Now Let's Talk About Me.

Week 4 was all about Surveys, polls and questionnaires. Admittedly I wasn't looking forward to this week's activities. As soon as anyone says the word 'compulsory' I immediately seem to harvest resistance. None the less, I filled my quota. First, I went through the list of surveys in the thread and scanned all the titles. I wasn't sure where to start so I decided that I'd start with the surveys that looked MOST interesting/relevant to me. Doing this highlighted the number one importance of having an appealing survey title, otherwise you simply don't get the respondent numbers that you might hope for. In all honesty, I didn't even bother with survey topics that I wasn't interested in - EXCEPT one! Why? Reflecting revealed to me that it was the catching title that sucked me in. Therefore, lesson learned.

In regards to all of the surveys, areas that were generally done well:

• Most topics were highly relevant to Bentley students that study internally.
• Surveys were based on 'hot topics' or themes that are currently trending
• Well formatted surveys, clear structures (Most if not all, used survey monkey)
• Most people used more than one style (multiple choice, rating, net promoter score)

Areas that could generally be improved:

• Few titles were enticing for less popular topics
• Logic was unclear, it felt like the survey was asking questions for the sake of asking questions
• General survey feedback was positive but not very critical or costructive
• Some survey titles needed to better reflect the subject of the survey
• Opportunities for participants to freely express an opinion

Areas that were generally absent:

• A survey description where the titles were not very specific
• Expectation-setting at the start of the survey (I looked at (and did 6)) of 7 surveys and I think only 2 had it)

'Let's Talk About You' 

(A Reflection On My Survey)

I created mine - remembering what I liked and didn't like from the other surveys. The strategy for my survey was:

1. To attract a high number of respondents
2. To raise awareness
3. To inform 

Objectives were:
1. To create a title that appealed to the audience ('generation me')
2. To understand existing awareness 
3. To convey specific information 


I met these objectives by thinking from an organisational perspective. I chose the Student Wellbeing Advisory Service as the program I pretendingly work for. The tactic was to get participants talking about their feelings first, then seamlessly introducing them to what I am trying to raise/gage awareness about. In only one day I have had 5 responses. That is a good indicator that students are doing my survey because they are interested in the topic, rather than because it's compulsory. This means I am more likely to get accurate information from respondents.

When I designed the survey, I intentionally used a variety of formats that were at my disposal because I wanted to gain a more in depth understanding of my audience (it helps create a holistic picture). However I only used those which were obviously beneficial. For example, the multi' choice question about study load would help me benchmark which student-type is more likely to be highly stressed or at risk of compromising their well being (overloaders?). This would help me target the group specifically when attracting students to the use of the service later on. Some designs were not suitable however. For example, net promoter score is not something you would use when gaging awareness, because it would be inaccurate information coming from a person who didn't know about or has not used the service. The insight from such a question would be irrelevant and misleading.It would disrupt my results. 

Overall, I am satisfied with my survey and the results. My only concern now is that of 4 participants, Only 1 has left feedback for my actual survey. While I love positive feedback (which it was), there was nothing highlighted for me to improve - which becomes problematic now as I write my blog because it is harder for me to identify what I could have done better. 

A View From The Receiving End

What Makes a Strong Business Case for a Public Relations Program? This week's unit materials covered a range of details in relation to creating a business case for a Public Relations Program. The emphasis (especially in the reading) was why it is so important to have a strong business case - and also what the characteristics of one, actually are. I have worked in the retail end of a major telecommunications corporation for four years. I already understand the basics of why it is so important to have a strong business case, it's practically obvious. In addition to the obviousness of why it is necessary, I am usually on the receiving end of internal Public Relations (PR) programs. Even as I write, there is an organisational incentive movement at my workplace that is is aimed at achieving three things:

1. Saving the company thousands, by reducing employee errors to 0% and emphasising organisational resources that will help us perform our tasks correctly.

2. Changing employee attitudes and behaviours through empowerment (training) and accountability (KPI's) - encouraging a 'get it right the first time' approach to everything we do and measuring us on it.

3. Improving the organisation's image with consumers through the seamless experience of having services with us.

I understood that I was subject to a PR program, but I only identified the goals that I have outlined above, I didn't understand how the rest had came to be. Austin & Pinkleton (2015) essentially clarified for me however, that the first thing my company must have done, was conduct quantitative research - sourced from internal data recorded and kept by us. They would have then discovered key issues that were contributing to unnecessary expenses.

"My understanding of 'researching', is that it is

a process of conducting a thorough investigative inquiry

into a situation, the factors that make up

or influence said situation, and the

influential or relevant entities that

are present within the situation."

Research revealed an area of opportunity that was impeding organisational success. Once the relevant information had been collated, they defined the target audience and formulated goals. So how did our PR team develop a strong business case for the employee PR program? Strong research was their foundation. The goals, execution and (ongoing) evaluation naturally followed their latter-chronological paths. In the case of my company, it is highly unlikely that executives would have approved a nation-wide campaign without knowing that it would yield a return on investment. Now that I know how to analyse our own programs, I am confident that our organisation's performance will lift and that I may even have a very good chance at being a part of that PR team some day.

The reading and the recognition of its real life application within my organisation have made me appreciate the value of quantitative research more than I did before.. Quantitative research is difficult to contradict and critical to an organisation. The only problem (I feel) is that it can be shallow in the fact that it does not understand or reflect motive. Qualitative data however can go beyond face value; causing the why and how behind an action, to surface. Personally, I employ both techniques when I am trying to get my own way in anything I do.

I am such an advocate for qualitative research however, because everything to do with people, is subjective. People are not 'fixed', but ever changing. I also happen to be doing a degree that is designed to specialise in just that - people. Thus I have reached the conclusion that qualitative research is the one for me, because it gets to the root of things. I know however that the method I employ will be influenced by the nature of the issue and industry; and that I will undoubtedly have to employ and value quantitative research, should I secure a position in the PR department of my organisation.