The Challenge: Battle of the Sexes

The battle of the sexes continues on but this time it’s moved to social media. Finances Online recently released an infographic showing in detail the different ways men and women utilize social media and the many outlets it has to offer.

The infographic shows that men are more likely to use social media to date and conduct business where as women are more likely to use it for entertainment and sharing with friends and followers. It also shows that women are more likely to go to social media for self-help or how to demonstrations than men (obviously, because men hate asking for help).

Another huge difference in how men and women use social media is their observance of advertisements. Women are far more likely to ignore social media and text ads than men. They’re also much less likely to refrain from taking action on digital paid advertising. Men on the other hand are more likely to scan QR codes or coupons because they prefer quick access to deals and information whereas women prefer to follow brands for deals and coupons.

However, there is one aspect of social media that both men and women use in equal amounts. Men and women both enjoy social media advertisements that are either humorous or have a celebrity endorsement further proving the lifelong saying “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus,” to be true.

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16454.aspx

Are you on Google+?

Today, if you were to ask someone if they were on Facebook and their response was no, you’d probably react with “What? No way! Everyone is on Facebook.” Over one billion people across the globe have a Facebook account. Twitter is also another growing social media platform with over 200 million monthly active users. Other social media platforms that are becoming more and more popular include YouTube, Instagram, and Pinterest. However, if people were to ask if you were on Google+ and your response was no, it would probably be less surprising than if you said yes.

Google+ has only 90 million monthly active users, less than half of that of Twitter. When first introduced, media said it could be the “Facebook Killer,” and replace the world’s most widely used social media website. Clearly, however, thats not the case. Google+ defines itself as a “social networking and identity service.” The website allows you to video chat with friends, share pictures, and post articles, but why do that when you can do it on Facebook?

Because of Google+’s meager image, it was thought that it didn’t have much value to marketers or anyone trying to spread the word about their service or product. However, it seems as though a recent article by Forbes stated otherwise. Turns out, Google+ referrals spend more time on sites and visit more pages which means G+ users are usually more engaged. Brands are able to engage Google+ users more than other sites because of this unique quality.

While I think Google+ has it’s pros, I wouldn’t suggest to marketers to just abandon the Facebook and Twitter ship. They are the two most widely used social media sites today and I know a lot of market-to-consumer interaction takes place on both platforms. However, I also see how beneficial it would be to create a presence there as well.

http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/resource-how-many-people-use-the-top-social-media/#.U0h6_xb7rzI

http://www.prdaily.com/socialmedia/Articles/16448.aspx

Freedom to Speak?

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down the case McCutcheon v. FEC.

The case involved Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon who frequently donated thousands of dollars during the last election cycle. However, McCutcheon was limited in his funds giving due to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). FECA limits the amount an individual can donate to candidates and political parties in a calendar year.

McCutcheon felt as though FECA’s contribution limitations was a violation of the First Amendment. The Republican National Committee joined McCutcheon in his argument and eventually their case made its way to the Supreme Court. On April 2, five of the nine justices ruled that FECA’s aggregate contribution limits were unconstitutional and eliminating the $2,500 cap on individual donations.

After the final verdict was announced, many citizens said the ruling was a huge victory for our right to freedom of speech. A common trend in American politics is those with the most money make the biggest impact on the outcome. Big business owners and other millionaires were able to somewhat influence the outcome of elections. It takes quite a bit of money to fund an election campaign, and these big business tycoons were able to give money to their preferred candidate in order to help them cross the finish line first.

But how did they get past the individual donations cap? By simply creating a Super PAC (Political Action Committee). Super PACs have no limit on how much they can donate and they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, and other groups without any limit on the amount of the donation. Because they can take up donations from individuals, they’re able to take they’re own money, place it in their Super PACs name, and finally donate it to whatever party they wish.

After the the case was decided, Forbes magazine published an article declared a powerful statement, “A key and often forgotten point about the First Amendment: it protects speech, not speakers.” Because of the final ruling of McCutcheon v. FEC, more speakers now have a voice and can make a bigger impact on the outcome in elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/10/08/supreme-court-takes-up-the-sequel-to-citizens-united/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/04/04/the-mccutcheon-supreme-court-case-is-a-victory-for-free-speech/

Trending Topics

Four families are left to grieve after another mass shooting took place at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas Wednesday evening.

Ivan Rodriquez, included amongst those dead, opened fire around 8 p.m. on post killing three other memebers of the military and injuring 16 others

This is the second mass shooting to take place at Fort Hood. Just five years ago, Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 others and left over 30 injured making it the worst shooting to ever take place on an American Military base.

Twitter was the first place many people became aware of the situation and #FortHood quickly became the number one trending topic on the website.

Tweets from the Killeen Daily Herald, CNN, Fox4 and other sites poured out more information as fast it came to them.

Another popular account that was visitors frequently while the shooting occurred was spokesperson John Kirby, for Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. However, during the chaos, Kirby made a detrimental mistake in one of his tweets. Kirby accidentally tweeted a link to Duffel Blog, a satirical site similar to the Onion that focuses on the military.

While Kirby caught his mistake and apologized for the inconsiderate tweet, it still left many followers distraught.

I completely understand that during these chaotic times it's easy to make a mistake such as this. Kirby scanned over the article quickly and sent it without thinking much about it because he wanted to get the news out to people as quickly as possible. However, though it is important that the public be kept up to date, it's also a great rule of thumb to make sure you're delivering the correct news. I can't tell you how many articles I read or tweets I saw that said so many different things during the shooting. Some said there were no fatalities, others said there were almost a dozen. It was extremely frustrating and I'm sure cause even more panic in those families with someone on or near the base at that time.

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16423.aspx

First Impressions

If you look up Wikipedia’s definition of public relations it says “the practice of managing the spread of information between an individual or an organization and the public.” However, public relations professionals often have a negative image in the public’s perspective as liars who will do anything to make sure their client’s mistakes are covered up.

As I continue on in this profession, I really hope I’m able to change the way the public sees us PR professionals. Yes, we are supposed to put our client in the greatest light possible, but not by lying and cheating, but instead by admitting our faults when we’ve committed one and going about fixing the problem with an ethical solution.

A recent article published by prdaily.com list eight ways PR pros can make their client look good. They’re listed as follows:

1. Don’t be selfish

2. Solve problems

3. Don’t be a “yes-person”

4. Represent the client well within the organization

5. Be a source of intelligence

6. Make your client an expert

7. Introduce new thinking

8. Offer objective counsel

The one that stuck out to me the most and one I’ve never quite heard said in the classroom was number three: don’t be a “yes-person.” A yes-person is someone who basically just does whatever their clients ask of them. They take whatever order they’re given and do it without question.

Being a yes-person while working in the PR field is a sure fire way to land your client in hot water. You’re there to help them to create an outstanding and positive image. If they come to you and tell you they want to start “flogging” in order to boost their brand’s image or worse to just straight up lie to the public about their product, service, actions, or what have you, and you simply do as they say, you’re not ‘managing the spread of information between an individual or an organization and the public.’ This so called information is false and fabricated and when the truth is revealed (and the truth is always revealed) you’ve done nothing but further destroy their public image.

http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/16320.aspx#

The Highs and the Lows of the 2014 Oscars

Last Sunday marked the 84^th annual Academy Awards. Hundreds of A-list celebrities put on their best attire and came out to celebrate each other’s magnificent work of the last year.

            Millions across the globe were live tweeting the event. If you weren’t near a T.V. and wanted to know what was happening, all you needed to do was look to Twitter. Every event from beginning to end was tweeted out immediately and quickly became a trending topic. From when Jennifer Lawrence fell yet again while exiting her limo, to when Steve McQueen accepted the Oscar for Best Picture for 12 Years A Slave.

            However, there was a short moment during the evening when it became difficult for followers to keep up with what was happening via Twitter. In the middle of the awards ceremony, host, Ellen DeGeneres decided to take a #selfiesunday with a dozen other celebrities including Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt. She then prompted all of her viewers to make it the most retweeted tweet of all time. Not long after DeGeneres stated this, Twitter crashed for about 10 to 15 minutes during the show because so many people were trying to view and retweet the picture. On the bright side, the tweet did become the most retweeted tweet in history with over 4 million retweets.

            This particular Oscars was one that was full of “firsts.” Steve McQueen became the first black director to take home an Oscar for Best Picture. Alfonso Cuaron became the first Mexican to win for Best Director for Gravity. Disney took home its first Oscar in the Best Animated Feature category for Frozen. Robert Lopez became the first Filipino-American to win an Oscar for Best Original Song for his song “Let It Go” from the Frozen soundtrack and he also became the twelfth person to ever be an EGOT holder (an individual who has an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony).

            I think this particular Academy Awards ceremony is one that has been marked with change and diversity. The number of “Oscar firsts” this season show the growing diversity that is being accepted in the film industry and how much it has grown in the past 60 years alone. Another big change is the impact social media is having on. It’s opened doors for fans to reach their beloved celebrities and gives consumers an outlet to reach their providers. The shutdown that occurred during the show is an example of how quickly Twitter is growing and some of the many reasons social media users are utilizing the platform.

Mad Men v. Mad Black Men

In 2007, the hit show Mad Men debuted on HBO. The show follows the life of advertising expert, Don Draper during the 1960’s at the fictional ad agency, Sterling Cooper. Since its conception, the show has won four Golden Globes, dozens of Emmys and multiple other awards. Clearly, the show is well established with a huge fan base. However, one man couldn’t get past one aspect of the show and has know taken matters into his own hands.

Xavier Ruffin, a young, African American graphic designer from Milwaukee, WI, jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of America and really tried to like the advertising show. However, there was one thing he couldn’t get past how African Americans were treated and misrepresented in the hit television show.

"I wanted to be a fan of it when it first came out," Ruffin stated in an interview with National Public Radio. "I just had my own personal differences. Not liking the way blacks were represented in their universe. I just couldn't get over it."

Ruffin took a stand against the misrepresentation of African Americans in the advertising industry during the 1960’s. In late 2013, he launched his own television show, Mad Black Man. This particular show is centered around Ron Rapper who lands a job at the Colored Marketing Department at Sterlin Copper.

Despite the fact that the show sounds like a horrible spoof, it has actually gained quite a bit of credibility from it’s viewers. While it originally started out as a satire, it’s turned into a dramedy with quite a loyal fan base. Ruffin said he created the show to give fans of Mad Men a chance to see it through a different lense.

The protagonist and his other co-workers in Mad Black Man create campaigns and advertisements geared towards minorities. It show portrays the discrimination they received in their work environment and how thrown off others were when they discovered the individuals creating their ads were “non-white.” In one episode imparticular, Rapper is instructed to make the lips and nose of the man in their ad bigger because he “isn’t black enough.”

The creator of Mad Men, Mat Weiner, has tried to defend his reasoning for not including African Americans in his series. His reasoning was simple; there were no African Americans working in the advertising industry in the 1960’s. Ruffin says differently.

"There are black people in advertising," he says. "There have been black people in advertising. There isn't a great amount of representation, but we do exist and we are here," he stated in his interview.

I think Ruffin’s move was bold and courageous. He wanted to make a point and I think he did just that. It surprises me that African Americans still have to fight for the respected representation in the media and I think Ruffin has started turn that around with his daring move. Obviously, his show has made an impact with a constant, weekly viewership. Hopefully viewers are realizing the importance of the show and why it was created, while also enjoying its content.  A lot of followers can create a big voice and start a big change.