Internships and Money — What’s the Answer?

by Rachel Davis

In an industry like public relations, only so much can be learned inside a classroom. A lot of training comes from hands-on experience, and employers expect those seeking public relations jobs to have experience in their field. Internships are the easiest way for students to gain on-the-job training.

There are plenty of opportunities for student internships if the students are willing to research and put in the time. Paid internships have become less prominent, especially in the wake of the slowed economy.

Many high profile internships are offered in bigger cities and usually mean a temporary relocation for students. Relocation means an added cost of moving and living expenses in a new city. The problem for financially strapped students obtaining experience is a growing number of companies are no longer paying their interns.

Internships, paid and unpaid, remain a regular part of conversations for students. Deciding which one to take, balancing financial situations and gaining valuable work experience are all things students must take into consideration.

Legality
Recently, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal recharged the unpaid internships conversation nationally. A recent article in The New York Times highlights several students from different backgrounds who were able to accept and not accept internships due to financial situations.

The Department of Labor has even argued against unpaid internships. In recent statements, the department issued the terms of legality of for-profit employers not paying interns to do the same job as full-time employees. The Web site, http://www.onedayoneinternship.com, lists the following as the guidelines from the Fair Labor Standards Act for determining the legality of an unpaid internship:

1. If the training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in a vocational school;
2. If the training is for the benefit of the trainee;
3. If the trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under close observation;
4. If the employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees and, on occasion, the employer’s operations are actually impeded;
5. If the trainees are not necessarily entitled to employment at the completion of the training period;
6. If the employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training.

An entry on http://www.examiner.com features a question and answer session about the legality of internships with Marcia L. McCormick, an associate professor of the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. McCormick said the problem with legality of internships is the lack of a clear definition of what an intern is; it varies from the national government to the states.

“Mostly, an intern gets defined in the negative by statutes that protect people in other working relationships—usually employees," said McCormick. "Most people who provide services or labor for others are considered employees, and those tend to be people who are paid an hourly or yearly wage.”

Paying Interns
Not all companies have removed their paid internships; many still consider it valuable and important to pay their interns. Liz Swenton, communications and human resources manager at March PR, said her company pays their interns.

“Our interns are paid, and we have been fortunate to hire hard-working individuals," Swenton said. "This way, they feel like they are actually part of the team and their work is valued. If the intern is serious enough about his/her career in PR, the hourly wage won’t matter so much. The fact that you are recognizing their efforts will go a long way, especially if they are a struggling student!”

Andrew Graham, an independent writer and media strategist, said he doesn’t understand why this is a conversation since the PR industry is a profitable one.

“If the labor has value, it needs to be compensated accordingly," Graham said. "If it doesn’t have value, then it shouldn’t be done in the first place.”

Graham said he hopes new trade regulations will cause PR societies like PRSA to start taking greater stances against unpaid internships. He suggested the organization add an amendment to the Code of Ethics stating unpaid internships are unethical.

Unpaid Internships
In reality, most students take unpaid internships. Not all unpaid internships are bad, and many people gain valuable job experience through them. Unpaid internships can open the same doors as paid internships and can help the student obtain full-time employment after graduation.

Andy Garlikov, a marketing project manager at Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems–Marine Systems, said the unpaid internships he took in college helped his career.

“A couple of different unpaid internships in college changed (for the better) the entire course of my career," said Garlikov. “I’m all for them. If the places I worked had to pay me, they would have taken on fewer interns and been less flexible with my hours (around my coursework). That would severely restrict the availability of internships.”

Internships must be considered like a job. Before accepting a job, advantages and disadvantages must be weighed. If an internship is paid, but does not offer the same experience as an unpaid one, a student must consider if the compensation without the experience will pay off.

The conversation on the ethics of unpaid interns will continue, and it could get messy if the U.S. Department of Labor starts getting involved. The important thing to remember when taking an internship is to weigh the benefits with the cost. Internships are important for students, and they can be beneficial and rewarding to employers. The issue of compensation should be resolved, and by re-energizing the conversation, maybe a solution is closer than ever.

What is your experience with internships? Do you think they should be paid or unpaid?

Crisis Management: Dealing with a Whale of a Problem

by Caroline Beard

For decades, SeaWorld has built its brand around Shamu, changing the aquatic mammal’s image from killer whale to lovable orca. Then last month, SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by one of the whales during a show, and the Internet has been churning with questions about the safety of the creatures and the stability of the Sea World brand in the wake of this tragedy.

How safe are killer whales?

According to National Geographic, the whales are “one of the world’s most powerful predators.” Nancy Black, a marine biologist with Monterey Bay Whale Watch, agreed in an interview with the Associated Press: “I’ve seen them toss seals 20 feet in the air with their flukes.”

Black also said, “They have never killed a human in the wild. I would think the killer whale didn’t do it intentionally but more as a play thing. They’re so powerful.” The name “killer” actually comes from the whales’ fierce hunting skills in the wild; it has nothing to do with their interactions with humans.

The whale involved in this incident was Tilikum, a 12,000-pound giant with a rap sheet; as it turns out, this particular whale had killed before. In 1991, when he was in captivity at Sealand of the Pacific in British Columbia, Tilikum and two other whales caused a park worker to drown. Then in 1999, after he was transferred to SeaWorld Orlando, Tilikum may have been involved in the drowning of a 27-year-old man who sneaked into the park to swim after hours.

The whale’s history has spawned a slew of online accusations, many calling him a “serial killer whale”, and some even likening the whale to a Taliban terrorist.

How has SeaWorld used communication in the wake of this crisis?

Despite the backlash from the media and bloggers, SeaWorld has seemingly managed to stay afloat. In the initial press conference, the park’s spokesperson said Brancheau “drowned in an incident with one of our killer whales,” but a few hours later, the company released the rest of the details, revealing that the whale had grabbed the trainer by her ponytail and dragged her underwater.

SeaWorld also suspended the @Shamu Twitter handle, explaining that it would be inappropriate to continue posting tweets from a person pretending to be a whale:

In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Fred Jacobs, a spokesperson for SeaWorld, said Shamu might not return to Twitter.

“We may never talk as Shamu again. This is something we never anticipated when we gave a voice to Shamu in the first place.”

Sultana Ali, of Massey Communications in Orlando, Fla., agreed with SeaWorld’s handling of its Twitter account in a recent blog post: “As a PR professional, I completely agree with SeaWorld’s decision to, at least temporarily, suspend the account that mimics their world famous whale and instead focus on their overall theme parks.”

Steve Farnsworth, chief digital strategist for Jolt Social Media in Silicon Valley, Calif., also approved of this decision.

“Their immediate response was good. A few hours later, the CEO announced that there would be an investigation. SeaWorld then streamed a press conference live from their blog. They also suspended the Shamu Twitter account and directed people to their corporate account, which was a smart move.”

In the days since the tragedy, SeaWorld maintained an open line of communication on its blog and Facebook fan page. According to Jacobs in the Orlando Sentinel interview, SeaWorld will only censor comments on either page if they are profane or include statements that would be disrespectful or offensive to Brancheau’s family.

“If you were to get on Facebook right now and ask a question about the morality of keeping whales in captivity, we’ll get back to you,” Jacobs said.

While some animal rights activists have posted negative statements about SeaWorld and the park’s business practices, SeaWorld fans have been equally vocal, posting messages in support of the park and relating happy memories and positive experiences.

Farnsworth said, “Historically SeaWorld has this relationship they’ve been building with social media. What happened with this crisis was that a lot of people who have opinions about keeping animals in captivity have come out, and SeaWorld’s relationship with fans comes into play at this point. The fans came to SeaWorld’s defense; the majority of their comments are positive."

Raquel Fuentes, an account executive at Denver-based MGA Communications, discussed SeaWorld’s social media presence in a recent blog post, crediting the brand’s quick reaction time to its past cultivation of a social media presence.

“Because SeaWorld and Shamu already had an online community in place, they were able to react quickly to the crisis and share decisions made by management with the public,” Fuentes said.

The final word: Will the SeaWorld brand sink or float?

Although the initial repercussions of the SeaWorld tragedy cast a negative light on the brand, many professionals agree that SeaWorld dealt with the crisis effectively and will survive without significant, lasting damage to its reputation.

Ali said, “While I’m not privy to its crisis communications plan for when an event such as this happens, SeaWorld has done a brilliant job with its social media efforts and is doing its best to respond to tragedy by scaling back appropriately. I suspect their brand will recover as a result.”

In light of SeaWorld’s social media response, Fuentes agreed, adding that other brands should look at the SeaWorld model.

She said, “Large companies and organizations, such as Toyota, could (and should) learn a lesson from SeaWorld… SeaWorld understands the value of social media and the relationships that can be built through it, and uses those to their advantage, especially during a crisis.”

Kelley Joyce, vice president of Global Corporate Practice at Waggener Edstrom Worldwide in New York, N.Y., discussed the evolution of the SeaWorld story in a recent blog post. She said, “As the story has developed, the opinions of the public and SeaWorld officials have become more frank and realistic than the initial emotional reaction,” and cited the differences between SeaWorld’s spokesperson’s initial statements and the details that later arose.

Emphasizing the importance of truth in corporate communication, Joyce said, “In the end, the most authentic and effective story is the one grounded in reality. Stick to your story or you’ll end up in the deep end.”

Richie Escovedo, director of media and communications for Mansfield ISD, commented on SeaWorld’s open, truthful approach, especially in live-streaming the press conference from the SeaWorld blog:

“I thought this was a brilliant move since it wouldn’t go through a media outlet’s filter or editorial split-screen. They weren’t going to prevent the media from running their stories, nor were they going to stop the angry public from spewing opinions. I believe SeaWorld demonstrated new textbook examples of how to position, explain and share subsequent information during a crisis across communication channels including social media,” Escovedo said.

Steve Farnsworth of Jolt Social Media summed up SeaWorld's management of this crisis:

“Building and solidifying the brand loyalty prior to crisis is invaluable, acknowledging something immediately and taking it to your public, listening and responding to what people are saying—all of that is important. In crisis communication, what SeaWorld’s done is a pretty good model.”

 

How do you think SeaWorld managed this crisis? Do you think SeaWorld will sink or float?

Negative Advertising: A PR Dilemma

by Kassandra Hannay

In today’s media-filled world, we have grown accustomed to promotional advertising. In a single commercial break, we listen to adverts tell us which products to buy, which politicians to elect and which companies are the best. As consumers, we decide to either take the suggested action or change the channel. As public relations practitioners, we use ads to motivate our audience and encourage action. However, one thing throws us all for a loop and leaves us confused, hesitant and sometimes a little upset: negative advertising.

Many public relations professionals, it seems, flinch at the thought of using negative advertising. It has been viewed as an unethical, ineffective and detrimental form of communication. In the past it has been referred to as “mud-slinging” — a term that defines the use of negative advertising as the practice of making malicious attacks against an opponent or opposing company for one’s own benefit. However, there have been cases where companies have used negative advertising to successfully build their brands.

Negative ads can be a success


In 2006, Apple launched its “Get a Mac” campaign, a campaign that negatively depicts the Microsoft PC as the outdated and troublesome computer. We’re all familiar with the commercial series showing the cool and updated Mac user poking fun at the conservative and boring PC user. The campaign caused Mac’s market share to grow by 42 percent, and in 2007 the campaign won the Grand Effie at the 39th Annual Effie Awards, an award honoring the most significant achievement in the business of marketing communications.

What makes the Mac negative ads effective and not destructive? According to Bob Steinkamp, owner of Finger Lakes Media Strategies in Ithaca, NY, the Mac/PC ads are the way to go if you absolutely insist on going negative.

“I perceive those ads as Apple lightheartedly poking fun at and pointing out the known issues and problems with PCs,” Steinkamp said. “If you’re going to go negative, do it in a lighthearted, fun way.”

Apple isn’t the only one who got it right. The AT&T versus Verizon battle is seen regularly in both of their current ads as well. Verizon’s “Map for That” ads claim AT&T’s 3G network to be inferior to Verizon’s. AT&T retaliated with ads featuring Luke Wilson, claiming AT&T’s 3G service to be superior to Verizon’s.

“There is nothing unethical about Verizon saying their coverage area is more complete than AT&T nor is there anything unethical about AT&T basically saying the complete opposite,” said Rick Sheehy, a freelance communications and marketing expert in Boston, MA. “They base their information on their own sources and it is up to the consumer to make the best informed decision.”

Does this mean that PR practitioners should be thinking more negatively than positively, and, if so, what are the rules that should be followed?

The debate

Although negative advertising can have positive results for companies, public relations practitioners must be able to use them strategically. Going negative at the wrong time in your campaign can create more of a mess to clean up later. Instead of focusing on the competition’s weaknesses, PR practitioners should be focusing on building their brand’s reputation and fostering relationships with their audience.

Marisa Sharkey, director of marketing and public relations at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, said advertisements should promote the company’s strengths.

“Include areas where you ‘beat’ your competitor,” Sharkey said. “For instance, if service from your competitor is often slow and yours isn’t, then your messaging should include fast service.”

Still it seems that going positive is the safer choice when it comes to promoting your company. Marina Shapiro, a social media intern at Eric Mower and Associates, thinks negative advertising can be ethical when used correctly; however, it doesn’t have the same effect as positive advertising.

“You can get more of a response by putting a brand in a positive light than putting another brand down,” Shapiro said. Public relations practitioners shouldn’t necessarily be thinking negatively but instead thinking of the reputation of their company.

Although negative advertising has proven to be successful when used correctly, others still believe it to be an unethical form of communication.

Sheldon Alexander, a marketing director and business professional from California, said negative advertising is not appropriate when you’re trying to build your brand’s reputation. “It’s best to highlight how your products and services benefit your target market in your advertisements so that prospects perceive that as an answer to their problems,” Alexander said.

Regardless of what public relations professionals think and what media strategists say, what really matters is the effect negative advertisements have on consumers. When used correctly, negative ads make your brand memorable and leave a positive impression on your audience. On the other hand, it can cause your audience to feel uncomfortable, and, although they may think more negatively about your competitor, they may also think negatively about you.

According to Stefan Green, a consumer from the United Kingdom, negative advertising says nothing positive about your company. “In my opinion, negative advertising is the last refuge of an organization that has nothing good left to say about itself or its own products,” Green said. “’We can’t sell this on its own merits, so we’ll just have to pull down the competition.’”

Richard Stone
, owner of Stone Junction, a public relations consultancy for engineering companies in the United Kingdom, said telling the truth is the bottom line when it comes to creating advertisements. Stone said, “It’s not really an issue of negative advertising, but rather accurate advertising.”

Public relations professionals still debate over whether or not to use negative advertising, but everyone seems to agree that advertisements are most effective when they build on your brand’s strengths. Sometimes building on your brand’s strengths shines a negative light on your competitor. As long as you’re honest and truthful about your claims, it shouldn’t have a harmful effect on your audience.

Do you think negative advertising is appropriate for public relations?

Back to Platform Refresh Admin