Excalibur Award Gala 2011
Mary Benton
KPRC-TV
Thursday 23-Jun-11 6:00 PM to Thursday 23-Jun-11 10:00 PM
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
10 Steps to Award Winning Contest Entries Julie Fix Part1
Award season is upon us. Best wishes to all of us!
Friday, March 25, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Writing tips of the month
The February issue of Tactics, PRSA's monthly newspaper, delivers several pages of advice on improving one’s writing skills, news release format and pitching “digital-savvy audiences.” Just in case you did not get your dose of “Writing 101” fix yet, here is the scoop.• Be concise and precise. According to Ryan Zuk, “some of the best media pitches and calls to action are composed of merely a simple subject line and a few sentences.” Ann Wylie cites a report from B.L. Ochman’s “Press Releases from Hell and How to Fix Them”, which says that the recommended length of a press release distributed via e-mail or Web should not exceed 250 words.
The body of your pitch isn’t the only thing to be streamlined. In 2010, Schwartz Communications reviewed 16,000 Business Wire press releases only to find that 77 percent of them did not follow Google News recommendation for the headline to be between 65 – 70 characters. (from Ann Wylie).
• Create urgency and excitement. Zuk believes that by tying your information to a current event and at the same time showing a unique perspective, perhaps a point of view contradictory to the popular opinion, you will increase the chances of editors noticing your pitch.
• Be active. Wylie suggests that we abandon passive voice altogether. By doing so, we will shorten text itself and create a sense of a livelier story.
• Link to relevant content. Instead of linking to your homepage or Facebook page, Zuk recommends linking to a specific blog post, video, or Web page, relevant to your pitch. You can also monitor traffic of that specific content.
Zuk, R. (2011). Pitching digital-savvy audiences. Tactics, 18(2), p.7.
Wylie, A. (2011). By the numbers: 7 stats for cutting clutter from your copy. Tactics, 18(2), p.7.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Historical Trends of Strategic Issues Management, Risk & Crisis Communication
Based on the following readings:
Heath, R.L., & Palenchar, M.J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kim, J-N, Ni, L. & Sha, B-L (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 751-768.
Palenchar, M. J. (2010). Historical Trends of Risk and Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 31-52). New York: Routledge.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Public Relations and Crisis Communication: Organizing and Chaos. In R. L. Heath, Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 155-165). Sage Publications, Inc.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Palenchar’s chapter “explores the historical trends of risk and crisis communication research unraveling the rapid growth and evolution of both fields while noting similarities and differences between them, and reviews the development of academic research centers related to advancing the study and practice of risk and crisis communication” (Palenchar, p. 31). This interdependent relationship between key functions of risk and crisis communications is focused on “…the better managed risks and crises are likely to result in less financial and social capital damages… a good organization can and should utilize risk communication and crisis communication…” (Palenchar, p. 48). A merged definition is Risk Communication + Crisis Communication = Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication.
“This type of communication differs from risk communication because of the narrow time constraint, decisions may be irreversible, decision outcomes are uncertain and often made with incomplete or imperfect information, while this type of communication differs from crises communication because the communication is not perceived as a participant in the crisis or disaster except as an agent to resolve the situation…” (Palenchar, p. 47). “This combination of perspectives is demonstrated in their crisis and emergency risk communication model in five stages are Pre-crisis (risk messages, warnings, preparations); Initial Event (uncertainty reduction, self-efficacy, reassurance); Maintenance (ongoing uncertainty, self-efficacy, reassurance); Resolution (updates regarding resolution, discussions about cause and new risks/new understandings of risk); Evaluation (discussions of adequacy of response/consensus about lessons and new understandings of risks)” (Palenchar, p. 47).
Present-day crisis communication research has developed from theoretically grounded models from apologia and impression management, as well as comprehensive approach to a crisis incorporates issue management, risk communication, crisis management plans and post-crisis communication. Future research in the growing field of organizational crisis and its corresponding expanding role for practitioners suggested by Seeger, et. al. is rooted in Chaos theory and Weick theory for future research. Practitioners need an understanding of crisis, specifically Organizational Crisis, Crisis and Issues Management, Risk Communication, Crisis Management Plans, Post-crisis Communication, and Organizational Crisis. Crisis is a fundamental to an organization’s life cycle. Therefore can represent an opportunity for development, which is a paradigm shift from being perceived solely as an organizational threat (Seeger, et. al., p. 156).
Issues management calls for organizations to identify, monitor, and analyze trends in key publics opinions… (Seeger, et. al., p. 156). An issue can evolve into a crisis in the form of “public policy, regulative/legislative constraint” (Seeger, et. al., p. 157). Issue management post-crisis pertains to the cause and responsibility. Risk communication is largely considered a pre-crisis function of establishing appropriate perceptions and understandings and creating positive stakeholder relations. It also has a role in crisis (that of providing information, mitigating harm) and in post-crisis (establishing new norms and practices). Crisis planning includes “the development of a crisis management team, development of preset responses and checklists, and maintenance of a crisis response and mitigation capability” (Seeger, et. al., , p. 158). The crisis management team should “create a designated group responsible for crisis planning and management; reduce crisis-induced stress and uncertainty; and separating the crisis management function from other operations so that, following a crisis trigger event, the rest of the organization can concentrate on returning to routine operations as quickly as possible (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). In post-crisis communication “a primary concern of traditional public relations research is determining effectiveness of post-crisis responses” (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). The strategies are rhetorical strategies and public relations strategies. Rhetorical strategies for post crisis communication are essentially rooted in apologia. Benoit’s expanded self-defense typology that aims to restore image for organizations are Denial; Evasion of Responsibility (misdeed result of provocation); Redirection of the Offensiveness of Event (bolstering, differentiation, transcendence); Corrective Action (restoring to before or preventing act in future); and Mortification (admit wrong and ask for forgiveness). The public relations strategies are about being fast and efficient; flexible in approach; and responsive to feedback.
Future Study seems to be following two theories are “well suited to describing the ambiguity, uncertainty, and disorder of crisis communication…” (Seeger, et. al., p. 164). In other words, Chaos Theory and Weick’s Theory of Organizational Enactment.
Heath, R.L., & Palenchar, M.J. (2009). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kim, J-N, Ni, L. & Sha, B-L (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: Explicating approaches to the segmentation of publics for public relations research. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 751-768.
Palenchar, M. J. (2010). Historical Trends of Risk and Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 31-52). New York: Routledge.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Public Relations and Crisis Communication: Organizing and Chaos. In R. L. Heath, Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 155-165). Sage Publications, Inc.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Palenchar’s chapter “explores the historical trends of risk and crisis communication research unraveling the rapid growth and evolution of both fields while noting similarities and differences between them, and reviews the development of academic research centers related to advancing the study and practice of risk and crisis communication” (Palenchar, p. 31). This interdependent relationship between key functions of risk and crisis communications is focused on “…the better managed risks and crises are likely to result in less financial and social capital damages… a good organization can and should utilize risk communication and crisis communication…” (Palenchar, p. 48). A merged definition is Risk Communication + Crisis Communication = Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication.
“This type of communication differs from risk communication because of the narrow time constraint, decisions may be irreversible, decision outcomes are uncertain and often made with incomplete or imperfect information, while this type of communication differs from crises communication because the communication is not perceived as a participant in the crisis or disaster except as an agent to resolve the situation…” (Palenchar, p. 47). “This combination of perspectives is demonstrated in their crisis and emergency risk communication model in five stages are Pre-crisis (risk messages, warnings, preparations); Initial Event (uncertainty reduction, self-efficacy, reassurance); Maintenance (ongoing uncertainty, self-efficacy, reassurance); Resolution (updates regarding resolution, discussions about cause and new risks/new understandings of risk); Evaluation (discussions of adequacy of response/consensus about lessons and new understandings of risks)” (Palenchar, p. 47).
Present-day crisis communication research has developed from theoretically grounded models from apologia and impression management, as well as comprehensive approach to a crisis incorporates issue management, risk communication, crisis management plans and post-crisis communication. Future research in the growing field of organizational crisis and its corresponding expanding role for practitioners suggested by Seeger, et. al. is rooted in Chaos theory and Weick theory for future research. Practitioners need an understanding of crisis, specifically Organizational Crisis, Crisis and Issues Management, Risk Communication, Crisis Management Plans, Post-crisis Communication, and Organizational Crisis. Crisis is a fundamental to an organization’s life cycle. Therefore can represent an opportunity for development, which is a paradigm shift from being perceived solely as an organizational threat (Seeger, et. al., p. 156).
Issues management calls for organizations to identify, monitor, and analyze trends in key publics opinions… (Seeger, et. al., p. 156). An issue can evolve into a crisis in the form of “public policy, regulative/legislative constraint” (Seeger, et. al., p. 157). Issue management post-crisis pertains to the cause and responsibility. Risk communication is largely considered a pre-crisis function of establishing appropriate perceptions and understandings and creating positive stakeholder relations. It also has a role in crisis (that of providing information, mitigating harm) and in post-crisis (establishing new norms and practices). Crisis planning includes “the development of a crisis management team, development of preset responses and checklists, and maintenance of a crisis response and mitigation capability” (Seeger, et. al., , p. 158). The crisis management team should “create a designated group responsible for crisis planning and management; reduce crisis-induced stress and uncertainty; and separating the crisis management function from other operations so that, following a crisis trigger event, the rest of the organization can concentrate on returning to routine operations as quickly as possible (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). In post-crisis communication “a primary concern of traditional public relations research is determining effectiveness of post-crisis responses” (Seeger, et. al., p. 159). The strategies are rhetorical strategies and public relations strategies. Rhetorical strategies for post crisis communication are essentially rooted in apologia. Benoit’s expanded self-defense typology that aims to restore image for organizations are Denial; Evasion of Responsibility (misdeed result of provocation); Redirection of the Offensiveness of Event (bolstering, differentiation, transcendence); Corrective Action (restoring to before or preventing act in future); and Mortification (admit wrong and ask for forgiveness). The public relations strategies are about being fast and efficient; flexible in approach; and responsive to feedback.
Future Study seems to be following two theories are “well suited to describing the ambiguity, uncertainty, and disorder of crisis communication…” (Seeger, et. al., p. 164). In other words, Chaos Theory and Weick’s Theory of Organizational Enactment.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
Crisis Communication and Public Relations Management: Reach, Conceptualization and Best Practices of Crisis Communication and Risk Communication
Based on the following readings:
Coombs, W. T. (2009). Conceptualizing Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 99-118). New York: Routedge.
Fearn-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication. A review of some best practices. In R.L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp.479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2009). The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 5-30). New York: Routledge.
Proper crisis and risk communication is inherently strategic, as well as entwined. However, reactionary crisis communications, which is not strategic communications, but rather simply a response to a crisis is still very much practiced today (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 5). In fact, Heath and O’Hair endorse the industry-standard crisis response practices, which calls for a spokesperson with a “respectful and neutral” style and the need for objectivity (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 24).
These current and long-standing notions of communications in crisis made the recent Tucson sheriff’s press conference all the more curious. In it Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, blamed the shooting on political rhetoric, which considering the mental instability of the accused gunman bears little relevance to the situation. By going “off script” however; Dupnik framed the discussion going forward. Was this the unintentional application of Chaos Theory to crisis communication in which the sheriff got out ahead of the inevitable bifurcation of sensemaking and assigning blame?
Other statements supporting the potential link with Chaos Theory are made by Adam and Van Loon (2004) when they “observed ‘risk culture as better conceived as a loose ensemble of sensemaking…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 17); and in 2000 when they reasoned “risks are manufactured not only through the application of technologies, but also in the making of sense…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 16). The National Research Council’s fault tree model may also have synchronicity with Chaos Theory since that it assumes “that events and choices (however random, probabilistic or causal) occur in some recognizable and manageable sequence” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 14), which is similar to Chaos theory’s fractals.
One of the standard statements heard when a crisis involves a death or injury is, “Our hearts and prayers go out to…” So often is this refrain heard that it can now have the opposite of its intended effect of sincere concern. The problem with expressing concern is the need to carefully avoid accepting legal responsibility. This is the presumed reason that “a number of states now have laws preventing statements of sympathy from being used as evidence…” (Coombs, 2009, p. 107). While statements of sympathy occur during the crisis, there is much to be communicated post-crisis, such as “updates on progress to recover from crisis, actions taken to prevent a repeat of the crisis, delivery of information promised to stakeholders during the crisis, release of reports about investigation of the crisis, and providing information to any governmental agencies that are investigating the crisis” (Coombs, 2009, p. 114).
Coombs’ observation that having one spokesperson for an extended crisis as being unrealistic was proven out with former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s statements connected to the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Most famously he stated, “I'm sorry. We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused their lives. There's no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back.”
Your thoughts?
Coombs, W. T. (2009). Conceptualizing Crisis Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 99-118). New York: Routedge.
Fearn-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication. A review of some best practices. In R.L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp.479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Heath, R. L., & O'Hair, H. D. (2009). The Significance of Crisis and Risk Communication. In R. L. Heath, & H. D. O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 5-30). New York: Routledge.
Proper crisis and risk communication is inherently strategic, as well as entwined. However, reactionary crisis communications, which is not strategic communications, but rather simply a response to a crisis is still very much practiced today (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 5). In fact, Heath and O’Hair endorse the industry-standard crisis response practices, which calls for a spokesperson with a “respectful and neutral” style and the need for objectivity (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 24).
These current and long-standing notions of communications in crisis made the recent Tucson sheriff’s press conference all the more curious. In it Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, blamed the shooting on political rhetoric, which considering the mental instability of the accused gunman bears little relevance to the situation. By going “off script” however; Dupnik framed the discussion going forward. Was this the unintentional application of Chaos Theory to crisis communication in which the sheriff got out ahead of the inevitable bifurcation of sensemaking and assigning blame?
Other statements supporting the potential link with Chaos Theory are made by Adam and Van Loon (2004) when they “observed ‘risk culture as better conceived as a loose ensemble of sensemaking…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 17); and in 2000 when they reasoned “risks are manufactured not only through the application of technologies, but also in the making of sense…” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 16). The National Research Council’s fault tree model may also have synchronicity with Chaos Theory since that it assumes “that events and choices (however random, probabilistic or causal) occur in some recognizable and manageable sequence” (Heath & O'Hair, 2009, p. 14), which is similar to Chaos theory’s fractals.
One of the standard statements heard when a crisis involves a death or injury is, “Our hearts and prayers go out to…” So often is this refrain heard that it can now have the opposite of its intended effect of sincere concern. The problem with expressing concern is the need to carefully avoid accepting legal responsibility. This is the presumed reason that “a number of states now have laws preventing statements of sympathy from being used as evidence…” (Coombs, 2009, p. 107). While statements of sympathy occur during the crisis, there is much to be communicated post-crisis, such as “updates on progress to recover from crisis, actions taken to prevent a repeat of the crisis, delivery of information promised to stakeholders during the crisis, release of reports about investigation of the crisis, and providing information to any governmental agencies that are investigating the crisis” (Coombs, 2009, p. 114).
Coombs’ observation that having one spokesperson for an extended crisis as being unrealistic was proven out with former BP CEO Tony Hayward’s statements connected to the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Most famously he stated, “I'm sorry. We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused their lives. There's no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back.”
Your thoughts?
Monday, January 17, 2011
Introduction to Sustainability Course
Recognized leader in sustainability will be offering a course to children in Fort Bend County. Space is limited. Email Karen@Magnolia-Sky.com or call 281-239-6144 to register.
What is Sustainability?
Sustainability is a way of thinking and living, it's the capacity to endure; finding the balance between the environment, economy and social structure.
It is with our children's vision and actions that our future is captive and so we must give them the tools and sight to build a sustainable future.
The Course
This interactive course, which in part meets the Boy Scouts of America’s Energy and environmental Science merit badge requirements, brings awareness to the student on a variety of environmental, economic and social issues that are affected by sustainable awareness.
Subjects that will be introduced observed and discussed focus on wellness of life, health, values, respect and integrity. Students will learn how their knowledge and actions affect the world around them.
Introduction into Sustainability
An introduction course for middle school children on what sustainability is and what it means to them.
Ages 11 to 13
5-6 students per class (min. 5)
Two-hour course once every "other" Saturdays from 1 p.m.- 3p.m., Feb. 12 –April 30
Hosted by Magnolia Sky Communications at Pecan Grove Plantation, 3430 Colonel Court Drive, Richmond, TX 77406
$60/class (Payment plan available if needed) $180 1-Feb-11 to reserve a seat and the remaining $180 by 1-Mar-11.
Instructor
Matthias Jung, Sustainable Awareness
Certified Permaculture Consulting
ASES (American Solar Energy Society) Director of the Houston Solar Tour and Social
Board Member of the "HAUS (Houston's Access to Urban Sustainability) Project"
Member - Transition Houston
Rep. - Houston Green Scene
What is Sustainability?
Sustainability is a way of thinking and living, it's the capacity to endure; finding the balance between the environment, economy and social structure.
It is with our children's vision and actions that our future is captive and so we must give them the tools and sight to build a sustainable future.
The Course
This interactive course, which in part meets the Boy Scouts of America’s Energy and environmental Science merit badge requirements, brings awareness to the student on a variety of environmental, economic and social issues that are affected by sustainable awareness.
Subjects that will be introduced observed and discussed focus on wellness of life, health, values, respect and integrity. Students will learn how their knowledge and actions affect the world around them.
Introduction into Sustainability
An introduction course for middle school children on what sustainability is and what it means to them.
Ages 11 to 13
5-6 students per class (min. 5)
Two-hour course once every "other" Saturdays from 1 p.m.- 3p.m., Feb. 12 –April 30
Hosted by Magnolia Sky Communications at Pecan Grove Plantation, 3430 Colonel Court Drive, Richmond, TX 77406
$60/class (Payment plan available if needed) $180 1-Feb-11 to reserve a seat and the remaining $180 by 1-Mar-11.
Instructor
Matthias Jung, Sustainable Awareness
Certified Permaculture Consulting
ASES (American Solar Energy Society) Director of the Houston Solar Tour and Social
Board Member of the "HAUS (Houston's Access to Urban Sustainability) Project"
Member - Transition Houston
Rep. - Houston Green Scene
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)