I’ve fallen woefully behind in my marketing- and education-related blog reading (and blogging), but I vow to do better. For starters, take a look at Set Godin‘s recent post about what squid soup has to do with marketing. Quite a bit, actually.
Remember the KISS rule? It stands for “Keep it simple, stupid,” or, more politely, “keep it short and simple” or “keep it short and sweet.” It’s a good rule to heed in all forms of communication, but it seems we marketers need to be reminded of that from time to time.
When asked how they would like to be marketed to, 43 percent of those surveyed said they preferred “marketing that is short and to the point.” That was the highest percentage response in the survey.
Next, at 33 percent, has to do with convenience (“marketing that I can choose to see when it is most convenient for me”). In third place comes “marketing that is personally communicated to me by friends or experts I trust.”
But according to Yankelovich President J. Walker Smith, too many of us have been focused on the wrong thing. We’ve been caught up in delivery methods — new media, etc. — while ignoring the importance of how we present our message, regardless of media.
“Marketers are mis-framing the debate about how to reconnect consumers,” Smith said. “This is not about new versus traditional media. New media, like digital and wireless technologies, will never solve the ongoing decline in marketing productivity. The most resistant consumers are still waiting for better marketing practices, no matter what media is thrown at them.”
PR consultant Dick Jones discusses several of the differences between corporate and academic public relations in this article in the latest PIOnet newsletter. While more college and university campuses look outside the world of academe for PR expertise, those from the corporate side who make the shift to academic PR sometimes struggle with the culture shock.
As Jones explains:
Some fail to appreciate the difference in governance. In the corporate world, the hierarchies typically are simpler. The PR director may take marching orders only from his boss (the vice president) and her boss (the president). And there may be only one message: that Company Name is the undisputed leader in (fill in applicable adjective) technology.
A college or university, however, is more like a feudal kingdom. The president is still the PR director’s chief “client,” but other, additional constituents have real, and sometimes conflicting, PR needs. Continuing Education’s messages and needs differ from those of the College of Liberal Arts, for example.
Jones makes some terrific points in this article. It’s worth a read.
In his best-selling book The World Is Flat, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has made considerable hay touting the idea that the United States is losing its competitive advantage in technological fields to India, China and other behemoths that are graduating manifold more engineers than the U.S. But a new study says that ain’t necessarily so.
This Christian Science Monitor story points to a Duke University study which claims: “Inconsistent reporting of problematic engineering graduation data has been used to fuel fears that America is losing its technological edge. A comparison of like-to-like data suggests that the US produces a highly significant number of engineers, computer scientists, and information technology specialists, and remains competitive in global markets.”
Last year, the US awarded bachelor’s degrees to 72,893 engineering students, according to the American Society for Engineering Education. But using India’s more inclusive definition, the Duke study finds the US handed out 137,437 bachelor’s degrees last year, more than India’s 112,000. The US number is far more impressive in rela-tive terms, since India has more than three times as many people.
China’s numbers are more problematic because its government does not break them down. In its revised figures, the National Academies reduced the Chinese total from 600,000 to 500,000. The Duke study pegs the total at 644,106, as reported by the Chinese Ministry of Education. But the study also points out that, as with India, the Chinese total includes engineering graduates with so-called “short cycle degrees” that represent three years or less of college training.
What does the future hold for CBS Evening News? For that matter, what’s the future have in store for any network newscast? As David A. Andelman of Forbes.com notes, the typical viewer of CBS Evening News is “somewhere north of 50 years old (probably considerably north) and has been watching it since Walter Cronkite (remember him, kids? Probably not) was in the anchor chair.”
That’s not the demographic most TV networks are looking for. As Andelman speculates in his recent column, “The CBS Daily Show With Jon Stewart”, things might look much different in the near future.
[T]oday’s pared-to-the-bones CBS could save quite a lot more money by going The Daily Show route. First, comedy writers earn a lot less than senior producers or correspondents on a network evening news show. You might want to hold on to a few such correspondents and producers just in case the pope dies or the president gets shot or there’s some other history-altering moment and you want do something more elaborate than simply poke fun at it, as Jon Stewart does so effectively on Comedy Central. Still, you don’t need to have a whole regiment of correspondents, producers and camera crews suited up and ready to go 24/7.
Moreover, The Daily Show even has the beauty of being owned by Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, which owns CBS.
Finally, you don’t need to jump through hoops to find creative means to keep this whole infrastructure humming along profitably. That’s because there won’t be any such infrastructure.
Turn The Morning Show over to the entertainment division, which does cooking shows and movie promos better anyway. Sunday Morning, 60 Minutes and Face the Nation can continue to totter along on their own without a whole bureau system and news infrastructure. I mean, they’re not even located in the main Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, though without that huge news operation to house, they might be able to move back into the home of the mother ship and save CBS a bundle on off-site rental costs.
You may have noticed a slight drop in the quantity of blog postings around here lately. That’s due to a number of factors — my general laziness being the predominant one. But in my defense, I’m also on a deadline crunch. I’m writing an article about the future of the news media for Currents magazine, published by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), and I’ve been up to my ears researching what the experts and futurists have to say and conducting a couple of interviews.
I’ve found some interesting stuff online about the future of the news media, especially as it pertains to the concept of citizen journalism. Here are a few I found especially helpful.
There’s much more, but those are the highlights.
Now all I’ve got to do is pull all this research together in 1,500 words. Piece of cake. But the blogging will probably have to be put on hold while I mix the cake ingredients.
Something that should be required reading for everyone involved in marketing higher education: Yours, Mine, and Ours: How Simplicity and Transparency Are Building the Web 2.0 is a white paper prepared for Dartmouth ‘s web publishing services by Chris Boone of Hypsometry. This paper provides an excellent overview of the interconnectedness of the web and how it challenges our standard modes of operation. We can’t control this medium. At best, we can manage parts of it and influence other parts.
Link via the Future of PR wiki.