into a softer all-offense league.
In the end with 18 games we’ll be subject to a watered down product – defenses won’t crush the opposition, they will “politely” knock them to the ground.
Because that’s how the game will have to be played by players in order for them to survive a potential 22 game super Bowl run – 24 if you count preseason.
But that's just my side of it. You're calling it a flip and many sports reporters I've read or watched seem to agree. I just question the NFL’s ulterior motives. We’ll see before March.
In honor of our class’ devotion to all that is correct in the lands of grammar, spelling, and writing I wanted to blog about Sol Steinmetz, who passed away last week.
ReplyDeleteSol Steinmetz was a lexicographer and member of Olbom (On Language’s Board of Octogenarian Mentors). Steinmetz was widely sought after for his opinions on semantics, grammar and etymology and was well-known for mastering first citation. Throughout his career he edited several dictionaries and authored books on language.
All of this coming from a man whose first language wasn’t even English! I think this is quite a feat, given that many Americans can’t distinguish the difference between “there” and “their”. With such respected guardians of language like Steinmetz passing away, who will be the next generation of keepers?
While grammar may not be my favorite subject (or forte, but the midterm will tell me that soon enough), being in public relations automatically allocates us as grammar guardians. If we are sending written material into the public, it is our responsibility to ensure we follow proper grammar and writing standards.
Firing a minority reporter for voicing his opinion instead of news, like so many "reporters" and talking heads?
ReplyDeleteStarbucks by starlight and beer goggles?
Flip-flop (flim-fam?) public relations?
Grammar Guardians?
What's next?
Pay-for-play PR in China?
(Oh, Miryam already did that.)
You're on a roll. I'll start a new post.
Otherwise we'll be scrolling to China.
And probably paying for it.
Oops! It's flim-flam. Of course it is. See, I proofread (sometimes after the fact).
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteThank you for explaining the other side of the issue. Expanding the season does seem contrary to the NFL's focus on player safety.
Thanks for your input!
I'd like to go back to the firing of Juan Williams. I don't want to discuss if firing him was the correct decision, but instead I want to focus on the PR lessons we can learn from NPR’s actions.
ReplyDeleteThe first lesson to learn is to know when to stop talking. Vivian Schiller commented that Juan Williams’ sentiments about Muslims are between him “his psychiatrist or his publicist.” Her comment was extremely inappropriate. It suggested that Juan has or needs a psychiatrist, and it was unnecessary all together. As professional communicators, we must be aware that people are always listening to what we say. Once you’ve gotten your point across, you should stop talking.
The next lesson to learn is that your actions can often have unintended consequences. Schiller commented that the situation unfortunately took place during fundraising week. This made NPR seem more concerned with fundraising than its message or brand. Even without Schiller’s comment, NPR’s actions have negatively affected fundraising. Many top leaders have called for Congress to stop funding NPR.
NPR failed to anticipate the consequences of its words and actions. Schiller has now apologized for the way the situation was handled, but to me it seems like too little too late.