Why people don’t like public relations… March 16, 2010

I was talking with a fellow student as we left class today about which way we’d (ideally) like to take our careers. We are both majoring in advertising/public relations with a minor in marketing. At Loyola, the advertising and public relations major is combined. It is pretty much up to the student to choose which path they take based on the classes they choose to enroll in.

The particular student I was talking to said that although she is an advertising/public relations major, she’s looking to go into marketing. She said she has hardly taken any advertising classes, and that she doesn’t like public relations because, “I’m just not really into the whole press release thing.”

I had to bite my tongue.

Since I am a student that is focused on public relations, I had so many comebacks I wanted to share. Instead, I just smiled and nodded. But it got me thinking: is that the reason why some people don’t like public relations?

I’m sure that’s not the only reason, but it made me realize that maybe people don’t like public relations because they don’t really know what it is. Nowadays, I wouldn’t describe public relations with such a stereotype as “the whole press release thing” because public relations has changed a lot over the past few years. As we are all aware, the fast advances in technology and the ever-increasing popularity of social media have greatly impacted the public relations industry.

I’m still a student and can’t really call myself an expert on this yet. (Or ever, really, because I’m not sure that a anyone is an expert in such a rapidly evolving field). However, I did a little bit of research to see what more knowledgeable people had to say.

I came across a whitepaper by Vocus called “Meeting Change: Public Relations Planning in 2010: Preparations for the Unknown Unknowns,” and I found an interesting statistic that proves social media is a legitimate part of public relations (even in the eyes of business decision-makers): 94 percent of enterprises will maintain or increase their investment in social media. The study, conducted in October 2009 by Deloitte, Beeline Labs and the Society for New Communications Research, can be viewed here.

Although that was a few months ago, it is still an indicator of what’s to come.

So, because I was somewhat annoyed with my classmate’s comment about press release, I read the Vocus whitepaper and identified five big changes in the press release that have already begun to occur and will continue to occur in the upcoming years. This is some of what I read and my own thoughts mixed in–it’s no hard and fast rule. I’m sure there are more than five (or less, depending on how you break it down) but this is what I found:

 

Five changes in the press release: 

Traditionally, press releases were used by companies to announce something or share news with the public. They were pitched to journalists in hopes that the release would be published in print media. I’m not saying this never occurs anymore, but there are many changes in the way press releases are distributed and the way companies share news.

• Online press release distribution is an increasingly popular tool. Nowadays, the first place people go to find news or information about an organiztion (or anything, really) is on the Internet. Organizations want press releases distributed via the Internet so they are visible on search results.
• Posting press releases to a Web site’s media section and homepage is key. Just like people regularly use search engines to find information, they also visit an organization’s Web site to find out information. It is important to have press releases announcing news on a Web site–even more important than say, getting that press release printed in a newspaper. (And I’m not discrediting newspapers or print media–I’m just commenting on trends in the way people access and view information).
• Links in press releases are much more common. If press releases are widely distributed online, then it only makes sense to include links in them. It makes a press release more interactive and allows people to immediately find an organization’s Web site via a press release they found online. It is just another way to generate more inbound linkage and traffic to a Web site, and Web sites are sort of like an organization’s “mother ship.”
• Press releases are not the only way for organizations to announce news anymore. Many organizations have a blog where they share information about the company, upcoming news and events, etc. People interested in the organization are likely to read and follow its blog, making it the perfect place to announce news to your target audience. Organizations often use Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to announce company news as well.
• Press releases are not always the best solution for crisis management. In the past, crisis communication most likely always included a press release. Nowadays, crises are communicated and managed in real-time. Organizations can Tweet news as it happens and engage in two-way dialogue about the crisis via Twitter. Other social media platforms may also be used to respond to a crisis. Of course press releases are still used in this capacity, but it is still important to note the shift in crisis communication styles.

 

So the next time someone makes a snide remark about public relations, ask them why. If they then generalize the profession by saying something like, ”I’m just not into the whole press release thing,” you can give them a comeback like the one I wish I gave.

As I mentioned earlier, though, I am no expert. What do you think? Is public relations more than just press releases? Are press releases even that widely used in public relations anymore?

#HAPPO Friday: Here’s Why You Should Hire Me February 19, 2010

In the spirit of #HAPPO, I thought I’d write a blog post explaining why employers should hire me. Granted, I’m not yet a “PR professional,” but I hope to get there someday (and when I say “someday” I really mean that I’m graduating in May and it would be nice to begin my career as a public relations pro).

To keep this blog post from being too long and not very scannable, I’m going to list the reasons why you should hire me, Jackie Lampugnano, for your public relations job in Chicago:

1) Experience: I’ve had six different internships while at Loyola Chicago, and all of them have been in public relations/marketing/advertising. My emphasis has always been on public relations. I was a public relations intern at Chicago Office Technology Group, Vision Global Corp., Jam Theatricals/AdVice Agency Inc., Gibbs & Soell and I’m currently a media relations specialist at Walker Sands Communications. My only non-public relations internship was two years ago when I interned in the promotions department at WTMX 101.9 FM The Mix. For more details on my duties at these internships, please visit my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlampugnano

2) Education: I majored in public relations/advertising at Loyola with a minor in marketing. I will graduate this May. I am an academic scholarship recipient (2006-2010) and I have been on the Dean’s List all four years of college. I am also a member of the Loyola Chapter of PRSSA, the National Society of Collegiate Scholars and Golden Key International Honour Society.

3) I’m a social media enthusiast. I have become deeply immersed in the world of social media. Last semester I wrote a research paper for Allan Schoenberg (@allanschoenberg) on censorship in the U.S. vs. other countries in the world. I actually conducted my own study on social media users and their views on Internet censorship (blog post found below).

I’m currently learning all about social media measurement/tracking/analytics from Dr. Kamerer (@davidkamerer) in a digital campaigns class at Loyola. Part of the class is to create a social media campaign for my “client,” Skinstinct.

In addition, I’m working with two Loyola professors on a social media policy research project. We are looking at corporate social media guidelines and analyzing the data to see if there are any correlations/best practices present.

4) I have worked with a number of NPOs. Because Loyola is a Jesuit University, we often are assigned to work with NPOs for public relations class projects. I worked in a group for CHILL Chicago, Lakeside CDC, Good News Community Kitchen and the No Idle Hands Group of Chicago. These experiences were very rewarding, and I enjoy helping organizations who truly need the publicity.

5) I’m a hardworking, dedicated, enthusiastic employee. I hope that this is evident from my grades and experience.

6) I love to write. I truly love to write, and not just public relations writing. I want to write my own science fiction/fantasy novel someday. I’m such a nitpicky grammar person that I actually yelled at my boyfriend for using the wrong form of “there” in a text message he sent me.

7) I’m a go-getter.

8) I’m a news junkie.

9) I have a creative background from years of theater experience. I used to act: I performing with teen ensembles at the Lookingglass Theater and others in Chicago. Acting taught me to truly understand how others think because I had to be able to do that to get into character. This skill is also extremely helpful in public relations and marketing: you need to understand the way your audience thinks, right?

My theater experience also gave me great oral communication skills. I am comfortable communicating orally (and in front of large groups) because I used to perform in front of live audiences.

The most important thing that I learned from my theater experience is how to work well with others and truly get out of my comfort zone. There’s no time to be shy or awkward in theater–you just have to jump in and go for it.

10) I love to read.  I believe this is essential for good writing.

11) I have a knack for building relationships.

12) I’m a very well-rounded person with a lot of different interests.

13) I actually enjoy researching. I pride myself on being a good researcher (I can thank the Loyola professors for giving me tons of practice) and I think it’s one of the best ways to impress prospective clients and help current ones. You have to be in the know.

14) I’m computer savvy. I think I started to become computer savvy when I was about 10-years-old and made my own Harry Potter Web site. (I know, I was a really cool kid). Anyway, I’m extremely familiar with computer software including Microsfot Office, Adobe, bits of HTML coding, Google Analytics and of course the social mediasphere.

15) I truly love public relations. Passion is important in any profession. I always look forward to going to work when I’m at one of my public relations internships. I even enjoy doing projects and other work for my public relations classes. People who truly enjoy what they do will go the extra step and put in more effort.

16) I truly love Chicago. I was born and raised in the suburbs of Chicago, and as soon as I could escape suburbia I came to the city. I live in downtown Chicago and I don’t have plans to leave anytime soon because it’s my favorite city in the country.

And there you have it. 16 reasons why you should hire me for your public relations job in Chicago. Thank you, #HAPPOCHI. If anyone would like to get in touch with me, feel free to email me at jlampugnano@hotmail.com or visit my LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlampugnano.

If I think of more reasons to add to my list, you will see them in an upcoming blog post.

Happy Friday everyone! Or should I say, #HAPPO Friday

What does CBS have against the gay community? February 4, 2010

Many people have already heard about how CBS rejected an ad from ManCrunch.com (a gay dating web site) to air during this year’s Super Bowl. According to a FOXNews.com article, CBS claimed that the ad “did not meet broadcasting standards and the sales department had difficulties in verifying the previously unknown site’s credit status.”

Is it just me, or does that sound like a weak excuse?

The rejection of ManCrunch.com’s commercial immediately led to speculation: was it a PR stunt? Did ManCrunch.com create the commercial for the publicity it would receive when it was rejected?

This is a controversial topic, and if it was a PR stunt it definitely worked. But would ManCrunch.com really spend $100,000 to create a commercial just to have it be rejected?

Or, as many suspect, did CBS have a problem airing the ad because ManCrunch.com is a gay dating site?

Of course the truth will never be known. CBS might have been trying to avoid the controversy surrounding this ad by not airing it, but now they’ve created even more.

What I don’t understand is: what does CBS have against the gay community? Other Super Bowl ads have borderline content, and they aren’t getting rejected.

Is there a double standard?

You don’t hear about TV networks rejecting straight singles dating sites. And what about those distasteful GoDaddy.com ads (that will be airing during the Super Bowl this year)? I realize that I’m not in the target audience for those ads, but I don’t see what makes them any better than ManCrunch.com.

If ManCrunch.com isn’t an acceptable commercial for the Super Bowl, then maybe CBS needs to hold all of its advertisers to the same standards.

Even Hillary Clinton speaks out against Internet censorship January 26, 2010

A few of my posts referred to Internet censorship in the U.S. and many other countries in the world, especially China. The majority of Americans feel very strongly about their right to free speech on the Internet. Online censorship is relaxed in the U.S. compared to other countries. The firewalls and highly censored online communities in other countries cause problems for global Internet companies. Google, for example, announced that it might be pulling out of China as a result of cyberattacks.

The vast difference in Internet regulation from one country to another is a controversial topic. It became an issue of foreign policy after Hillary Clinton commented:

“Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not just what’s a quick profit.”

Clinton also commented on the Google cyberattacks: “Such behavior not only impedes freedom of expression and religion, but in many cases stunts economic growth.”

Clinton’s words reflect the view of most Americans: free expression should be safeguarded. I’m glad the government agrees with its citizens on that. But, as Clinton pointed out, Internet censorship laws have the potential to stunt economic growth. A company like Google will lose revenue if they cannot operate globally. So which censorship laws should Google follow? American or Chinese?

The Internet has no borders, but countries do. How does that affect jurisdiction when it comes to online censorship?

Who knew Twitter could generate millions of dollars in revenue? December 9, 2009

I have repeatedly talked about Twitter and other social media web sites in terms of communication and connecting with the public, but I have never gone the next step to consider how much revenue can be generated from a company’s use of social media.

A PRWeek blog entitled “Dell gets $6.5 million in Twitter sales” reported that “Dell, the third-largest maker of PCs, started using Twitter two years ago to reach new customers. The $6.5 million represents the total amount generated through direct customer interactions on Twitter over that time.”

I will admit that I’m impressed. I would have never expected Twitter to be so useful for generating revenue. Sure, I think it is a great way for companies to interact with its customers/clients, but I never pegged Twitter for the big money maker. Can Twitter generate this kind of revenue for all types of companies?

I also cannot help but wonder: is it Twitter that helped Dell generate its revenue, or is it the way that Dell used Twitter that helped generate its revenue? I’m not sure if the credit goes to Twitter, Dell or perhaps both of them. The reason I say that is because I don’t think it is Twitter alone that can generate $6.5 million in orders for Dell PCs, accessories and software–Dell had to do something right.

Will companies that don’t currently use Twitter begin to use it after hearing about Dell’s success? It is very encouraging news, especially for those of us in public relations who have spent countless hours discussing the usefulness of Twitter. It looks like we were right!

The best way to make Americans angry is to take away their right to free speech… December 9, 2009

In an earlier post I discussed Internet censorship and regulation based on an article I read about President Obama speaking at a forum in Shanghai. The post is entitled: Are there some things that shouldn’t be allowed on the Internet? Basically, I was wondering if there should be more censorship/regulation of Internet content (particularly social media web sites). And, if so, what should be censored and what shouldn’t? When does censorship infringe on personal freedoms and the First Amendment right to free speech?

I created a survey with SurveyMonkey.com and distributed it via Facebook. There were 28 respondents, all of them social media users. Here are the results of the survey:

1) Do you use social media?

100 percent of respondents said yes.

2) How many hours a day do you spend on social media web sites?

53.6 percent of respondents said less than one hour, and the rest said 2-3 hours a day.

3) If the U.S. passed a law that banned all citizens from using social media websites, do you think that takes away your individual right to free speech?

92.9 percent of people surveyed said yes. Additional comments included: “Like blogs, many people gain inspiration from social media sites and they can be beneficial,” “The Internet is a way of social networking that has become just as common, if not more so, than face-to-face interaction. Banning such sites would be like banning us from communicating with others altogether.”

4) Should there be more censorship on the Internet?

10.7 pecent said yes, the Internet has too much inappropriate content. 46.4 percent said no, the Internet is about free expression, and 50 percent said some aspects of the Internet should be censored, but not all.

5) What should be most highly censored and regulated on the Internet?

64.3 percent of respondents said personal information/privacy should be most highly censored. 35.7 percent believe slander/insults should be most highly censored, 39.1 percent said pornographic material and only 7.1 percent said posts on social media websites. Of the 14.3 percent who chose “other,” some said the most highly censored/regulated content should be “messed up stuff like people getting killed on video” or “material related directly to threatening others–terrorist activity.”

6) Do you trust the information you receive from social media web sites?

67.9 percent replied: sometimes, depending on who posts the information. 28.6 percent said no they do not trust information from social media websites, and 7.1 percent said yes they trust the information. One respondent made a good point when he/she said: “You have to take everything with a grain of salt. The Internet is a place where people can share their opinions–do not take everything as fact.”

7) Do you question the credibility of the information you receive on the Internet?

57.1 percent said yes, they always question where the information comes from. 46.4 percent said sometimes, if they are using the information for school or work. Only 3.6 percent (one respondent) said no they do not question where information comes from and they trust what they find on the Internet.

The results of this survey are not very surprising: Americans value freedom of expression. The results of this survey also suggest that Americans are aware of inappropriate content on the Internet, especially on social media sites, and they know that not everything posted online is authentic or credible. However, this survey also concludes that Americans do think there are some things that should not be allowed on the Internet (questions 4 and 5).

Is it up to the U.S. government to dictate what should or should not be posted on the Internet? Is it possible to make censorship laws based on such a subjective issue? Just because I may think something is inappropriate doesn’t mean that you think it is too.

How would Internet censorship affect our American society as a whole? One survey respondent said: “The day we begin regulating and censoring comments on the Internet is the day we take a step away from what made us a great, free, democratic country. It is our job as citizens, parents and guardians to censor what our family/friends see, not the government’s.”

Do you agree?

To view survey results, follow this link.

Is the media making Tiger Woods look guilty, or did he do that all on his own? December 9, 2009

At this point probably everyone in America has heard about Tiger Woods’ car crash that ended up revealing evidence of his many affairs. The car crash alone resulted in many rumors and speculation from the public eye, not to mention the various women who are now coming forward about their alleged affairs with Woods. The media always has a field day when a celebrity pulls a stunt like this, but I still think there has to be a better way for Tiger to handle this situation.

MTV recently posted an article entitled “Chris Rock Unloads on Media for Tiger Woods Car Crash Coverage.” along with a video. The article was posted before information of the alleged affairs came to light. In the article Rock says that the news should just report the news, nothing more. He said: “there was no PR situation to be ‘handled’ because the man simply got into a car accident.”

Is he right? How is there no public relations situation to be handled when there are tons of rumors and speculation surrounding the incident? If Woods made a statement immediately following the accident or handled his overall communication about this with the public differently, do you think he could’ve possibly painted himself in a better light?

When a celebrity causes a scandal like this, everyone is going to hear about it. So what is the best way to communicate to the public? Wouldn’t more open communication have helped to dissolve rumors and speculation? Woods still has not released an official statement to the public, yet almost every media outlet has been discussing his personal business. Something seems very wrong with that. Personally, I think the public wants to hear what happened from the horse’s mouth. Unfortunately at this point I am not sure that Woods will be perceived as a credible source. I still find it suspicious that Woods hasn’t commented on his situation. He made himself look guilty by not saying anything.

Could public relations and effective communication have changed the outcome of this situation? Is Woods reputation ruined forever?

MTV Shows

Is there any way to stop people from worrying about H1N1? December 9, 2009

The H1N1 vaccine is constantly a topic of conversation in America. There is an entire campaign for the vaccine that is meant to express why Americans should go and get the shot. Despite the campaign, many Americans are still worried about the risks of the H1N1 vaccine.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “officials are grappling with a chorus of vaccine opponents who are capitalizing on the campaign’s high profile to draw new attention to concerns about the safety of the shots.”

Why are there still so many concerns even though the vaccine has such a “high profile” campaign? It seems like a high profile campaign would have already addressed Americans’ concerns. So does the problem stem from a lack of communication? Poor methods of communication? Or possibly the messages are directed toward the wrong audience. Perhaps we are hearing about the H1N1 vaccine from the wrong sources. I’m not sure about that one because even the expert doctor opinons aren’t having much of an effect in this case.

The H1N1 vaccine affects so many different demographics of people as well as various generations of people. That being said, how do you determine who is the most important audience to target?

Also, the public has been polled and their concerns about the vaccine have been voiced. How can public relations help to alleviate Americans’ worries about the H1N1 vaccine? Is it possible to change the minds of people who have already decided they are not getting the shot?

Can AOL blur the line between public relations, journalism and advertising? December 9, 2009

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, AOL is creating a high-tech system for mass-producing news articles, entertainment and other online content. The company’s goal is to make AOL a “magnet for both advertisers and consumers by turning it into the top creator of digital content.”

AOL chief executive Tim Armstrong hopes to achieve AOL’s goal “in part by turning some media and marketing conventions to their ear, and potentially blurring the lines between journalism and advertising.”

When the line between journalism and advertising is blurred, what do you get? In my opinoin, public relations emerges from the blurring between the two. AOL will work with marketers to create custom content instead of selling ads after an article/Web video is produced. The Wall Street Journal article states: “AOL says that its ad model will allow advertisers to be affiliated with the content but not control what is written or created.”

Clearly this is not traditional advertising, nor is it journalism, which is why I think this can be a perfect public relations opportunity. Can public relations pros use what AOL is doing to further communicate with the public on a different scale? Is this possibly the next step beyond social media strategies?

And, if AOL does not allow advertisers to control what is written or created, will that create genuine two-way dialogue or will it end up hurting AOL’s reputation and credibility? Will marketers trust AOL and the content that is posted?

Overall, I think this is a smart move for AOL. The trend in society has shifted away from paid advertising and print journalism–digital content and social media tactics are used now more than ever. It seems like AOL has found a way to keep up with the times.  That being said, will we continue to see more companies following in AOL’s footsteps in the future? If so, what does that mean for the public relations industry?

Even NASA has jumped on the Twitter bandwagon November 30, 2009

Earlier this month, NASA invited some of its Twitter followers to view a space shuttle launch at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The Tweetup event is a very clever way for NASA to involve its followers and strengthen its relationships with the public. Still, I was a little surprised to see that even NASA has jumped on the Twitter bandwagon. It seems like everyone is jumping on board these days. Will organizations that don’t use Twitter get left behind?

Although I personally think this was a good idea for NASA, I still can’t help but wonder: was it useful? Was it engaging? Or is Twitter not an appropriate media outlet for every organization?

Another thing I wondered when I read about the NASA Tweetup is that if a serious government-related organization like NASA uses Twitter, then what’s next? Twitter has become extremely popular in a very short amount of time…will we exhaust it just as quickly?