I'm quite slow when it comes to politics but as public affairs student this might not be a good thing to say out loud. So since everyone is commenting on the State of the Union address, I better show that I still got a pulse and put in my two cents.
As a non-American, here are my thoughts on the President Obama's address. It had the usual ingredients of the last two (that I mildly paid attention to). The standard "It's been a challenging year, we have done A, we still plan to do B, here are the problems and if we reach across the aisle/party lines we can do great things".
This time though, the president hit the re-set button to make the economy his top priority, the economy is supposed to get better in 2010 - and that's a promise (yay!). When president Obama took office a year ago, most of America admit that he inherited a mess but over the year people have gotten antsy because 'change' did not come fast enough. Most of my American friends tell me the president took on too many 'projects'- non of which seemed priority to the American people(jobs!). Therefore a year into his term, people are still wondering what happened to the 'change' he promised. Hence the president's need to hit the re-set button. The coming year promises to be different. So Americans are eagerly looking forward to 2010!
A couple of points the president touched on that got me doing the standing ovation thing was the equal pay laws for women and gay rights in the military. Being allergic to discrimination of any kind, I think it's about time America (the land of the free) address such issues more aggressively. I also liked his message of hope. Though most people do not feel assuaged by this, the message of hope represents something people can at least try to live for because we still have to continue to live somehow right?
Therefore in the words of Mr. President;
....We don't quit, I don't quit (living life)!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Institute for Cultural Diplomacy
"Promoting Global Peace & Stability Through Strengthening Intercultural Relations"
I thought some of you might be interested in this organization. They are based in Berlin and are active in Europe-based public diplomacy efforts.
Founded in 1999, The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) is an international, not-for profit, non-governmental organization with headquarters in Berlin, Germany. Over the past decade the ICD has grown to become one of Europe’s largest independent cultural exchange organizations. Our programs facilitate interaction between individuals of all cultural, academic, and professional backgrounds, from across the world.
Here is a list of ICD conferences happening this year:
I thought some of you might be interested in this organization. They are based in Berlin and are active in Europe-based public diplomacy efforts.
Founded in 1999, The Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) is an international, not-for profit, non-governmental organization with headquarters in Berlin, Germany. Over the past decade the ICD has grown to become one of Europe’s largest independent cultural exchange organizations. Our programs facilitate interaction between individuals of all cultural, academic, and professional backgrounds, from across the world.
Here is a list of ICD conferences happening this year:
| Germany Meets Turkey: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 25 - 30 April, 2010 |
| USA Meets Europe: A Forum for Young Leaders | NYC, 18 - 24 April, 2010 |
| Europe Meets Russia: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 11 - 16 April, 2010 |
| The UK Meets Germany: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 06 - 10 April, 2010 |
| Cultural Diplomacy in Europe: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 14 - 19 March, 2010 |
| Canada Meets Germany: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 07 - 13 March, 2010 |
| Cultural Bridges in Germany: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 28 February - 05 March, 2010 |
| The ICD Academy for Cultural Diplomacy: February Session | Berlin, 23 - 27 February, 2010 |
| Europe Meet Latin America: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 14 - 19 February, 2010 |
| Cultural Diplomacy and the Economy: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 31 January - 07 February, 2010 |
| The ICD Academy for Cultural Diplomacy: Januar Session | Berlin, 19th - 23rd January, 2010 |
| Cultural Diplomacy in Africa: A Forum for Young Leaders | Berlin, 17th - 23rd January, 2010 |
Thursday, January 28, 2010
how about, “I don’t give up on YOU,”
What. up.
For todays blog post, I had several ideas. Originally I was going to talk about Avatar, if you don't know what Avatar is... you should probably check your pulse because there is a good chance your dead. Besides I did my Avatar blog on my personal blog... http://theworldofjnewbury.blogspot.com/
Then I thought, I could do it on that cool story about the head girls basketball coach from Olathe Northwest high school in Kansas who hit the prank half court shot to win Final Four tickets but due to the fact it was a prank, he ended up with a gift card to a mexican restaurant.. (if your not sure what I'm talking about here, good, i spend way to much time on the internet, its a problem, i know)
Instead, I'm deciding to talk about last nights State of the Union, Thanks to Professor Payne, I was able to make it home just in time to watch the whole thing, even had time to make some popcorn...
So with basketball on the mind..... where do I begin
With one minute left to go in the game and Team Obama up by 10 points….The President was in position to finish the game with a brilliant 3 point “swoosh” into the basket…..but like in any great basketball game…the same goes for political agendas as well…”The Major Upset.” Team Brown came out of nowhere and blocked the Presidents shot. Immediately…the Presidents healthcare bill was put to rest along with a good percentage of his already prepared State of the Union “victory speech,” which many assumed would be applauding the past month’s efforts to finally pass a healthcare bill. With healthcare now a no-go and Massachusetts (the bluest state in the Nation) rejecting his agenda…the President not only had to go back to the drawing board with his speech (most likely the reason why it was released very late Wednesday night to the press) but also had a PR crisis on his hands. In order to deal this "late in the game" blow, the President had to re-direct his message and twist some of his words/numbers to smooth the situation over. Below are 2 experts from the President’s State of the Union speech, that when looked at closely, display his brilliant PR spin.
President Obama: "Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. ... And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year."
Fact: Early last year, President Obama pushed through an economic stimulus package that was approved by Congress. This package has been a main focus on his administration because of the promise of job creation. At the time, the nation was extremely worn down from all the controversy surrounding the economic meltdown, big bank payouts and lack of compliance within Wall Street. Americans were out of jobs and hopeful that Obama’s “Change we can believe in,” would quickly turn into a change for the better regarding the job market. This winter, the administration reported that recipients of assistance from the government created or saved about 650,000 jobs. However this number was solely based on self-reporting by recipients and it was found that some of the calculations were shown to be incorrect. The 2 million jobs, that the President said were created because of the package was simply not true, however to many Americans not honing in on the false statement, and his positive spin on the numbers, gave them the impression that the stimulus did work, and they can in fact still believe in the “change” once promised to them.
President Obama: "And in the last year, hundreds of al-Qaida's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008."
Fact: The President is claiming in the above statement that he has been more successful than President Bush in capturing and killing terrorists. That is truly impossible to claim. Why? The Bush administration nor the Obama administration has ever published the number of enemy body counts. Nor have they ever published reports on the count of those killed by classified information or armed drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. When listening to his speech and the tone of his voice, one would think (without further checking the facts) that the President has been “hard” on terrorism…far more than President Bush. This worked in Obama’s favor because of the chaos surrounding his decisions to bring terrorist to Untied States prisons. The President once again twisted his word in such a brilliant way, which allowed him to continue to blame the last administration, without saying it directly.
Finally, and I think you all knew I was going here.....
In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision?... while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds of congressman....no matter what the circumstances...is it just me or do you just not do that!
ok I'm done, but I leave with you with this quote....and you all know who its from! After watching last night, this is exactly what I need....
"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
-J. Spencer
If you missed State of the Union
You can find the entire speech as video and the main points here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/27/putting-washington-service-middle-class
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/27/putting-washington-service-middle-class
State of the Union..A Peace Offering?
President Obama's State of the Union address was arguably one of the most anticipated considering the outcome of the recent MA Senate election which consequently resulted in the Democrats no longer holding the majority in the Senate. I believe it is fair to say that there was a lot on the line during that speech...perhaps an obvious claim. Prior to the Republican Scott Brown victory, Democrats held the majority in the Senate and were aggressively pursuing health care reform the way the Democrats wanted it (dare I say "bullying" because they were the majority party) leaving out elements of reform championed by Republicans such as limiting medical malpractice awards. All that has changed following the Scott Brown election which was wildly evident during last night's State of the Union address.
I am confident in saying that many Americans, myself included, were watching the clock to see how long it would take until Obama spoke about healthcare. I believe that he spent the first 35 minutes of his speech, and strategically so, reinforcing his credibility as having done what he said he would do (including stabilizing the market) and trying to establish a shared identity between Republic and Democrat agendas. This shared identity between the parties was bridged by looking at the interests of the parties and not the positions... speaking about tax reforms that were popular among both parties (tax cuts for home buyers and small businesses as well as no increase in income tax-- i.e. keeping the money in the coveted wallets of Republicans but also helping the middle class) and having carried out the bank bailout rooted in the Bush administration, successfully and with minimal damage (i.e. helping big business without dumping all of that money into a bottomless bucket, as most of the money from the bailout has been recovered.)
When Obama finally addressed the 'elephant in the room' (being healthcare for those that don't understand the analogy) people were at the edge of their seats waiting to hear what he had to say (good or bad.) Instead of continuing to 'bet the ranch' on the Democratic health reform that he so strongly advocated during his first year in office, he clearly distanced himself from the particular legislation. His discussion about healthcare reform seemed to be a desperate cry for help, giving no specific guidance on how to move forward, but pleading Congress not to abandon the issue. Perhaps for the first time, and this is absolutely my opinion, and I genuinely welcome a rebuttal, the President was sincerely soliciting the ideas of the opposition (now he had to mean it because the Republican vote is more important now.) In evidently ignoring reform issues advocated by Republicans, the President took this opportunity to publicly extend the olive branch to Republicans. This olive branch extended much further than health care reform, as he reached out to Republicans to consider measures on tax cuts and fiscals restraint, inviting the parties to work together in a principled way, and demanding increasing accountability on education and other reform issues.
This was a very different President that we have seen before, appealing to parties to get things accomplished, blaming both parties and championing both parties. I am eager to see how Republicans respond now that the ball is in their court, so to speak. The move has been made by the Democrats...will Republicans take the bait?
ev
I am confident in saying that many Americans, myself included, were watching the clock to see how long it would take until Obama spoke about healthcare. I believe that he spent the first 35 minutes of his speech, and strategically so, reinforcing his credibility as having done what he said he would do (including stabilizing the market) and trying to establish a shared identity between Republic and Democrat agendas. This shared identity between the parties was bridged by looking at the interests of the parties and not the positions... speaking about tax reforms that were popular among both parties (tax cuts for home buyers and small businesses as well as no increase in income tax-- i.e. keeping the money in the coveted wallets of Republicans but also helping the middle class) and having carried out the bank bailout rooted in the Bush administration, successfully and with minimal damage (i.e. helping big business without dumping all of that money into a bottomless bucket, as most of the money from the bailout has been recovered.)
When Obama finally addressed the 'elephant in the room' (being healthcare for those that don't understand the analogy) people were at the edge of their seats waiting to hear what he had to say (good or bad.) Instead of continuing to 'bet the ranch' on the Democratic health reform that he so strongly advocated during his first year in office, he clearly distanced himself from the particular legislation. His discussion about healthcare reform seemed to be a desperate cry for help, giving no specific guidance on how to move forward, but pleading Congress not to abandon the issue. Perhaps for the first time, and this is absolutely my opinion, and I genuinely welcome a rebuttal, the President was sincerely soliciting the ideas of the opposition (now he had to mean it because the Republican vote is more important now.) In evidently ignoring reform issues advocated by Republicans, the President took this opportunity to publicly extend the olive branch to Republicans. This olive branch extended much further than health care reform, as he reached out to Republicans to consider measures on tax cuts and fiscals restraint, inviting the parties to work together in a principled way, and demanding increasing accountability on education and other reform issues.
This was a very different President that we have seen before, appealing to parties to get things accomplished, blaming both parties and championing both parties. I am eager to see how Republicans respond now that the ball is in their court, so to speak. The move has been made by the Democrats...will Republicans take the bait?
ev
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama's take on Healthcare in his State of the Union
In his State of the Union address, President Obama discussed healthcare and how he hopes Congress won't walk away from reform. He talked about how reform would relieve costs on middle class families and help ensure more people are covered. He also talked about how reform could actually reduce the deficit, contrary to what opponents say.He also cited how it would reduce costs to small businesses. He emphasized essentially how healthcare reform could help Americans more than hurt them. He mentioned anecdotes about people and businesses that could be helped be the bill which I think was a good tactic in trying to get people to identify with the need to pass the bill. However I fear this effort might have come to late.
The fact that Obama discussed heathcare towards the end of his speech leads me to think that either in a positive light healthcare something he wants to emphasize and push Congress to reform (which is most likely the case). However I fear very much that he might have spoken about it last because it could be considered as a dead bill now that Republicans have enough votes to kill it.
I was listening to NPR where a commentator said that the reform has failed because it wasn't explained well to the public and there was a lot of things that were unclear. I agree with this. I wish so much that Obama or someone in the administration had clearly explained to the American public what the bill would do, what it wouldn't do and how it could really help Americans rather than waiting until the bill might fail to emphasize these things. I wish people understood that as Obama said that this bill could reduce costs. If it doesn't go through I fear very much that healthcare costs will rise tremendously and even more people will be left uninsured. People seem so worried about rises in taxes and the influence of socialism/big government that they can't seem to get their heads around the fact that if the status quo remains in regard to healthcare, things will only get worse and if people get sick, they may not be paying higher taxes but they'll still be emptying their pocketbooks just to cover the high costs that care incurs in this country.
Since I'm pursuing a Master's in Health Communication, if I had had the chance, I'd try and get these messages across to people even if it meant going on every TV channel I could get on or getting interviews with magazines just to get clear and correct information out about the bill before people became misinformed. I feel like misinformation will be the real killer of this reform if it dies.
I want to be optimistic and hope that some reform will happen but at this point I can't help but feel rather pessimistic about it all. I feel like fear is keeping people in favor of the status quo even if its seriously flawed. Personally, I'm afraid that if this bill does die then it will take even longer to work a new bill out. As Obama pointed out its taken 100 years to get a bill this far I really hope that reform will come sooner rather than later.
I feel passionate about this issue because I have two preexisting conditions so if the status quo remains, after I graduate from grad school in the spring I will essentially be uninsurable unless I stay in Massachusetts where health insurance is guaranteed or get a job with the government or a large company. I realize I'm not badly off at all really in that I do have a lot of options but I still can't help feeling like my job search is dependent upon getting a job that will guarantee me health insurance. I feel its unfair that I and others with preexisting conditions are penalized for having diseases we can't help having. Its not fair.
I wish I could make people see things differently and see that its not the bill that's the evil, its the status quo that's toxic and it can't be allowed to continue.
The fact that Obama discussed heathcare towards the end of his speech leads me to think that either in a positive light healthcare something he wants to emphasize and push Congress to reform (which is most likely the case). However I fear very much that he might have spoken about it last because it could be considered as a dead bill now that Republicans have enough votes to kill it.
I was listening to NPR where a commentator said that the reform has failed because it wasn't explained well to the public and there was a lot of things that were unclear. I agree with this. I wish so much that Obama or someone in the administration had clearly explained to the American public what the bill would do, what it wouldn't do and how it could really help Americans rather than waiting until the bill might fail to emphasize these things. I wish people understood that as Obama said that this bill could reduce costs. If it doesn't go through I fear very much that healthcare costs will rise tremendously and even more people will be left uninsured. People seem so worried about rises in taxes and the influence of socialism/big government that they can't seem to get their heads around the fact that if the status quo remains in regard to healthcare, things will only get worse and if people get sick, they may not be paying higher taxes but they'll still be emptying their pocketbooks just to cover the high costs that care incurs in this country.
Since I'm pursuing a Master's in Health Communication, if I had had the chance, I'd try and get these messages across to people even if it meant going on every TV channel I could get on or getting interviews with magazines just to get clear and correct information out about the bill before people became misinformed. I feel like misinformation will be the real killer of this reform if it dies.
I want to be optimistic and hope that some reform will happen but at this point I can't help but feel rather pessimistic about it all. I feel like fear is keeping people in favor of the status quo even if its seriously flawed. Personally, I'm afraid that if this bill does die then it will take even longer to work a new bill out. As Obama pointed out its taken 100 years to get a bill this far I really hope that reform will come sooner rather than later.
I feel passionate about this issue because I have two preexisting conditions so if the status quo remains, after I graduate from grad school in the spring I will essentially be uninsurable unless I stay in Massachusetts where health insurance is guaranteed or get a job with the government or a large company. I realize I'm not badly off at all really in that I do have a lot of options but I still can't help feeling like my job search is dependent upon getting a job that will guarantee me health insurance. I feel its unfair that I and others with preexisting conditions are penalized for having diseases we can't help having. Its not fair.
I wish I could make people see things differently and see that its not the bill that's the evil, its the status quo that's toxic and it can't be allowed to continue.
Tonight: 2010 State of the Union Address
This morning, news stations were buzzing in anticipation of tonight’s 2010 State of the Union Address. According to the Boston Globe President Obama will address how to solve the economic anguish Americans across the nation have been facing and connect with voters.
Watch CNN’s preview of President Obama’s State of the Union Address.
Not going to be near your television for tonight’s address? Click here to watch the State of the Union Address at 9 P.M. EST on YouTube.
Boston Wine Expo: Hit or Miss?
The Boston Wine Expo (held January 23 & 25 at the Seaport World Trade center and Seaport Hotel in Boston, MA) is the largest wine trade event in the United States. The event premiered over 450 international and domestic wineries with more than 1800 wines to taste.The event also included cooking demonstrations by celebrity chefs, lifestyle exhibits, and trade exhibitors (gourmet foods including cheeses, jams, and sauces, as well as wine packaging suppliers and shippers). Targeted visitors at the Expo include distributors, importers, professionals of food and beverage, and the general public. Having attended the event myself both in 2009 and 2010 I thought there are interesting points to be made both from a consumers perspective and public affairs perspective.
Though I have been drinking wine for quite some time (well, relative to my age that is...) and having worked in the fine-dining industry, I consider myself an educated wine consumer (but by no means an expert!) In having attended the event only one of the two days, I was nowhere able to taste all of the wines. But, I did notice a significant difference between the wine expo of 2009 and 2010. The two major presences were the wines from the Navarra region of Spain and from several regions of Italy. In addition there were the token wine regions including France, Argentina, Chile, and Napa Valley. Though there was presence of domestic wines at the event (including California, Georgia, New York Finger Lakes region, Maine, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts), I was very disappointed to see that Oregon and Washington State were poorly represented (not sure I remember seeing even one!) Aside from this goldmine Pinot Noir region, I felt that the Napa Valley was poorly represented...definitely lacking brand recognition, which I think it a strength of mine as a wine consumer.
I was also disappointed that several of my favorite wineries chose not to participate in the event in 2010 as they had in 2009...Many of the wineries and wines I didn't recognize (though with over 450 wineries and 1800+ wines to taste I didn't expect to recognize more than 10%.) Having arrived at the wine expo when it opened on Saturday, I was able to walk around and speak with representatives at the booths, learning about the vineyard and varietal of the wines they were displaying. I will say that this was one of the more disappointing aspects of the Expo. Though the reps. were very educated on the vineyard and label (as they should be), I became frustrated when I would ask 'well where can I get this?' Though I do understand that they cannot possibly rattle off all of the stores that their wines are distributed to, I think this was one of the greatest downfalls of the strategic aspect of participating in the Boston Wine Expo from a public affairs standpoint. With all of the preparation it takes to participate in the event, couldn't they have taken the time to get with their local distributors and assemble a list of stores in the area that carry the wine? I think that this information would have been just as, if not more important than the notes about the vineyard and wine that they were eager to distribute.
Events such as these are intended to create brand awareness and goodwill toward the brand. With many of the labels being unfamiliar to me and my guest (a German vineyard known for their Reisling heavily pushing a red wine they were looking to generate a buzz about....?), at some point it became about walking around and just tasting the delicious wine without the intent of searching any further to try the wine again...It is no secret that loyal customers are far more lucrative than one-time customers (especially considering the purveyors had to pay $1000/table (some of which had multiple tables) just to be at the event, let alone what it cost for travel accommodations, and to 'eat' the cost of the wine.) Some purveyors made it no secret that they were unafraid to bypass the consumer, displaying signs reading 'distributors needed' and giving out very shallow wine pours. Without distributors, the wine is nearly impossible to get out to the general public (people like myself), but, without the general public looking for your wine, what is the point in having a distributor? When I go to the store, I most often look for wines that I have heard of before. Even one domestic exhibitor told me (on the condition of anonymity) that the event 'isn't what it used to be...you just don't get the return on it like you used to. But, you do it anyway and are hopeful it pays off.'
I will admit, this becomes a question of 'what comes first, the chicken or the egg?' But, as a consumer, I felt slightly snubbed at this event (especially considering the tickets for the general public are much higher than that of the exhibitor's guests and the press). I would be curious to hear from others like myself that attended this event and their thoughts on whether or not participating in such events is an effective public affairs move? I can't say I'm convinced my money was well spent, or whether I'll search out more than one or two of the 1800+ wines that were at the event.
Though I have been drinking wine for quite some time (well, relative to my age that is...) and having worked in the fine-dining industry, I consider myself an educated wine consumer (but by no means an expert!) In having attended the event only one of the two days, I was nowhere able to taste all of the wines. But, I did notice a significant difference between the wine expo of 2009 and 2010. The two major presences were the wines from the Navarra region of Spain and from several regions of Italy. In addition there were the token wine regions including France, Argentina, Chile, and Napa Valley. Though there was presence of domestic wines at the event (including California, Georgia, New York Finger Lakes region, Maine, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts), I was very disappointed to see that Oregon and Washington State were poorly represented (not sure I remember seeing even one!) Aside from this goldmine Pinot Noir region, I felt that the Napa Valley was poorly represented...definitely lacking brand recognition, which I think it a strength of mine as a wine consumer.
I was also disappointed that several of my favorite wineries chose not to participate in the event in 2010 as they had in 2009...Many of the wineries and wines I didn't recognize (though with over 450 wineries and 1800+ wines to taste I didn't expect to recognize more than 10%.) Having arrived at the wine expo when it opened on Saturday, I was able to walk around and speak with representatives at the booths, learning about the vineyard and varietal of the wines they were displaying. I will say that this was one of the more disappointing aspects of the Expo. Though the reps. were very educated on the vineyard and label (as they should be), I became frustrated when I would ask 'well where can I get this?' Though I do understand that they cannot possibly rattle off all of the stores that their wines are distributed to, I think this was one of the greatest downfalls of the strategic aspect of participating in the Boston Wine Expo from a public affairs standpoint. With all of the preparation it takes to participate in the event, couldn't they have taken the time to get with their local distributors and assemble a list of stores in the area that carry the wine? I think that this information would have been just as, if not more important than the notes about the vineyard and wine that they were eager to distribute.
Events such as these are intended to create brand awareness and goodwill toward the brand. With many of the labels being unfamiliar to me and my guest (a German vineyard known for their Reisling heavily pushing a red wine they were looking to generate a buzz about....?), at some point it became about walking around and just tasting the delicious wine without the intent of searching any further to try the wine again...It is no secret that loyal customers are far more lucrative than one-time customers (especially considering the purveyors had to pay $1000/table (some of which had multiple tables) just to be at the event, let alone what it cost for travel accommodations, and to 'eat' the cost of the wine.) Some purveyors made it no secret that they were unafraid to bypass the consumer, displaying signs reading 'distributors needed' and giving out very shallow wine pours. Without distributors, the wine is nearly impossible to get out to the general public (people like myself), but, without the general public looking for your wine, what is the point in having a distributor? When I go to the store, I most often look for wines that I have heard of before. Even one domestic exhibitor told me (on the condition of anonymity) that the event 'isn't what it used to be...you just don't get the return on it like you used to. But, you do it anyway and are hopeful it pays off.'
I will admit, this becomes a question of 'what comes first, the chicken or the egg?' But, as a consumer, I felt slightly snubbed at this event (especially considering the tickets for the general public are much higher than that of the exhibitor's guests and the press). I would be curious to hear from others like myself that attended this event and their thoughts on whether or not participating in such events is an effective public affairs move? I can't say I'm convinced my money was well spent, or whether I'll search out more than one or two of the 1800+ wines that were at the event.
Scott Brown's election impact on healthcare reform
On Thursday it was reported in the Washington Post that the election Scott Brown for the
What I don’t understand really is why people are so against the bill. I see how they fear a raise in taxes but in the long run, if nothing is passed, health care costs could skyrocket even higher than they are now. I worry too that if only a scaled back plan is passed it might not be much better than the status quo. Everyone seems so worried about how the bill might raise taxes or cut back Medicare, they don’t seem to see or focus on the good it might do for people. I do understand that reform costs a great deal but when I think of how medical costs can leave people without a home, especially if they’re uninsured, I wonder which cost is really greater in the long run.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Consistency in Place Branding
Nowadays, apart from my thesis endeavors, I am a team member for a place branding project for a region in Mexico and try to build up the conceptual background for a Web 2.0 branding project for Turkey (Website coming soon). Long story short, I spend much of my time reading on place branding. I used the below keywords to explain what I have in my mind about the fundamental concepts....
As I am required to write one blog post per week for my CC608 Public Affairs course at Emerson, I decided to start summarizing my thoughts on place branding. I might end up killing two birds with one stone. If these concepts continue to stay in my mind as shown in the graph, I will definitely go crazy.
I was reading Pryor & Grossbart's work on creating a model of place branding. I am quite aware of the fact that the main scope of the article is quite wide, however, the point that struck me was consistency. Consistency is good for commercial brands but what about places? The authors claim that consistency makes little sense, but I cannot wholeheartedly agree with them.
Now place branding tries to attract investment, business, and tourism, in other words, the main aim is to generate income either via creating businesses or via tourism. On one hand, it makes much sense that a consistent promise from a place as a tourism destination is not likely to create excitement among the same audience after some time. (In plain English, after you hear the same promises a few times, you will no longer want to go there). But what is the difference between an inconsistent message and a contradictory message? If a place tries to disseminate different messages, there is the risk of credibility loss. Also during the transition periods, tourism will likely to suffer. For instance, what will happen if you change the brand a place from a fun - surfer friendly - party community to a senior friendly - quite community?
On the other hand, the business hand, I believe the best brand can be "business-friendly". Therefore although you change your messages according to global trends (i.e. base your attraction on qualified labor, loose tax regulations, resource, geographical proximity, etc.), your consistent brand message is "we will do anything to facilitate your business process and we will compete with other places to get your business".
To sum up, yes, a consistent message will be boring and given the global communication environment will be disregarded by the audiences. But a consistent place/community identity and a solid integrated communication strategy won't hurt.
PS: I did not follow any citation style (well, this is a blog post). All my references to "authors, work, article, etc" point to about the following work:
Pryor, S., & Grossbart, S. (2007). Creating meaning on main street: Towards a model of place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(4), 291-304. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000080
PS 2: This post is also published at http://efesevin.wordpress.com/ and http://placebranding.ning.com/.
The Danger of a Single Story
This is a brilliant talk, from the perspective of a Nigerian novelist, about how stories define "others" and create stereotypes. I think it's a "must see" for anyone working in Public Affairs. Of course, the use of the "single story" is a technique that has often been applied intentionally to achieve a social or political end (could we call it propaganda?). It raises the question of ethics, and whether means justify ends. Telling a "single story"--even as it may achieve one's goal--often has pervasive negative consequences.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Gas Guzzling Campaign
Can gas-guzzlers be green? At 16 miles per gallon (mpg), I think not. Regardless, trucks may be the next fad in Massachusetts, according to an article in the Boston Globe. No longer are trucks seen as a workingman’s vehicle. Now they are winning elections.
As residents across the Bay State jumped aboard Scott Brown’s truck campaign, electing him to replace the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat, his truck also gained a following. A 2005 GMC Canyon, the vehicle was the focus of many campaign commercials. According to the Boston Globe, local GMC dealerships have recently seen a surge in interest surrounding the vehicle, and are attributing it to the campaign.
According to the article, of the 36,000+ GMC Canyons burning rubber and gas on U.S. streets, only 609 are in Massachusetts. In fact, while the most popular car nationwide is the rugged Ford F-150, the Bay State’s pick is the Toyota Camry, followed by the Honda Accord. So how and why did this truck gain popularity? How did a gas-guzzling truck, in a state that prefers economical cars, win an election?
It was all about spin.
But before we run to our nearest dealer and buy a truck, let’s pop the hood and take a closer look. Although the truck campaign won votes, what effect will it have on the Massachusetts environment? The Bay State may not be as “blue”, but hopefully it will remain green.
How do you think the “truck campaign” affected the recent election results?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)