(All students gave permission to appear in the class picture for the purpose of this blog post.)

This quarter, our J452/J552 class was in for a treat because I got to co-teach with Kevin Brett, who has served as a senior vice president of Edelman, press secretary for a California governor, vice president of communications for a trade association, and director of corporate PR for LSI Logic. He is a talented speaker, an inspirational teacher and a good friend.

Working with our students was rewarding. We had a bright, talented group, and it was wonderful to see their growth. Below are my favorite blog posts from students who volunteered to have their work featured.

Graduating MBA student Tim Dobyns shares the story of Jackie Robinson’s leadership in Major League Baseball and calls for renewed efforts to reach out to the African-American community.

Patty Jenness shares tips for discussing cancer with the Native American community based on Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s advisory guide.

Bianca Bernath shares insights from our annual Portland Paddle event in which students practice interviewing with public relations professionals.

Jordan Paul assesses Cinnabon’s social media response when he tweeted about a piece of plastic in his treat.

Liz Azevedo discusses the LGBTQ outreach campaign that resulted in raising enough funds to keep the Howard Brown Health Center open.

Hannah Gray summarizes a study that isolates the effects of the medium on reactions to crisis communication.

Melissa Bruinier summarizes a study about the effectiveness of a client-class collaboration in which students were responsible for promoting a charity concert.

Tai Locke summarizes a study that suggests that public relations practitioners are more familiar with product placement than expected.

Ten weeks seem to go by even more quickly with team teaching than with solo teaching. I would have liked for another 10 weeks to continue to work with my students. The quarter flew by. I enjoyed getting to partner with John Mitchell to team teach the class. Below are top student blog posts from the students who chose to have their work highlighted here. All students provided permission for the picture above.

For one of the blog posts, I asked students to summarize an academic journal article in public relations to

  • Exercise their research skills
  • Deepen their knowledge in an area that interests them
  • Give them experience with translating complex information, specifically with regard to scientific studies

One of the most interesting studies was described by Nicole Johnson. She summarizes a study by Mai Abdul Wahed Al Khaja and Pam Creedon, published in Public Relations Review, about tips for breast cancer awareness campaigns in the United Arab Emirates. The study shows the importance of conducting research to culturally adapt messages to audiences.

For another blog post, I asked students to write about how to engage a diverse audience of their choice to

  • Give them experience with conducting research about a particular audience
  • Help them see how they can use research about an audience to plan a campaign
  • Deepen their knowledge about communicating with a particular audience

Jayna Omaye wrote an insightful blog post titled “Fostering Diversity and Engaging with Hispanic Audiences.” She provides helpful tips and warns against generalizing to Hispanic audiences as a whole.

I also asked students to blog about an ethical issue in the public relations community. Martina Benova wrote an engaging blog post about ghost tweeting for athletes, and Cydni Anderson also wrote an insightful blog post about ghost tweeting. Both discussions include insightful secondary research. Cassie Bates discusses astroturfing and includes a recent case involving a response to an unflattering restaurant review.

I hope my class had a great spring break and is recharged for spring quarter.

(In the video, Frank Ovaitt invites PR scholars to share useful, practical findings with the IPR audience.)

This year’s IPRRC included exciting studies. Since it is safe to mention conference findings without disqualifying anyone from having their studies considered in an academic journal, I’d like to highlight one of the many presentations I am thinking about from IPRRC.

We know from Tina McCorkindale, Marcia DiStaso and Hilary Fussell-Sisco’s research that a “like” on an organization’s Facebook fan page doesn’t equal engagement.

Considering Groundswell’s social technographics, we know that even spectators can be engaged (i.e., people who do not “like” or comment).

So how do we measure engagement in a way that includes spectators and excludes people who might click “like” but do not have a real connection with the organization?

Minjeong Kang offers an answer with her public engagement scale, which has three components (alpha=.91).

1. Affective commitment (alpha=.89)

  • Feel emotionally attached
  • Feel like part of the family
  • Feel a strong sense of belonging

2. Positive affectivity (alpha=.89)

  • Interested
  • Attentive
  • Excited
  • Enthusiastic
  • Proud

3. Empowerment (alpha=.89)

  • Can make differences
  • Determined to develop the organization
  • Have a control over the organization’s decision making
  • Confident about the ability to improve the organization
  • Collaborate with the organization

There were many other great studies! You can see highlights from a handful of them, thanks to Constantin Basturea, who has aggregated highlights from the #IPRRC Twitter feed.

Also, you might enjoy reading my highlights from IPRRC two years ago.

IPRRC attendees, what was one of the studies that interested you at the conference?

Affect vs. effect confusion? Nevermore.

Learning when to use “affect” and when to use “effect” can be a challenge, so here are some shortcuts that will get you through nearly all of the instances you encounter.


1. RAVEN: Remember, affect is a verb and effect is a noun (most of the time).

Example: The storm will affect attendance.

Look for the verb in the sentence. If the verb is affect, spell it with an “a” (in most cases).

2. Spot the following phrases and use an “e”:

  • Have an effect on
  • The effect of
  • Go into effect, take effect

If you see these words or if you could fit them into the sentence without disrupting the sentence flow, use “effect,” as pointed out this week by Shannon Brophy, one of my students. The Snarky Student’s Guide to Grammar also describes this point and has other grammar posts worth exploring.

“Effect” is used with “effect on,” “effect of,” and “goes into effect” because “effect” refers to a consequence or result, whereas “affect” means “to influence.” (See Grammar Girl for more discussion about the definitions.)

Example: The storm will have an effect on attendance.

The next example shows that if you can fill in “on” or “of” after the word, you still use “effect.”

Example: The storm will have an effect [on attendance].

Example: The effect of the storm is unknown.

Example: The weather policy will take effect this week.


1. “Effect” can be used as a verb to refer to “bringing about” or “accomplishing,” as described by Purdue’s Online Writing Lab and Vocabulary.com. Nevertheless, it’s a clumsy use of “effect” that you should avoid anyway.

Acceptable: The agency will attempt to effect change through its weather policy.

Better: The agency will attempt to improve its predictions through its weather policy.

2. “Affect” can be used as a noun to refer to emotion. When you see this use of the word, it’s likely an academic setting, a psychology context or both.

For example, when I studied at the University of Maryland, I worked with Monique Mitchell Turner (now at Mpact Communications), who studied the role of affect (emotion) on persuasion. Her line of research can be used to provide insight into whether PSAs are more effective during comedy programming or during drama programming.

Practice Sentences

1. The bleak December had an (affect/effect) on Edgar Allan Poe.

2. The rapping at the chamber door (affected/effected) him.

3. The silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain (affected/effected) him.

4. The (affect/effect) of the raven was maddening.

5. The policy to keep the shutters closed takes (affect/effect) tomorrow.


1. effect (See “effect on,” rule No. 2.)

2. affected (Remember “affect” is nearly always a verb.)

3. affected (Remember “affect” is nearly always a verb.)

4. effect (See “the effect of,” rule No. 2.)

5. effect (See “takes effect,” rule No. 2.)

I know of a public relations agency that had a client that did secret CSR. The client had a bad history with a particular issue and gave the PR agency funds to do awareness prevention campaigns that were related to the issue, and it never wanted itself to be identified as the sponsor.

I don’t know why the client decided to keep its identity a secret, but one possible reason is that news stories about the CSR efforts could publicize the bad things the company used to do – things that most people probably don’t associate with the company today.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many professional communicators today who avoid publicizing their companies’ green efforts, and of course we know from research that companies get substantially better results when their stakeholders are aware of their CSR efforts (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Sen, Bhattacharya, & Korschun, 2006).

Some practitioners might avoid promoting their green efforts because they are concerned about being accused of greenwashing. As identified by scholars such as Bivins (2009), companies take a risk when they promote their CSR efforts because the act of promoting the efforts can make the efforts look disingenuous.

As you probably know, “greenwashing” refers to misleading environmental communication, and the term developed as people identified inconsistencies between companies’ actual behavior and claims about being green.

The term was coined in the 1980s by Jay Westerveld who saw the inconsistency in hotels that didn’t have recycling programs but encouraged the reuse of towels (Romero, 2008).

Through my research, which is available in the current issue of PRSA’s Public Relations Journal (vol. 5, No. 3), I investigated the fairness of online greenwashing accusations against Starbucks.

Highlights From the Study
In summary, most of the reactions to Starbucks’ environmental communication efforts that I analyzed were positive. Even the critical public tended to applaud Starbucks’ green initiatives while asking for more change, asking critical questions, or making a jab about Starbucks’ environmental impact.

When Starbucks was criticized, the arguments used were nearly always based on facts, observations, the need for more information, and requests for change, as opposed to deep-seated cynicism against corporate America.

Nevertheless, most of the criticisms I analyzed were technically unfair because they asked Starbucks to do things that Starbucks is already doing or they criticized Starbucks for advertisements that were actually student ad projects that had been posted to YouTube.

Starbucks did not post any comments to the criticisms I analyzed, not even to the greenwashing site where its efforts had been labeled as greenwashing.

This illustrates a drawback to Starbucks’ strategy for online engagement. A Starbucks representative explained that the company focuses on the zeitgeist of conversation on its own website. There is a benefit to driving conversations to your home turf; however, organizations should also consider participating in vibrant conversations about themselves on other sites, especially given the results of a study by Lariscy, Avery, Sweetser, and Howes (2009). In their survey of public relations practitioners, most respondents reported that they had found inaccurate information about their organizations in online chatrooms.  Starbucks is missing out on vibrant conversations that are regularly occurring on Starbucks fan blogs. There are many Starbucks employees and former employees who anonymously participate on these blogs who offer both vigorous defense of the company’s practices and behind-the-scenes criticism about environmental practices.

Given the lack of trust in companies and traditional media today, these informal word-of-mouth online channels should not be overlooked. The study I conducted points to the importance of building on Jeong-Nam Kim and Yunna Rhee’s (2011) recent study in the Journal of Public Relations Research about megaphoning, scouting, and microboundary spanning.

Their concept of megaphoning refers to employees’ positive or negative communication about their organization to external audiences.

They defined scouting as employees’ voluntary communication efforts to bring relevant information to the organization.

The term microboundary spanning refers to “employees’ voluntary communication behaviors to

(a) disperse positive information for one’s organization,

(b) search and obtain valuable organization-related information from internal and external constituencies, and

(c) disseminate acquired information internally with relevant internal personnel and groups” (p. 249).

It would be interesting for future research to investigate the perceived credibility of online comments that are posted by people claiming to be employees and former employees.


Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Marketing Review, 47(1), 9-24.

Bivins, T. (2009). Mixed media: Moral distinctions in advertising, public relations, and journalism (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Kim, J-N., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3), 243-268. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2011.582204

Lariscy, R. W., Avery, E. J., Sweetser, K. D., & Howes, P. (2009). Monitoring public opinion in cyberspace: How corporate public relations is facing the challenge. Public Relations Journal, 3(4), 1-17.

Romero, P. (2008, September 17). Beware of Green Marketing, Warns Greenpeace Exec. Retrieved from https://abs-cbnnews.com/special-report/09/16/08/beware-green-marketing-warns-greenpeace-exec

Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 158-166. doi:10.1177/0092070305284978


It was wonderful getting to work with my J452 class. All class members featured above gave permission to have a class photo used on this blog; however, only a few students chose to have their blogs highlighted.

Anna Reilly, an avid Pinterest user, presents five best practices for using Pinterest. As she explains, “Pinterest is a website where you can create theme-based image collections through social photo sharing. …In terms of PR, Pinterest can be a great curation tool for visual thinkers to express their plans and ideas for customers and clients.”

Jerica Pitts, who is passionate about health communication, discusses the Pink Ribbon Sundays Program as a model for effective health outreach programs that are designed for African-American and Hispanic women. This is a must-read post for anyone interested in health communication who does not know about the pink Sundays case study.

Shannon August, who is committed to using public relations to make a difference in people’s lives, shares tips for creating an outstanding organizational culture. She provides concrete examples from her summer internship at AMN Healthcare.

Thanks for reading, and best wishes for the new year.

When I taught the principles class at UMUC during a summer of graduate school, I partnered with Teresa Heisler (who was an exceptional undergraduate student at the time) to study the effects of organizational structure on relationship outcomes. Our manuscript, titled “Relationship Outcomes in an Organisation With a Mechanical Structure,” is  available in PRism. Teresa starts graduate school at Johns Hopkins next spring.


An organic structure, as opposed to a mechanical structure, enables employees to personally influence an organization’s decisions and policies, and it provides them with the autonomy to make decisions about their work that don’t need to be cleared with people at higher levels of the organization (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002).

Research supports the importance of establishing an organic structure for effective internal relations (e.g., Boshoff & Mels, 1995; J. E. Grunig, 1992; Kim, 2007; Schminke, Ambrose, & Cropanzano, 2000).

Our Question

We wanted to find out if effective employee relations was possible in the context of an organization that has a mechanical structure.


  • Study of a rural Air Force base located in the South Central region of the United States
  • 18 in-person interviews with military members, spouses who were stationed on the base, public affairs officers and the medical commander
  • Four-person focus group with military members and spouses
  • Follow-up interviews with seven military members to explore emerging conclusions

Key Findings

  • This study demonstrated that contrary to previous theorizing (e.g., Kim, 2007), a mechanical structure alone does not result in low control mutuality, trust, commitment or satisfaction among employees in every context.
  • Although previous theorizing about organizational structure held true for family members’ relationship with the Air Force base, military members were satisfied with the military’s mechanical structure.
  • Most military members who were interviewed thought they had little influence in decisions affecting them and did not think that decisions were made with their individual interests in mind; however, they were supportive of this arrangement due to the significant normative commitment they experienced with regard to their moral motivation to serve in the organization.
  • Although Boshoff and Mels (1995) found that participation in decisions increases commitment to an employer, the desire to participate in decisions was not an issue for participants, aside from problems with the healthcare facility.
  • Likewise, although job satisfaction is associated with an organic structure where employees are empowered with significant responsibility (Hage, 1980; Peters, 1987), the extent to which the military members in this study were satisfied with their jobs had nothing to do with the amount of autonomy they had in their roles.
  • The study provides empirical evidence to support J. E. Grunig’s (2002) statement that control mutuality can be high despite a low amount of control in the relationship when trust is high.
  • The study also provides evidence for symbolic interaction theory (Blumer, 1969) by showing a case in which people tended to view occurrences that could affect the relationship through the lens of what they already thought about the organization.

The study can be read here.


Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boshoff, C., & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model to evaluate the relationship among supervision, role stress, organizational commitment and internal service quality. European Journal of Marketing, 29(2), 23-35.

Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/qualitative_methods_assessing

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation, New York: Wiley.

Kim, H-S. (2007). A multilevel study of antecedents and a mediator of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 167-197. doi:10.1080/10627260701290695

Peters, T. (1987). Thriving on chaos. New York: Knopf.

Schminke, M., Ambrose, A. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 294-304.

Pat Curtin
, Kelli Matthews and I conducted a survey of the Millennial generation of employees who work at public relations agencies.

We explored our participants’ opinions about the usefulness of Shannon Bowen’s model of ethical decision making. Here is the model we explored:

This Kantian model and an explanation of it can be found in the following source:

Bowen, S. (2005). A practical model of ethical decision making in issues management and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 191-216. doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1703_1

Highlights From the Study

  • We found through our pretest that we needed to update some of the language used in the model so it would resonate with Millennials. You can see the updated wording in our study.
  • Most Millennials found the revised six questions in the model to be very useful. The next step in this research is to explore the actual use of the model by an organization. If your organization is interested in adopting the model and engaging in further testing of it with us, please contact me at derville(at)uoregon(dot)edu.
  • Minorities reported significantly more constraints from job security and personal ambition than did non-minorities, which suggests that employers can do a better job of relationship building with minority employees. More research is needed to parse out differences among races and ethnicities to avoid broad dichotomies of minority versus non-minority.
  • Millennials expressed that they have far better relationships with their agencies when they are empowered to make their own decisions regarding ethical dilemmas.
  • About 75 percent of participants disagreed with the model’s assumption that job security, personal ambition and workplace politics would interfere with their ability to make ethical decisions. Qualitative research is needed to explore why participants answered in this way.
  • For more findings, you can read our study in PRSA’s PR Journal (volume five, issue two).

This research was supported by the Public Relations Society of America Foundation and the University of Oregon. This study won the Jackson-Sharpe Award, sponsored by Jackson, Jackson & Wagner and Likely Communication Strategies, at the 13th annual International Public Relations Research Conference. We thank Shannon Bowen for her feedback on this study.

Faced with more tactics than I could fit into a class, I surveyed my winter students and discovered that most of them were especially interested in having a video assignment. I had wanted to try out a video assignment since my University of Georgia colleague Kaye Sweetser shared her video assignment, best practices for video, video secrets for success by PR innovator Paull Young and student examples.

Thanks to Kaye’s inspiration and student interest, below is the assignment I created.

Assignment Handout
You will work as part of a team to write a script and publicity plan for a video that lasts between one and three minutes.

The purpose of the video is to promote the study of public relations at the University of Oregon. The primary audience is high school students, particularly students who live in the Northwest and enjoy writing. The video has to be appropriate for parents and has to be a video that the University could use if you wanted to submit it for approval.

In the video, you will need to concisely establish

  • What public relations is
  • Why people should pursue it as a career
  • Why people should study public relations at the University of Oregon

Remember to cite your sources and avoid using copyrighted material. The video has to be entertaining and informative.

Track A: Creating the Video
Write a script and publicity plan for the video. Shoot the video, edit it and submit a final version to me. With this track, you will take on one of the following roles. You will also support your team in the completion of their roles.

The producer manages the team, keeps the project on track, coordinates details for filming, recruits talent with the director and creates the publicity plan. In addition, this person obtains a video release waiver from all of the people who appear in the video.

Deliverables include the publicity plan and the schedule for the shooting, including time, talent and locations.

The director is responsible for directing talent and operating the camera. This person also recruits the talent with the producer. This person is responsible for the quality of the video. In addition, this person shares the editing workload with the editor.

The deliverable is the final video.

The writer conducts research and writes the conceptual idea. If the writer is an artist, a storyboard could be created as well. The writer also creates the script.

The deliverables include a summary of research and ideas that will be pitched to the team, in addition to the script.

The editor is responsible for editing the video and completing post-production. This person shares the workload with the director and gets final say over editing decisions. The end of the video needs to say something like “Produced as an assignment in a public relations class at the University of Oregon,” and it needs to include credits.

The deliverable for the editor is the final video.

Track A Points
This assignment is worth 15 points. Ten of the 15 points are based on the quality of your work. Everyone in the group receives the same score for the 10 points.

The remaining five points are based on your individual contributions to the group and your ability to work effectively with your team (e.g., by meeting deadlines, producing quality work, being fun to work with and keeping meetings on track). You will submit an evaluation of yourself and your teammates.

Track B: Pitching the Idea and Writing Another Tactic
Write a script and publicity plan for the video. Pitch the idea to me as a formal business presentation. With this track, there are no individual roles. Instead, you will work as a team to do the following things:

  • Conduct research
  • Create a fact sheet or memo that conveys your research
  • Write the script
  • Pitch your idea as part of a formal business presentation
  • Produce a publicity plan

You will also work individually to create an additional tactic of your choice, such as a shareholder letter, fundraising letter or podcast.

Track B Points
This assignment is worth 15 points.

The research memo, script, presentation and pitch are worth 10 points. Five of the 10 points are based on the quality of your work. Everyone in the group receives the same score for the five points. The other five points are based on your ability to work effectively with your team (e.g., by meeting deadlines, producing quality work, being fun to work with and keeping meetings on track). You will submit an evaluation of yourself and your teammates.

The remaining five points are based on the additional tactic you produce, which is due on Tuesday, Feb. 22. If you choose track B, please add the tactic you’re producing to your course schedule as an assignment due on Feb. 22.

Memo Due Thursday, Jan. 6
Explain the track you would like to choose through a memo.

If you choose track A, list the four positions in your order of preference, beginning with the position you would like the most. Explain any relevant background you have (e.g., editing skills for the editor position, organization skills for the producer position).

If you choose track B, indicate which additional tactic you are interested in creating (e.g., fundraising letter, shareholder letter or podcast). You can change tactics later if you would like.

You can either apply as an individual, and I’ll place you on a team, or you can apply as a team. A team has four members. If you apply as a team for track A, each person should apply for a different role, and each team member’s memo should include a list of your teammates.

Below is the format for the memo.

To: Tiffany Gallicano
From: Your name
Date: Thursday, Jan. 6
Subject: Video assignment role

Single space your document and skip a line of space between paragraphs. Do not indent. Write short paragraphs like the ones used in this assignment description. The memo should be no longer than one page.

This memo counts towards your participation points.

Memo to Track B
When returning memos to track B students, I distributed the following memo to them:

To: Diva Designers (insert student group name)
From: Tiffany Gallicano
Date: Feb. 3, 2011
Re: Finalist for SOJC Video

Thank you for your response to our RFP. You have been selected as a finalist for the PR video project.

Please meet me at 2 p.m. in Allen 302 on Thursday, Feb. 17, for a presentation of your ideas.

Your presentation should include the following components:

  • Situation analysis (why the video is needed)
  • Purpose of the video
  • Research that informed your ideas for the video
  • Video concept
  • Publicity plan
  • Capabilities

There will be a question and answer session following your presentation.

Selection Criteria

  • Quality of content, including creativity
  • Persuasive delivery, including effective use of visual aids
  • Ability of agency to perform the proposed work

Video Instruction
I brought in a guest speaker from the University of Oregon’s multimedia team to provide tips for shooting video. Here are a few of the most important tips for beginners by our expert speaker, Mike Majdic:

  • Make sure each person in the video knows where to look. Mixing between looking at the interviewer and looking at the camera looks amateur. In most cases, you’ll want all people in the video to not look at the camera.
  • Provide plenty of cushion for editing by pausing before and after questions.
  • Talking heads is boring, so cut to footage during this time. There is nothing more interesting than people, so include people in the footage.

My students have also shared tips; here is a blog post about shooting quality video by Taylor Long, and here is a blog post about video interviewing tips by Jesse Davis.

It was also valuable to spend a half hour watching and critiquing videos as a class. There are plenty of examples of university videos to critique on YouTube. We also discussed the importance of having a concept. Seeing the examples gave students ideas of what it means to have a concept for a video.

For the script, I had them follow the screenwriting template available here.

The students presented their videos to a panel of judges, including our communications director for UO’s School of Journalism and Communication, Andrea Kowalski, and the public relations faculty. Andrea surprised our students with free SOJC shirts after the presentation. Our director of Web Communications at UO, Zack Barnett, added both videos to our University of Oregon YouTube channel.

Final Product
Below are the two videos my student teams created.

Producer: Claire Tonneson, http://clairetonneson.wordpress.com, http://www.visualcv.com/pqqbhk1

Director and writer: Jesse Davis, http://jedavis13.wordpress.com, http://visualcv.com/users/237123-jesseleedavis/cvs/279473

Writer: Teeona Wilson, http://teeonawilson.wordpress.com, http://www.wix.com/teewilson08/trw

Editor: Taylor Long, http://tlong88.wordpress.com, http://www.visualcv.com/tlong88

Editor: Sarah Kirsch, http://sarahkirsch.wordpress.com, http://sarahkirsch.wordpress.com/portfolio

Producer: Liz Johnston, http://www.liz-john.moonfruit.com, http://thelegosofmylife.wordpress.com

Director: Shasta Smith, http://professionalswanted.wordpress.com, http://shastasmith.foliotek.me

Writer: Sarah Sullivan, http://sarahaasullivan.wordpress.com, http://www.wix.com/ssulliv1/sarahaasullivan

Editor: Stephen Hoshaw, http://learningpr.wordpress.com, http://www.visualcv.com/pu0j0p0

Editor: James Watkins, http://prprone.wordpress.com, http://www.visualcv.com/puo9290

Krista Detwiler blogs about 17 key things she learned during her Seattle PR tours to companies such as Microsoft and Starbucks; the tour was organized by AHPR, University of Oregon’s student-run public relations agency.

Katie Spellman creates a Stanley CSR Cup Final for the final four teams that competed for the Stanley Cup. Find out which team she chooses for the CSR Cup!

Sports fans will also want to read Paige Landsem’s blog post about the Seattle Mariners’ campaign to make fans feel like royalty, and she includes academic research about the effect of promotions on game attendance.

Niloo Mirani gets us up to speed about QR Codes and explores whether QR codes are in our digital future.

Melodie Seble provides tips based on one of my favorite Facebook campaigns, which is by Milk-Bone.

Kayla Albrecht shares an innovative nonprofit Facebook campaign and identifies reasons why the campaign was effective.

Angela Allison analyzes how a Facebook campaign by The Boys & Girls Clubs of America measures up against the best practices she has observed in Facebook campaigns.

Nicole Kramer shares a clever campaign by Honest Tea to identify the “Most Honest City in America.”

Sierra Baldwin wrote a blog post for students considering work in nonprofit PR that establishes key distinctions of doing public relations work for a nonprofit.

Maggie Dieringer shares what she learned about cultivating relationships with volunteers based on her interview with the volunteer manager for the Portland division of the Oregon Humane Society.

Allie Deane shares a story from NPR’s month-long series about public relations by highlighting the career of Howard Bragman, who has helped celebrities transition into openly gay lifestyles.

Page Fitzsimmons applauds the strategic move by the Obama camp to mock questions about the president’s birthplace in a comedic way that raises money for the re-election campaign.

Dalal Abou-Jamous shares the 10 myths of fundraising she learned from Matthew Ennis’ blog.

Stacy Sumoge discusses important reputation management tips that were inspired by the latest Facebook public relations blunder.