2010 - Public Relations Society of America
2010 - Public Relations Society of America
2010 - Public Relations Society of America
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Using a Gaming Scenario in Reputation Management<br />
Gregg Feistman<br />
Temple University<br />
greggf@temple.edu<br />
Introduction<br />
Learning public relations in the classroom <strong>of</strong>ten is guided by listening to lectures,<br />
taking part in discussions, examining case studies, developing good writing,<br />
understanding social media, and putting together strategic PR plans. But another teaching<br />
technique can be just as effective, informative and even fun: using games.<br />
In Reputation Management, a graduate level course on public relations, I use a<br />
gaming scenario to give my students a taste <strong>of</strong> the “what if?” aspect <strong>of</strong> high-level<br />
strategic public relations. According to Fombrum and Van Riel (2004, p. 20), reputation<br />
is defined as:<br />
A mirror that reflects an [organization’s] relative success at convincing upstream,<br />
downstream, and diagonal stakeholders about the current and future validity <strong>of</strong><br />
the [organization]. But the mirror is also a magnet: if stakeholders like what they<br />
see and hear, they support the [organization].<br />
The structure <strong>of</strong> this three week game is based on a scenario developed by the<br />
MIT-Harvard University <strong>Public</strong> Disputes Program, entitled “Dealing With An Angry<br />
<strong>Public</strong>,” (Ansell, Susskind & Wheeler, 2000) which is modified for this particular class.<br />
The scenario especially works well for classes with enrollments under 20 students.<br />
Three parties<br />
In the game, students are divided into three groups: A corporation, a consumer<br />
rights advocacy group, and media organizations (e.g., local electronic or print). The<br />
corporation and consumer rights advocacy group are purposely put into an adversarial<br />
relationship. The third group represents the mass media and will continually report on the<br />
goings-on as the scenario develops.<br />
All three groups are given the same basic background information and context<br />
about the two respective organizations and a medical product about to come into the<br />
market with great promise and potential patient benefits. After this initial phase however,<br />
the corporate and advocacy groups are each given proprietary information, the details <strong>of</strong><br />
which are to remain private within the context <strong>of</strong> the game.<br />
Procedures<br />
In the next stage, students are given approximately 30-45 minutes to consult with<br />
each other in their respective groups, prepare strategies, anticipate questions and create<br />
and deliver mock public positioning statements for an “open meeting.” Prior to the<br />
meeting, the corporate group and the consumer rights group prepare a statement on their<br />
position, which is videotaped and shown before the entire class. The “open meeting”<br />
occurs in class for 30 minutes while the student “reporters” cover the event. It’s their job<br />
to write mock media stories and post them through the class’ Blackboard electronic<br />
grading system. After the initial meeting, “live” interviews with designated spokespeople<br />
from each group are again videotaped, using a reporter-spokesperson format. The taped<br />
interviews are shown to the entire class who discuss and analyze what happened, what<br />
changes could have been made, and come up with suggestions for future actions or how<br />
the results could have been different.<br />
238