• Welcome to my Observations

    Online observations of public relations, marketing, advertising and social media; the occasional frivolity; and The Rundown show notes. Jump in, the water's fine.

    Please Note: Everything posted on this blog is my personal opinion and does not necessarily represent the views of my employer or its constituents.

  • My Pinterest

    Digital Social

  • LinkedIn

    View Luke Armour's profile on LinkedIn

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • The Rundown Podcast Live

    The Rundown

  • RSS Media Bullseye

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

  • Creative Commons

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

  • The Show Player

  • Pages

  • February 2026
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728

  • Meta

Advertorial – acceptable or devil’s penmanship?

Posted on July 4, 2006 by Luke Armour

Is it pay-for-play, unethical, okay, or acceptable only under certain circumstances? I took a poll through the Bulldog Reporter this week and took a snap of the results. Sixty-eight percent of those who responded (no mention of how many people had weighed in) think pay-for-play marketing should never happen. I note that it includes ethical issues for both journalism and PR. Nice touch. Twenty percent indicated it would be done under certain circumstances. But who has the definition of pay-for-play? Lots of wiggle room, I’d imagine. I mean, c’mon Clinton taught us we can legally stretch the definition of any word.

But advertorials? Who would argue that advertorials are unethical? I’m a big fan of advertorials used in certain circumstances. They’re tools of communication just like blogs or brochures. In some situations, it’s the best way to get the message out. Didn’t Johnson & Johnson put out advertorials during their mid-80s poison crisis? It was a way for them to get their story out in the days before the web.

But this NYT article from Maria Aspan indicates the blurry line some people are walking. The article details how the writer of an advertorial was paid for it, but also listed as a contributing editor in the publication. Not to mention the “this is a paid advertisement” was barely visible to the naked eye.

Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism organization [said] “As a member of the audience, how do I know where his loyalties are when I see his byline on something else?”

Purposefully deceptive? How does this compare to ghost writing? It doesn’t, if you ask me. But when you’re a contributing writer of a rag and are also paid to write ads for the same – that does sound a bit odd. As PR pros we’re bound to run into pesky predicaments every once in a while. Part of our jobs is to write.

I mean, right there in the PRSA Code of Ethics it clearly states:

A member shall:
• Be honest and accurate in all communications.
• Act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which the
member is responsible.
• Investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released
on behalf of those represented.
• Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.
• Disclose financial interest (such as stock ownership) in a client’s
organization.
• Avoid deceptive practices.

I mean, I’m just telling you what it says. But so very few of the people who engage in PR practices are members of PRSA, IABC, or CIPR. So, there’s a loop hole.

To me, this whole thing goes back to definitions. PR is so inaccurately defined so often. PR is practiced by people who don’t understand it fully. PR is not solely publicity, but I’d wager most of the self-proclaimed PR pros out there do only that. PR is not just getting coverage for clients at any cost. Because there is a cost. And people are watching. Would there be a PR Watch organization if we stuck to a code of ethics?

Update: Robert French has a nice little discussion about online pay for play here.

Filed under: advertising, Future of PR, Public Relations, public relations ethics | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

PR dissed by journalism – again

Posted on June 21, 2006 by Luke Armour

This is old news to many (April), but it just re-read it again on the Bulldog Reporter this week. It touched a nerve. Bob Zelnick, a former ABC news correspondent and head of BU's journalism department stepped down from his post because he recognizes his inadequacies as an administrator. Good on ya, man. It's good to recognize one's strengths and weaknesses. He will instead become a professor of national and international affairs. I admire that. What I found surprising is what he said when he left.

For example, the headline from the Bulldog: Boston University’s Outgoing Journalism Program Chairman Snubs Communications Dept.—Says PR/Advertising and Journalism Should Be “Adversaries,” Not Interdepartmental “Cousins” like, ouch, man.

Headline from the Boston Globe article: Debate roils BU department (By Sarah Schweitzer and Marcella Bombardieri) Well, at least you can tell which article came from a PR source 😉 The part of this article that I like best is the quote from Bob.

"Zelnick said the journalism program has become increasingly competitive with the best in the country, but 'we will never get a Grade A, first-rate, nationally recognized journalist to lead this department as long as it's linked' to mass communication."

It's funny he should say that. As a recent graduate, I've been thinking for years that communication studies have been held back by the placement of the departments in colleges or schools such as Journalism, Fine and Applied Arts, or Stuff No One Cares About in universities across the nation.

I just read Everett M. Rogers' book "History of Communication Study" and I at least now have an understanding of why things are that way in colleges today (you should read it if you like dry, lengthy historical books. Good info, though). But I agree with Zelnik, the departments could be separated, but I think for completely different reasons. Communication study has developed immensely in the last 40 years and deserves a home of its own. Students and communication fields would benefit greatly, especially PR. I applaud those universities and colleges across the world with stellar PR departments, but often students end up at schools they can afford or geographically get to – not often the best schools for all that learnin'.

Any thoughts or is this a tired subject? 

Filed under: Education, Future of PR, Public Relations, student development | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

The Blogger Dichotomy

Posted on June 6, 2006 by Luke Armour

This is a little late, but I've been mulling this topic over for a while.

Spawned by this this post by Wagstaff, I've been wanting to post something about this since I read it as well as add some of my own thoughts on the subject. Wagstaff goes into detail about PR people and bloggers, it's an interesting read. Be sure to read the transcript of Richard Edelman's Q & A linked from Wagstaff at Weinberger's site as well as Richard's own commentary on the subject. There are some tips that you can sort through.

Bloggers. Bloggers are people, too. Sometimes they are rather influential people, but they're people. How does one, as a blogger, balance life and blogging? Mike Sacks wrote an interesting post recently about how disappointed he is with PR bloggers the other day. His point was this: Write about PR if you're a PR blogger. I mostly agreed with him. But nobody is just a PR blogger. These people are also tech geeks, PR pros, fathers, sisters, managers, idealists, realists and daughters. You have to sort through what is out there and find things that resonate with you. (Read the comments on Mike's post, too, they're interesting. Oh, also, Mike doesn't like it when bloggers write about blogging, so he's probably rolling his eyes about this, too. 😉 I can't help it.)

We're used to journalists writing about their beats. A journalist rarely mentions in a post about political unrest in Kerplakistan that his daughter is teething and isn't that cute. Would I read a magazine that didn't stay on topic? Probably not. But blogging is different, blogging is people, blogging is all the person at least some of the time. That's what makes it so cool.

But the balance is hard to attain. Where does one put the fulcrum? Am I a PR blogger or a person? Am I a professional or a guy with a chip on his shoulder? Am I a representative of my agency or a solitary entity. All of the above I guess. I suppose we all find our groove and fit into it, as both a blog reader and a blog writer. It is incredibly hard for me to unsubscribe to feeds I've been reading since I found the blogosphere even though I rarely find anything of value to me in them. Why? Because I might miss something. And it's also hard for me to write about things that interest me if I feel my readers might find them off topic, but it's who I am.

We should all really be grateful that I'm not blogging about the Stanley Cup Playoffs (I probably would be, except that I don't get OLN).

So, blogging is an anomaly that we're not really quite used to merging with the "real world" yet, there's clearly a dichotomy between who we are and who we present ourselves to be. And it's something we need to be ready for if we are to work with bloggers to help spread our messages. I'm up for the challenge.

Filed under: Future of PR, Public Relations, Social Media | 4 Comments »

Social Media: Vitamins of the Web

Posted on April 29, 2006 by Luke Armour

Like getting enough vitamins or fiber in your daily diet, social media might actually be good for you. Things like blogging and podcasting, you say? Indeed. Let me show you some examples.

This report from The Boston Globe entitled "Blogs 'essential' to a good career" pretty much says it all. But, in typical Luke fashion, please allow me expound upon the self-evident. The articles lists several excellent reasons to blog, one of which is to help you launch your career by demonstrating your work-ethic and mental processes. If you don't believe me, check this out.

And, as you know, corporations can reap the benefits as well. Sure, we've been talking about this for a while, but here's a study that actually gives some empirical data. This study, pointed out to me by David Phillips on FIR (thank you), indicates that blogs have "relational strategies," such as conversational human voice and commitment. These strategies were found to correlate significantly with relational outcomes such as "trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, [and] commitment." Blogging can make your organization seem like Soylent Green, you know, made of people. It has worked wonders for Microsoft…

Podcasting, how does this fit in? Easy, for many of the same reasons as The Boston Globe article about blogging. Plus, listening to podcasts in their entirety could get you a two-minute self promotion spot on a major mash-up edition of influential industry-related podcasts. Chris, I listened to the FIR#131 and ATS #29 mash-up. Your promo was great, good luck.

And some new information about the web in general is always good. For instance, the Pew Internet & American Life Project released a study (abstract w/link to pdf) last week showed a gigantic increase in the influence the Internet has on our lives (hat tip). You don't have to tell me! Nearly half of my graduate education came from the Internet – by my own choice, of course. Some stats:

  • 50% in the number who said the internet played a major role as they pursued more training for their careers.
  • 43% in the number who said the internet played a major role when they looked for a new place to live.
  • 14% in the number who said the internet played a major role as they switched jobs.

In sum: Social media is good for you. The Internet continues to grow in popularity and usefulness. Eat your fruits and veggies. Any questions?

Filed under: blogging, Blogosphere, Education, Future of PR, Job Market, podcasting, Public Relations, student development, technology | 3 Comments »

Voices in my head

Posted on April 17, 2006 by Luke Armour

At first, they appeared to be in my head, but then I remembered that I was on a conference call. 

Filed under: Admin Notes, Future of PR, Job Market, Public Relations | Tagged: | 2 Comments »

PRSSA Portfolio and Resume Review

Posted on March 24, 2006 by Luke Armour

Our local PRSSA chapter held a portfolio and resume review meeting this week. Members of the local PRSA chapter came to help with student development. Stephanie Schuster, Akron PRSSA President, organized an educational and exciting event – despite the facilities not being properly prepared. Excellent work, Stephanie.

Personally I was a little disappointed in the student turnout, but I feel that those who did attend got some excellent exposure, advice, and networking. There were around 15 PR professionals there covering non-profit, agency, independent practitioner, and corporate organizations. I didn’t get a chance to talk to all of them, alas, as the craziness that I like to call “empirical research class” was bearing down upon me.

The three professionals I personally spoke with were outstanding. I’m finding out how interconnected this whole PR world is – two of the three individuals I had sessions with, either currently work or have worked with my old pal Clark for whom I did some freelance work for last year. Two of them! I was halfway through the review with Emily Sword of Smiley-Hanchulak before she mentioned something about working with a person I used to work with at Clark’s. I blurted out, “oh, you know Clark?” She replied that she worked with him up until she took her new job last December. She looked me in the eye and said, “PR around here is a small world.” Made me start wondering if I had said anything bad about Clark! Of course I didn’t! But it still made me wonder…
So the three individuals with whom I had sessions were:

I also had a chance to speak briefly with Marcus Miles of Goodwill Industries of Akron and, of course, Michael Gaffney, our PRSSA professional liaison from United Way of Summit County. These people giving up their free time to help students with their professional development is a wonderful expression. We should all be very grateful for what they have done. I know in that brief hour I learned a lot about me, PR, and my portfolio and resume. What else could I have wanted? Oh, yeah, there were cookies and coffee there, too – it was like a dream come true. The professionals couldn’t have been more helpful, and neither could Dr. Ritchey have been – he walked around with the cookie tray while we were chatting with our pros. Thanks to all professionals who offer their guidance and assistance – now, and in the future – to students and young PR pros as well.

Now let’s go out there and do what we can to get jobs so we can turn around and help other students.

Filed under: Future of PR, Public Relations, student development | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Why aren’t you listening to FIR?

Posted on March 16, 2006 by Luke Armour

And I know you’re not. So, why not?

I going to keep this short, but you need to check out Paull Young’s post. Right now. Don’t delay.

And start listening to For Immediate Release: The Hobson and Holtz Report. Not having an iPod is no excuse. You can listen to it on your computer while you’re making dinner. There you go, it’s not that hard. They make it really easy for you.

Filed under: Admin Notes, Future of PR, Public Relations | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

PR, your friendly mentor

Posted on March 9, 2006 by Luke Armour

Trust and Control seem to be two major concepts that are affecting PR in a variety of fashions. Trust is defined (in part) on the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as:

1 a : assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something b : one in which confidence is placed
2 a : dependence on something future or contingent

Control is defined (in part) by the M-W as:

1 a : an act or instance of controlling; also : power or authority to guide or manage b : skill in the use of a tool, instrument, technique, or artistic medium

My favorite part of this ongoing process is how correlated these two variables are. It seems that when control is relaxed, trust goes up. I don’t have any empirical research to back that up as of yet, but call it a thesis statement. Is there implied causality? I wouldn’t presume to indicate that, but it is possible.

This was noted in some of the links above, but I want to point out that the first two definitions of the word “control” as shown above do not carry the weight I think a lot of us attribute to the word “control.” Many of us have negative connotations of the word. It is somehow a bad thing to have control as if it were dominance or supremacy, which I think we would agree do carry the stereotypes we would expect our organizations not to have. But the definition above refers to guidance, management, and having skill in a particular medium. Isn’t that what we’d like public relations to be? Skill to foster and maintain relationships? Skill to guide and manage our clients and organizations? Sounds a lot like a welcome mentor, to me.

I’m stretching the boundaries of what people refer to when they say “let go of control” I am aware of that. And I do agree that – as communicators – we need to embrace the discussion, soak in the conversations, and quit talking at people. I’m on board. But we should let go while retaining a tendril of guidance or a wisp of mentoring. And we should do it with full disclosure, completely transparent. Then we’ll see a lot more trust, upon which relationships are built.

Filed under: Future of PR, Public Relations | Leave a comment »

Podcast patois

Posted on February 27, 2006 by Luke Armour

Yes, I had to look up patois, but I couldn’t pass up the alliteration. This is just a quick post regarding a thought I’ve had about podcast conversations.

We enjoy the podcast because of the subscription, right? I mean, why else would they have become such interesting tools? These audio comments that rode in on the RSS wave have only a few things that separate them from streaming audio and downloadable content, am I right?
So, here we have a subscribable audio file that gets automatically downloaded to my computer and I can listen to it whenever I want, not just when it happens to be on. I get to choose, I get to decide – and best of all – I don’t have to do it standing near my computer. We love the portability, we love the timeshifting. Audio content that we like, when we like it, where ever we like it.

But there are some problems. Most of us subscribe to many more podcasts than we can listen to – even in our daily commute. So we have to wait until a business trip or a vacation stuck on a plane before we can get caught up. At times this means listening to three or four episodes of one podcast two or three weeks after you listened to the last batch. And, worse yet, if you subscribe to a long podcast that is produced daily, you can get really behind. It’s February 27th and suppose you’re listening to six episodes of a podcast that is produced every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from earlier in the month. That’s two weeks worth. Well, they are throwing around phrases like, “as we talked about on Monday’s show” and “We referred to that on Friday.” If you’re not careful, it can get pretty hard to keep track. I listen to podcasts that don’t even count their shows, so they can’t even tell you which show number it is. And that’s what I’m asking for.

Timeshifting has made old broadcast terms meaningless. Hobson and Holtz talk about this every once in a while. “Tuning in,” doesn’t make sense any more, for instance. Also, “rewinding” since nothing is being rewound. Talking about “Monday” or “yesterday” on a podcast is confusing and also needs to be changed.

I’m proposing we think about this. If podcasting is a viable tool for PR professionals now and in the future, we need to eliminate error possibilities and make them easy and simple to absorb. Count your shows, refer not to “Wednesday’s show” but even “last show” or better yet “show #45.” It’s a little thing, but it’s the little things that can easily be improved upon.

Some of my favorite podcasts have just recently started counting their shows…a sure sign that I’m on the right track. Now to get it one step further and quit talking about days of the week as if I’m listening to it when they’re producing it, because I’m not. I’m sitting in traffic, enjoying the company of podcasters and basking in their new podcast patois.

Filed under: Future of PR, technology | 1 Comment »

Laermer’s Vapor Warning & Good Pitches

Posted on February 24, 2006 by Luke Armour

I read this post and just couldn’t pass up a chance to send it along. Richard Laermer, author of Full Frontal PR and co-author of The Bad Pitch Blog, posted a highly engaging and unique look at pitching, what I would call, fluff. He calls it vapor and I love the way he uses it. My favorite quote is:

Ken will not pay attention because you’ve proven yourself to be a vapor merchant.

Ha, I love it! And that won’t make any sense until you read the post, but you should. Go read it now. It’s a clear cut description of what – I think – is one of the problems with PR these days. This is especially important for those of us about to graduate and be thrust into the field, forced to write releases about the CEO learning to “reply all” and how Ted went from Deputy Manager of Internal Squeaking to Assistant Director of Corporate Hallucinating. And at first, we won’t have a choice, we’re the “new kids,” we ought to just do what we’re told. But as we mature in the business, we may have to do some educating, the student may have to become the master. For the benefit of you, for the benefit of your company, for the benefit of the future of public relations we may have to take a stand and say, “Sir, not only is this not new, it’s not news. Nobody cares.”

And that will be our task, in my opinion. Find aspects of our clients or organizations and MAKE them news. Not empty noxious vapours, but actually turn organizational happenings into news. It can be done, I think, but there’s the rub, eh?

In addition to the Bad Pitch Blog, which posts educational lessons on both how to write pitches and especially how not to write pitches; there is a new blog is on the block. This one is the Good Pitch Blog by Todd Defren. I haven’t had a chance to read much of it, but what I have read is informative and worth reading.

So there you have it, two resources on pitching. Now go on, try to learn something out there!

Filed under: PR Lessons Learned, Education, Future of PR, Public Relations | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started