I'm pretty sure I don't go a day without talking about, or hearing about, or thinking about the recession. In fact, you can blame everything on the recession these days-- the fact that your coffee is cold, people on the subway are rude or your shoelaces came untied. "The recession made me do it." "It's the recession's fault." "If it wasn't for this recession, I'd be having a better day."
What you can't blame on the recession is being uninformed. Thanks to social media, and in particular the idea of the Groundswell, information is cheaper than ever, blogs are popping up everywhere, and sharing resources through sites like Digg and Delicious is a recession-proof way of having, let's say it together now, a Public Relations Conversation.
Let's back up. I'll admit, when the word/book/idea of Groundswell first came up, I thought it had something to do with gardening. Chances are, if you're reading this, you probably know better. But, in case you're an acquaintance from high school who found my blog on Facebook, here's a short explanation:
According to the book, Groundswell is a trend in which people turn to technologies for information and other resources, rather than traditional entities (such as corporations or advertisers or other "big bad high rollers"). In short, it's a big social media "movement," aimed at breaking down barriers put up by corporate ventures and making things generally more egalitarian and open-ended. At least that's how I see it, but this could be my rather ideological university education talking.
Companies can do themselves a favour by using their traditional PR methods in a new way. The social media news release is a trendy one-- as Canada Newswire noted in their news release to announce Social Media News Releases: "Social Media Release takes the four basic platforms; print, audio, video and Internet, and gives customers access to a host of new, online news distribution features. It not only expands the reach of a standard press release into online channels, it increases visibility among more traditional media by providing features such as pre-approved quotes, links to related content, two-way conversations via a comment box, etc."
So, aside from the fact that this appears to be generally good for consumers, it could do wonders for companies too. Not only does the use of social media make an organization look "sincere" or "with it," it also brings a good chance of benefit in the dollars-and-cents interpretation of the word.
Josh Bernoff, who co-wrote Groundswell with Charlene Li, speaks about the effectivness of social networking in tough financial times. In his post, "Why Social Applications Will Thrive in a Recession," he says that social networking is about consideration, not awareness. To elaborate, he notes that while during a recession, people may tune out advertisements that try to get them to spend money they don't have, but on blogs and social bookmarking sites, where online and "real life" acquaintances can share reccomendations, discuss benefits of products and debate issues. This is a lot more trustworthy than having a TV ad full of sexy ladies telling you that by using Axe, your wildest dreams will come true.
Best of all, it's free. Ok, it's not completely free, and I can't provide exact figures on this SMNR fad or how much running a blog costs for a company, but its cheaper than running full-page colour ads or Superbowl commercials. And, if you're simply looking to interact within the online community, ponder a few thoughts and get some information on whatever you feel like learning about, it is free.
My classmates and I are pretty good examples of this. We all have Digg or Delicious, we read what other people add to their sites and we're suddenly privy to a wealth of information. Everyone in the class has a blog, and our comments to each other help us bounce off ideas and learn more about the field. What do we pay, as budding PR professionals hoping to integrate into the community? Nothing.
It seems like the world is catching on. After all, according to Li, Amazon.com has listed Groundswell as #8 on the list of top business books. This likely wouldn't be the case if people weren't realizing the many benefits of using social media to develop their personal and corporate goals and interests.
Showing posts with label pr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pr. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
It's social media time...do you know where your children are?
As part of our Online Public Relations class, Jessica Wolfraim, Leanne Bull, Brittney Ashley and I created a podcast discussing social media and children. When I joined Facebook, it could only be used by university students-- but judging by the fact that I know of 12 year olds that are using Facebook, Myspace, and who knows what else, it stands to reason that the reach of social media is getting wider and its users are getting younger. As such, we thought that the uses of social media programs by kids would make for an interesting discussion about safety, liability and social development.
For this podcast, we interviewed Jen Lord, who manages the Online Communities at Corus Entertainment. Specifically, she works on social media tools for YTV, which targets kids between the ages of 6 and 18. As you'll hear during the podcast, she offered us some interesting insights about the pros and cons of kids using social media, and what steps are and should be taken to ensure that online communication is productive and safe.
For more information, here are some interesting reads on the topic. These websites provided a background for our research before we conducted the interview:
Ewan McIntosh Issues surrounding children, education and internet
“Participatory Media Literacy: Why it Matters” By Michael Wesch
“Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviour and use”
Conducted by the Office of Communications in the UK in April 2008
Have a listen and send a comment my way if you'd like a copy of the transcript!
For this podcast, we interviewed Jen Lord, who manages the Online Communities at Corus Entertainment. Specifically, she works on social media tools for YTV, which targets kids between the ages of 6 and 18. As you'll hear during the podcast, she offered us some interesting insights about the pros and cons of kids using social media, and what steps are and should be taken to ensure that online communication is productive and safe.
For more information, here are some interesting reads on the topic. These websites provided a background for our research before we conducted the interview:
Ewan McIntosh Issues surrounding children, education and internet
“Participatory Media Literacy: Why it Matters” By Michael Wesch
“Social Networking: A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviour and use”
Conducted by the Office of Communications in the UK in April 2008
Have a listen and send a comment my way if you'd like a copy of the transcript!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Is Social Media in the Right Hands? Maybe.
Social media is the buzzword of a lot of programs and articles lately...and especially my class. Day after day, we're told that to have the "edge" in this business, a keen sense of social media and its many forms is desirable, crucial, maybe even essential.
I'm headed to an agency for my internship, and it's the environment in which I hope to begin my career. I imagine that at some point, I'll be doing something related to social media-- I'll probably start with monitoring it, eventually I'll be analyzing it, and maybe one day I'll be developing it. Like anything else, it's a natural progression of responsibility.
However, there's something a wee bit puzzling about social media. As Tom Smith notes in Why Big Brands Struggle with Social Media: "No one is quite sure whose responsibility it is and who should ultimately deliver their organisation’s social media strategy."
It kind of makes you think, who's in charge? Is it...
- The outsourced PR company?
- The communications director?
- The CEO?
- The summer student paid $10 an hour to sort the mail?
Personally, I believe the natural progression of responsibility is this: The PR people like us who are trained and well-versed in what it is, how it works and why it's beneficial are those who should explain social media. We give a few how-tos and determine the best methods for the particular company or project.
As Chris Brogan notes in Social Media Decision Tree, the best resource for some might not work for others depending on the company's size, culture, purpose, operation...you name it. He gives an example:
"Pharma companies have to really weigh hard the decision to listen, because it comes with extra reporting requirements. Legal organizations can’t just dive in and blog, because they have to be wary of being seen as offering advice, or insinuating lawyer-client privilege. Marketers can’t just repost any old thing to YouTube, because they might not have the rights for various pieces of the creative."
So in short, as the PR help, we assist. We consult. Maybe we set up the blog. We start the process and ultimately show why it's effective communication. After all, as communication people, this is our job.
But in terms of the nitty gritty...well, that's not up to us.
As I mentioned in my post about ghost ethics, social media is about people. With regards to a company or organization, social media should involve those people. As a hopefully-soon-to-be PR practitioner, I'd hope that my role in social media for a client would be a coaching one. Like I said before, I'm not totally comfortable with writing a CEO's blog, and I'm particularly not comfortable with it if I don't even work for that company.
Smith also notes that social media is not a campaign, but is instead a long-term approach to stakeholder engagement. The funny thing is, PR often is a campaign. For some companies, the only time PR comes into the framework is when there's something to say, promote or sell. As such, the two don't neccessarily go hand in hand.
Again, social media has to come from company people, and I don't just mean communications people. If there's an organization blog, staff from all walks of life should be involved in it. Social media, as I've said often, is a conversation. In terms of using it for business, it has to be a holistic conversation, not a conversation with key messages and strategies and tactics. Not to say that every last cubicle has to house a blogger, but social media should be something a little more broad than just the communications personel getting on twitter a few times a day.
Social media isn't like PR or traditional advertising, both of which are best left in the hands of specialists. Rather, it's supposed to showcase transparency and engagement-- something that's very hard to do when it's being written by one level of the organization, or by someone that's not even really employed by the company at all.
That said, I think PR Social Media about PR is a great thing. Bloggers like Joe Thornley, Dave Fleet and Gary Schlee (former co-ordinator of my program) have a lot of interesting things to say about the industry and a lot of knowledge on this "web 2.0" business. You don't, however, often see them talking about their clients.
So the progression?
It starts with PR leading the way, and ends with everyone taking part-- even the mail guy.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Touchy Subject of Ethics
In my Online PR class at Centennial on Monday, we got into a fairly spirited debate about online ethics. Some questions that were explored include:
Is it ethical for an employer to search Facebook profiles when hiring?
Should bloggers and journalists be transparent about what they accept from companies they write about?
And, as this post will discuss, is "ghost blogging"-- or writing a blog pretending to be your company's CEO or senior executive-- appropriate?
Much has been written about this, as many (including my classmates and I) have differing opinions on what constitutes as ethical and what kind of "rules" should exist in social media.
One might argue that ghost blogging is the same as writing a CEO's message in a publication, or preparing a speech for him or her to read. Plus, it is true that people have been ghost writing books for years and no one's really said anything. An example I like to use is the Nancy Drew books, which were written under the pseudoym "Carolyn Keene", who was actually a collective of several different authors. Keith McArthur, in his post "In Defense of Ghost Blogging,"argues that it is no less ethical than any other type of ghost writing.
I, on the other hand, contend that it is in fact very different.
As David Jones of Hill and Knowlton notes in a comment on the same post, a blog is supposed to be a conversation between the reader and the author. Jones makes an interesting analogy-- when you call a CEO, you expect to be talking to the CEO, not someone pretending to be the CEO. Why? Because it's a conversation.
A book is not a conversation. Neither is a speech, an internal publication, or a news article. A blog, however, is--or at least it should be. Michael O'Connor Clarke sums it up: "a blog that doesn't include and encourage active discussion is not a blog."
To elaborate: When someone writes blog post, people comment. The blogger comments back, and they engage. Bloggers may link to each others blogs and discuss previous posts.
Take this blog. It's called A Public Relations Conversation for a reason. Not A Public Relations Ongoing Speech, or A Public Relations Novel. The purpose of my foray into social media isn't to talk at people, but rather to learn from them and discuss the PR field and communications industry. Granted, I'm not a CEO and I have a lot more time on my hands. Still, this doesn't entirely disprove my point-- if you don't have time to write one, don't have one. Simple.
Ghost blogging cuts the conversation short. An example that came up in class as well as in Dave Fleet's post, "The Ethics of Ghost Writing in Social Media" is Kanye West. Though I don't subscribe to Kanye myself, if I were a fan I would be a little disheartened to find out that the blog was still being updated even after he landed in the slammer. Meaning? It wasn't really him, and for someone who thinks they're connecting with the man himself, it's damaging.
Fleet so rightly states that ghost blogging is bad for PR because it leads to brand damage and loss of trust. It's deceptive and goes against the very purpose of social media-- to engage, build relationships and converse.
What do you think of ghost blogging? Does it differ from other forms of "writing behind the scenes?"
Is it ethical for an employer to search Facebook profiles when hiring?
Should bloggers and journalists be transparent about what they accept from companies they write about?
And, as this post will discuss, is "ghost blogging"-- or writing a blog pretending to be your company's CEO or senior executive-- appropriate?
Much has been written about this, as many (including my classmates and I) have differing opinions on what constitutes as ethical and what kind of "rules" should exist in social media.
One might argue that ghost blogging is the same as writing a CEO's message in a publication, or preparing a speech for him or her to read. Plus, it is true that people have been ghost writing books for years and no one's really said anything. An example I like to use is the Nancy Drew books, which were written under the pseudoym "Carolyn Keene", who was actually a collective of several different authors. Keith McArthur, in his post "In Defense of Ghost Blogging,"argues that it is no less ethical than any other type of ghost writing.
I, on the other hand, contend that it is in fact very different.
As David Jones of Hill and Knowlton notes in a comment on the same post, a blog is supposed to be a conversation between the reader and the author. Jones makes an interesting analogy-- when you call a CEO, you expect to be talking to the CEO, not someone pretending to be the CEO. Why? Because it's a conversation.
A book is not a conversation. Neither is a speech, an internal publication, or a news article. A blog, however, is--or at least it should be. Michael O'Connor Clarke sums it up: "a blog that doesn't include and encourage active discussion is not a blog."
To elaborate: When someone writes blog post, people comment. The blogger comments back, and they engage. Bloggers may link to each others blogs and discuss previous posts.
Take this blog. It's called A Public Relations Conversation for a reason. Not A Public Relations Ongoing Speech, or A Public Relations Novel. The purpose of my foray into social media isn't to talk at people, but rather to learn from them and discuss the PR field and communications industry. Granted, I'm not a CEO and I have a lot more time on my hands. Still, this doesn't entirely disprove my point-- if you don't have time to write one, don't have one. Simple.
Ghost blogging cuts the conversation short. An example that came up in class as well as in Dave Fleet's post, "The Ethics of Ghost Writing in Social Media" is Kanye West. Though I don't subscribe to Kanye myself, if I were a fan I would be a little disheartened to find out that the blog was still being updated even after he landed in the slammer. Meaning? It wasn't really him, and for someone who thinks they're connecting with the man himself, it's damaging.
Fleet so rightly states that ghost blogging is bad for PR because it leads to brand damage and loss of trust. It's deceptive and goes against the very purpose of social media-- to engage, build relationships and converse.
What do you think of ghost blogging? Does it differ from other forms of "writing behind the scenes?"
Friday, January 30, 2009
The PR of Reputation- University Edition
Recent crises at York have been making headlines since November. While I'm not a York alum myself, the strike got me thinking about university communications, and in particular about the branding of my own alma mater. A few years back, Western underwent its own re-branding process, which included a new logo complete with "Western" rather than "UWO" or "The University of Western Ontario." Perhaps most interesting, Western's slogan became "The Best Student Experience."
I, for one, think Western was a great student experience, but not for the reasons you may think. For the most part, I had supportive professors, engaging TAs, and challenging and interesting course material. There was a plethora of extra-curricular activities to choose from, and for such a large university classes were relatively small.
Still, there's an obvious joke to be made about the slogan. Even if you haven't heard about the Saugeen Stripper (no, I don't know her) or missed the Gazette spoof issue debacle (yes, I was disgusted), chances are you've heard the rumours that Western is a party school...best student experience, indeed.
In fact, the slogan came from the fact that several years running, Western has been named the best student experience in the Globe and Mail student survey. It also received rave reviews for its attractive campus and expansive libraries, but those aren't nearly as catchy.
However, its likely that if you aren't a UWO student or a proud alum like myself, you probably didn't make the connection. You might think that Western decided to play on its reputation as a drunk tank, perhaps seeing it as equal parts pride and self-parody. Also, let's be real-- for some 18-year olds residence carpets stained with beer are the ultimate draw, so maybe Western sees it as an enrollment booster. In sum? You might very well be right.
So, fellow students, seasoned professionals and any other loyal readers this infant blog may have, let me pose a few questions:
Do you see reputation as being the key to effective PR, even if the reputation isn't neccessarily the image you want for your organization?
Is self-parody an effective tool in communications?
Is it common to re-brand to conform to expectations, rather than change them?
What are some of the considerations that university communications requires?
I, for one, think Western was a great student experience, but not for the reasons you may think. For the most part, I had supportive professors, engaging TAs, and challenging and interesting course material. There was a plethora of extra-curricular activities to choose from, and for such a large university classes were relatively small.
Still, there's an obvious joke to be made about the slogan. Even if you haven't heard about the Saugeen Stripper (no, I don't know her) or missed the Gazette spoof issue debacle (yes, I was disgusted), chances are you've heard the rumours that Western is a party school...best student experience, indeed.
In fact, the slogan came from the fact that several years running, Western has been named the best student experience in the Globe and Mail student survey. It also received rave reviews for its attractive campus and expansive libraries, but those aren't nearly as catchy.
However, its likely that if you aren't a UWO student or a proud alum like myself, you probably didn't make the connection. You might think that Western decided to play on its reputation as a drunk tank, perhaps seeing it as equal parts pride and self-parody. Also, let's be real-- for some 18-year olds residence carpets stained with beer are the ultimate draw, so maybe Western sees it as an enrollment booster. In sum? You might very well be right.
So, fellow students, seasoned professionals and any other loyal readers this infant blog may have, let me pose a few questions:
Do you see reputation as being the key to effective PR, even if the reputation isn't neccessarily the image you want for your organization?
Is self-parody an effective tool in communications?
Is it common to re-brand to conform to expectations, rather than change them?
What are some of the considerations that university communications requires?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Reader: Surprise of the Year?
The nominations are in. In the best picture category, I scored 4 out of 5. Putting the Dark Knight in there may have been wishful thinking, as I--not usually a superhero person-- honestly believed it to be among the best of the year. I have to admit that I was way off on The Reader--had I not chosen the Dark Knight, my fifth choice would have been either Doubt, Revolutionary Road or The Wrestler.
Although I haven't seen it, I assumed The Reader to be a good, not great, film buoyed by Kate Winslet's strong performance. Another surprise was that Winslet was nominated in the Best Actress category for that role, not for Supporting Actress as was expected, and that she was shut out for Revolutionary Road. For those who didn't watch the Golden Globes, she won in both categories-- Actress for Revolutionary Road, and Supporting Actress for the Reader. Interesting.
So, was it PR? It's been said that this is "Kate Winslet's Year," but Revolutionary Road didn't get quite the reception people expected. Maybe the Academy thought Winslet deserved a Best Actress nomination (generally thought to be more prestigious than Supporting), but couldn't justify it for Revolutionary Road. Maybe they wanted to distance themselves from the Golden Globes.
The funny thing about Oscar is that even the surprises operate on a formula, which itself is likely a result of quietly effective PR. often being "Under the Radar" can work in a movie's favour. Sure, Benjamin Button with its all-star cast and fancy effects leads the nominations, but Slumdog Millionaire and its budget of 6 million is such a feel-good story and has a decent shot at the win. The "Little Movie That Could" is kind of a staple of these nominations-- see Juno and Little Miss Sunshine for reference.
Ingredients missing from this year's mix include:
"Child Star,"
"Should Have Got One Last Year,"
"Likelylastfilmsowebettergivehimonemorekick"-- I guess I was wrong about Clint Eastwood
"Obligatory Clint Eastwood Nomination"-- see above
"Actor Known for Doing Bad Comedy Has One Good Serious Role"
These omissions are what actually surprise me about the selections. That being said, I'm happy to see that "The Comeback" and "The Politically-Charged Topic" are out in full force, especially since Mickey Rourke's performance was excellent and I feel quite strongly about the importance of gay rights.
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Actor (4/5):
Sean Penn- Milk
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon
Brad Pitt- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Actress (3/5):
Kate Winslet- The Reader
Angelina Jolie- Changeling
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Anne Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Supporting Actor (3/5):
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Josh Brolin- Milk
Robert Downey Jr.- Tropic Thunder
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Supporting Actress (3/5):
Viola Davis- Doubt
Amy Adams- Doubt
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Marisa Tomei- The Wrestler
Director (3/5):
Ron Howard- Frost/Nixon
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry- The Reader
Gus Van Sant- Milk
Now, what would make me really happy is if Jai-Ho (from Slumdog Millionaire, nominated for Best Song) is performed at the ceremony, along with that delightful dance.
Although I haven't seen it, I assumed The Reader to be a good, not great, film buoyed by Kate Winslet's strong performance. Another surprise was that Winslet was nominated in the Best Actress category for that role, not for Supporting Actress as was expected, and that she was shut out for Revolutionary Road. For those who didn't watch the Golden Globes, she won in both categories-- Actress for Revolutionary Road, and Supporting Actress for the Reader. Interesting.
So, was it PR? It's been said that this is "Kate Winslet's Year," but Revolutionary Road didn't get quite the reception people expected. Maybe the Academy thought Winslet deserved a Best Actress nomination (generally thought to be more prestigious than Supporting), but couldn't justify it for Revolutionary Road. Maybe they wanted to distance themselves from the Golden Globes.
The funny thing about Oscar is that even the surprises operate on a formula, which itself is likely a result of quietly effective PR. often being "Under the Radar" can work in a movie's favour. Sure, Benjamin Button with its all-star cast and fancy effects leads the nominations, but Slumdog Millionaire and its budget of 6 million is such a feel-good story and has a decent shot at the win. The "Little Movie That Could" is kind of a staple of these nominations-- see Juno and Little Miss Sunshine for reference.
Ingredients missing from this year's mix include:
"Child Star,"
"Should Have Got One Last Year,"
"Likelylastfilmsowebettergivehimonemorekick"-- I guess I was wrong about Clint Eastwood
"Obligatory Clint Eastwood Nomination"-- see above
"Actor Known for Doing Bad Comedy Has One Good Serious Role"
These omissions are what actually surprise me about the selections. That being said, I'm happy to see that "The Comeback" and "The Politically-Charged Topic" are out in full force, especially since Mickey Rourke's performance was excellent and I feel quite strongly about the importance of gay rights.
So, without further ado, here are the actual nominations in the categories I listed yesterday. I've bolded the ones I correctly predicted.
Picture (4/5):The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Actor (4/5):
Sean Penn- Milk
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon
Brad Pitt- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Actress (3/5):
Kate Winslet- The Reader
Angelina Jolie- Changeling
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Anne Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Supporting Actor (3/5):
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Josh Brolin- Milk
Robert Downey Jr.- Tropic Thunder
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Supporting Actress (3/5):
Viola Davis- Doubt
Amy Adams- Doubt
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Marisa Tomei- The Wrestler
Director (3/5):
Ron Howard- Frost/Nixon
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire
Stephen Daldry- The Reader
Gus Van Sant- Milk
Now, what would make me really happy is if Jai-Ho (from Slumdog Millionaire, nominated for Best Song) is performed at the ceremony, along with that delightful dance.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Social Media and Oscar
This is one of my favourite times of the year. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. I tend to hibernate in the winter, so generally any time from November till March is spent indoors as much as possible, and if I must brave the cold,I'm usually complaining-- especially when it involves waiting for a delayed subway, or waking up to go to school when it's still dark outside.
Still, the winter season does ignite one of my greatest passions. Not dark hot chocolate, but I like that too. No-- the winter is when Oscar predictions start to roll out, and movie buffs like myself debate about who will take home the big prize.
This year, with my new interest in social media, my interest in the Academy Awards has gone to a whole new level. Along with discussing films of the past year with my friends and family, I've also been reading several blogs that predict the nominees and in some cases the winners too.
Some common topics of discussion:
-Will the Academy recognize that the Dark Knight was one of the best movies of the year, despite the fact that it fits into the anti-Oscar category of "comic book movie?"
-Heath Ledger's nomination is basically a given, but will the late Joker garner enough support for a win?
-Will the sentimental among the voters see Kate and Leo's first film together since Titanic as reason to include them in the mix?
-Is the Academy ready for a "controversial topic" in Milk when just a few years ago Brokeback Mountain lost out to Crash despite nearly everyone predicting otherwise? Will they make a political statement in light of Proposition 8?
-Will the sheer brilliance of Slumdog Millionaire be able to withstand the force of movies starring such Oscar favourites as Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Sean Penn?
And finally...
-Has Mickey Rourke's comeback come full circle?
These questions will in part be answered tomorrow morning, when the nominees are announced. For now, I think I'll dive in with my own predictions, which I registered in the contest on Awards Daily-- I'll admit to being a little biased, as I thought Slumdog Millionaire and Milk were amazing films. I've marked an asterisk beside the movies I've seen. Tune in later this week to find out how I did.
Picture:
Milk*
Slumdog Millionaire*
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon*
The Dark Knight*
Actor:
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon*
Sean Penn- Milk*
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler*
Clint Eastwood- Gran Turino
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Actress:
Kate Winslet- Revolutionary Road
Anne Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Sally Hawkins- Happy Go Lucky
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Supporting Actor:
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight*
Josh Brolin- Milk*
Dev Patel- Slumdog Millionaire*
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Ralph Fiennes- The Duchess*
Supporting Actress:
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis- Doubt
Kate Winslet- The Reader
Freida Pinto- Slumdog Millionaire*
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Director:
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Gus Van Sant- Milk*
Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire*
Christopher Nolan- The Dark Knight*
Darren Aronofsky- The Wrestler*
Still, the winter season does ignite one of my greatest passions. Not dark hot chocolate, but I like that too. No-- the winter is when Oscar predictions start to roll out, and movie buffs like myself debate about who will take home the big prize.
This year, with my new interest in social media, my interest in the Academy Awards has gone to a whole new level. Along with discussing films of the past year with my friends and family, I've also been reading several blogs that predict the nominees and in some cases the winners too.
Some common topics of discussion:
-Will the Academy recognize that the Dark Knight was one of the best movies of the year, despite the fact that it fits into the anti-Oscar category of "comic book movie?"
-Heath Ledger's nomination is basically a given, but will the late Joker garner enough support for a win?
-Will the sentimental among the voters see Kate and Leo's first film together since Titanic as reason to include them in the mix?
-Is the Academy ready for a "controversial topic" in Milk when just a few years ago Brokeback Mountain lost out to Crash despite nearly everyone predicting otherwise? Will they make a political statement in light of Proposition 8?
-Will the sheer brilliance of Slumdog Millionaire be able to withstand the force of movies starring such Oscar favourites as Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett, and Sean Penn?
And finally...
-Has Mickey Rourke's comeback come full circle?
These questions will in part be answered tomorrow morning, when the nominees are announced. For now, I think I'll dive in with my own predictions, which I registered in the contest on Awards Daily-- I'll admit to being a little biased, as I thought Slumdog Millionaire and Milk were amazing films. I've marked an asterisk beside the movies I've seen. Tune in later this week to find out how I did.
Picture:
Milk*
Slumdog Millionaire*
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon*
The Dark Knight*
Actor:
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon*
Sean Penn- Milk*
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler*
Clint Eastwood- Gran Turino
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Actress:
Kate Winslet- Revolutionary Road
Anne Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Sally Hawkins- Happy Go Lucky
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Supporting Actor:
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight*
Josh Brolin- Milk*
Dev Patel- Slumdog Millionaire*
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Ralph Fiennes- The Duchess*
Supporting Actress:
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis- Doubt
Kate Winslet- The Reader
Freida Pinto- Slumdog Millionaire*
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Director:
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Gus Van Sant- Milk*
Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire*
Christopher Nolan- The Dark Knight*
Darren Aronofsky- The Wrestler*
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Social Media...With a Purpose
In August, I was fortunate enough to go to New York City and see Broadway musical Avenue Q. Avenue Q, a parody of Sesame Street, features a character named Princeton-- a fresh-faced university grad who can't find a job and talks about his need for a "purpose." A large chunk of the musical revolves around Princeton's search for his purpose, as he navigates his way through post-university life.
Bringing this back to PR, I'd like to share an anecdote about needing a purpose. During my final semester at university, I interned with a small business magazine for professional women. As the only intern at the publication, I was given a fair bit of creative freedom and was encouraged to contribute ideas to the magazine, which was only getting ready to launch while I was working there. Of course, being the facebook-savvy university student that I was, I naturally suggested that they broaden their base by entering the social media world. I just figured it was trendy and the thing to do-- I neglected to consider purpose.
My editor was hesitant. She was not too familiar with Facebook, and was weary of penetrating an oversaturated realm popular with those outside of her target niche market. I let her know that in fact, Facebook was now frequently used by older men and women and as such, could be a useful tool in generating publicity, contacts, and networks with other like-minded groups. She agreed, as long as I could convince her with stats and a formal presentation. Nerve-wracking though this was, it paid off, as their Facebook group has allowed them to reach interviewees and experts for future issues as well as inform potential subscribers about the publication.
My point? The editor of this magazine only wanted to use social media if it suited her purpose, which in this case was to expand the scope of a brand-new magazine. She didn't want a blog, a myspace, or flashy ads. I also obviously didn't create a facebook group and invite all my university friends, none of whom would have been in the intended audience-- I had to seek out groups and individuals who I legitimately believed would fit within the target market and would be interested in the magazine. I posted links all over the place, and called for interviews and expert opinions on aritcle topics. Facebook allowed me to reach a broader audience than I ever could have found otherwise, and essentially served as free advertising.
So, my question here is, what are other ways to use social media with a purpose? Are there examples that anyone can share?
Bringing this back to PR, I'd like to share an anecdote about needing a purpose. During my final semester at university, I interned with a small business magazine for professional women. As the only intern at the publication, I was given a fair bit of creative freedom and was encouraged to contribute ideas to the magazine, which was only getting ready to launch while I was working there. Of course, being the facebook-savvy university student that I was, I naturally suggested that they broaden their base by entering the social media world. I just figured it was trendy and the thing to do-- I neglected to consider purpose.
My editor was hesitant. She was not too familiar with Facebook, and was weary of penetrating an oversaturated realm popular with those outside of her target niche market. I let her know that in fact, Facebook was now frequently used by older men and women and as such, could be a useful tool in generating publicity, contacts, and networks with other like-minded groups. She agreed, as long as I could convince her with stats and a formal presentation. Nerve-wracking though this was, it paid off, as their Facebook group has allowed them to reach interviewees and experts for future issues as well as inform potential subscribers about the publication.
My point? The editor of this magazine only wanted to use social media if it suited her purpose, which in this case was to expand the scope of a brand-new magazine. She didn't want a blog, a myspace, or flashy ads. I also obviously didn't create a facebook group and invite all my university friends, none of whom would have been in the intended audience-- I had to seek out groups and individuals who I legitimately believed would fit within the target market and would be interested in the magazine. I posted links all over the place, and called for interviews and expert opinions on aritcle topics. Facebook allowed me to reach a broader audience than I ever could have found otherwise, and essentially served as free advertising.
So, my question here is, what are other ways to use social media with a purpose? Are there examples that anyone can share?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
