PRPA 600

13

GUIDELINES FOR COURSE DELIVERABLES (GCD)

PRPA 600 – Public Relations Writing

Fall 2014 Semester, Dr. Leah S. Tuite

This document contains detailed instructions for all of the written deliverables in PRPA 600, as well as the grading rubric that will be applied to your work. But first, some policies:

Turnitin.com Policy: As per UMUC policy, all students’ work in all courses must be vetted through Turnitin.com. Students will be responsible for submitting their work to Turnitin (http://www.turnitin.com). All students will need to enroll themselves in the Turnitin account for this course. You can access Turnitin through the dropdown menu under “Resources” in the course classroom. Please check out the instructions for students at http://www.umuc.edu/library/libresources/turnitin.cfm

Login information: Go to www.turnitin.com and register for this class. I didn’t split out the sections, it doesn’t matter which section (9040 or 9041) you are rostered in. Simply register for the class:

Class Class ID Password (case sensitive)

PRPA 600 Fall 2014 8460036 prpa600

You’ll upload your work to Turnitin so it can calculate an Originality Score for your work based on various academic integrity criteria. Please report your Originality Score in the Student Text Box (where you can write me a note) when submitting your work through your assignments folder – not on the cover sheet. Failure to provide me with your Originality Score or to submit your work to Turnitin may result in a grading penalty.

Other points of information about Turnitin:

· Please ignore any deadlines posted in Turnitin. I gave all deliverables a common deadline way beyond the last day of this course. Refer to the syllabus or this document for actual deadlines.

· Both the draft and final versions of your written deliverables must be submitted to Turnitin.

· The Turnitin system may take up to 24 hours to recalculate an Originality Score on an assignment. Please be patient.

Spelling and Grammar Checker Policy: You MUST set your spelling/grammar checker in Word for all written work in this course as follows:

In Word, click on the spelling/grammar checker icon. In the box that pops up, place a check in the box next to “Check Grammar” if it is not already checked. Then click on “Options” in the lower left corner of the pop-up box. Make sure “Proofing” is highlighted in the left column, and that “Check grammar with spelling” is also checked under the “When correcting spelling and grammar in Word” category. Also make sure “Spelling and grammar” appears in the drop-down box in that same category – and not just “Spelling.” Then click on “Settings” next to that box. Make sure you have checked:

· Punctuation goes INSIDE quotes.

· As for spacing between sentences, use one or two spaces.

· Check off EVERYTHING else in the list except contractions, the use of first person and comma required before last item in a list (aka, the Oxford or serial comma; Associated Press style, which we will be following in this class for most work, does not require the Oxford comma).

Checking all of these items (except for the three indicated above) makes this automated step of proofreading more time-consuming, but it’s worth it. Using spell/grammar check should be but one step in your proofreading process. We all know that words will sometimes sale – OOPS! – sail through the spellchecker.

Filing Naming Policy: When submitting work, please save your work using the following filename pattern:

Section Number Last name D# Draft/Final

Thus, for a student in the 9040 section, the file name for the draft version of the first deliverable would be: 9040 Doe D1 draft.

For a student in the 9041 section, the file name for the final version of the second deliverable would be: 9041 Doe D2 final.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Writing Coach Policy: We are fortunate enough to have our own Writing Coach in this course. Rather than having to go to the Effective Writing Center to get writing help, all you have to do is turn to Andrew Palmer. He will review drafts of students’ work and provide you with feedback in a timely manner. He will limit his feedback to grammar, syntax, mechanics, punctuation, diction, conformity to AP and/or APA styles, etc. Please follow his instructions and deadlines; look for this information in the Writing Coach discussion forum. You can submit drafts of your work for review to the Writing Coach assignments folder. I recommend emailing him at [email protected] to let him know when you’ve uploaded a file for his review. Utilizing the services of a Writing Coach is optional. Writing tips from the Writing Coach can be found in the Wisdom from the Writing Coach course folder.

Grading Policy: See the rubric found as the appendix to this document.

DELIVERABLES

Here’s the Deal with PRPA 600

Nearly all of the work you’ll do in this course occurs within the scenario that you are an assistant account executive (AAE) at a public relations firm, ACME Public Relations. This position is about one rung up from being an entry-level job. Consider me (your course instructor) to be your boss; I’m about two to three rungs up from you on the corporate ladder, a senior account manager. Our account team has been assigned to ACME’s newest client, the Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE).

You should look at the grading rubric right now (scroll down or flip to the appendix at the end of document). You’ll see that your work will be assessed from the perspective of me being your boss. Your job, as the AAE on the CPRE account, is to work on various writing products that are the means to CPRE’s ends. My job, as your boss, is to make sure you write and execute your work so well that my boss would feel confident in publishing or distributing your work as is.

Also part of the conceit is that CPRE recently funded a major study of the writing skills of entry-level PR practitioners. This study, conducted by three communication researchers at Michigan State University, Richard T. Cole, Larry A. Hembroff and Andrew D. Corner, is titled “National Assessment of the Perceived Writing Skills of Entry-Level PR Practitioners.” It was published in 2009 in the scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. Read this study, print it out. It’s in the Key Materials course folder. All of your deliverables either focus on this study or springboard from it.

My course shorthand refers to this study is the “Cole et al. study” or even more lazily, “the Cole study.” You may follow suit in our informal class discussions. But beware: “The Cole study” is never correct for any of your formal graded work. “The CPRE study” should be fine for most of your deliverables, except the second deliverable in which “the Cole et al. study” is appropriate. However, don’t use “the Cole et al. study” the first time you mention it as this is not correct academic APA-style in-text citation form. In any of your formal academic-style writing, it is good practice to include all authors’ names the first time you mention them. Then go with “Cole et al.” after that. Note the punctuation with “et al.”: No commas to be found and the one and only period follows “al.”

What’s fact?

The CPRE is a real organization (see http://www.commpred.org) and the study “National Assessment etc.” by Cole, Hembroff and Corner (2009) is a real study.

What’s fiction?

In reality, CPRE had nothing to do with this study. However, for the purposes of the class and to help students create their own original work, we’re pretending that CPRE did. The great conceit of the course is that CPRE did fund this study and has retained ACME to help the organization get some mileage out of the study and build CPRE’s reputation in turn.

You will be reminded about all of this information in the instructions for each deliverable.

During Weeks 3 through 5, students will write first drafts of Deliverables #1 and #2. These will be graded and significant feedback will be provided. Then, using my feedback and your own improved writing skills, students will strategically rewrite both of these deliverables. Those final versions, which will be graded, are due near the end of Week 11.

DELIVERABLE #1: SUMMARY OF SCHOLARLY ARTICLE

Worth 175 points total.

First draft = 75 points, due by noon Mon. 9/29

Final version = 100 points, due by midnight Fri. 11/21

Purpose: Students will apply their critical reading, summarizing and writing skills to this deliverable. Students will learn to adjust their writing to “fit” the audience. Students will also determine and interpret their readability scores.

Scenario: You are an assistant account executive at the public relations firm ACME Public Relations, where the Commission on Public Relations Education (CPRE; see http://www.commpred.org) is a new client.

ACME strongly believes in the professional development and continuing education of its staff. To that end, the monthly newsletter (delivered as a Word and PDF document to staffers’ emails and available on the firm’s Intranet) runs a regular column that you write. In “I Read It So You Don’t Have To,”[endnoteRef:1] you summarize an interesting scholarly research article about public relations for the newsletter’s non-academic audience, namely your ACME colleagues. [1: This is a riff on the title of former weekly column in The Washington Post, “We Watch So You Don’t Have To,” written by Lisa de Moraes, the paper’s ex-television columnist. ]

The scholarly article chosen for your upcoming column explored what experienced public relations professionals think of the writing skills of entry-level public relations practitioners (viz., Cole, Hembroff, & Corner, 2009). What they think is not good.

NOTE: The study is provided as a PDF file in the course folder. We will use this study throughout the course. For the sake of this and other course deliverables, pretend that the CPRE funded the study. It did not [the Public Relations Society of America did in part], but let’s pretend that it did. We are also assuming that the Cole et al. study has just been released, which is not the case since its publication date is 2009 and it’s 2014 now.

Execution of Tasks:

Before writing anything:

1. Read what PRSG and pp. 247-250 of LBH say about newsletters.

2. Before reading the Cole et al. (2009) study, look at the following materials. They will help you read it in a more critical (meaning, thoughtful) way:

a. Cohen’s (n.d.) “Guidelines for Critical Reading,” (in the Week 1 course folder)

b. The Center for Media Literacy’s critical news reading guidelines (in the Week 1 course folder, and

c. LBH pp. 144-154 (in Part 2- Ch. 6, assigned for skimming this week).

3. Then read the Cole et al. study. BUT

4. Avoid the abstract! It will plant too many ideas in your head, like how seeing a movie does before you’ve read the book. It’s harder to come up with your own mental images once the movie’s images are in your head. It’s a similar thing with the abstract and this deliverable.

What’s my endgame with this piece?

· Your operational goal is, of course, to write an engaging, well-written piece for your PR firm’s internal employee newsletter.

· Your mission goals are:

· to get your colleagues thinking about practitioners’ writing skills in the PR industry generally and at ACME PR specifically and

· to help familiarize your colleagues with ACME’s newest client, the CPRE, and CPRE’s mission and work.

Now it’s time to write:

· Adopt the role of “writing alchemist”:

· Transform this long, scholarly article into a compelling summary that your audience can understand and find relevant. This is not so different from writing a good old- fashioned book report.

· Summarize and distill the main points of the study so your audience can get the main takeaways from the Cole et al. article without actually having to read it. After all, your column isn’t called “I Read It So You Don’t Have To” for nothing! But don’t pull a Big Nate.

· Tease out the article’s findings your audience will find most meaningful. Consider what about this study might be useful to them as they do their public relations jobs, mentor interns, interview recent college graduates for entry-level assistant account executive positions and so forth.

· Your firm’s new client funded this study, so your article should not criticize or poke holes in it. Be diplomatic. You are not “developing a critical response” (see LBH pp. 154-161).

· Your piece is supposed to be friendly and interesting. Your column has a playful, clever name. Consider writing in the first person. Maybe break down that “fourth wall” between you – the writer – and the readers, by directly engaging them with rhetorical questions or questions à la “What do you think your supervisor thought of your writing when you first started out in PR?”

· Use one of the outlining strategies suggested by Kallan (e.g., piling) or LBH, covered in the Week 3 lecture notes, to develop the structure of your newsletter article.

· Students may find that the five-paragraph essay format useful, but don’t feel bound by that length or structure.

· DO feel bound by these parameters:

· Your deliverable-as-newsletter column may not go beyond one 8.5 x 11 piece of paper, formatted with:

· one-inch margins all around.

· a 12-point font such as Times Roman.

· three columns (mimicking the appearance of the actual newsletter). In Word, click open “Page Layout” and then “Columns.” Choose the three-column format.

· Place your name and column title (“I Read It So You Don’t Have To”) in a header, so to reserve your column “inches,” of which you have 27 (I think!), for the text of your column.

After writing your first/rough draft:

· Run the draft through the spell/grammar checker and proofread to catch any obvious issues.

· Then, determine your readability score in Word. These are the instructions for Word 2007 but it should be a similar process for more current versions of Word:

Click on the spelling/grammar checker icon as if you are running the checker on a document. In the box that pops up, place a check in the box next to “Check Grammar,” if it is not already checked. Then click on “Options” in the lower left corner of the pop-up box. Check “Show readability statistics” under the “When correcting spelling and grammar in Word” category.

· Jot down all of the readability statistics that pop up on the screen:

· number of words, sentences and paragraphs;

· the average number of words per sentence and sentences per paragraph;

· the percentage of passive sentences;

· your Flesch reading ease score; and

· your Flesch-Kincaid grade level score.

After running those readability statistics:

· Put your first/rough draft away for a sufficient amount of time (ideally, at least one day).

1. Engage in some strategic rewriting of your deliverable-as-newsletter column. Consider your diction and syntax. What about the style of your writing? Is it engaging and compelling? Does it fit a column playfully named “I Read It So You Don’t Have To?” Have you captured the overall gist of the study’s findings and any particularly outstanding points for your audience? Is it in in final form (even though it’s considered a first draft for the purposes of this course)?

· Then, run your readability stats again on this final version and jot them down.

Prior to/during submitting your deliverable to me:

· Submit your deliverable to Turnitin; jot down your Originality Score.

· When submit your deliverable to me, in the Student Text Box, please include:

· your Turnitin Originality Score,

· your first set of readability statistics, and

· your set of your post-rewrite statistics.

DELIVERABLE #2: BACKGROUNDER/POSITION PAPER

Worth 175 points total.

First draft = 75 points, due by noon Mon. 10/13

Final version = 100 points, due by midnight Fri. 11/21

Purpose: To write a PR quasi-equivalent of a scholarly research paper. A backgrounder is probably about as close to an “academicky” research paper as you’ll see in the PR profession. This deliverable will also involve generating content through the discovery and synthesis of secondary research data. In my mind, this is what makes this deliverable the most academic-natured piece of writing you will produce in this course.

The Set-Up: Imagine once again that you are an assistant account executive at ACME Public Relations. Your newest client, the Commission on Public Relations Education, wants to update the standard materials included in its media kits. These materials will also be published on CPRE’s website (see http://www.commpred.org).

The senior account executive has asked that you work up a backgrounder, a kind of short, reader-friendly research paper, about the declining state of writing skills in the United States. This backgrounder will complement and contextualize a news release announcing the findings of the Cole et al. study.

NOTE: Remember, the conceit is that CPRE funded the Cole et al. study, which it actually did not. We are also assuming that the Cole et al. study is about to be released, hence the news release. You’ll work on this news release during Weeks 6 and 7, so we are putting the cart before the horse a bit by producing the backgrounder before the news release. And obviously, the study came out in 2009 and it’s now 2014. So feel free to fudge the timing as you need to.

Background on Backgrounders (and Position Papers): Textbook authors consider backgrounders in different ways. For instance, PRSG’s (Ch. 6, Media Kits) description of a backgrounder limits it to being “an expanded version of the history, mission, goals, and purpose of an organization” (p. 64). Which it can absolutely be, but I prefer to think of backgrounders as the informative version of PRSG’s position paper, which

describes an organization’s stand on a certain issue….the position paper focuses mainly

on opinions and is supported by facts. [It] should include a sufficient amount of

information that supports the organization’s point of view, but it should also include

opposing points of view. (p. 64)

Read this quote from D. Treadwell and J.B. Treadwell (2005) about backgrounders:

Backgrounders have more defined purposes and audiences [than factsheets]. [They] are

written for people who want or need more information on a subject. They typically

include more details, statistics, and possibly technical jargon if your audience will

understand it…. From the public relations writer’s viewpoint, backgrounders are often

written for reporters seeking additional information to understand your industry or as

background for a story….Reporters might easily seek such information to flesh out

articles they are writing on that subject. (p. 218)

Let’s agree that backgrounders and position papers are two sides, informative and persuasive respectively, of the same coin. Some of their commonalities include:

· They are written in paragraph form.

· They are grounded in facts and information:

· Backgrounders will present such data on their face.

· Position papers may use these data as evidence for or against certain viewpoints.

· They require the writer to make choices about what to include or exclude: topics, facts, examples, words, and so forth. These “gatekeeper” choices implicitly allow subjectivity to permeate even neutral, informative-purposed pieces.

· They should anticipate questions [about the subject matter] and provide comprehensive answers.

· They should provide reporters with a wealth of information and context about the [subject matter] that can be included in the news story.

Execution of Tasks: You can opt to write a more informative backgrounder or a more persuasive position paper, as long as the subject matter is that writing skills in the United States are on the decline. Your client, CPRE, has concluded this is the case. Thus, the premise of your piece must illuminate that general conclusion, as well as the findings and conclusion of the Cole et al. study (hypothetically) funded by CPRE.

Writing your piece as a backgrounder: Your explanatory piece would fall on the informative end of the persuasive continuum. You’d offer a dispassionate presentation of various reasons why writing skills are on the decline, without taking sides but keeping in mind what CPRE has researched and concluded about writing skills in the U.S. Perhaps you’d adopt a devil’s advocate perspective. The content you include and direction you take are up to you.

Writing your piece as a position paper: Your argumentative piece would fall on the persuasive end of the persuasive continuum. You’d offer an opinionated presentation of the reasons to which CPRE attributes the decline of writing skills in the U.S. You’d stake out CPRE’s position, make its case, while also presenting other less valid viewpoints. The content you include and direction you take are up to you.

Regardless of which tact you take, remember that your deliverable is a research paper in the sense that you have do research – describe, analyze, and make meaning of secondary research (research already conducted by others), facts gathered by others, or opinions opined by others. These sources can be scholarly (e.g., like the Cole et al. article) or nonscholarly (from a credible media or social media source; never Wikipedia [or at least be smart enough to not admit it]). The LBH readings for this week will be extremely helpful, as will most of our other readings from LBH and Kallan thus far in the course (assessing the writing situation, generating content, organizing your thoughts into a logical, cohesive outline, and so forth).

How Should My Piece Look?

· Cover page with your name and title of deliverable.

· Four- to six-page backgrounder (or position paper).

· 1.5 line spacing, with heading/subheadings and page numbers.

· Bolding and/or underlining and/or/italicizing and/or seriation and/or small graphics.

· Use APA in-text citation style.

· Separate reference page, using APA end referencing style. Must use at least two scholarly and two nonscholarly sources, in addition to the Cole et al. study.

We are trying to approximate a real-world scenario, hence all public relations materials would be distributed to the media on CPRE letterhead. Please cut-and-paste the graphic below into the top of the first page of your piece (not the cover page). Most organizations use the more expensive graphical letterhead for the first page and plain letterhead paper for additional pages.

Please see the example backgrounders provided. Position papers follow the same format.

Turnitin company backgrounder: https://turnitin.com/static/resources/documentation/turnitin/sales/Turnitin_Company_Backgrounder.pdf

The Council on Foreign Relations has a sizeable repository of issue backgrounders: http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/backgrounder.html

Not to toot this course’s own horn, but you could use the course lecture notes as a model for formatting your piece: a paragraph-intensive structure; with headings, subheadings, and seriation; bolding, underlining, and italics to emphasize points; and occasional use of graphics to enhance the ease of reading and overall look. And page numbers…Always use page numbers.

What About Citing? You will have to use some sort of citing/referencing style for your piece because you must incorporate at least two scholarly sources and at least two nonscholarly sources into your piece. The Cole et al. study is in addition to this total. This is not a piece based purely on your own opinion.

A scholarly source could be:

· an article in peer-reviewed journal (access full text via the UMUC library at http://www.umuc.edu/library/index.cfm or even Google Scholar) or presented at an academic conference, or

· a study conducted by a serious, credible organization, such as

· The National Commission on Writing at http://www.host-collegeboard.com/advocacy/writing/index.html

· The National Writing Project at http://www.nwp.org/

A nonscholarly source might be a news article or item from a credible traditional or online media source – not a crackpot blogger or community-built knowledge aggregator like Wikipedia. Hint: The Chronicle for Higher Education, the newspaper for academe, has a fantastic website at http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5

Some other organizations you may try to mine for information are the Institute for Public Relations Research http://www.instituteforpr.org and the Public Relations Society of America http://www.prsa.org. Of course, the decline of writing skills in America doesn’t only affect the public relations industry, so consider other stakeholders connected to the subject matter. Check out the course folder, “The Library” too – loads of good articles in there as well.

Please employ APA in-text citation and end referencing style for your piece. This piece offers a good opportunity for you to dip your toes into the APA waters. That’s why you completed the library’s APA tutorial during Week 4.

Sidebar from the Instructor

APA style is used for academic writing, and in the real world…well, let me put it this way: Had you ever heard of APA before you enrolled in this graduate program? Probably not! In the real world, a backgrounder or position paper would follow your employer’s or client’s preferred way of citing and referencing.

What About the Writing Style? As this piece is meant for a media audience, in a real-world job situation you would follow Associated Press – AP, not APA – writing style. If you are well-versed in AP style, then by all means, execute this deliverable in that style. HOWEVER, if you are not, then please write your piece as you know how and to the best of your abilities. Let’s not worry about conforming to a particular writing style right now. Just write.

FYI - The most obvious difference between these two styles is that AP does not use the Oxford comma, whereas APA does. You can set your grammar checker in Word to check for this. AP and APA do offer similar advice about writing, such as striving for active voice, clarity, concision, and precision; general presentation of numbers; and so forth. You don’t have to toggle between these two styles nearly as much as you might think. This is that common ground I mentioned in the Week 1 lecture notes.

You will want to write about CPRE in the third person, as in “CPRE believes…” or “CPRE funded…” Avoid using first person pronouns like “we” or “our.”

Wait – Who’s My Audience Again? This piece will become part of a media kit, so its immediate audience would be reporters, most likely education or business reporters at mainstream outlets (since the subject matter would fall under their beat) or reporters working for PR trade/industry publications.

This piece will also be published on CPRE’s website, something now standard operating procedure for public relations materials (Broom, 2009). But who is visiting CPRE’s website? Most likely academics, a secondary audience who may be quite knowledgeable or opinionated about the subject matter. You don’t actually know, so write your piece for general consumption. Lastly, project D. Treadwell and J.B. Treadwell’s (2005) point about fact sheets onto your backgrounders or position papers: they “are generally not aimed at the already committed but rather at newcomers” (p. 218).

What’s my endgame with this piece?

· Your operational goal is, of course, to write an informative, fact-based research paper that CPRE (or ACME PR) could distribute and publish for use by members of the media and the general public.

· Your mission goal is to immediately provide members of the media with any information they need to help them write news stories about CPRE, the Cole et al. study, the issues CPRE is involved with, etc. That’s what supplemental materials like backgrounders, position papers and fact sheets are for.

References

Broom, G. (2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Treadwell, D., & Treadwell, J. B. (2005). Public relations writing: Principles in practice (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

******************************************************************************

During Weeks 6 through 9, students will write first drafts of Deliverables #3 and #4. These will be graded and significant feedback will be provided. Then, using my feedback and your own improved writing skills, students will strategically rewrite final versions for inclusion in the Writing Portfolio (Deliverable #5) due on the last day of the course (Sun. 8/10).

DELIVERABLE #3: NEWS RELEASE

Worth 175 points total.

First draft = ungraded, due by noon Mon. 10/27

Final version = 175 points, due as part of the Writing Portfolio, by midnight Sun. 11/30

Purpose: To prepare a hard-news news release, using proper standard news release formatting, inverted pyramid structure and AP writing style. Although this deliverable is considered your “first draft,” the news release you submit to me should be the product of your best abilities. You, as the assistant account executive, should feel confident sending it to your direct boss (me) and your client contact for review.

The first draft will be ungraded. I will provide the usual amount of feedback and an estimated grade. The final version will be graded out of the full 175 points.

The Set-Up: Imagine once again that you are still an assistant account executive at ACME Public Relations. As you may remember, your client, the Commission on Public Relations Education, recently updated the standard materials included in its media kits. These materials will also be published on CPRE’s website (see http://www.commpred.org). You worked up a backgrounder/position paper (Deliverable #2) for this media kit.

That backgrounder complements and contextualizes the news release you must now write that announces the findings of the Cole et al. study.

NOTE: Remember, the conceit is that CPRE funded the Cole et al. study, which it actually did not. PRSA did in part. We are also assuming that the Cole et al. study is about to be released, hence the need for the news release. And obviously, the study came out in 2009 and it’s now 2014. So feel free to fudge the timing as you need to.

Execution of tasks: Between the copious lecture notes and readings, as well as the optional but highly recommended discussion forum related to this deliverable, you should be more than ready to tackle this news release.

· I highly recommend that students participate in the optional Outlining the News Release discussion forum, open during Week 6. Please see the discussion area for this forum. You’ll be asked to sketch out an outline of your news release. Feedback will be provided on your outline (to make sure you are on track before you commit time and effort to the actual writing of the news release), with enough time for you to incorporate this feedback into your news release.

My Expectations: Your news release will:

1. Be in standardized news release format – follow the model provided on p. 15 of the Weeks 6/7 lecture notes.

2. Use inverted pyramid structure, with a straight summary lead.

3. Contain at least two quotes.

a. Quotes can either be:

i. crafted by you or

ii. cribbed from an actual source.

iii. Please indicate where this source (even if it’s you) came from on a separate sheet of paper, attached to your news release.

b. At least one quote must be attributed to a real person at CPRE.

c. Other quotes may be attributed to a real or fictional person at CPRE or another organization that is logically involved with this study or its subject matter. This should be someone whose name or position carries some weight.

4. Use New York City as the dateline locale. But this is tricky – check out the AP stylebook about how to format NYC in datelines and in text.

5. You may use CPRE’s actual boilerplate. Cut-and-paste from any of CPRE’s own news releases found at http://www.commpred.org/news/. Exercise your PR judgment: If the boilerplate mentions another study by CPRE, is that the correct information to include in the boilerplate for your news release, which is about a completely different study (fictionally funded by CPRE)? Also, do the verb tenses sound right? Hmmm…

6. Be written in AP style and organized using the inverted pyramid structure.

7. Should be on CPRE letterhead:

a. We are trying to approximate a real-world scenario, thus all public relations materials would be distributed to the media on CPRE letterhead.

b. Please cut-and-paste the graphic below into the top of the first page of your news release only (not the cover page of your deliverable or additional pages of the release). Most organizations use the more expensive graphical letterhead for the first page and plain letterhead paper for additional pages.

8. Be in final form (even though it’s considered an ungraded first draft for the purposes of this course).

What’s my endgame with this piece?

· Your operational goal is, of course, to write an engaging, well-written and well-organized/structured news release that recipients will appreciate.

· Your mission goal is for this news release to generate contact from members of the media and to parlay that contact into media coverage of CPRE, this study and/or the broader subject matter of writing issues in the U.S.

******************************************************************************

DELIVERABLE #4: OP-ED

Worth 175 points total.

First draft = ungraded, due by noon Mon. 11/10

Final version = 175 points, due as part of the Writing Portfolio by midnight Sun. 11/30

Purpose: You will develop and write an op-ed piece that will be submitted to The Wall Street Journal. Although the initial version of this deliverable is considered your “first draft,” it should be the product of your best abilities. You, the assistant account executive, should feel confident sending this to your direct boss (me) and your client contact for review. You must also complete and submit a Writing Blueprint.

The first draft will be ungraded. I will provide the usual amount of feedback and an estimated grade. The final version will be graded out of the full 175 points.

The Set-Up: Imagine once again that you are still an assistant account executive at ACME Public Relations. As you may remember, your client, the Commission on Public Relations Education (see http://www.commpred.org), has recently been on a major public relations push related to its funding of a major study about the state of writing skills in the public relations industry. You’ve thus far worked up a backgrounder/position paper and a news release for a media kit.

NOTE: Remember, the conceit is that CPRE funded the Cole et al. study, which it actually did not. We are also assuming that the Cole et al. study has just been released, which is not the case since its publication date is 2009 and it’s 2014 now.

While engaging in your routine environmental scanning duties for this client, you came across an advertorial published in a special advertising section on The Wall Street Journal’s website. (See it online at http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/mathscience-rising. It ran on May 18, 2009, so you’ll have to fudge its timing, too.) This advertorial, by Joe Mullich, “Rising to the Challenge: America’s Math and Science Curriculum is Key to Future Competiveness,” discusses Intel’s $120 million pledge over the next decade to stimulate young peoples’ interest in math and science. This advertorial is found in your Weeks 8/9 course folder.

Sidebar from the Instructor

The Mullich advertorial was published in a special advertising section on The Wall Street Journal’s website. So it’s not an earned media op-ed; it’s a paid editorial, also known as an advertorial (a portmanteau – the combination of two words’ sounds and meanings -- of “advertising” and “editorial”).

PRSG mentions advertorials in passing on p. 149.

If you are interested in learning more, visit http://www.advertorial.org/what-is-an-advertorial.html . Also, Exxon-Mobil is among the most well-known and frequent corporate users of advertorials. Google “Exxon Mobil advertorials” to check them (and their critics) out.

CPRE obviously has a stake in educational issues, given its involvement with the Cole et al. study that found the writing skills of recent entrants into the PR industry (in other words, recent college graduates) to be lacking. Plus…

Let’s add another layer of conceit to the course…

Assume the following is true (it is not): CPRE has recently partnered with the College Board (http://www.collegeboard.org/, which added a writing portion to its SAT exams in 2005 and then removed it in 2014 and is the “parent” of the National Commission on Writing) and the International Association of Business Communicators (http://www.iabc.com). These three organizations have joined together on a new initiative to get corporate America involved to stimulate writing education. The American Association of Publishers (see http://www.publishers.org/, an industry trade association for over 300 publishing companies) has pledged $25 million over the next decade.

As any strategically minded PR professional worth their salt would, you see the puzzle pieces coming together. Eureka! The lightbulb goes on over your head! The Mullich article in the Journal gives the CPRE-CB-IABC partnership a perfect opening to talk about its own initiative in the Journal! You pitch your boss on the idea of writing and pitching an op-ed to the Journal. Your boss and CPRE love the idea. Now it’s up to you to execute this tactic.

Execution of tasks: Between the copious lecture notes, readings and the Week 8 discussion, you should be more than ready to tackle this op-ed.

1. Read the Mullich piece. It’s in the Weeks 8/9 course folder.

2. Think about what you want to say in the op-ed:

a. For content, try these sources:

i. Your Summary of Scholarly Article

ii. National Writing Project (http://www.nwp.org)

iii. National Commission on Writing (http://www.host-collegeboard.com/advocacy/writing/)

iv. Know your audience/media outlet: Visit http://online.wsj.com/home-page

b. Your op-ed should discuss this initiative within a context of “we can’t leave writing education behind in America’s quest to excel in math and science education.”

c. You want to respond to (or springboard from) the Mullich piece to make your point that writing education deserves attention as well.

3. Think about the kinds of appeals or persuasive strategies you’ll employ.

4. Think about what you want the op-ed to accomplish:

a. Persuade readers that the state of writing and writing education in America is worthy of attention.

b. Get readers (think about who reads the Journal) to consider pledging to the initiative without overtly asking them to do so.

c. Remember, U.S. businesses lose nearly $3 billion annually due to poor workplace writing (see National Commission on Writing, 2004).

5. Working through the Writing Blueprint (the list of questions that helps you figure out your piece’s underlying strategy, messages, target publics, goals, etc.). You will have to submit this along with your op-ed.

6. Sketch out an outline of your argument.

7. Develop your outline into your op-ed.

Assumptions: There are a couple of real-life pesky details that need to be addressed:

1. The Journal’s op-ed submission policy does not allow op-eds that are responses to Journal articles. Your op-ed is responding to, or rather springboarding from, the Mullich advertorial. For the sake of argument and completing this deliverable, let’s assume that the Journal’s submission policy allows for response op-eds.

2. How you handle this next assumption is up to you. It may or may not affect the writing or your op-ed:

a. You can consider the Mullich article as it truly is (an opinion piece in a special advertising section to the Journal) OR

b. you can pretend that it was an earned media op-ed that ran in the print version of the Journal.

My expectations: Your op-ed should:

1. Follow the Journal’s submission guidelines (with the exception above):

a. 600-1200 words.

b. Double-spaced.

c. Make a strong argument.

d. Use jargon-free language.

2. Be bylined by whomever you feel is the “best” person at CPRE. See the list of choices at http://www.commpred.org/about/contact.php

3. Be in final form (even though it’s considered a first draft for the purposes of this course).

4. On either the cover or separate page, please tell me the persuasive approach(es) (i.e., your strategy or scheme, did you employ the inoculation effect or Maslow’s hierarchy of beliefs?) you’ve chosen to use and why. This will help you to more clearly connect this deliverable to the course materials/lecture notes.

5. Also on either the cover or separate page, please provide me with your op-ed’s word count. It must fall between 600 and 1200 words.

What’s my endgame with this piece?

· Your operational goal is, of course, to write an engaging, thought-provoking persuasive opinion piece. This piece will construct an erudite and cogent argument while also trading on the ethos and name of the byliner, and is so compelling that the Journal is inclined to run it.

· Your mission goal is to increase the knowledge and positively affect the attitudes and behaviors of the Journal’s readers vis-à-vis the topic of the state of writing and writing education in the United States.

References:

Mullich, J. (2009, May 18). Rising to the challenge: America’s math and science curriculum is

key to future competiveness. Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/mathscience-rising

******************************************************************************

ADVICE ABOUT YOUR FINAL VERSIONS OF DELIVERABLES #1 - #4

Execution of Tasks: For each deliverable:

1. Re-read its guidelines.

2. Gather any notes, outlines, etc. you used during the pre-writing stage.

3. Print out your original submission as well as any marked-up version with feedback from the instructor.

4. Edit and revise (or revise and edit), always keeping in mind the purpose and audience for that specific type of PR written tactic.

When you submit your final version of each deliverable, please remind me in the Student Text Box of your actual or estimated grade on the first draft. Also, briefly tell me what you changed (e.g., I fixed the misspelled client name, added in APA in-text citations where it had been indicated, etc.).

My expectations:

Strive for the final final version of each deliverable to be as perfect as you can get it. What defines perfection is up to you: “Ultimately…you are the one who has to decide what’s just right” (Yagoda, 2013, p. 171). True, although the hope is that what you consider perfection and what I consider perfection overlap.

Deliverable #5: Writing Portfolio

Due Sun. 11/30 by midnight, no exceptions.

Cover letter = 50 points

Revisions of Deliverables #3 and #4 = 175 points each

The Purpose: Assembling a writing portfolio of your coursework (within the parameters of the set-up, explained below) gives you experience doing this before you have to do it in the real world. As you will learn from the portfolio readings, it is not unusual for employers to ask to see prospective employees’ portfolios of their writing or even other relevant work products. In fact, those hitting the job market would be well advised to have a portfolio at the ready, either in hard-copy print (offline!) or online form (or both), even before an employer asks to see it.

The Set-Up: Imagine once again that you are still an assistant account executive (AAE) at ACME Public Relations. ACME PR has created a new position of In-House Writing Consultant. It would be a great career move for you. You’ve submitted your résumé, which won you a formal interview! The hiring manager has requested that you bring along a writing portfolio of recent work from your stint as an AAE at ACME PR.

Audience: The audience for your portfolio is the hiring manager at ACME PR. Consider the course instructor to be the hiring manager.

What to Include:

· A written statement in the form of a cover letter (see page 2 of the Lunsford PDF about “Preparing a Written Statement”). This ONE-page cover letter should:

· Pitch you as the best person for the In-House Writing Consultant position.

· Be a “reflection of your strengths and abilities as a writer” (Lunsford, p. 2).

· Base your reflection on your conference post from this week.

· Keep up the conceit: Rather than talk about how your writing has evolved over the course of the course, talk about how your writing has evolved during your employment with ACME PR.

· The best, final versions you can get Deliverables #3 (News Release) and #4 (Op-ed) into. Both of these conveniently are – wink, wink – recent work you’ve done as an AAE.

What’s my endgame with this piece?

Simple: To secure an interview for this job and then get the job!

In the Student Textbox Area, remind me of your estimated grades on the first versions of these deliverables. Please also provide a brief overview of the changes you made (e.g., I fixed some typos and added in another quote, etc.).

Appendix --

Grading Rubric for all Written Deliverables

Please note that I may refine grades on your written coursework with plusses and minuses. However, final full-letter grades in the course will be assigned according to the grading guidelines of the Graduate School.

Each of you will earn the grade you deserve, based on my assessment of your work and/or effort. My assessments will be based on the following criteria:

Grading Scale Rubric and Details

Grade	Percentage Range of the Deliverable’s Point Value	Description	Standard
A-/A/A+	90/92.5 – 95 – 97.5%	Excellent comprehension and performance. Outstanding work, an example to others. Material is ready for publication and shows outstanding scholarship, mastery of facts, narrative flow, writing, and news judgment.	I would pass your work on to my supervisor either as is or after making 1 to 3 minor edits (e.g., passive voice, dangling prepositions, verbosity). The writing is edited and polished. Your work is nearly flawless. You have a simple-to-read piece that is uncluttered by unnecessary verbiage. You are following AP style perfectly. You are following grammatical rules perfectly. You are following the formats of your clients (i.e., the texts of this class, your instructor, and the actual company) to the letter.
B-/B/B+	80/82.5 – 85 – 87.5%	Good comprehension and performance. Good to excellent work, exceeds requirements. Material is written well, shows good mastery of the subject and good scholarship, but needs minor rewriting before publication. No major errors. This is the baseline grade that I expect students to earn and that students should expect to get.	I have made 4 to 5 small edits (e.g., passive voice, dangling prepositions, verbosity). Still, this is good work, but you need to work on your editing skills, AP style, and/or public relations formatting issues. Needs minor to moderate revisions before I would pass it on to my supervisor.
C-/C/C+	70/72.5 – 75 – 77.5%	Acceptable comprehension and performance. Satisfactory work, meets requirements. Work shows the usual achievement expected, but exhibits some organizational problems, major flaws (including not following directions or misspelling a proper name), 1 major edit (e.g., spelling, punctuation), and 4 to 5 small edits (e.g., passive voice, dangling prepositions, verbosity). Needs basic rewriting and editing before publication or distribution.	My supervisor would question my abilities if I passed this work on to him or her. This work contains a glaring mistake that would upset a client if published (e.g., spelling error, factual error, and fragments). Needs moderate to major revisions, perhaps an overhaul, before it could be passed on to my supervisor.
F	Less than or equal to 69%	High end of this range: Borderline comprehension and performance. Satisfies minimum requirements. The product shows borderline understanding of the subject or marginal effort. Material exhibits the incorrect format, several flaws (errors in fact, misspelled proper names, serious problems with mechanics). Low end of this range: Unsatisfactory comprehension and performance, does not meet performance requirements.	Best-case scenario: An unhappy, unimpressed, disappointed and incredulous supervisor (me) begins to look for a new assistant account executive to work on the CPRE account. You will be required to take a remedial writing course on your own time. Worst-case scenario: You immediately are removed from the account team and face termination from ACME PR.

Please note that failure to submit a deliverable, either the first draft or the final version, will result in a grade of zero being recorded for that deliverable. Having a zero calculated in your final grade almost always ensures that you’ll be retaking 600 next semester. It’s just the way the math works out.

Your perfection

My perfection