CNBC just came out with their list of America’s most stressful jobs for 2010 and Public Relations Officers are #8. Something about the title “public relations officer” makes me giggle, but nonetheless, I was amused that my career of choice graced the list.
And indeed, there is stress. Things get crazy when newsworthy tidbits pop up at the last minute, when we’re hit with unrealistic expectations, asked to make news where isn’t any and of course, work miracles on a small budget…after all, PR is “free”, right?
Competition is high and tempers are short. Yeah, the job has its moments. But in the end, I’d rather someone respect PR for being stressful than call it “event planning.”
Advertising Executives also made the list, just slightly down from commercial pilots, surgeons and corporate executives…positions that I had believed to be much more esteemed in the public eye. After all, our portrayal often spurs the image of a slimy flack ready to ‘spin’ on a moment’s notice. Glad to see that might finally be starting to change.
See the list here:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36715336?slide=4
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Introducing...
ROTOGreen,a water conservation program from North America's largest plumbing and drain service provider. The company has set a goal of installing 10,000 water saving fixtures by the end of the year, which would have the potential to save tens of millions of gallons of water.
To prove that its green program is more than just talk, Roto-Rooter is profiling four families on its web site with a before and after green comparison of household water bills. They did the same thing for a 16-unit apartment building with the aim of showing how much water and money can be saved by making a few smart green choices.
More info: www.rotorooter.com/rotogreen
Thursday, April 8, 2010
To PR or not to PR...PR is not a verb!
The kind folks at the Cision Navigator have taken an interest in my latest article, "To PR or not to PR...PR is not a verb!" and have it posted on their site (along with a near life-size version of my headshot).
Please see the opening below, and follow the link to the full piece.
PR is not a verb!
This is not an article debating the changing landscape of the public relations or advertising industry, or preaching best practice advice, but rather it’s an examination of the two simple letters that encompass everything communications professional do: PR.
As a public relations professional, I respect that there are some commonplace misconceptions about what we do at our agency, and likely every other PR agency on the planet for that matter. The perception of what we do is made worse by certain reality television shows that not only make me want to claw my eyes out, but insult my intelligence and profession as well. There is a significant difference between a PR firm and a publicist – which allows me illustrate my point: all publicity is PR, but not all PR is publicity.
You can read the rest of it on the Navigator at the link below:
http://navigator.cision.com/To-PR-or-not-to-PR-PR-is-not-a-verb.aspx
Please see the opening below, and follow the link to the full piece.
PR is not a verb!
This is not an article debating the changing landscape of the public relations or advertising industry, or preaching best practice advice, but rather it’s an examination of the two simple letters that encompass everything communications professional do: PR.
As a public relations professional, I respect that there are some commonplace misconceptions about what we do at our agency, and likely every other PR agency on the planet for that matter. The perception of what we do is made worse by certain reality television shows that not only make me want to claw my eyes out, but insult my intelligence and profession as well. There is a significant difference between a PR firm and a publicist – which allows me illustrate my point: all publicity is PR, but not all PR is publicity.
You can read the rest of it on the Navigator at the link below:
http://navigator.cision.com/To-PR-or-not-to-PR-PR-is-not-a-verb.aspx
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Hard Truths and my Soft Opinions...
Every morning as I’m getting ready for work, I watch our local morning news show on Fox 19 to catch the latest headlines, weather and whatever else might make for some good conversation each day.
During this time, without fail, an ad appears entitled “the Hard Truths”. Typically, these address any range of issues from health care to religion, most of which politically charged.
And, while it does a great job of assimilating a news program and using the word ‘truth’ to sound factual, I’m not sure it’s always the case. But, I digress.
April fifth’s “Hard Truths” segment I found particularly interesting, not so much in its content, but in the choice of vehicle for the message.
Here is the video:
Now, without focusing on other things this video calls to light, our host Phil essentially says that politicians should not listen to their constituents while making decisions on their behalf.
Think about it- this ad, paid for by campaign donations nonetheless, is going out to those very masses he’s saying aren’t credible.
( see: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/187000_for_heimlichs_hard_truth_what_did_phil_do_with_his_campaign_cash/ )
I wonder, if upon receiving these donations, he replies, “Thank you for your money. I won’t represent your beliefs, but have a great life!”
Maybe he’s trying to say that leaders shouldn’t always blindly follow the masses—something with which I very much agree, but the way this comes across, it sounds more like he’s saying “the public doesn’t know what’s best for themselves.” …if that’s really what he wants to say, I would suggest not taking a local television ad to communicate said sentiments…to the public.
It’s a large leap to associate atrocities in American history strictly to the will of the people, as certainly slavery, internment camps and the Salem witch trials involved no underhanded politics whatsoever.
It’s also mildly offensive to myself and other members of the intelligent sector of the viewing public to be told that one of our own self-proclaimed public servants is stating outright that he will not abide by our wishes. Doesn’t that sound a little un-democratic? I mean, how does one get elected into office on a platform of not representing their constituents?
I hope he’s not running for election again anytime soon…
During this time, without fail, an ad appears entitled “the Hard Truths”. Typically, these address any range of issues from health care to religion, most of which politically charged.
And, while it does a great job of assimilating a news program and using the word ‘truth’ to sound factual, I’m not sure it’s always the case. But, I digress.
April fifth’s “Hard Truths” segment I found particularly interesting, not so much in its content, but in the choice of vehicle for the message.
Here is the video:
Now, without focusing on other things this video calls to light, our host Phil essentially says that politicians should not listen to their constituents while making decisions on their behalf.
Think about it- this ad, paid for by campaign donations nonetheless, is going out to those very masses he’s saying aren’t credible.
( see: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/187000_for_heimlichs_hard_truth_what_did_phil_do_with_his_campaign_cash/ )
I wonder, if upon receiving these donations, he replies, “Thank you for your money. I won’t represent your beliefs, but have a great life!”
Maybe he’s trying to say that leaders shouldn’t always blindly follow the masses—something with which I very much agree, but the way this comes across, it sounds more like he’s saying “the public doesn’t know what’s best for themselves.” …if that’s really what he wants to say, I would suggest not taking a local television ad to communicate said sentiments…to the public.
It’s a large leap to associate atrocities in American history strictly to the will of the people, as certainly slavery, internment camps and the Salem witch trials involved no underhanded politics whatsoever.
It’s also mildly offensive to myself and other members of the intelligent sector of the viewing public to be told that one of our own self-proclaimed public servants is stating outright that he will not abide by our wishes. Doesn’t that sound a little un-democratic? I mean, how does one get elected into office on a platform of not representing their constituents?
I hope he’s not running for election again anytime soon…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)