THE POINT IS, TIP.

Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point is an excellent tool for those interested in the theory of, what I consider, Possibility. He clearly identifies types of movements throughout our population that shape and profile aspects of life from fashion to human nature. Gladwell labels people as well, classifying them by their actions and attributes. As a whole, the book is an excellent foundation for those not only starting a journey in the PR world, but also for those already immersed within it.

I consider Possibility to be the over arching theme of this book. Everything Gladwell discusses is dependent. Everything is a variable, whether it be a type of person or a type of movement. Once a variable acts upon a situation, everything changes. The Possibility changes.

Gladwell points to three types of movements that can tip a product, disease, ect. over its balance point. When a product tips it manifests itself within a part of society. Suddenly it experiences exponential growth and if were to put the data of that growth on a graph, the point where the graph shot up or down would be considered the tipping point.

The Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor and the Power of Context are the three points Gladwell discusses when talking about how a product might sweep through society. He claims that when all three of these ideas are in place, that a product will tip.

The Law of the Few deals with exceptional people who may find about a trend, and through their social connections, they spread the trendy epidemic. Think about it as seeing someone wearing an 80’s style jacket and you think to yourself, “That’s a cool jacket, and not many people have anything like it.” So you decide to buy one. You wear the jacket and someone else sees you and thinks to themselves the same thought you did. Then they buy one like it and so on and so forth.

The Stickiness Factor is very well defined in The Tipping Point and I will use a direct quote from the book here.

"The stickiness factor says that there are specific ways of making
a contagious message memorable; there are relatively simple changes
in the presentation and structuring of information that can make a
big difference in how much of an impact it makes."

Gladwell has a simple and clear definition for the Power of Context. He states “that human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem.” Generally, we can assume that everyone is a product of his or her environment. Actions and reactions, thoughts, the way someone dresses, beliefs and mannerisms are all shaped by our environment. We are results of our surroundings.

In further attempt to provide direction in understanding Possibility and epidemics, Gladwell breaks down people into three groups: Mavens, Connectors and Salesmen. Mavens are the type of people who particularly enjoy finding great deals on products. They will be glad to let you know when and where you can find the best prices or experiences when you are looking to purchase. Connectors are people that know a lot of people. They introduce and are introduced. In short, they get around. Salesmen can make us want to buy. Many times, we don’t even know why, but they have the art of the sell.

When I consider myself, I’m not quite sure where I fit. With some aspects of life I’m a Maven. I thoroughly enjoy finding the best deals on products such as cell phones and other electronic equipment. I’ll spend long hours on the computer meticulously researching what people think about a product, their likes and dislikes. I’ll find every spec and feature. And of course I always shop around for the best prices. Sometimes I’ll delay a purchase just to wait for ebay deals. I don’t particularly see myself as a Connector. I don’t feel the need to know a great deal of people and for what it’s worth, I’m not entirely positive what a “great deal of people” entails. I suppose I’m a tiny bit of a Salesman, but that’s only for products and ideas that I’m profoundly interested in.

Our current project in PR Admin has been going well. I’ve been exceedingly pleased with the effort everyone has put into everything. And when I think about which if these concepts would be most beneficial to our progress, only ones comes to the forefront of my mind: the Power of Context. I believe that creating an environment around campus of enjoyment and anticipation of school athletic events is crucial to our progression throughout or project. When a basketball game is coming up, people should feel it in the air. They should plan their day around it. I want to hear students asking each other if they are going to the game that night. I would like to spend some time focusing on the little things that shape people’s campus environment. What are we over looking? Where can we carve out a niche that no one else has found? There is simply something and somewhere we haven’t gone and I would like find out what it is and explore it.

Too much PR?

I decided to Google the words "public relations strategy." I thought for sure I would come up with some thought provoking and new way to think about PR and possibly stumble upon some innovative ways to practice PR that I hadn't thought of before.

I came across a site discussing public relations on a tight budget. It outlined 5 key steps in practicing PR while trying to squeeze value into every dollar spent.

After reading step 5, I found myself wondering about something in particular. The very first sentence says that once you start promoting your business, you should never stop.

What I began wondering is if this is actually the case. Is there ever a point when media outlets become tired of a constant stream of information about a business? But at the same time, does someone starting a new business have the responsibility to do everything in his or her power to promote his or her business?

At first glance, I would say anyone starting a business should do everything possible to promote and further the business and increase profits. This seems like the most sensible answer. However, I've been taught by some of my esteemed teachers here at GCSU (that's not sarcastic, I really do think most of them have a lot to offer) that sometimes people from newspapers can get tired of constantly receiving news releases and other information of the like.

So does this same theory apply to PR when promoting a business? Is there ever such a thing as too much PR?

Someone help me out

I was looking at the Facebook profile of one of GCSU's esteemed teachers and my wonderful advisor, Macon Mcginley. She has a post there of a new voting PSA. I encourage everyone who reads this blog to view the video here.

My question is this. Is a PSA closer to marketing or public relations? I contend that it has elements of both. This voting PSA is attempting to get people to vote. This seems to be an element of marketing. At the same time, the PSA is trying to relate to me an idea. In a way it is trying to instill a thought process in me, much the same way I see many companies using PR. So, someone help me out. Where do i place the PSA?

As a side note, I was a little offended by the video. Yes, I did think part of it was funny. But think about this. I feel like the video is aimed at our generation. And the way it was decided to reach out generation is to tell us not to vote and to make some crude jokes. This is what someone thought I needed to hear in order to make me vote. Pathetic.

LINK FEST!!!! Belief vs Money

Searching through the vast ocean of the blogosphere, I've come across some interesting themes. First and foremost, people are angry. It seems as though they write most passionately about that which infuriates them. Personally, I live in a world of cynicism. Quippy jokes and snide comments are my failsafe fall back. But why does it seem that we revert to such places when expressing ourselves? I'm no more a hippie than John Wayne, but can't we all just be happy?

In the PR world, I've found the issue of money and convictions come to light quite often. It seems as though people are having to choose between that which they know to be right or at least they understand to be inherently "good" and the other option of what's best for the company (usually money....).

I pose these questions: What's right for us or what's right for the company? Where do we draw the line as PR practitioners? And, maybe most importantly, does it ever become OK to stretch our own values for the good of the company?

He's rich. He's funny. Together they equal poor humor

If you haven't seen the new Microsoft ads, consider yourself lucky. To say watching the commercials is like watching paint dry or grass grow is to insult the very soul of grass and paint. I've been unfortunate enough to see two of the ads in this new series. If you've only seen the one with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld in the discount shoe store, relax; I promise the ad with them both at the dinner table is just as droll and uninformative.

However, Aarti Shah says this is exactly the kind of opportunity Microsoft could use. In her analysis of the commercials, Microsoft's new ad creates PR possibilities, Shah contends that these ads, which have not been received as humerus by viewers, create a unique situation for Microsoft's PR team. They can step in and respond. Bloggers, among others, have not been quiet about the weak attempts at humor from these commercials and the lack of information.

What advantages does this give to Microsoft? It seems as though they are keeping everyone in the dark about some type of product release. How do these seemingly pointless commercials further Microsoft's cause? Also, do these commercials to closely parallel that of Mac's recent ads where PC and Mac are represented as people?

Could this make any more sense???

Loren Baker of Search Engine Journal just slapped me with some knowledge. Actually, it was something very obvious and incredibly well said.

We live in a "right here, right now" world. Impatience at waiting in line, sitting in traffic or even waiting for a web page to load are all fueled by our need to be able to do everything and know everything at the same time. In the same instant, we want personalization. Everyone wants to be catered to. No longer are we a part of the masses. With the evolution of blogs, among a trillion other self-serving vices, everyone now believes his or her opinion actually matters.

So how does a company reach us? Baker said it best in her post "Search Engine Blogs as Public Relations Tools." She states "the new form of communication is an oxymoron; mass intimacy." How true! The days of press releases are coming to an end. Of course there is a time and place for them but people really are searching for up to date information else where. When you hear about a new company opening, where do you go? Are you looking for the nearest press release? No! You head straight to the web. And with the evolution of live blogging you might even be able to read about the type of piping being put in that very second!

Every company will have to adapt to this idea of mass intimacy. So how do they do it? Where do they start? Maybe this is an opportunity for entrepreneurs to pounce on. Let me be the first to raise my hand and volunteer to be the head of the Mass Intimacy Transversing Creative Heights Dept. Or as I would like to call it, the MITCH Department. ;)

AMC crushing Twitter dreams

This will be a follow up on the blog written by Tiffany Monhollon titled "It's Personal. It's Business. Mad Men, Twitter and Branding Online."

Monhollon brings to light an interesting story. AMC runs a show called Mad Men. The content of the show is not important to our discussion here. Recently, characters from the show began using Twitter as a way to communicate with fans. One fan in particular was so excited about this prospect, he decided to become his favorite character from the show on Twitter.

He went so far as to email AMC and inform them of what he was doing. It seems as though this would cover his tail with any type of legal backlash. In fact, it did quite the opposite. AMC took immediate measures to stop the characters and others posing as characters from twittering.

The rest of the story can be read at the first link. My question is this: is this a good move by AMC? It seems as though they were receiving free publicity from all of the twittering and so far, there was no harm done. What types of problems could arise for AMC if they leave these branded characters free to twitter as they please? Also, what does this say to the audience of the show who may enjoy feeling as though they are getting constant status updates about their favorite characters?

AMC has already chosen to handle this issue by shutting it down. This type of PR seems like it would negatively effect the channel as well as the show. I contend that viewers will be upset about the issues above and will thus hinder AMC and the show in future attempts push the programming.