Non-Profits and why I don't like them

As it turns out, I’m an extremely liberal, idealistic person. Thankfully this schema hasn’t crashed and burned against pragmatism yet. I like to think it’s due to my realization of my idealism, but regardless, this mindset makes me opinionated to say the least.

So when I hear “Non-profits,” the first thing that jumps to mind is no salary, and agendas. Not evil agendas, but still…

(Have I mentioned that I’m also a cynic?)

So it may be no large surprise that up until recently I’ve shunned non-profits. I will donate money to carefully vetted organizations, but I have few desires to work for a non-profit. In regards to my own opinion, I personally am not a fan of The Salvation Army. I feel as if there is a forced religious aspect that taints what they are trying to do. It’s simply something I’m not willing to support. Because I staunchly hold on to my beliefs, I have realized it would be best for me to work in a neutral environment, generally away from politics and religion.

However, thanks Anita Foster from the American Red Cross, I have a new respect for the organization. A completely neutral organization that formed because, “you don’t leave the wounded on a battlefield.” Those “wounded” are no longer confined to wars, but appear in any form of a crisis.

These crises bring with them a desire to not only help the needy, but to extend that help where ever it is needed, regardless of situation. It calls for an ability to stay calm in the face of tragedy.

What fascinates me is the ability to apply a generic set of “crisis communications” rules to varying situations all to garner the same outcome. Every day is different, every crisis is different and yet the approach to each day/situation is generally the same.

What seems more impressive is the thought that Anita didn’t view an earthquake as a crisis, rather she viewed the human interactions with that natural disaster the “crisis.” It’s really not what’s thrown at us that is the issue, but rather how we, and others, respond to said problem.

With that in mind, I still won’t donate to the sweet old people ringing bells this holiday season. Not every non-profit can appeal to all people. I am, however, excited to find one not-for-profit organization that strives for something I can deem admirable. Although, with a 94 percent volunteer base, my chances of being paid by the Red Cross is alarmingly weak.

Guess I was right on some of my assumptions about non-profits.

Don't Be Stupid Part II

There are times people/things don’t live up to expectations. coughcoughCliff Lee in Game 1 of the World Series.coughcough But we carry on and keep hope alive.

Then there are times when it turns out our vocabulary just hasn’t been as good as we though. For example, many years ago (read three) I was job searching on Craigslist. All these jobs kept saying there were “lucrative” opportunities. Finally I asked my boyfriend why every job was just telling me they offered sketchy possibilities with a high propensity to fail. Turns out that was NOT was lucrative meant. I still have issues with the word- I think my definition makes more sense.

Regardless, it seems I’ve been imaging “public relations” as “issues management.” It’s nice to have a new name to say what I’m interested in. PR was becoming blasé. So, as I tarry on learning about issues management, I’m newly excited. It’s almost like I got a new pair of boots for the winter. My education got a face lift.
I love that issues management is really about community relations and preemptive measures. It’s thinking ahead to what could be and educating everyone who would be affected. What a wonderful idea!

“Hey guys, we aren’t facing a crisis but in case we are- here’s what you should know. There is no need to worry, because we will do that for you. Instead, let us educate you and guide you to peace.”

It’s oddly reminiscent to the “Don’t be stupid” philosophy espoused earlier on this blog. Such good ideas stem from issues management.

How Twitter is Like Any Other Infectious Disease

I resisted Twitter like many resist syphilis. In fact, I saw Twitter much like a std. It may start out nice and cozy but ends up in an itchy rash. One more way for me to somehow mess up my job search, and forever disappoint my grandmother.

But, since I do anything for class, I finally had to cave to the Twitter rash. I’m glad I did if for nothing other than @prwork posting constantly and affirming my belief that jobs really are out there if you know where to look.

Using Twitter as a tool is the difference between it and a status update. The ability to leverage my views by notifying the subject in a harmless manner is fascinating. I complained about “Project Runway” and Lifetime actually replied back to me. It’s nice to know my voice was heard. Granted, they didn’t change their lineup to offer and encore presentation, but at least they know one person would like it.

Twitter is an amazing public relations tool. Practitioners are able to get an instant read of their product and how the public is reacting. The public is able to easy let their voice be heard. A conversation can be had between me, a relative nobody (my mom would disagree, but I digress), and a major cable channel. My complaint/suggestion didn’t go to an email no one checks, it went to their Twitter account.

On Twitter companies have the ability to activate their followers and get them to do something. Ellen Degeneres shows this all the time by having Twitter contests. That’s the difference between Twitter and a Facebook page. Twitter connects people to causes in a manner that dictates passion.

Will the “revolution be tweeted?” Malcom Gladwell thinks not. And while I hate to argue against Gladwell in any respect, I have to wonder what role this particular social networking tool will have. No, I do not believe that a revolution will start due to Twitter. A revolution will start in its own organic way and then be carried over to Twitter as a logistics tool.

Seems I should start taking antibiotics for the Twitter rash soon. I want to know about any upcoming revolutions.

“People complain they can’t get it- call your government! I can’t help”

Engaging.

Not the diamond ring type, although a few carats are always appreciated. But relationships are a good model for companies to study. Honesty, the ability to listen, to randomly do nice things just because (Cliff, I want flowers! I will consider them super nice.), to not get mad when nice things aren’t done randomly (the last 4.5 years sans flowers). These are just a few things that make a good relationship.

Engaging.

If companies don’t do anything with their “fans” on Facebook, they are wasting their presence on the largest social network in the world. This thought from “Putting the Public Back in Public Relations” clicked with the idea from Stan Lee that conversations are wonderful, but useless if they don’t engage the second party. Just like any relationship would be doomed after the first date.

“Hi, I like you but I’m terribly dull.”

“Cool, I think you’re swell, but I’ll probably forget about you tomorrow since you are so yawn-inducing.”

Engaging!

It’s interacting with the people who already want to interact with you. I personally don’t have the best solution for the Facebook “fan” situation, other than offering coupons and freebies occasionally. However to leverage the social media phenomena companies must find a way, and soon. Sitting idly by and creating pages, twitters and even blogs but then doing nothing with the people is wasteful.

Enraging.

Naturally, one can engage in a terrible manner. Johnson and Johnson- I’m looking at you. Mommy bloggers are often the most sought after demographic according to marketers. These bloggers are invested in so many aspects of life that their subculture holds the purse, literally, for companies. So J&J wanted to chat with them and get their perspective naturally.

They invited these bloggers to an event. Then told them they couldn’t bring their babies. Moms and babies. They kinda go together thanks to biology, but J&J wanted none of that baby-sitting expense. Then J&J scheduled their event at the time of another major mommy blogging event. And went so far as to uninvited mom’s scheduled to speak at the conflicting event. Nothing like being hospitable.

(If I was word savvy enough, I would hyperlink this. But I’m not. http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/19/johnson-and-johnson-breaks-into-jail-with-babycamp/)

J&J got jealous of the extra attention that might take the mom’s away from them. Paying attention to their babies and to another event. Jealousy is not attractive J&J!

So, we’re back to being nice to those you love. Turns out, it’s easy and a good PR practice.

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.