Good PR

Dance Marathon, a UNC organization that helps raise money for the North Carolina Children’s Hospital, has done an excellent job for pubbing for this year’s annual dance marathon event. This year’s recruiting week was a lot more publicized than it has been in the past. Organization representatives were constantly in the pit, yelling, dancing, giving away free food, and encouraging people to sign up. Recruiters wore ridiculous costumes and went from door to door asking people to register to be a dancer. There were emails, posters, flyers, and Facebook status updates concerning registration and information about registration was extremely accessible.

In class we talked about how Public relations is becoming more transparent and more of a conversation between a company and the public. The PR campaign for Dance Marathon’s recruitment week embodied this new definition of what public relations is becoming. The use of Facebook played a huge role in setting up a space for current and potential dancers to communicate. The organization was transparent in the sense that their presence on campus was made known by their persistent day to day campaigning.

Bad PR

An example of bad PR would be the campaign for OJ Simpson’s “fictional” account of how he would have murdered his wife if he had actually committed the crime. After a highly publicized trial with an unpopular verdict reached (not guilty), some people believed that it was extremely insensitive to the victim’s family to publish a book with such subtext. Many American’s believed that Simpson was guilty, and the book played off of these sentiments. The backlash that resulted from this seemingly unethical PR campaign resulted in the publication of the book being canceled and the publisher in charge of the publication release being fired. 

My most frequented and favorite website is http://www.google.com/. I like google.com because it’s so multifaceted. I can check my email, network with google plus, search the web not just for information, but for images, videos, maps, and news. I can also access my youtube account from google’s home page. I also like Google because it automatically logs me into websites that I'm registered with via my g-mail account.  

I visit google’s homepage at least once every day. I mostly use Google for information gathering. My second top reason for using Google is for email purposes (gmail), but because Google.com is so multifaceted, I can use it for information-gathering, entertainment, diversion, or a combination of all of these.

Wow! After reading the article, I didn’t feel like Hank Williams’ comment was offensive. He was simply making a statement, voicing his opinion, which everyone is entitled to according to the first amendment. For ESPN to go and remove his song as the song opener for Monday night football was a bit extreme; however, if ESPN felt that the sentiments expressed by Williams would indirectly taint their image, they have a right to elude this blemish by distancing themselves from Williams.

I feel like celebrities often times get in trouble for speaking before they think. Although celebrities are entitled to an opinion and the freedom of speech, they also have to keep in mind the fact that they don’t only represent themselves, but that they are often associated with the different brands that they endorse or are associated with. Because of this, celebrities take on the added responsibility of not only upholding their image, but the image of their sponsors/endorsers as well. People of authority with the power to influence public opinion often times have to sacrifice their first amendment rights. I don’t necessarily think this is fair, but this is the way it is.  

In general, I’m not a huge music follower, so this whole payola issue was foreign to me. Even after reading the blog: “Payloa: A Hip-Hop Industry Controversy”, I was still a little confused over what the big deal was. It wasn’t until I read the blog post comments that the different perspectives of this issue became clear to me…but I digress.

I don’t think that it is right for DJs to demand money up front from an artist before they play their music. Although I have never completely agreed with the statement that “hip-hop” is dead, I do feel that as a genre of music, it has fell off and become more commercialized. This poses an issue for me as a passive consumer of music. I don’t go out and seek music on my own. I just listen to what is playing on the radio. Now that I know about payola, the idea that I’m not listening to necessarily the best of hip hop that’s out there, just the work of artist who were able to pay to have their music aired, disturbs and upsets me as consumer. I can understand the DJ wanting to get his cut, but as mentioned in the article, the DJ serves a middle man between me and the artist; therefore I feel like it is his responsibility to serve me best by supplying me with the best music, not with the music who’s artist paid him.

I understand both sides of the argument, from the perspective of a DJ and an independent artist.  I would go about resolving the issue between these two stakeholders by suggesting a contract be established. Once the artist is able to become mainstream, thanks to the airtime provided to them by a DJ they should show appreciation for this help, but paying them an amount outlined in a contract agreed upon by both parties.

For DJs to ask for money from the start, without the promise that the artist will become successful doesn’t seem fair to me. By paying later, both the artist and the DJ is benefiting from each other. The artist is getting airtime, and the DJ. is getting paid after the artist becomes successful, which resolves the initial issue: DJs felt like they weren’t being accredited for propelling an artist’s career.

“Is hip hop dead”? I don’t think it’s dead, but it’s definitely declining in health, and payola may have something to do with it. 

The Future of Newspapers 

The newspaper industry as a whole will continue to be a form of news media; however, small local newspapers are slowly fading away into the shadows of news media giants. As mentioned in the video, the internet has played a major role in the slow digression of the newspaper industry. Publishing newspapers online is cheaper than printing newspapers. Also, paid advertising, a key source of revenue for newspapers, is rapidly being replaced by free advertising websites such as craigslist online.

If newspapers were to disappear, I don’t feel like the news industry would be the same, and other media would not be able to adequately fill that gap. On a national level, media would be fine without newspaper; however, on a local level, a key part of the community that should be covered, would not be, and therefore affect the local area. Even now, there are instances, as was mentioned in the video, where local newspapers are disappearing. In these cases grassroots journalism would come into play, which is what I am reading about for the book review assignment for this class. Reporting the news would then fall into the hands of everyday citizens which could be done via blogging or the utilization of social networking sites.

In order for the newspaper industry to survive, it will have to identify distinct newspaper elements that are essential to its readers, and exploit them in order to keep its audience.  The simple fact that a newspaper is tangible may be enough for some people. My communications teacher expressed this sentiment in class one day while we were discussing this very issue. The newspaper industry may even want to start borrowing its ideas from other media. For example, maybe newspapers will start mimicking its layout after newspaper website interfaces. 

Youtube video: G-male

I found G-male to be very entertaining while at the same time informative. G-mail is not my main emailing account, so I don’t get to interact with g-mail enough to experience the scenarios laid out in Youtube clip; however, I do use Youtube (owned by Google), Google chrome, and Google’s search engine quite often, so I am familiar with the caching, and advertisements that were satirized in the clip.

Google’s tracking tactics do not bother me because, they do not inconvenience me. In my eyes,  I suffer no immediate negative consequences as a result of their tracking tactics. If, anything, they make my life easier as far a caching the websites I have visited goes. However, after watching the G-male video, I was a little creeped out. Seeing the tracking tactics personified helped to put into perspective how Google could become a problem for some people.

I feel like because Google is a respectable company, I trust them. And because I trust Google, I don’t mind if they use my information to send me advertisements, cupons, or reminders about events I have coming up on my calendar.

I don’t see anything wrong with what Google is doing. They can’t track you, if you don’t supply them with information to track.  The video claims that “Google delved deep into your personal life, “ but how personal is your life if you choose to place such information on the internet? It’s no longer personal, and therefore free game for Google to track and use.