I've been busy, yes. With preparing for my internship interview (I'm happy to report it was a success), school, client project and my "other life" as a sales associate, this blog has been a little lonely. That said, I'm hoping to come up with some material over my much-needed reading week...that is, when I'm not re-folding sweaters and finding you those jeans in a darker denim and a smaller size.
Which brings me to some thoughts about time management. Working part time this year and throughout most of university has made me quite familiar with this term-- in terms of how I manage myself and my own tasks. But, this is only part of the time management process.
Everyone has their own personal time management style, but when you're in communications your own time management must mesh with the work habits and deadlines of others, the timely needs of various stakeholders, and the successful bridging of various reporting relationships. This, I imagine, is true in all facets of communications-- agency, corporate, internal, external, government, not for profit, and it goes on.
In any business, time management is essential. If you're married, have children, do volunteer work, have hobbies or are organized to enjoy all of the above, it's likely that in some respect, you have to box your life into manageable compartments at least some of the time.
However, because public relations has so many different strands and components, I'm betting that when I head out into the real world, time management will involve not only segmenting my own schedule, but also dissecting and taking into account the needs and time management strategies of others.
In this way, we've been well-prepared by colllege. Group work, particularly projects that involve external research or consultation, is quite possibly the best way to learn this skill in a school setting. You've got everyone's personal/work life to balance, plus your teacher's deadlines, the work schedule of your interviewee or venue owner and your other classes.
Like I said, this is good practice. After all, public relations isn't about relating with yourself. Sure, it involves dealing with the public (hence the title), but to be successful, it requires a sound intuition about people around you. Understanding the way they choose to manage their time, and subsequently adapting the way you manage yours, is a good start.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
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 23, 2008
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
