Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘International’ Category

This week I was on two panels at the Worldviews Conference on Higher Education and Media in Toronto. One of them was on branding, and I previewed it in last weeks’ post. The other one was titled: “National Security, Social Media and the Publicity of Academic Findings.”  This one could be addressed from many vantage points, and frankly I struggled with how to approach it.

We were told our topic was inspired by news media coverage of instances of the Canadian government censuring academics, raising academic freedom and transparency questions about accessing sponsored research findings. Of course, social media played a complicating role in these situations, and also raises additional complicated  security and privacy issues in general. To be sure, academic freedom, privacy and transparency questions abound today as universities become more global and find themselves operating in multiple cultures and dealing with multiple government policies.

I have been both a practitioner and an academic who has been teaching strategic and international communication in a journalism school. So fundamentally I believe in as much transparency as is possible. But as a practical matter, in my work I have come to accept the proprietary nature of commissioned research. And so these days I make the assumption that researchers who take commissions to do government studies understand that up front.

Now you might argue that governments are public not private entities and as such should be completely transparent, except possibly for a few national security activities. But it’s simply a fact that elected administrations will always be advancing their ideology related policies, and that information they gather will often be proprietary. This is a reality, even though they may have campaigned on a platform of more transparency!

So in today’s world it is the job of the news media to find out as much as possible about what governments are doing, especially  their wrong-doings. Reporters will therefore continue to try to uncover the findings of proprietary research, as they should. This is a critically important form of checks and balances, and I believe its in this ongoing process that gradual social progress can be made.

All this is to say that proprietary agreements must always be clearly understood upfront, be they with governments or with universities housing government projects. That means that even inside today’s universities, researchers must be clear about  when and if their findings can be published. For true academics, research projects with no strings will always be preferred, but that will not always be the case.

Just how much social media complicates these proprietary issues and raises additional issues about government intrusions into our personal lives, will confuse matters for a long time. Most of us still want to draw a privacy line that can’t be crossed. But today that line always wiggles a bit every time government intrusion charges, terrorists threats, or even exciting new internet opportunities, appear.

One of my students responded to all this by blurting, “There is no such thing as privacy any more. Get used to it!”  For some people this may sound simplistic and naive. Nonetheless, it’s probably true.

Read Full Post »

Next week the Worldview Conference on Media and Higher Education is taking place in Toronto. I will be on two panels, one of which is interestingly titled, Branding and the Sophistication of the Communication Culture in Universities.

What makes this panel especially compelling to me is that it, along with the entire conference, is truly international and the implication is that brand identity is not only a signficant issue for universities everywhere, but communication initiatives are also becoming much more sophisticated.

My remarks will be built on my lessons learned over years of struggling to define brand for extremely complex academic institutions.  In the process I have come to believe that a powerful institutional brand is composed of the four or five most differentiating characteristics that distinguish it from others. Once they are effectively summarized and condensed into a simple statement, they become the institution’s brand identity. And eventually they come to be collectively symbolized in consistently used elements of design.

These institutional defining brand characteristics tend to be a combination of program strength, type of campus experience, cultural characteristics, commonly held values, and geographical location features. For them to be enduring over time they must be totally anchored in reality. Otherwise they only function temporarily as promotional hype.

It seems to me that brand identity will become even more important to competitive success in a global market than it has been in a domestic one. The more differentiated the brand the more likely an institution will stand out visibly in this new media world. And as student and faculty migration becomes more global, it is only natural to conclude that overall institutional characteristics will govern location choices.

In addition to this acknowledged international importance of institutional brand, this conference is a very strong affirmation of how international our industry is becoming, and how this reality is changing the game for everyone.

Read Full Post »

In Washington last week I found myself mentioning the coming globalization of higher education to a colleague.  He instantly  responded by blurting out, “What do you mean “coming?” We have been living in an internationalized world for some time, and right now you are in a total international city!”

When you think about it, he’s right. Every taxi driver in the city seems to be from a different part of the world.  From the airport mine was from Ghana. I was greeted at a nearby hotel’s happy hour by a hostess from Prague, and my maid in the hotel in which I was staying was from Columbia. My taxi driver to a restaurant that night was from India.

And what about food? Would it be Thai, or Greek, or Chinese, or Italian, or Indian. Oh yes, American cuisine can be found too if you look for it. But the choices now are endless, and all are authentic. I chose a steakhouse, but in the same neighborhood were Mexican, Spanish tapas, and Asian fusion choices.

I commented to my friend that I was impressed how well all these people spoke English, and that I wished I had mastered more languages.  But he pointed out that in the global village of today it’s almost impossible to pick the one or two languages that cover the territory.  He argued that the whole world is rapidly accepting English as the common language, and that our challenge now is more learning how to better relate and adapt to other cultures and value systems than learning other languages. An interesting perspective, indeed.

If my friend is right, it is important to begin thinking about this world, not as a coming international community and marketplace, but rather as a global village that has already arrived. That means every university, nonprofit agency, association, business, city, nation and individual, in one way or another is already being influenced by other countries, or is already doing business with them.

This may seem to be a simple truth.  But seeing it in greater depth is likely to change our short-term thinking as we develop our organizations’ marketing and communication plans. How will we respond sooner rather than later to global competition right here at home?  Should we expand activities to other parts of the world earlier than we thought? Indeed, what are all the ways we must change our organizations’ culture in order to have everyone prepared with appropriate savvy and knowledge?

You better have a short-term action plan in mind. The global village is not coming. It is here.

Read Full Post »

This week I visited a meeting of the Young Professionals in Foreign Policy group in Washington. It was a gathering of 50 or more mid-career strategic communication professionals working in various foreign policy positions.  They came from government as well as NGO’s, embassies, think tanks, and more. They meet together mainly for professional development and to share their experiences and problems with each other.

The meeting kicked off with a panel discussion. Members of the panel included the Director of Foreign Affairs at the Brookings Institution, the Director of Arab World Engagement at the Center for Strategic Counter-terrorism Communications at the State Department, the Chief of Protocol at the French Embassy, and the Strategic Communication Officer at IFC World Bank.

YPFP is a very impressive group. I have long observed that students and graduates who make it to Washington as interns or young professionals are among the best thinkers universities produce. That evening I felt as I do when I am surrounded by our own honors students at TCU: The world will really be just fine when these talented professionals are in charge!

Even as a life long teacher I sat there thinking how much I can learn from their experiences. Everyone one of them is already on the front lines dealing with serious security and policy issues. One panelist described how she monitors websites in the Middle East to determine where young people gather and how to influence their thinking about the U.S. Another panelist addressed the challenges of simplifying messages related to very complicated financial matters for foreign audiences. Eventually everyone was discussing how to advance their foreign policy careers. Being willing and prepared to take on the most difficult national problems seemed to be their common theme.

The director of the group and I closed the evening by talking about how I might get involved and be of service to the organization. The real question will be, from my 40 plus years of practicing and teaching strategic and international communication just what can I offer them? One thing is clear: With this group I will be doing more listening than lecturing!

Read Full Post »

Communication history teaches that new technologies can be game-changers, but old ones never completely go away. They merely change roles, or accommodate the new circumstances.

Massive Open Online Courses, now called MOOC’s, have recently appeared in higher education. Initially they have taken the form of courses offered online to the world by star professors, and mostly for free. And surprisingly to many, prestige institutions such as MIT and Harvard entered the arena early. Are they really intending to provide a free education to anyone in the world? Or are they merely seizing an opportunity to achieve worldwide visibility at a time when world rankings are beginning to attract attention? Or are they using these courses to attract applications for their residential programs? Or are they primarily collecting market behavior data that can be sold or used in other ways? Or, are they experimenting with all of the above?

Some say MOOCs will bring a level of revolutionary change that could render residential institutions obsolete. Certainly, at minimum the game has changed. Start-up companies are already producing and distributing these courses, and some of these companies are for profit. Most of their course have been non-credit, but that will change. And free is likely to change as well. These ventures certainly plan to succeed. 

At first, the main attraction of basic online courses for institutions was that they were cheaper to produce and administer than traditional classroom education. And, of course, a reduced price is a major benefit to many students, plus the convenience of taking courses from any location. The problem, however, was that they often lacked academic quality and became monotonous over time. And that lack of satisfying interaction and socialization led to a high number of drop-outs.

MOOC advocates assert that technology innovation and computer effects will solve both the quality and socialization problems. And by adding a star professor, they argue you will have an integrated product that will indeed challenge the very survival of residential institutions. Admittedly, technical quality can be achieved. But it seems to me that  higher costs and the need to find more revenue will present the same challenges now faced  by other online startups that also began as free. And in the final analysis, we also cannot overlook the very large number of students and parents that still prefer a more personal living and learning educational setting.

My recent experience with undergraduate honors students suggests that some high quality online courses will be eagerly accepted, and that the appropriate use of technology in other courses is already expected. The star professor is occasionally welcomed too. But there is also a demand for live, talented, and well-educated teacher-scholars to function as expert learning and discussion facilitators and mentors. In other words, there remains a big demand for the total collegiate experience. Sorting out one’s beliefs, discussing lessons from history, exploring ideas from art and literature, debating political issues, learning from fellow students, and developing lifetime relationships, all are vital parts of a complete educational process.

But let’s not be naive about this. There will be a market for MOOCs. They already changed the game in higher education. While they will not eliminate the residential university experience, they will bring  new thinking about how that experience can be enhanced.

Read Full Post »

Leaders in university advancement gathered last week in Boston to “rethink” their profession. Education at all levels is in the midst of a revolutionary “sea change,” and advancement people are among those expected to help address  many of the most significant challenges. They are experts in institutional fund-raising, alumni relations, marketing, communications, and government affairs. So why them, and why now?

Simply put, states all over the nation are cutting back financial support. Admittedly, the cuts are more drastic in some states than others. But almost everywhere governors and legislators are rethinking their role in education.  The impact has been significant.  When funding to state supported public institutions declines, tuition goes up. And when this happens, access declines and market dynamics change. Thus, private and for-profit institutional markets change as well. In short, many education leaders are rethinking their core business simply because they have no choice.

The situation in Washington is making matters even worse. In this stressed economy federal financial aid amounts, low-interest rates on loans, and a significant amount of research and program funding are also threatened. Therefore,  advancement officers are launching new initiatives to mobilize their alumni to reach deeper into their pockets, to find more private funding anywhere it’s available, to fine-tune competitive advantage messages, and to expand marketing initiatives. The good news is that in a changing market advancement professionals are more important than ever. But meeting expectations won’t be easy.

Every non-profit organization and cause in the world is currently accelerating its fund-raising activities. They are becoming quite sophisticated. Institutional executives everywhere are approaching every individual, every foundation, and every corporation they can find. New and creative donor recognition ideas are being generated. As a result, past donor loyalties are often threatened, and institutional health can be threatened as well.

At the same time education is becoming a global enterprise, and this is bringing even more change. It’s not merely increasing study abroad programs, or forming foreign partnerships, or building satellite campuses. It’s also foreign institutions coming to North America with marketing ambitions of their own. They begin by calling on their own  alumni, but they also look  for wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations who understand that the world economy and new opportunities are  moving eastward. This also soon leads them to searching for prospective students and parents with the same vision of the future.  

I cannot imagine a more exciting time than now to be in the educational advancement profession. Opportunities to make a difference are extremely high. But performance expectations are even higher. So it is not a profession for the faint of heart. It is that reality that led to the  “rethinking advancement” meeting last week in Boston, and it may have been just the first of many more.   

As I told some of my TCU honors students this week:  “Your talent alone entitles you to nothing. To change this world you will have to work harder than you ever imagined. You will have to go beyond your incredible talent into the realm of competitive strategic problem-solving, complicated issues management, and compelling innovative thinking.”  That is the reality for every profession today, just as it is for university advancement.

Read Full Post »

It’s interesting to explore the reasons why one denomination or religion might use media more effectively than another.  Is it a matter money?  Or is it a matter of the skills and interests of those in charge?  Or is it something more illusive?  In short, why does one group use television to spread the word far and wide, and another continue to worship almost exclusively in buildings.

I explored these questions many years ago when television was new. But today the media landscape has broadened to include the Internet, websites, email, cell phones, texting, Facebook, Twitter, and more. 

So what does determine which groups choose to use media, and which ones don’t?  I have found that looking at the basic nature of each medium, and comparing  those characteristics to how each group approaches its fundamental religious  subject matter, can give us very important clues, if not answers.

Electronic media tend to favor very simple content. Its use normally requires reducing complex ideas to simple message points. For example, too much factual information on television can quickly become boring. Facebook is a vehicle primarily for maintaining relationships and is not an effective communicator of complex ideas.  Twitter requires messages to be conveyed in only 140 characters and is a tool that is mostly effective when mobilizing action. Email can inform in short paragraphs. Texting is best at connecting. Cell phones allow talking on the go.  

Television is especially interesting because it effectively combines simple messaging with dramatic and emotional experiences. Cameras, editing, scenery, music, pacing and impassioned performance are naturals for television, and denominations and churches that can combine a simple message with these to produce a religious experience find it a natural, and in some cases a primary, medium.

So denominations that see their content in terms of simple clear messages, and find it natural to translate that into more emotional religious experiences, seem to be much more at home with television and other forms of new media.  On the other hand, those that see their content as requiring  study and interpretation are more likely to find  television unsuited to their fundamental nature and approach.

So how does all this relate to extremist religions? Many of these movements use the emotional power of satellite television effectively. All use Facebook and Twitter to build and sustain relationships, and to mobilize action across borders.  These are really communities of interests, or subcultures, and they are effectively held together across the globe using social media. And for the most part their content is simple and uncomplicated.

TCU has a religion department and is also affiliated with a divinity school with scholars who study these issues. Recently the divinity school launched a strategic planning process with the underlying theme that the seminary of tomorrow will not look like the seminary today. It will be interesting to see  how the use of new media will influence the plan and the future of seminary education.  

Religion and media is also a topic for our Honors College Colloquium this fall.  We all know that in one way or another our religious beliefs influence everything we think and do.  Even though church and state in our country are constitutionally separated, religion  finds its way into virtually all matters of our politics and society, and it certainly is at the heart of much international conflict. What role media plays in all this is clearly a central concern for society, and is worthy of our ongoing consideration.

Read Full Post »

I often recall a dinner conversation I had in Rome some years ago with the travel agent that helped one of my colleagues with study abroad logistics. He said bluntly, “Everyone I know loves their ‘idea of America,” but they don’t understand much of what your government does.”  Ever since then I have been grappling with the issue of communicating government administrative policy to many complicated domestic and foreign audiences vs. just getting a simple “idea of America” understood.

Last week’s blog addressed the challenges faced by the White House as new and returning presidents face communicating their policies to audiences that will hear what they want to hear no matter what is said. The reality is that communication will be breaking down all the time.  Audiences must be prioritized, traditional and new media tactics selected for each, and many separate initiatives must be undertaken over time in order to achieve minimal progress.  And no matter what is said, enemies and competitors will fire back with their own set of strategically planned initiatives. 

Is it possible for a government to articulate a simple idea about values and culture with credibility?  Can the simple  “idea of America” come through in the same way that the travel agent in Rome described?

Some have concluded that government policy always must be shaped around economic and security realities, and that a government’s communication will always be with mixed and uncertain success.  Those people and countries threatened by this will always retaliate in some way. There will be allies and enemies, advocates and critics. And so many strategic communicators have come to think that the best way to get the fundamental “idea of America” across is to organize ordinary Americans to meet with people in other cultures. This way our basic values of individual freedom and justice can be experienced first hand.

And so several efforts have been made in recent years to explore the feasibility of establishing a non-governmental, or in some cases a quasi-governmental, organization to operate totally independent of government to establish citizen-to-citizen exchanges and programs with the simple purpose of demonstrating how ordinary free and independent Americans look and act. One of these was undertaken by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  Known as the SAGE project, the result was a business plan to establish a non-profit, non-governmental organization to stimulate and finance projects that will bring about a better understanding of Americans of all types.  Currently, a former assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy is seeking the funding and other support necessary to bring this organization into existence.

My TCU Honors College students are discussing these issues.  Last week we imagined what a new or second term president faces on “day one” trying to communicate administrative policy in light of what was said during the campaign and the realities of the existing friendly and hostile audiences all over the world!  This week we will look at the potential of citizen-to-citizen public diplomacy, and the role international higher education and new media might play in it. 

On a given day communication is breaking down all around us.  But then each day is a new day, and the determined among us keep trying.  One step at a time is the name of the game.

Read Full Post »

During every presidential election I think about the communication challenge ahead for either winner.  During the campaign, candidates tend to talk about what they will do on “day one.” And when you think about it, the communication challenges for either one will be enormous: How can all those varied “publics,” domestic and foreign, be reached efficiently, effectively and positively?

Basically I am a free enterprize advocate and believe in maximum freedom for individuals. However, my writings also reveal that I see a strong role for government in curbing mindless greed and maintaining a fair, just and safe society. But from a communication perspective, I wonder if even the kind of lean and focused government I support can ever effectively communicate clear policy and plans? Just think about the challenges ahead for our president.

When it comes to domestic issues, how does a president communicate his or her policies effectively to extremely polarized audiences?  No matter who wins, “here is how I am going to work with you,” might be the most  important message of all.

When it comes to foreign policy the communication challenge can even be more difficult because there are several departments of government that need to be engaged and coordinated.  For example, the White House will be sending messages. The state department will be addressing foreign governments and their publics. The defense department will do the same from their perspective. The commerce department will too. The CIA, the FBI, and so on… all have communication responsibilities.  And each will interpret revised and/or completely new messages to its audiences. With all this organizational complexity, here again the most important message might be one of a clear leadership style and approach.

All of these entities will certainly have a huge tool box full of communication tactics. They range from face-to-face contact and meetings, to traditional print media, to mass media, to new digital and social media.  And when they all converge, and the messages are complex, the result can be more mass confusion than enlightenment.  People get frustrated and confused in an information cluttered world. “We no longer know what we know, and we don’t like that feeling!” 

In today’s polarized climate, it could be that people will mostly just want to know simply what kind of person will be leading this country, and how serious problem-solving will be approached.  It seems that more and more people and governments are not responding to ideology-driven initiatives, threats and arguments. Rather, many seem to be longing for a more pragmatic-minded world. Certainly there are many individual and government exceptions. But a world based on integrated strategic communication tactics… that is a single voice with simple messages about practical objectives and effective problem-solving processes… just might win the day with what might actually turn out to be a truly vast silent majority!

Read Full Post »

The speed and need of 24/7 cable for constant breaking news, the tendency of television to dramatize, the rapid growth of social media, the financial troubles of newspapers, and overall austerity cutbacks all over the world, collectively have changed the landscape of international news gathering and reporting. The fundamental question is: Are we getting the information we need to function as intelligent citizens?

In the past, large Newspapers maintained bureaus in many places all over the world. But recently many have been closing them.  Mainstream broadcast news organizations have done so as well.  For example, CBS had a number of bureaus strategically placed in cities around the world. Now it covers international events completely from its bureau in London. All news organizations today rely to some extent on freelancers, and local journalists, who compete for space and airtime in order to get paid.  As a result, traditional outlets also depend more than ever on three basic international news services.

Associated Press (AP) still covers the world, and also has an international video news service.  Reuters has traditionally been strong in business coverage, and continues to provide international coverage. And Agence France-Presse (AFP) does as well. All of these services work on some kind of fee basis and provide news coverage for both television and newspapers. But with each individual news outlet reducing its fulltime international reporting staff, it has become more difficult to achieve distinction.  

In addition, many new networks have appeared all over the world. For example, Al Jazeera covers the Arab world with both an English and Arabic channel, which are managed separately. The english channel boasts objectivity in its coverage, with its selection of stories based on the interests of its audiences. The Arabic channel is more Arab centric and has a reputation for being critical of Western and US influences. Al Arabiya broadcasts only in Arabic, but has an English website.  It prides itself in its objectivity.  But there are many other channels in the Middle East and all over the world that compete for audience, and specialize in everything from news to music to religion.  CNN has both domestic and international networks,and may have the most bureaus and reporters around the world.  But many see a self-serving commercial spin to their tone and style, and see this tone also as a form of bias. All of these news organizations have websites, and now refer readers, listeners, and viewers to them for more information.

Governments too are in the business of news.  Most brag of objectivity, but clearly reflect cultural biases and varied definitions of what it means to be democratic. The BBC World Service in the United Kingdom prides itself in its objectivity, but has been accused by conservatives as being too liberal.   The Voice of America (VOA) strives for news objectivity, but many in other parts of the world say its Western perspective is indeed a bias.  In Russia the media is controlled by a more authoritarian government, but that government wants to argue that it’s democratic and fair. China is launching new initiatives in targeted parts of the world, including the US. It admits that it hopes to achieve a better public understanding of its culture, but it also asserts that its policy is to be objective in reporting the news. The fact is, there are competing international newspapers and media networks all over the world, with most asserting that they are objective. But they clearly exist to advance a better understanding of their cultures and perspectives.

Add social media, and the situation becomes even more complicated. Citizens not only talk across borders, but they actually can file stories from cell phones. News organizations are now soliciting social media responses and posting  some of it as news, including video from cell phones.   How can consumers in this kind of situation know what they are getting?  Is it factual?  Is it exaggerated? Is it substantive enough to understand?

Indeed the speed of the media world today tends to short-cut all stories, including the important ones. The intensity of breaking news competition often results in reporting errors that have to be corrected later.  With fewer bureaus, every reporter flocks to where news is breaking, leaving the rest of the world virtually uncovered for long periods of time. Enhancing dramatic values is competitively enticing, so using the camera to make small crowds look large, and editing to make events more exciting, becomes common place. So with this daily barrage of information, do we ever really come to know what actually happened, or understand the context necessary for really understanding the situation?

The adventure in media ideas I am currently sharing with honors students at TCU is dealing with these very complex issues. In the end, the challenge will be to find a way to make sure every citizen understands how media actually work, and how to become fully and accurately informed on their own.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »