Teaching PR

The Week's Best, 29 March 2010

• 5 Keys to Creating a Resume They'll Remember, Jessica Holbrook; and Read This Before You Send that Resume Cover Letter, Steven Silvers
• RANT and RAVE: I'm the Lowest Rated Podcaster, Aliza Sherman (via @cloudspark)
• 10 Tips to Boost Your Personal SEO, Ben Cotton
• It's Tea Time in Appalachia; I'm in a Parallel Universe Where Communication and Logic Are Lost, Bill Sledzik; An Open Letter to Online Thugs, David Wescott; and How Long Until Truthful Information Becomes Worthless?, David Spinks
• (Many) Advertising Agencies (Still) Don't Understand Social Media, Todd Defren
• Timeline of the Greenpeace Anti-KitKat Social Media Campaign, Corinne Weisgerber
• Failure Is an Option, Fear Is Not, Lauren Vargas
• We Have Seen the Future, But We're Not Sure Who Will Lead It, Katie Paine
• Money Talks, But Do You Know the Language?, Samantha McCain (via @ValerieSimon)

Online reputation is not 9 to 5

• At last week's panel on using social media to find a job, a student asked, "Where's the line between personal and professional?" The panelists suggested that you should show some personality; employers want to see it.
• During her school's spring break this week, Barbara Nixon tweeted that she'd be happy not to see "f-bomb-laden tweets about hangovers etc." and said "I guess some think that professionalism and reputation are a 9-5 thing."
• Also this week, Lauren Fernandez wrote a "Think Before You Tweet" post that said, in part, "Gen Y overshares, but most clients and bosses that you interact with aren't... There is no rule that you must share every detail about your life."

The simple truth is that every single thing you (or your friends) put on the Internet, whether it's on a locked Twitter account, a semi-private Facebook page, or a public blog, reflects on you as a person as well as a potential employee. There is no line between personal and professional. 

Once you post something, you cannot take it back. I have an example of this in my RSS aggregator: I favorited a blog post that the author later deleted because it showed poor professional judgment -- it criticized another agency's client. I still have it. I still show it to students. Once he posted it, even though he deleted it, he can't take it back.

So, that thing you post -- that funny picture, that negative comment about a company, that drunken tweet, that snarky comment about someone else or that thing you meant as a joke -- once you post it, you can't control what other people do with it. If I wanted to, I could link to an example of each and every one of these mistakes recently made by a PR student somewhere in the United States. I'm not that cruel... but other people will be.

Showing your personality is one thing. Showing a lack of judgment is another. 

Announcing another JPRR special issue: "Race in/and Public Relations"

Here's the text of the call for submissions for JPRR's next special issue on race (vol. 23, issue 3), submitted by guest editors Lee Edwards and Debashish Munshi:

The Journal of Public Relations Research seeks scholarly articles for a special issue on Race in/and Public Relations.

The guest editors of the special issue wish to open up a space for theoretical as well as practical engagement with issues of race and ethnicity in public relations scholarship. This call aims to especially attract conceptual or empirical pieces that look at race and ethnicity on a wide continuum ranging from overt or covert racism in mainstream public relations practices to public relations strategies adopted by ethnic groups and from undercurrents of race in organizational messages and discourses to the politics of race and ethnicity in public campaigns.

The guest editors are open to a variety of approaches including those that address the interests of professionals in making a business case for diversity as well as critical explorations of race and ethnicity in public relations through a range of social, political, or cultural lenses including, for example, postmodern, postcolonial, feminist, critical race theory or indigenous ones. The contexts of the articles could be historical, local, national, transnational, or even virtual.

As with any other issue, the contributions should be in line with the journal’s primary mission to deliver scholarship that creates, tests, or expands public relations theory.

Manuscripts for the special issue are due to the JPRR Manuscript Central site by September 30, 2010. Submissions should conform to the Instructions for Authors on the Journal's Web site.

Please note at the top of the abstract and in the appropriate space in the online submission form that the submission is a “candidate for the special issue on Race in/and Public Relations”.

Guest Editors: Lee Edwards, Leeds Metropolitan University, U.K., and Debashish Munshi, The University of Waikato, New Zealand.

The Week's Best, 22 March 2010

• Public Relations and the Ethics of Multitasking, Ann Subervi
• Choosing Truth: LifeLock, Inc. Settlement, Rich Becker
• Use the T.H.I.N.K. Method Before Complaining to Your Boss, Andrew Worob
• Why Every Communicator Should Agonize about France's "Game of Death," Kristin E. Sukalac
• Translucency as a Corollary to Transparency, Katie Paine
• South by Southwest 2010: Unique, Authentic and Relevant, Valerie Elston
• How PR Pros Are Using Social Media for Real Results, Christina Warren
• Nestle Mess Shows Sticky Side of Facebook Fan Pages, Caroline McCarthy (via @PeterHimler)
• Students' Benefit Using PROpenMic, Lauren Hopkins

Do you have a suggestion for The Week's Best? Submit it to weeksbest at gmail dot com

Using social media to find a job

I had the pleasure of moderating a panel featuring recent Grady grads Lizz Judd (Newell Rubbermaid), Beth Farrar (freelancer) and Davis Adams (Brandware Public Relations) at Grady College's career day yesterday. I probably looked a little strange standing there taking notes while they talked, but it was such good information that I couldn't stand to see it confined to the attendees in the room.

Here are some of their thoughts and advice to current students:

On specific ways to use social media in a job search

• Building an online portfolio via LinkedIn, Twitter, and other social sites (Lizz)
• Creating a blog that establishes you as an expert in something you're passionate about and builds a network of relationships with people who know your work (Davis)
• Following job search specialists and recruiters, strategically targeting your social platform activities (Beth)

On building a social presence

• Be everywhere (not literally, but on a lot of sites) and link them all together. "Presence is a must" (Beth)
• Build a brand by showing your personality, but keeping it classy
• "I frequently Google myself," because you need to see what other people are seeing (Lizz)
• Assume that everything is public; don't put something up on any site that you don't want an employer to see

On benefits of social media participation

• If you want a job in social media, you have to be using social media
• People with social skills are valuable (as in compensated well)

On social media don'ts for students

• "Don't be disingenuous"; if you aren't really passionate about something or don't really hold a particular opinion but try to pretend you are or do, it will show (Davis)
• "Don't be private" -- that is, don't lock your tweets or hide your profiles; people will assume you have something to hide (Beth)
• Don't hide your personality, employers want to see a real person
• "Don't be comfortable where you are." Social media is always changing, so you can't just get on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook and think you're finished; try the new stuff (Lizz)
• "Don't be a lurker," participate in the conversation (Davis)
• Don't be unethical; be transparent and be yourself

The Week's Best, 15 March 2010

• When Crisis Attacks, Scott Monty (h/t Kristin English)
• Cause Marketing that Leads to Real Social Change, Kami Huyse, Beth Kanter and Geoff Livingston
• What I Learned at Edelman, Rowena Briones
• CSR, Social Media and the Self-Defending Brand, Tom Murphy
• How PR Helped 'The Hurt Locker' Beat 'Avatar,' Joe Ciarallo
• 34 Unforgettable Posts for PR People, Richie Escovedo
• Watch Out for Sneaky Spammers, Kelli Matthews

Do you have a suggestion for The Week's Best? Submit it to weeksbest at gmail dot com

International Women's Day: Honoring Project Safe

Today is International Women's Day, so I'm taking an opportunity to interview one of my PR Campaigns class clients, Joan Prittie of Project Safe, a local nonprofit organization that works to end domestic violence through prevention and education, crisis intervention, support services, and advocacy. The Athens Banner-Herald named her one of the top newsmakers for 2009 because domestic violence claimed 10 lives in our small city last year.

Question: You told my students that Project Safe began when some Athens women were brave enough to open their homes to strangers who needed a safe place to stay. Can you tell us what you know about that time?

Joan: Unfortunately I know very little about the early years--before Project Safe officially became Project Safe.  I've met some people who were involved in various ways back in the early 1980s, but I'd love to learn more about our founding mothers (and fathers) and really piece the early history together.

Question: You also said that you've been inspired by the founders' bravery. What do you do to try to live up to the example they set?

Joan: I try to keep moving the organization and the community toward an end to violence.  We push ourselves to do better and do more each day.

Question: During the team's first client meeting, you said that when Project Safe had a little extra money last year, you spent some of it on marketing. I can honestly say I've never had a client tell my students that before. Why did you make that decision? How do marketing and public relations contribute to the success of Project Safe?

Joan: Before I came to Project Safe, when I was practicing law, I worked on a clemency project with 78 battered women who were in prison for killing or harming their abusers.  Only one ever called a hotline, but they all had someone in their lives who knew about the violence.  They got bad advice or no advice at all.  That same pattern is confirmed in studies and--just recently--in the Georgia Domestic Violence Fatality Review Report.  

Victims aren't in touch with advocacy/service providers, but their friends and family are aware of the abuse.  Marketing and outreach is important to help people connect with us.  It's also important for events like our Dancing with Athens Stars fundraiser coming up on March 21st at the Classic Center, or our resale shop, P.S.Too.  Donor trends nation wide are that individual giving and government grants are decreasing, while earned income or entrepreneurship among non-profits is increasing so we want our events and business efforts to be successful. 

Question: What can the rest of us do to help prevent or halt domestic violence?

Joan: Don't be violent for starters.  Teach your children not to commit or condone violence. Talk about it--it's so widespread, and yet people act like it could never happen to them.  Learn about the risks, warning signs and resources the same way you might educate yourself about any other health issue. 

Check out our Web site or our Facebook page for information about domestic violence and resources in the area.  Know that there's a hotline (706-543-3331) available 24 hours a day. Volunteer.  Donate.  Contact Project Safe for an education presentation or training at work, school or church.

The Week's Best, 8 March 2010

• How to Answer 10 Tricky Interview Questions, Karen Burns
• Your Job Search: Your Resume... Your Life, Kirk Hazlett
• 10 Tips for Proofreading Perfection, Rachel Esterline
• What It Takes to Work in Public Relations: A Recruiter's Perspective, Craig Pearce
• 10 Famous Logo Designers and Their Creations -- A Tribute, Nora Reed (via @moehlert)
• Do PR Firms Make Sense Anymore?, Grant Cardone (via @rdfrench)
• The Internet by the Numbers: Facebook Pretty Much Owns the Internet (video), Adam Frucci (via @crobcary)
• Public Relations Ethics: A Risible Oxymoron? (slides and video), Divya Kapoor

Do you have a suggestion for The Week's Best? Submit it to weeksbest at gmail dot com

The editorial decision; or, What on earth were they thinking?

Prof. Tom Kelleher of the University of Hawaii at Manoa recently guest edited a special issue of the Journal of Public Relations Research on social media (it'll be published later this year as volume 22, issue 3), and I think it's fair to say it was a learning experience. We e-mailed and talked several times as he struggled to make decisions about which manuscripts to move forward and how to set deadlines and work with authors in order to complete the issue on time.

At one point I tweeted, "Let's do a blog post on making the editorial decision when you're finished." He responded, "Great idea." So here we are (and here, too).

Karen's perspective:

Probably the most important decision an editor makes is determining which reviewers will get the manuscript, because reviewers have far more influence than they probably realize. Although reviewers ultimately provide only recommendations, and the editor has the final say, collectively the two or three reviewers per manuscript provide an assessment that would be pretty hard for an editor to ignore -- particularly because, if I've done a good job with selection, the reviewer is more expert in the paper's topic or method than I am. I typically invite two members of the editorial board, one with topic expertise and one with method expertise, to review each manuscript, and usually (but not always) invite a third, outside person. This gives different and often younger scholars an opportunity to participate in the process and allows me to compare their assessments with those of more established scholars.

JPRR has four categories of recommendation -- reject, revise and resubmit, accept with minor revisions, and accept -- but I've learned to pay less attention to the recommendation and more attention to the reviewer's comments, because I've realized that one person's reject is another person's R&R, or one person's R&R is another person's minor revisions. Thus, if a reviewer asks for major revisions (such as calling for more data collection or reanalysis of the data) but doesn't give me a sense that the research will make a significant contribution to public relations theory development even if those revisions are made, I would consider that a "reject" even if the reviewer called it a "revise and resubmit." [Note: I'm working on revising the reviewing guidelines, and this will include some clarification of the categories.]

After I receive the reviews, I read them carefully and then go back to the manuscript to compare my impressions with those of the reviewers. As I've written about before, the most important consideration is always the paper's contribution to theory development. I am willing to work with authors through two or even three revisions, and I've spent hours line-editing manuscripts when reviewers have expressed frustration with the writing or organization, if the experts are convinced that it makes an important contribution to the literature.

But that's the major difference between a regular issue, in which articles can be reviewed multiple times and the ulitmate criterion is quality of contribution to the body of knowledge, and a special issue, which has a specific deadline and a set number of pages that must be filled by that deadline.

Tom's Perspective:

One of many reasons I’m in academics today is that I dread the cold call. I’d get a knot in my stomach when I was an intern at Ketchum in Atlanta years back, knowing my day would be full of pitch calls to busy people with more important things on their minds. James McCroskey might call it “situational communication apprehension.” Given the choice of grinding out pitch calls or grinding out years of grad school I chose the latter.

 

So one of my biggest concerns taking on this journal issue was how I was going to recruit reviewers. To my delight, my apprehension was unfounded. The vast majority of people I contacted fell into one of two categories: those who planned to submit an article themselves and those who were ready and willing to review. 

 

Social media experts with academic track records and accomplished academics with an interest in social media were quick to offer help. Not surprisingly Twitter and blog versions of the call were helpful recruiting tools. I also paid attention to methodological and content expertise in assigning manuscripts to reviewers.

 

The same enthusiasm for the project that drove reviewers to volunteer also drove many of them to offer amazingly detailed critiques and suggestions. In turn, authors who were invited to resubmit took their lumps and vigorously revised (in fact most probably didn’t even see it as taking lumps). With each iteration, the special issue looked better and better.

 

But this is where the unique nature of a special issue becomes most apparent. We had a calendar date when the revisions had to stop and a finite number of articles had to be selected. Until that deadline loomed, I was gratefully able to serve mostly as conduit between reviewers and authors. Later in the process though, I felt the gravity of being the only one with a full view of all the submissions and all the reviews through several rounds.

 

Here are a few of the dilemmas that I think are unique to a special-issue project:

 

• Figuring the right fit. One of the articles submitted reported an outstanding piece of research, but the reviewers and I did not feel that it fit the theme of the issue well. I had to refer that one back to Karen for consideration for an open issue of JPRR (if the author(s) choose to go that route). I hated to let it go, but "fit" with the specific topic ended up being a deciding factor.

• Assuming anonymity. In one case, a reviewer saw an author’s attempt to block out a self-citation (i.e., XXXX, 2008) as an editorial oversight. When I mentioned that I thought the author had done this intentionally to preserve the blind review process, the reviewer wrote back, “I've never seen such a practice. And I don't think that would protect the anonymity. A quick Google search and I can find out.” Yet in a separate context, I've seen a JPRR reviewer complain that citing a newly in-press piece makes it too easy to identify the author. With this special issue centered around such a specific new area for scholarship, I’m certain that the contributors and reviewers are often familiar with each other's work. As editor, I tried to avoid having anyone review another's work if I knew the two to have a close connection. But the Google point is well taken. All three parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) have a role in trying to make the process work. Karen, this might be worth some consideration in the revised reviewing guidelines. [Duly noted! -Karen]

• Editorial overrides on deadline. One of the most conscientious and dedicated reviewers will see in print both articles that he/she recommended rejecting. On four different occasions -- two rounds of review for two different papers -- this reviewer offered meticulous critiques. Based on how long it takes me to review journal submissions, I would estimate that this reviewer invested more than a week’s worth of research productivity in this issue (or a week's worth of vacation for those of you on spring break!). And the reward? Being overridden twice. If this had been a normal journal timeline, we might have been able to let the R&R process run its course a little longer before committing a decision. (See Karen’s comment above about one person’s 'reject' being another’s 'R&R.') Anyhow, the upshot is that the two articles are much better now than they were before the process, and the issue is stronger because of that.

Generating interest was never a problem. No pitching required! In fact, the greater challenge was making the most of the exchange once everyone was engaged… Almost sounds like a topic for a paper on social media.

When the issue lands in your mailbox, if you learn from what you read, thank the authors and the reviewers. 

The Week's Best, 1 March 2010

• Being Green in Theory v. Practice, Kristina Summers
• PR + CSR = Just Good Business, Tom Murphy
• 10.5 Ways for PR Students to Get the Most Out of Twitter, Barbara Nixon
• Toyota: How to Commit Brand and Reputation Suicide, Urs E. Gattiker
• Internet's Impact on Students and Academics (video), Bill Handy
• Women, Reality Television, and Public Relations, Owen Kulemeka and SPINdustry Isn't Terrible: An Entertainment PR Background Perspective, Lauren Fernandez
• Facebook: Still Afraid of Nipples, David Wescott
• Rock Your Internship Interview, Rachel Jones (via @bfliu)

Do you have a suggestion for The Week's Best? Submit it to weeksbest at gmail dot com