Failing Education: Here, There, Everywhere

“How can we do more to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology?” — Bill Gates on Linkedin

If there was ever a Linkedin question I wanted to answer but did not have time to answer, this was the one. Never mind the 3,567 people who did provide answers.

The question came to mind again after I opened the Las Vegas Review-Journal today to read that Clark County School District (which includes Las Vegas) students who were tested in January on their grasp of first semester material in high school algebra and geometry did not hit the mark.

• 90.5 percent failed the exam for Algebra I
• 87.8 percent failed the exam for Geometry
• 86.6 percent failed the exam for Algebra 2

The test results mirror some of the early results for writing proficiency on the other side of the country. In Vermont, only 37 percent of the students were proficient writers.

Maybe the answer is simpler than expected. When Richard Feyman, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, taught abroad, he made an observation that students in some countries were excellent testers. However, if he deviated even slightly from the memorized material, none of the students could produce an answer. All they had been taught, it seems, was memorization.

It’s becoming the same here. Upon learning my son’s school stopped its educational curriculum to dedicate an entire month preparing for tests mandated by the federal government and tied to educational funding, I couldn’t help but wonder if our educational priorities have shifted to be the same. The school’s motivation was to produce test scores that resulted in more funding.

Maybe it’s me, but I thought the priority was to educate students.

Don’t get me wrong. The tests are fine, especially because they seem to be revealing a disconnect between what educators are teaching and what students are learning. The administrative priorities, on the other hand, are not. The more emphasis school administrators place on teaching students to rote memorize material rather than learning to apply it across a variety of circumstances and subjects, the faster the educational system will sink.

So how can we encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology? By teaching students to apply basic math skills like Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 to equations that are interesting, applicable, and tied to practicality in the fields of science and technology as opposed to the rote memorization of formulas that most cannot connect to any real life application.

It has always been that way. Homer Hickman, who was inspired by the first Sputnik launch to take up rocketry, learned advanced mathematics and physics not for a love of memorizing numbers, but because they were necessary. More educators are speaking to this fact, but the concepts of applied learning need to be introduced much earlier than college. Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, said the same.

The same holds true for writing. Students who completed my Writing For Public Relations class noted the difference. While I would cover common mistakes on homework assignments over and over, most assignments were structured to reintroduce them to learning how to learn.

Learning how to learn is the single most important skill set for public relations, because the best practitioners tend to learn about companies and industries they serve as opposed to simply counting phone numbers in a Rolodex. Truly, they must learn to work through problems as opposed to blindly applying rules like Michael Scott (Steve Carell) did during one of my favorite episodes of The Office.

The same holds true in just about everything. It’s easy enough to find top ten tips to increase Web traffic, which storylines trigger brain activities, or allow the opinions of 25,000 viewers to dictate network programming. You don’t have to think to apply any of these solutions. Anyone can do it.

Wasn’t that partially the fate of the Roman Empire? The society became so advanced that the population began to promote entertainment over education and popularity over production until one day, their laurels could no longer hold up to the weight of the luxurious lifestyle they inherited.

Communicating Everywhere: College of Southern Nevada

Three years ago, I noted that the National Commission On Writing released a study that revealed 33 percent of employees do not meet the minimum writing requirements for the jobs they currently hold. Have we made any progress?

We don’t really know. The next national study, which is confined to students in grades 4,8 and 12, will be released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on April 3. There has already been some buzz about the testing in Vermont, which recently discovered only 37 percent of the students were proficient, according to the 2007 New England Common Assessment Program.

The Burlington Free Press surmised that maybe the tests were too hard. Another ray of hope, the article deduced: If Vermont performed poorly, so did New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Amazing.

With logical leaps like these, it seems more and more that the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which requires these tests, is revealing that our students are participating in every child left behind programs. It also makes even more sense why the administration recently wrote off the National Writing Project. And why state governments were estimated to spend about $250 million per year, attempting to improve writing skills among employees.

Why Communicate? Panel Discussion, 10 a.m. to noon, April 5

All the above are among the reasons I recently volunteered to participate on the Third Annual “Why Communicate?” Panel hosted by the College of Southern Nevada, hosted by Tina D. Eliopulos, professor of English. The panel presentation will take place at the Cheyenne Campus, room 247.

Joining me on the panel are: Andrew Kiraly, journalist and managing editor of Las Vegas CityLife; Janice Marie, author of The Goodness Experience; Anne Schultz, special agent for Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Geoff Schumacher, director of community publications for Stephens Media.

The intent of the panel to discuss the importance of effective communication — written and verbal — in the professional world. Well, 70 percent of all jobs in the United States require writing skills. That seems like a good reason.

Reading Minds: Neuro Persuasion

At what point does advertising stop being communication? An article in Adweek seems to beg the question as Eleftheria Parpis mentions that more agencies and companies are considering advances in neuroscience to be the final frontier in convincing consumers to buy products and politicians.

Neuroscience is amazing, especially as a tool in post-analysis research. It’s the reason we understand why Coca-Cola is a brand champ or why certain Super Bowl ads, despite what consumers said, outperformed others during the 2006 Super Bowl.

One of the takeaways from the latter study was how the Disney advertisement fired up the brain while a FedEx ad that ended with a funny scene where a caveman is crushed by a dinosaur was perceived as threatening by the brain. Last year, Coke became a client of EmSense to help it decide which two TV ads to place in the Super Bowl. (It was the first time the company used brainwave and biometric data to help select and edit its Super Bowl ads.)

The emphasis on neuroscience is because advertisers and marketers are noticing the steady decline of what was once considered the king of all advertising vehicles — the :30 television spot. As the entertainment industry moves toward on-demand programming with fewer interruptions, the best advertisers already know that gimmicks, tricks, gags, and heavy buys are no longer a formula for success.

Even with a better understanding of consumer engagement on the unseen psychological level, smart advertisers admit: the more they know, the less they know. For example, even a neuroscience-backed advertisement doesn’t stand a chance when it’s fast-forwarded on TiVo. And, the successful Disney advertisement didn’t necessarily sell more vacation packages nor does it consider the decades of branding behind the single tested commercial.

It also doesn’t consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Simply put, the concept is that if you watch something, like an atom, it may respond differently because the observation influences behavior.

Add it all up and while the work is important well beyond selling you a soft drink, it all points to one thing. Everybody wants assurances and, frankly, they just don’t exist.

"When economic times get difficult, clients get nervous, and when they get nervous, they want guarantees," Jeffrey Blish, partner and chief strategic officer at Deutsch/LA, Marina del Rey, Calif, told Adweek. "There has always been an interest in trying to make your marketing efforts more bulletproof. It ebbs and flows depending on the business climate."

He’s right, but it goes even deeper. Consumers want guarantees too. Not only do they want better products, but their expectations also change with engagement. It’s something advertisers might consider as they delve deeper into social media.

As consumers strengthen their connection to advertisers, marketers, programs, and companies, the entire paradigm of how they see brands shifts in sometimes unexpected directions. Add in the idea that as consumers understand that they are being observed, they might behave differently. Or, in other words, sometimes what seems to be is not what is or will be. Social media is very much like that.

Most often, people consider social media to be an “advent” or “evolution.” But I am not always so certain. Maybe it’s much simpler than that. We were watching HBO’s John Adams miniseries yesterday. And as a man on horseback rode by the Adams home announcing the attack on Lexington and Concord, my wife noted the obvious. “Huh,” she said. “Social media.”

Closing A Case Study: Jericho Ends Tomorrow

"Without question, there are passionate viewers watching this program; we simply wish there were more," said Nina Tassler, president of CBS Entertainment. "We have no regrets bringing the show back for a second try."

The statement, which is now circulating throughout the media, demonstrates that CBS has learned something since the first time it issued a cancellation announcement for Jericho last May. Engaged fans expect polished public relations. Her original statement last year demonstrates the difference.

“ … that show would still be on the air if the audience was there. No programmer wants to p.i.s.s. off their audience. When that happens, it's unfortunate. Part of what we try to do is create viewer loyalty, and then build on that ... but we're running a business," she said then.

Along with the original statement, Tassler and CBS are making a sellable case. Given that last fall, Jericho averaged 10.5 million viewers. After an elongated Spring break, which CBS admits was a mistake, it fell to 8.1 million. One year later, the ratings place at 6 million.

The numbers, void of any mention of online viewership that CBS touts in other quarters, creates the illusion that maybe the fans didn’t pony up. “You’ve got to recruit more viewers,” Tassler had said, immediately following the decision that seven episodes were a small price to pay to stop the public relations hemorrhaging.

In fact, low broadcast ratings have prompted more than one publication to place the blame squarely on fans. The most condescending of the which seems to belong to the article penned by Lisa de Moraes of The Washington Post.

“In fact, while the Jericho Rangers are extremely good at buying peanuts, they proved completely inept at recruiting new Rangers,” she said.

She can make the case, but is that accurate? Are fans to blame? Did consumer marketing and social media prove to be a bust? Partly, for circumstances that exist within the Jericho fan base (but not within the fan base of all cancelled shows), but not in the way de Moraes makes her case.

If Jericho the fan base was inept, it was only because their indecision was nurtured by the network with mixed messages and a few fans who grossly misinterpreted them.

Isolated Fandom. Some fans insisted (and still insist) that all efforts needed to stay close to the CBS site. Ask anyone engaged in social media and they will tell you: social media cannot exist in a vaccum. Ho hum. The “build it and they will come” concept only seems to work for ballparks in cornfields.

It was offsite Jericho blogs, fan forums, Web sites, a few limited fan efforts within the quietest pockets on the CBS site, and face-to-face recruitment efforts that captured new viewers. Despite many of these offsite locales being under supported, discouraged, and targeted for banishment, they still managed to expand the network’s limited net presence. Before turning over the CBS Jericho blog to a fan, one employee did drop a hint, pointing fans here.

Braveheart Revisited. Several times, a few willing and highly qualified fans seemed poised to take a leadership role. Unfortunately, they quickly found the same fate as William Wallace. Their own “countrymen” would periodically draw and quarter them for any criticism aimed at the network. Yes, in public.

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking," the real Gen. George S. Patton once said. The same holds true here. Had the original campaign leaders been left in place, fans would have the direction they need today. Instead, some of the most active supporters are already saying goodbye. Instead, fans got fillers.

Internal Sabotage. Whether it was intentional or unintentional doesn’t matter, but several fans had taken to periodically attack dissenters using a number of anonymous names to further their agenda. Worse, forum board dramas drove hundreds of old and new fans from CBS.

The cause? Without any clear direction, unbelievable arguments over who came up with the idea to send nuts, who had more inroads with the network and production team, and whether the “who” of an idea meant it had had more merit than whether it was a good idea. You know, the kind of stuff that new viewers would take one look at and turn tail. Alas, for want of a crown, these misguided few lost a kingdom.

But the misguided actions of a few still do not support the case presented by The Washington Post. The vast majority of fans sounded more like those I profiled on Feb. 9.

While fans might have misplaced their faith in CBS, it was the lack of network communication that ensured the cancellation of the show a second time.

• The timeslot was contrary to the demographics of the show, which included families. The 10 p.m. timeslot was just too lat for this show.

• The network promoted Jericho on CBS, but that was the extent. While some promos had peak time slots, there simply are not many CBS shows that provide a clear crossover audience. The CW would have been different.

• The second season public relations party brought the show back with a whisper. It was so quiet, even the media was amazed. Fans were left scratching their heads.

• The network never considered that the public might not tune into a show with an insecure future. So, when it made a big deal about two endings being shot, the announcement hurt more than helped.

• While they did not intend to leak the first three episodes, those episodes did leak. The significance? No one knows how many Nielsen families didn’t turn in after that.

• An entire year went by before Jericho returned. For a long time, the fans had no idea when it might come back. If an extended mid-season break hurt viewership the first time, what could anyone expect a year later.

• At one point there was some limited digital media stories as originally promised, but they never progressed in any tangible way. Any thought of CBS merchandising items, like Bailey’s Tavern glasses, was nonexistent.

• The network’s half-action several times split the fans into two groups: those who believed CBS would support the show, and those who did not. Those who placed their faith in CBS won the argument, but those who lost were right.

• The network did virtually nothing substantial to market the DVD. The little it did do, did nothing to attract new viewers.

• The network had rebroadcast Jericho in an odd order over the summer, until pre-empting it with football. Football wasn’t the issue; the issue was it had thousands of Jericho fans asking people to tune into bumped programming.

• The network provided online episodes and clips online, but without much marketing support for the varied platforms where it could be found. It got better, but in the end, those numbers didn’t count anyway except to market future online endeavors.

• The network talked about a partnership that we warned would never exist. Several times they hinted at promotion, causing the fans to hold their breath, and then pulled back with nothing.

And the list goes on, with many posts on this blog and elsewhere pointing out the hits and misses. Sure, CBS did some things right too. The fans even more so.

So who is to blame? The network? The fans? Nielsen? The media? Everyone. No one. It doesn’t matter. Tuesday, March 25 is the last episode. It starts at 10 p.m. Case closed, sort of.

While I’m not sure many of the fractured ideas being discussed by fans today will work, I am sure that some of these fans will develop a standalone fandom. Others will find new shows to fight for. And yet others are already moving on to focus on the bigger picture of ensuring the ratings system captures a better sampling (ideally, everyone). But there is something more important than that.

I made a lot of great friends, both Jericho fans and even a couple folks on the network side. Perhaps not all of them, but many of these friendships will transcend tomorrow night.

You see, Jericho Rangers are pretty great people when you get to know them. And I know for a fact that many of them don’t need one show to be great. They are great regardless. And much like no one can take away that these fans are responsible for the fastest cancellation reversal history or played a role in pushing television in a new direction, no one can take that away from them either. Good night and good luck.

Ending A Series: CBS Cancels Jericho

Mostly because network executives had taken to touting the online success of Jericho for several months, fans still seemed uncertain as the Nielsen-owned Hollywood Reporter broke the news today. CBS is canceling Jericho. The story was confirmed by E! Online.

The ending chosen by CBS next Tuesday will wrap up the season's story line, closing what has been a yearlong challenge with plenty of trials and triumphs for the fan base that convinced CBS to give its show another chance. The outcome, as mentioned on Wednesday, seems to line up lock step with the five reasons being considered to let the show go.

"'Jericho' is unique because the fans saved it — watching it on the Internet and streaming and iTunes downloads, all those things that are not being counted," The Hollywood Reporter cited executive producer Carol Barbee saying in a recent interview. "That's what 'Jericho' will be known for."

She's right. Jericho fans have plenty to be proud of, especially their efforts in doing what most said could not be done — winning a short second season after it was cancelled the first time. While some rumors persist that Jericho may move elsewhere, it seems unlikely that a move would produce a show that resembles the original.

Still, Jericho fans are not ready to give up. They are currently assessing what to do next. One thing they need to avoid, in my opinion, is campaigning other networks like fans of the The Black Donnellys (TBD) did last year.

While the hearts of TBD fans were in the right place, campaigning to move a show from one network to another is a more daunting task, even more unlikely, and further fragments any campaign. If Jericho fans campaign for a move, any campaign needs to be aimed at CBS.

I will give credit to CBS for not waiting until next Thursday to confirm the cancellation, though it might have been better to share the news with fans first. Doing so would have demonstrated that it is starting to understand social media. There is still more work to be done there. Obviously.

Making Connections & Divides: Social Media Relations

Yesterday, Steve Rubel, author of Micro Persuasion, pointed to a pair of surveys that may be significant to public relations professionals. While both surveys include too few respondents to be considered an accurate measure on their own, they do mirror conversations I've read about the subjects.

Does their public relations firm do a good job identifying the specific interest of individual bloggers and sending them relevant information?

• Only 52 percent of the public relations professionals asked said yes.
• Contrary, 65 percent of the bloggers asked the same question disagreed.

If there is any hint of accuracy to the survey, it suggests that public relations practitioners may be creating the same divide between themselves and bloggers as some have between themselves and journalists. Maybe the division is occurring because public relations practitioners tend to spend more time talking up each other than developing relationships with bloggers. (That, by the way, is what bloggers tell me.)

The second survey, with the same participants, seems to mirror another discussion point that I’ve seen it come up from time to time: Paying for posts.

It is okay to compensate bloggers for writing about my clients, but it is not up to me to tell them to disclose the payment.

• Not one public relations professional thought it was okay to pay for posts.
• Contrary, 48 percent of bloggers thought it was okay; 16 percent were neutral.

What strikes me as odd about these survey results is that public relations practitioners who blog often take a stand against pay per posts, even with disclosure. Yet, some who maintain blogs write reviews about their clients.

The first survey was published in PR Week as part of APCO Worldwide’s new “The State of Blog Relations” blog, which defines itself as a “pioneering Web initiative aimed at capturing and analyzing thought leadership in the blogosphere.”

I don’t know; these questions have been asked for years. However, what I do know is that social media is being applied in some odd places and convincing some to draw odd conclusions.

Also from Rubel, recently, was the addition of advertising social media feedback mechanisms on advertisements. Although many praised the post in the comments, I think it’s one of the most ridiculous ideas ever.

Why? For two simple reasons. The CNET and AOL Network ad platforms allow non-customers to offer feedback on ads. Depending on the advertiser, this non-customer feedback may influence advertising that resonates with customers. That could lead to some dangerous conclusions.

Have we so soon forgotten the lessons learned from Miller when it attempted to target microbrewery beer drinkers with ads aimed at them? Not only did non-customers NOT buy Miller, but the ads alienated Miller’s core blue collar consumer. The net outcome was a lot of awards for the advertising agency, and one of the best ad campaigns, not for Miller, which footed the bill, but for its rival Budweiser, which quickly captured the alienated Miller drinker.

The measure of advertising seems much more simple to me. Did people click on the ad, visit the store, perhaps buy the product? And, if you are really curious how customers feel about your advertising, wouldn’t it be smarter to ask them as opposed to asking everyone, including people who are so outside of your demographic that it just doesn’t matter?

You know, “because we can” doesn’t always measure up as the right answer. Misapplied research can cause more damage than it's worth.