Today in class we were asked to create a communications plan for a company that is not accessing the population through the means of social media. For this assignment I chose to focus on the province of Ontario’s Child Aid Societies (CAS) and its corresponding agency Boost – Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention Agency. These two identities are very closely knit, and for that reason I will be blogging about each within the child welfare system. I will also propose a social media venture for the organizations to take.
According to the Boost – Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention website, it is an organization dedicated to “eliminating abuse and violence in the lives of children, youth and their families.”
Boost achieves this goal by providing programs to educate the community on prevention tactics, assessments and treatments for abused children. They claim to be a national leader on the topic and through their grandiose corporate funding generated through there Butterfly Ball, they have the capital to back their stance.
However, what Boost does not have is an effective measure to ensure the at all workers involved with Children Aid Societies are trained to implement the responsibility associated with their job. In other words the offices of Boost and CAS do not have any transparency policy or initiative set up to ensure the free flow of factual information.
This has been discovered by Irwin Elman, who has published his devastating findings in a 25-page report entitled 90 Deaths; 90 Voices Silenced. The Toronto Star also picked up the story on Monday February 23, 2009 and ran it on the paper’s front cover (above the fold).
He states, “these are children that we, as a province, have determined are in some peril and should be receiving the best of what we, as their parents, have to offer.” he said. “So how could 90 of them die? I want all of us to be thinking about that.” Toronto Star, Monday February 23, 2009: A6.
And we are thinking about it as public outcry is evident. On the Toronto Star webpage the comments section about the published story are numerous. Slogans such as “CAS don’t help, they destroy” are present and a taste of anger is evident in the postings.
When I first read the article anger jumped to me as well. Then a feeling of sadness and helplessness for the involved children came to reside inside me.
I have become even more disheartened as I have been tracking this case of the child welfare system for the last month, and no response has been made public. This makes me wonder if Mr. Elman’s report is too factual. For that reason I have chosen to do my in-class assignment on this topic.
There is obviously a need to re-vamp this program as “the office receives about 3,000 phone calls for help each year from among more than 20,000 children and youth in contact with Children’s Aid.” Toronto Star, Monday February 23, 2009: A6.
As a current student trying to enter the communications profession I have a communications plan to propose to the organizations of Boost and CAS.
First I would suggest that both organizations review their mission statement, their objectives and their goals.
Once all of that is clear to the management team, I believe that the workers within the organizations must be aware of their job description. What is their role and responsibility within the organizations to ensure transparency of problems to elicit proactive solutions. If the workers on the ground level with the children are not reporting horrendous acts that are leading to child deaths, no correction methods can take place.
I admit this can take some time as it may lead to an entire child welfare system overhaul, but in the mean time there are social media venues that the child welfare system can take advantage of to ensure the public that they are in fact doing something to stop the preventable deaths.
I propose that the organizations utilize outlets such as You Tube to deliver their message of awareness and progress to the public.
An hour video responding to the February 23rd article would have eased tensions. The public needs to be informed of the progress. Bi-monthly videos could be posted, showcasing the progress that has been made, or new developments to the plan. There could also be a comments section to elicit public response and ideas to help benefit the system and most importantly the children.
After reviewing the Boost website, I noticed the only ‘new media’ postings they had were advertisement campaigns, not awareness campaigns. I believe awareness campaigns posted not only on their site but on Youtube will allow greater transparency of the organizations (as Boost is the mother organization as it provides the training and programs) leading to an ability to quell public outrage.
People get upset when a problem like this is unveiled. However, people get even more upset when there is no plan in place to correct the problem. I believe that people are more forgiving a system trying to correct itself, then a system that tries to hide its problems or inefficiencies.
A awareness campaign posted on a social media outlet like You Tube will not only get the message of change out to the public but it will also align itself with Boost’s strategic plan (which is posted on their website).
The strategic plan posted on the Boost website holds the logo of the Toronto Child Abuse Center, and is entitled TCAC 2006: The Next Five Years. It is now 2009, thus the organizations are in the 3rd year of their designed plan.
On the last page of the plan it states:
“Each year, for the next five years, annual objectives will be established and priorities determined by the Board and staff. At the end of each year, the objectives will be reviewed and evaluated to determine if TCAC is successful in meeting its stated goals. We believe that this process of establishing and measuring our objectives will allow us to move forward on a clear and strategic path for the next five years.” TCAC 2006: The Next Five Years: p7.
However, there has been no updates present on the website from the last 3 years. Is this an organizational problem or an administrative problem? I don’t know…I don’t work there.
In this moment of crisis, I propose that TCAC and its member organizations and offices (Boost, CASs) actually review their plan, re-work it to solve the problem and post that solution along with its new plan on You Tube for the public to review.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Are we going the right way?? Traditional Media to Social Media
Social media seems to be replacing traditional media outlets such as newspapers and broadcasting stations at an unprecedented rate during this time of recession.
“As each day passes, we're presented with new information that documents the decline of traditional media in favor of online counterparts and new media competitors. It seems that newspapers are among the hardest hit with circulation and print advertising down - forcing layoffs across the country.” http://www.briansolis.com/2008/05/social-media-continues-to-rival.html
Throughout the last month newspaper staffs have been downsized and highly accredited broadcasting stations are trying to figure out how to stay afloat in this volatile time.
Through various Public Relations seminars dedicated to students, I have learned that this downsizing and capital cuts at news media outlets has caused a big problem for public relations professionals. It is now harder to contact a journalist to get an organizations message out.
I argue that it is not only harder for organizations to deliver their desired messages but also harder for citizens to access information on what is happening to their society.
During this time of recession citizens need to be informed of what steps its governing body is taking to ensure the least daily disruptions to their lives takes place. This includes how it is interacting with business, organizations, social endeavors and new proposed policies and plans.
Traditional media outlets, in my opinion, provide citizens with the information they need. Newspapers such as Metro and 24 hours are not only free but are readily available to the public with their placement in and along subway routes.
As the TTC transports nearly 300,000 people if not more, it is the perfect outlet to have printed information to reach Canadian citizens on their daily transmute. It is also the perfect outlet to elicit dialogue on issues/concerns or general inquiries as passengers are intermingled during their ride.
I believe social media is very important to today’s environment. It has many benefits and creates online dialogue from the comfort of your home computer.
However I do believe that it cannot replace the necessity of newspapers. An organization both governmental and non governmental must access the population with its intended message. Social media allows for citizens to access information from the company site, not the company site accessing the general population.
What this means is that the onus falls on citizens to keep themselves informed and to search out their own information.
But who has time for that? Persons who have jobs are too busy at work and too tired when they get home. Persons who do not have a job are too busy searching for work and a method of survival to bother with trying to access information.
Therefore I believe the best way to keep citizens informed is to keep the distribution of newspapers and television news programs that deliver important information as a top priority.
But to do this during a time of recession seems difficult. As employment cuts are happening to the left, right and center.
Maybe it is time for our governing body to dedicate more resources (such as capital) to ensuring citizen access to information. Not just what citizens choose to seek out, but the information that citizens should be informed about.
To me it only makes sense:
In order to rally grassroot support for any project or policy organizations and government have to tell citizens what is happening. It has to tell citizens what it is proposing. It has to tell citizens how they will be affected.
The best way to do that (at least in Toronto) is through the well developed delivery of newspapers that we see present with the TTC. It is a well developed system of information delivery.
Please let me know what you think... Like I said, this is just my opinion...
“As each day passes, we're presented with new information that documents the decline of traditional media in favor of online counterparts and new media competitors. It seems that newspapers are among the hardest hit with circulation and print advertising down - forcing layoffs across the country.” http://www.briansolis.com/2008/05/social-media-continues-to-rival.html
Throughout the last month newspaper staffs have been downsized and highly accredited broadcasting stations are trying to figure out how to stay afloat in this volatile time.
Through various Public Relations seminars dedicated to students, I have learned that this downsizing and capital cuts at news media outlets has caused a big problem for public relations professionals. It is now harder to contact a journalist to get an organizations message out.
I argue that it is not only harder for organizations to deliver their desired messages but also harder for citizens to access information on what is happening to their society.
During this time of recession citizens need to be informed of what steps its governing body is taking to ensure the least daily disruptions to their lives takes place. This includes how it is interacting with business, organizations, social endeavors and new proposed policies and plans.
Traditional media outlets, in my opinion, provide citizens with the information they need. Newspapers such as Metro and 24 hours are not only free but are readily available to the public with their placement in and along subway routes.
As the TTC transports nearly 300,000 people if not more, it is the perfect outlet to have printed information to reach Canadian citizens on their daily transmute. It is also the perfect outlet to elicit dialogue on issues/concerns or general inquiries as passengers are intermingled during their ride.
I believe social media is very important to today’s environment. It has many benefits and creates online dialogue from the comfort of your home computer.
However I do believe that it cannot replace the necessity of newspapers. An organization both governmental and non governmental must access the population with its intended message. Social media allows for citizens to access information from the company site, not the company site accessing the general population.
What this means is that the onus falls on citizens to keep themselves informed and to search out their own information.
But who has time for that? Persons who have jobs are too busy at work and too tired when they get home. Persons who do not have a job are too busy searching for work and a method of survival to bother with trying to access information.
Therefore I believe the best way to keep citizens informed is to keep the distribution of newspapers and television news programs that deliver important information as a top priority.
But to do this during a time of recession seems difficult. As employment cuts are happening to the left, right and center.
Maybe it is time for our governing body to dedicate more resources (such as capital) to ensuring citizen access to information. Not just what citizens choose to seek out, but the information that citizens should be informed about.
To me it only makes sense:
In order to rally grassroot support for any project or policy organizations and government have to tell citizens what is happening. It has to tell citizens what it is proposing. It has to tell citizens how they will be affected.
The best way to do that (at least in Toronto) is through the well developed delivery of newspapers that we see present with the TTC. It is a well developed system of information delivery.
Please let me know what you think... Like I said, this is just my opinion...
Monday, March 16, 2009
Class assignment on social media ownership...
Does Social Media Belong in the Hands of PR people?
This was the question posed to us in online public relations class today.
Looking at it from a PR professional stand point I would agree that it would be easiest for the profession to have control over social media as these are the professionals that have to deliver the intended message to the intended target audiences.
Mashable.com notes that social media is:
“changing the way that content and information work particularly in terms of the publishing of consumer opinion. This has transformed the way that consumers relate to brands and the way that brands should operate, driving direct interaction, transparency and a more consultative approach.”
Therefore, social media is THE TOOL to access and engage in dialogue with the organization’s intended audience and “cultivate lifetime advocates” for an organization. It is also THE TOOL to gain measurable feedback through “direct interactions, i.e. number of friends, number of views or number of users.” (http://mashable.com/2009/02/20/big-brands-social-media/)
However, looking at the question without any personal bias to what would make my future job easier; I believe that social media can not be under any organization or person’s ownership.
The tool of social media allows for something no other media outlet allowed for – almost instant conversation and sharing of ideas amongst individuals and groups without any limitation to reach. This means it is a global interaction system.
Scott Monty of Ford cites on his blog www.scottmonty.com that Ford is “not interested in advertising on social networks. We’re interested in getting in there and interacting with people.”
Social media is allowing for individuals to share their ideas and comments with organizations to develop better products that represent the demands of society.
Foxbusiness.com (www.Foxbusiness.com) notes that 36% of millennials (persons aged 18-30 and are the most social media savvy generation) interact with social media networks to submit opinions. If this percentage can be increased, more people will be able to have their opinions represented or discussed.
For this reason I believe that social media should not belong in the hands of any organization or person. Social media is the tool that allows for interaction on any subject, product, idea or thought. Thus it is the main hub to promote innovative, collaborative thought.
This was the question posed to us in online public relations class today.
Looking at it from a PR professional stand point I would agree that it would be easiest for the profession to have control over social media as these are the professionals that have to deliver the intended message to the intended target audiences.
Mashable.com notes that social media is:
“changing the way that content and information work particularly in terms of the publishing of consumer opinion. This has transformed the way that consumers relate to brands and the way that brands should operate, driving direct interaction, transparency and a more consultative approach.”
Therefore, social media is THE TOOL to access and engage in dialogue with the organization’s intended audience and “cultivate lifetime advocates” for an organization. It is also THE TOOL to gain measurable feedback through “direct interactions, i.e. number of friends, number of views or number of users.” (http://mashable.com/2009/02/20/big-brands-social-media/)
However, looking at the question without any personal bias to what would make my future job easier; I believe that social media can not be under any organization or person’s ownership.
The tool of social media allows for something no other media outlet allowed for – almost instant conversation and sharing of ideas amongst individuals and groups without any limitation to reach. This means it is a global interaction system.
Scott Monty of Ford cites on his blog www.scottmonty.com that Ford is “not interested in advertising on social networks. We’re interested in getting in there and interacting with people.”
Social media is allowing for individuals to share their ideas and comments with organizations to develop better products that represent the demands of society.
Foxbusiness.com (www.Foxbusiness.com) notes that 36% of millennials (persons aged 18-30 and are the most social media savvy generation) interact with social media networks to submit opinions. If this percentage can be increased, more people will be able to have their opinions represented or discussed.
For this reason I believe that social media should not belong in the hands of any organization or person. Social media is the tool that allows for interaction on any subject, product, idea or thought. Thus it is the main hub to promote innovative, collaborative thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)