A vision on A Vision of Students Today

Gerry McCusker directed me to “A Vision of Students Today” on YouTube - created by Michael Wesch and 200 students on the Introduction to Cultural Anthropology course at Kansas State University.

This shows the students’ perspective on their education - and although many of the sentiments are US-oriented, there is a lot to recognise for the UK undergraduate.  What doesn’t come over in the video however, is a sense of personal responsibility for adapting, addressing or changing the issues raised.

I am not a fan of the “pack ‘em in” lecture-theatre style of education and think a seminar of 20 students prevents individual tutor support that really helps learning.  However, when faced with this size of class, as educators, we need to adapt and provide more of a theatrical experience in the first, and actively engaging student participation in the second.

But it is not down to those of us at the front of the class alone.  Students have to take an active role in their education.  So your tutors don’t know your name - I doubt mine did either nearly 30 years ago.  You prefer Facebook, reading online, emailing etc to reading journal articles?  Well you’re lucky to have the option - think how your laptop (provided as a pressie probably), has opened up your studies. 

Working in the library at Bournemouth University is nothing like my own student days - which felt at times like being in a Dickens novel.  Students don’t even have to leave their cosy flats, (with wifi, washing machine and laminated floors) to study - as they can access journal articles online, engage with academics through social media, including blogs (such as PRConversations), download their notes and utilise multimedia resources.

I’m not denying that many students have a hard time at University - the loneliness and pressures to succeed have not changed since I ventured to Birmingham in 1979.  But, you can go through life feeling you are hard done by, or grab it by the wotsits, squeezing every moment for its value. 

Education is still a privilege that is not available to many people in this world.  I think this video has a lot to say - but real education involves us making a cognitive change - regardless of the method of input, external pressures, etc.  Ultimately, we are the only ones who can make studying a success.  Great video - but I’d like to see the genre move away from highlighting negatives into strategies for success.  That would be a beneficial vision for students today.

PR on the touchline

This post will be pointless in under 2 hours - as I’m writing before the start of the Rugby World Cup final game between England and South Africa.

Earlier this year, MIPAA held its AGM at Twickenham and heard about public relations at the RFU.  Tonight the guys with that responsibility must be prepared for a range of eventualities, depending on whether the outcome is win or lose.

PR planning is important - but life is really like a World Cup final, we cannot predict exactly what will happen.  We can be prepared - have our spokespeople briefed for the positive or negative outcome - but often we’re left biting our nails as the game unfolds.

In this case, there is little that PR can do to influence what fate will deliver.  But in advance, it will have been vital for the PR team to have helped build relationships with the key media, ensure that expectations are realistic and, should things not go their way, reputations of individuals are not destroyed.

Over in Brazil, similar PR nerves will be on edge in the McLaren team as Lewis Hamilton readies for the challenge of his life.  Again, will it be front page headlines or a nightmare on the sports pages? 

Life in PR doesn’t get more exciting than this. 

Practitioners reject PR’s reputation

In the past few weeks I have met nearly 200 new people, all of whom have begun to study public relations.  As well as those who have signed up for the CIPR professional qualifications, I am working with 94 Bournemouth University students - advertising undergraduates taking the PR Theory & Practice unit.

The starting point of our studies is to consider opinions about public relations, its public reputation, historical figures such as Edward Bernays, impressions of the likes of Max Clifford and Alistair Campbell, and the portrayal of PR in film and television programmes (from Absolutely Fabulous to Samantha in Sex & the City, normally).

Most of these views are negative - so why are so many people interested in studying something that has a poor public reputation?  Do they want to be professional liars?  Are they happy to be associated with phrases such as “the latrine of parasitic misinformation”, or “an instrument of perversity and deception”?

In one word - no.  That isn’t the image of PR these guys recognise in practice.  When asked for their response to such associations, students feel a personal responsibility to change this image and show that it doesn’t represent them or how they wish to work.

Are more positive impressions of PR, such as embodied in the usual definitions, realistic of practice though?  One exercise that I introduced at Bournemouth and with the CIPR Diploma students this year was to take statements from a variety of perspectives and ask students to map these out on two axes.  Firstly in terms of the normative value (whether the statement is idealistic) and secondly, its positivist value (if it reflects real life practice).

What we find is that the negative and positive statements regarding PR are generally thought to be positivist - that is they both reflect practice.  But there is clear agreement that statements reflecting PR as related to the democratic process, supporting the voiceless and powerless are viewed as the ideal - where the negatives are seen as something not to be associated with the profession.

With the CIPR Advanced Certificate students we assess various aspects of the reputation of public figures (from Britney to the Queen), places and brands.  This results in a lively discussion and good insight into what makes public reputation.  It also highlights the limits of PR in managing reputation - you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear - well not credibly.

These first sessions have been very stimulating and it is encouraging each year to see the commitment of those who are interesting in learning more about public relations.

They aren’t naive - understanding that there are many negatives associated with the discipline.  But all are committed to being better than the public reputation.  That has to be good news for PR.

A press release is not an advertisement

I noticed something that I’d not seen before at the end of a press release earlier today:

This news release is issued in accordance with Clause 1.2j of the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion and therefore cannot be the subject of a transaction of any kind.

I wasn’t quite sure what this meant - and supposed it was an attempt to avoid the attentions of telesales staff from publications who call offering to place a press release for a fee (which used to be called a colour separation charge). 

But checking the Code, relating to “non-broadcast advertisements, sales promotions and direct marketing communications (marketing communications)”, Clause 1.2 states that the Code does not apply to:  

j) press releases and other public relations material, so long as they do not fall under 1.1 above

Moving back to point 1.1, it states:

1.1 The Code applies to:
a) advertisements in newspapers, magazines, brochures, leaflets, circulars, mailings, e-mails, text transmissions, fax transmissions, catalogues, follow-up literature and other electronic and printed material
b) posters and other promotional media in public places, including moving images
c) cinema and video commercials
d) advertisements in non-broadcast electronic media, including online advertisements in paid-for space (eg banner and pop-up advertisements)
e) viewdata services
f) marketing databases containing consumers’ personal information
g) sales promotions
h) advertisement promotions

So, I’m confused as to what the actual statement at the end of the press release actually means.  It appears to be implying that if the content of the release is viewed as a commercial advertisement (presumably meaning payment for coverage), then it would be subject to a Code which it otherwise isn’t. 

But the Code itself doesn’t actually state that the release cannot be the subject of a transaction.  As Alice would say, curiouser and curiouser.

Neither the CIPR nor the PRCA is a member of the Committee of Advertising Practice, so again, I’m not clear why anyone in PR would think the CAP Code should apply to a press release.

Even odder, Googling the statement, led to Training Press Releases, which apparently distributes press releases for training companies.  At the bottom of its press releases is a statement:

Media organisations: news providers and others may reproduce and publish up to 20% of a press release without permission provided that “Training Press Releases” is clearly quoted as indicated at the start of each press release. To obtain permission to reproduce more that 20% of a press release and multiple press releases, please complete this request form for a prompt reply. Permission is not required for personal copying use and non-commercial use.

Have you ever heard of journalists being expected to ask permission to use a press release, or being told they have to quote the distribution organisation’s name at the start?  The link to the site’s legal notices reveals that:

It is the responsibility of the advertising company or provider of news items to ensure the accuracy of the content of its press releases and advertisements.

So this company, clearly sees press releases as a form of advertising.  Although personally I feel that far too many companies use press releases more as a form of spam or direct mail, their purpose should be to convey accurate information to the media - not to be seen as an attempt at “free” advertising.

If you use a similar statement - or can explain its value - please comment below.

Car danger - crisis management or press agentry?

Two example press releases received today clearly demonstrate the extremes of public relations.

First, SEAT sport UK address a crisis management situation with: Jason Plato hurt in TV filming accident.  This is a fairly factual and informative release that explains the context of the incident (although oddly neither the release nor any online coverage includes the date of when it occurred).

In contrast, we have the MPH Show with its “Clarkson climbs to new heights - Mountain built for new theatre stunt” release.  This is pure press agentry - puff, fluff and hyperbole.

It’s arguably the most daring stunt ever for the organisers of the Jeremy Clarkson-fronted performance and prestige motor show, MPH ’07.  Next month it will showcase a simultaneous race between a 4×4 and a professional climber up a 40ft man made mountain …indoors!

Clarkson will tackle the gravity-testing 45-degree incline in a Land Rover Discovery, and then park the car at the summit – hopefully before the mountaineer reaches the top.

And so on.  No opportunity to squeeze in an adjective is spared - no cliche avoided.  Of course, the hype fits with the image of Clarkson and Top Gear, but it is questionable to use the illusion of danger as a marketing gimmick when there are real accidents that face professionals - and the ordinary driver - all too often.

In public relations terms, being prepared for a genuine emergency reflects one side of the profession.  Should the other end involve playing with such dangers for promotional purposes?

Pre-budget PR motoring views

Interesting to compare the approaches of three different motoring organisations in response to the Chancellor’s pre-budget announcements yesterday.

The RAC Foundation called it MONEY FOR NOTHING welcoming the increase in transport spend but stressing ”a greater proportion must be spent on roads” before highlighting that the motorist already pays double (£45bn in 2006) in motoring taxes what the government spends on transport.

The Association of British Drivers similarly “Welcomes Doubling Of Transport Budget But Urges Wise Spending”   However, it claims British drivers currently see “around one sixth of their £46 billion taxes per year going on transport” - and this will rise to one-third.  The ABD wants to see money spent “wisely”, not

“frittered away on consultations and restrictive schemes such as traffic calming etc. The government’s controversial proposed road pricing scheme could easily soak up a huge proportion of the money alone. Britain’s drivers must put pressure on the government to ensure that towns and villages crying out for bypasses get them built and that the motorway network is completed.”

The RMIF (Retail Motor Industry Federation) labels the pre-budget report “BAD FOR MOTORISTS, GOOD FOR BUSINESS? criticising the Chancellor for missing “an opportunity by failing to twin his Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) evasion clampdown, with a matching attack on car insurance dodging.”

The RAC Foundation approach is pretty straight, whilst the generally more combative ABD takes a more emotive position (evidenced by the choice of adjectives). 

Whereas, the RMIF angle on those avoiding car insurance doesn’t appear to relate directly relate to its role in representing “the interests of operators in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man providing sales and services to motorists and businesses”. 

The pre-budget report is an obvious “hook” for those with interests to present public statements on matters affecting their organisations.  I feel both the RAC Foundation and ABD have done that here, but the RMIF seems a little off track.

Peugeot email pees in the Sno!

I’ve just received an email invitation promoting a “great evening out with Peugeot!” (you can tell it’s marketing by the pointless exclamation marks).

I was addressed as ”Dear Sir/Madam” despite the fact that I bought my little 107 from new and so they should have my name and other details on file. 

Those other details include my address, so why am I being invited to spend a couple of hours at the SNO!zone indoor snowslopes in Glasgow, Leeds or Milton Keynes - the closest of which is several hundred miles from where I live.

As a piece of “direct” marketing this is like the dog pee’d in the snow.

Does CSR help society or just business?

Pete Wilby reflects on a recent Economist review of a new book, Supercapitalism by Robert Reich.  The argument in the book, that capitalism affects democratic power effectively reflects a society comprised of consumers rather than citizens.

This is nothing new as an idea.  Adam Curtis’ series “Century of the Self” confirms this was the stated aim of US government and business in the early 20th century, with Edward Bernays among those using PR techniques to manage the masses.

It is interesting to see Reich’s economic argument used in relation to the role of business in society and the concept of “social good.” 

As Wilby highlights, the book challenges the concept of CSR, which has pretty much been accepted as a way of doing business in recent decades - despite Milton Friedman’s capitalist claims that it is not the role of business but that of government.

The focus on corporate responsibility has shifted the attention of social activists entirely towards pressurising businesses to solve social problems on the basis of goodwill generated, rather than focusing on the necessity for governments, and citizens, to be the primary drivers of social change.

Many in public relations have seen CSR as a way of improving reputation (and their own standing) through supporting community initiatives.  Businesses have sought to associate themselves with good causes and the not for profit sector has welcomed the financial support of commerce.  It has been labelled as win-win-win.

More recent arguments that CSR needs to be about genuine corporate behaviour not publicity-seeking initiatives have promoted the strategy as “good business”.  Companies are still primarily pursuing profits, but in a situation where the corporate interest happens to coincide with benefiting the rest of society.

The Economist article challenges Reich in many areas of his argument - and presents CSR as a way of encouraging businesses to recognise the value of enlightened self-interest.  Businesses have a vested interest in solving many social problems.

Regardless of whether CSR is proven to help society or just help businesses, it is clear that for public relations practitioners, it is not enough to focus on publicity initiatives that promote a feel good aura around companies.  They need to understand the economics, politics and social dimensions underpinning the role of business, and PR, in the modern world.