You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘public relations’ tag.

We agreed in our last post that PR practitioners are responsible for the client’s/company’s reputation. Though PR pros may not plan every charity event or directly handle customer service complaints, it is our job to build and protect a company’s image. As today’s businesses  look to become more socially responsible, the role of public relations to create corporate social responsibility programs becomes more visible.

Though it’s important for a company to operate ethically, not every organization is driven by charity. Especially when economic times are tough, a company needs to identify what’s important and where they should focus their efforts and funds.  So…

How important is Corporate Social Responsibility?

CHRIS:

After business ethics disasters like Enron and WorldCom, the burden of  earning trust lies with each individual business.  You could be in business to save the lives of third-world puppies with eating disorders, and people would still be skeptical. Thanks to a slew of mistakes by a few bad apples, everyone starts behind the eight-ball in the reputation game, and the court of public opinion is quick to turn on you if you make a mistake.

In this new business environment, both for-profit and non-profit organizations need to build and maintain a good reputation to be successful – and being a socially responsible entity is the first step. Showing that you care about more than just yourself has always been important, but the need to show this will only increase as GenX and GenYers start to take the reins of big business.

AMANDA:

Just because a business appears to be responsible doesn’t mean it is actually doing the “right” thing. Enron appeared to be a model corporate citizen before its collapse, donating hundreds of thousands to philanthropic efforts despite the company’s hidden financial struggles. Appearing to be socially responsible actually helped Enron bilk shareholders out of billions in stock and benefits by maintaining a trustworthy facade.

It is obviously impossible to be certain what an organization’s motives for social responsibility initiatives are. However, even a company with the purest intentions should always put its stakeholders first. This means following through on the organization’s mission statement and ensuring the company’s viability before embarking on initiatives to help others.  If a company doesn’t put its own interests first, it won’t be around to continue helping others.

CHRIS:

I agree that a company must be responsible to its STAKEholders – but these constituencies include more than just SHAREholders. And I disagree that you can’t identify TRUE corporate social responsibility. It’s about actions, not just words. And it’s a necessary part of business in the 21st century.

Programs that are environmentally friendly or charitable ultimately help the company by building trust among employees, customers and business partners. People want to do business with good people. Though the return on CSR expenses may not be reflected on the annual balance sheet, ethical actions are  long-term investments in a company’s reputation that can be appreciate by shareholders and stakeholders alike.

AMANDA:

No doubt a company’s long-term reputation – and perhaps consequently its bottom line – would benefit from investments in social efforts. However, especially in the current economic environment, there are no guarantees on a company’s lifespan. Businesses, like individuals, are feeling pressure to make more budget-friendly decisions. A college student might opt to shop at Wal-Mart even though he believes the corporation is evil. Likewise, a company may need to outsource work with foreign businesses when it would be more socially responsible to stimulate the local economy by working with a more expensive domestic company.

To ensure a business survives, it must look hard at its short-term budget and make changes to establish financial stability. If a company is doing well, it should by all means contribute to the community that is helping it succeed. But a company struggling to stay afloat simply cannot afford to put vital funds into initiatives that won’t result in short-term profit. A company that goes under can no longer contribute to any community causes, so organizations should be careful to make sure their philanthropic efforts don’t put them out of business.

CHRIS:

I’m not saying a for-profit company should abandon its business plan in order to “save the whales.” But I am saying that a company needs to be responsible no matter what its financial situation is. And that means acting ethically even in hard times. Just because the economy is bad doesn’t mean a company can abandoned its principles. And small contributions can still be made – even if this means using company resources to promote employee contributions to charity. United Way campaigns are a perfect example of this.

But I’m wondering what companies have been doing over the last year – and how that’s affected NPOs. Have you cut back charitable contributions in tune with the economy? If so, have you cut all funds? Let us know what you think.

Advertisements

Social Media’s all the rage. But is it keeping you from what you’re supposed to be doing?

We know this new technology isn’t the end-all-be-all of the PR/Advertising world, but it is significant. So much so, that some companies are hiring SM specialists to focus solely in this realm. But where does that leave the rest of us? Should we ignore our Twitter and Facebook feeds during the day? Is it wrong to read or <gasp> write a blog post between the hours of 9 and 5?

Is it wrong to use SM on company time?

chris prompt

CHRIS:

If you’re in PR, you’re responsible for your company or client’s reputation. This means knowing what people are saying about you and your brand. SM is a great place to start, especially if you operate in the consumer market. And while most PR/Marketing Communication agencies now have full-time staffers devoted to SM “listening,” many companies still avoid the SM playground for various reasons.

But why? Don’t they understand the value of monitoring sites like Twitter and Facebook? Can’t they see the value in the early warning systems of Google Alerts, or the ROI a company can gain from engaging in industry specific forums and wikis? In my eyes, it’s the role of the PR professional to be aware of these opportunities and train employees on how to take advantage of them. Social Media is about engaging with external audiences, and in my eyes, that’s the essence of public relations.

amandafaceAMANDA:

I’m not here to argue that any communications professional should ignore social media – that would just be irresponsible. Like Motrin learned from the mommy bloggers, social media is just as important as any traditional communication forum. It just takes a spark to start a wildfire, and it’s important for us to monitor what is being said about our companies online so we can address any issues before they become full-on disasters.

I will argue, however, that there is a fine line between effectively monitoring social media and letting it take over your workday. What were you hired to do? More and more companies are creating social media positions – a good idea for companies that have the resources, in my opinion. But for those at companies that haven’t jumped on that train yet – how much of your workday should be devoted to SM?

CHRIS:

While it may not appear specifically in a job description, we’re all charged with professional development throughout our careers. Over the course of five years with a company, you should not only by knowledgeable about how that company does business, but also learn more about your role and how to do it more efficiently and effectively. While management and supervisors can be great sources of wisdom and experience, an infinite amount of information is only a few clicks away – and with SM, it’s now specific and personal.

For instance, I subscribe to a number of professional newsletters and blogs that give me invaluable information specific to my job. Suggestions that help me do my job better, quicker and cheaper. Should I forgo reading these blogs on company time because they also help me personally? Not happening (and I think my employer would agree). The trick here, is looking at Twitter feeds and blog rolls through the lens of my position as the company’s communicator. I ask myself, is this relevant to my job and how can I apply it? If  it doesn’t apply, I tag it for after hours.

balance-scale

AMANDA:

Absolutely. If you grow as a professional, chances are your company will benefit – however, I think this gets tricky with social media. The fact is, social media was meant for people to engage, well, socially. Yes, professionals interact via SM constantly, and I’ve learned a lot from watching what these experienced pros say on their blogs and Twitter pages. It just seems like a slippery slope – there is virtually no hard line between what could and couldn’t be considered ultimately beneficial to your work productivity.

But, as important as my boss thinks online media is, I wasn’t hired to grow an online presence – neither mine nor the company’s. Do I ignore social media during the workday? Not at all. I have Google alerts and SM keyword searches on my company’s brand and I absolutely RT when someone tweets a positive message about the company or product. But I can’t justify focusing on social media – even if it could be considered beneficial to the company – at the expense of my assigned responsibilities.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t go above and beyond what we are hired to do – I am definitely not saying we should ignore SM or not consider what other ways we could advance our client or company. I guess all I’m trying to point out is that, as sexy as SM is, we need to make sure we aren’t sacrificing performance or efficiency in our assigned roles in favor of social media management.

CHRIS:

I’ll agree that engaging in SM while at work is all about time management, and finding a balance is definitely tricky. But ultimately, I think the PR pro is better off engaging throughout the day as the potential ROI for the company is too big to be ignored (so long as the day-to-day tasks are still being completed).

But it looks like we’ve got another sticky one here. And another one people can relate to, considering most are probably reading at work. But we want your input. With less than 4 years combined experience, Amanda and I realize our words only carry so much mustard. So, let us know what you do. Or maybe more importantly, what your employer demands you do. (FYI, if the comment box doesn’t appear below, click on the top title of the post then scroll down.)

As young pros in the communications industry, navigating sticky ethical dilemmas isn’t always easy.  Working on behalf of our companies/clients, PR pros generally function as the go-between when our bosses are looking to control what messages reach the public. It’s nothing new, but PR practitioners have both succeeded and failed at conveying messages the “right” way.

But as PR practitioners, what’s more important: Being loyal to our employers OR loyal to the public?

amandaskepface2

AMANDA:

I am by no means well-versed in the professional world, but as a cynical observer, here’s how I see it: If you’re writing the checks, you’re making the rules. This isn’t unique to public relations, of course, but it seems easier than in most industries to let personal opinions and beliefs affect our work. Clients aren’t paying you to agree with them; they are paying you for a service. We are the liaisons between these organizations and the public; we are simply the bullhorn, the channel the client uses to spread a message. We are being paid to communicate and gain positive attention on behalf of a client, not to decide whether the client is responsible or morally in the right – if you have really strong misgivings about a client’s behavior, you probably shouldn’t take the account.

Regardless of personal opinion, I am being employed to serve a client’s PR needs to the best of my ability. If I can’t do my job well – for personal objections or any other reason – I need to step away.

chrisfaceCHRIS:

I agree that it’s our job to represent the view points of our clients in the media. But it’s not our job to lie. Not only is the idea of “massaging the truth” one that can damage the entire PR industry, but I would argue that mis-representing the truth is never in the client’s best business interest. A company can only hide from the truth for so long, and in the digitally connect world we live, that timeline is growing shorter every day. My recommendation would be to take corrective action as a company so that the PR pro can portray the company accurately to the media. If you want a spin artist, try these guys.  No pun intended, Little Miss Amanda.

AMANDA:

I hate the term “spin doctor” as much as the next PR enthusiast, but either way, I’m not saying we should lie. Framing does not equal lying. When you are working on behalf of a client, you are being employed to present that client in the best light possible. Should you tell blatant lies to make the client look better? We all know the answer to that one. But are critics like John Stauber right to generalize and paint all PR pros as deceptive, conniving lie machines? Hell, no. Presenting your client in a more flattering light is not wrong.

We all do it – you don’t trumpet your own downfalls to others in order to maintain a positive image. Maintaining a client’s image is no different, and highlighting the positive while mitigating the negative is inherent in all of us to some degree. Some PR pros might engage in controversial practices, but that’s no different than any other profession. Not all accountants are dirty, not all cops are crooked and not all PR pros are liars.

CHRIS:

Ballon boy on CNN (or not).

I guess my point is that we need to look at all suggestions from upper management subjectively. Whether they’re asking you to “spin” a situation to make the company look favorable or requesting something else dishonest.  Let’s take the recent events of Balloon Boy as an example – or to clarify, the balloon boy hoax. Suppose you represented the Heene family and they approached you with the idea to pitch a deceptive storyline in order to gain national media exposure? Are you still going to play the role of “bull-horn” and let them use your professional talents unethically? I’m not.

And to me this goes beyond the obvious ethical ramifications. Looking forward, any business success garnered by the Heene family will be tainted with their inauthentic burst onto the national stage and will likely be short-lived (at least I hope our society is better than that).

AMANDA:

Hmm… well, I agree in the fact that we need to use discretion when deciding which PR tactics to implement on behalf of a client. Sometimes clients or management get excited over specific tactics that would actually provide little benefit to their end goals. As PR pros, we need to think critically about what strategies will ultimately be most effective and provide our counsel from there. Should we be puppets? Not what I’m saying. But we need to listen to a client’s objective and then serve it in the best way possible, regardless of our opinion. Do I believe Mr. Heene’s theories about aliens and an imminent Armageddon? Negative; like a lot of people, I think the guy’s got a couple screws loose. But if I agreed to represent his cause, it would be my responsibility to make strategic decisions that would best serve his interests.

CHRIS:

The joy I’m getting from role-playing as PR counsel for the Heene family could be considered slightly abnormal. But I’m gonna give our readers a chance to do the same. I think Amanda and I are in agreement on some things here (miraculously), but I’m wondering where to draw the line? Is it based on personal pride or ethics? If you represented the Heene’s what would you have suggested? Let us know what you think.

As young pros in the communications industry, navigating sticky ethical dilemmas isn’t always easy.  Working on behalf of our companies/clients, PR pros frequently function as the go-between when our bosses are looking to control messages in the media. It’s nothing new, but in the relatively breif history of our profession, PR practitioners have both succeeded (http://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20Ethics/BECG015.htm) and failed (http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html) to get the right message out.

But as PR practitioners, what’s more important: Being loyal to our employers or loyal to the public?

AMANDA: I’m not wise to the PR world by any means, but as a cynical observer, here’s how I see it: If you’re writing the checks, you’re making the rules. This isn’t unique to public relations, of course, but it seems easier than in most industries to let personal opinions and beliefs affect our work. Clients aren’t paying you to agree with them; they are paying you for a service. We are the liaisons between these organizations and the public; we are simply the bullhorn, the medium the client uses to spread a message. We are being paid to communicate and gain positive attention on behalf of a client, not to decide whether the client is responsible or morally in the right – if you have really strong misgivings about a client’s behavior, you probably shouldn’t take the account.

Regardless of personal opinion, I am being employed to serve a client’s PR needs to the best of my ability. If I can’t do my job well – for personal objections or any other reason – I need to step away.

CHRIS: I agree that it’s our job to represent the view points of our clients in the media. But it’s not our job to lie. Not only is the idea of “massaging the truth” one that can damage the entire PR industry, but I would argue that mis-representing the truth is never in the client’s best business interest. A company can only hide from the truth for so long, and in the digitally connect world we live, that timeline is growing shorter every day. My recommendation would be to take corrective action as a company so that the PR pro can portray the company accurately to the media. If you want a spin artist, try these guys. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=givZsEAW80k) No pun intended, Little Miss Amanda.

AMANDA: I hate the term “spin doctor” as much as the next PR enthusiast, but either way, I’m not saying we should lie. Framing, as I prefer to think of it, does not equal lying. When you are working on behalf of a client, you are being employed to present that client in the best light possible. Should you tell blatant lies to make the client look better? We all know the answer to that one. But are critics like John Stauber right to generalize all PR pros as deceptive, conniving lie machines (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0901-05.htm) ? Hell, no. Highlighting the positive and mitigating the negative about your client is not wrong. We all do it – you don’t trumpet your own downfalls to others in order to maintain a positive image. Maintaining a client’s image is no different, and highlighting the positive while mitigating the negative is inherent in all of us to some degree. Some PR pros might engage in controversial practices, but that’s no different than any other profession. Not all accountants are dirty, not all cops are crooked and not all PR pros are liars.

CHRIS: I guess my point is that we need to look at all suggestions from upper management subjectively.  Let’s take the recent events of Balloon Boy as an example – or to clarify, the balloon boy hoax (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado.balloon.investigation/index.html) Suppose you represented the Heene family and they approached you with the idea to pitch a deceptive storyline in order to gain national media exposure? Are you still going to play the role of “bull-horn” and let them use your talents as a professional merely as a tool? I’m not.

And to me this goes beyond the obvious ethical ramifications. Looking forward, any business success garnered by the Heene family will be tainted with their inauthentic burst onto the national stage and will likely be short-lived (at least I hope our society is better than that). http://gawker.com/5384375/deflated-balloon-boys-the-story-of-our-ugly-sorry-era

AMANDA: Hmm… well, I agree in the fact that you need to use discretion when deciding on what PR tactics to implement on behalf of a client. Sometimes clients or management get excited over specific tactics that would actually provide little benefit to their end goals. As PR pros, we need to think critically about what strategies will ultimately be most effective and provide our counsel from there. Should we be puppets? Not what I’m saying. But we need to listen to a client’s objective and then serve it in the best way possible, regardless of our opinion. Do I believe Mr. Heene’s theories about aliens and an imminent Armageddon (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/pals_airing_balloon_dad_criminal_A1rvE19eLczSLW47nwTHHK) ? Heck no; like a lot of people, I think the guy’s got a couple screws loose. But if I agreed to represent his cause, it would be my responsibility to make strategic decisions that would best serve his interests.

The Internet, no doubt the most significant technological advancement in the 21st century, brought countless new forms of communication that connect people around the globe. Email, chat rooms, blogs and other Web tools allow us to connect with people from places we have never seen and might never even go to. People with common interests build online relationships without ever meeting face-to-face and online dating is one of the Internet’s biggest and highest-grossing industries.

Of course, we also interact with friends, family and others whom we know “In Real Life” via the Internet. Facebook, the most popular of all social networks, allows us to find and keep in touch with former colleagues and classmates. But is posting a message to a friend’s page as personal as a phone call or lunch date? Do we ignore our “Real” relationships for online buddies? In other words…

Is social media making us less social?

amandafaceAmanda:

This clip from the movie Wall-E is all too close to reality for me (you only need to watch about 30 seconds from this link to get my point). We are so consumed by electronic communication that we are losing touch with actual person-to-person interaction. I’m guilty as well – I feel incredibly lost and awkward if I leave my cell phone at home and go in public alone. But sometimes I think we are so caught up in our digi-lives that we forget what REAL interaction feels like.

chrisface2Chris:

IMO, social media isn’t replacing “real life” communication so much as it is facilitating interactions that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Between mobile Internet devices and applications designed to run in the background (a la TweetDeck), professionals engaging in social media are making the most out of their time — and making the most of their “self-diagnosed ADHD“. Although responding to tweets or commenting on a blog post isn’t as rich as F2F interaction, I don’t see folks canceling meetings because they’re too busy updating their Facebook page or growing their online network.

Amanda:

I agree growing your network is extremely important, but quality still trumps quantity. I might be connected to potential employers via social media, but if I don’t do anything to build those relationships, what does it matter? It’s great we’re able to meet people around the world online, but until there is some quality, one-on-one effort, do you really feel connected to an avatar? SM is a good icebreaker, as Chuck Hemann pointed out in a comment on our first post, but if you don’t build on every relationship, what’s the point? You might have 14,789 “buddies” on Facebook, but how many would you actually call your friends?

Chris:

Though don’t yet have 14,000-some FB friends, I do admit that the age of information overload is upon us, and it applies to social networking just as much as it does to digital content. As the number of SM adapters continues to grow, the number of people bombarding us to “connect” will also grow. But I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Granted the ratio of quality relationships to total connections will always be fairly small, value comes in two distinct forms: 1) the sheer number of leads that can come from a large online network (think the long tail) and 2) the few digital connections that proliferate IRL that wouldn’t have happened without SM. Though it’s impossible to build on EVERY connection, it may just take one relationship to make a difference.

Amanda:

Okay, I agree there are a few cases when social media is the best way to connect without being too creepy. Facebook is a great way to “see” friends who have moved away or to semi-stalk your ex to make sure his new girlfriend isn’t that cute. HOWEVER, I think social media is making us lazy in too many of our relationships. Yea, I could call my high school friends to see what they did last weekend, but I won’t. It’s a lot easier to just visit their SM pages, read other people’s comments and click through their photo albums. I know I’m not the only one who “keeps in contact” with most of her old friends this way, but I bet I’m also not the only one who gets mad at herself for limiting these friendships to online “interactions.”

Chris:

I have nearly 800 friends on Facebook – a virtual collection of people I’ve met F2F at least once. But connecting with these folks through social media doesn’t weaken our relationships. Interaction in the online world allows me to stay on top of what my friends and family are doing without a phone call. I can see pictures from my friend’s vacation hiking in the southwest, and get a better idea of how the vacation went then I ever could from a phone call. Then I can follow up with a phone call and and talk about the pictures.

But the best part about SM, is its ability to connect me to people I might otherwise forget. I’ll be honest: I’m not always going to take the time to call my second cousin, or the guy who lived down the hall from me sophomore year, but if I see they’ve posted pics on Facebook or tweeted something cool, chances are I’ll check it out and send them a note – it’s not the most genuine of connections, but more than would happen otherwise.

Amanda:

Yea, SM lets us make many more connections than we otherwise would, but using social media is much different than depending on it. I think this Coleman ad campaign says it perfectly – it reminds us what social interaction should be. While I’ll probably never give up my SM addiction (a minor problem, compared to some), I still say I’d rather fully immerse myself in the experience and enjoy life than tweet about it all the time, thinking other people care. ‘Cause at the end of the day, I can have a million followers but if my strongest relationship is with my laptop, I won’t be happy. Maybe you see things differently, but I still feel too much social media gets in the way of Real Life. I say put down the Blackberry and wherever you are, be all there.

Chris:

While I’m not here to debate my social media addiction (let’s just say I’m definitely in Amanda’s “some” category), I will maintain that these tools ultimately foster relationships more than they destroy them. Like the folks in the Coleman ads, I too like to live my life deliberately, but I see emerging digital communication platforms as tools to help me do so.
image courtesy of Marketing Weblog & singlemindedwomen.com

As the traditional 9-to-5 workday collapses and we begin to share more of ourselves through social media sites, the line between our personal and professional lives is being drawn thinner every day. We are constantly trying to balance our personal and professional relationships on sites like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, raising the question of how personal our personal branding should be. Even President Barack Obama chimed in on the debate, warning the nation’s youth “to be careful about what you post on Facebook … in the YouTube age.”

For our first-ever Budding Heads PR post, we ask the question:

Should you censor your online personality for the sake of your professional life?

Chris:  Trying to separate your social online persona from your professional online image is not only impossible, but will result in a lack-luster personal branding effort.

chris promptI’ve wrestled with the term “personal branding” for a long time and am finally deciding to make a stance on how I feel about these two words: THEY’RE STUPID.

While I understand the value of creating a consistent “brand” in the traditional marketing sense of the word, applying this idea to oneself is hypocritical and inauthentic. To me, creating a “personal brand” means deciding who others want you to be and trying to portray that fictional persona to the world.

Often, for young professionals, this means hesitating to share on social networking sites. It means de-tagging pictures on Facebook and making sure your LinkedIn profile picture is a snapshot of you in job interview form.

But why? Why try to be someone you’re not? Aren’t you good enough being JUST YOU?

I am who I am, NOT who I say I am. (And, no, I’m not trying to be Eminem *profanity warning on link.) Granted that perception is reality, as a young professional entering the digital landscape, my words and actions will shape these perceptions. What I do defines who I am. Nothing I say can change that.

My point is that actions have always and will always speak louder than words. If you’re doing one thing and saying another, you’re not transparent, thus breaking one of the cardinal rules of Grunig’s Excellent Public Relations.

Ultimately, the falsified personal brands will be seen for what they really are. Rubish. But that’s to say that folks who are creating a false sense of themselves are even noticed. All too often, young pros fail to take advantage of the personal and professional networking opportunities in SM. If they do engage, they have their trigger finger on the delete & de-tag buttons, fearing that what they do in their personal lives will haunt them in their professional lives.

I say: Get Real.

To me, refraining from being yourself in the online world is like censoring your life. Doctoring your thoughts and actions online to fit into some type of SM normalcy is a bad move. This type of personal branding (READ: life censoring) will leave a young pro lost in a sea of SM celibates, appearing uninspired or unaware of the importance of online networking.

Engage intelligently, but engage authentically.

Amanda: Controlling one’s social media image is necessary to maintain personal integrity and the respect of both professional and personal colleagues.

amandaIt’s okay, Kanye, we all make mistakes.

Tales of public figures’ youthful mistakes have been scrutinized for centuries – think Washington and the cherry tree – but new technology will cement this generation’s mistakes online forever.

When we were kids, gossip was word-of-mouth hearsay, whereas today’s kids can prove who kissed whom at Sarah’s party – with pictures. Students interact with friends via social media, but they are also sending that information to the world when they click “upload.”

This idea applies to all of us – would you show your mom that pic of you bonging a beer?  Do you want a potential employer’s first impression of you to include a “sexy cat” costume? Do you think anyone WANTS to know that chili at lunch gave you heartburn?

Of course, there are countless examples of people getting into trouble because of social media  . We’ve all heard ‘em – and most of us realize posting pictures from Halloween that just happened to be the same day you were “sick” is a bad idea.

When it comes to making questionable decisions, I’m guilty as any college student. Do I have fun with my friends on weekends? Sure. But do I want my boss to see on Twitter that I’m “nursing an AWFUL hangover”? No, thanks. (You can bet I’ll be whining to someone, though.)

And what if someday you become more than just another person, but a public figure? If your not-so-proud moments are embedded in the Web, there’s a better chance than ever they will come back to haunt you. Michael Phelps found that out the hard way.

I’m not saying we should take our personalities completely out of social media, but we need to make sure we’d be comfortable letting anyone and everyone – in our professional and personal circles – into our lives. If you can maintain your integrity with that post or picture, go for it.

Last point I’ll make: Those annoying social media mavens – the ones who post every 5 seconds about where they are or what they’re eating – doesn’t it seem a little egotistical? Do we like to just hear ourselves type? Maybe I’m missing something, but is there anything wrong with a little self-censorship?

images courtesy of : atr.org & valleywag.gawker.com

Contact

Follow Chris on Twitter

Follow Amanda on Twitter