But after 20 years, I feel compelled to share a few thoughts:

Teaching college is a full-time job and then some. Maybe you know this already, but I’m shocked by the number of fools who think I work 20 hours a week and spend the rest of my time hunting and fishing. I work ALL THE TIME. It’s more of a calling than a job, and I minister to a pretty large flock.

The pay doesn’t suck. Oh, there was a time that it did. When I came to Kent State in 1992, I was earning about $60K a year in the real world. Kent State offered me $36K, and there was no negotiating. I took the job because I knew it was the perfect place for me. After 20 years of small and steady raises, and a few merit-pay bumps along the way, I earn a living wage. But my real-world counterparts with the same experience and abilities still earn twice what I do and more.

Academic politics ain’t so bad. What’s that old joke? The reason academic politics are so vicious is because the stakes are so small!  Yep. There’s so little to fight for in the academy  that it’s amazing anyone can even get angry. But they do. They anguish over the chickenshit stuff and make themselves miserable in the process. When I was 24 and a lowly PR account executive in Detroit, the boss gave me a great piece of advice: Don’t sweat the little stuff, kid. And I don’t.

It all about the students. Everything I do in my professional life is aimed at helping our students succeed. And that includes those “candid” notes I write atop student assignments and essays — and those private sessions when I suggest it may be time to find another major. In a way, teaching is a lot like parenting: Keep your promises to your kids or they won’t trust you. But enforce the consequences for poor performance or they won’t excel.

The rewards of teaching. Few jobs offer the level of gratification one gets from teaching. But rather than try to describe it, let me instead quote from a handwritten note a student left for me late last week as she was headed to her commencement.

…I’m so glad I got to work with you. Earning this master’s degree has changed my life as a professional. I would be lost without this program, the professors, and this opportunity to grow.  Best of luck to you. And please keep in touch.

You can bet we will, Anne. It’s why we teach.

Ah, the salad days of blogging! Can it really be over?

This story from USA Today, summarizing a UMass/Dartmouth survey,  suggests companies are bailing out of their blogs in favor of social media channels that are less labor intensive and more connected to their audiences.

…the percentage of companies that maintain blogs fell to 37% in 2011 from 50% in 2010, based on its survey of 500 fast-growing companies listed by Inc. magazine. Only 23% of Fortune 500 companies maintained a blog in 2011, flat from a year ago after rising for several years.

The story also hints that maybe blogging is killing itself:

Lou Hoffman, CEO of The Hoffman Agency, a public relations firm, says many corporate blogs fail to attract readers because they exist solely to pitch products and are badly written. “Companies don’t understand that the content on a blog shouldn’t be ‘about me.’ ” Such information tends to be dull.”

If you’ve played in social media for any amount of time, you know how self-centered this space can be. But if you’ve written a successful blog — one that generated lots of comments and conversation — you know about the community values blogs support.

Hey, with all these companies leaving the blogosphere, maybe there’s still an opportunity for old folks like me. It’s a shitload of work, and the pay sucks. But I love this space, and I love the doors it has opened for all of us.

Thanks to Rob Jewell for linking me to the USA Today story.

If you play in social media — as we all do — we put ourselves out there. We remove our masks. Oh, some of you may attempt to separate digital life from work life. But you know it’s not really possible. Our lives have way too many intersections.

One student’s essay articulated the need for consistency of work-life ethics — the need for authenticity. Because her work is “behind the wall,” I won’t share it here. But I will share with you my response to her — edited slightly for clarity.

Thanks in part to technology our work/home/personal lives continue to merge. This story, “Teachers Under the Morality Microscope,” drives home the point. Those who try to compartmentalize their lives and, in turn, their morality, are having a tough time. Of course, I read another story this week about people being fired (and others not being hired) over refusal to provide a Facebook passwords to their employers. Now that’s scary!

Your essay drives home a critical point: It’s becoming tougher and tougher to compartmentalize our lives and our ethics. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since it reminds us of the need to be authentic 24/7. Since I became immersed in social media 7 years ago (as part of my academic research) I decided to put away the masks and the uniforms. What you see is what you get. It’s a bit outrageous at times, but it’s me.

Funny thing — people have responded positively to that persona — even the whole longhaired hippie thing! For me, it’s been liberating. But then again, I’m a tenured faculty member who can only be fired by an act of Congress! This, too, is liberating, since it allows me to do my job without those “masks.” And that makes me a more effective teacher and trustworthy friend. I hope.

For most of us, the moral threshold is defined in childhood, and ethics classes can’t do much to change that. How we apply that morality is what makes us trustworthy professionals, parents, friends, etc. And that’s worth talking about.

According to Akron Beacon Journal reporter Marla Ridenour, Christian also negotiated at least five charter plane flights for his team next season and upgrades to the locker room at the Convocation Center. That’s what it takes to win, they tell us. And winning is what it’s all about. Right?

I never met Jim Christian during his time at Kent State, but by all accounts, he’s a great guy and a good coach. I don’t fault him for negotiating the best deal possible for him and his family. I would do the same. But I do fault the administration of Ohio University for kneeling before this false gods of college sports, because it’s a losing proposition.

Kent’s State rival Akron U spent $60 million on a football stadium for a team that ranks dead last in Division I. Penn State, with the help of a donor, is spending $112 million on a his-and-hers hockey arena. Crazy, huh? Imagine the impact that $172 might have had on the education these schools claim is their central mission.

Is all this spending on college sports a worthy investment? Nope. A vast majority of D-I programs are losers.  And in the process, so are we.  If you need more perspective, read this 2011 article titled “The Shame of  College Sports.” It’s a shame all right, but I don’t see anyone blushing.

Who’s going to lead us away from this college sports madness? Someone has to, and wouldn’t it be cool if Kent State stepped up? We can begin by stepping down — to Division I-A, or maybe even Division II. Let’s halt all investment in expensive facilities. We don’t need them. Let’s start emphasizing the word “student” and not word “athlete.” You can do both, so long as you take a balanced approach. People will respect you for it.

One more thing: Let’s stop paying coaches 5 times the salary of a college dean, or 10 times that of a professor. Nothing against coaches, but they’re NOT central to the mission of any university. They’re really not.

Follow me if you’d like, but I probably won’t follow you back — even though it’s the “social” thing to do. Truth is, I barely see 5% of the tweets posted by those 954. So I don’t want to promise you a conversation that isn’t gonna happen.

I also don’t send “thank you” notes to people who follow me. I could tell you that I appreciate the follow, but it seems disingenuous. And since I post so few tweets anymore, I’m not sure why you’d bother. I don’t use the Twitter app on my phone, as I hate constant connectivity.

How did such a misanthrope gain so many Twitter followers? Beats me. It may go back to a list titled “100 PR People Worth Following on Twitter,” posted by a blogger three years ago.  How I made that list remains a mystery, like so much in this social media space.

Now you know the ugly truth. So unfollow me if you must. I’ll understand, and lord knows I have it coming.

But chances are, you’ll never see this post, since I don’t plan to tout it on Twitter or Facebook. And without some shameless promotion on my part, there’s a good chance no one’s gonna read my confession.

It’s probably for the best.

What’s happened to this wonderful game and its traditions? A season opener across the Pacific. Fake grass. The designated hitter. Ten-dollar beers. Five dollar hot dogs.

Is nothing sacred?

And what will we do about that evil insect, the emerald ash borer? It’s creeping across America, slaying the mighty hardwoods that provide the lumber for the venerable Louisville Slugger. (But there is hope!)

As MLB opens yet another season, I am reminded of this wonderful one-minute speech, delivered in 1989 by then-Congressman and now Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. It came before the ash borer invaded our shores — but it speaks to all of us who still treasure what’s left of this great game.

Mr. Durbin, you have the floor.

From the Congressional Record, July 26, 1989 page H4274

Desecration of a Great American Symbol: the Wooden Baseball Bat

MR. DURBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the desecration of a great American symbol. No, I am not referring to flag burning; I am referring to the baseball bat.

Several experts tell us that the wooden baseball bat is doomed to extinction, that major league baseball players will soon be standing at home plate with aluminum bats in their hands.  Baseball fans have been forced to endure countless indignities by those who just cannot leave well enough alone.

Designated hitters, plastic grass, uniforms that look like pajamas, chicken clowns dancing on the baselines, and of course the most heinous sacrilege, lights in Wrigley Field.

Are we willing to hear the crack of a bat replaced by the dinky ping? Are we ready to see the Louisville Slugger replaced by the aluminum ping dinger? Is nothing sacred?

Please, do not tell me that wooden bats are too expensive when players who cannot hit their weight are being paid more money than the president of the United States.
Please, do not try to sell me on the notion that these metal clubs will make better hitters.

What is next? Teflon baseballs? Radar-enhanced gloves? I ask you.

I do not want to hear about saving trees.  Any tree in America would gladly give its life for the glory of a day at home plate.

I do not know if it will take a constitutional amendment to keep the baseball traditions alive, but if we forsake the great Americana of broken-bat singles and pine tar, we will have certainly lost our way as a nation.

Gentlemen, play ball!

Anyway, one of his coworkers in the hiring process said he never hired anyone who smoked a pipe. “They’re too slow and deliberate,” he said, “and on this line, time is money.”

Stereotype? You bet. But we all use stereotypes to interpret life. I’ve spent my entire adult life in the PR,  a job some folks call “liar for hire.” I’ve always prided myself on being an ethical practitioner, but I never fully escaped the mistrust people have for us.

I was reminded of this lesson on stereotypes while shopping for replacement windows last week. Window and siding salesmen suffer a fate worse than any PR agent. We almost expect them to pull a fast one on us. And one national company didn’t disappoint. Or so it seems.

The peddler, we’ll call him Trevor, spent two hours pitching every aspect of his company and its products. He could have done it in 20 minutes, as I raised no objections and had few questions. Still, I listened politely.

Trevor’s price of $8,056 came in so far above the competition I had to restrain my laughter. But apparently, he goofed. Trev called me 10 days later to say he’d made a terrible error and had quoted me the MSRP. And hey, in windows, no one pays retail!

He should have quoted me $6,847 (more than $1,200 less), or so he said.

But wait, there’s more! Turns out Trevor’s boss wants to lock down some prospects before the spring rush, so my new price will be $5,939 — or about $2,220 below the first quote — and right in line with the competition. Imagine that!

“So tell me, Trevor,” I said. “Had I signed the contract the day you made your pitch, would you have refunded my $2,200?”

Absolutely, he told me. It was an honest mistake.

Trevor’s a nice kid and in the same age bracket as my own sons. I liked him, and I wanted to believe him. But the stereotype of the window salesman won’t let me do that.

“Hate to tell you this, Trev, but your mistake just cost you a nice sale,” I told him.” And there’s one more thing. I don’t believe for a second I’d have seen that $2,200.”

“You’ve never made an honest mistake in your life? he asked.

“Yes, I have,” I responded. “And in almost every case, it cost me, just as this one cost you.”

He protested, and I bid him a not-so-polite farewell.

I’ve decided not to “out” Trevor’s company by name. Because maybe, just maybe, Trevor did make an honest mistake. And maybe those who run his company aren’t the shysters I now believe them to be. Maybe.

Where’s my pipe? I could use a smoke about now.

Most PR pros know about the R-A-C-E formula, developed by John Marston. It begins with Research, followed by a plan of Action, Communication, then Evaluation. For business school grads, it’s basic management by objective, and you’ve done it a thousand times.

Since old formulas don’t work on my students, I’m trying something I call the POPE Method. I hope it earns your blessing.

P: What’s the problem. Here you develop the situation analysis. Who’s the client, what’s the challenge/problem and whose attitudes and behaviors must change if we are to succeed? This step is time consuming, but it should be easy. Yet students struggle with it. Why? Research is hard work, and you can never do enough of it. Also, you can’t rely on Google to access paid news databases, scholarly research or government statistics. You gotta dig deep.

O: What’s your objective? Put another way, what do we want to DO about the problem? In this step you decide the plan of attack. Which attitudes and behaviors do you hope to change, with whom and by when?

P: What’s the plan? In this step, we outline the specific strategies and tactics that enable us to reach objectives. What will we say and do?

E: How will you evaluate results? If you plan to spend a pile of your client’s money doing really cool programs, you’d best be able to justify it? What measures of success you are building into the plan?

Some will say the PR process isn’t this simple. To them I say: You think too much.

If anyone knows how I can eliminate the images repeating at the top of my posts, I’m all ears. My analytics are also a mess, but that I can deal with!

I’m one of those folks who uses technology a lot but I never go behind the curtain. So this could be a mess for a while. Like it matters, huh?

Took that photo at our kayak launch on Estero Bay, Bonita Springs, Fla., Feb., 9, 2012.

While I disagree with SGK’s decision, I recognize that Planned Parenthood is controversial. It’s been demonized by the political and religious right as an abortion provider/baby killer. Yet Planned Parenthood is widely loved among those who support rights for women and women’s reproductive health. And that would be me.

Now that you know where I stand on the issue, let’s look at the PR ramifications.

This image went viral yesterday after Susan G. Komen pulled the plug on Planned Parenthood.

If you’re an SGK corporate partner, you’re sitting in your office today waiting for the shit to hit the fan. Will supporters of Planned Parenthood call for a boycott of your products? Will your corporate logo be plastered across the Internet under: “Companies That Hate Women”?

It’s certainly a possibility.

One of my tweets last night asked those who disagree with Komen to contact corporate sponsors and let them know how you feel. I’m guessing an organization as large and PR savvy as SGK told its supporters this was coming. The smart ones have a response ready. So let’s hear it.

Pink moves product. Until yesterday, SGK’s little pink ribbon was marketing gold for companies licensed to use it. After all, breast cancer is the most favored charity among women, and women still make a majority of the purchasing decisions in American households — at least when it comes to consumables.

None of those corporate partners wants its brand associated with ugly social-media campaigns, let alone political and religious acrimony. It’s bad for business.

And let’s be honest, a partnership with SGK is more likely driven by marketing objectives than corporate generosity. One blogger I know has been questioning corporate motives on the “pink” issue for a good long time — only to be shouted down by the do-gooders

Intentions of SGK’s corporate supporters are not the issue today. The issue is how Komen’s surprising decision on Planned Parenthood will play with women across the land. How will it alter brand perceptions and ultimately purchasing decisions?

Most women I know — even the good Catholics — aren’t buying the “demon” label the right has assigned Planned Parenthood. Instead, they see an organization that supports women’s reproductive health — particularly those women in lower income brackets.

Not one of them is happy with SGK today. Not one.

Those who champion cause marketing will now take a closer look at the risks involved with the practice. In a day or two, reporters will be asking the companies that support SGK — 3M, Ford, Crayola, Dell and others — if they’ll continue waving the pink ribbon.

How would you answer that one?

Aside: A number of friends on Facebook and Twitter told me they’ll shift their dollars to the American Cancer Society, a group that also supports breast-cancer research. It’s also the group that gave its CEO a $2.2-million compensation package last year. You OK with that?