The Intelligence Quota

I have a sweet, sweet dog. She’s a Yorkie named Tai. Which somehow got lengthened to “Tai Baby,” because well… she’s just not smart. She’s adorable, but intelligence is not her strength.

I have to wonder then if there are people like my Tai Baby. Just not smart.
Take Nestle for example. What is so hard about not being jerks and doing their best to NOT kill babies? Oh yeah, money.

Then turn your attention to Venus Williams. Is it really so hard to just speak up and say what happened? Tweet a picture of your injured foot? (http://bit.ly/apzGjz)
It’s amazing how many PR fiascoes could have been avoided with doing the logical thing. Transparency. Honesty. Issuing a statement- quickly.

Think of the blunder the Queen of England had after the death of Princess Diana. All she needed to do was talk to the public and she refused for three days. In 72 hours an entire country turned against the established monarchy, as they assumed the monarchy ignored their feelings.

Oddly enough, it wasn’t even a statement the nation needed per se- it was a sign that the family cared Diana was dead. A sign that the royal family understood their grief.

Transparency and Honesty go together easily. In many respect they are the same thing. They really should be. Celebrities, companies and anyone else in the spotlight or in a crisis seem to realize this. To not alienate fans or further upset a situation, honesty is important.

Yet, they seem to forget how important a timely message is. Even it’s something simple like “Ooops, we are looking into this. Sorry!” An acknowledgment that an upsetting event occurred is often enough to appease the public for a short time until further information can be acquired.

Sometimes the easiest thing to do is not be stupid. Too bad you can’t win clients with that advice. “Hey, Lindsey, pick me as your publicist and I’ll help you. Oh, and don’t be stupid!” I just don’t see that going as far as it should, when really it’s great advice.

For the love of Kant!

Let’s go ahead and address the mastodon in the room- I adore Immanuel Kant. So much so that I have a cute finger puppet of him that stays on my fridge thanks to the magnet in his oversized head. The problem with him and school is that teachers always latch onto ONE thing he said, in passing mind you, and so he’s cast aside like the idealistic reject he kinda is.

I imagine the conversation that pigeon-holed him so went something like this:

Uppity college student: “So, what you’re saying Mr. Kant is that if I say that lying is a universal rule thing…”

Super Smart Professor: “Maxim.” ::cough, stupid student, cough::

Uppity college student: “Sure, so if lying is a universal maxim, and it is destructive to society, we can never lie?”

Super Smart Professor: “Right, but it’s deeper than that. We deem “lying for personal benefit” to create a contradiction in society so we would have to consider “no lying” as a universal maxim, or law…”

Uppity college student: “Whatever, so like, if a bad-killer man came into your house and asked where your wife was so he could like, murder her, you wouldn’t lie.”

Super Smart Professor: “Right, but remember that we haven’t yet deemed this a “universal maxim” and we’re only talking in simple terms so your little head will understand it.”

Uppity college student: “AHHH! Professor Kant wants to kill his wife! I heard him say so!”

End scene

Kant was correct in that if “lying” became a universal maxim that we adhere to not do, then we should never do it, under any circumstances. But we are never under any rule to make such a maxim. In fact I would suggest that such a rule would at some point contradict itself and be detrimental to society and thus couldn’t ever be a maxim. But I digress.

What I find truly favorable in Kant is his second categorical imperative which states that we are never able to treat humanity as a means to an end, as it is only an end. To do so would be a contradiction to self and to the good will that is intrinsic to humans.

In the media industry this should be posted in bold letters with a yellow accent across every door. Even if the person signs a waver they are still being exploited for being a terrible mom, or an orange alien from New Jersey. There are levels of exploitation that the industry needs consider. At what point does ethics get in the way with a profitable business practice few complain about? But, how is it not exploitation when people are being filmed for entertainment purposes that lead to advertising money? “The Real World,” has long strayed from a relevant anthropological discourse of rambling 20-somethings.

Also, when will public relations, marketing and advertising step up and recognize that exploiting the ignorance of publics is just as bad? When disclosure has loopholes and fine print we begin to manipulate knowledge that the public has a right to know. We are treating their ignorance as a mean to our end goal of whatever corporate objective being focused on.

This is not right.

"Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it." Immanuel Kant in Perpetual Peace, 1795.

Buffering Through Life

It’s hard for me to define myself. Sure, I can list off enough details to give a pretty decent police sketch but past that I’m stumped. I find it impossible to tell you who I am, because I find that I am really just a perception. I am how people view me.

Companies are similar. They can try to be whomever they like, however it’s really up to me, the consumer to decide who they are. That’s why public relations matters. PR people should be gauging the public’s perception at all times and tweaking the company’s identity as needed.

Jim Haynes explained that research is important at all most all steps of a campaign. Danielle Allen counted that research is needed before any planning can actually begin and then again to evaluate the campaign, while convincing clients to pay for it is another story. I believe that both speakers were right. For a company’s persona to be understood by the company, they need to research and see what people are thinking of them. Extra research tells how to execute a plan to reach a certain objective that should ultimately assist with the created persona that research revealed. It’s a convoluted research circle, a research reach a… no, I won’t go there now.

A smart advertising professor told me about a comparative ad campaign between Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Pepsi encouraged viewers to decide which tasted better: Pepsi or Coke. When polls showed that people seemed to prefer Pepsi, Coca-Cola introduced “New Coke.” Backlash was so strong to the new cola that Coca-Cola brought back its classic flavor. Ironically enough, “New Coke” was created to taste more like Pepsi. (New Coke is still sold oversees as the only option for “Coke.”)

Coca-Cola failed to properly research their constituents and see what they wanted from a soda. They tried to be something they weren’t and the result was so loud immediate action was taken. Again, I don’t believe that we get to decide who we are. Others decide for us. Hopefully we are smart enough to research this and fully understand it before we take any action and then research at every step of the process to assure that we on the correct track.

The only thing I do know about myself is that I hate Excel. I do not want to be a boring PR practitioner squished into an Excel sheet. Fingers crossed a new charting system emerges on the scene before someone decides to hire me. Or perhaps they can read my Excel apprehension in an interview and that’s why I can’t nab the 3rd interview. I have such a wonderful 3rd interview suit that no one ever gets to see.

One other great thing from class that I realized is that speechwriters aren’t such losers after all. Apparently it’s a lucrative field. One of my tops three interests just got bumped to number one interest! And I bet I can fit rhetoric research into speech writing if I squint just a touch. Granted Mimi will never understand what I do, but she can understand a paycheck so I suppose that will suffice.

The Nerd in Me

In high school I was a debate nerd: debate camp, ethics lectures, state UIL meet. I did L.D. style which is a value-based resolution in which the debaters debate one on one. I enjoyed the conjecture and how I was forced to think quickly. My arguments often took on a blurry tone where I would try to “get” what the opponent was offering and still give you more.

“Oh, he’s giving you justice? That’s great. I love justice. I love it so much I’m also going to get you justice, happiness and safety. How’s that for a win?”

I can say that I’ve made many men (ahem, high school boys) cry and forfeit. It was a feeling of triumph.

Thanks to this background, I feel my merger with public relations was a logical one. Rhetoric and quick thinking are vital. I’ve taken, hopefully, what I enjoyed then and related it again to my life. But, I’m actually more confused with where this should lead. Who really wants to debate over Maslow anymore? I kinda do.

In class Wednesday a small part of me got excited when Maslow was mentioned. A mathematician who was hired to create a philosophy. He created something so simple yet he only thought three people had ever actually assumed the “self-actualization” he developed: himself, Christ and Ghandi.

When Maslow is taken to other publics and in the other manners public relations can allow, this simple philosophy takes on a new viewpoint. How can we help our publics reach their pinnacle through what we are offering? How can this company help a person be the best they can?

Naturally, different companies can fill different voids. An electrical company assists in the fundamentals of housing and safety, while a clothing store can help with the sense of belonging (so important to a middle-schooler) and esteem needs. When a company can look at itself and figure out where they assist people, they can then use other ethical methods to assure the rest of their actions are, for lack of a better word, good.

A good public relations practitioner is there in the middle making sure a company is acting in an appropriate manner for appropriate goals. The goals and objectives can take on a larger meaning when confronted and assuaged with an ethical philosophy.
Anyone who assumes ethics aren’t that important in general is bound to fail. Or become a governor.

As for me, I’ll continue to mentor debaters and try to help them realize the possibilities philosophy creates.

A PR Conversation

One comment during my “Problems in Public Relations” class stood out to me. My professor, Sam Bufkins, commented that PR is no longer a “one-way street of information,” but rather a “conversation” due to the influx of social media.

I have to disagree on a technicality. PR, good PR, has always been a two-way street/conversation. That is what sets PR apart from marketing and advertising, or general publicity. They send the information they want to the public. It’s a constant blather of “please look at only what we want you to. Kthanxbi.” They don’t have to listen to the public in the same manner.

Thankfully, Edward Bernays agrees with me. Whew. And since I consider him the father of public relations, I default to him. Otherwise, I would have to side with Barnum and that guy was a touch crazy. And devious. And another touch crazy.

Public relation specialists must talk to everyone and listen to what they say, digest it and produce something that reflects the previous conversation. We’ve always been asked to listen to all of our publics and make a decision for the company based upon this understanding.

Bernays explains that by doing this, in an ethical/legal manner, encourages competition and will manage to push society in a forward motion. It’s a cylindrical relationship that allows all points of views to be heard and considered. Public relations is not a democracy, rather it’s a sense of pluralism. Or what Dr. Land adores, communitarianism.

This is why I have to disagree with my professor, someone who has been in the business years upon years. We simply should have always been having a conversation. If we weren’t, then what we were doing wasn’t PR.

Have I mentioned that I’m also insanely idealistic? It’s actually a fault- I see how thing ought to be, and forget to adjust for how things are. Granted, I think I would rather not adjust mindfully and see where I settle and then readjust myself back towards my ideal. Yes, it’s a lot of adjusting, but I honestly believe work, especially work that reflects the morals of a company should always be striving upwards and not downwards toward reality.

So the real question here is, does anyone else agree? Or am I alone in my thoughts destined to be forever unemployed and scorned by my grandmother?

Welcome back!

A great post should always be followed by a long hiatus. Right? I think so.

And so I'm back.

I'm in school and when I graduate this time I will have a degree that reads as follows: Masters of Journalism with a focus in Strategic Communications and a minor in Rhetoric. I will have to seriously adjust some kerning and/or leading. I'm sure I'll have to relearn what em and en spaces are again.

Mimi of course has no clue what rhetoric is and what I explained it to her, she looked at me disgust and asked, "Does anyone actually pay for that?"

Sigh.

Yes Mimi, they do. Hopefully. Damn it- stop dashing my dreams!

It doesn't help that she has no clue why the university is paying me now. "Wait, you do research? For what? Why? And they pay you for that?" We've had this conversation about 10 times now. So I just forget about the research and tell her I grade papers and it pays well. Sure, why not.

So now this blog will exist for my thoughts about disapointing Mimi (who I actually love so much), my thoughts about work related things and other endeavors I deem worthy.