Thoughts?

I just hate the idea of dropping another grad program (even though the business school drop out wasn't by choice), but I'm just so hesitant about this one. Theoretically, it should be right up my alley, but I'm not loving it so far. Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe I'm just overthinking it. Maybe it really isn't the right program for me. But if it isn't, then what is?? Anyone ever been through the same thing?

Paper #3

Based upon your supplemental readings and your past experience, identify the major themes in the historical development of the field of strategic communication. In other words, why does the field of strategic communication exist?

If we define strategic communication as communication designed to purposefully advance a specific mission, then organizations, corporations, and individuals have always communicated strategically. However, academic study and exploration of the field have been relatively recent. Theoretical focus has instead been on narrower uses of communication within an organization, such as advertising, public relations, and marketing.

By analyzing the roots of these traditional fields, we can better understand the development and uses of strategic communications. Based on our readings, I believe the rise of strategic communications as a defined field is based on three main trends.

Technology

Technology has progressed so fast and so far in the past two decades that the communications field has been entirely restructured. These advances have made it difficult to define communication channels and tasks by traditional titles - advertising, marketing, public relations. Communicating organizational goals to an increasingly fragmented media requires a broader study of communications, based on the end goal of the corporation rather than individual departments. Messages - no matter the channel - must be deliberate, focused, and coordinated. However, the increasing speed of these media channels means that real-time responses are required. In order to coordinate the speed and size of information, communications must be managed on a holistic and strategic level.

Sophisticated consumers

In today’s market, increased importance is placed on transparency, interactivity, and the customer experience, rather than one-way information transmittal. Customers demand a relationship with organizations, which is by nature more communication-intensive. This requires that management takes a more central role in developing communications to ensure consistency and high level strategic content. Managers can no longer delegate a one-off press release to a lower level employee and be done with it, nor can they rely on hyperbole and advertising to get their point across. Instead, they must actively manage a high level communications strategy based on honesty and openness. Sophisticated media consumers demand truth, and corporate reputations are increasingly based on this type of consumer goodwill.

The public audience/consumer market is also increasingly segmented, specialized, and global. A high level of expertise is required to adequately address the needs of these audiences, and strategic coordination is essential.

While this trend seems to be more prevalent in today’s technological market, it actually began in the 1920s as journalists exposed the hidden workings of many industries. This era saw the emergence of the first public relations experts, including Arthur W. Page, who stated that management must thoughtfully analyze its overall relation to the public in order to engender public goodwill. Despite economic and business changes, this statement holds true today as consumers continue to hold high expectations of organizations.

Large Corporations

As organizations grow, they tend to become more standardized, but often only within individual departments and functions. Communication between departments becomes difficult as organization charts become more complex, and organizational communications can suffer as a result. Because of this fragmentation, there has been a push to integrate interdepartmental communications at a more holistic strategic level.

Experts have suggested a number of structural changes to alleviate this tension, with the essential goal of making communications a function in and of itself, and not a division of other functions.

By allowing communications professionals to operate in different functional units, but under a centralized strategic command, allows even the largest organizations to standardize its message. However, the potential disadvantage of a centralized communications department is the loss of specific functional knowledge, which can be particularly important in a corporate setting. For example, technical communications must be done with an in-depth knowledge of the product/technology, not simply by a communications expert. This challenge of balancing product knowledge with communications expertise is an increasingly important area in the strategic communication field.

Conclusion

It’s particularly interesting to analyze the roots of strategic communications - the field of study is relatively young, yet the practice is as old as communication itself. It’s my belief that these three areas of discussion (technology, sophisticated consumers, and corporation size) give us a starting point for the analysis. However, the true roots of the field will most likely not be identified until many years later, when the field has better established itself and we can track trends over time.

Paper #2

In response to the technological shift of the Internet, an organization's identity may differ in a physical space (in real life - IRL) from its online identity. What implications does this difference have for strategic communication?

And second, strategic communicators should play a strong role in leading online communication. How would you advise an organization trying to strike a balance between the benefits of online communication and the hindrances provided in online communication?

One of the major issues facing organizations today is how to communicate their strategic mission in a consistent manner across a variety of channels. There are a number of organizations whose identities are highly linked to their brink-and-mortar presences, while others are more flexible and translate easily to the online world. Others are simply reluctant to create and develop an online identity for fear of losing control.

Traditional retail stores may have made the easiest transition, as most are able to present a consistent message in both mediums. In fact, many successful retailers have promoted both outlets through special offers that differ between the channels.

For example, I received a JCrew catalog in the mail today and really liked a pretty ring on one of the models. I looked for pricing and details in the catalog, but was directed to the website instead. Apparently, some colors are only available online and some in the stores. In this way, the company promotes consistency of message (cute rings!) across several channels. The company’s variety of options is not accidental; instead, they clearly have a sophisticated understanding of consumer needs and corresponding communication solutions. We don’t normally think of a clothing store as being a strategic communicator, but I believe these companies are at the forefront.

One of the major reasons that retailers have succeeded online is due to their ability to track their communications via subsequent transactions. Other industries do not necessarily have this ability, since they are not promoting online sales. On the contrary, most organizations with an online presence are promoting their strategic message and building relationships with the consumer market - by nature, a significantly harder goal to accomplish than selling a specific ring.

These organizations might be tempted to dedicate scant resources towards their online identity, thinking it’s only a secondary part of their overall image. However, this would be a mistake. An online presence has become a necessary part of a corporation’s strategic communications, even if it’s somewhat static. Again, a corporation must include this media as yet another channel under the strategy umbrella - for the simple reason that consumers expect this presence. Secondarily, an online presence provides a corporation with the ability to react in real-time to any crisis or strategic changes.

Other organizations are hesitant to enter the online world for a number of reasons, primarily fear. Many organizations are unwilling to find out what their consumers are saying about them. These companies see the web as separate from the real world, and consequently dismiss any negative online comments as “disgruntled, pajama-wearing bloggers”. What these companies don’t realize is that online discussions mirror discussions in the real world, and by dismissing them, they are missing out on a valuable window into their consumers.

So what’s a company to do? In my opinion, they should look at their web-based presence as simply another channel for their strategic message - not as something novel or cutting-edge. By considering their online presence as nothing more than an extension of its real-world presence, an organization is able to better translate their existing communications without getting caught up in semantics and trepidation.

Strategic Communications

Hey guys - a bunch of people have asked about my new grad program. Here are a couple of short papers I wrote for class tonight. I'm still on the fence about the program - it seems so "mushy", so qualitative. Maybe I'm just used to a more concrete business approach? Maybe I'm just not suited for this program? I'm just a little disappointed so far, which could very well be a product of too high expectations. Anyway, this is some of the stuff we're discussing.

And to follow-up, let's get personal: Based on your experience tonight, what do you see as the major issues for communicating online (vs. having us together in class)? How can these issues be resolved through a more "strategic" communication?

Personally, this is a definitively more difficult way to analyze the material. I thrive on in-person discussions, as they are (by nature) real-time and constantly changing. However, I also realize that speaking up in class is difficult for some. Class discussions are always going to feature the opinions of a few outspoken individuals, and miss out on the contributions of others.

Meeting in person provides the following benefits:

- In-person communications allow for the analysis of non-verbal communication

• Participants are forced to defend their opinions on the spot, leading to innovative responses
• Online energy is much more passive and disconnected
• Real-time correction from the professor allows for more focused discussion

Online communications have the following benefits:

- Equal opportunity opinion sharing

- In-depth analysis of ideas

- Distancing of opinions from personalities, allowing for more objective responses

- Presentation of evidence supporting points

- Pajama wearing (no, seriously - I suppose this makes people more comfortable and more willing to contribute)

I suppose this comes down to personal preference, as neither method offers a clear-cut objective victory. Again, I prefer the Socratic method of learning, which by nature requires an active discussion leader. Perhaps I’m demonstrating a bias towards authority, but I believe a professor is an essential part of any theoretical discussion. If we, as graduate students, had all the correct answers, then we wouldn’t be in this course.

The question remains - how do we communicate effectively in an online learning environment? I have to imagine that this type of learning environment will only become more prevalent as social mores regarding online media change. How do we keep the discussion from treating incorrect answers with equal importance as more correct interpretations? Perhaps, instead of essays, the participation in an online chat or forum would allow for a more guided - yet still democratic - approach to online class. This would certainly be more in line with the goals of strategic communication. We would be advancing our mission (education) in a holistic and guided manner, while maintaining a consistent message through professorial supervision.

Conservapedia.com

I just read an article about a movement to re-translate the Bible according to "proper Conservative values". Apparently, many conservatives believe that the Bible is too liberal, what with all the forgiveness and community organizing. I'm not kidding! One of their targets is the verse in Luke, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do". Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how this is remotely politicized.

I visited the site, Conservapedia, to learn more. Apparently, it's also a right-wing Wikipedia of sorts. I compared the Obama entry with the Palin entry, and it was disturbing. It's the same thing with Fox News (or any liberal blog, for that matter) - people are increasingly only getting their information from highly biased sources. Yes, it's comfortable and reassuring to hear news that agrees with your personal beliefs, but it removes any possibility of true debate. Terrifying.

I'm moving to Canada. Or France.

Scary thought for the day - their votes count the same as yours. Seriously. Palin's supporters are voting for her with no concept of her policies (although she probably has no concept of her own policies).

Why the rage?

What is it about Sarah Palin that inspires such rage in otherwise rational women? I turn into a red-faced, expletive-spewing demon when confronted with her name, much less her hateful voice. I can't stand Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck, either, but they don't make me as insane as Palin does. Her politics are diametrically opposed to mine, but plenty of Republicans believe the same stuff. She's a working mother, which should be a good thing. She...see? I can't even think of anything else to say about her that might be remotely construed as positive! I'm filled with the urge to type HATEFUL LYING BITCH instead!

I think it's the fact that women are expected to support her just because she has a vagina. Or that she's incapable of telling the truth or taking responsibility for anything. Or the fact that she's woefully uneducated or intellectually incurious. I don't think she's full-on stupid; in fact, she shows a malicious streak of wily manipulation. I think she's just completely uninterested in learning anything. Her education record tells quite a story - 5 colleges?? Really? Introspection is beyond her. In-depth analysis? Forget it. Her specialty is knee-jerk reactionism. She defines demagoguery in the worst sense.

When did it become a negative for a presidential candidate to be intelligent? When did "being one of the people" become the most important quality for the leader of the free world? I don't want my president to be "just another hockey mom", I want them to be smarter than me!

I can feel my blood pressure rising just thinking about it.

Please, Sarah Palin - go away. Stay away. And leave the governing to responsible adults.

Going Rogue (aka Lies, Untruths, and Misrepresentations)

FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 13, 2009
Filed at 9:10 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sarah Palin's new book reprises familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven't become any truer over time.

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer's dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush -- a package she seemed to support at the time.

A look at some of her statements in ''Going Rogue,'' obtained by The Associated Press in advance of its release Tuesday:

------

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking ''only'' for reasonably priced rooms and not ''often'' going for the ''high-end, robe-and-slippers'' hotels.

THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official business.

------

PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential campaign, she said she would give a comparative sum to charity after the general election in 2010, a date set by state election laws.

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, ''you'll have to be brave enough to fail.''

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus plan -- a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts -- and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ''taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street.'' A week later, she said ''ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.''

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ''instrumental in bringing folks together'' to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ''it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.''

------

PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, and ''showed us how to get out of one. If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax once and for all.''

THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October 2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to climb.

------

PALIN: She says her team overseeing the development of a natural gas pipeline set up an open, competitive bidding process that allowed any company to compete for the right to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48.

THE FACTS: Palin characterized the pipeline deal the same way before an AP investigation found her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited a company with ties to her administration, TransCanada Corp. Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders during the process, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada

The Family!

Finley, sleeping on his sofa
Johnny Cash, looking sleepy (for a change)David with the puppies
Bella and her beloved stuffed animal, Baby
Bella wearing her Halloween collar

Halloween

I can't decide what I want to be for Halloween.

I love Halloween - maybe it's my theater background, maybe it's the overall atmosphere. Who knows? Whatever the reason, I'm soooo excited about Halloween at our new house. We live in a neighborhood with tons of kids and I hope we'll have tons of trick-or-treaters.

It's such a great holiday. Everyone gets to dress up, there's no pressure to buy anybody presents, and entire neighborhoods get together to celebrate. What's not to love??

I've never bought into the whole drunken slutty Halloween stuff. Halloween is for kids and families, but I guess if I was 20 years old, I'd be interested in dressing up as a slutty whatever.

Maybe I'll put on a witch's hat. I'm going to borrow a friend's 5 year 0ld to help me shop for decorations and a costume. It should be a fantastically fun time!

JFK Week

Okay, I admit it - I'm a total and complete History Channel nut. I've been watching all week (JFK week), and wish that I had majored in history or gotten a law degree.

(Seriously, how fascinating would a law degree be?? I have no desire to actually be an attorney, but would love the process of law school)

Anyway. It's amazing how much history our country has had in such a short period of time. Kennedy was assassinated a mere 50 years ago! I wonder what high schoolers are taught today. Did you know that there are 2 existing government documents discussing the assassination? And they totally contradict one another? And that the percentage of people who believe in a conspiracy (70%) has remained the same?

I have no idea who actually killed JFK, but I believe the government knows. And I believe that we'll never know exactly what happened. It's probably in some secret file somewhere in J. Edgar Hoover's files.

So interesting. He was obviously shot from the front and the back, meaning from the depository and the grassy knoll. Anyone got any great theories?

A new direction

So...I got into grad school! I'm trying hard to be excited, but it's kind of hard. I already got into Emory's business school, which was tougher than Queens - so there's a part of me that feels that I shouldn't brag about this. But this is actually a program that fascinates me. I want to get this degree not as "the next step", but as a something that I really want to learn and focus on.

I'd love to get my PhD, but it sounds scary. Believe it or not, but I actually dislike writing. I do it here for practice, but I'd MUCH rather give a speech. I have no fear whatsoever of public speaking, which is odd considering I'm terrified of people reading my writing. This new masters program is very writing intensive.

What if I'm no good at this program? I'd love to be an MBA professor, but what if I'm a terrible teacher?

Ugh. The what-ifs are my personal demon. I'm so jealous of those who float through life, confident and self-assured.

One day at a time, right? I'll say one thing - I'm thrilled to have something to do. All these months of sitting around, watching tv and doing laundry - I can't wait to have a purpose.

Wish me luck...

My Grad School Personal Statement

Okay, I'm sending this out today, so make any comments ASAP!

The path leading to this program has not been easy or direct for me. I have spent the past decade working in so-called “good” jobs, yet never quite achieving any sense of career fulfillment. My nine years in finance, while satisfying on an purely intellectual level, was neither engaging nor rewarding on a personal level. After much research, I feel that the Masters program in Organizational Communication is a perfect fit for my interests, skills, and future goals.

People have always asked me how a French major ended up working in investment banking. It’s an excellent question, and one that I have asked myself many times over the past 9 years. I accepted the job because I am innately curious, and I knew it would challenge and educate me. Was it an area in which I had any actual interest? No, but I learned something new every day those first few years. I loved interacting with intelligent people, loved dealing with clients, and loved observing the internal structure (and power plays) at a big corporation. Over time, I began to realize that I had absorbed the jargon and the basic routine. The learning curve flattened, and the things that attracted me to the industry no longer existed.

I decided to pursue an MBA, with the goal of changing careers. I chose Emory University due to its strong Organization and Management department, including mandatory communication, leadership, and ethics courses. At the beginning, I was particularly interested in the field of human resource consulting, which addresses corporate issues such as employee identification and motivation, internal communication, and leadership styles. I was fascinated by these topics, and selected a course of study accordingly. However, the more time that I spent in class convinced me that I could make more of an impact by teaching at a business school, rather than working as an outside consultant. I saw many students graduate with great statistics skills and no ability to actually communicate or lead in a corporate setting. Many students laughed off the mandatory communication classes, considering them nothing more than “soft skills” or “girl classes”. I perceived the classes in the opposite manner. Having worked in investment banking, I was fully aware that finance can be taught; yet, these so-called “soft skills” were often completely missing in many otherwise top performers. Without these abilities, it is very difficult for anyone to be truly successful on a long-term basis in a leadership position, regardless of how talented he or she may be at statistics.

After much debate, I made the difficult decision to leave the MBA program in order to pursue a more specific course of study. I wanted to focus on the psychology of business interactions. Why do people interact the way they do? How do outside forces shape internal interactions? Can we affect the way people think and act within a business without outright manipulation? The term manipulation is pejorative, but what is its realistic place in corporate communications? The list goes on and on, and I knew that the strict MBA program was not going to allow me to delve deeply into these topics.

I researched several communications programs, but was drawn to Queens University for a number of reasons. The University’s close ties with the business community are very appealing because they ground the program in an applicable, practice-based course of study. I also like the idea of a young program, adapting and growing with the shifts in communication today. Finally, I appreciate the interaction with the business school, as that is my particular interest.

I believe I would be an excellent fit with the program. I am intellectually curious and driven by a personal passion for the subject. I also look forward to conducting dedicated research studies, as I have never had that experience. This program will also allow me to pursue my future goal of teaching. I plan to study for my PhD after completing this degree, and I am particularly interested in the Organizational Science program offered at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. It has a similar real-world focus as the Queens program and would allow me to teach at the graduate level, preferably in an MBA program. I also believe the Masters in Communications would prepare me to perform outside consulting work in the business community, specifically in investor relations. This would be an excellent blend of my work experience in finance with the advanced skills and focus of the masters program.

The program combines my passion for learning with my passion for the subject matter; my innate skills with my capacity to learn. I look forward to beginning the next part of my professional life, and I believe the Masters in Communications from Queens University is the first step.

Both Ways Is The Only Way I Want It

I'm reading a beautiful book of short stories by Maile Meloy called "Both Ways is the Only Way I Want It". The stories are perfect snapshots of ordinary lives, capturing the melancholy and joy and stillness of everyday life. I would highly recommend it to anyone.

I bought the book on my Kindle, but I'm going to buy a hard copy of it as well. This is a book I will definitely read again.

Crazy Liberal Nazi Democrats

I've had it with the town hall crazies - absolutely and totally fed up with the inane, hateful, and uneducated vitriol being spewed from hateful, uneducated people. The biggest example is the "Nazi" comparison. Do these people know anything about history? It's unbelievably dangerous to compare healthcare reform to the Nazi platform. In doing so, it diminishes the historical impact of Hitler and makes him just another politician with whom people disagreed.

We can't allow "Nazi" to be used as just another insult. Comparing Obama to Hitler is also equally unacceptable.

Wanting to provide decent healthcare to all people is not the same thing as Mein Kampf. Please, people - let's get back to a civil and reasonable discourse.