Strategically Communicating

Mac Prichard, President of the firm Prichard Communications and founder of the job posting site Mac’s List, provided his assessment of the non-profit communications world.

“Social change communications is about changing the rules,” said Prichard, whose firm provides services to a number of non-profit organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. He discussed the ways his field has evolved since the 1960s and ’70s, when social agencies devoted scant resources toward spreading their messages. Today, many of the same techniques developed for the commercial market are used to help non-profit organizations. “It’s Marketing 101,” said Prichard, “whether you’re trying to change a social policy or trying to make a sale.”

Though the challenges posed by the digital revolution have been hard on mainstream news outlets, Prichard sees great opportunities for organizations to advertise themselves. “There are no more gatekeepers,” he said, a term referring to the barriers that existed when the number of media outlets was more limited. With numerous social media platforms to choose from, organizations can afford to market themselves more broadly than ever before, while reaching target audiences more effectively.

But it isn’t enough to simply throw facts and figures at one’s audience and expect financial and political support. People respond to stories. “When we tell the stories of the people we serve, it helps us make a powerful emotional connection with others,” he said. Therein lie the career opportunities for storytellers and marketing experts.

As an example of this kind of storytelling, Prichard cited his own firm’s work for a program called Reclaiming Futures. 

Looking ahead, Prichard sees great potential for those in communications who wish to work for important causes. “You don’t have to change the world for your work to have meaning,” he said, “but it’s exciting that there are opportunities if that’s what you want to do.”

Source: http://bit.ly/1vLdUFI

Journalists now live in a time where our content is open to criticism like it’s never been before. According to the University of Wisconsin Center for Journalism Ethics, “Our media ecology is a chaotic landscape evolving at a furious pace.  Professional journalists share the journalistic sphere with tweeters, bloggers, citizen journalists, and social media users.”

That being said, how do journalists separate themselves from the plethora of digital media creators? What separated a journalist from a blogger, if they’re all using the same platforms for publishing?

My philosophy on this dilemma is the following. The tools are the platforms of distribution, but the content is what separates journalists form non-journalists. Whether I’m producing a video for the a website, or writing a story for print, I always adhere to my set of journalistic ethics. I always fact-check, never write sensationalist headlines, or attempt to deceive my audience. The quality of the content I produce is the same, regardless of the outlet I’m producing it for.

Legacy media companies have the ability to create and maintain a dominant culture on the Internet because of their name. Brands help determine credibility. That brand can be a name of an individual, or a name of a media company, but the end result is still the same.

In my opinion, with such a revolving digital landscape where the content is changing at unprecedented speeds, it’s of the utmost important for online journalists to maintain their integrity and ethics, to promote the truth and help separate themselves from those without formal journalism training.

Professor Andrew DeVigal, Chair of Journalism Innovation and Civic Engagement in the UO School of Journalism and Communications, shared his broad vision of the trends shaping the future of media and communication, as well as a review of the technological developments that have brought us to this point.

Professor DeVigal, who has held multimedia positions with the Chicago Tribune, Poynter Institute and The New York Times, began with a review of the evolution of the Internet in conjunction with his own education and career, a span that stretches from the early days of “Web 1.0” in the early 1990s to what is known as the “Semantic Web” in the modern era. In that time, the internet has grown from a rudimentary means of communication to a quasi-intelligent system of interconnected devices.

DeVigal identified three trends influencing the media landscape: the “Internet of Things”, the tendency of technology to be immersive and continuous, and the concept of the “Semantic Web”.

The Internet of Things refers to networked devices that use the Internet as a part of their inherent functionality, such as the line of home management products produced by Nest.

Using clips from the film Minority Report, DeVigal discussed the second trend, the tendency of technology to become immersive and continuous; in other words, technology will become seamlessly integrated into our daily lives. DeVigal cited as an example the purchase by Facebook of the virtual reality company Oculus Rift, and the use of its goggles in immersive journalism by Nonny de la Peña.

Finally, DeVigal explored the rise of the “Semantic Web”, whereby the Internet becomes so sophisticated that multiple data points are assembled to aid (or control) humans without prompting. Eventually, he said, we won’t even be conscious of the technology running in the background all around us, much as we’re barely aware of the electricity upon which we depend each day. Striking an ominous tone, DeVigal pointed out the implications for surveillance and privacy. He concluded his formal remarks by quoting the late Jim Morrison: “Whoever controls the media controls the mind.”

When discussing communication issues, I believe it’s of the utmost important to talk about not how we as communicators can not just inform the community, but how we can engage with the community. A high school near Ferguson is doing just that.

McCluer North High School neighbors Ferguson, Missouri, where 72% of students are white according to a recent study. When the students returned to school this year, the newspaper and yearbook staff had a choice to make. They had the option to continue to report relative stories to the community, or find a way to pay tribute to the recent protests and riots that took place in Ferguson.

They decided to create a series of stories, in collaboration with the yearbook staff, that were all relative to Ferguson. Some of them were news stories about what happened, and others were first person accounts of the events that unfolded. Each story was a different form of storytelling that contributed to a larger goal. According to the editor-in-chief in a recent report published by The Poynter Institute, the goal was to not inform the community about these events, but work to promote conversation around these topics, to find solutions.

I think it’s important as professional communicators to realize that regardless of our specializations, we must not forget that communication is a fundamental method for provoking change and reinforcing and advancing the democratic process.

Joining us the other night via Skype was Trei Brundrett, Chief Product Officer at Vox Media. Vox is an amalgamation of hundreds of blogs organized around seven themes: news, architecture, food, sports, gaming, style and technology. These sites function like news aggregators such as The Huffington Post, serving as a clearinghouse for articles written by paid and unpaid contributors as well as an advertising platform for brands.

Brundrett, who lives in the Washington, D.C. area, explained how Vox rose from humble beginnings as a single blog about the Oakland A’s to a vast network of hundreds of blogs. It achieved its success by exploiting fans’ desire for a more equal exchange of ideas around their love for a particular team, rather than the “top-down”, hodgepodge of general sports information they could get from sports media behemoths such as ESPN.

“We’re as much a technology company as we are a media company,” said Brundrett, describing the Vox ethos. “We’re just beginning to explore what it means to tell stories together, and not at each other.” In other words, amateur bloggers contribute to Vox sites alongside professional writers.

As previous speakers have pointed out, Brundrett named mobile technology as the driver behind change and growth in the media landscape. Rather than simply re-packaging existing content to fit various platforms, unique stories will have to be generated that properly fit individual platforms, he said.

Brundrett then turned to a discussion of funding models for Vox and other media companies. Hinting at the controversy surrounding what’s known as “native” advertising, Brundrett stated that the historically sacred line between editorial and advertising among media outlets may have to blur in order for those companies to stay viable. Without reliable revenue streams, “how do we sustain media and the stories we want to tell?” he asked rhetorically.

Despite the ever-present challenges posed by the economic realities of digital media and high audience expectations, Brundrett remained optimistic about the road ahead. “I’m super-excited about it,” he said.

Currently, I have been in the midst of a series of social media/communications challenges having to do with a recent social awareness campaign my work just launched. I work for an organization dedicated to improving public education for Oregon’s students. As I read the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer, I kept applying it to my situation. Edelman’s three-step approach to “establishing context” and progressing in a positive manner with stakeholders was especially pertinent to my situation.

First, Edelman says we, as the organization, must “seek input” from the community, which in my case could include the students, teachers, and administration of a school – as well as parents, politicians, business owners, my own company’s employees, etc. Essentially, my range of stakeholders is enormous.

Secondly, Edelman encourages advocacy. The campaign needs to have specific goals with tangible outcomes.

Finally, Edelman stresses the importance of continual evaluation. This goes hand-in-hand with the above point of having targets that are measurable. It is important to show progress, report on metrics/analytics, acknowledge weak areas, and recalibrate to better meet goals.

Something I have found, however, is that the public is wary of causes/challenges/campaigns, even if they are for a good cause. So, how can that change?

Thinking beyond my campaign, I looked at the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. By having an ordinary person spread the word about the cause via social media, the ALS Association was able to spread the message from one person to that person’s friends, who in turn spread it on to their friends.

A decision by the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, is due at any time. The shooting on August 9 of Michael Brown in Ferguson, an unarmed black teenager, by a white police officer triggers many reactions across the country. Not surprisingly, individuals continue to react differently and hold strong stances on the events that are being broadcasted throughout the country.

While completing the readings for this week, I quickly recognized the role that indirect reciprocity has played, particularly within the last few days as a decision grows closer.  Molm, Collett, and Schaefer (2007) define indirect reciprocity as the act in which the beneficiary of an act returns the favor not to the giver, but to another member of the social network. Earlier this week, as I was searching for updates online from trusted organizations such as Dream Defenders and the Urban League of Portland, I discovered a new resource being shared with the community.

Ferguson national response network has provided a list of planned responses around the country to the Darren Wilson grand jury announcement. The list which is being shared actively on SNS, such as Facebook, Twitter and even Tumbler provides the community with the location, time, and place to organize and rally the day following the verdict. This aided in providing support to Baker and Dutton (2006) position, that when individuals work together, information is shared more quickly which provides the resources to meet the needs of individuals and the community.

While reciprocity is a key to building trust in a social network, it is not key to journalism. At the end of their essay, Reciprocal Journalism, the authors say that it is more of a way to understand the journalist-audience relationship in a community. The prime way an audience engages with a news story is in the comments section. The journalist finds the story, does the reporting, and writes the story. The story is the basis for discussion and the comments are where the community has their discussion.

How would reciprocal journalism work? Yes local stations do use tweeted pictures of monster snowstorms, but I see that as the extent of audience participation.  I would argue that the reciprocation is that the journalist gets a page view and the audience gets compelling information.

As a news consumer I would much rather read a story by someone who spent two hours tracking down, and getting a quote from just the right source than someone who spent those two hours answering questions from their Twitter followers.

The authors argue that the audience is less engaged when they are not active participants in news judgement and presentation. That is true, but when I take my car to the mechanic, I’m not actively involved in the repair process. I agree with the authors that there’s a transaction cost for engaging with the audience. Audience engagement shouldn’t get in the way of reporting a story.

The 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer marked the biggest gap between the public’s trust in government and businesses recorded since 2001 (when Edelman first began conducting the study). One of the biggest reasons for this gap is due to the government’s reliance on a top down communication approach, particularly when it comes to receiving information from world and government leaders. Social activists, on the other hand, have adopted communication strategies that push both indirect and direct messaging with sustained reciprocity. Businesses have taken note and have begun to adopt this model – earning more trust from the public.

If, in fact, life satisfaction is a prerequisite of social trust, what does this say about the future of our jobs, friends, governments, and communities? Huge, multinational companies are taking note that new interactive media allows users to engage in and build social groups online (via our media consumption). Unilever recently encouraged 70 million consumers to sign up for its Project Sunlight campaign and pledge acts of environmental mindfulness. Microsoft’s 2014 Super Bowl commercial and Bing’s Heroic Women of 2013 ad both highlight the veins of social change present in each organization.

These are for-profit companies, gaining the trust of their consumers by motivating social change and illuminating the impact they have on the world.

Is there a sweet spot where businesses will adopt the rituals of social change in order to engage consumers? Companies can make more money by doing more good – thus setting the standard of what it looks like to truly interact with a consumer. Will it stick?