AS PUDSEY Bear has changed in time, the idea it represents is still actual. Children are in need and for the 40th time, the fundraising event has been broadcast by the BBC.
This year, it was even more important due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected young people abominably in many ways. The number of children affected by food insecurity, anxiety, and stress increased significantly.
Time for charities is extremely difficult. Analysis of more than 1,600 fundraising pages made by BBC showed that the average amount raised by the given organisation decreased from £657 a month in February to £236 in June. This is even more dangerous for small charities which are mostly affected by lack of funds.
But even huge fundraising campaigns like Children in Need observed remarkably lower income, comparing to previous years. This year’s £37 million looks phenomenal, but when we look at over £47 million gained in 2019, it seems a little bit pale.
What went wrong? Simply saying – coronavirus. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, and economic crisis people are worried about their financial condition, what causes a lower level of donations for charities on all levels.
NGOs are struggling to gain an audience when they are unable to provide traditional forms of events. Strategies based on crowded gatherings on fresh air were mostly impossible to deliver. Fundraisers needed to adapt to create a digital equivalent, often without any previous experience in this area. Many have done that with success, but it still has not matched financial results from the past.
Hopefully, circumstances from this year will result in combining both ways of organising events in even more successful fundraisings. Digital versions are much cheaper and abilities to gain the public’s attention are endless. Innovation and creativity made a huge jump ahead and this year’s experience will surely pay off in the future.
Piotr Boiwka is a student blogger from the MA in Media and PR at Newcastle University
COVID-19 has forced many organisations including ‘Children In Need’ to change and adapt to new ways of working, the organisations that don’t respond and be reactive to the pandemic will fall behind.
According to Charities Aid Foundation during COVID-19, there has been an increase in demand for charity services, however, the donations have dropped over 50%, meaning that fundraising is vital during this time. However, with fundraising events being cancelled ‘Children In Need’ need to clearly communicate new, safe ways people can fundraise following the government’s guidelines. If they create positive meaningful communication with their audience and keep stakeholders engaged and aware this will allow them to meet their fundraising targets.
‘Children In Need’ has adapted to the crisis with new ways of communicating and with a stronger focus on shared and earned media. Despite ‘Children In Need’ having strong relationships with the public, they need to continue to build these relationships online to increase awareness using clear, transparent communication to encourage fundraising and highlight the importance of sponsorships.
Social media is very important for organisations during the pandemic as it allows them to easily connect with audiences and create a sense of community online which is important for relationship building. ‘Children In Need’ state on their website “Good news travels fast on social media – and not only will it keep you connected in difficult times; it might inspire others to donate as well!” (BBC Children in Need, 2020). This highlights the importance of earned media to increase exposure and engagement. COVID-19 has provided the opportunity for change with new relevant ways to communicate and reach new audiences, offering virtual and digital events and this type of communication may be where the future lies.
Lauren Phoenix is a student blogger from the MA in Media and Public Relations at Newcastle University
References:
The coronavirus outbreak and charitable giving | CAF Research (2020). Available at: https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/research/coronavirus-and-charitable-giving (Accessed: 14 November 2020).
BBC Children in Need (2020). Available at: https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk (Accessed: 14 November 2020).
BRITS were predicted to spend £6bn on Black Friday this year and every brand wants you to spend your money with them by offering a host of unmissable offers and discounts.
But at what point do brands go too far, meaning Black Friday becomes a PR nightmare as oppose to a financial success? [1] A clear example of a Black Friday blunder this year came from fast fashion giant Pretty Little Thing, which offered shoppers an ‘up to 99% off everything’ sale leaving Twitter and the headlines in uproar, perhaps unsurprisingly. Dresses were being sold for as little as 8p and bikini bottoms were available for 5p; these prices would make anyone assume that someone along the production line was being exploited and the sustainability of such a campaign must be questioned.
From a company running a 99% off sale you would imagine that corporate social responsibility was unheard of. However, on googling Pretty Little Thing CSR, you are met with a website page titled Sustainability. The page explains how PLT ‘babes’ can do their bit for the environment, by treating their denim right, making it last longer or by taking part in the PLT ‘ReGain’ project by sending the company their old clothes to recycle and receive a discount on their next purchase. With fashion contributing to 10% of global Co2 emissions every year and the average person throwing away 31.75kg of clothing per year, how can PLT host this sale and then claim to be fully behind sustainability? [2]
This could be seen as an example of greenwashing, using CSR to mask social irresponsibility and covering up potential malpractice by papering over the cracks of corporate wrongdoing. However, in the days of social media a web page about sustainability is not enough to avoid a Twitter backlash.
Black Friday seemed like a dark day for Pretty Little Thing’s PR with earned and shared media being extremely negative, with mainstream newspapers such as the Guardian sharing their shortcomings. We would expect this to be a major hit in terms of the company’s reputation bank-however, on second glance it appears shoppers were still not deterred and the company managed to generate engagement with over 100, 000 people on a singular giveaway tweet. Although there is a growing movement towards sustainable fashion across the world, it seems it will take more than environmental outrage to deter Black Friday bargain hunters.
FAST fashion has shifted the way in which the fashion industry works. There are many elements that make it ‘fast’, the customer’s decision to buy a garment, the production line, next day delivery and even how often the item of clothing is worn for. This produces the thought of how ethical fast fashion can really be.
Over the Black Friday weekend, brands under the Boohoo Group PLC, such as Pretty Little Thing and Nasty Gal, offered discounts as high as 99% off, meaning you could buy items for 5p. In what circumstances can this be ethical? Who is suffering for the company to charge this little? Fast fashion companies reduce costs as much as they can during the production line by using poor quality clothing and paying workers below minimum wage.
To no surprise, customers were still jumping at the chance to pay so little for multiple items, it’s a deal like no other. At that moment you may not necessarily think about the implications the low costs create. It also gives people the opportunity to buy clothes they may not usually be able to afford, and that is completely fair. However, it is an ongoing issue in the fast fashion industry that their production is not ethical.
For the factory workers employed by fast fashion companies, the pay they receive is not usually sufficient. Boohoo Group PLC and Missguided have multiple factories in Leicester that employ mainly migrant and temporary workers. In 2018 an exposé by the Financial Times found that workers in the city were paid £3.50 an hour, which is half of the minimum wage for a 16-18-year-old. This is even worse in developing countries, in 2019 Statista reported that Ethiopian garment workers received the lowest monthly wage of $26[1].
The impact of fast fashion on the environment is also a cause for concern. The clothing industry is the second highest polluter of clean water, according to the Institute of Sustainable Communication[2], mainly from toxic chemicals being dumped by fast fashion retailers. Most clothes are made from oil-based polyester which has now overtaken cotton as the main fibre in clothing. Fast fashion also uses lead salts to colour clothing because it is cheaper but not particularly safe for you or the environment.
For such an unethical industry, fast fashion continues to thrive. High-street brands such as H&M and Topshop have to compete with the availability that fast fashion provides, they’re now classed as ‘fast’ in their own way. H&M receive new merchandise on a daily basis, so they are providing new items to you very quickly.
I also spoke to a few friends about why they find it hard to shop with more ethical, sustainable brands, with most saying it’s about the range of garments they offer. A lot of sustainable brands don’t produce plus-sized clothing, and charity shops quite often have a small range of men’s clothing. This has encouraged them to shop at these fast fashion companies that offer everything they could need. You also find the problem that sustainable brands can be expensive and for a lot of people that isn’t ideal. I know as a student I like to keep things cheap.
We have seen the ethical issues behind fast fashion, and I think we will always be aware of this. However, because of the growth of the industry, and the lack of choice elsewhere, we are being steered into the direction of fast fashion brands. I have no doubt that we will continue to shop with these brands until we can find a cheaper, more varied ethical way of shopping. Until then, I personally don’t think we should feel overly guilty or ashamed for shopping fast fashion.
Instagram has been in uproar this week, once again furious about an issue that’s been sweeping the sneaker industry time and again: ‘WE DON’T NEED WOMEN’S EXCLUSIVES. WE NEED INCLUSIVE SIZING’.
The streetwear and sneaker industry is renowned for being male centric, we only have to go into Newcastle city centre with shops like END. and the newly opening SIZE?, to see this inequality. Although arguably everything is ‘unisex’ in their stores and they hold a small female range, however, they are obviously male centric passing off size inclusivity by providing men’s XS in their ranges, a men’s XS is in no way the same as women’s.
But what does women’s size inclusivity have to do with PR?
EVERYTHING.
There are copious articles being written, from Vogue to Title magazine, declaring the problems with sneaker drop’s size inclusivity. Whilst Nike attracted a great amount of positive earned media in the summer when they announced the Virgil Abloh x Air Jordan would drop exclusively for women, this positivity was only damped when they announced, following male outcry, that they would instead drop the Jordan in all sizes.
Size exclusivity can be great for a companies’ profile and market image, fewer sizes meaning less availability creating a stir for their product. If something is scarce more people want it to become a part of the perceived exclusive club.
Surely, however, for any brand, whether big or small, by introducing size inclusivity they are showing themselves as brand engaging in two-way symmetrical communications with their consumers. Listening to what your consumer wants can only be a positive start.
It appears these companies are not researching the market enough; women are sneakerheads too! For example, Rebecca Hydahl, a female sneaker collector from Denmark has nearly 150, 000 thousand followers. Companies have a readymade base for influencer marketing on Instagram which they are not taking full advantage of.
I am aware I sound somewhat negative and as though there is no inclusivity for the female market; there have been some big leaps already taken however, time and time again, women’s drops are just pastel versions of the same design; it is just not enough. Give the girls what they want, increase your public outreach and listen to your consumers.
Engagement with and delivering for your consumers is the only way successful way forward.
In a lockdown 2.0 Britain, August almost seems hundreds of years ago; almost the golden age of this century like year, life was good but in retrospect was it just the calm before the storm?
Perhaps the most memorable aspect of August was Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme announced on 8th July: a £500 million subsidy for the UK’s hospitality industry, providing 50% off meals throughout August every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The scheme was expected to bolster the £130 billion hospitality industry by drawing back nervous Britons to the hustle and bustle of normality.[1] Although at the time, the scheme seemed like the lifeline we all needed, now it is being blamed for the recent spike we have seen in Covid-19 cases which is not surprising as two weeks after the scheme ended virus cases had more than tripled from the figure taken on 1st August.
The scheme was an example of two-way asymmetric communication: an imbalanced communication that persuaded people to change their behaviour. Through offering 50% off meals the government were able to persuade customers to change their behaviour and start going back to restaurants after lockdown. Although customers benefited from the scheme as they were saving money, the main benefactors here were, meant to be, the government and economy as people were once again putting money back into the hospitality sector.
From a PR point of view, it seemed like it would be a clear success. In terms of reputation bank this felt like an almost fail safe for the Conservatives, what could possibly go wrong? Through an atypical nudge theory, they were encouraging people to leave their houses, through the promise of discounts and money saving after a bleak economic period. They were saving jobs and businesses by increasing footfall by supposedly tenfold. This was meant to be a saving grace for the industry. But was it enough?
Like a lot of Public Relations campaigns, Eat Out to Help Out employed Dietrich’s PESO model in its marketing. Foremost, as it was a government scheme it had a lot of Paid and Owned media produced by the government, for example there was a lot of information regarding the scheme on the gov.uk website including free promotional materials for every restaurant and café taking part, as well as information about how to use the promotional content within the business. Secondly, the scheme was proposed by Rishi Sunak within the House of Commons which attracted the first swathe of earned media. Earned media was extremely important in the campaign and that’s obvious as it’s what we most remember, for example, the press were invited to events where Conservative MPs were in restaurants serving on providing us with the now recognisable image of Sunak waitressing in
Wagamama’s. The campaign received a lot of press attention and news coverage, whether good or bad, if you now type into google ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ it delivers 4,310,000,000 hits. Furthermore, shared media provided a lot of promotion for the scheme through restaurants marketing the scheme via their own social media. Many venues still have a highlight on their Instagram for the scheme and some eateries, such as Bill’s and Yo! Sushi, chose to extend a ‘spin off’ of the offer throughout September.
Despite all this, figures now show the scheme only had a marginal impact and 66% of businesses still reported a fall in sales between July and September of this year.[2] New findings are also showing that the crowded restaurants of august are to blame for the spike of COVID-19 cases throughout the country, causing people to now feel betrayed and confused about the scheme.[3] Moreover, the hospitality industry has become the Conservatives scape goat with the 10pm curfew being imposed causing many hospitality businesses to lose half their earnings every day. Almost comically the images used to market the campaign of Sunak serving on in Wagamama’s have now be used throughout social media in response to the shambolic CyberFirst campaign. Unfortunately, the scheme obviously didn’t do enough for the Conservatives reputation bank as they have once again become a national laughing stock, leading many people to now view the scheme not as a PR triumph but instead a societal disaster.
How many of you think about how your name is written on your bank cards? Probably not many. For the LGBTQ+ community, this thought is there every time they make a purchase. Not having a name that represents your true identity can lead to judgement and questions. This is why Mastercard developed their True NameTM initiative which allows you to put your chosen name on your bank card, without going through the process of legally changing your name.
In week 2 of the MCH8065 PR module, we looked at two-way symmetrical communication and any examples we could find. Initially I didn’t know whether this campaign would come under two-way symmetrical communication, until I looked into it further and found Mastercard’s previous work with the LGBTQ+ community and NYC pride.
A quote from a spokesperson for Inter-LGBT, suggests that this initiative has been developed from requests the LGBTQ+ community themselves, “this initiative reflects the request of trans persons: the recognition of their gender and name by a simple declaration”.
The concept itself was not just an idea Mastercard came up with. The Defenseur des Droits [a concept in France] had been requesting since 2016 that banks should adapt and take into consideration first names. This stemmed from a recommendation made by the Defenseur des Droits, which is an institution in France that focuses on people’s rights.
The supporting quotes and endorsement from the LGBTQ+ community support the view that this initiative has elements of two-way symmetrical communication as it implies that Mastercard have worked with people’s suggestions to develop a mutually beneficial initiative.
Alongside True NameTM, Mastercard have worked on other campaigns such as Acceptance Street in New York, and #AcceptanceMatters. Both of these adding to their ongoing commitment to the community.
More information on the initiative can be found at:
We are just a few weeks into teaching on the MA in Media and PR at Newcastle – and times have changed. Students and teachers alike are getting used to online learning and the challenges and opportunities that brings about.
But one thing has not changed – and that’s the early discussions around what public relations is and what it isn’t – and the million dollar question – is Grunig’s excellence model of 2-way symmetrical communication a reality or just an aspiration?
This semester, we have been making good use of weekly consolidation hours with students to debate these issues and the online discussion forum has never been busier. So I thought it useful to share some perspectives from our new students. Generally, the view is that 2 way symmetrical comms, remains an ideal. Here is what some of our students said:
Zinyi suggests 2 way symmetrical communication can be found at a local level, particularly within internal comm where open door discussions allow for balanced conversations to share experiences. “This is a win-win communication model for a strong collaborative organisation. But …. there is no ideal model of risk communication, only more satisfactory realistic choices.”
Lara believes symmetry is achievable but is difficult. Firstly, it would force some companies to switch their culture and values into a totally new arrangement, where the focus should be on customer-orientation rather than the product/service, production or sales orientation. Secondly, whilst Web 2.0 and social media made it easier for PR and organisations to listen to their publics without so many interferences or mediations, there are too many people talking and requesting different things – which makes it much harder for PRs and organisations to accommodate everyone’s demands. And finally, it is much wider if we think not only about customer’s needs but take into consideration all kind of publics of each organisation.
Lara cited an example of Netflix in Brazil which started to add Harry Potter movies to its catalogue following requests from customers – although this decision could be reversed! She also talks about the need for diversity within senior management and board level in large institutions – and until that is achieved then symmetrical communication with less represented publics remains an ideal.
Tongtong mentioned difficulties with measuring and evaluating PR outcomes in his view that symmetrical communication is an aspiration. If we take quantitative measurement into consideration, it will be easy to judge. This standard depends on the ratio of earned benefits of each side in the 2-way communication. If the ratio is 50 to 50, it absolutely can be a perfect symmetrical communication, otherwise it’s asymmetrical. Take diplomacy as an example, there is usually a more developed and powerful region or country relying on its power, whatever economic or military, etc., forcing the other to compromise and accept the less benefit.
Jiayi offers an optimistic view and says: “2-way symmetrical communication can be a reality. We are now living in an age of advanced information technology, we have lots of online and offline platforms to gather information as well as share our voices. If organizations or companies always try to “manipulate” their clients or customers, people will find out one day. For example, tweets talking about bad services and cunning marketing strategies of a company can be viewed by thousands of people and even more. In a long term, the reputation of that company will break down and it will be rather difficult for the company to find a place in market. With that regard, if companies want to survive in severe competition, the better choice is to build balanced relationship with their customers and truly listen to them.” That sounds a lovely, but perhaps quite idealistic perspective.
And Jinai’s view: “I used to agree with this model, but it’s almost impossible to achieve because everyone has a different view of the world, there are hundreds or even thousands of interpretations of the same information text. How can we make sure that everyone’s understanding is exactly the same? At the same time, this model also reminds me of the “information cocoon” theory in communication. It may lead to more and more closed information and greater differences.”
Certainly, some food for thought with those closing comments.
The art of abandonment: how to kick start your academic year and stand up to the challenge
By Ramona Slusarczyk
Fear not: the title of this entry, taken from Dante-esque Hell, is just a tease – that’s how evil I am! – but what I really want to say is this:
Shyness, embarrassment, and anxiety are natural responses to public speaking, which, according to some surveys, is feared more than death, spiders and heights.
After years in academia, I very much prefer public speaking than spiders, no matter how cute they are.
The bad news is that throughout your studies – in both our online and offline sessions, you’ll have to speak in front of other people. A lot.
And then some more.
You’ll meet clients. Experts in the field. You’ll lead some sessions.
Our students, braving through a crisis press conference.
Blunders happen to all of us, yours truly included
No one likes to look like a fool, but the positive side is that all of us have similar fears and we all fail every now and then.
To prove my point, I’ll share the most embarrassing job interview anecdote (you can’t use it against me though) – and not just for any job, but for my most-dreamt-of and craved position of a university lecturer. Read: high stakes, weeks of preparation, and new formal clothes (obviously).
Understandably, I was nervous. Understandably, I was anxious. Unexpectedly, I was sick from food poisoning the evening before (side lesson: don’t do your final job interview prep over dinner out; the restaurant staff may try to poison you).
Having spent most of the night in hospital pleading with doctors to make me feel better – ‘I have a dream job interview in the morning!’ – I arrived at the university (it wasn’t Newcastle) with a green face, fluttering stomach, and sweaty hands.
To explain my state to the interviewing panel, I uttered a half-hearted warning about the said restaurant. Without batting an eyelid, the programme director said: ‘Are you warning us, Ramona, that you’ll be vomiting on us during the interview?’
Ha.
But the worst part was when one panel member asked me how I’d explain the difference between PR and advertising to students – something they usually struggle with at the beginning of the academic year (don’t feel bad about yourself if you do unless you’re at the end of your studies!).
I’d like to say that my mind went blank from stress (and hunger, and exhaustion). I think that actually would’ve been better than what it started projecting.
At such a crucial moment, my unsubordinate brain decided to get stuck on a quote I got from one of my research participants who cracked an old joke in response to my question about his perception of PR – the following cartoon illustrates his views:
DO NOT use this comparison
in your essays.
The only thing whirling in my head was that humorous – if not entirely inappropriate – parallel between first- and third party endorsement (something we will discussalong the conceptof trustA LOT) but I was clearheaded enough not to voice it; I doubt whether the panel would have appreciated it. Maybe they’d have been amused. Impressed – not so much.
Instead, I asked the interviewer to allow me to revisit the question a bit later and we moved on with the interview. I relaxed, the conversation flowed, and I went back to the PR vs. Advertising question – we’ll discuss that distinction a lot during the course of your studies, so bear the suspense!
But!
At the age of 29 I got my first lecturing job at an Australian university! Champagne!
It happened only because:
1. I was overall well-prepared,
2. I planned how to handle different/difficult questions,
3. I revisited the question and thus didn’t miss the opportunity to show my expertise.
And this is how I want you to think about your classes whether online or on campus: do your homework – do the readings and make notes and think what you’re going to say.
Keep your eyes on the prize: make the most of your time in our sessions and —
Very often, students worry: what if my answer is wrong aka what if I make an idiot of myself?
My answer is: SO WHAT.
Is it going to matter in twelve months’ time? No.
In three months’ time? No.
Are you being assessed on giving wrong answers in our sessions? No.
No?
Those sessions are like a playground: you can test your ideas and we can debate why they work. Or why they don’t.
Pause, look around, take a breath. Gather your courage.
We are all learning.
It’s perfectly normal to get things wrong – it’s part of the learning process – but when you don’t take those opportunities and wait until you submit your paper via Canvas, then it’s too late to make any amendments and amends!
Eyes on the prize aka abandon yourself to experiences
Let’s go back to the beginning of my studies: early 2000s, University of Wroclaw, Poland. In the second year of my BA in Journalism and Communications, I chose a PR module as my option and that was it: I loved the module, the principles of strategic planning, the storytelling, the ethics of the profession… Everything!
It was love at first sight (seminar).
I wanted to develop my writing skills, so I wrote for the university’s weekly, got an internship at a magazine publishing company – I won’t tell you how many rookie mistakes I made there! – and then spent the summer working at a PR agency.
Fast-forward to my MA studies in Media and PR at nowhere else, but Newcastle University – I am a graduate of the same course you’re just about to start! – where I chose a practical module which required students to design and execute PR campaigns for local businesses.
The experience was petrifying – I had to pitch ‘our’ story to the local media, like, actually phone journalists and promote our client’s initiative – but it taught me how to be resourceful and that most practitioners in the communications industry are very, very nice people (I also learnt NOT to start a press release with ‘yesterday’ – do make a note of that!)
My younger, student-self at the backstage of a fundraising event with our client.
So, here’s my tip for you: do get involved in anything the University offers, and most opportunities are accessible both to the domestic and international students.
Take our project-based assessments seriously: they can serve as a showcase for your future employment and they can be extremely rewarding – see the result of the Pencil Case Project campaign our students ran as volunteers at the University:
[<iframe width=”932″ height=”524″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gj3RfJwO6iI” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe> – if the vid is possible to embed on Canvas]
What our students did was sometimes glam, including a fundraising gala at beautiful Kew Gardens in London.
Currently, our alumni are running a fun social media campaign – check it out by clicking on #peelorpay
Eyes on the prize: language challenge
My acceptance letter left me in tears of joy, but I wasn’t eligible for a student loan, so I had to self-fund by keeping a full-time job and studying part-time
Remember my love for storytelling and writing?
Even though I scored 7.5 in ILETS test and received an unconditional offer, I was dying from anxiety at the prospect of studying in English – studying in English ON THE MA LEVEL!
Like most of international students, I sat the additional language competency test and I passed, but I still attended workshops at what is known now as INTO because I wanted to become as fluent as I was in my mother tongue.
And here comes advice that may seem extreme, but it’s the best piece of advice I can give you:
Stop reading. Stop listening. Stop talking.
Stop all those things in your mother tongue.
Not forever, but for the course of your studies. You’ll never forget your language and you won’t lose your accent; I promise.
What you’ll gain is invaluable: you’ll become confident at expressing your thoughts in speaking and writing without the need to translate. Is it easy? Absolutely not.
But it’s totally worth it.
What I did was this: I stopped reading and writing in my native language. That’s it. I knew my vocabulary and the command of Polish was great because I read a lot. So it was obvious to me that the only way to develop my language skills was to do it in English only.
Immerse yourself in the language and culture
And accept that you’re not going to understand everything and that’s fine.
The first novel I read in English was A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. It’s a beautiful story of two Afghani women and I got the plot, but vocabulary-wise…
Maybe I understood two-thirds of the words because otherwise I’d have to stop reading every few minutes to consult a dictionary and would’ve been extremely frustrating (apologies to Mr Hosseini for missing out on a lot of his brilliant narrative!).
This is obviously not ideal, but you can (and should) revisit your readings. The key point is to try to understand in English and in English only. With time, it’ll become comfortable. I promise.
The worst thing you can do is use an online translator or a running translation as you listen to us talking. I can hear you saying: ‘but I won’t understand everything.’
That’s why preparing for all sessions is key: if you do the readings, you’ll be ready to take part in discussions which will clarify your understanding of the ideas inEnglish and connect the dots as we talk about the things you’ve read and beyond. You’ll enjoy yourself and you’ll be amazed at your progress.
I’ll say it again: eyes on the prize – and did I mention preparing for all our sessions?
Prep with courage, prep as if there was no tomorrow, prep as if your marks depended on it (and they do). And in English only please.
This entry is all about courage to test oneself and experiment and can only end with a decent, fun challenge for you:
How did you feel when you got your acceptance letter? What are your first impressions of Newcastle, the University, your peers?
Have you got yourself into an embarrassing situation already?
By Laurel Hetherington, Lecturer in Public Relations
I’m writing this the week before induction and thought you might all be interested into what goes into preparing for your arrival from the teacher’s point of view – a lecturer’s lament if you like.
We’ve all been preparing our videos and sways and when you meet me, you will soon realise that I’m a true digital immigrant – a term all you digital natives will come to know in the coming weeks.
The basic theories and concepts of PR do of course stay the same, although there are new interpretations of these constantly coming through. What does change is the application of these concepts in current and recent situations, so that we can help you to understand some of these, sometimes complex concepts, by applying them to what is happening in the real world.
For example, I am writing this on the day that Cineworld has just announced it is temporarily closing all of its cinemas in the UK and the US. We can discuss this in the internal comms lecture in 8065 ( how were the employees told about this – very badly handled!), the implications for the share price dropping by 25% in one day in the financial lecture – what does that mean to all the financial stakeholders? How will it affect their overall reputation – a key theme in 8065. And so on and so on – and by the time you get to Ramona’s crisis lectures in 8060 in semester 2, they may well be back in business or may have hit the wall like so many others in the leisure and hospitality sectors.
We are always looking for generic case studies and examples that will interest you all, so goods and services that we all use or buy are very popular, we don’t like anything too niche or too specialist an interest.
We’ve also got to change the method of our delivering our lectures to you, at least for this semester, which brings its own set of problems. If I am standing in front of a large lecture group I can get feedback – good old two way communication as Grunig & Hunt, (who you will get to know very well on this course) advocate as the ideal. I can see the expressions on your faces, feel the mood in the room and listen as I walk amongst you and appreciate if you are coping with or struggling with the mini questions that we set in class, and then can adjust my session accordingly. It’s all going to be very different this year.
But we are looking forward to seeing you all very much. We’ve missed all our students; I only had six dissertation students over the summer plus my two PhD candidates to keep me company. So it will be great to meet you all, whether on line or on campus. And do spare a thought for me please if the technology doesn’t work as well as it should, and please please please follow the guidelines on online etiquette, otherwise I shall end up talking to myself if no one turns their camera on!
