Lecture 9 - Social Marketing

In our most recent lecture we had a guest speaker come discuss social marketing.

I was not familiar with this area, as my main interest is PR so I looked this topic up.

Social marketing has its roots in the work of Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman, who in the 1970's found that the practices and ideas that were used to sell goods and services, could be used to sell socially important causes for the benefit or good of society.

In Social Marketing in the 21st Century Alan R. Andreason gives an even more succint definition of the social marketing, stating that ;

"Social marketing is simply about influencing the behavior of target audiences".

In the book Anderson claims to re-think and re-define what is meant by social marketing, beyond just seeing social marketing to change bad-behaviors or negative attitudes, but reconceptualizing social marketing as something that can create societal good.

Anderson states that;

"I will claim here that social marketing has a greater and more powerful role to play in social change. The reason for such bravado is simple: social change requires individuals to act. For social change to happen, someone or - or many 'someones' - must bring the issue to our attention. Someone has to assemble possible solutions and evaluate them. Someone has to decide on the best courses of action. Someone - presumably many someones, in many kinds of arrangements - must mount efforts big and small to make change happen or to prevent change from happening. Finally someone has to keep track of how things are going, how modifications and redirections are necessary, and whether more or less effort is neccessary.Social marketing does this." (pg. 5).

However I am wary of these claims of being able to change behavior. As communicators I beleive our roles are to influence attitudes and beliefs, to convince and inform, not to alter or influence behaviour. As PR professionals we communicate certain messages and fulfill briefs, I would be apprhensive to promise to be able to change behaviour.

However I do find this area interesting and found Anderson's examination of how to move social marketing forward in the 21st century to be useful.

Lecture 8 - Crisis Communications

Recently we talked about crisis communications in class and took part in some really great exercises about crisis communications.

Crisis communications refers to how a corporation or organization reacts, in terms of communications activities and public relations tactics, when an emergency or controversy takes place or may take place.

I think what really stuck out for me, from our lecture, was the fact that crisis communications is an integral and well planned out part of most every large corporation today.

I think this video from Thompson Reuters proves my point;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD4kIHY4Lw8

As a the woman in the video discusses, crisis communications have become important to every corporation and issues such as how positively manage image during a crisis have become paramount.

This really reflects on how important public relations activities have become to large corporations. Corporations now see managing and creating positive image despite setbacks such a controversies or crisis as, important as successfully selling their goods and services. For me this really reflects on how important our role as PR practitioners have become. We have an important role to play in the corporate sector and our field work can no longer be seen as 'fluff' or just 'spin'.

Lecture 7 - International PR

Our most recent lecture was really interesting for its look at international PR and because we heard a really lively debate on whether international PR exists or not.

I mean even in today's world, where globalization is so apparent, can we really claim that international PR exists?

PR activities in each country need to be tailored to the society, culture, customs, consumer desires etc of that country. I think PR activities cannot be homogeneous to the entire world and hence the idea of international PR, in that Public Relations activities which encompass and can successfully target and speak to the whole world's population do not exist.

However after doing some research on the subject I found a website for the International Public Relations Association (IPRA).

However I don't think the existence of the IPRA substantiates claims for the existence of international PR.

The IPRA states its 'Mission' is to "be the world's most relevant, successful, resourceful and influential professional association for senior international public relations executives".

No where does it state to support or encourage global PR activities suited to an international audience.

However what I did find interesting was that under the 'Links' section of the website, there is a list of PR associations from different countries. There are official PR associations for over 20 countries, ranging from New Zealand to Serbia.

Here is the link: http://www.ipra.org/links.asp

Virtually every country in the world, it seems, have established PR activities. I think this is great. Whilst international PR may not exist, Public Relations as a field has become important and influential enough to be present and thriving in countries across the world

Lecture 6 - Corporate Social Responsibility

Our most recent lecture was on CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility and it got me thinking on the idea of CSR as a gimmick.

I mean, I think, that CSR is in itself a PR activity. It helps corporate image and strengthens the corporate brand. CSR programs does this by presenting corporations to be caring, socially responsible and ethical organizations rather than huge, powerful and elite conglomerates. CSR programs are meant to communicate to the public that corporations are doing their part for the world and are genuinely concerned enough about societal issues to dedicate their time and resources to addressing and correcting these issues.

And I'm sure in some cases corporations are genuine in their concern.

But the lecture was really interesting in getting me to think about whether the public or consumers actually still buy into the vadility of CSR programs or whether they are becoming wary to the idea of CSR as corporate PR.

Whilst researching the topic of corporate social responsibility online, I found (to my surprise, quite frankly) that the Gaurdian's website has an entire section dedicated to Corporate Social Responsibility.

Or rather on examining whether corporations are really practicing ethical business and whether corporate social responsibility programs are really what they claim to be.

The site is very interesting with articles on how CSR programs often do not live up to their hype. A really great article covers how Disney's claims to be have created a CSR program aimed at being environmentally friendly are just part of a bid to spruce up their image.

The article states Disney CEO Robert Iger's opinions about Disney's bid to be more environmentally firendly.

"In case anyone thought this do-goodery would damage the bottom line, CEO Robert Iger promised that the wider purpose was to "make our brands and products more attractive, strengthen our bonds with consumers, make the company a more desirable place to work, and build goodwill in the communities we operate. All of this contributes to shareholder value.""

This is just an example of the types of artciles the site features.

What struck me is that, if a large print publication's website can have a entire section of their highly popular website dedicated to Corporate Social Responsibility or rather the vadility of Corporate Social Responsibility, then isn't there a widespread skepticism about the genuineness of CSR programs and more broadly how successful can CSR programs be in convincing the public that corporations are genuinely doing good?

Haven't CSR programs then become transparent to the public as PR activities or as bids to help corporate image?

I think so. I think the public are increasingly seeing CSR as gimmickry and I beleive the PR people of corporations need to seriously consider the immplications of this for their CSR programs.

Here is a link to the website;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/corporatesocialresponsibility

Lecture 5 - Women and PR

’I think there is a glass ceiling, but it’s cracked. In three to five

years, it will shatter.’

That's what Marina Maher, President of Marina Maher Communications in New York says about the PR industry and women.

And I hope she's right.

In today's lecture we talked about women, PR and the feminization of the PR industry. We heard a really lively debate about women and PR that presented some interesting (and invalid) reasons for why women are not as good professionals as men.

The lecture really got me interested in looking at the status of women in the PR industry and like most any other industry women do not dominate.

While PR maybe increasingly seen to be the stronghold of women, it is in fact men who are in power. I found this really great article outlining how hard it is for women to get to the top in PR and how most of the top level positions are still held by men. For example;

"There are no female CEOs in the top 10 PR agencies...Generally, in the ’O’ class (CEOs, COOs and CFOs) women are woefully under represented. Take a look at the structure of the top agencies. At Fleishman-Hillard, men fill the top four slots. After that come the regional presidents. Two out of eight of these are female: ElizabethSolberg in the Midwest and Janise Murph in the Southwest."

So it seems that this notion that women 'rule' in PR is an illusion, and as in any other industry women must still work hard to be treated equally to men and must operate in a male-dominated arena. I hope we do it, and at least in PR women come out on top.

Here is the link to the article:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/104741/50-powerful-women-PR---Women-outnumber-men-PR-field-few-top-Just-long-will-glass-ceiling-shatter-Rebecca-Flass-investigates/?DCMP=ILC-BETAMORE

Lecture 4 - PR and ethics

So in our most recent lecture we discussed PR and ethics, and took a look at what we meant by the term 'ethics'.

This topic was super interesting to me and really got me thinking about the profession of Public Relations. I mean, Public Relations practitioners and Public Relations in general gets (ironically) such a negative image because of the perception that as professionals and an industry we do not act ethically. Public Relations is perceived to help corporation or other organizations 'pull one over' the public or to 'spin' the truth. I think we are seen today like the 'ad men' of the early days of advertising. Almost like fast talking, sales men that will say anything to sell anything. But in this media saturated society organizations need PR professionals to communicate effectively with their audiences, it is after all only a job. But what to do about the idea that PR is unethical? Strangely the profession all (supposedly) about image and perception, has a very negative image itself. I am not sure how to pose a solution - anyone have any ideas?

Until then enjoy this cartoon I found, which seems to sum up the idea that PR practitioners have no ethical center!

Lecture 3 - Political Communications and PR

Our most recent lecture was on Political Communications and Public Relations. In it we discussed issues in political communications such as media management, image management and information management done by political parties. The lecture was really engaging and what I really found interesting was the discussion around how campaign public relations can make or break a political party's chance at winning an election.

The lecture reminded me of an incident that happened back home in the 2005-2006 national elections.

At the outset the Liberals were the expected winners, with very few expecting the Conservatives to win the election. However a lack of a cohesive campaign plan on the Liberal's part and a well-thought out campaign and communications strategy on the Conservative's part led to a defeat for the Liberals. That's just some context though and not my main point. One the crucial blows to the Liberals came in the form of a PR faux pas which badly hurt their image and gave the Conservatives plenty of ammunition to paint the Liberals in a negative light in the media.

Ironically the mistake was made by the Liberal Director of Communications, Scott Reid. When discussing a Conservative initiative to give Canadian parents money for daycare, Scott Reid said that the money would go towards "beer and popcorn".

The quote was in the papers, all over the news next day and taken to mean that the Liberals thought parents were irresponsible and would misuse daycare money. it was a blow to the party's image. The mistake followed the Liberals all the way through the election and because of it they perceived to be elitist and insulting. It was even thought to be one of the main reasons they lost the election.

What struck me about this whole incident was the power of image or of a mistake in regards to image management in deciding a whole election and even a whole country's fate. I think its cause for reflection on how important our roles as PR professionals, especially in the political sphere, has become.

Here is a link to a story about the incident;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/11/daycare051211.html