Week 2, Part 2: Some ethical issues for PR and marketing. Let’s talk about ‘em.

I anguished over what to  present for this part of the lesson. Then it hit me.

Doh! I’ve been writing about ethical issues in PR and marketing for 3 years, and almost no one in this class has read my posts — because I never assigned them! So I picked two of my favorite issues that fall nicely into Rush Kidder’s “right vs. right” dilemmas.

Chime in between now and midnight, June 6.

Issue #1: Does corporate philanthropy raise ethical issues? Economist Milton Freidman said that corporations don’t owe charitable support to communities. Corporations support communities by generating wealth, and jobs, and prosperity. In 1970, Friedman wrote this article titled “The social responsibility of business is to increase profits.”

When corporations donate millions to the community or to various causes, what’s behind their benevolence? Are they being good citizens, or just trying to bolster their public images and sell more stuff? And does the intent of their generosity really matter as long as they’re helping people?

I asked this question way back on 10/30/06, when almost no one was reading my blog. Let’s take a trip back to that post, shall we?

Who really said that? Is ghostwriting ethical in social media? I got into a real dust up in social media circles a few months back because I insisted that ghostwriting is perfectly ethical in some contexts, and something PR professionals should feel comfortable doing provided they follow certain guidelines. I wrote about it here, and I stand by what I wrote. But I also jumped into a fairly heated discussion about it over at Beth Harte’s blog. Beth disagrees with me on this issue, and she doesn’t pull any punches. You can find her case here.

Is ghostwriting for blogs another right vs. right issue? Or is it just plain wrong. Let’s talk about it, and let’s be sure to look at both sides of the argument. BTW, I admire students who disagree with me and can make their case. Don’t be shy. It’s summer school!

Photographic manipulation raises issues of truth — but do news, PR and advertising see it differently?

To the Intersession 2009 edition of Ethics & Issues In Mass Media: This is the first of two posts I’ll ask you to comment on during this week. Remember that blogs are conversations. Read the post AND your classmates’ comments before you chime in. And don’t just drop by once and leave. No one likes a hit-and-run commenter!

______________________________________

As  a young account exec at a large Detroit PR firm, I served as editor of several client newsletters. One story I developed in 1980 was a photo essay capturing the midnight shift craziness at the loading docks of the Stroh Brewery. We called it “Stroh’s Rocks at the Docks.” I know, no one drinks Stroh’s anymore, but that’s not my fault!

Do you think someone should have "photoshopped" those power lines from the sky? Just sayin'.

For 2 hours, my photographer, Gerome —  under my direction —  shot stellar pictures of forklift trucks (24 in all) loaded with beer pallets crisscrossing the mammoth warehouse. Gerome used time exposures to blur movement and fisheye lenses to create cool effects. The photos were downright artistic, and the client was sure to love them — except for one thing.

At least half the workers on that midnight shift weren’t wearing their hardhats, which put them out of compliance with OSHA regulations. The pictures would have to be reshot – and at my agency’s expense. I knew the OSHA regs, and I blew it.

Make that mistake today and the remedy is so easy. Just ask your designer to “PhotoShop” protective helmets to the heads of the lawbreakers. An hour later, your subjects are miraculously “in compliance” with workplace safety laws. It’s magic.

Another reason to love technology? Not if your concern is ethics.

My journalist colleagues at Kent State would call such photo alteration patently unethical. To manipulate a news photograph in any substantial way is to alter truth, something a news professionals will not abide. If you know anything about the SPJ Code of Ethics, you know that a journalist’s duty is to the truth, and journalists are especially sticky about photographic images.

Should the same rules apply to PR and advertising? Some say they should. After all, photo manipulation alters reality, so it has the potential to deceive readers. How can that be OK for a PR professional but not for a news person?

Had Photoshop been an option in 1980, I’d have ordered alterations to my “Rocks at the Dock” photo series in a heartbeat. Using the pictures as they were wasn’t an option; reshooting was costly. And the result would have been pretty much the same, right? Either way, the forklift drivers would be wearing protective headgear — keeping my client out of trouble with OSHA.

PR and advertising professionals manipulate photos routinely. Most of the pictures we use aren’t part of mainstream news coverage, but part of the ads, publications and websites. Do PR and advertising have different standards of “truth”? Or do readers and viewers assume that PR and ad people always  “groom” the truth?

The Diet Coke can was removed from the shot using digital alteration -- a relatively new technology in 1989.

A classic case from the textbooks: Back in 1989, amateur photographer Ron Olshwanger won the Pulitzer Prize for his shot of a St. Louis firefighter attempting to save a 2-year-old child. Ron and his wife came to the offices of the St. Louis Post Dispatch to celebrate the honor, and Ron posed alongside a framed copy of his now-famous photo. The shot of Ron would run in the paper the following day. (That’s his wife in the background.)

When the photo arrived at the dark room for processing, the photographer cringed, He’d neglected to move a can of Diet Coke from the table before he took the shot – so this commercial image was cluttering the foreground of the photo. Olshwanger had left the building, so a re-shoot wasn’t possible. But thanks to a quick fix by the paper’s director of photo technology, no one ever saw the offensive soda can.

The case of the disappearing Diet Coke became one of the first photo alteration debates of the digital age. The technician who erased the can changed the literal “reality” of the image. But did he really alter the “truth”? Had he chosen, instead, to crop the can from the picture, no criticism would have come his way, since cropping has long been standard practice (even though it, too, alters reality).

I’ve been using this case in my Ethics classes for 17 years. And every time we discuss it,  the journalists see it as a violation of ethics. But other students, PR and advertising majors mostly, wonder what the fuss is about. After all, the story isn’t about a Diet Coke can, and inclusion of the can was the photographer’s oversight – an oversight his editor was able to fix.

Yes, the photographer could have moved the can aside before he shot the photo. But he didn’t. So a darkroom technician moved it a few hours later. (Photo and case discussion from an older edition of “Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning,” by Christians, et. al.)

Should the same rules that apply to news also apply to advertising, marketing and PR? Should photo manipulation be off limits to ALL communicators, or is it only important to the “news” people – you know – the real purveyors of truth?

If “some” photo manipulation is OK (adjusting tone and color, for example), where does one draw the line? How much manipulation is too much?

Some things worth discussing:

• When it comes to manipulating news photos, how much is too much?

• Given that so many PR messages are presented in a “news” context, sould PR professionals be held to the same standards as journalists?

• Photo manipulation in advertising is standard procedure, and until it completely distorts reality, no one seems to care. Why is advertising not held to a higher standard of truth?

Feel free to jump in anytime!

Associated readings:

A basic rule: Newspaper photos must tell the truth (The Toledo Blade)

A photojournalistic confession (by Kenneth Irby at Poynter Online)

Photo manipulation + false advertising (by Maggie James at TechLife Post)

This week’s online discussion for ‘Ethics & Issues’

Good morning, guys! It’s the end of Week 2 in our 3-week crash course in Ethics & Issues in Mass Communication. You have a big assignment due early next week, so I’ll try to keep the online discussion simple today.

Yesterday in class we heard from two of PR’s biggest critics: John Stauber and Stuart Ewen. Both were featured prominently in the video “Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damed Lies, and the Public Relations Industry.” That video is based on a book of the same title (Stauber and Rampton).

Lies? Damned lies? Wait a minute! Is this the mission of public relations we teach at Kent State? Hardly. A majority of PR practitioners work quietly and ethically to help their clients improve relationships with key stakeholder groups. But some of them — in their zeal to serve their clients and employers — are quick to ignore the ALL IMPORTANT ethics component of public relations.

In class this week we talked about the big dust-up at Hunter College over the IACC/Coach handbag campaign. You can see my take on it over at ToughSledding if you’re interested. BTW, Ewen, whom you met in the “Toxic Sludge” video, is on the faculty at Hunter.

Since John Stuber and the folks at PR Watch are such a central part of our lessons this week, I thought I’d lean on them for the rest of this week’s discussion. All of the links below I found at PR Watch, or from sites PR Watch linked me to. Read the materials, then come back with your comments to this post.

Item #1: Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. PR watch links us to this NYTimes story that reveals an alliance between Virginia Commonwealth University and tobacco giant Philip Morris. PR Watch first reported on the research contract here. Read the two items, then we’ll talk.

OK, you ready? Let me pose this question: Is VCU not entitled to make research contracts with private business, just as most university’s do? Now, since Philip Morris is paying for this research, is the company not entitled to decide which portions of it — if any — will be released to the public?

Clearly, I’m baiting you with those questions. But I’m also a realist, and I know that research grants from gazillion-dollar corporations don’t come without strings attached. VCU and every other university I know of depends on private research grants to survive, and sometimes they compromise to get those dollars.

But you also must consider the role of academic research in our society, and the obligation of higher education to serve the entire community. The academy’s role (among other things) is to acquire knowledge and share it with others so as to build that body of knowledge. Our learning is supposed to benefit everyone, not just those who fund the research.

We also must consider the track record of Big Tobacco when it comes to hiding information about smoking and health. The industry’s secrecy is, in part, what led to the historic “tobacco settlements” of the 1990s. You may also want to consider that VCU is a public university that derives a good bit of its revenue from Virginia taxpayers. Would it make a difference if VCU were a private school? And does it matter that Virginia is one of the nation’s biggest tobacco-producing states.

Item #2: Another “kiss and tell” book. OK, there isn’t much kissing in this one, but there’s lots of telling. Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan just released a book about his years working for President Bush. Is does not portray the president or his advisers in a flattering way. Some critics are applauding McClellan for coming clean and revealing the lies and deception used by the administration. Others say he’s just trying to profit from his time in public service and that his book is disloyal and unprofessional.

Here is the PR Watch item about this story. But I’d like you to read these stories, too.

From Time Magazine, a review of the book: The Skimmer: Scott McClellan’s ‘What Happened’

From the Associated Press/NYT: McClellan, the ethics questions: A Bush turncoat — or a truth seeker?

So you tell me. Is McClellan a rat — a disloyal staffer? Or is he patriot coming forth with information we should have known years ago? What are his motivations (his intent) in publishing such a book? And why did he not follow custom and wait until the president had left office before going public?

Discuss…

Some ethical choices in advertising and marketing

Greetings to all who find themselves slaving over this 3-week summer ethics class. It’s tough on me, too. It’s gonna be fast and furious, but those who keep up will survive. And those who don’t?  Well, it won’t be pretty.

In this post, I ask that you read two other posts, one by me and one by a recent Kent grad. Then let’s talk about the trend of hitching our marketing and PR campaigns to social causes and movements — and the ethical issues that relate to it.

The first post deals with “social cause marketing,” or the practice of aligning your company or product with a charity or a cause. In public relations, we call it “strategic philanthropy.” Read what I wrote on this topic back on 10/30/06, then come back here and join the conversation. Is cause marketing good for society, or is it just another ploy to sell muffins?

Today, the same types of criticisms are aimed at marketers who embrace “green” causes as a way to curry favor with their customers and communities. You see it everywhere in advertising, and in PR campaigns. Isn’t it nice that everyone suddenly wants to save the planet?

Read this post by recent Kent grad Desiree Bartoe. It’s an essay about organic booze.  Yep. The next time you hit to bars, you can go green.

Color me green with skepticism about this this movement. As marketers harangue us with what they’re doing to reduce their footprint, I can’t help wondering where they’ve been the past 30 years — you know — before it was so cool to be green

My green cynicism was reinforced when I spotted this TV commercial for LubeStop, a chain of quickie oil change centers in NEOhio. I’m pretty certain LubeStop is handling used oil and filters with great care, since the law requires it. But giving themselves a role in maintaining a “green city” on a “blue lake”? That’s a little over the top for a bunch of grease monkeys, don’tcha think?

LubeStop is one of many exploiting the nation’s new love affair with green. I single the company out today because I had a copy of the commercial on file. LubeStop is no more guilty than the rest the “greenies” out there.

What’s your take on PR and advertising campaigns that ride on the coattails of social causes and the environment. Let’s talk about it right here, OK?

Oh, yeah. Here’s the commercial:

Here’s a depressing start to an ethics discussion!

Our first week in the Ethics & Issues class focused on the values that drive — or should drive — our media system: truth telling, loyalty, justice and respect for others. We talked of a commitment to accuracy, fidelity with sources, and protection of the innocent. We studied cases from the textbook and from the day’s events. Oh yeah. We also talked about “Idol.”

Now we’ll have two more discussions on the topic to close the first week of our three-week class. The first discussion focuses on the reporting of tragedy and the need to balance the public’s right to know with the victims’ right to privacy. We’ll have this discussion in this post. The second discussion is in the post that follows. Be sure you participate in both!

This first link takes you to an essay by Barbara Walsh, posted at PoynterOnline. Walsh tells a personal story about her reporting of a high-profile teen suicide. Her essay contains a lot of great advice on how to cover such tragedies.

After you read Barbara’s essay, click to this case study posted by the folks at the Indiana University School of Journalism. It, too, deals with coverage of teen suicide and the ethical tightrope we walk when reporting such stories.

As the IU case says in its headline: “It was not a question of whether to report on the suicides of three Sheridan youths within hours of each other, but how to do it with the sensitivity the story — and the community — needed.”

Think about these questions for a bit, then jump in on our conversation using the comments box below.

• What, if anything, should the news media report about suicide? As tragic as it is, people kill themselves all the time, thus, it’s hardly news? When should it make the headlines and why?

• To whom and to what principles did the editors of the Arkansas Gazette show loyalty in the triple-suicide case? Was that loyalty appropriate and justified?

• Had you been the managing editor of the Gazette, what would you have done differently to balance the privacy of grieving families with the public’s right to know? Do you see a communitarian value at work here?

Let’s talk about these cases in the comments box below. If no one has posted a comment by the time you arrive, then be the first. And be sure to return at least twice between now and Monday at 6 p.m. Remember, it’s a conversation just like in class. A conversation doesn’t end with one comment. And a conversation flows from the comments of others. So be sure to read them all.

The Cluetrain Manifesto Discussion: Chapter 6

EZ Answers

By Katy Zupan

The authors have reinstated the vitality of conversations in the marketplace and describe how the voice and conversation were lost and then found again.

Craft and voice were once joined together like a symbiotic relationship- one could not be without the other. But as the trade routes grew longer and the producer was separated from the product, the symbiotic relationship began to dwindle. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution lead to new power sources taking the place of human interaction and individual craft, and still yet the 20th century separated the workers from their creativity even more with the advent of the “effective” assembly line. Conversation? What conversation?

Weinberger and Locke describe how this new form of “mass production led to mass marketing, which led to (ta-da!) mass media.” But the marketplace was (and is) ever evolving. Managers were so into “command and control” that they themselves were starting to become inefficient and thus realized how the mindless drones under their watch actually had some (gasp) creative juice and knowledgeable ideas.

To get a grasp of how the Internet is also influencing this newfound employee freedom of speech and micro-marketplace, let’s revert back to the good ol’ SAT’s-

Global economy : Exponential growth in products and services ::
The Net : “Explosive proliferation of choice among new information sources”

The advent of making multiple choices available to explore online is causing a vocal stir. However, even though people and markets are now able to craft their own messages, the author’s state how the managerial mantra of “command and control” is a hard-to-break habit, calling this “The Hangover.”

The Web is certainly no secret to the world. It virtually has everyone surfing the Net or compulsively checking email. Humans, being naturally inquisitive creatures, are starting to get a little nervous about the expansiveness and chaos of the Web. They are wondering how they can still “command and control” their employees and messages.

Discussion:

1. Locke and Weinberger ironically conclude that the questions being asked about the future of the Web will literally forge and create its very future. How can the PR professional help answer and lead the ever-increasing questions about Web and Organization authenticity, especially if your organization’s product is practically identical to the Joe’s next door?

2. The authors give a Twelve-Step Program for Internet Business Success on page 170. We’ve already spoken about the importance of having an authentic voice, so do you think implementing this 12-step program AND “speaking” in an authentic voice is feasible for the every-day organization?

3. Encouraging employees to engage in genuine conversations may be a difficult task for an organization to implement, especially since it has tried to keep people quiet and docile for so long. Do you think it’s the PR person’s job to search out and engage the people who understand the importance of the marketplace conversation and can facilitate it or leave it to upper management?

The Cluetrain Manifesto Discussion: Chapter 5

Chapter 5: The Hyperlinked Organization
Emily Minno

Businesses and organizations sound different than before. The new language is filled with personality, individual characteristics and even humor. The change in business language goes hand-in-hand with the Web.

According to David Weinberger, the change is due to the connections the Web provides. The Web gives people direct connections to information and to a truthful human voice. On the other hand the Web creates what Weinberger calls a “gulf” of expectations that creates a dichotomy between what a company thinks it is accomplishing and what the employees perceive. This is all created by the hyperlinking of the Web.

Hyperlinks are simply connections among people. However, these mere connections are what drive the enormity of the World Wide Web. Hyperlinks connect real individuals to others who care about what they know. Hyperlinks are turning the symmetry of the organizational power structure on its ear. The hyperlinks provide individuals with a “do it yourself” attitude. It is not all about what you know, but who you know and with whom you are connected.

Weinberger says to have a conversation, you have to be comfortable being human. Part of becoming comfortable is to acknowledge that connecting with other people, building relationships and learning from those relationships are what help mold successful companies and organizations. The new structure of conversation in the business world as Weinberger says is always hyperlinked and never hierarchical.

Discussion Questions

1) Weinberger states that hyperlinks and the Web have taken over the hierarchal structure of businesses and organizations. Customers, managers and employees are starting to operate on the same level. If customers have just as much influence on a company as the managers, is it a death sentence for big business as we know it? If so, do you think it’s a change for the better or worse?

2) Pr professionals are responsible for effectively communicating ideas from the organization to the public and vice versa. In the era of the World Wide Web, how can pr professionals act as a “hyperlink” for an organization?

3) In the “hyper back into hyperlink” section of this chapter, Weinberger suggests that an organization’s most valuable employee isn’t the one who knows the most, but the one who can direct people in the right direction to retrieve the information. Do you agree with this? Is there still a real need for expertise in the business world?

The Cluetrain Manifesto Discussion: Chapter Four

Markets Are Conversations

By Bill Burgess

Over many years, the concept of the market has changed. What used to be a place where consumers would gather to meet their needs and craftsmen would fulfill their end of the supply and demand bargain, became a one-sided conversation where consumers were hit with jingles and corporate jargon. Where talk was once human, it had been converted into statistics and marketing schemes.

After industrialization, corporations become Jason Vorhees and we as consumers became those teenage camp counselors who were not cognizant of our environment. We eventually caught the corporate message in the form of an axe to the head. There were many sequels.

Doc Searls, with the help of David Weinberger, explains how these markets are now reverting back to conversations. According to Searls, “The Net invites customers to talk, to laugh with each other, and to learn from each other. Connected, they can reclaim their voice in the market, but this time with more reach and wider influence than ever.”

The Net has given people a forum to freely express themselves. It also gives corporations a chance to be human. Now, public relations, advertising, marketing, pricing, and positioning must change to adapt to the new market. One-way communication is no longer acceptable. Press releases should be thrown in the junk pile with those copies of Friday the 13th Part X: Jason Heads Time Warner Cable. PR practitioners should be sounding boards for what journalists and the public want to hear. They need to be listening and willing to provide content to entice people into the conversation.

To compete in today’s market; Searls encourages corporations to find their authentic voice and not to limit that voice with company jargon and disclaimers. He gave two great examples of companies that fell on polar ends of public opinion in 1994.

When Intel realized a bug in their new Pentium chip, they were silent until an online magazine reported the problem. Intel CEO Andrew Grove joined the online discussion, offering a corporate statement, dividing those who should be concerned from those who shouldn’t. When those who shouldn’t have cared called out to him on the forum, he did not respond. His original post, which was considered a stand up move originally, became a symbol of Intel’s lethargic attempt to join the conversation. They were eventually forced to replace all of the defective chips. The cost of replacement was minimal in comparison to loss in their reputation.

United Airlines was having trouble with their shuttling service. A random employee decided to enter into the conversation on a travel forum and offer assistance. There was an overwhelming positive response, until that employee was forced by United to shut down his end of the conversation. As opinion turned negative, a higher up from United joined that employee and the conversation was back on track. The public opinion needle returned to positive.

Searls sums it up with this simple statement: “By listening, marketing will re-learn how to talk.”

1. Searls urges corporations to enter the conversation and to use an authentic voice. How can you find that authentic voice for your business or non profit organization? If you were the CEO or director, how would you or would you limit that voice?

2. I don’t know about you, but press releases and newsletters have been two of my major functions at work. After reading The PR section in this chapter, what is your reaction to this section and how much of it can you apply to your role as a PR professional?

3. Are you following the presidential campaign? I think I have suffered a few nicks and cuts from corporations over the years. But with politicians, I feel the axe has left a gaping wedge. I’m tired of dreaming, imagining and picturing change. I think political campaigns are anything but two way communication? How can politicians utilize information from this chapter?

(Artwork from ConversationAgent.com)

Let’s talk about community relations

This discussion is for students in JMC 38002, Public Relations Case Studies, Spring, 2008. Others who wish to join this conversation about community relations are welcome, so long as you stay on topic. I mean, this is a class assignment.

******************

On my other blog, I sometimes tangle with misguided marketers who see PR as nothing more than a subset of their discipline. They view PR as they do advertising or promotion: as a supporter of the sale.

They’re wrong, of course, but it’s not a good idea for you, as an intern or entry-level professional, to call them out on it. They can get pretty testy.

PR is not a branch of marketing. Rather, it serves management all areas of the organization, using communication and counsel to maintain the relationships and create the environment necessary to success. We often work with marketing folks, communicating with customers, distributors and media who can influence sales. But just as often we support functions such as employee communication or community relations — two areas of PR practice with no connection to marketing.

Today’s focus is community relationships, which are vital to your future employers. Guth & Marsh (G&M) begin Chapter 7 by reminding us that communities come in different forms:

Geographic communities are clustered around a location like a university campus or a manufacturing plant. These are our physical neighbors.

Demographic communities are clustered around common traits such as culture, language or ethnicity. Depending on the client you work with, you may reach out to Hispanic, African American, Gay & Lesbian communities and others.

Psychographic communities form around lifestyles and attitudes. A local park system for example, may be concerned with communities of environmentalists, cycling enthusiasts or soccer players. Psychographic communities are self-selecting, based on the interests and passions of their members.

Virtual communities are defined by where they gather: on the Internet. And I’m not convinced that makes them a “category.” Most often, virtual communities are also geographic, demographic or psychographic. The fact that they meet on line is not a defining characteristic, but it will alter how we communicate with them and how we monitor their activities.

Knowing your community categories is less important than understanding where the interests of your your organization and community publics intersect. As G&M point out on page 141, our challenge is “to identify common interest and values — even with stakeholders with whom there is no prior relationship.”

Community relations is like every other PR challenge: You must know your publics and you must see the world through their eyes. Then, you must bring that perspective to management as you devise strategies for communication and policy. Remember the WIIFM?

Don’t forget, too, that maintaining relationships with communities is a balancing act. For example, the business community in Kent, Ohio, may support a plan by the university to build a conference center, apartment complex and retail space on Main Street. Local residents, on the other hand, may oppose you based on concerns about traffic, noise and parking — quality-of-life issues.

It’s all part of the “relationship wheel” we talk about in class. It’s all part of understanding that stakeholder groups have different needs in different contexts, and that those needs deserve a hearing at management’s table.

Does this sound anything like marketing to you?

Let me suggest you read carefully the 6 bullet points listed under “Key Considerations” (pp. 145-146), as they are important guides to community relations. If any PR pros are following along, the 6 categories will be self-evident from the list:

• Conduct stakeholder research
• Define organization priorities
• Think long term
• Pick your partners carefully
• Mirror the community
• Remember employee ambassadors

I’m not going to rehash the textbook cases in this post, but please read them and weave them into our discussion. For example, let’s talk of how the Colorado state park system rallied community support around the “quality of life” issues that Coloradans hold so dear. Let’s look at the community partnerships the park system built with 25 different “communities” within the community — all in support of the “Colorado Year of Trails” campaign.

Each of the communities — from hiking enthusiasts to towns and cities on the Front Range — came together to support something they all value. See the common ground here? Do you see the need for organizations to “mirror” community needs?

Sadly, the outcome measures for all three of the campaigns in our chapter are weak, dwelling on media impressions and advertising equivalency numbers (measures that marketers use those measures all the time, I might add). What we need are metrics that gauge behavior change — no easy task in CR.

The other two cases in the chapter are worth your time if only to see how community relations efforts bring an organization closer to a community by aligning with its values. Wells Fargo did it with an educational program built around Alaska’s most famous sporting event, the Iditarod. The University of Maryland’s “Fear the Turtle” campaign tied in environmental groups, but also doubled as a marketing campaign for the university — an integrated campaign that both PR and marketing can cheer about.

BTW, am I the only one to notice that “Fear the Turtle” sounds a whole lot like the campaign at U of Akron that came much, much later? Hmmmm?

Oh, well. Little in this world is original these days, and you have to admit that “Fear The Roo” became a successful rallying slogan for U of Akron sports, and sold a ton of t-shirts in the process. We can’t say the same about Kent State’s “On the Hunt,” which I’m guessing none of you even remembers!

Building bottom-line results into a community relations program will never be easy for a several reasons:

• CR programs are long-term, so the changes we seek can’t be easily gauged month-to-month.
• CR doesn’t always seek behavioral change, but instead to create an environment of trust and acceptance necessary to doing business.
• CR has more to do with an organization’s ethics and values than its profits or business plans, and that makes it a tough sell at times.

Here are two Silver Anvil Award winners from PRSA that I’d like you to review. Relax. The summaries are just 3 pages long:

• From Fleishman Hillard (New York): erase-fh.pdf
• From Mitchel Communications Group, Fayetteville, Ark. (pdf): tysonsilveranvil.pdf

Some questions to ponder and discuss:

How can public relations professionals do a better job of measuring the outcomes of community-relations efforts?

How might companies get their employees involved in community relations — as is it worth it?

What else is on your mind?

The Cluetrain Manifesto Discussion: Chapter Three

Chapter 3: Talk is Cheap
By Mike Ihrig

The Web is filled with content uniquely crafted to appeal to certain segmented audiences. However, the authenticity of the Web and the ability to have human interaction will have an even greater impact on companies. Those companies and organizations that try to communicate will succeed in breaking down barriers between business and customers.

Rick Levine discusses what’s behind the Web and the unique voices represented among various conversations. The chapter details several different conduits including e-mail, mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and web pages. Today, you can add blogging to that list. Each provides a unique opportunity for organizations to speak in many different voices.

From Levine’s perspective, he sees a correlation between his days as a potter’s kid growing up and the craft that is the Web. Behind every Web page there is an author or creator that uniquely shapes his or her own work. According to Levine, today’s Web can only show its true voice if it cuts out all the corporate editing.

Levine uses a real example of a newsgroup exchange about Saturn automobiles where an individual was unhappy about being overcharged for a routine servicing of his car. Many folks chimed in with their experiences, some good and some bad. However, Saturn was silent during this exchange. As the discussion became more heated toward Saturn it was a Saturn mechanic who, unbeknownst to his dealership, chimed in. The mechanic gave away secrets but what he really did was “humanize” Saturn. To hear from someone on the inside went over very well with the customers.

For Levine this example gave new meaning to “talk is cheap.” The mechanic greatly served the interests of his company at no cost. This portrayed great loyalty from an employee of the company. It shows that employees who want to speak should be allowed to speak. Companies need to get over their fear of conversing with the outside. Companies need to ask themselves “which is more damaging: silence, or talking to customers in many individual voices?”

To sum everything up, Levine states a great point – “If we don’t engage people inside and outside our organization in conversation, someone else will. Start talking.”

1. From earlier chats we have discussed the importance of businesses speaking in a human voice. This chapter talks about different methods to generate an online conversation. As public relations practitioners how do we help businesses decide which route is best for the company

2. Once it’s been decided how to start a conversation with the various stakeholders and customers, how will PR convey the value of social media? As with every organization the bean counters will come asking because they only care about numbers and figures.

3. We have also talked about encouraging management to start talking, but as public relations practitioners, how do we encourage the employees to begin to use their voices inside and outside the organization? How do you think upper management will react?