Communication hasn't always been a two-way street. Especially in the form of marketing and advertising, communication was all about getting the message across to consumers without worrying about feedback. Now that the internet has given power to blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other means of communication, companies have been forced to acknowledge the consumer and put them into the marketing equation.
Robert Martin, Principal and Managing Director of MM2 Public Relations, spoke to our class about the changing atmosphere of communications and how public relations practitioners are now part of marketing integration. "Now you're in on the discussions as the campaigns are evolving," said Martin.
As the world of communications changes to adapt to marketing, now marketing changes to incorporate more communication ideas. Martin discussed how the traditional 4 P's of marketing have changed to include 4 new concepts. The original included the following:
Product: What are you selling?
Price: What will your product cost to consumers?
Place: Where will you sell your product?
Promotion: How will you advertise your product?
Martin argued that the new ones have developed due to the rise of consumer feedback and input. "Consumers are sort of dictating what's happening in the world and in communications," said Martin. He believes this has led to the introduction of the following 4 concepts in marketing:
Portals/Platforms: What media tools and online outlets will you use to reach your audience?
Permission: Do you need permission from consumers to publish certain information on the internet?
Participation: How can you get your consumers to become interested and invested in your product?
Personalization: How can you personalize your message to reach a certain audience?
Everything has become focused on the consumer and thus communications has become a vital part of the marketing mix. Outlets for messages and advertisements are constantly changing and it is up to public relations practitioners to keep up with these outlets as well as the needs of the audiences. Communication in advertising is no longer about throwing your message blindly at the audience in hopes of a positive reception. "You can't assume you can dictate the entire conversation and get people to do what you want them to do," said Martin. "It's a little more interactive, a little more two way."
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Legislation and the Internet
While many of our speakers have given great overviews about the public relations industry concerning jobs and trends, our latest speaker decided to take a different approach towards his speaking subject. Mike Lake, head of Southwest operations for Burson-Marsteller, gave an interesting presentation by walking us through a typical public relations strategy plan. We were all probably expecting a big name corporate campaign, but instead we learned about the political side of public relations concerning the current legislation for playing online poker.
Creating a messaging approach to teach people about the issue surrounding the legalization of online gaming was one of the most interesting parts of the presentation. Since the most influential people in politics live in D.C., it was natural to include D.C. elites, business leaders and key media as the targets for messaging. It is also important to include those that are influential in the world of gaming, but it struck me as interesting to find that influential bloggers and other "thought leaders" were some of the targets as well.
The internet has become a strong influential power in the world, but it's still difficult to grasp the idea of the internet being a powerful force in government or politics. Only recently has the power of Facebook, Twitter and Blogs been explored as evident with the successful revolt in Egypt, which became mobilized through the use of Facebook and the internet. "You get a lot more saturation online and people have more access to it," said Lake.
Blogs such as Full Contact Poker, PokerStars Blog and Bill's Poker Blog not only provide industry news, but also give tips and discuss strategies in an open forum with readers. While the writers of these blogs do not have the ability to pass laws, they most certainly have the ability to influence opinion because of their large following. As targets for a campaign to promote legislation for online poker, their opinions would get to the public audience much faster and more efficiently than through any political route. The internet is a hotbed for communication and "The digital stuff is the new frontier of our business," agreed Lake.
Whether you're trying to influence consumers to buy more Coca-Cola products or vote Republican in the next election, the internet remains a vital tool in relaying information out into the world. Those who write and publish information through the internet become just as important as members of legislation. Bloggers might as well be writing laws because readers treat their words as such. Whether or not online gaming becomes legalized, the way in which influential targets receive and transmit information about the legislation becomes the key to gaining a communications advantage.
Creating a messaging approach to teach people about the issue surrounding the legalization of online gaming was one of the most interesting parts of the presentation. Since the most influential people in politics live in D.C., it was natural to include D.C. elites, business leaders and key media as the targets for messaging. It is also important to include those that are influential in the world of gaming, but it struck me as interesting to find that influential bloggers and other "thought leaders" were some of the targets as well.
The internet has become a strong influential power in the world, but it's still difficult to grasp the idea of the internet being a powerful force in government or politics. Only recently has the power of Facebook, Twitter and Blogs been explored as evident with the successful revolt in Egypt, which became mobilized through the use of Facebook and the internet. "You get a lot more saturation online and people have more access to it," said Lake.
Blogs such as Full Contact Poker, PokerStars Blog and Bill's Poker Blog not only provide industry news, but also give tips and discuss strategies in an open forum with readers. While the writers of these blogs do not have the ability to pass laws, they most certainly have the ability to influence opinion because of their large following. As targets for a campaign to promote legislation for online poker, their opinions would get to the public audience much faster and more efficiently than through any political route. The internet is a hotbed for communication and "The digital stuff is the new frontier of our business," agreed Lake.
Whether you're trying to influence consumers to buy more Coca-Cola products or vote Republican in the next election, the internet remains a vital tool in relaying information out into the world. Those who write and publish information through the internet become just as important as members of legislation. Bloggers might as well be writing laws because readers treat their words as such. Whether or not online gaming becomes legalized, the way in which influential targets receive and transmit information about the legislation becomes the key to gaining a communications advantage.
Military Intervention for Libya
There was a very interesting line up of events for this year's Communication Week and I was more than excited to attend the debate on military intervention in humanitarian causes on March 8, 2011. Both sides made excellent cases, considering the economics and politics of the issue as much as the psychology and humanity. I tend to be able to view both sides of any argument fairly equally, but in this case I believe the positive case for the issue won the debate.
When many people hear the term mass murder they tend to think about serial killers or bombings, but not often is that term associated with genocide. In many cases, genocide becomes synonymous with murder but it is difficult to differentiate the distinction when it comes to international issues. With the case of Libya, the people are begging and pleading America to help them but President Obama is hesitant to become involved. In an article from the Wall Street Journal, President Obama said he did not want to send in troops until Col. Gadhafi had left power. The only problem is that Gadhafi had formerly said he would not stop until he suppressed the uprisings using any means necessary. How can we as human beings ignore such a plea? Here are the three arguments the opposition made to explain why sometimes it's better not to become involved:
Negative
1. Interventions increase violence and problems, leading America to become viewed as a horrible "policeman".
2. Nonintervention can solve a crisis using diplomatic resolutions and other means such as jamming aircraft signals.
3. American intervention polarizes the world and can lead to political fallouts especially within the Muslim world.
As true as some of these statements might be in a few cases, I believe the following arguments for the positive side were much stronger:
Positive
1. Lives will be saved and it doesn't necessarily mean the situation will escalate to a full scale war.
2. Intervention increases U.S. credibility and trust.
3. It helps the economy and decreases oil prices and other inflated costs.
4. There is a great history of successful interventions where war does not occur, such as the case with Liberia.
America is strong enough to face criticism for failed attempts, but we are not strong enough to face criticism for letting people die when we had the ability to take action. Whether it increases or decreases anti-Americanism, we at least bring a high level of threat to other countries and our allies would not look poorly upon us for intervening. In fact, countries such as France are ready to take action, but they wait to follow the instruction of America as many other countries do. We therefore cannot just sit around having such power in our hands and refuse to do anything for a country that is begging for our help.
Yes interventions don't always go as planned, but sitting by and doing nothing is almost worse than doing something and messing up. If we intervene with some form of military action or aid then it does not mean we will have to stay there until a new government is set up, as we did in Iraq. Instead of viewing Libya as another Iraq we should view it as a humanitarian cause that is on the verge of becoming an issue of genocide. With hundreds more dying every day it becomes more of an issue of humanity instead of politics. We need to waste less time negotiating with a dictator and focus more on mobilizing an effort of intervention.
When many people hear the term mass murder they tend to think about serial killers or bombings, but not often is that term associated with genocide. In many cases, genocide becomes synonymous with murder but it is difficult to differentiate the distinction when it comes to international issues. With the case of Libya, the people are begging and pleading America to help them but President Obama is hesitant to become involved. In an article from the Wall Street Journal, President Obama said he did not want to send in troops until Col. Gadhafi had left power. The only problem is that Gadhafi had formerly said he would not stop until he suppressed the uprisings using any means necessary. How can we as human beings ignore such a plea? Here are the three arguments the opposition made to explain why sometimes it's better not to become involved:
Negative
1. Interventions increase violence and problems, leading America to become viewed as a horrible "policeman".
2. Nonintervention can solve a crisis using diplomatic resolutions and other means such as jamming aircraft signals.
3. American intervention polarizes the world and can lead to political fallouts especially within the Muslim world.
As true as some of these statements might be in a few cases, I believe the following arguments for the positive side were much stronger:
Positive
1. Lives will be saved and it doesn't necessarily mean the situation will escalate to a full scale war.
2. Intervention increases U.S. credibility and trust.
3. It helps the economy and decreases oil prices and other inflated costs.
4. There is a great history of successful interventions where war does not occur, such as the case with Liberia.
America is strong enough to face criticism for failed attempts, but we are not strong enough to face criticism for letting people die when we had the ability to take action. Whether it increases or decreases anti-Americanism, we at least bring a high level of threat to other countries and our allies would not look poorly upon us for intervening. In fact, countries such as France are ready to take action, but they wait to follow the instruction of America as many other countries do. We therefore cannot just sit around having such power in our hands and refuse to do anything for a country that is begging for our help.
Yes interventions don't always go as planned, but sitting by and doing nothing is almost worse than doing something and messing up. If we intervene with some form of military action or aid then it does not mean we will have to stay there until a new government is set up, as we did in Iraq. Instead of viewing Libya as another Iraq we should view it as a humanitarian cause that is on the verge of becoming an issue of genocide. With hundreds more dying every day it becomes more of an issue of humanity instead of politics. We need to waste less time negotiating with a dictator and focus more on mobilizing an effort of intervention.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Endless Opportunities
It seems as though opportunities can be found anywhere for an eager communications student nearing college graduation. There are various outlets for applying communications, but many students have difficulty deciding between corporate and agency public relations. This week's guest speakers were able to shed some light on the positive aspects of the agency side of public relations and how diverse it can be compared to a corporate job. As part of the Consumer Marketing division of Edelman, Senior Vice President Jennifer Little and Account Executive Ashley Maddocks work with a variety of clients as compared to one account in a corporation.
"It gives you lots of opportunities you might not get working at a place with one account," said Ashley Maddocks. She is able to work with Dickies, EBay, Unilever, Xbox and various other brands that make her work more entertaining and diverse. While Jennifer Little can attest to the corporate side having its share of fun events after working as the Director of Public Relations for Pizza Hut, there are still major differences.
With a corporation you have one specific set of needs to fulfill because you are working for one client as opposed to juggling various needs for many different clients. Although both jobs can be hectic, your attention is more strictly focused on one client in a corporation. As far as job descriptions go, both corporations and agencies will have the opportunity to work with brand management, crisis control and other specialized work although it is more divided among employees in an agency.
"In a larger office you get larger pieces of business," said Little. Your responsibilities are generally the same whether you have one large client or several, but in an agency your work is spread out more. As an account executive you would still be doing client services, writing, managing projects and planning for the account but your focus might be more towards brand management instead of creating campaigns. Everything really depends on what kind of atmosphere you enjoy. If you enjoy multitasking then an agency might be a better fit.
"The one reason PR is great is because you have lots of opportunities to do things no one else does," said Maddocks. One day you're writing press releases nonstop and the next you could be helping prepare a famous spokesperson to appear in a commercial. While a corporate job is fun and rewarding in its own right, there is a greater diversity that an agency brings to the table. For example, Edelman is made up of various specialty units dealing with brand experience, crisis, financial, government, marketing, public affairs, sports, entertainment and travel among various other areas in communications. Not only does this mean more job opportunities, but also more opportunities to find something specific you love to do.
"It gives you lots of opportunities you might not get working at a place with one account," said Ashley Maddocks. She is able to work with Dickies, EBay, Unilever, Xbox and various other brands that make her work more entertaining and diverse. While Jennifer Little can attest to the corporate side having its share of fun events after working as the Director of Public Relations for Pizza Hut, there are still major differences.
With a corporation you have one specific set of needs to fulfill because you are working for one client as opposed to juggling various needs for many different clients. Although both jobs can be hectic, your attention is more strictly focused on one client in a corporation. As far as job descriptions go, both corporations and agencies will have the opportunity to work with brand management, crisis control and other specialized work although it is more divided among employees in an agency.
"In a larger office you get larger pieces of business," said Little. Your responsibilities are generally the same whether you have one large client or several, but in an agency your work is spread out more. As an account executive you would still be doing client services, writing, managing projects and planning for the account but your focus might be more towards brand management instead of creating campaigns. Everything really depends on what kind of atmosphere you enjoy. If you enjoy multitasking then an agency might be a better fit.
"The one reason PR is great is because you have lots of opportunities to do things no one else does," said Maddocks. One day you're writing press releases nonstop and the next you could be helping prepare a famous spokesperson to appear in a commercial. While a corporate job is fun and rewarding in its own right, there is a greater diversity that an agency brings to the table. For example, Edelman is made up of various specialty units dealing with brand experience, crisis, financial, government, marketing, public affairs, sports, entertainment and travel among various other areas in communications. Not only does this mean more job opportunities, but also more opportunities to find something specific you love to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)