Journalism Cheats Just Tip of the Iceberg

            Professor Zook’s findings at Hofstra are disturbing but not entirely surprising.

It is often said that World War I was particularly deadly because new weapons (machine guns, mustard gas) were being used with outdated tactics like trench warfare. The new struggle between writing students and those tasked with grading their work presents odd parallels. Students are using the new “weapons” that the Digital Age provides, while professors are generally still just using intuition as cheating becomes more sophisticated. It is easier to cheat now than ever before in history, with word processors keeping previous work saved and the Internet providing material on most any subject you can imagine. Professors are starting to fight back with online databases that scan work for plagiarism but, just as in World War I, the technology is far ahead of the tactics. I expect to see an institutional response soon in the form of field-leveling universal database and scanning software with the sophistication to match the innovation of cheaters.

But the visceral disconnect between an offending student’s behavior and their sense of having done something wrong points to a larger attitude in society at large about responsibility. A social psychologist would state this more eloquently, but I find that negative actions today are generally discussed in a “pronoun only” fashion so as not to offend anyone. We are taught that cheating is done by “other people” who do X, Y, or Z actions. Alcoholism is a problem that “other people” struggle with. Domestic violence is a specter that “some” face. Our politically correct phrasing for negative actions is impersonal and distant, so much so that perpetrators like Zook’s students cannot even understand that they personally did something wrong. Their thought processes have not been conditioned with the possibility that they even could do something wrong.

Chris Brown Presentations

-->

We saw three very good presentations Tuesday on how Chris Brown can overcome his image problems. The objective of all three groups, to rehabilitate Brown’s reputation, was approached from different angles. The best way to evaluate each group is on the quality of the content and the quality of the presentation. The best recommendation, if presented poorly, will be unheeded.

Second Chance PR put on a strong presentation. Their pitch was polished, and bolstered by handouts. The gala invitation on nice paper was excellent, while the cookies were an obvious but appreciated ploy. Further, the on-screen presentation was sleek and looked sharp. One criticism would be the amount of text per slide, which distracted from what each speaker was actually saying out loud. Otherwise, the pitch was executed smoothly and with confidence.

Where the presentation shined, I found I had serious questions about the content. The keystone of the proposal was a benefit event for celebrities, media, etc., along with a benefit concert. If the goal was sheer publicity, this would suffice for the New York market. However, if the goal was putting to bed the conversation on his previous abuse of Rihanna and winning over skeptics, the proposal fell short. The event was described as a one-off benefit for a worthwhile charity, which would definitely appeal to current fans but would not reach out to those holding a grudge on the “his music is okay, but he is still a terrible person” bandwagon. Additionally, the proposal, including the community service event especially, did not seem particularly interested in markets outside of New York City. New York is a terrifically large market that has substantial influence over surrounding areas, but if the goal was a national campaign then I found the proposals lacking.

Our presentation, Pro PR, was not as polished and our handout was not particularly engaging, but I am satisfied with the quality of our ideas. The Oprah appearance, associated documentary and long-term partnership with Best Buddies together create a narrative the public understands about a public figure on the path to redemption. Oprah’s high-profile interviews attract viewers and cause public discussion across print and digital media platforms. Further, if Brown could win over Oprah, her judgment on his moral rectitude would go a long way toward changing views on the singer’s moral rectitude. And that means record sales and endorsement deals. The documentary on ABC also provided a national audience and, if executed correctly, would make Brown a sympathetic character by baring his life to the world in a personal way. The combination of these broadcasts would start a conversation on Brown’s rehabilitation from the public doghouse without conspicuous pandering to the general population. That final point, appearing to be genuine rather than pandering, is why we stressed the arrangement with Best Buddies as a long-term partnership.

It almost goes without saying that were Brown to follow the proposals of any of the groups (including Elite PR, which I did not discuss), he would find himself in a better position than he is today. Brown sells records, and lots of them, but the point is that he could be doing so much better. His reputation is putting off potential fans and scaring off companies that would otherwise love to be associated with his name. That revenue is what is at stake.

The New Buzz: Social Commerce

W20 veterans Kieran Fagan and Haifa Barberi are near the cutting edge of a new public relations discipline. Their motto, social commerce, is effectively the application of big data to manage stakeholder relationships in ways the industry never before thought possible. It is now abundantly clear that corporations do not know how to effectively leverage the endless reams of data they collect on a daily basis. As in any field being pioneered, there is still a lot of experimenting going on and uncertainty surrounding best practices. That is why big data experts command large salaries.

In some ways, the shift is reminiscent of the rise of sabermetrics in baseball. Sabermetrics is using the analysis of the large amount of statistical data that baseball produces to make fundamental team decisions. It started a culture war in the sport between the old guard who trusted only their eyes and guts and younger managers that wanted to know the number of base hits and runs a player could be counted on to produce. The best practice ended up being somewhere in between. There is merit to sizing up the intangibles of mental acuity, confidence, and potential to improve.

I think a similar realization will emerge in social commerce. Companies want to begin leaning heavily on big data to market their products and manage customer relationships. I expect that many will soon learn that it that cannot replace the decision-making operator that knows how to tastefully deploy new customer insights and, more importantly, avoid an embarrassing Digital Age faux pas. The expertise of public relations flaks and marketers gives them an important role in harnessing this new opportunity to know customers. I hope companies realize this.

Groupon’s Mason Causes A Stir

Andrew Mason, recently shown the door by Groupon after successive quarters of disappointing results, may have inadvertently changed corporate communications practice with his unprecedented signoff. Groupon had struggled since their initial public offering a year and a half ago.

Announcing his firing on Twitter with unexpected humor became a huge news story. Why? Because CEOs aren’t supposed to be humorous when they’re fired, and because Twitter had never been used like that before. The dour “spending more time with his family” or “she is looking forward to focusing on other challenges” lines that are sacrosanct in corporate communications should elicit an eye-roll. Usually it does. Mason’s departure from those horrible phrases was refreshing, and endearing.

It should not come as so much of a surprise. These younger tech prodigies like Mason or Zuckerberg aren’t wired like your normal CEO. They are quirky, creative, and bask in their informality. You don’t have to clean up nicely to play around with a computer and develop software. Further, it should not be forgotten that, despite being fired, Groupon made Mason a wealthy man. He still owns over 7% of the firm, and earned tens of millions as CEO. I’m sure there was a part of Mason that was relieved to finally be out of the spotlight, and have time and money to spend with his family.

I think similar communications can be expected in the future, but mostly from non-traditional CEOs like Mason. Finance people are generally more creative with money than words, and not as funny. In the future, I expect to see CEOs who are given the boot to lash out on Twitter. Honestly, I’m almost surprised it has not happened yet. CEOs generally have an alpha male personality, and never before have so many been given the intimate pulpit of Twitter to rant from. Traditional media generally get a more composed response from executives, but perhaps the informality of Twitter will get one fired CEO in trouble soon enough.

Newsworthiness Is Now A Personality Trait

Looking at the “meatier” newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, the headlines are dominated by sequester developments. Across several stories, politics are at the vanguard of their publications. I suspect that may be an anomaly due to the unprecedented political drama unfolding on Capitol Hill at the moment. The sound bite politics of an all-day, all-year election cycle mean that the partisan drama of our democracy will remain at the forefront as long as grandstanding remains the preferred form of “governance.” I would like to believe this is a recent development.

On both sites, priority is given to the opinion section after politics. I would venture a guess that this is because the opinion columns are the biggest draw for readers but the editors understand that they cannot lead with Ross Douthat or Ezra Klein. From this observation, I assert that a key tenet of newsworthiness is the view of news personalities.

This makes sense because hard news cannot be made as entertaining as a first person narrative or the more interesting partisan arguments of known personalities. News stories are being overlooked because the headline says as much as many readers are interested in. Opinion columns and blogs can take sides and be offensive, personal, or so many other things more interesting than cold, hard journalism. It is the difference between Transformers 3 and Ken Burns’ The Dust Bowl.

Public relations is much more than arranging celebrity endorsements, but the public opinion of known personalities has great weight today. Practitioners should consider the growing importance of this trend when considering newsworthiness. However, the alternative to winning over a public figure is creating a vocal, public persona for yourself or your CEO. I expect to see more “newsworthy” CEO personalities in the coming years, as we have seen recently with Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein.

Matt Levine and Risa Sherman: Alums On Doing What You Love

Matt Levine and Risa Sherman are both graduates of Newhouse, the former as an undergrad journalist and the latter as a masters student of public relations. Matt is the chief operational officer of the National Foundation to End Senior Hunger (NFESH), while Risa works in a Boston communications firm that focuses on corporate responsibility and cause-related marketing. Both have nontraditional careers built around giving back. Risa doesn’t work at a non-profit like Matt but her job is closely related.

Risa facilitates corporate philanthropy to organizations like NFESH. Large firms will come to her for a consultation on how to better connect with their stakeholders, and Risa connects the business with the right cause. Making that connection is not sufficient, as Risa detailed how the company’s interests must be aligned to sincerely support the chosen cost. To my surprise, she said that her communications firm will turn down a potential client if their interest in philanthropy seems purely superficial. The cause-related branch of communications does seem to work in practice if the giving organization has enough buy-in. Her job is not simply telling firms to tie their level of giving to the amount of sales. Customers, and stakeholders in general, respond more positively to a less cynical, more constructive, affiliation with a cause.

Matt was quite thankful for firms like Risa’s steering donations towards organizations like his. NFESH is a spinoff from Meals On Wheels, where Matt specialized in development. The difference between the two is subtle but important. NFESH wants to do what Meals On Wheels does – feed the most vulnerable in society – but it wants to develop sustainable plans to achieve that end. Matt considers the work of Meals On Wheels to be vital but wholly unsustainable, a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. Communicating that difference to donors and the general public is his current task.

I found it interesting that both are in niche corners of the communications field. The nontraditional nature of their careers begets the possibility of building my own career in places not considered previously.

Mark Cuban, MFFL

Mark Cuban wears many hats. Many are familiar with his billionaire entrepreneur hat. Fewer are as familiar with his philanthropist hat. But everyone, in the realm of sports at least, knows Mark Cuban’s MFFL hat. Mavs Fan For Life.

The ultra-competitive Cuban can usually be seen on television behind the bench during Dallas Mavericks games. The cameras particularly like his reactions to controversial calls. The sports reporters afterward REALLY like his reactions to controversial calls. A wildly successful businessman across industries, it is quite obvious that the Mavs are more than just a business venture to him. His blog on the Mavs’ website could belong to any fan.

As such, I think the blog works to endear Cuban to employees and fans. He shares emails from fans along with his thoughts on ownership. It’s clear that nobody is writing the blog for him, although he might benefit from someone proofreading it. The average fan is probably surprised, as I was, that he even takes the time to write a blog when he has so many other business ventures to look after. It is clear that he treats the Mavs organization as more of a passion than a job.

His blog fits perfectly with the rest of the organization’s public relations effort because the team’s ethos is so Cuban-centric. He is their public relations strategy. He speaks for the team, Mavs fans, and oftentimes fans around the league when he opens his mouth to talk about the state of the game. The pros of Cuban’s blog are apparent, and I cannot find any real cons. As far as the Mavs organization is concerned, the more exposure for him the better.