1 / 19

Underlying assumptions:

"Telling or Selling” The intersection of marketing, public relations and science writing. A case study of sorts NASW Workshops February 13, 2003 Earle Holland, Director, Research Communications Ohio State University. Underlying assumptions:.

louvain
Télécharger la présentation

Underlying assumptions:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. "Telling or Selling”The intersection of marketing, public relations and science writing.A case study of sortsNASW WorkshopsFebruary 13, 2003 Earle Holland,Director, Research CommunicationsOhio State University

  2. Underlying assumptions: • Unlike corporations, government or businesses, the public expects universities to undertake a mission based first on truth, honesty and accuracy, and to be supportive of societal good; • This “portfolio of truth” (Borchelt) is perhaps the greatest asset institutions can maintain; • As gatekeepers of information, the news media must be able to trust the messages received from universities; • Once lost, that trust is nearly impossible to regain.

  3. Therefore . . . • All precautions should be taken to safeguard an institution’s reputation in the minds of the news media – as well as with the public at large -- as being a source of credible, valuable and relatively unbiased information; • That means we’re “telling,” not “selling.”

  4. Defining terms . . . • Marketing (along with branding) is intended to persuade publics to respond favorably to an institution or business, in hopes of enhancing its position, economically or otherwise . . . • Goals: Increase student applications/enrollment, increase funding, increase research support . . . • Promote the “positive” . . . Avoid the “negative” • Strive for the “warm fuzzies” . . .

  5. Then again, gaining “warm fuzzies” isn’t always good.

  6. The Academic Plan Six Strategies for Academic Excellence • Help Build Ohio’s Future • Build a World-Class Faculty • Develop Academic Programs that Define Ohio State as the Nation’s Leading Public Land-Grant University • Enhance the Quality of the Teaching and Learning Environment • Enhance and Better Serve the StudentBody • Create a Diverse University Community Laudatory but not goals especially novel to OSU.

  7. The Ohio State Experience • Prior to 2000, OSU communications efforts followed a traditional “public information” model; • In 2000, university communications leadership changed drastically, shifting to a corporate, branding/marketing effort, all but eliminating the public information approach; • Introductory meeting with new vice president for university relations . . . (excerpts from that meeting) • The research communications staff responded . . .

  8. Reorganization – media relations, internal relations, marketing and communications and research communications. • Week-long visit by New York “branding” agency team. Interviews, communications audit, assessments . . . • Final conclusion by “experts:” • “My God! This is like trying to brand a country!”

  9. Initiation of wholescale branding and marketing effort, university-wide; countless focus groups, consultants; • Planned kick-off campaign . . . • New slogan playing off university’s breadth . . . • “Do something big!” • Last-minute revision from the trustees . . . • “Do something great!” • Voiced opinion of the university provost . . . • “Do something!”

  10. Outcomes: • Overwhelming emphasis on “Do something great!” stories in internal communications vehicles, in brochures, in PSAs, in news releases, in student communications. • Quotas set for inclusion of such stories. • Collective mindset/mission change in university’s central communications operation. • Substantial funding channeled into “branding” effort – approximately $2 million over several years.

  11. Unexpected outcomes . . . • Excluded en masse, the faculty generally were either opposed to branding, or at best, apathetic to the campaign; • College communications officers were patronized and offended; • Local media coverage was generally negative towards the effort, citing the costs, which were never completely nor willingly disclosed; • University leadership unexpectedly shifted from supporting the effort once faculty began voicing concerns on campus. • University Relations leadership departed in late 2002; • “Branding” as a term was dropped from the vocabulary, replaced by “marketing.”

  12. Research Communications Impacts • Science writing effort was isolated during the first year and seen as unrelated to the campaign; • During second year, as obvious story ideas dried up, science writing provided steady flow of news, much of which became utilized by the campaign; • Eventually, science writing was providing as much as half of the campaign story content; • Science writing effort now provides at least half of the content for other communications efforts; • No reduction in quality of writing throughout period.

  13. “Branding (as currently practiced) Is Dead”Billions are spent on useless strategy.Regis McKenna, 03.25.02 • “Branding is a marketing myth that pervades the thinking of most Information Age marketers.” • “The more corporations talk about themselves, the less loyalty stockholders have shown.” • “What changes peoples minds is not branding, it's a great product or service.” http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0325/068.html

  14. Verdict There is an insidiousness about branding and marketing that presents universities and research organizations with a considerable, though often missed, threat: • The expectation that by shifting their communications efforts to a branding approach, institutions can enhance their reputations without focusing on the quality of their research and education.

  15. Examples PSAs – halftime, national broadcasts • Derek Hansford

  16. Fred Sack • Chuck Csuri commercial – creative session

  17. Minefields • Both PSAs were based on research stories; • Both research stories effectively translated the research for a lay audience; • Both PSAs painted the image of the researcher as an “egghead” who was unable to explain their work; • This representation reinforces the perception that scientists are not normal people, and that science is too complicated for the public. • The cost of the PSAs reached six figures.

  18. Conclusion • Contemporary marketing efforts often replace substance with packaging and elaborate presentation; • Contemporary marketing efforts often utilize common stereotypes, including those that widen the gap between science and the publics; • The costs of a contemporary marketing campaign enormously overwhelm most conventional institutional communications efforts; (PSA costs equal 2.5 times annual research communications budget).

  19. Caveats • Marketing and communications/public information efforts can co-exist effectively; • Requires understanding and respect by professionals in both camps to work symbiotically; • Substance, truth, accuracy must always be guaranteed in all messages; • Attitudinal “buy-in” by faculty researchers a necessity for any successful marketing campaign.

More Related