PR-Bridge

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?

My boyhood fascination with getting mail diminishes over time, though I have to admit that I subscribe to many magazines partially because I love getting new issues in the mail. Other than that, the mail mainly contains bills and junk.

Last week, however, I received a package from The Ohio State University Press, the publisher of my book Kotex, Kleenex, Huggies: Kimberly-Clark and the Consumer Revolution in American Business, written with my good friend Thomas Heinrich, a history professor at Baruch College. Opening it, I pulled out two copies of the book pictured above — the Chinese language edition of the book, published by Shanghai Far East Publishers.

I will never be able to read the book, but it is cool to see it published in Chinese (even the graphs and pictures). Tom and I are really proud of the book and though it got great reviews in various academic history journals, it did not receive the kind of widespread readership we hoped for. Maybe the new edition will attract a larger readership as China struggles with many of the consumer issues and integrated communications efforts outlined in the text.

Todd Defren is an insightful social media and communications commentator and professional, as one can certainly ascertain by reading his blog PR-Squared. He recently wrote an intriguing piece predicting that the next 50 years of public relations work will no longer focus on media relations, instead shifting to a role as “facilitator” between customer service and social media.

Rather than comment on the content of Defren’s post, I would like to use it as an example of a particular challenge regarding social media today. In discussions with colleagues around the country, the vibe we see is that so much of social media commentary is taking place in the social media echo chamber. In other words, social media types simply talking about social media with others who are deeply interested in the topic.

I am certainly not the first person to discuss this topic. Jonathan Trenn wrote an interesting blog addressing the point last year, not only critiquing the “clubby” atmosphere of social media experts, but questioning whether that group can gain access to clients guided by large ad and PR agencies. My good friend Bill Sledzik at Kent State recently deleted his blogroll based on the assumption that having one set the stage for an “us vs. them” mentality where the “cool kids” are listed and other excluded. Sledzik explains, “In fact, I read only about one-third of the writers on my blogroll. There isn’t time for more. But their presence on my personal ‘A’ list implies endorsement.”

One sees evidence of the social media echo chamber in Defren’s post, which weighs in at a paltry 129 words and contains no contextual information to back up his assertion (though the graphic is interesting and that alone probably says something about the issue I am raising). This morning, the “Tweet count” on the article stands at 118, with 8 “Other Comments.”

Basically, Defren is approaching a tweet-a-word. Not surprising, given the limitations of Twitter, most of these merely repost a link to the article. Who knows how many people these tweets reached. Defren’s 129-word post could have reached 1,290 or 129 million readers.

The challenge with this is that social media commentators are talking among themselves, with readership dinged around the Twitterverse like a pinball game — thus the social media echo chamber rolls on. As I mentioned earlier, I think Defren is an insightful guy, so I don’t want to peg him as evil or something, rather an example of how the echo chamber works. In other posts, he has provided deeper thinking and context necessary for a broader, informed discussion.

Why point any of this out? The answer is twofold:

1. From the perspective of an educator, students and young professionals are looking to social media “gurus” like Defren to gain a deeper understanding of social media and as a role model for how they should conduct themselves as budding social media experts. As such, they learn that mimicking such posts — more or less devoid of higher order thinking — is okay because they will get tweets and comments, essentially playing up the narcissistic aspect of social media at the expense of knowledge.

2. Defren’s post reads to me like a soundbite. Unfortunately, social media has the potential to elevate the soundbite to even greater heights — think about it, Twitter is creating a whole generation of young people who don’t want to think in chunks larger than 140 characters. Since most soundbites bank on gut reaction or emotion, not asking the listener to use critical thinking skills, I do not see this as a positive. If social media really is changing communications, then perhaps social media experts should provide the depth that clients need in understanding why the change is happening and their place in it.

Forwarding or Tweeting 129-word soundbites is not going to enhance the social media discussion. I wonder how many Defren readers, like me, were left wishing that he would have provided a deeper discussion of his intriguing idea about the next 50 years of PR?

(Photo credit: wiselywoven/Flickr/Some rights reserved)

My great friend Les Potter wrote an insightful essay questioning the lack of curiosity among the Millennial students he teaches at Towson University in Maryland. When someone of Les’s caliber as a teacher, and with 35 years of experience as a professional communicator, brings a topic like this to light, believe me, my ears perk up.

Not only did Les sum up the prevailing lack of curiosity of today’s college students, but he also gave several examples of areas in which students could question him to gain greater understanding of the profession. For example, Les says, “As a manager who hired, trained, and terminated many employees in my career, the ability and willingness to ask probing questions is a competitive advantage for job seekers.”

I concur completely and would take it a step further, adding that I have never seen a person who lacks curiosity succeed in communications. Individuals become superstars in the business world when they ask probing questions, evaluate situations, and then derive new initiatives based on deft critical thinking. Curiosity is central at every point in this process.

I wrote a lengthy comment supporting Les’s statements, providing what I see as a problem among many of my USF students. Below is an edited and expanded version of that post.

The “challenge” I have with my students is twofold — they don’t understand much (if anything) about the business world, thus they have no idea how they “fit” into the picture and many lack what I call “intellectual curiosity.”

Here’s an example: many students enter the public relations sequence at USF with little or no idea what PR/communications is. Somewhere, someone told them that this would be a good major for them, usually having to do with “being good with people.” It seems outrageous, but many future PR majors enter the sequence with no understanding of writing, research, or strategic thinking skills. When they encounter their PR professors, most do not say to themselves, “Here’s my chance to actually talk to someone who worked in the field I chose for my major.”

Due to entrance requirements and prerequisites, most students enter our three-semester program still not knowing much about the PR major, even though they are already juniors. Then the first semester, they take “Principles of Public Relations.” For the first time, they finally have a PR prof teaching them about their major. However, getting them involved or asking meaningful questions is grueling. Many act as if it is just another course to get through, even though it is the first time they have formally encountered anything at all to do with public relations.

The next semester is the meat of the program — three courses: “Writing for PR,” “Public Relations Research,” and “Public Relations: Issues, Practices, and Problems” (a case study course). After one 15-week intro course, they are slammed with these three, but it is finally a course load in their major. It is difficult work, but rather than rejoice that they will finally get to know what PR/communications is, they complain about the amount of work and toughness.

At a point where their curiosity should be at its highest, many check out based on the workload. Most do not read the required materials my colleagues and I assign, even if it is timely essays and short articles drawn from important PR periodicals, such as PRWeek, Ragan newsletters, and blogs. Some students sit in class and say nothing for 15 weeks, despite my pleas for them to engage. Others make no effort at all.

However, there are a handful each semester that do the work, read the material, engage with the profession, and ask great questions and provide thoughtful commentary. I guess this is why we all continue to teach.

A casual reader might read Les’s essay or my commentary and think that we are out of touch with today’s students or doing something wrong, since they are not more engaged. However, in discussions with colleagues across disciplines around the country and overseas, I sense that this mindset among today’s young people is widespread.

Let me end this long post with this: I thoroughly enjoy teaching and like all my students as individuals. I want them to achieve all their hopes and aspirations. However, I know that some of them are not cut out for a career as professional communicators, at least not when I have them in class. Perhaps some magic switch will kick in at some later date, which for their sake I hope does. But, I do know that a trait all my very best students share is intellectual curiosity and a drive for success that I can’t define. The two traits go hand-in-hand.

Contact: William Cooper

Project Manager

wdcooper@mail.usf.edu

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TWITTER-LESS 

Millennials are not “friending” or “tweeting” about companies and brands as widely assumed 

TAMPA, APRIL 14, 2009 — In an era when “Tweets” have little to do with pet shops, are Millennials all they are cracked up to be in the social media universe? A recent survey conducted by a research team from the Walter E. Griscti chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America at the University of

Of the 250 Florida college students surveyed, 99 percent use social networking sites. However, only 15 percent have an account with Twitter and 34 percent have never even heard of the site.  Some 58 percent of the students who have Twitter accounts never use the service or rarely log-on.

“There is a stereotype that because students are always plugged in that they understand the strategic uses of social media sites,” said Kelli Burns, professor at the University of South Florida and author of the forthcoming Celeb 2.0: How Social Media Foster our Fascination with Popular Culture. “Businesses have a misconception that students know how to use Twitter; these findings prove otherwise.”

The research team survey results reveal two distinct findings. First, college students are not active Twitter users. More importantly, they are not interested in interacting with brands through social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

A common misconception is that sites like Twitter offer an innovative way for advertisers and companies to interact with the young demographic. However, 75 percent of students say they would be “not at all interested in” or “don’t care about” following brands, companies, or organizations on Twitter.

Many companies assume that social media enables college students to be smarter consumers. Sites like Twitter, social media analysts claim, act as a medium for the new two-way communication between brands and consumers. Given the media chatter about the importance of social networking for corporations, there is a disconnect between the promise of social media and reality.

The research team’s results reveal that a mere 6 percent of college students follow companies and only 4 percent follow brands on social media sites. These findings suggest that if corporations and communicators continue to bet on college students using social media sites effectively, they may come up empty handed.

The fact is that college students use social media sites primarily for keeping in touch with friends, not for networking or brand interaction. Until Millennials become less weary of this interaction, the gap between what business professionals expect and what college students actually know will continue to widen.

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 Publi 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

If social media kills journalism and newspapers as we know them (i.e. the death threats announced by the New York Times Co. regarding the Boston Globe), what will take their place? According to BusinessWeek MediaCentric columnist Jon Fine, a potential replacement already exists — the “Journalist-Consultant.”

Fine’s analysis is, well, fine: the Web provides organizations with direct consumer access, which displaces journalism’s centrality as a content provider. As a result, journalists are turning to new media to create businesses that utilize their skills, essentially transforming into public relations practitioners (though I imagine the label would cause many of them to visibly shudder).

The challenge, Fine rightly addresses, is that at Abrams Research (a consulting firm founded by former MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams), touts its access, “to active journalists and bloggers.” One can only imagine the ethical firestorm this kind of “consulting” might ignite.

Examing the Abrams Web site, one sees clear examples of the blurry line Fine identifies. The site claims that “Abrams Research can bring together top financial journalists to advise that business [financial services] on how to best convey its message.” To help a video game distributor, Abrams claims it “can reach out to the most influential industry bloggers and present an overview of their opinions on a particular marketing message.”

Rather than focus on the ethical dilemmas, which Fine outlines, I would rather think through the rise of the “Journo-Relations” industry and what it might mean for future communicators. I believe that we are already experiencing this blurring of lines between journalist and communicator via blogs and tweets. The long-range consequences are even more cloudy.

The notion of who a person represents and which “hat” they wear at a given time will take on greater importance as bloggers, tweeters, and others extend themselves across various platforms. For example, when am I a company-paid communicator or simply advocating for myself (the idea of “brand you“)? How do the lines blur when one posts a link to a company blog or product blog to a personal social media site, such as Facebook or LinkedIn?

Most public relations experts I have discussed this idea with agree that they do not want their hard news coming from “Journo-Relations” practitioners. They lament the decline of independent news organizations. Most journalists, obviously, feel the same way. The disappearance of newspapers and magazines puts them out of work.

The biggest problems I see as a result of the rise of “Journo-Relations” is that people, in general, are not trained in critical thinking to the degree necessary to distinguish between journalistic content and non-journalistic content, particularly if it is written and/or taped to look like journalism. We only need to look at the recent VNR problems and the challenge of “advertorials” to see how quickly paid fact becomes real fact.

Rather than think critically, most people are urged to find a single correct answer or fall back on their “gut” instinct (usually a conglomeration of ideas, indoctrinations, feelings, and emotions they carry). For example, many people look at poll results at face value, not questioning who paid for the content, the survey size, or methodology. Given the large stakes at hand in poll results, from voting to when and where a company decides to run an ad, one would expect that voters/consumers, etc. would use a more critical eye. My experience discussing these issues with hundreds of college students each year have proved otherwise.

From a “Journo-Relations” perspective, we face a future (and many would argue current state)  where there are few or no gatekeepers. In this environment, is anyone really willing to base what is or is not appropriate for one to write about on a person’s individual ethical code?

In the Abrams Research case, for example, who will draw the line between “compensated experts” and active journalists? In an increasingly decentralized media world, no central body exists to regulate journalists or communicators that choose to ignore traditional ethical lines.

The demand for content is not slowing, though the delivery channels are changing. Journalism and communications are adapting to this new reality. Will the public keep pace, or perhaps even more important, do they care?