September 2015 Luncheon

TBA-12108-EthicalDecisions-851x315-01

Ethical Decision-Making for PR…and for Life

Presented by: Samra Bufkins, APR, Public Relations Lecturer for the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas
Sponsored by: Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce

FWC 2008 LogoAnybody can memorize a code of ethics, but do you really know how to make ethical decisions? Join the Greater Fort Worth PRSA on Wednesday, September 16, as Samra Bufkins, APR, presents an interactive program that will walk you through a solid framework for making sure the business decisions you make will be ethical, regardless of what code of ethics you follow.

Click here to register!
Thank you to the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce for graciously sponsoring this month’s GFW PRSA luncheon!

Samra Bufkins - photo (1)About Samra Bufkins, APR
Samra “Sam” Bufkins, APR, has more than 25 years of strategic communications experience in the healthcare, environmental, energy, petrochemical, shipping and electricity industries, encompassing public relations, crisis communications, issues management, fundraising, internal communications and governmental relations. She has worked for agencies, nonprofits, a state agency and Fortune 500 companies, and she is accredited by the Public Relations Society of America.

Bufkins is now a lecturer in strategic communications for the Mayborn School of Journalism at the University of North Texas, where she teaches the capstone course in ethics required of all PR and advertising majors and the capstone public relations strategic planning course. She also supervises PR internships. Bufkins enthusiastically incorporates social media strategies and applications into her classes, and also developed (and still teaches) the first strategic social media class at UNT, bringing in nationally known speakers and technical experts. Her teaching philosophy involves combining theory with practice while mentoring and coaching students as if they were junior employees of her PR firm or corporate communications department. She is a member of Kappa Tau Alpha, and is the faculty advisor to the UNT chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America and the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity. She is social media advisor to the NT Daily and Swoop, the student-run advertising and public relations agency. She was the recipient of the 2014 Honor Professor award, a student-nominated award presented by the Student Government Association to faculty recognized for exceptional service to students.

Bufkins also served as Accreditation Chair for the Dallas PRSA chapter from 2007-2010 and as Ethics Chair for the Dallas chapter from 2010-2014. She holds a bachelor’s degree in television production, journalism and English from the University of Kentucky, and a master’s degree in public relations/marketing from the University of North Texas. She has been accredited in public relations since 1996.

 

 

The Fourth annual Worthy Awards – Entry Tips and Information

The Fourth annual Worthy Awards
Entry Tips and Information
By: Carolyn Bobo, APR, Fellow PRSA

The Worthy Awards are designed to provide area communications, marketing and public relations professionals with an opportunity to celebrate creativity, strategic thinking and professional ability.

Don’t be hesitant about entering. Think about your activities between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015, and go for it.

Here are some tips for preparing your entry.

A solid entry will address these points:

  • What was done?
  • Why did it matter?
  • How was it measured?

Carefully Read the Entry Parameters
The judges (Cleveland’s PRSA chapter) will look at each required area and base their scoring on how well the four entry areas are explained. Entrants should address each required point, and thoughtfully explain their good work so that it is excruciatingly clear to judges not familiar with our area.

Rationale (Tactics) and Research (Campaigns, Projects)
Explain any type of research, and why it was used. A textbook campaign would include formal, original research, but that isn’t always feasible or necessary. Judges know this, so entrants should clearly describe what was done. For example, a brainstorming session, a review of media clips or discussions with clients may be described as secondary, qualitative research … literature review … content analysis … anecdotal reports.

Objective/Purpose (Tactics) and Planning (Campaigns, Projects)
Why did you do what you did? Possible reasons are to increase sales, raise funds, create name recognition or influence public behavior. Describe any factors about the project/tactic that will help judges understand the purpose and the market. Note that the purpose must – absolutely must – match the outcome. Read on to the Evaluation section.

Execution (Campaigns, Projects)
Explain which tactics were chosen and why. When there are several tactical options, the entrant should state, for example, that “these tactics were selected to expand the reach of our message,” identify and justify each tactic.

Remember that the judges won’t know that your decisions and efforts were special unless you tell them.

If your entry states “TV station XYZ sponsored the event,” you must explain that “TV station XYZ rarely supports activities in Fort Worth.” Or, “TV station XYZ sponsors only three events per year, and we convinced the station to choose ours.”

Another hypothetical example: If your target market/public prefers electronic media over print, your entry should state, “Secondary research found that our target demographic prefers to receive electronic communications.” Such data may be obvious to you, but your entry narrative also must make your decision obvious to the judges.

Execution (Tactics)
Here’s where to explain who wrote the copy, designed a magazine, edited content, provided photos, approved the budget and negotiated with a vendor. The tactics section of The Worthy Awards is an explanation of who did what. If an unusual price or component was negotiated, say so, so the judges will understand your extra effort.

Results (Tactics)
Tactics are created to meet a specific need, and are skillfully and professionally prepared. An evaluation of effectiveness and impact, based upon defined objectives, can be simply stated. However, the results must – absolutely must – match the purpose. If the purpose was “to generate five media stories,” the result must show five (or more) media reports. If the purpose is “to raise awareness,” the results must show a measurable increase in awareness.

Evaluation (Campaigns, Projects)
Explain how the targeted market, public or audience responded and how you learned about its response. This is the time to include quantitative data and analysis. Such measures may be a replication of preliminary research or measures of other activities. For example, measures can be election results, a sales increase, ROI, donor or donation increase, or the number of participants/responses that exceeded expectations. Include as much measurable and anecdotal response as possible, and describe future plans.

If comprehensive research was not needed, say so. For example, “More than 5,000 people in our target public responded to the activity. We expected only 3,000, so we did not repeat our preliminary research to measure interest in the topic. However, we will analyze the experience of these respondents to plan future campaigns related to this issue.”

Information below on Communicator of the Year will be available soon. Please check back.

Good luck to everyone. See you at the Nov. 5 awards presentation.

Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or would like more information:

2015 Communicator of the Year

The 2015 Communicator of the Year deadline for nominations is Thursday, October 1, 2015.

Nominations for 2015 Communicator of the Year are now closed.

Back to Worthy Awards.