NCA story

I promised a friend I’d post this story from NCA – the annual convention of the National Communication Association, aka where all the communication profs get together to share research and network.

My friend was riding the elevator, along with other people wearing the NCA name tag, and one who wasn’t. The tagless person asked:

“So, what do you communicate here, at the National Communication Association?”

A young man in the elevator answered:

“Fear and anxiety.”

I’ll write about this more some other time, but for now, I want the story to speak for itself. If you’ve ever been to NCA, you probably know what I’m talking about. Maybe you want to share in the comments, if you can overcome the fear and anxiety?

Creativity: Don’t take it personally

I’m reading Mihaly Csikszentmihaly’s (yeah, he’s the one who came up with the concept of flow) book Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.

Csikszentmihaly proposes a very interesting view of creativity, not as something individual or personal, but the result of fortunate interactions between individual productivity in a certain field and the encouragement and recognition of that productivity as novel and interesting by other people in the field.

He calls this a systems view of creativity and explains that it’s not enough for individuals to come up with ideas. If these ideas are not recognized and encouraged by peers, no significant contribution to society or culture happens.

I initially found Csikszentmihaly’s view of creativity counterintuitive (like most academic concepts ?) but I’m beginning to fall in love with it because it points out the importance of the environment for creativity.

Csikszentmihaly hints that a supportive, encouraging environment that invests attention and resources in potentially creative individuals might be more significant a variable than individual creativity itself.

Using the example of the Renaissance, and the extraordinary creations of the dome over Santa Maria del Fiore by Brunelleschi (photo) and the Gates of Paradise by Ghiberti (photo), Csikszentmihaly writes:

If these two artists had not been born, some others would have stepped in their place and built the dome and the doors. It is because of this inseparable connection that creativity must, in the last analysis, be seen not as something happening within a person but in the relationship within a system.

According to Csikszentmihaly, an environment (system) that fosters creativity has the following characteristics:

• Provides support & encouragement in the form of attention to ideas
• Provides resources to individuals so they can engage in creative processes
• Provides stimulation through competition
• Has a system in place for selecting good ideas and acting on them

So how do you, as an employer, teacher, manager, or academic administrator create a system (an environment) that fosters creativity?

<rant> Meeting every single idea or initiative with “we can’t…,” yes, but..” and/or “we tried that 10 years ago, and it failed” might not be the best way to go about it.</rant>

The Question of the OTHER

This past week has reminded me of this book by Tzvetan Todorov I read back in college (in Romania). It’s an analysis of how people and cultures relate to OTHER-ness. If I remember correctly, when faced with an OTHER who is deeply and radically different, people feel fear. They feel threatened. They feel uncertain. And then they choose one of the following behavioral options:

a) they feel superior to the OTHER, they attempt to conquer or make the OTHER their subject or subaltern. That’s how the European conquerors related to the people Native to the (now) American continent. That’s how the Nazis related to Jews.
b) they appreciate the culture of the OTHER more than their own, and they “go native.” They “convert” to the OTHER’s culture and give up their own. Todorov offers the example of one European officer who preferred the Native American way of life.

c) they respect the OTHER as a different and equal partner, and build an ethical and respectful dialogue and relationship. They coexist.

Is option a) how many people in the U.S. relate to Obama, because he is in many ways the OTHER (different from them, and from their idea of a president)? Does this explain the death threats and scary behaviors, the stuffed monkey at political rallies, the black-face parties?

The question of the OTHER also has direct applications to public relations. Many times, the organization or the CEO feel they know better, they’re smarter that the public. “If they knew what I know, they’d agree with me.” The examples when the organization bows to the public and takes their lead are very rare. Do you have  any? And finally option c), is what PR should be, as defined by Grunig’s excellence model, the relationship management approach to public relations, and, in social media circles “the new PR,” or “PR 2.0.”

There’s no reason in 2008 not to do what you love

If you’re offended by a couple of dirty words, don’t watch this. Nah, watch it anyway. It’s Gary Vaynerchuk‘s keynote speech at Web 2.0 Expo (via Tod Defren), it’s about entrepreneurship and doing what you love, but it’s really about how to live your life (and enjoy it).

The video is highly motivational, inspirational, and entertaining. Runs about 15 minutes.

The PR takeaway:

“Listening is not enough. You have to give a shit. Do something about it. You have to care.”

J. Grunig didn’t phrase it quite like this in the excellence model of PR (aka 2-way symmetrical), but that’s what Gary V. is talking about

What are your takeaways from this video? What ideas stuck with you?

U.S. elections explained

As you may or may not know, I moved to the U.S. from Romania about 10 years ago. I’m not a U.S. citizen, but I might become one someday. I follow U.S. politics but never quite understood the electoral process until the folks at CommonCraft created this video:

Should make good study material for that U.S. citizenship test!

If speaking hurt

My best friend O. spent the past couple of days with me. I hadn’t seen her in years, and it was a complete joy to have her all to myself for a few days.

The only thing that (I thought) spoiled the perfect joy of these few days is that I caught a cold and had a sore throat.

Interesting how, when my throat hurts, I think twice about what I want to say, and only speak what’s necessary.

My body’s pain avoidance mechanism prompted me to be very conservative in using my voice. I have a feeling that made me a better friend.

I listened more, thought more, and offered what I hope were thoughtful responses.

I’m starved for company and conversation, and like many lonely people, when I have a friendly audience, I tend to talk a lot. My urge to talk, to express myself, takes over me. But this time, my sore throat kept me in check. I didn’t offer “me, too” stories in response to my friend’s experiences. I didn’t jump in and offer uncooked opinions and reactions. I spoke only when the need to say something was greater than the pain in my throat.

As I was reflecting upon the experience, it dawned on my that speaking should hurt. Communication is a two-way street, but we spend most of our time and effort in one lane: we talk. We send messages and spend too little time listening in receiving.

In college, we teach speech (public speaking), but we don’t teach listening.

In public relations, we are quick to issue messages, and slow to take in everything we should be listening to.

What would you be like if speaking hurt? Would your relationships be any different?

What would PR be like?

[06.26.08 update] See also Chris Brogan’s post Five Tools I Use for Listening (OK, it’s meant to promote Radian 6 and their twebinar, but still, useful information).

Silence

Every day, I feel bad about not posting on this blog. If I could get two thoughts together, I would.

Those who follow me on twitter know that I traveled to Romania over Spring break to visit my grandmother, who’s going through a very slow and painful recovery after hip replacement surgery.

Fortunately, this is the first time in my life so far that I’ve had to deal with a loved one’s suffering. I’m not dealing with it very well. It’s consuming my peace of mind, affecting my clarity of thought, and pretty much pushing me towards depression. I’m not proud of not being mentally strong enough to deal with this better… and thus, more guilt and more distress.

So, yes, her ups and downs have been affecting my life & my work. When she has a good day, I’m full of energy and ready to take on the world. Then she has a relapse (like today, when she did not get out of bed even once because of debilitating back pain) and my mind becomes a messy foggy worried knot.

I’m trying to learn about equanimity and offering compassion without letting my mind be deeply troubled – a Buddhist concept that takes years of practice to achieve.

Until I work through these things and figure out a way to bring my mind back to work, and social media, and things that all of a sudden seem dangerously unimportant, I am retreating into silence.

If I have something good to offer you, I will. Like this: PR Open Mic, a shiny brand new and very promising social network for PR people (students, faculty, and practitioners). I hope you join.

If you have any advice for me, any tips & tricks for dealing with this situation compassionately but with only a healthy amount of empathy, please let me know.

Triple astroturfing cheeseburger

So, what exactly is wrong with the anti-counterfeiting campaign run by Heidi Cee? Or was it run by Hunter College students? Or was it actually run by the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC)? Or was it actually run/paid for by the corporations behind the IACC?

That’s exactly the point. If figuring out who’s behind a public relations campaign feels like playing with Russian dolls, you’re most probably dealing with a case of astroturfing. Here, I see a triple case of astroturfing:

1. IACC is a front group for corporations. Creating front groups or coalitions to campaign publicly and lobby for corporate interests is a textbook astroturfing tactic. See Beder, Sharon. “Public Relations’ Role in Manufacturing Arti?cial Grass Roots Coalitions.” Public Relations Quarterly, Summer 1998.
2. The campaigns that students have run on many campuses, not only Hunter College, are in fact a public relations tactic for promoting IACC’s goal, are supported by IACC, and paid for by corporations. This relationship, even if it were fairly implemented and did not interfere with course content and academic freedom, is tainted by many shades of gray. To sort through them, let’s think of the publics on those campuses. Do they know that they’re targeted by an IACC campaign? Is it clear to them who exactly is behind the message? Are they fully informed and able to make a decision about the message’s credibility, which includes its source? Some campaign materials I’ve seen on IACC’s website do list IACC and a corporation (Coach, Perry Ellis, etc.) as a source of support. But is supported by a clear disclosure of interest and authorship? The shades of gray are getting darker…
3. Finally, there’s the issue of a deceptive campaign that uses a fictional character (Heidi Cee) who engages social media. On her blog, “Heidi” writes that it’s her initiative to run this campaign and that she approached the IACC and raised funds from Coach for the campaign. It’s not until the very end of the campaign that a press release and a one-line blog post reveal that Heidi Cee doesn’t actually exist. Some people might find humor in this campaign, but the social media savvy will know that social media culture does not tolerate deception.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a similar case of astroturfing layered upon astroturfing (layered upon astroturfing). It’ll make a neat example in a public relations lesson, one that the poor Hunter College students are learning the hard way.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, here are some links to help you catch up on what happened.

First, read this post that summarizes the story: A public relations campaigns class at Hunter College was closely directed by Coach (member IACC) to run an anti-counterfeiting campaign. The campaign used a fictional character. The major issues people point out about this case are academic freedom and the deceptive campaign strategy. More relevant posts on this case:

• Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch
• Flacklife post and interview with Hunter College professor, Stuart Ewen
• Commentary by R.D. French, Auburn University PR instructor

Update [Feb. 27 9:00 am]: I came across the class blog for this course. It was mainly a tool for students and professors to stay in touch. But I found a number of problematic posts showing that no one thought twice about using deception, such as these about deceiving friends on facebook or the media. And this one summarizes the origins of the campaign’s concept.

Is Apple the worst good company?

So IT (inevitable tragedy) happened. I dropped my iPhone.

Options?

• pay $250 for a replacement unit (by mail or in an Apple store)
• pay $150-200 for some company to put in a replacement screen (which voids the Apple warranty)
• continue using it, although the glass is cracked, the beauty is gone, and my eyes tear up every time I look at it
• (no, the $5 DYI option is not an option)

I’ll pay $250 for the replacement unit. Although I know I’ll probably drop this one too, sooner or later (please, God, later!). So I investigated the possibility of buying some kind of insurance against accidental damage.

Apple sells an extended warranty, but no insurance against accidental damage. Of course, the regular $3.99-5 AT&T phone insurance is not available for the iPhone.

An AT&T store manager recommended Safeware, and other sources suggested checking with home/renter’s insurance companies. Geico doesn’t offer it, but apparently State Farm does. I called two State Farm agents and they both told me State Farm stopped writing this policy for the iPhone because they were losing money. A Safeware customer rep. told me Apple hasn’t released components for the iPhone, so no one can repair it – that’s why insurance is not available. I did find one company who offers iPhone extended warranty (just like Apple Care) and Accidental Damage Protection (ADP): SquareTrade. You can buy ADP only within the first 30 days of getting a brand new iphone. The rep. told me they’re also considering dropping iPhone coverage, because it doesn’t make financial sense.

I hate Apple.

But I love my iPhone.

So, does having a good/revolutionary product mean you can abuse your market? Dictate your own terms, set high prices, refuse insurance, make it difficult for other companies to insure your product, charge a fortune for a replacement unit when you know it will, sooner or later, break?!

What are the factors that make it possible for Apple to “abuse” customers and still keep them coming back?

• a good product. After having the iPhone for a few months, I can’t imagine living without it. It’s useful! It’s beautiful. I’m emotionally attached to it, to the pleasant experience of using it, and to the unique feeling of “cool!” (powerful branding, there). I know it’s silly, but I can’t help it. It’s gotten me at a level deeper than reason.
• targeting a high-end market. People who buy the iphone (most of them, anyway) can afford the $250 replacement cost. They won’t be happy about it, but it won’t break the bank.

Apple’s marketing strategy works – but is it good PR? Apple has the potential to define a new type of organization-public relationship: the (happily) abusive one! Can this type of relationship last, in the long run? Does it provide enough of a trust cushion to carry Apple through a major crisis, should one happen?

What do you think?

Is Apple’s marketing strategy somewhat abusive? What makes it work? What does it mean for PR and the long-term relationship with publics? How do you feel about your iPhone? How do you protect your iPhone? If it broke, would you pay $250 to replace it? If it broke again, would you pay $250 again?

Next Entries »