Last night I helped judge some public relations plans presented by some local college students. Both teams created comprehensive plans for a local Montessori school. Both teams clearly worked very hard on their projects.
To oversimplify for sake of discussion, the first team presented a modest proposal. It was workable, realistic and covered all their bases as it related to their deliverable. While their presentation was not remarkable, the school could have easily implemented it. Their biggest downfall? An unrealistic budget that was too general.
The second team came in dressed more professionally, had better visuals and had an exacting attention to detail. In fact, I would not have been surprised if they had used background music and sound effects. Their tactics were creative and their budget was thorough. Their biggest error? The proposal of too many tactics and no realistic view of how many people it would take to implement all of the work.
So who should win?
While far too often looks are not everything, they speak volumes in this business. The level of detail put into the second team's presentation brought them credibility, the energy they exuded in their tactics and in their presentation skills was contagious. While the scope of their tactics were unrealistic, they could be hedged back by the client and made to work. The second team brought more to the table than expected. As a result, they won the top spot...along with a major bill from Kinko's I imagine.
This just in, layoffs at the WSJ. The staff cuts include the teams covering WorldCom and Martha Stewart. As a result, it might seem that the WSJ is cutting off its nose to spite its face. However it just shows how bad the economy has gotten. I've been on the side of the fence making the cuts. It is *never* easy. If the WSJ cut one of its top newsroom teams, it's a sure sign of how bad things have gotten. The top business daily has cut away some muscle, let's hope bone is not next.
Recent Comments