I know it's been a while since Tim Russert, that genuinely good man, died. I don't only say that because he and I are both "sons of Buffalo" NY. Actually he did a lot for politics in general, often hitting all parties with difficult questions that Americans were longing to find answers to (sadly, how the Buffalo Bills lost 4 straight Superbowls was one that Tim and I will never know the answer to).
I was thinking that the blog needed a new post before my move to Ohio and started thinking about Tim. His passing had me think about the fact that, while I do not think he was an example where this was needed, sometimes it seems like a person's death actually increases their "PR" value.
Many of us know the cliche of a starving artist dying a poor and lonely death only to have their works later heralded as valued pieces of history. But how often does this happen with a person's legacy? While I definitely don't think that Russert had any reputation perceptions that necessarily needed improving, there must be people that have a higher value of his life's work after the deserved displays of tribute to him in the days following his death.
I challenge you, my readers, to post examples of people whose deaths increased - or decreased - their personal public relations perceptions. Let's discuss these and figure out exactly what it means.
As Tom Brokaw so eloquently stated:
"Say a prayer for Brother Timmy
And tip a cold one
Go Bills"
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Hancock
From the looks of the new movie Hancock, it looks like the superhero Hancock spends most of the movie getting help from a "PR" person (Jason Bateman). Wouldn't it be wonderful to have an actual movie role in which PR wasn't trashed? We'll see.
Good example of bad PR: Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking. Very entertaining movie and even better book, though it doesn't do anything to help the perception of PR in the public eye. BTW, while it seems somewhat cliche to say that the book is better than the movie in any scenario, I have to say that the book ends COMPLETELY differently than the movie. In fact, the movie changes the entire personality and actions of one key character from the book. Again, both book and movie are good.
Keep your fingers crossed, PR folks. Let's hope that Hancock doesn't make us look awful...
Good example of bad PR: Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking. Very entertaining movie and even better book, though it doesn't do anything to help the perception of PR in the public eye. BTW, while it seems somewhat cliche to say that the book is better than the movie in any scenario, I have to say that the book ends COMPLETELY differently than the movie. In fact, the movie changes the entire personality and actions of one key character from the book. Again, both book and movie are good.
Keep your fingers crossed, PR folks. Let's hope that Hancock doesn't make us look awful...
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Licensing
As most practitioners know, licensing in the public relations field is a heated issue. There are also quite a few faculty and students who weigh in on the issue and its influence on their careers.
Many people against PR licensing point out how expensive it would be, that licensing is handled at the state level (not nationally), and that it could potentially infringe on freedom of speech rights of "practitioners".
Those for licensing point out the fact that it could go beyond PRSA's accreditation process (which is a good start) by being mandatory. It would also help weed out those people who claim to practice PR but actually are mislabeling what they do for a living.
I think that licensing is going to have to take an eventual spotlight if the industry is going to move past the "spin doctoring flaks" stereotypes that we are sometimes given.
Many people against PR licensing point out how expensive it would be, that licensing is handled at the state level (not nationally), and that it could potentially infringe on freedom of speech rights of "practitioners".
Those for licensing point out the fact that it could go beyond PRSA's accreditation process (which is a good start) by being mandatory. It would also help weed out those people who claim to practice PR but actually are mislabeling what they do for a living.
I think that licensing is going to have to take an eventual spotlight if the industry is going to move past the "spin doctoring flaks" stereotypes that we are sometimes given.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Welcome back (Kotter?)
Welcome back (Kotter?). Finally getting back into this. Hopefully I will find something insightful or useful about the state of public relations. So far, the most discouraging thing has been the negative press that the PR profession has been undergoing since the Scott McClellan book. I mean, cmon, this guy was obviously a PR practitioner but a poor one at that. You simply cannot (well, maybe should not is more accurate) judge an entire industry on the faults of the few [insert lawyer joke here].
How do PR problems affect PR students?
I had a student approach me after class the other day with an interesting question. She asked me how I thought negative press for PR (like the post-McClellan-book-release-kind) would affect current PR students.
I told her that I think that it wouldn't necessarily affect them getting jobs as PR firms will continue to thrive and corporations (and other orgs) will continue to place value on it. Sadly, I think that this state of affairs makes it most difficult on students while they are in the program.
Many of us realize that PR has dealt with image problems before. These negative images are sometimes embraced and perpetuated by general publics that do not understand the PR industry (not necessarily their fault). These "general publics" are made up of many PR students' parents.
This creates a very difficult scenario for up-and-coming PR stars. These parents wonder why their beloved children want to become party planners, spin doctors, or out-and-out liars. BIG, BIG problem.
If you end up reading this, you will find that I am not one to just bitch and not offer some sort of solution (hey maybe it won't work but let's try!). I think that PR faculty should be taking some time - maybe a one credit class or something - in which PR students are taught how to define public relations in the "real world" in order to 1) ease these potential family conflicts and, 2) be able to do something that should come "with the program" anyway. PR definitely is NOT sales but it wouldn't hurt for future practitioners to learn 30- and 60-second "elevator speeches" about their fields.
I told her that I think that it wouldn't necessarily affect them getting jobs as PR firms will continue to thrive and corporations (and other orgs) will continue to place value on it. Sadly, I think that this state of affairs makes it most difficult on students while they are in the program.
Many of us realize that PR has dealt with image problems before. These negative images are sometimes embraced and perpetuated by general publics that do not understand the PR industry (not necessarily their fault). These "general publics" are made up of many PR students' parents.
This creates a very difficult scenario for up-and-coming PR stars. These parents wonder why their beloved children want to become party planners, spin doctors, or out-and-out liars. BIG, BIG problem.
If you end up reading this, you will find that I am not one to just bitch and not offer some sort of solution (hey maybe it won't work but let's try!). I think that PR faculty should be taking some time - maybe a one credit class or something - in which PR students are taught how to define public relations in the "real world" in order to 1) ease these potential family conflicts and, 2) be able to do something that should come "with the program" anyway. PR definitely is NOT sales but it wouldn't hurt for future practitioners to learn 30- and 60-second "elevator speeches" about their fields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
