New Media article

So, I can't believe that I'm already able to say this at the ripe old age of 27, but when working with my students, in the classroom, and with my co-workers, I often catch myself using the phrases "I remember when..." and "back when I was in school..."
It's amazing to me how much technology has changed in the last decade, especially when you consider "it took nearly 50 years for half of the households in the USA to have a telephone, and 90 years for half of all manufacturing industries to use electricity (pg. 348)."
I don't think I used the internet until towards the end of high school, I didn't have an email address until I was a freshman in college, I didn't get a cell phone until I was 21 and got my first car, I didn't start using AIM until I was working at my first job after undergrad, they didn't even have Facebook when I was an undergrad, and I just got a MySpace account last year. And now, I'm utterly lost without my cell phone and all that the internet has to offer me!
I thought it was important that they pointed out all of the custom cable tv channels that allow non-profits to market to their specific target market (i.e.-the ASPCA solicits donations with commercials shown on Animal Planet...brilliant!).
Also, I completely fit the example the author gave about viral marketing. I get emails asking me to email my congressman about a cause I believe in, and I do it; they ask me to pass on their emails to my friends, and I do. And I have NO problem doing this. If I can't afford to donate money, I sure enough and donate my time - even if that "time" means emailing.
I love what the ACS has done on their website for Relay for Life fundraising. I can send already composed emails to my entire email address book in the blink of an eye. No calling or mailing letters to solicit money. It makes my fundraising for them so easy!
And despite the fact that this article is more than 6 years old, it's stated implications are still completely relevant today. In fact, our technology has progressed even faster then they predicted.
I think it would be worth-while to revisit this article in light of all the technological changes in the last 6 years. For instance, how has TiVo affected marketers?

Best Advertising Idea!

Hey, I was on campus today and JJs subs gave out free sandwiches. I thought this was a great idea because I have never heard of this restaurant but I will defently check them out.

example of using word of mouth marketing

When reading the WOMMA article, a program that my office (NCSU Study Abroad Office) runs came to mind. We have set up a program where we train volunteer students who have recently returned from studying abroad to give presentations around campus about study abroad in general and about their experience specifically. Other than the time it takes us to train these presenters and the money we spend making photocopies of handouts, this is a free marketing tool and one that we think is most effective. Other students on campus are more likely to find their peers a credible source than a staff member. Also, the enthusiasm of a returned study abroad student is much more powerful than the broken record message they get from staff. The way I see it is these students are going to talk about their experiences anyway, but if we train some of them, we are using them as a marketing tool because even though part of their presentation is personalized, they have been guided and so we have influence over what they say. We never sit in on presentations, so this truly is an honest form word of mouth! Other universities that run a similar program do supervise the presentations, but the way I look at it, the presentations are more credible if there isn’t a rep from the office sitting in on it.

In contrast to the post below, we have the mind set that any publicity is good publicity, so that even if the students focus more on the social aspect of study abroad rather than the academics, at least our name is out there and student interest is being sparked. I agree that it is scary to think people are talking about your organization and they could easily be saying negative things. But I do believe that having your organization talked about, even if it’s negatively, promotes awareness about your product, service, or cause. Hopefully the person who hears the negative message will be curious about your organization, visit your website, take the time to education himself, and form his own opinion. I think this places more responsibility on organizations in certain areas: providing excellent customer service, researching what others are saying, providing an environment for customers to spread the word and making sure others are there to hear, etc. As with the program run in my office, word of mouth marketing can be relatively inexpensive, but it does take efforts from the organization to be successful!

WOMMA

While reading Work of Mouth 101, several questions entered my mind. First and foremost, what happens when you have unhappy customers? In my experience, the only time I ever hear about any business or nonprofit for that matter is if someone has something really good or really bad to say about it. How does WOMMA account for the unhappy customers? WOMMA mentions several times that word of mouth is “a natural, genuine, honest process,” so if an unhappy customer is very actively participating in the blogosphere, for example (just because I like that word), do they engage in damage control or just let those happy customers counteract the negative?

To go in a different direction, it seems to me that word of mouth marketing has always been the primary method for nonprofits with ailing budgets. It just makes sense; however, WOMMA has done an excellent job of taking word of mouth to the next level. Yet, why would any nonprofit really need WOMMA? Couldn’t nonprofits engage in every single type of word of mouth marketing listed by WOMMA independently? Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of WOMMA…

On page 7 of Word of Mouth 101, WOMMA makes the claim that “word of mouth marketing cannot be faked.” I disagree and believe that it can easily be faked and often is, even though it is highly unethical. I agree with WOMMA that we should strongly oppose any practice that tries to fake word of mouth, but how do you know when it’s being faked and who is responsible for controlling it?

Why Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes?

While reading this article, I found the scores developed to judge an ad's effectiveness a bit one sided. I think the scales that were developed were all derived from personal opinion. How can you judge or score an ad because most ads are based on creativity, and creativity is not measurable. As the cliche goes, one person's junk is another person's treasure, so maybe the ad might not score well but is received well from the general public. Or how to you explain an add that scores well but is still ineffective? Possibly the answer lies deeper than the ad, maybe its in the cause or non-profit itself.

I think that even if an ad follows all the 7 requirements that the article sets up to create an effective ad that even if the ad is not received well that the non-profit still has a chance to do well. I think the marketing is just one aspect for non-profits and if the reputation and relationships of the non-profits are still in tact that a good cause can still be successful even if the ad bombs. I don't think that every ad can trigger everyone interests equally, its a give and take game, but I think the majority of the weight should be placed on the reputation of the non-profit instead of the ad itself.

Nonprofit Marketing and Target Audiences

So far what we have discussed in class and other articles is about the traditional/charitable nonprofit. Most of these nonprofits are directed at the general public, although there exist a lot of nonpublics in these groups as well. What about narrow target audiences? The NC Association for Children with Down Syndrome, for example, is only going to assist and draw in a certain group of clients and donors. How do we target those types of audiences? Technological strategies like a MySpace site does not seem to communicate to these narrowed groups.

I work for an Association that is constantly trying to get our members online. For years we have encouraged email distribution or digital newsletters but hardly a third of our membership even has an email address, let alone checks it. We are forced to rely on paper printout of invitations to our events, monthly invoices and all communication material. Even the Board of Directors is more dependent on communication by fax than by email. What creative, and cheaper, ways are there to communicate to these select groups? and who are somewhat technologically stunted?

Side note: Is the correct grammar non-profits or nonprofits? And what about fundraising or fund raising? I’ve seen both. Thanks

Comparing Marketing and Public Relations

In the article, Nonprofit Marketing with a Purpose, the author makes mention of the common goal of marketing being to increase awareness. In comparing marketing and public relations this one goal is shared. In both situations they are trying to create greater awareness and knowledge of a program, organization, or cause within a community. Both PR and marketing seem to go about increasing awareness in the same ways – researching the audience and/or product, dividing said audience into subsets of potential consumers/funders, developing ways to reach the audience, gearing programs towards the audience and promoting the programs and services being offered. Both philosophies of study rely on these tactics to get people interested in their organization or product with no real variation in how it is accomplished.

It seems like even the authors of this week’s readings had a hard time differentiating between public relations and marketing – often combining the idea of promotion and publicity with researching and defining an audience for a product or service. Does this mean that there is no separation between the two? The Guide to Marketing the Arts seems to imply that they work hand in hand if not as the same arm of an organization. The “basics” that are highlighted – product, price, place, people, and promotion are all in some way important in public relations as well.

So if the two philosophies are similar then why do organizations usually separate the two and does this mean that public relations are merely a part of marketing? And if so, wouldn’t it make sense for marketing and PR to be a single department that could combine resources and ideas? After perusing this week’s readings I’m not so sure that the two departments are mutually exclusive as they appear to be attempting to do the same thing in virtually the same way.

Thoughts about non-profit hospitals

As I went through this week's readings, I tried to make a connection between the marketing strategies these readings suggested and the type of non-profit organizations I am interested in - hospitals, but failed. Although strategies such as segmentation and primary and secondary marketing analysis work well for awareness campaigns or organizations delivering products or services, none of them seems to apply for hospitals. In China it is considered inappropriate for hospitals to use media for advertisement, because hospital's reputation is built upon its quality care and test of time, but not "boasting" how good it is. Therefore, it is very difficult for new hospitals to open its market, and the only way seems to be word-of-mouth. Even here I have only seen TV ads of Duke Medicine, but never seen anything about UNC Health Care or Rex Hospital. So I am wondering how these non-profit hospitals conduct their marketing and PR, anything we could learn from...

Thoughts at random

First, the 110 marketing strategy tips are a great example of qualitative research that would be helpful to nearly everyone who has a business. I found the idea that most people are buying keywords, but only in English, very interesting. What a great idea to buy bano and bathroom. Duh. Why doesn't everyone do that?? Probably because most people are not bilingual, but I think it also speaks to American arrogance that many believe that everyone in the world should be expected to learn and speak English.

Also, one person mentions the value of swag in marketing. Yes, he/she is completely right that I have seen people BEG for tshirts or light up pens and even put on a can costume and line dance for lightup beads. But does swag help create a consumer? I've given my last 'priceless' blinky bead to someone who 'just had to have it,' only to see them drinking a competitive beer an hour later. BUT they are still wearing my blinky bead, thus promoting my product for me in some sense. Win or lose? I don't think the swag really makes a difference in creating a loyal consumer, unless you can deliver something that is totally out of the box...tshirts are so 1999, but create a custom tshirt for them on the laptop, send it to a router, print the iron on design, iron it on (yes I have taken irons into bars) and give it to them 5 min later? Yes, that gets some attention. And the ironing station in the bar doesn't hurt either.

In reading the segmentation article, I can see the value that the tracking and monitoring technology presents to the businesses that use it. However, I find the idea that sites and businesses are watching me online rather disturbing. Yes, I might get some coupons from the process, but altogether it really just creeps me out. And I do have to agree that getting more than one or two emails a month from anyone really annoys me. The Wall Street Journal is really annoying!! I had to have it for the media ownership class last semester and they might as well move into my guest room for all the mailings (3-4 a month) and emails (at least 3 a day) I get from them. I've unsubscribed from them twice but apparently im subscribed to different sub-lists??? Ugh...despite what some of the strategies reported, I do not like more frequent emails and it turns me off to their services.

non profits and online segmenting

I thought the ‘Segmenting the Market’ article was interesting in that it showed the importance of breaking down the general public into segments and demographics in order to pinpoint who to target in marketing. For online marketing, specifically in websites, marketing must be geared toward whatever group of people will most likely be interested in the product or service. If you are trying to sell a children’s book, for example, apart from the ability to put the book in the shopping cart for purchase, you would includes eye-catching, colorful graphics or drawings, maybe online games, sounds and effects. This would attract children to the website, and hopefully to the book. But who buys the book? Parents. So, the website needs to be adult-friendly as well, maybe with a synopsis of the book, information on why kids should read it, directions on how or where to buy it, and online coupons or deals for cheaper transactions. Here it would be good to include a spot for parents to type in an email address to receive info for upcoming events or future books. For products, it seems like it would be much easier to attract people to websites or blogs because people are trying to find that specific product or something like it,

For non-profit organizations, trying to attract the target demographic to a website might be harder because people, personally affected by the organization or not, would be unlikely to visit a website simply designed to inform the public of the organization. People need to be personally affected, interested, or involved in the organization. One way to increase awareness of an organization on the website would be a blog: readers could look up archives as well as keep up-to-date on personally stories of staff, volunteers, or even those being helped within the community. A photo gallery could have the same affect, showing what the organization has done in the past. These help the public feel more personally attached to the website because they see/read stories about real people and the real situations the organization takes on. But to hold the attention of these people, marketing outside the internet is also necessary for non-profits.

The article about marketing in the arts had many good ideas for spreading the word about arts events. While many of these would be costly like the “Restaurant, show, limo packages for patrons,” others could be very useful, and cheap, for non-profits. Some ideas that were particularly useful were: speaking at events, benefit tie ins, media co-sponsorship, and developing relationships with community stores. Because non-profits do not offer a product or service that appeals to the audience that easily yields profits, they have to work much harder within the community, not just online, to gather a larger audience that feels an obligation to the organization. This in turn should draw in more visitors to the website, more volunteers, and more donations in the long run.

Will segmentation and database marketing really make your customers feel content???

In the Online Marketer’s Segmentation Guide you will find this statement, “When done well, segmentation and database marketing will make your customers feel content about having a relationship with you.” I disagree. I am at a perpetual level of ZERO “content” when I open my Gmail account on a daily basis. The ridiculous number of emails I receive from online marketers only puts me in a bad mood and I am surprised that the author of this article actually opened the email he mentions, as I know very few people enjoy the glorious junk mail they receive. Okay, so I bought something at your store one time…why are you stalking me???? To hammer my point further, aren’t the majority of people very leery of giving out their email address at all?

I understand that we are in an ever growing global village and that it is absolutely necessary for any organization to communicate with publics via the internet; however, could we possibly be a little more civil about our approach?

The article also presents the argument that segmentation benefits customers. I think the author was somewhat confused when writing this section of the article and what he or she really meant is that segmentation benefits the company. Segmentation benefits the company more than the customer because…well, here’s an example: every single day, sometimes twice or three times a day, I receive an email from 1-800-Flowers. Contrary to their apparent belief, I do not need to send flowers to someone every single day. Of course their intent is to convenience me that I should send flowers to someone and when I do send flowers go through them. They won…I sent flowers to my mom today for her birthday and I used none other than 1-800-Flowers. But, did their victory really benefit me, the customer? Do I feel content knowing that I validated their strategy? NO!

So, my point is: as a company, you can segment all you want, but all you’re really doing is getting in the customer’s head. Yes, that head might be one that fits the perfect demographic, psychographic and behavior for your company/marketing strategy, but does all that outweigh the fact that your emails are annoying?

A thought on the Practicality of all of this Research

A fundamental theme found throughout the readings of the first two weeks seems to be that research, particularly a strong focus on target audience research, is the most fundamental building block to a successful marketing campaign. Whether an awareness campaign, an issue campaign or a fundraising campaign, it all seems to start at this same place. This idea is kind of a no-brainer, and is a consistent message across any textbook, marketing, PR or relevant journalism class I have ever taken. I am not doubting this idea in any way, but the question I want to consider is whether it is really practical for most organizations, particularly nonprofits, to fund all of this needed research on their target groups.



I found the "Segmenting the Market" article particulary interesting, talking about the relevance of knowing demographics and psychographics. A thought I had after thinking about this reading as well as the others, "Nonprofit Marketing with a Purpose" and "Introducing Marketing to Nonprofits," was that the majority of these materials spend a great deal of time on what info about the audiences is needed and why. From my limited experience in PR, and granted it is mostly with smaller corporate clients, is that while all of this info would be great to have, most organizations don't have either the time or the money or both to gather it.



I feel like in most of the efforts I have worked on, companies kind of think with a go-from-the-gut mentality about what their targets think about and what messages will work best, and the main reason that they operate this way is because of the time and funding issues involved with this research. I know we talked about this briefly in class when Dr. Waters was talking from his personal experiences with PR agency work, and I have found a similar sentiment to be true with some of my clients - "research would be great, but we don't really have the resources available to do it."



Again, I am not trying to undermine the points of any of these readings, because they are consistent and make a lot of sense, but I think that making the research sell to lots of nonprofits and lower budget companies is a tough one. If I was operating on a limited budget, even knowing what we know about the value of in-depth research, I would probably try to do a bare-bones audience profile and use the rest of my money for something else with a little more glitz and glamor. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would probably put more of an emphasis on the Programming part of the ROPES process than I would with the research - simply from a financial standpoint.

Who really sets the agenda?

I was really intrigued by the article "The Impact of Nonprofit Organizations’ Media Relations on Donations to Crisis Relief Efforts: A Test of the Agenda Setting Theory". I think it brought alot of interesting topics to the table. I don't have a background in PR but I was drawn to this article since it had an international flare, which is my main interest.

The theme of the article focuses on the lack of empirical data that has been conducted to research the correlation between media coverage and public attention. With my first glance at the hypothesis I also made the wrong assumption that the main object of fundraising was to make money and that media coverage would increaes the public's desire to donate. But as I looked over the research I learned that the main objective of fundraising is to create relationships and maintain an honest reputation which contrasts with Horton's article about the underlying profit motive. Horton mentioned the lack of relationships and reputation in PR but fundraising's main objective is to create these two things. This creates an interesting correlation to why so many people think that fundraising is about raising money. The majority of the public thinks fundraising is about making money because of the lack of relationships and reputation in the business or PR field and this lack or substantial meaning allows the profit mindset to take root.

International crisis' happen around the world everyday, but the majority of the public doesn't care what happens in Africa or India because its doesn't affect their everyday life. What made America and the rest of the world come together and donate millions to a tsunami disaster? The agenda setting capacity of the media! The public doesn't control what is put on the evening news, its usually blood, bombs and babes or anything that will create a leading story. The media is a coorporration, and with any business, profit is seen by dollar signs so what bleeds, leads on the news. It would be interesting to see what the public would choose to call "news" if the power of agenda setting was in the hands of the public.

The artcile concluded that the best way for non-profits to gain more attention in the media is not through fundrasing but by highlighting the organization itself. I would be interested to see if non-profits actually do this and if it works? I think Horton would suggest that this would be a good idea since it would build relationships and reputation but he would question the desire of the public to respond since they might only be driven to donate if it could somehow profit themselves.

Know Your Place: Prioritizing Stakeholders

In Rawlins' article, the idea of stakeholder management is discussed. He states that “sacrificing the needs of on one stakeholder for the needs of the other is a dilemma with which many organizations struggle”. In the corporate world this might be easier to manage because the stakeholders are interested solely in the profit margin. However, in the nonprofit sector often the stakeholders have become involved in an organization because of an ideal or interest that has no relation to the bottom line of the corporate world.

Most nonprofits are focused on fundraising to provide funds pertaining to operating costs so that they can accomplish their main objective – whether it be preserving the arts, helping those in need, education initiatives, etc. Yet when it comes to nonprofit organizations how is balance achieved between the differing ideas and interests of stakeholders that provide them with the capital to continue operating?

I think this idea of prioritization is interesting because it emphasizes the issue of the haves and the have-nots. I worked at a historical society as the PR Coordinator for three years and this idea of prioritization was rampant. Those who had the money and influence possessed the power; while those whose family had lived in the town for generations wanted to preserve the history had the legitimacy. There were even those stakeholders who were members of the governing board who possessed the urgency to meet deadlines to receive grants and donations.

Most of the time those with the power and the urgency overruled those stakeholders with a legitimate claim to the organization’s time and effort which caused a lot of tension within the organization. So, how can a nonprofit organization utilize the idea of stake holder management and prioritization in order to create a fair distribution of resources? Is it even possible or will there always be someone whose needs are unfulfilled? And if a balance was achieved would it benefit or be detrimental to the organization?

Public Relations & the Profit Motive: Can't We All Just Get Along

Horton may be right that driven CEOs treat profit numbers as “isolated abstractions;” however, IF he was wrong about CEOs, why would we even need the PR practitioner? If all CEOs focused on reputation and relationships, instead of profit, where would we be? Well, I for one believe that the disciplines of organizational communication, public relations, etc may not even exist if it weren’t for the profit driven business school grads. As businesses grow ever larger, employees become more and more specialized. Thus, you have your CEO who specializes in achieving large profits and the PR person who specializes in reputation and relationships. There has to be a balance between specializations, doesn’t that make sense? Why does it have to be that one person is wrong and the other is right in his or her approach? Why can’t we just think of it as two separate schools of thought…aka, agree to disagree?
The dilemma really reminds me of the chicken and the egg argument…which came first, the business school view (one maintains reputation and relationships to produce revenue) or the public relations view (reputation and relationships lead to revenue)? Personally, I believe that the public relations view came first, but does that even matter in today’s society?

thoughts on the "PR and the Profit Motive" article

I thought it was interesting that this article pointed out how monopolies enabled companies to focus on relationships. I certainly would have never put those two together. I think most people think quite negatively about monopolies in that when a company has complete control over an industry, they can do whatever they want. But it seemed like the article was trying to imply that competition brings out the worst in business, which I don't necessarily disagree with.

I also wouldn't have necessarily associated PR with relationship and reputation building. I took an introductory PR class as an undergrad - it was required for all advertising majors. And when I was an advertising major, I minored in marketing. These three components (advertising, marketing, and PR) seem to go hand-in-hand. I left that major and minor because I felt like they were too cut-throat, manipulative, and competitive, and that's just not me.

Since then, my definition of PR has been molded by the media. To me, PR is about covering your butt when you mess up; not as much reputation building as reputation saving. From the outside, it seems like PR is a profession that builds relationships simply to advance one's career or profit margin. Essentially, I don't really see how it is any better than business. It's also hard for me to see that ethics is a priority for PR professionals as opposed to those in the world of business.

While this article was eye-opening, it was also a little depressing. For example, the author says "deceptive techniques of marketing are and will be used as long as there are buyers and sellers." If this is what we have to look forward to with competition in business, wouldn't it seem better to be back in the time of monopolies? If it meant that companies would actually focus on what the author defines as PR - relationship and reputation building - we might live in a better time.

culture's influence on PR and business (response to "Public Relations and the Profit Motive")

Since I have bachelors degree in international business, the article "Public Relations and the Profit Motive" by James Horton caught my attention right away. Horton compares business and public relations by explaining that business schools teach the importance of revenues and earnings but public relations teaches the importance of relationships and reputations. I thought I was going to get defensive about the author's jabs at business schools, but instead the article made me think about my other areas of interest and expertise- the international and cultural side of my degree and experience. While he may have valid points regarding motives of corporate and capitalist America where our culture is conditioned to believe in the importance of profit, he does not discuss business in other parts of the world where the culture emphasizes relationships. There are some countries where in order to conduct business, you must first establish a relationship with the client/customer. What is the difference between business and public relations in such countries? Is a greater importance placed on public relations in those countries than in the US? Is there a stronger link between the two or maybe they are one in the same? I am new to PR, so I do not know the answers, but I have studied international business and I know that this article can not apply throughout the world. I also wonder if the American culture will allow for a shift in beliefs as the author calls for in his conclusion.

Public Relations Crisis Looming for Nonprofits Relying on Direct Mail

A new survey from the Target Analysis Group has found that nonprofit organizations using direct-mail appeals for their fundraising efforts are not raising as much as they have in the past. They're actually losing more donors and attracting fewer new donors.

With this fundraising and public relations crisis looming, organizations need to invest more time and resources into developing relationships with their donors rather than relying on cold marketing-type solicitations.

Any suggestions on what local nonprofits can do to cultivate relationships with donors who only give $20 each year?

Nonprofit Organizations Take on the Presidential Contenders

Shortly before her win yesterday in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton "promised to work to allow people who don’t itemize their taxes to get deductions for charitable donations, to help nonprofit groups compete for government contracts, and to highlight the work nonprofit groups do."

In other meetings, the authors of
Nonprofit Leaders Question Political Leaders detail encounters with Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee. Obama says that nonprofit organizations will have a roll in his White House administration, and Huckabee was surprised that New Hampshire's nonprofit sector was the 2nd largest employer in the states.

Given these candidates' interest in the nonprofit sector, its a shame that more questions aren't asked to the candidates about nonprofit issues, especially in light of recent scandals and calls for increased government insight. Instead, it seems that most of the political campaigning involving nonprofits will continue to be pointless stops at different places where candidates will arrange photo opportunities to show that they are "good people" sort of like Huckabee's donation of soccer balls to children in Iraq.