-------------
Original Text
>From [log in to unmask] (Dianne Stilwell), on 30/11/98 12:51:
To: [log in to unmask]
>-------------
>Original Text
>From [log in to unmask] (Michael Kenward), on 27/11/98 09:57:
>To: [log in to unmask] ("k.john-pierre")
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>A new report on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing
>the public understanding of science community is now available on the Web
at
>http://www.uwe.ac.uk/facults/fas/graphicscience/publications.html
>
>
>Please feel free to post any personal responses to the report on psci-com.
>
>
>-----End Quoted Message-----
>And what does it mean when it says "fails to distinguish between aims and
>objectives"? Maybe PUSET folks have different definitions. But they appear
>to be pretty well synonymous in most writing.
>
Hi Mike - you have just identified the problem - too many people think that
aims and objectives are synonymous, they're not! Aims are broad ideas of
where you want to go, what you want to be - communications aims should
tie-in with the overall aims of the organisation, so the communications
aims of Megacorp plc will be very different from those of Smallcharity.
Objectives are what you are going to do about those aims - above all they
should be quantifiable. If you don't know where you are starting from and
you do not have any measure of what you are supposed to be doing, how will
you know when or if you have achieved anything? And this could be why a lot
of PUSET activities are well-meaning but a bit scattershot.
>The good news is that there could well be a natural home for PUSET activity
>in the new developments at the Science Museum at the Queen's Gate Centre.
>But will people overcome their territoriality and unite?
Depends if organistions are carrying out PUSET for altruistic ends or as
part of their overall communications strategy. If the former, they
certainly should, if the latter, co-operation will make sense if it
furthers the overall aims, not if it doesn't.
>
>When looking at proposals seeking funds, the biggest worry is the sheer
lack
>of professionalism in the execution. There are lots of great ideas out
>there. But little to convince me that their proposers could see them
>through.
>
>The ideal would be for ideas and execution to be separate. It may sound
like
>heresy, but expensive PR companies are streets ahead of most academics when
>it comes to knowing how to organise events and activities. But the
academics
>are much better at producing ideas.
>
It's not heresy, you would expect people with (you hope) professional
qualifications in PR and marketing and whose full-time job is event
organisation to be better at it than someone whose job/talents lie in other
areas and who are rushed off their feet with other commitments. They need
not be expensive either - PR Week regularly profiles effective campaigns on
a low budget. A well focused and targeted campaign to achieve a realistic,
quantifiable objective is going to be better value than any amount of
frenzied but unfocused razamataz. In my 'umble opinion, ideas people should
be prepared to work with and learn from professional communicators - CAM
(Communication, Advertising and Marketing) certificate and diploma courses
can be taken by anyone, The Institute of Public Relations runs good (but
pricey) training courses and a glance through PR Week will reveal any
amount of private courses (even pricier) - and, of course, STEMPRA exists
specifically to help PR practitioners in PUSET with help, advice and
occasional courses (not pricey).
All best wishes
Dianne
writing as a freelance PR person and not as:-
Dianne Stilwell
Events Co-ordinator - 125th Anniversary
The Institute of Physics
76 Portland Place
London W1N 3DH
T +44 (0)171 470 4800
F +44 (0)171 470 4848
e-mail [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
