PR-Bridge

ROI, ROI, ROI…one might assume these three little letters would be first on the mind of communicators, particularly as they evaluate 2009 and plan for 2010. Yet, anyone with experience in the industry knows that evaluating the value of a communications program often falls by the wayside in the hurry to implement the next plan or phase of the current plan.

As a result, the rhetorical question contained in the title of this post becomes hazy. Communicators think quite a bit about ROI, but coming up with meaningful methods of determining return are less bountiful. My thinking is that 2010 should be the year of ROI in the communications industry — as should every year — until we have an accepted method of measuring return that is accepted among professionals and our executive brethren.

Below is an excerpt of a comment I posted at PR Nonsense, March Communications’ blog written by Meredith Eaton, which examines some trends for PR in the new year, rightly identifying an increased interest in ROI in the CEO’s office:

“ROI will remain increasingly important, but [I] wonder how the industry will address this challenge. As a former professional and current PR academic, my thinking is that coming up with a reasonable method for measuring ROI is going to take a partnership between practitioners and scholars that is currently only taking place in pockets.

I find it ironic that the industry has about a million social media “gurus,” but only a handful (if that) of widely-acknowledged ROI/measurement experts (such as Katie Paine). The development of ROI is essential for respect in the executive suite, yet the industry lacks the ability to prove its worth.

Overall, from my perspective, it seems as if too many communications professionals think like consultants, rather than CEOs.”

A quick search around the blog world shows that many others are discussing return from a variety of viewpoints. Rachel Rose Belew, for example, examines the difference between the hard and soft sciences of communications writing at her blog The Copywriter’s Crucible. She sees a marriage between the “art” of creativity and “science” of measurement.

Beth Harte, at Marketing Profs Daily Fix, provides a detailed overview of building a strategic communications plan and how one would calculate ROI based on its implementation. Beth also provides a list of links to other pieces she’s written on ROI, which are valuable for anyone hoping to gain insight on the topic.

Of course, no discussion of measurement is complete without acknowledging the leadership of Katie Paine. Her latest post is a clinic in thoughtful thinking about calculating ROI in social media.

My Kent State colleague Sean Williams is also a frequent commentator on ROI at his blog Communication AMMO! His recent post on the theoretical underpinnings of social media provides a basis for thinking about ROI in that area. Sean’s future research will be a real eye-opener as organizations continue to search for measurable methods for developing social media campaigns.

I keep returning to the last point I made in the comment at PR Nonsense regarding the mindset of communicators. The notion that we should emulate consultants (”counselors”), rather than executives seems to be a hindrance to thinking through ROI. If professionals started looking at the business from the viewpoint of the C-level executives they work for, they may find that this perspective naturally leads to greater emphasis on calculating return.

However, students and young professionals are taught to link of themselves as counselors — sitting at the CEO’s table and whispering communications nothings in his ear — rather than as members of the CEO’s operating team, focused on the same things that keep the CEO up at night. In reality, we need to think more like business leaders and less like communicators.

This idea is also central to my conception of integrated communications, which at its heart, means that communications leaders link their strategic plans directly to the plans of the CEO and/or Board of Directors. Conducting this kind of planning forces the communications team to directly focus on the organization’s plan and its outcomes or aspirations.

Making ROI the centerpiece of the industry necessitates cooperation between the professional and academic worlds. I look forward to the day when we have thousands of Katie Paine-like ROI “gurus” tackling measurement. The industry needs it, as do our organizational partners.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Emily Milo

Research Account Manager

(954) 336-4499

PRSSAResearchGroup@gmail.com

INTERNSHIPS OUTWEIGH CURRICULUM

Florida college students value internships and networking over professors and course work

Tampa, December 7, 2009 – Despite an era defined by recession, downsizing, and staggering unemployment rates, some 68 percent of college students feel prepared for life after graduation. However, survey respondents contend that professors and school curriculum are not what is preparing them.

A research team from the Walter E. Griscti chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) at the University of South Florida conducted an opinion poll of college students using Facebook and Twitter. The team surveyed more than 300 Florida college students.

Asked to rank the most important preparation tool for life after graduation, 48 percent claimed internships, while 30 percent indicated networking. However, only 6 percent of students found professors and curriculum most important.

“Excelling in the classroom isn’t enough anymore,” said Michael Brito, a senior at the University of South Florida. “The focus is no longer on papers and textbooks, it is on finding a good internship and networking with the right people.”

Some 81.5 percent of respondents claim that a quality education is important when it comes to getting a job or going to graduate school. Survey results reveal that students recognize the importance of obtaining a college degree, but are no longer depending on professors and curriculum alone.

“What defines college for today’s students is much different than what we traditionally view a college education,” said Bob Batchelor, an instructor in the School of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida. “As these survey results show, the partnership between academic institutions and local businesses and organizations may make or break a student’s shot at future success.”

About the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida 

Since its founding, the Walter E. Griscti Chapter of PRSSA at the University of South Florida has developed into a top-tier chapter filled with talented students eager to enhance their knowledge about public relations. Involvement in the chapter enables members to network with professionals and peers, learn about internships, hear guest speakers, attend national conferences, publish articles in its newsletter, participate in the national Bateman competition, volunteer in the community, and attend socials each month. The chapter works closely with the Tampa Bay chapter of PRSA and the Tampa Bay chapter of the Florida Public Relations Association (FPRA) to provide numerous networking opportunities for its members. These strong relationships allow members to work face-to-face with those already in the industry. For more information please visit, http://prssausf.webs.com

Truckloads of books have been written about social media as a business tool and its consequences for the business world. Those of us interested in popular culture, however, have waited for someone to tackle social media from a broader perspective. With Celeb 2.0 by Kelli S. Burns, my friend and colleague at the University of South Florida, that long-needed gap has been filled.

Published by Praeger (an imprint of ABC-CLIO), Celeb 2.0 examines both sides of the celebrity coin — celebrities using social media to connect to fans and fans using similar channels to feel closer to their favorite icons, but also mimic the celebrity lifestyle. These tools, such as blogs; video-sharing sites; user-news sites; social networks; and message boards, fuel the nation’s fascination and consumption of popular culture — certainly the primary use of social media in today’s world, despite the desire to use social media as a business tool.

Burns’ research includes interviews with social media users and creators, focusing on how celebrities use blogs, Twitter, and other tools, how YouTube and other sites create celebrity, how Web 2.0 shortens the distance between fans and stars, and how the new social media influences news reporting and series television.

Personally, for all the hype social media receives as a business and/or communications tool, I have always felt that it had far greater consequences as a shaper of the broader culture. Scholars, general readers, and those interested professionally in social media will find Celeb 2.0 full of insight about prevalent celebrity is within social media and what it means for the future. Certainly, social media “gurus” will find much in the book that helps them understand the consumer mindset.

Burns outlines this notion, explaining, “The most significant consequence of social media, however, may be the influence on popular culture, as social media affect our consumption patterns and our creation of popular culture products, possibly changing the very meaning of popular culture.” As she correctly relates, the blurring of the lines between consumption and creation enabled through the use of social media has profound implications.

Interestingly, Celeb 2.0 also provides insight into the limitations of social networks as business tools. If users are primarily focused on celebrity and becoming some form of mini-celebrity, then the efforts by marketers to build “conversations” around traditional products is not really going to interest most people.

At the end of the day, Celeb 2.0 offers readers engaging analysis on a number of thoughtful topics, from how bloggers and YouTube video creators develop into celebrities to social media portrayals on film and television. Burns has also provided future generations of readers and scholars a powerful early history of social media. Certainly, popular culture enthusiasts will find much value in Celeb 2.0, as will those interested in understanding social media’s ubiquity in modern America.

Ray Browne, who died at his home last week at age 87, did more than study and teach popular culture, he served as an embodiment of its ideals and a driving force behind its creation. His personal story is one of humble beginnings, overcoming a poor childhood in rural Alabama, and ultimately carving out a piece of the American Dream as an internationally-recognized writer and scholar.

Given that it is virtually impossible to escape popular culture’s reach in today’s world, it’s hard to imagine that Ray had to fight to get the topic accepted in academic circles. Out of this effort, Ray and a close band of like-minded colleagues founded the Popular Culture Association (PCA) and the American Culture Association (ACA), which serve as the intellectual home for untold scholars devoted to exploring popular culture in all its guises. One of the thoughts members of the PCA/ACA most often express is the friendliness and welcoming nature of these organizations. When one joins the PCA/ACA, there is a sense of entering a family. This culture is a direct reflection of Ray’s leadership, and may ultimately serve as his most lasting legacy.

On a personal note, Ray served as a mentor for me and countless others. I still remember my anxiety in meeting him for the first time, since this was “THE Ray Browne.” Yet he could not have been more kind. Unlike many senior scholars in other fields, Ray reached out to younger scholars, offering publishing opportunities and priceless counsel. I owe much of my philosophical thinking and writing to his influence.

One of the last projects I worked on with Ray was when he graciously agreed to write the foreword for the four-volume collection I edited: American Pop: Popular Culture Decade by Decade (2009). In it, Ray presented a lyrical definition of popular culture that I treasure: “Similar to a growing garden, culture is the gatherings of community beliefs and behaviors, which depends on its roots for sustenance. As the plants grow both individually and collectively, they develop and influence the surrounding societies.” It will be difficult for a scholar to more beautifully or succinctly analyze American popular culture in the 21st century.

[This post originally appeared on Greenwood Press’s Pop Culture Universe blog]

Here’s a vicious cycle:

– Most business executives never take public relations courses in their schooling

– As such, they equate public relations with publicity or crisis management (or some other limited view)

– Public relations professionals and educators do not a good enough job helping people understand their worth

– Communicators, as a result, are not widely admitted into management’s inner-circle of strategic decision-makers

This vicious circle, along with its more unethical offshoots, such as public relations being perceived as a female profession thus less “strategic,” is the primary reason that Grunig’s so-called “Excellence Theory” has not worked as a foundation for the public relations profession. The theory necessitates that public relations practitioners are accepted into the “dominant coalition,” or in plain English, the group of executive’s that direct an organization’s strategic initiatives.

Here’s an excerpt of my response to a post at PR Conversations:

The whole equation seems pretty simple: if Grunig’s so-called “Excellence Theory” were beneficial to practitioners, then they would have adopted it wholeheartedly over the last two-plus decades.

The communications profession would welcome a magic bullet if one existed…the “Excellence Theory” isn’t it. If it provided the benefits Grunig assumes, then it would be at the front of every communicator’s mind.

Professionals yearn for innovation, just like their colleagues in other professions. For example, look at the business world’s acceptance of innovative management theories (say, for example, Six Sigma) over the last several decades. If it works, adoption is not difficult.

No matter how much individual teaching a professional does within her organization, she is fighting a losing battle, particularly if her colleagues (with business degrees and MBAs) don’t buy into the theory.

So, for 20-plus years, educators have spun their wheels teaching Grunig’s models, while students confront an entirely different world after graduation.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The so-called “Excellence Theory” is a foundation of sand for public relations. Attempting to build on it is not going to work. Sometimes a poorly designed house simply needs bulldozed.

If professionals and educators really wanted to do something beneficial, they would reject Grunig and begin building a model that enables professionals to do their jobs better and organizations to communicate more effectively.

The most worthy challenge facing the profession, for instance, is determining return on investment (ROI). If the professional and educator communities could come together to find better methods of calculating ROI, then show its value to business leaders, the benefits for the profession would be priceless.

Some of Grunig’s ideas might even play a role in the new model, certainly there will be times when symmetrical communications works best (but could never be the sole means of interacting with audiences). Time, however, has proven that “Excellence” isn’t excellent. After decades, the field needs to move on. The commitment to it is hindering advancement.

[The slide presented above is from a Grunig presentation in Hong Kong, published electronically in the PR Conversations post linked above.]

Recently I told a dear friend that I accepted an assistant professor position at my alma mater Kent State University. Her initial brief reply (because she works for a gigantic consulting firm and is constantly working) basically stated that she could not get the lyrics of “Welcome Back” out of her head. Since we are both pop culture fanatics, she must have known how those particular lyrics would play, since they are so deeply ingrained in the Generation X mindset.

Ever since, I have had the same song happily ringing in my ears, particularly the lines: “Well the names have all changed since you hung around/But those dreams have remained and they’ve turned around.” Then, I start thinking, this really is a dream come true! The fantastic aspect is that the priceless benefits I received at Kent State, I now get to return to my students there.

You see, for me, Kent State is where my personal evolution began. Foremost, getting my M.A. in American History under the guidance of eminent historian Lawrence S. Kaplan transformed the way I thought, wrote, and assessed myself as a student. He instilled a passion for research and intellectual curiosity. Dr. Kaplan was the model of scholarship, teaching, and compassion that serves as the core of my own work.

When I transitioned from academe to the professional communications world, the skills I learned at Kent State benefited me greatly, particularly understanding how to write and critically and strategically think about issues. Realizing that someday I would go back to teaching, I used my Kent connections (realizing the benefits of networking, long before it was a vogue topic) to get a book deal, essentially beginning my journey as an author and writer.

Since joining the fine faculty at the School of Mass Communications at the University of South Florida, I have drawn on the lessons learned from my professors at Kent State in determining how I should conduct myself as a teacher. My desire to be the most productive scholar possible is also derived from the influences of my mentors at Kent State.

Thus, every success I have had is derived in some manner from my experiences at Kent State.

Given this scenario, one can only imagine the thrill I felt when Bill Sledzik and I started discussing an opening at PRKent. Bill and I previously built a friendship out of common interests (and sometimes disagreements) about public relations, always drawing the talks back to the central thesis: How can we better prepare our students for the professional world? My respect for him and the great things he had to say about his colleagues at Kent State made me yearn for the position.

My experiences visiting Kent State solidified everything Bill and I discussed. The faculty members are brilliant teachers and scholars and the remodeled Franklin Hall facility is state of the art. What I liked best, though, was the electricity in the air at Kent State. Everyone I met in the College of Communication and Information faces the future with excitement and anticipation of great things ahead. I knew right away that this environment is for me. The public relations faculty members, my new colleagues, are so good, that I just hope I can come in and contribute to an already excellent team.

In January 2010, I will be primarily responsible for building the M.A. program in public relations and directing graduate student theses and projects, an opportunity that I cannot wait to start. Also, I plan to play a significant role in establishing an online M.A. public relations program, which will blend cutting-edge curriculum and technology, thereby enabling students all over the world to gain from the same kind of M.A. experience I had while at Kent State.

Clearly, I am overjoyed to return to Kent State as a faculty member. Who wouldn’t, considering the winning team that I am joining. More important, though, is that I know I have something to offer Kent State students and the university community. Perhaps, if I am lucky, I will be able to inspire some of them the way that Dr. Kaplan and my Kent State mentors inspired me.

Like the song says, the faces may have changed, but the dreams are still there — Welcome Back!

University of South Florida PR alum Sydney Owen is a superstar in the making — innovative, hard working, and eager to exceed expectations. Her recent overview of a conference call with Chris Brogan and Peter Shankman sparked an interesting conversation, including remarks from me and Peter on the role of social media. I’m, of course, playing devil’s advocate.

To read the full discussion, click here.

College teachers gain a great deal of insight into student skills and mindsets. As a result, it is easy to dispute common assumptions, such as the widely-held belief that college-aged people are well-versed in technology.  

Putting aside that notion, one realizes that most young people have little or no practical experience with social media, beyond the elementary skills necessary to create a Facebook page. Given the task to coherently explain how or why an organization should be involved in social media, most students would fail miserably. In other words, talking incessantly on cell phones and obsessively updating one’s Facebook status does not mean students understand social media. 

For an interesting read about the challenge of handing over social media to young people simply because they are young, see Meg Roberts’ discussion of the topic: “Are We Forcing Social Media Tunnel Vision on Young PR Pros?” 

Another challenge is the sense of entitlement young people have coming into internships and entry-level jobs. Reading an overview of “Outstanding Best Practices for Public Relations Firms: The 2009 Compendium of Insight and Intelligence” from the most popular articles of The Firm Voice, one sees clear evidence of how organizations are supposed to change to meet the “needs” of young professionals. 

Here are the excerpts from “The role and expectations of millennials in the work place” provided by Aaron Uhrmacher: 

“Let us work remotely: We can work at Starbucks and even from home. By creating a less structured physical work environment, you can stimulate us, encourage our creativity and teach us how to work smarter. 

Give us iPhones: Most companies only provide phones to management. If you want us to stay connected, give us the tools to do so. Blackberries are fine, but iPhones are much cooler. And they work on corporate networks. 

Create opportunities for social interaction: If you want us to enjoy where we work, make it a place we want to be. Give us the chance to connect with our co-workers in an environment that promotes social interaction. Host group brainstorming sessions, take us bowling (or to the theater, or paintballing) and remember to celebrate our success outside the confines of the workplace.” 

I don’t know how these “expectations” read to you, but I cannot help shaking my head as I examine this list. 

From what Uhrmacher is saying, organizations are supposed to let Millennials work wherever they would like to “stimulate” them and “encourage our creativity.” I guess the perks of having a job and paycheck aren’t enough for today’s young people. And, always with the gentle pleading neediness of “teach us” included. 

Next, organizations are expected to give young people iPhones because they are “much cooler” than other devices, as if a company or agency is somehow denying Millennials their unalienable right to an iPhone. 

If all this isn’t enough, next Millennials expect to be taken out on play dates, such as bowling, so work is “a place we want to be.” Finally, Uhrmacher urges organizations to “remember to celebrate our success outside the confines of the workplace.” Could this smack more of the entitlement issues Millennials have? 

This sad list of “expectations” takes me back to two points that keep banging around in my head. First, why does society focus so much on the 18-34 year old demographic? Next, can’t Millennials at least attempt to adapt to the way organizations run, rather than expecting that the world change for them? One could easily write off Uhrmacher’s findings, but spending even a little time with young people reveals that his conclusions about their expectations are accurate.The challenge is that our coddled Millennials think they are the center of the world, each and every one a mini-celebrity with an entourage of Facebook “friends” gawking at their every move posted online. 

So what’s the upside? Millennials who learn to write professionally, read across a broad range of subjects, and learn to think deeply and strategically will be prepared to assume leadership positions, while their celebrity-obsessed, vacuous brethren will not. 

I have faith that those young professionals positioned for success will achieve it. I have taught many of these Millennials and know others who break the stereotype, thank goodness. They would scoff at the “expectations” listed above and want to build their foundational skills.

As Roberts explains, “As companies continue to look at younger staff members for social media expertise, senior employees, recent graduates, and interns should work together to ensure young professionals have well-rounded task lists that include a variety of skills necessary for communication campaigns - both online and offline.”

Popular culture Web site PopMatters is publishing “Pixelated Brains,” a four-part series of articles addressing the consequences of technology and new media on thinking.

My article in Pixelated Brains runs today: “Google and the End of Wisdom.”

From the overview:

“Bob Batchelor is convinced that thanks to easy access to online resources, today’s colleges are producing a generation of lazy thinkers. This is more than just an old fashioned, curmudgeonly professor demanding that people crack open a book once in a while - and actually read and comprehend it - it’s a concern that there may be a real cultural decline in critical thinking skills that is enforced, even rewarded, by modern educational institutions.”

The Canadian Public Relations Society adopted the following English-language definition of public relations in February 2009. Judy Gombita posted it at PR Conversations on June 17, 2009 (see below).

“Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.” (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)

I applaud the effort to create a new definition of public relations. While the blog title muses that it is “maple-infused,” I would counter that it is more closely “Grunig-infused.”

When one reads “strategic management,” “mutual understanding,” and “serve the public interest,” obviously this is a nod to Grunig’s work, particularly his thoughts about two-way symmetrical communications.

As a result, I wonder if “maple-infused” communicators (and others around the world, if the many commentators posting the definition in their languages is any indication of its burgeoning popularity) who do not see Grunig as the end-all theorist of public relations will get much out of this definition.

I am dubious of “official” definitions, particularly of a field as amorphous as public relations. Why, for instance, the never-ending emphasis on “strategic management,” as if the only way businesspeople will take the field seriously is by throwing “strategic” in? And, why the need for “through the use of communication?” This clause broadens the definition to include so much, but says little about what the field actually is.

If one looks at the three-pronged monster of what public relations “is,” then, it is “mutual understanding,” “realize…goals,” and “serve the public interest.” Under this new definition, does that mean that if realizing org goals are independent of mutual understanding that it is no longer public relations?

My thought after reading this definition was basically, “why, why, why?” Do we need yet another attempt at fencing the field in? And, if so, then why does it just have to be derivative of Grunig and all the other tired definitions that already exist?