For our last class we had a debate on the motion “success in PR is determined by your personal attributes and your contacts. PR education is irrelevant”. So the debate could also make us wondering, in this last class, if all that we’ve done for months was really useful! Maybe some were wondering “well what am I doing here?” Of course the motion is very Manichean, and I guess most of people would agree that personal attributes, contacts and education are all useful for having success in PR industry. So to me the real question is to what extend a MA degree in PR can really help me for my future career?
What brings you a PR degree? A first asset that a PR degree offers is to show the employers a real commitment to the industry. That is what our teacher Pam Williams highlighted to us: having dedicated a year of your life to study PR is a solid proof that you take your career in the industry seriously, and therefore employers must think that you will commit to your job. That is the idea that supports Kirsty O'Connor, a Leeds Metropolitan PR student: she expressed her own personal opinion on the subject by sending PRWeek's magazine a letter entitled "Forget English grads and hire PR students". In her letter she supports PR Degrees by adding that those who decide to enter the industry and haven't got a degree in PR, usually quit.
A second asset of having a PR degree is what studying a topic at university can bring for all topics: an in-depth thinking about it, and argumentation skills. I personally think that I’ve really enhanced some of my skills during these months: my presentation skills are much better now, as we’ve had a lot of training for talking in public and convey a message orally, and I’ve also learnt how to improve my creativity. You may think that creativity is only a personal attribute, but actually if you’re trained through exercises that ask you to be creative, you realize that it is a way of thinking that you can really improve, as it’s also shown on the diagram on the right. Also, this master has really made me think more in depth about issues related to PR, and how to argument and sharpen my own opinion about them. As Trevor Morris, one of my teachers, said in an interview given to PRWeek’s video podcast, the value of a PR degree is, like for all kinds of degree, to get people to think , to analyze through researches and to be able to argue about PR issues, which are very broad as PR interfaces with culture, society or politics. So a PR degree makes you think and understand the industry in context, it sharps people’s minds about the industry… Like by doing what I’m doing right now, writing this blog which is an assignment! And I have to say that I really enjoy doing it, as it really made me have some useful thinking about a number of issues, especially about current trends in our society. Trevor also said that employers would expect a PR degree to bring to the job applicant some academic and intellectual thinking, a mixture of analysis and basic vocational skills.
I think a third asset in having a PR degree is that it participates in giving the profession a greater status, and therefore gives a more serious status to PR practitioners, so to you if you want to work in PR industry. That is why PR education is supported by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR): the CIPR Code of Conduct encourages "professional training and development among members of the profession". But let’s not forget that only 8000 PR Practitioners have become members, which means only 1/3 of the PR Practitioners in the UK. However, the CIPR “mission” is stated as fighting for a better, "healthier" Public Relations profession, and it is "committed to enhancing professional standards in public relations through the emphasis on education training and lifelong learning initiatives in their strategy". As a worldwide-based institute it has managed to provide to young people who want to enter the industry the CIPR Diploma which is taught in more than 13 countries around the world. As Lis Lewis Jones, President of the CIPR stated: "The CIPR Diploma provides practitioners with the knowledge and understanding of theory and practice to develop as effective and efficient professionals"
Is having a PR degree a key or a bonus? And that raises the question: how can PR Practitioners don't need a degree to work in Public Relations? Indeed, to become a lawyer or an economist you have to study law or economy, so what makes PR industry different from these? Well the thing is you don’t compulsorily need some knowledge to work in PR, as PR jobs are mainly maintaining good relationships and reputation, and you don’t need a particular knowledge for that. However, you need a few skills that a PR degree can really help you to enhance. But, as Trevor said in the PRWeek interview, a PR degree will never be a substitute for learning on the job, and the most important for employers is clearly the attitude and abilities of the candidates. Personally, I’ve always considered my MA as a bonus for getting a job, compared to candidates with the same experience and personal attributes but with no PR degree, and I’ve never considered this MA as the key for getting a job in PR. Also, PR works a lot with networking and contacts, as it’s all about being known. So some can argue that studying PR is a waste of time when it is so crucial to build some personal contacts and learn the practice in reality, as for relationship focused jobs work experience is essential. Moreover, in the debate some pointed out that 80% of PR practitioners don’t have a PR degree.
But the limit to this argument is that for most of nowadays’ practitioners PR degrees didn’t exist when they could have a chance to study PR: they are very recent degrees. So probably the best argument for the PR degree defenders is to use the same kind of argument that I used in my “women and PR” post, when I said that women being presidents was unthinkable a few decades ago but now actually happening: as some degrees, like in business or politics, were rare and a bit looked down upon 20-30 years ago but now totally recognized by the society, it may be just a question of time for PR degrees. As Trevor Morris said, cynicism from PR practitioners who don’t have a PR degree is dropping very quickly. He thinks that in the future PR degrees will be more recognized as, first, far more people working in the industry will have one, and secondly, increasingly employers are seeing the value of people that have shown this commitment to the industry and got that depth of thinking about it.
For this class, in order to present us the new media world and its links with PR, we had a great presentation from… 5 students from the class! So I would like to thank Yiting Xu, Ran Huo, Ameesha Lathia, Candace Hughes and Julius Dake for the very useful summary they made of what they learnt in the optional module in new media.
E-business For me, this presentation really made more sense to the idea that internet is a socio-economic community, as well as a channel for e-commerce. And the diagram on the left proves that nowadays it is unavoidable for companies to be on the web. Actually, internet is a very useful tool that makes media relations much easier, as it can be displayed online the latest company news, product and service information, biographies of key executives, copies of any recent executive speeches, statistics and reports, podcasts, consumer opinions and of course, endorsements from third party advocates. This is where PR plays its role, and I guess “e-PR” will have a more and more central role, as more and more people are looking on a company’s website when they want to get some information about this company. That is what PR resources on the Internet are for, like Romeike Media Intelligence: www.romeike.com, Advance Features: www.advancefeatures.com or Factiva: www.factiva.com.
Viral PR It’s Yiting who told the class about viral PR: she explained that it is the use of viral marketing in Public Relations: according to Steve Jurvetson, viral marketing is network-enhanced word of mouth. And Yiting added that this was made through existing on-line social networks, like emails or facebook. I think viral PR can be wonderfully powerful once you’ve found a hook good enough to make people circulate the video or picture to their friends. A very good example of that is the Subservient Chicken website, a viral marketing campaign launched by Burger King:http://www.subservientchicken.com/. You can for example enter phrases like ‘sit down’, ‘switch off the lights, or ‘dance’ to the little box, and the guy in a chicken costume would do what you asked him to do… The outcomes of this campaign were a real surprise: the website had 1million hits only one day after released to the public and 20 million hits in one single week! However, I’m not sure if Burger King’s sales have risen as much… I think it can be a great way to raise awareness, so make latent public an aware public, but it is more difficult to make them an active public with just a fun video… I think where viral PR may be the most useful is for NGO campaigns, as raising public awareness is crucial to them; moreover, I think good videos may make people taking actions more for the third sector cause than taking action by buying products or services… I still remember very well this dreadful video from Peta that I received on facebook, against cruelty on animals in China for the sake of fur traffic. I circulated it to my friends straight away, feeling like a missioner: ”people have to know!”… Here below is the video:
Search Engine Optimization Concerning SEO, Ran gave us very useful tips about how and why making a press release available on-line: first, millions of visitors search for a story by using a search engine; then, editors may contact you based on your properly optimized press release; moreover, your chosen keywords build brand awareness, it’s a good PR strategy and it’s cheaper. Furthermore, it drives traffic directly to your site, though you shouldn’t forget to personalize your release, to publish it on your website too, as well as study your web stats in details… These were definitely very interesting points that I’ll bear in mind in my future PR jobs, thanks Ran;-)
Social networks When came the part on social network presented by Ameesha, I was really surprised to learn that British businesses are loosing up to £6.5 billion in productivity, because of employees being on social networks! Also, one FTSE-listed company reported up that to 30% of its internet capacity is clogged by its social-networking employees… That definitely makes you less guilty to have a quick conversation on msn at work around lunch time! The good news for PR is that these networks offer a specialized and a more willing audience; also, messages can be presented uniquely and the direct monitored contact with the audience makes easier to get feedback. Also, 62m people on Facebook are averaging 28 minutes a day it, so it’s a shop window that business can’t ignore. But I remember that one of our teachers, Trevor Morris, had highlighted to us that companies must be very careful using these networks, as they are some privileged areas for some people on the web, and these people may not always welcome every kind of ad or PRing on their network, especially coming from a company which doesn’t really understand the network and “try to be cool”.
Blogging The blogging part was presented by Candace. She said that if you want to use blogs for PR purposes, you need to personalize your messages to bloggers, to respect bloggers’ time and intelligence as you would do for mainstream media, and to learn the blogging hierarchy in your field (you can check Technorati for finding the top 10 influential blogs in each specialty); also, you should participate in the discussion in your field on these blogs or on your own one. She also said that quality always wins over quantity, and that in the blogosphere transparency is Key; indeed, PR must be transparent in blogosphere, where it might not be in traditional media, as failing to be transparent will result in negative backlash. Well, I was not persuaded by this last argument, as I don’t see how we can spot all the people not being transparent in blogs, or those supposedly having a neutral blog whereas the blogger is working for the interest of a company… I think it’s very difficult to check all blogs all the time, isn’t it? However, it can be a lethal weapon from the public to the companies, and can seriously damage a company’s reputation, whether it’s justified or not. That is why companies need to be extremely vigilant so they can react quickly to any attack. A good example of the reputation damage, followed by a decrease of sales, was against Sony and their bad customer services. Then Sony had to make a real effort to gain a more trustworthy image. I even heard that some companies being criticised by bloggers invite these bloggers to take part in their work and decision making. Bloggers are usually flattered and then neutralised. But I guess there will be always other bloggers accusing the first ones of corruption. Also, I think blogs are a wonderful step towards democracy, as any ordinary people can become an influential citizen journalist. But I think blogs are more completing traditional media than fighting for influence, as I personally believe that we still need official sources of information.
Virtual worlds Then Julius told us about virtual worlds on the web: they are computer-based simulated environments intended for its users to inhabit and interact through avatars; the best example of these worlds is Second Life, where millions of people are living a second virtual life, and where even some lead brands are present. He explained that virtual worlds may appear similar to the real world or some hybrid fantasy world. They have an increasing number of users, and therefore provide a source for businesses and governments to gather and collate information for their use. I may seem old-fashioned, but this idea of virtual worlds scares me: I can’t help thinking they are made for people who want to escape reality because they are too weak to face their real life and its problems. Well, it’s only my opinion, of course. I understand that for people who have a boring life, it can bring some fantasy and fun to it; but I still think that the concept is a bit dangerous: we have plenty of great and useful things we can do in our real world, if we want to, so why staying in front of our computer and living some fantasy? Anyway, back to PR issues, I guess virtual worlds can offer interesting parallel opportunities; also, observing what’s happening there can certainly give key findings about audiences: what they like to do, what are their dreams etc… But let’s not forget that virtual worlds would make no sense without our real world, so my guess is that PR will always aim to make its truth a “real reality”.
Sources: - Yiting Xu, Ran Huo, Ameesha Lathia, Candace Hughes and Julius Dake’s 26th March 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -Francis Mulleady’s 8th January 2007 presentation, London School of Public Relations
During one class, we didn’t talk about any particular issue related to PR, but about our dissertation topics, as the 3rd semester of our MA will be dedicated to carry out researches and write a dissertation, to hand in by the end of August. The dissertation aims to be an academic piece of research, which findings come from secondary sources (books, articles etc about the topic) and primary sources (our own surveys, interviews etc). In order to help us define our topic, we had to write a 2000 words essay about it.
You may think that this class was a bit more relaxed than the others, open to various discussions about all the different topics we can decide on… Well that was the most stressful class of this module: the teacher made us try to explain our topic to the rest of the class, and this was a 1st step towards some confusion, and I think most of us were thinking “erm, is it really clear what I want to talk about?”… But then it got worse, after the dreadful question: “so what do you expect to find out?” If not confused, the answers were just blank. And if ever we managed to formulate some hypothesis about our findings, well then came: “but how are you gonna be able to prove this?”… And we were struggling again.
Then the teachers left the class for a while, just after having said:”by the way, there is something hidden in the class”. Instantly, as it was the Wednesday before Easter, I thought about Easter eggs, and most of the class started to look for them… We looked everywhere, but found nothing. When the teacher came back she said: “have you found it? And did you have any idea about what it might be?” She looked a bit confounded when we told her about the Easter eggs… Then she took the white board’s sponge and said: “what if I tell you that it was this thing that was hidden?” What a disappointment!! Personally I really thought we would get chocolate eggs… Haha, but anyway this little game had of course a purpose: make us realise that if we don’t know what we are looking for, we can’t find it! This was of course related to our dissertations…
So in the end, most of students were quite panicky about their dissertation topics, as the difficulties seemed to suddenly pop up in front of our faces… However I was among the lucky ones, as my essay had been really appreciated, so it encouraged me to keep the same thinking for my dissertation and gave me some self confidence. But I also realised that I really needed to define better my key question about my topic, as it is a very broad one in which I could easily get lost if I don’t find an angle to approach it: the communication and manipulation about climate change… Huge. Today luckily I’ve finally found a clear angle, from which I can build a structure and a hypothesis: I'll write about communicating on science: how science can be objective given the needs of the media (good stories and a language accessible to the public so simplifying) and given the scientists' needs of funding, and how scientists can be used as third part endorsements, so as PR tools, to serve some organizations' motivations. And I'll try to illustrate this through examples of the communication made on climate change. Well, that still may not appear very clear, but work is in progress!
What is CSR We had a very interesting guest speaker, Adam Garfunkel, who came to tell us about CSR, as it’s his job to convince some companies to raise their Corporate Social Responsibility. To him the core elements of CSR are: • voluntary action of business – beyond compliance, commitment to ethical behaviour, managing processes • to achieve positive social outcomes – quality of life improvements for employees, community and society in the long-term • whilst benefiting its business objectives – creating wealth
What I’ve retained most from this presentation is that an effective CSR must be core to the brand, not added. Therefore, a strong link is needed between the PR team and the sustainability team, in order to make it consistent; and, as I’ve found out for my stakeholders’ post, consistency is essential as it enables the company to build trust with its stakeholders. Adam gave Mark & Spencer’s plan A as a very good example of this consistency, by having their different environmental initiatives under the umbrella of this five year eco-plan.
Adam also highlighted to us how so many companies, even the big ones that constantly claim that they are innovative, are in fact scared of the changes that having a CSR imply for them: actually, he said that the hardest part of his job was to convince them that it’ll be all right! Indeed, not only companies generally lack ambition, vision, courage, but also communication skills in this area! To support this, he showed us how The Bodyshop, even willing to have a valuable CSR, didn’t manage to communicate it to the public successfully, as their communication tools were inefficient: the too many labels on their actions were confusing and therefore their message was not consistent. So this made me think that there could be increasing PR job opportunities there, as CSR’s importance is rising…
Business dilemmas According to Rob van Tulder and Alex van der Zwart in International Business – Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, there are 4 approaches to CSR: the ‘inactive’ approach relates to Friedman’s theory: the only responsibility for companies is to generate profits; so it’s an inward-looking business perspective, where good business equals to operational excellence: a Corporate ‘Self’ Responsibility! The ‘reactive’ approach is focusing on efficiency as well, but also manages primary stakeholders, so as to keep mounting issues in check. This approach aims to respond to actions of external actors that could damage their reputation, and therefore relates to the concept of ‘conditional morality’. These 2 first approaches are both strongly means and wealth oriented, and so regularly create conflicts of interest with societal organisations; for example, tobacco producers gaining loyal customers by increasing the addictive effect of tobacco… Opposing these, the ‘active’ approach of CSR is, according to Rob van Tulder and Alex van der Zwart, the most ethical entrepreneurial orientation: the company’s objectives are based on ethical values. Therefore, it’s an outward oriented business, through a ‘missionary urge’ that makes the company a hero to NGOs, but an annoyance to the ‘true’ entrepreneurs. Indeed, this approach implies the risk of neglecting business efficiency; moreover, in a society that is structured around the principles of business production methods, it can also be regarded as socially irresponsible. Therefore, it seems that a balance needs to be found: like Shumarer said (1973), as societal issues involve a range of interests, a variety of ‘right’ answers are possible. For Rob van Tulder and Alex van der Zwart, the solution could be the 4th approach to CSR: the ‘proactive’ one, as well as interactive business practices. This relates to the ‘discourse ethics’ (Habermas, 1990): actors regularly meet in order to negotiate/talk over a number of norms to which everyone could agree; this approach implies ‘situational’ and ‘relativistic’ ethics. Why this rise nowadays? After having read this, I was wondering why companies are nowadays pushed towards the 2 last approaches, whereas the 2 first ones now seem to belong to another age? According to Adam Garfunkel, there are a few reasons explaining why CSR is here now: among them are the globalisation and the information age; these may have created 2 other reasons given by Adam: international agreements and government regulation, as well as a consumer demand. Also, more and more people are environment conscious, as environmental issues are more and more present in the media. Another reason he gave to us is the development of risk and reputation management, which actually relates to my posts about crisis management and stakeholders…
Also, Adam explained that the rise of CSR is also due to the fact that having power, for some companies, also means having responsibilities. I personally also think that it helps them to look good, and to differentiate themselves from their competitors, as nowadays the competition is more and more tight, and the public scrutiny sharper, especially through bloggers. Adam didn’t deny it when this question was raised after his presentation: he said that it can happen, but that it’s usually not the 1st motivation for companies.
Sources: -Adam Garfunkel’s 12th March 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -Tulder, van R. and Zwart, van der A. International Business – Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, Routledge, 2006
This class was aiming to make us think how representative is PR, if the industry takes enough in account minorities (ethnic minorities but also gays and lesbians, as well as elderly); and also, how to address them? A guest speaker, Zena Martin, came to talk to us about it.
The American conception: no complex! Zena was from the US, and worked in advertising there before coming to the UK where she finally created her own PR agency: Acknowledge Communications. What she highlighted to us is the big difference between the American and British approach of minorities: the UK PR industry –like surely the other UK industries- seems much more “white-male-middle age-heterosexual” dominated than the US one, more open. Of course, the best example is the 2 main democrat candidates for the next American presidential election: a woman, Hillary Clinton and a Black man, Barack Obama. Indeed, in the US it seems more easy and natural to address equally to different communities, whereas in the UK it appears to have some brakes, which make improvements go slowly, in spite of a high immigration level. Is it because England is an ex-colonising country and the US an ex-colony? Anyway, it is sure that the approach of immigration in the US looks more like a “tossed salad” than a “melting pot”: the different communities tend to stay together and maintain a strong identity, while co-existing with the others. Maybe that’s why it is more natural to equally address to each of them, whereas the UK has traditionally a more rigid way to consider the different communities. That is why Zena Martin has decided to take the mission, through her PR agency, to highlight to her clients the mistakes they can make by not addressing these communities (mainly losing money, especially concerning the elderly who represent a huge consuming power in the UK: £280bn!), or by misrepresenting them and therefore offend them, especially ethnic minorities. She gave us an example of an offending TV ad which therefore has been removed, here below.
I personally don’t really see how the ad is offending, like actually most of the people who commented this video on Youtube; but I accept that some have felt uncomfortable seeing it, and agree on finding other ways to represent the Black community, less stereotyped. Actually, during the exercise that followed in class, we realised that the best way to address these communities is to know them: who they are, what they like etc. It seems obvious but it’s less applied than we think, while this relates to an old idea that says that understanding the other reduces potential hate between you and him/her. Probably the Americans know better how to avoid stereotypes, as they are now ahead of them. According to Anne Senges, who wrote –in French- Ethnik! Le marketing de la différence, being American today is sharing a culture and consuming habits more than a skin color or an ethnic origin. Therefore, France’s challenge is to display its multi cultural country with pride without becoming too politically correct.
The French conception and multicultural communication I actually made a blog called “Ethnic PR: the French exception”: http://nathaliebellangerfrenchethnicpr.blogspot.com/ . Anne Senges like many other observers indeed highlight to us the French paradox concerning ethnic PR and marketing: In France, 1 person out of 4 has at least one foreigner grand parent. According to an opinion poll of 2006, 75% of French people think that the French’s wide diversity of origins is a positive thing. But maybe the only way to make this work in one country is to have strong common values and identity: that is what the French Republic's principles are about: all French people equally share one nationality, and shouldn't be differentiated according to their ethnic origin, race or religion. Therefore, ethnic PR can't work as naturally as it does in the USA or even the UK. However, Anne Senges reminds us of the great potential for ethnic marketing in France: these families usually have a lot of children and a huge consuming power even if they are often affected by unemployment. Therefore, some discreetly do ethnic marketing: Bridel with Laban milk, Mecca-cola (against coke, against America…) or suburbs’ supermarkets develop casher or halal departments. But advertising stays a "white" universe, even with some exceptions showing some stars (Zidane is the most famous one), and with one marketing agency specialized in “diversity marketing”: http://www.sopi.fr/english. So are the Americans all right and the French and the English shamefully late in communicating to the diversity of our nowadays societies?? Well as we don’t have the same culture, some adaptations are needed: one of the conclusions I came to in my blog was that the ethnic communication that could fit the French identity is a multicultural communication: showing diversity in one whole mix, part of one whole culture: a multicultural culture. For example, L’Oreal has done this very well. That’s anyway what works best for the moment in Fance, simply because the idea of gathering people is much easier to accept than the idea of splitting them up. Actually, maybe it’s also the first stage to attain, in representing the society, before being able to target different communities with not any complex, offending or over touchy reactions.
What makes us men and women? For this class we first had an exercise aimed at defining male and female specific characteristics: it came out that women tend to be more emotional, more flexible and better communicators, whereas men tend to be more straightforward, assuming better their ideas and requests, but sometimes stubborn and too much focused on their ego. Then, the teacher wanted to make the class realise that these characteristics could be both male and female, but that the society created them as male and female attributes; she also showed us through pictures what image the society had created about women a few decades ago: pretty and glamorous, but quite stupid and dependent on men, reduced to a housewife role. What I thought about this is that women in a few decades have gained a lot of power and recognition, and this is still improving (even if it’s still slow for some areas). Concerning the different characteristics between men and women, it is possible that they are all created by the society: indeed, I’ve heard that differentiation between the 2 sexes start at the youngest age: you don’t talk and manipulate the same way a baby girl and a baby boy! However, I don’t think it would be an improvement to have no differentiation at all: I would be for equality with keeping the differences. The problem is when these differences make at work women have mostly the technician roles, while men usually have the highest positions; this is very true for the PR industry, even if women represent the big majority of workers.
Will women run PR industry? The last point above was the object of a debate in class: some had to defend the motion: “women will always work in PR industry, but will never run it”, while another group had to speak against the motion. I was from the second group, which allowed me to speak according to my real opinion! My argumentation was in 3 parts: the 1st part stated that women have usually better skills required for PR, and therefore having them running PR industry was just a question of time. To support this, I reminded people that for generations women have been known in society for being better communicators than men (it’s also one of Kevin Moloney’s explanations for the fact that there are more women than men working in PR industry –in Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance-): so we can say that women usually tend to be more relationship focused, to be more methodical, more deadline oriented, and better listeners. And we know that all these skills are essential for practising PR. So then the question is: why are there no more women at the top of the industry? I believe that they have to face a few obstacles for that, which are unfair because women seem more often than men to have the skills required for PR industry. These obstacles are mainly gender discrimination or traditional ways of defining male and female roles in society. But today a lot has been done to fight unfair situations such as inequalities between men and women, especially since the end of World War 2. Now we see for example some women being presidents or leading a country, when this was totally unthinkable a few decades ago (see on the right Michelle Bachelet's photo, first female president of Chile in 2006). So why this wouldn’t happen to PR industry? Then, I said that in order to have this happening, women need a strong base; and this is actually what is happening: it’s a fact that today women dominate PR industry: according to PRWeek, in 2007 63% of PR practitioners were women, and their number increases every year. So if there are more and more women in the industry, there are more and more chances for them to be at the top of it: I think that this increasing number of women will give them more power to fight obstacles that prevent them from being at the top of PR industry: first they will be able to build a strong base against gender discrimination in the industry, and maybe also help them to organise on a big scale ways of managing both work and family life, so managing their different roles in society. So having more and more women in PR industry will in the future eases their way to the top of the industry. Finally, our group highlighted that today we already see women running PR practices: there are for example Jilly Forster, CEO of Forster, and Naomi Dector, the Washington based partner of Brunswick PR. And having more and new role models is also just a question of time: we finished our statement by quoting Gruning and al who say in Women in PR – how gender influences practice (2001): “many believed that female practitioners could empower themselves by connecting with other women. One aspect of this empowerment, interviewees mentioned, was mentoring and role modeling other women. Several identified learning from those women who have “gone through the hard knocks”. So the remaining problem today about this experience sharing is that powerful and successful women in PR don’t always want to speak openly about the “knocks” or “barriers” they experienced. But we also believe that as more and more women work in the industry, taboos about women difficulties in the industry will more and more fall apart.
It is justified to be optimistic! I personally thought that our arguments were stronger than the other group’s, who took examples on a small sample of time, whereas it is obvious to see a real improvement for working women, at least in western developed countries, if we see the trend on a big scale: I think it is totally justified to be optimistic given the long way we’ve already made! Then the debate with the rest of the class was according to me a bit blocked sometimes, as students from various countries had more traditional conceptions on male and female roles: some will say that it’s a cultural difference, but I personally think it’s a question of stage in the country’s civilization. Indeed, I strongly believe that some values are universal (whereas some are only cultural), and that concerning the place of woman in society all countries tend or are willing to have an improvement on the long term… Well, some will probably think I’m too optimistic, but I’m sticking to it and assuming it, as this is what gives me the strength to go ahead.
Sources: -Michaela O'Brien's 27th February 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -Moloney, K. Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, 2000 -Gruning and al Women in PR – how gender influences practice, 2001
Your business depends on your stakeholders In this class we agreed that a stakeholder is anyone with some form of interest in an organisation, anyone affecting it or affected by it. And according to my own researches, I would also say that on them depends business’ legitimacy and sustainability, where sustainability means not compromising future generations’ needs: in the social, environmental, economic areas.
And it appears that PR has the responsibility to manage all this: the reputation and perception of the business or organisation, and the establishment of good relationships with stakeholders. We’ve also learnt that nowadays organisations have a more active vision about this mission: stakeholders have replaced target audiences, probably because there is more and more interactivity in businesses, and that people are more educated so less passive. I’ve also learnt, from my insights about crisis management (see my first post!), that at a corporate level PR is now more proactive than reactive: the relationships with stakeholders are more planned and thought through. This can even lead to an instrumental stakeholder perspective, which is basically how to proceed to make money.
So in order to manage an organisation’s reputation with all stakeholders, I’ve understood from further reading that we have to define first the organisation’s identity, inside the business, and then its image, outside the business: of course there is usually more than one image for one organisation, and when it’s not consistent enough it affects the organisation’s reputation. That is why an organisation needs to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders in order to minimize issues that may develop into problems. This is when PR comes: PR job is to make match the identity (inner reality) and the image (perceptions of it). That means that all communication activities should be “passed through” a “PR filter”, in order to provide a consistent message for all stakeholders, through adapted communication tools. That is why we today talk about integrated communications, which needs this “PR filter”, and where the hub would be the brand: see this approach above with Coca-cola.
Who are my stakeholders? But before properly engaging with your stakeholders, you have of course to define them: who are they, where are they? This requires an environmental scanning, and this can be done through Integrated Marketing Communications. Indeed, one of the major issues facing today’s reputation managers is the increasing reliance of consumers and prospects on perceptions rather than facts when they make buying decisions; we now live in an age of “sound bite” decision making. According to Schultz, Tannenbaum and Lauterborn in Integrated Marketing Communications, “This increasing reliance on perceptions or the gathering of small bits of information about products and services, will be a growing challenge to marketers. (…) This new “sound bite” approach to gathering marketing information demands that a marketer’s statement must be clear, consistent and comprehensible. In this fast-paced, information-overload marketplace, integrated marketing communications (IMC) will be vital.” So we can agree that communications is a vital ingredient of marketing and the tools required are collectively referred to as the communications mix. A lot of companies have traditionally separated the various elements of the communications mix, in some cases to such an extent that advertising, PR, direct marketing and sales promotion were totally separate departments. But as channels for delivering corporate messages continue to grow and techniques for relationship marketing become more and more advanced, integrating the different elements of the communications mix produces results that are more efficient, measurable, and above all, consistent. That is the main IMC’s aim: consistent messages; and this requires putting the customer at the centre of the business (this idea started to be developed in the 90’s). So basically, IMC represent all forms of brand messages (employee com, corporate culture etc), in order to look the same way as customers. And as a consistent message builds trust and prevents from ambiguity, IMC makes both economic and communication sense.
This is particularly vital when launching a campaign: in class we came across 3 tools that help defining an organisation’s stakeholders, especially useful in a communication campaign context. The first tool was going through 9 segments of the population, 9 ways of defining them: demographic, psychographic, geographic, organisational membership, and 5 different ways of how influential people can be: covert power (like lobbies and NGO), role in decision making, influencers (role models), opinion formers (journalists, doctors etc) and decision makers. The second tool helped to define stakeholders according to what public think about your organisation; this is Grunning’s theory: there is the non public, the latent public, the aware public and the active public. The ones to target are the 2 in the middle, as there is no really point to target those whose minds are already made, or those who won’t care about what you are going to tell. The third tool was defining stakeholders according to their influence and interest: see map. With this tool the most important ones are those in the top right: people with a high influence and a high interest in your organisation. I think that for a campaign the most useful tool would be the first one, as it helps to make a very wide environmental scanning. I think the second one is useful for a consumer targeted communication, whereas the third one would be more adapted to communicate on people more directly involved in the business.
Britvic: a stakeholder management case study In October-December 2005, the soft drink company Britvic launched the Project Helium: in Autumn 2005, Britvic’s four shareholders decided to list the company on the LSE by the end of the year. They planned to be admitted to the LSE in mid-December, and therefore launched a communication campaign in October. The communication team was divided into 4 groups, under the Corporate Affairs’ one: Media Communications, Employee Communications, Public Affairs and Events, in order to engage with all stakeholders needed, and to keep the messages consistent. The main objectives were to drive favourable coverage about the company, in the consumer press but also in the city news section, to also engage at company director level audiences, and to court and provide information to analysts and third party commentators. The main messages were “Britvic is a good company to invest in”, “Britvic is a leading soft drinks company”, “Britvic is innovative” etc. The team was operating in a press office throughout the process, with a constant media monitoring and co-ordination with external agencies. The results were very positive: 362 press articles in total, of which 98% favourable and 40% strongly so. The total audience reached almost 181 million, and coverage volume peaks were seen on each of the four “spike days”. I guess this success was due to a good management of well-defined key stakeholders, while monitoring the communication process throughout the campaign. Also, the co-ordination between different communication departments may have helped them having an integrated campaign with consistent messages towards these stakeholders. So in the light of this example and of what I’ve said above, my personal conclusion about stakeholder management would be 3 key words: planning, accuracy and organisation!
Sources: -Michaela O’Brien and Pam William’s 13th February 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -John Dalton’s 16th October 2006 presentation, London School of Public Relations - Schultz, Tannenbaum and Lauterborn Integrated Marketing Communications, NTC Contemporary publishing Group, 1998
Facing a dilemma For this issue we had a very interesting first exercise in class, as we’ve been put in front of a hard dilemma: we had to imagine having the power to divert a fast train, going to kill 5 people, to another direction where it would kill “only” our mum or our best friend… So would you divert the train?? Only 2 people answered in class, proudly saying that they would prefer to kill 1 person than 5, so would divert the train. According to the teacher most of people would say they are unable to make this choice… Well I said it was a hard one, but actually a very quick and instinctive decision came to me: I would protect my mum or my friend!! So does that mean I’m a bad and selfish person? I would say that my attachment to people is probably more important to me than the life of anonymous people, and I think that is a human reaction… If the first thing you see is that you need to protect the people you care about, is that selfish? Anyway, I think in the situations where you have to decide quickly you don’t have time to think about what is good or bad, but just follow your instinct. So my answer to this exercise doesn’t mean that I’ll always blindly protect my clients in my future professional life (if ever I work in a PR agency): first, I’ll have more time to take my decisions when I’ll have to face ethical problems; secondly, I guess I won’t have the same attachment to my clients as for my mum or my best friend… Then, we had another exercise: we had to decide if we would accept to work in a PR campaign promoting a tobacco company in Mexico, where it’s legal but where heart and lung diseases are very highly spread… First I was ready to go on, while trying to adapt the campaign to only existing smokers; and I thought “well, if I don’t take it someone else will, so it’s better if I have some control on it”… But control on what? With or without me the campaign was going to encourage people, old or not, to smoke anyway, and I have no power to change this. So if I’m not agreeing with the campaign, I’d better leave it; and anyway if you’re not enthusiastic about a communication job can you really work well on it? I also thought that I could feel remorse after having participated in a “killing campaign”… It’s sometimes very difficult to define your own moral standards and limits, and the conclusion I came to was that business decisions have to be thought through and adapted to each case, in order not to regret it too much later.
A “two-way communication” is utopian This leads us to the ethical problem of conflicts of interest: when the public interest doesn’t match the organisation interest. In the PR week’s Ethics Debate organised in February 2007, some argued for a PR which has sometimes to lie, and some for a PR which should never lie. But those last ones (George Pitcher, Founder of Luther Pendragon and curate of St Bride, and Simon Lewis, Group Corporate affairs Director of Vodafone) didn’t show moral motivations in their arguments: they basically said that if the news is not out, it will be in someone else’s blog…So their arguments were aimed at their own benefit, not the public benefit. That’s why I think that having a 100% ethical speech, using reasoned persuasion and telling all the truth, is utopian. Indeed, PR is a “hemispheric communication”, as Jensen said (1997): it’s aimed to the interest of the organisation that makes it, even if the public interest can be beneficial to the organisation. But I’m not saying that PR should be totally unethical! There are actually different “ethical degrees” in PR, if we believe what Gruning and Hunt wrote in 1984: the less ethical one would be false information transmitted to a passive and ignorant audience, and the "ideal-utopian" one a two-way communication between negotiating equals. But there are 2 other degrees in the middle, which are very likely to be the most used in the industry.
Reason vs emotion Another ethical problem in PR is manipulation: how far can we go in order to persuade our audience? Being totally ethical would be persuading people through reason, by explaining and defending arguments. That’s what Kevin Moloney suggests in his book Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance (2000). So why PR practitioners so often prefer playing with our emotions in order to get their messages across? I think it’s simply because it’s more efficient: it’s quicker, and for sure in some cases people would be less convinced if they were thinking with reasoned arguments… And as PR is a business, people have to choose the most efficient way to make it, as if they don’t someone else will…
Indirect PR regulation as the most efficient So this makes me think of how we can regulate this manipulation, forgetting about an utopian idealistic PR: I think that we still can use a few direct regulations, like organising company’s PR audits in order to test its social and community impact, and which would be published in media companies’ annual reports, or having journalistic versions of official reports… But I think the limit of a direct regulation is that PR is not only commercial, like advertising, so we can't have an authoritative control on it: what if the journalist writing an article from a press release really believes what he’s writing? Can we still flag up his copy as “advertorial”? As PR is a more subtle practice, I think it should be regulated in a more subtle way: indirectly. I think this can be possible thanks to pluralism, which exists in our modern democracies: pressure groups like consumerists, environmentalists and trade-unionists can counter-balance PR manipulation. But the limit is that if we allow everyone to speak we’ll always have irresponsible media, saying false or manipulative information. And if we want to forbid them with an authoritative control on the media, we loose pluralism… That’s why I think the best solution against PR manipulation is citizens’ education: “Society would be best served if people were trained in the skills necessary to recognize manipulative use of rhetoric”, said Stauber and Rampton (1995). Indeed, I believe that the best way not to be a victim of our society's manipulation is to learn how this society and its members work: PR awareness and understanding could be the key to bringing a more ethical PR.
Sources: -Michaela O’Brien and Pam Williams' 6th February 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -Crush P. “PRWeek Ethic Debate: the truth hurts”, PRWeek, February 2007 -Moloney K. Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, Routledge, 2000 -Curran J. and Seaton J. Power Without Responsibility, Routledge, 2003
We love listening to stories For our second class on PR issues, we watched a documentary on war spin: it was showing how the US government “sold” the war in Iraq to the public, how they used the media in order to persuade American citizens that this war was necessary. For example, they showed us the fuss made in the American media about the saving operation of an American soldier, “detained” in an Iraqi hospital: the story, supported by the government, was that brave American soldiers came to save their friend, prisoner from the building; the operation was even filmed, and we could see how they bravely got the soldier from the hospital, with guns and a helicopter… Then, we could hear the Iraqi version, from the hospital’s staff: the soldier was injured so they took care of her, like for any other patient, and some were even ready to help her to go to the US embassy. So they were very surprised to see all these soldiers storming in with guns, and taking her from the bed to the helicopter, followed by a camera… One guy from the staff said: “it was like in a Rambo movie…” …And here we are: fiction became reality for the public, witness of how brave and strong their soldiers were, fighting for the freedom of their friend… And it’s so tempting to believe the story, isn’t it? We all would like to be the goodies, fighting against the baddies, and maybe that’s why Hollywood movies are so successful, no? It’s simple, it just shows us what we want to see, avoiding you to ask yourself too many questions. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve nothing against Hollywood movies; but I just think they are dangerous when we show them as if it was the reality, which is usually more complex… I’ve actually always been amazed to see how the American values are so strongly conveyed in their media, movies and politicians’ speeches: democracy, freedom, liberalism… I think the country really succeeds in building this dream society, at least in the public’s mind; and that definitely gives a strong power to the government, who can uses these messages and symbols in order to mobilise the public. And this works so well that they use the same messages for every war. That’s what shows another documentary called “Spin, The Art of Selling War”, attached in this post: it’s made by Josh Rushing, an ex-American soldier, and was released on the TV channel Al Jazeera English. Josh Rushing explains how the messages from the army are prepared and tailored for the media, as he used to be an army spokesperson. He summarizes in this documentary the 4 main messages conveyed to justify the war, and common to all the US wars: 1)Demonizing the enemy, 2)Protect the US Citizens, 3)If we don’t fight them there, we’ll have to fight them here, 4)We fight humanely. Of course, the documentary also proves how these affirmations have been false many times… His ideas are supported by Norman Salomon, who wrote the book War made easy, and who has been interviewed for the documentary. I think he said something very resounding: when Josh asked him if, actually, what explains war propaganda from government is that war is so complex that the public won’t understand, so it justifies giving a simplified version, Norman replies: “I think government’s fear is not that the public won’t understand, but that they will”. So that means that war propaganda is manipulating the truth until its total misunderstanding. Maybe here is the difference between PR and propaganda?
The French exception While I was watching the documentary in class, I got to think: it’s so funny to see this vision of the war in Iraq, as in France at the same time all the media were trying to prove that this war was a wrong idea. For example, during the debate in the UN before the war, the national French news clearly showed a strong scepticism about these photos from the US government, supposed to be a proof of the existence of mass destruction arms in Iraq. Then, France became a kind of leader for all the countries against this war, after the bright speech of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs of the time, Dominique de Villepin. But then, in class I was also thinking: well we thought we were all smarter than the Americans for not going to war, but actually have we been too influenced by a counter propaganda against war in Iraq??... I don’t think I can talk about propaganda though, but surely about some manipulations: for example there is a TV program in France called “Arret sur Image” (“Pause on Image”), that deciphers some of the images showed on TV, tracking for manipulation. And in this program, they showed us how another French TV channel had cut a speech from George Bush, in order to show him very embarrassed while answering a question about the war in Iraq, to a journalist asking for the reasons of the war. Then, the program showed the whole speech from Bush, and that gave us a totally different impression: his answer was clear, the president was controlling his speech… But I’d say that in France the most efficient way to persuade the public that this war was bad was humour, by mocking Bush and his only aim in the war: getting oil. For example, in a TV show with moppets representing different politicians (called “Les Guignols de l’info”), they made a little movie showing the long tradition, for not saying obsession, of attacking Iraq in the Bush family and for the US presidents: it was showing, time after time, the president of the time doing exactly the same thing: in a meeting, pointing Iraq on the world map and saying: “I want to attack Iraq!”… And the sentence was repeated again and again, until George W. Bush said it, apparently not even remembering why he wanted to attack Iraq… That was really funny, and also surely helped to convince a lot of French that this war had bad purposes!
War gave birth to PR After having read some books about the link between PR and war, I’ve realised that in a way war had created PR, or at least justified and accelerated its creation. That’s what shows the 1st World War history, when the “4 minutes men” have been created. These men were recruited by the government among local community leaders thorough all the country, to give prepared speeches about the war to the communities: the themes were “Why are we fighting”, “Unmasking German propaganda”, “The Danger to Democracy” etc. Indeed, the Wilson government needed to convince the public about going to war, as the antiwar movements were very strong. That’s why was created the Committee on Public Information (CPI), that was in fact a propaganda bureau, and the government mobilised the skills of a number of artists, intellectuals and journalists in order to promote the war. They used all kinds of means in order to touch people, like for example strong symbols on posters, showing the Germans as devils threatening American democracy. Most of techniques aimed at heart, and played with fear. There were 2 main consequences from this experience: the first was a raise in using unreason, not well known until then: the unconscious triggers that might be pulled to activate public passions have been discovered as more efficient in order to persuade than the “naïve faith in reason”. Secondly, with the “4 minutes men” the world of mouth’s power, or “third part endorsement”, has also been discovered as very useful, infiltrating in relaxed conversations with people we trust… that’s why we can say that PR is born with the 1st World War. And these precious tools have been of course used later on, in the following wars, especially during the cold war. For example, in the fifties the launch of the war against Guatemala was the result of a very well prepared propaganda work, showing the country, so close to the US territory, dangerously becoming communist… Actually, nowadays most of historians agree that Arbenz (the Guatemala leader of the time) and its followers were liberal, radical and nationalistic but not, in those early stages, pro-Communist. What happened is that the US Company “United Fruit” had a very successful business in banana trade in this country, and this new government was threatening this business. So Edward Bernays, who was doing the PR for “United Fruit”, managed to make a lot of journalists write and warn about this communist danger. He has succeeded thanks to his influence towards journalists (and also because he had friends in the Eisenhower administration and in the Congress). Also, some journalists were actually happy to be able to fill in their columns, and didn’t seem to question too much the truth as long as they had facts that they could transform into stories… This reminds me of a Belgian film called “C'est arrivé près de chez vous” (the English title is “Man Bites Dog”), directed by Rémy Belvaux and André Bonzel in 1992. The movie is about a camera crew following a serial killer/thief around as he exercises his craft; it’s a black comedy. The film’s aim was to criticise modern societies’ media for using anything in order to show a story: the more unusual and shocking the story is, the better it is, as it will catch the public’s attention. So this logic can lead to very sordid consequences… Maybe that’s why war is so linked to PR: isn’t war the archetype of a story, with a plot, with action and a denouement, with a beginning and an end, and with good people and bad people? And isn’t part of PR job to create stories?
Sources: -Ewen, S. PR! A Social History of Spin, Basic Books, 1996 -Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward C Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations, Crown, 1998 -Documentary from Josh Rushing Spin, The Art of Selling War, for Al Jazeerah English, 2004
Last week we talked about crisis management in PR: after having defined the topic and its different aspects, we had some practice through an exercise that made the class realise how to communicate in a crisis situation… Here I’m going to sum up my personal thoughts into different points, according to what caught my attention in class and to some personal reading.
Crisis: definition I’ve found the definition of the Institute of Crisis Management in the USA: “A crisis is a significant business disruption that stimulates extensive media coverage. The resulting public scrutiny will affect the organisation’s normal operations and could have a political, legal, financial and governmental impact on the business.” But it’s not said if this impact is positive or negative: well, it can be both, depending on how you manage the crisis… As we’ve learnt, the Chinese sign meaning crisis is the combination of the “danger” and “opportunity” signs… Indeed, there is always a good and a bad side to a new event and that reminds me of a French expression: “what doesn’t kill makes you stronger”. So managing well a crisis can get you an even better reputation than the one you used to have! I’ve also read that the first cause of a crisis is management decisions (or indecisions); then come mechanical failures, and then human errors. That led me to think that if management is crisis’ main cause, this means that we can manage the risks of crisis…
Risk management We could say that first come the risk, then an issue, then a crisis, and then a disaster… And I’ve learnt that since 1999-2000 organisations use more and more risk and issue management than crisis management. So identifying a risk actually became a skill, and is now a key part of corporate governances. The risk analysis is mainly built on an environmental scanning (political, economical, legal etc), as well as on using analogies, and on feedbacks (from stakeholders or the public) and audits. Indeed, Issue Audits can provide an Issue Brief that identifies the corporate and the brand positions on each issue, and details the process and responses needed. It means that each organisation has a risk profile, and so a recommended position, that is a key to handle any risk of crisis. There is also a skill called issue management, that has been developed by Howard Chase in 1976; it’s an ongoing form of risk assessment. The idea is that issues have a lifecycle so can be monitored so as to prevent them from becoming a crisis. So all this tells us what experience shows: it’s better preventing than treating.
Crisis reveals an organisation’s responsibility When we couldn’t prevent risks from becoming a crisis, we have of course to manage the crisis, and if possible use it as an opportunity for the organisation to gain credibility. And what can lead to this goal is the organisation’s responsibility during the crisis, its professionalism and reliability. Indeed, if you can prove that you’ve done everything within your power, you won half the battle. So a crisis’ outcomes are all about how you control it: you need to very quickly communicate in order not to be isolated, through giving accurate information and dialoguing with stakeholders, the public and the media. If you use the right channels and clear messages, you can have an opportunity to improve your image.
Tools to handle a crisis This leads us to some tools that are useful to use in a crisis time: the basic one could be using a Holding Statement, that contains 3 steps: 1)Why is it a crisis?, 2)Holding a position, 3)Reassurance + what we do about it. In more details, I’ve read that there are usually 6 stages during a crisis, so following them here can make this clearer: 1. What is at stake: define a strategy 2. Internal communication 3. Release statements: this is where we have to handle media stories by giving YOUR version (because something is going to be written anyway, so it’s better if it’s your story). Here covering up doesn’t work, given journalists’ experience and on line activists (for example on www.corpwatch.org , www.moles.org , www.gm-info.org.uk etc); there will always be someone to catch you! So it’s better to fairly establish your facts, and define who are the “goodies” and “baddies” as journalists are going to look for them. 4. Communicate (staying on messages); if something hasn’t been double checked it’s better to say “I don’t know”, otherwise this can also be used against the organisation… In one word, what I’ve learnt for 3 and 4 is that you have to show responsibility towards the media. 5. Consolidate and monitor 6. Recovery: media evaluation and debriefing: the debriefing report will be very useful for the potential following crisis. I think it’s also important to notice here the existence of other tools, used in case of disasters: the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC), Business Recovery Centres, and the website www.it-disaster-recovery.com
Case study: Cadbury and salmonella When I was thinking of examples to illustrate these theories, I remembered the crisis that affected Cadbury in July 2006: Cadbury was hit by a salmonella contamination outbreak, which cost them over £40 millions in product recall, lost sales and damaged reputation. Early signs indicated that there were low levels of contamination in certain products, BUT Cadbury did not inform the Foods Standards Agency. The contamination was caused by a leaking waste piper near a conveyor belt. This was a classic case of not responding soon enough and crisis followed, with 1 million chocolate being recalled and destroyed. That shows very well that in a crisis, timing is everything.
Link to my personal crisis… Now that I’ve made this analysis, of course I can say that it can help me when I’ll have to face a crisis in my professional life. But what about my private life? Can I avoid or at least reduce personal crisis by managing the risks? Is the best way to handle them being strong and responsible? Well I would say that in my private life I’d rather feeling remorse than having regrets… But then, I surely have to assume this by showing responsibility. And for my future professional life, I’d say that analysing risks is a key to preventing a crisis, and responsibility is a key to handle it.
Sources: -Pam Williams’ 23rd January 2008 presentation, University of Westminster -John Dalton’s 18th December 2006 presentation, London School of Public Relations -Article about Cadbury and salmonella’s story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article682877.ece
This blog is an assignment for my Master in Public Communication and Public Relations: it aims to give my personal feedbacks and thoughts about the issues tackled in a module called "Public Communication and PR issuses". So, from what I've learnt in class, from what I've read or seen and from my own experience, I will try to clearly tell what I've retained, and what I think is essential about each "PR issue".
I’m now studying for a MA in Public Communication and Public Relations in the University of Westminster, London. I also studied in France: International History in La Sorbonne, and English and Russian languages. I’ve finally decided to study and work in the PR industry as this is involving all that I like doing most: meeting new people, adapting to new point of views and find a way to understand the others, conveying a message.
I’ve travelled a lot (Brazil, Maghreb, Italy, Turkey, Armenia, Russia, Tanzania, Singapore, USA), and I’ve always been very interested in international relations and cultural exchanges.
Moloney, K. Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, Routledge, 2000
This is a very interesting reading if you are interested in ethical issues for the PR industry. It is a very useful source for understanding the history of PR, and the dilemmas the industry has to face. It also suggest a number of solutions on how improving the health of PR industry, and therefore make it more recognized by the society.
Tulder, van R. and Zwart, van der A. International Business – Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization, Routledge, 2006
This book gave me very interesting insights about Corporate Social Responsibility, and in a broad perspective, as it explains well nowadays’ internationalized context for businesses, and how CSR is therefore linked with globalization. The authors use a large number of references from various sources: economic, politic and cultural, and give a clear statement about what is CSR, as well as findings about its future.
Rampton, S. and Stauber, J. Trust us, we are experts. How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future, Tarcher/Putnam, 2001
This book really helped me to write my essay about my dissertation topic, which is about the communicating on scientific issues, through the example of climate change. The authors show a solid argumentation, through numerous examples, aiming to prove that science can never be totally objective when scientific findings are presented to the public, given the complex links between scientists, the media and various organizations having some interest in science.
Senges, A. Ethnik! Le marketing de la différence, Autrement, 2003
This book is in French, but I still wanted to talk about it in this blog, for whoever is interested in ethnic marketing and PR, and therefore would be tempted to read in English from this writer: Anne Senges is correspondent in the USA for the magazine CB News, the weekly magazine of communication and business. In this book she compares American and French approach to ethnic communities. Her main idea is that being American today is sharing a culture and consuming habits more than a skin colour or an ethnic origin. Therefore, France’s challenge is to display its multi cultural country with pride without becoming too politically correct.
Tye, Larry The Father of Spin: Edward C Bernays and the Birth of Public Relations, Crown, 1998
This is about the wonderful story of Edward Bernays, one of the most famous PR practitioners. This book is an impressive compilation of anecdotes and stories about people spinning and being spinned, and can interest you if you are looking for examples of successful PR campaigns. However, I felt that the book was sometimes a bit partial about his “hero”, as if a spin effort had been made in order to present Bernays always in his best light…
es and your contacts. PR education is irrelevant”. So the debate could also make us wondering, in this last class, if all that we’ve done for months was really useful! Maybe some were wondering “well what am I doing here?” Of course the motion is very Manichean, and I guess most of people would agree that personal attributes, contacts and education are all useful for having success in PR industry. So to me the real question is to what extend a MA degree in PR can really help me for my future career?
f you’re trained through exercises that ask you to be creative, you realize that it is a way of thinking that you can really improve, as it’s also shown on the diagram on the right.
ting this blog which is an assignment! And I have to say that I really enjoy doing it, as it really made me have some useful thinking about a number of issues, especially about current trends in our society. Trevor also said that employers would expect a PR degree to bring to the job applicant some academic and intellectual thinking, a mixture of analysis and basic vocational skills.
f you’re trained through exercises that ask you to be creative, you realize that it is a way of thinking that you can really improve, as it’s also shown on the diagram on the right.
ting this blog which is an assignment! And I have to say that I really enjoy doing it, as it really made me have some useful thinking about a number of issues, especially about current trends in our society. Trevor also said that employers would expect a PR degree to bring to the job applicant some academic and intellectual thinking, a mixture of analysis and basic vocational skills.
these? Well the thing is you don’t compulsorily need some knowledge to work in PR, as PR jobs are mainly maintaining good relationships and reputation, and you don’t need a particular knowledge for that. However, you need a few skills that a PR degree can really help you to enhance. But, as Trevor said in the PRWeek interview, a PR degree will never be a substitute for learning on the job, and the most important for employers is clearly the attitude and abilities of the candidates. Personally, I’ve always considered my MA as a bonus for getting a job, compared to candidates with the same experience and personal attributes but with no PR degree, and I’ve never considered this MA as the key for getting a job in PR.
are and a bit looked down upon 20-30 years ago but now totally recognized by the society, it may be just a question of time for PR degrees. As Trevor Morris said, cynicism from PR practitioners who don’t have a PR degree is dropping very quickly. He thinks that in the future PR degrees will be more recognized as, first, far more people working in the industry will have one, and secondly, increasingly employers are seeing the value of people that have shown this commitment to the industry and got that depth of thinking about it.
these? Well the thing is you don’t compulsorily need some knowledge to work in PR, as PR jobs are mainly maintaining good relationships and reputation, and you don’t need a particular knowledge for that. However, you need a few skills that a PR degree can really help you to enhance. But, as Trevor said in the PRWeek interview, a PR degree will never be a substitute for learning on the job, and the most important for employers is clearly the attitude and abilities of the candidates. Personally, I’ve always considered my MA as a bonus for getting a job, compared to candidates with the same experience and personal attributes but with no PR degree, and I’ve never considered this MA as the key for getting a job in PR.
are and a bit looked down upon 20-30 years ago but now totally recognized by the society, it may be just a question of time for PR degrees. As Trevor Morris said, cynicism from PR practitioners who don’t have a PR degree is dropping very quickly. He thinks that in the future PR degrees will be more recognized as, first, far more people working in the industry will have one, and secondly, increasingly employers are seeing the value of people that have shown this commitment to the industry and got that depth of thinking about it.
