Costa Concordia press briefing

One of Costa Concordia’s cruise ships hit a rock near Italian coasts on January 13, 2012, leading to the sinking of the ship, and the death of a dozen of passengers. A mock briefing was organized to address the crisis only a couple days after the accident happened.

The main difficulty in responding to this issue was to take into consideration the timeline as the group chose to held the press briefing a couple days after the accident. We now have many more information about it. The group did well in choosing to reinforce the notion of safety of its ships, especially because its reputation as a safe cruise company would be heavily damaged after this episode.

The accident, even a few days after it happened, was so important and dramatic that the company’s reputation would have been destroyed in any case. It’d take more than a press briefing to rebuild it. Despite all these difficulties, the group managed well its message and stuck to it.  They were also well prepared to respond to any kind of questions, even recurring ones.

Given the extent of the situation, it was smart to include people from the cruise company, Carnival Corporation, but also from the training program, CSMART, to reinsure that every level of security is included and working on it.

Overall, how the group addressed the situation at the press briefing was the best way to handle the situation only two days after the tragic event. The media coverage of the accident in Europe was so huge, as well as the search for other survivors was such a mess, that it was impossible to handle it without a hitch.

Starbucks: How to transform a crisis into an opportunity

The vice president of public relations of Starbucks held a session during the public relations day at Newhouse. James Olson presented an interesting view on his company, and how going back to basics was a wise move.

Starbucks underwent a financial crisis back in 2008 when it had to shut down more than 600 under-performing locations. It leads to the departure of its emblematic CEO, Howard Schultz, who came back to the company a few months later. This situation brought important change within the company’s communication approach. Right after that, Starbucks tried to find again its true spirit and identity.

This quest to find the company’s true beliefs leads it to go back to the basics: its customers. The company grew so fast and so big in his years of existence, with more than 17,000 stores in 60 countries, that it became difficult for it to keep a common voice shared by all its stores. In conducting change, Starbucks’s CEO played an enormous role as the leader and face of this change.

Howard Schultz at the Global Leadership Conference
October 2012, Houston, TX

Starbucks’s case illustrates how well it was able to handle a crisis, but also how important is the CEO within a company. The strength of its communication after 2008 was to put Schultz in the front line and having him being the bond of this huge organization. From Olson’s presentation, I’ll tend to say that crisis management is all about being able to question yourself: When something is wrong choosing to change is a key to evolve toward the right direction.

Schultz’s personality was the driving force through Starbucks’s global communication to retrieve their roots. Employees programs, community relations, being transparent by advocating their decisions and policies, were the main implementations done to strengthen their company’s overall communication.

Global Leadership Conference
October 2012, Houston, TX

This situation is the perfect example of a strong corporate social responsibility program. Starbucks managed to turn its crisis into an opportunity and by doing so, it wisely communicated toward both its internal and external publics. Employees were one of the key targets, and the feeling of belonging to the company was one of the top messages to spread out.

This case will surely become a classic of crisis management and of the use of CSR as a communication tool. It will now be even more interesting to keep an eye on Starbucks’s future communication to assess whether it is a lasting project that will guide the company through its future years of business.

Of new markets and fresh perspectives

Scott Kronick’s presentation on international public relations during Newhouse’s PR day was exciting and inspirational.

Kronick has been working for the international public relations agency Ogilvy for more than 20 years. He began his career in the US, before having the opportunity to move abroad to China, 17 years ago. He arrived there at the beginning of the 90s, right when the economical independence and growth started.

Through his presentation, he managed to show us two things: How the use of PR in China differs from western countries, and how much one country and its whole population has evolved over two decades.

China is the country that we always hear about as the new world’s economic leader, the biggest population, or the sweatshop of the world, but we never have insights from a PR perspective. Especially because there are so many Chinese students at our university, having more information about their country allows us to appreciate and understand their culture.

Doing PR means above all knowing who are your publics. This statement is even more accurate when it comes to international PR. But the fact is, it is harder to capture these audiences when it’s another country, a completely different culture, and therefore another way to consume or respond to messages. “You can’t start talking to somebody unless you understand them,” was one of Kronic’s key points.

Cross culture business and communication has existed for decades, but the more interactions are made with eastern countries, the more we have to learn again how to do effective PR through new perspectives. “You gotta know what you don’t know”.

What I’ll remember from this presentation is that doing good PR is more than ever about curiosity and passion for your job. Having already an international background, I’m even more interested in exploring international PR as a potential path for my future career. As Kronick said in an interview he gave to Voices From Other Lands: “Building bridges between cultures is [my] mission,” and he surely knows how to talk about it. 

Of the importance of being artsy

One of the things I miss the most since I moved to Syracuse is art. I know there are museums, art galleries or even movie theaters in the city but it’s definitely not as varied. I had the chance to live in Paris, and there are so many opportunities there to access art as a student. For instance most of museums are free when you’re under 26, and there’re at least 15 to 20 different exhibitions each seasons.

Maybe it is a cultural thing, because when you’re socializing with that crazy Parisian crowd, talking about art is like your free entrance ticket. I remember reading a funny piece on that this summer in the New York Magazine. They were saying that in most European or American big cities you would need to talk about sport to find a common subject of interest, but in Paris sport would never start a conversation. You would just earn a weird look and a shrug.

My point is that cultural life is essential to many people, and I particularly experienced it during the two years I spent in the French capital. I know that it is the case in most big cities, and although we are pretty lucky when it comes to the cultural life in Paris, it is not the only city with such a wealthy cultural life.

However, it is something I’m pretty tied to. So my concern since I am living in Syracuse is to find ways to enjoy art without having such a direct access to it. As much as it is a challenge, I actually love being outside of my “natural habitat” and have to adapt to a completely different environment from the one I used to live in.

After four months, I start to appreciate new things that I would have never consider liked in my former busy urban life. And I’m pretty surprised with myself to see that I tend to find ways to like the local cultural life, and complain less about how it is back home. 

I dislike everything, I'm Parisian

At the end of the day, I think the arts and culture are essential. However, it is not necessarily about having access to it, but more about knowing what to do once you enjoyed it and always keep you interested in everything surrounding you.

Change, bring it on!

Nancy Cantor, Syracuse University’s chancellor since 2004, has announced last Friday via an email that she is resigning from her position. This decision will be effective in June 2014. 

----------------------------------------------------------

Announcing this decision a year in a half in advance seems a little anticipated. Through the email, she keeps referring to SU’s great work over the years, and how the university is a leading higher education place contributing to the world’s greater good. Although all of that sounds very nice, it seems like she is trying to say a lot to, at the end, not say much about why she is really leaving.

The fact that she declared her departure months before it happens is on the one hand a great way for the university and its staff to get prepared to the change. But on the other hand, it sounds like she might stop caring about the university’s good because she knows there’s a determined end to her contribution.

From a PR perspective, managing her departure will surely be a challenge. By the time she left, she would have been at this position for 10 years, bringing her working lifestyle and beliefs among this big university. It is going to be a challenge to rebuild the university’s identity around a new chancellor, still unknown. It also is a challenge today to deal with the consequences of such an announcement. The fact that she didn’t give much reason explaining her departure will give some interesting PR releases.

Being a SU student for only three months makes me feel a little bit disconnected from such information. It is an important change, but it seems like a controversial one too considering SU’s past few years. The weeks to come will surely be of interest in learning more about this departure. I’m also curious to observe if her work at the university gets affected.

Journalism & PR, or how to build a relationship

There are so many stories out there, of so many different interests. As PR people we obviously want our own to be the top ones, but to achieve our job efficiently we have to be clever when it comes to pitching our story. Knowing the strength of our news, and being aware of who could be interested in or concerned about it, is essential. Although our ultimate goal is to get the maximum coverage on it, we are not looking for useless attention, and are rather seeking for a beneficial one.

This week, we had the chance to welcome in our digital writing class four journalism professionals that gave us some insightful tips. Scott Willis from the WAER radio station, Steve Billmyer from the Post-Standard, Matt Mulcahy from CNY central and Kevin Tampone from the CNY Business Journal were all there to talk about their field's experience.

We talked a lot about the digitalization of both our professions, but I would rather mention the importance of building relationships with the journalists we’re going to work with.

We are used to often discuss the change occurring in our field, and how our practice is even more relying on digital devices and media; but it is also important to be reminded that the best way to achieve our work is still relying on a human relationship. 

PR practitioners and reporters have a give-and-take kind of relationship. Ideally, PR people want to be able to call reporters and get their story out, while journalists want to get in touch with PR representatives every time they need it for a story. Obviously, this is an idealistic reality. Therefore, as our practice entitles it, building relationship, not only between an organization and its publics but also between PR practitioners and their intermediaries, is an essential part of our work.

Our guests strongly remind us to always do our research on any media or reporter we’re about to get in touch with, for any kind of story. Building a strong and respectful relationship with our media interlocutors is assuring us efficiency in our work. This is what this week’s panel taught me about news worthiness. Obviously, knowing our story and knowing how to pitch is essential. However, having an accurate idea of whom to pitch it to, is as important.

Social media or the ultimate asset

This year’s presidential campaign witnesses the use of a new tool in the race for the White House, social media.

Although President Barak Obama is using them since his 2008 campaign, 2012 shows a significant increase in both candidates’ online presence.

The Pew Research Center for Excellence in Journalism has published an article comparing the use of social media by Barak Obama and Mitt Romney. They issued two interesting graphs made from their observations. 

This first graph shows both candidates’ presence on four different platforms in June 2012, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogs. Obama is clearly more active on his platforms. Twitter is the most significant one. Over a period of 13 days in June, Obama posted 404 tweets when Romney only had 16. Only Facebook’s post were more important on Romney’s side, with 34 posts against 27 for Obama over the same period. 

The research emphasizes how both candidates are actually using social media. As they're saying it, ideally the goal of platforms such as Twitter or Facebook is to generate interactions with the audience through comments, re-tweets or responses. The purpose of social media in general is to create an equal relationship between a sender and its audiences. Although some control over these platforms is necessary, the interaction is still totally different from what traditional media with an ascendant relationship. 

The Pew Research Center’s study reveals that despite the use of social media, this traditional asymmetrical relationship remains, and the “discussion” that should be engaged between the candidates’ platforms and their audiences, is not happening. Candidates are not responding to retweets or comments, and voters’ voices are not meant to be meaningful.

Although the candidates successfully took over Internet and used a lot social media, they are still exerting an important control over these networks. Social media is definitely an asset in this campaign. It's a smart way to reach certain audiences, especially a youth one. However, it seems like it will take a few years, maybe a couple of campaigns, to use these digital media in a symmetrical way where audiences will play a significant role in their candidate’s campaign.

As the Pew’s study summarized it,

“While there may be no simple answer, throughout modern campaign history successful candidates have tended to outpace their competitors in understanding changing communications. From Franklin Roosevelt's use of radio, to John F. Kennedy's embrace of television, to Ronald Reagan's recognition of the potential for arranging the look and feel of campaign events in the age of satellites and video tape, candidates quicker to grasp the        power of new technology have used that to convey a sense that they represented a new generation of leadership more in touch with where the country was heading.” 

Including communication changes are therefore an asset for campaign’s strategies. The use of social media is essential but needs some work to be used at their full potential.   

 

Whole Foods is not only about eating, it is also about blogging

Whole Foods Market is like a little heaven for a food lover. There’re fresh fruits and vegetables; original dishes; an international food selection and a genuine commitment to organic food. 

John Mackey got it right: if a company wants to create a unique image and reputation, it needs everyone’s dedication, even the CEO’s.

 

John Mackey’s blog is fun and interactive. As a fan of the stores, I was wondering what the CEO had to say about it and what kind of interaction he could have with his followers. I was surprised to discover a blog not only dedicated to food and Whole Foods, but also about Mackey’s opinions on various subjects. Through his posts, we can tell that he is invested in his CEO’s position. It is not only the boss of a huge company, but he also is a prominent figure in the business area. He posted several videos of conferences in business schools or of interviews. He is always willing to give his point of view on what is happening in the American’s economic sector. 

So is it a smart move to be a CEO as invested as Mackey is? 

I would say that it is. With today’s constant evolving markets, standing out as a company is not that easy. It is kind of a contradiction since it seems so simple to be present on so many worldwide media. However, in the crowded pitiless Internet, being present is not enough to generate attention. Having a voice, especially as a company’s main figure, is essential and gives another aspect to the company. 

This kind of resource leads to even more investment from the customers. They feel like Whole Foods is more than just the local place they shop at.

What John Mackey does on his blog seems to be an asset to the company. It is matching Whole Foods’ mission and values, as well as it is giving the company’s a strong position within the food industry. 

One of Whole Foods Market’s strong principles is to be a community’s member everywhere there’s a store. Mackey’s blog provides consistency between these beliefs and these communities.

To what extend Freedom of Speech is free?

 

YouTube, owned by Google, contains billions of information through videos posted by worldwide users. It is a private company; therefore it has the right to choose whether or not some content should be posted. However when YouTube decided to ban the film mocking the Prophet Mohammed in Libya and Egypt, it was accused to react against the sacred First Amendment of the American constitution. The problem is that the conception of freedom of speech, as it is conceived in the U.S., is not perceived the same in every country, even Occidental ones. Some say that freedom of speech is not absolute; some others argue that it is inviolable and therefore everyone can pretty much say anything about anyone.

Another problem is that Arabic countries don’t understand why a government like the U.S., was not able to control the airing of that video. It is not that they were not able to do so, but that they couldn’t, because of the protection of freedom of speech. Moreover, it is technically impossible for a government to control a website as developed as YouTube is. Because it is a private company, government can't get involved with what they are posting. This process is hard to understand from Arabic countries standpoints, mostly because freedom of speech doesn't exist in these countries. Speech in general is controlled, especially on Internet.

But what about social media's responsibilities when it comes to such violent outcome?

In my opinion YouTube made the right choice when it decided to block users from viewing this video in Libya and Egypt. Although we can argue that the rules it applies to its users in the United States should also be applied abroad, there are some extreme cases. In this particular situation it seems in everyone’s best interest that YouTube acts differently abroad. In this case, we are implying the safety of a country and of U.S. representatives. This decision was made with the sole intention from YouTube, to calm down the situation and to take responsibilities toward the effects that one video created.

Blocking this video won’t resolve the situation, excuse what happened, or even minimize extreme groups from violently protesting it, but it is at least a step forward. Although this decision is and will be criticized regarding freedom of speech, I think YouTube made a smart but not easy choice.

Dealing with freedom of speech on social media can be delicate when users are from countries where speech is controlled, like in China for example. Some networks make deals with the government to be present but restricted; some others just choose not to exist in these countries.

Facebook has a specific clause in its terms of agreement about hate speech and violence: “You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” But that clause doesn’t seem to be keeping users from posting violent or hateful messages without being banned. According to Facebook "Groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies." So that means that if an individual posts something hateful he will be banned, but if a group says something violent it won’t. In August 2011, there was a proliferation of pro-rapes pages on the social network that led to several petitions in the U.S. and U.K. to take them down. These groups were entitled for instance: “You know she's playing hard to get when you’re chasing her down an alleyway.” Although these pages were clearly encouraging rape, Facebook declared that these kinds of speeches were equivalent to tell a rude joke. This is an example of how social media can defend freedom of speech even when it clearly involves hateful and violent speech.

It is interesting for me to discuss the subject from an European point of view. Although freedom of speech and freedom of press is as essential in Europe as it is in the U.S., I don’t think we have the same conception of the matter. Indeed, although this is a sacred right, in France we consider that even when you have the freedom to express your opinion you have a responsibility not to be offensive. 

With the growth of social media comes the question of their responsibility with the contents posted on their platforms. As freedom of speech should lead the way when they’re dealing with that, social media still carry a great responsibility toward their users. That’s why they should regulate what it is posted on their network. Although they should promote freedom of speech, they have to take into consideration mutual respect. They shouldn't be the place where hateful and violent speeches can be expressed freely. There shouldn't be a place, on Internet or not, were violent and hateful speeches could be express.

The greater the audience is, the greater the responsibility of what is said is.

NBC failed coverage of the Olympics

The Summer 2012 Olympics took place in London from July 27 to August 12. NBC was the only channel broadcasting the games in the U.S. 

Theses games were unique in the sense that they were considered as the first social media games of all time. The use of Internet and social platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, has never been as important. That use made the games even more live and present than they ever were before.

NBC’s coverage of the game was largely criticized over the summer and as Lisa De Moraes from The Washington Post said, “one of the more popular sports of the Summer Olympics — according to the media, anyway — has been The Trashing of NBC.”

 

As there’s a five-hour difference between London and the U.S. east coast, NBC chose not to air the games live but to tape-delayed them. Not such a bad idea on paper, people were this way able to watch the Olympics on prime time and not during the day. And NBC was able to get even more viewers. The network only allowed its subscribers to watch the games live through their application or online.   

  

So where did the critics come from?
First, this tape-delayed airing was the first time NBC did that. They’ve been broadcasting it live for years without any problems. Critics rose against this delayed because viewers weren’t able to see the competitions at the same time they were occurring in London.

The second, and most important, issue with this coverage was the fact that NBC, although they were airing it within a few hours delay, keeps spoiling its viewers before the actual airing of the competition. Through promos, others show or worst, their own tweets, NBC kept airing images or videos showing athletes with their medals. Obviously, there were no points for viewers to watch the games anymore when they already knew the outcome.

The funny thing about these critics is how much coverage they got from traditional media, but the main place where “trashing NBC” reached its peak was on social media and especially on Twitter. The hashtag #NBCFail started appearing from the Opening Ceremony night.

Darren Rovell, a former NBC business reporter, summarized on Twitter the situation: "Context: NBC's ideal viewer is someone who doesn't get sports text alerts, doesn't appointment stream or get on Twitter."

It seems like NBC was caught up by the use of social media and the open critic place it allows. The network signed up for covering the future 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 Olympics. It is going to be interesting to observe their future coverage after this one was so criticized. Especially when social media will probably be even bigger at that time. Let’s wait for a real effort, to do good this time, from NBC.

The use of social media in the PR world

This past Wednesday we received a guest speaker, Prof. Christy Tuohey, in our digital writing class. Prof. Tuohey is in charge of the web development at Newhouse, as well as teaching journalism classes. Our subject of interest was social media.

As PR students and future practitioners, social media are platforms that we need to know and master so as to reach publics in an entirely different way that it used to be. Prof. Tuohey gave us an overview of all the existing social networks, their functions and their use. 

She mentioned an important point when she said that organizations need to be coherent on their different social media accounts.  I think this idea is essential and should be a guideline in our professional use of social media. Being present on several social media platforms for an organization, is part of their reputation and their image. They can’t act or spread messages without thinking of the logical link to their values and usual way to proceed. As social media are a new tool undergoing rapid changes, it is important to use them carefully. Among all the existing platforms, an organization has to thing first of which one is going to be the most useful to reach its audiences and spread its messages. Once this is done, an organization has to think of the content itself. What kind of messages is going to be more efficient toward the targeted audience?

Through this presentation, I will point out and remember that PR practitioners have to deal with social media with as much carefulness as any other media. Messages on Internet have as much impact as they would have on TV, radio or printed press. Therefore the use of social media, as useful as it could be for an organization, has to be done with professionalism and consistency. Although the urge to be present on every social platform is significant, these useful new tools need to be managed attentively.

Introduction

I have created this blog for my Digital Writing class at Newhouse. As Public Relations students we ought to use and master digital platforms.

As a brief reminder, I am French and I did my undergraduate degree in media and communication studies at the university Pantheon-Assas in Paris. I did an internship in Paris in a PR agency specialized in the fashion industry. Although it is not anymore a sector I am interested in, it was my first steps among the PR world.  I came to Newhouse school to get a Master's degree in Public Relations and gain experience in this sector in another country than mine.

Public Relations is not a sector as developed in France as it is in the United States. That’s one of the main reasons that decided me to get a degree in this country. I also wanted to get an international experience, as I would like to work abroad or for an international company. As for now, my career goals are to work either in the entertainment industry or the arts. More specifically I am interested in working for a cultural focused organization. However, my choice of career is also oriented by my desire to practice in the U.S. As I would like to start my career in this country, I think I have to find an area that being French is an asset. As for now, the luxury industry, a diplomatic or a public affair position for an international organization, seem to be the best option. Although it is not right now the areas I am focusing on, I want to explore them through internships. I am also thinking of eventually going back to Europe to work either in London or Paris in one these sectors.

My career goals are therefore not set in stone yet, although I know which areas I am most interested in.