3 thoughts on “Textual Analysis Project: Findings & Implications”
Well done Adam – this was a well-executed presentation on a very relevant crisis, so recent and close to home. The first thing I noticed about your presentation was how easy it was to process. Visually and cognitively it was “easy on the eyes,” so to speak – your 20-odd years as a marketing professional really showed. I noticed quite a few things that (I hope) will help me in future presentations. But also critical was that your theoretical basis in the Hierarchy of needs and the method choice of Brummet’s close reading were clearly applicable and used in a way that showed you understood them fully. In the final analysis, you came across as someone who knew what he was doing. It was 7 minutes well spent – thanks for your hard work!
Hey Neely: Thanks for your feedback. After spending so much time on the OTAP , I had lost all objectivity as to whether it was worth a darn — so it was nice to get a second opinion. Look forward to watching your presentation. Take care, Adam
Hi Adam. I enjoyed your presentation, which clearly demonstrated how crisis management and control is vital to protecting the company brand from both within the organization and externally. In the Dan River spill case, Duke Energy effectively designed a crisis campaign that showed strength and unity among employees, using the words “we/us/our” frequently, and also using this display of unity to extend a deeper message about its commitment to customers; for example, the large visuals of employees with statements that include “I care about safely delivering power to our customers” (Paul Newton). Smart use of words, logos, graphics, and details to layout essentially delivered the point they aimed to convey: Duke Energy is a cohesive company who is positioned to avoid a future crisis and able to deliver on returns. Very smart marketing techniques that we can all learn from. Thanks for the excellent analysis and findings!
Adam Bernstein 
Well done Adam – this was a well-executed presentation on a very relevant crisis, so recent and close to home. The first thing I noticed about your presentation was how easy it was to process. Visually and cognitively it was “easy on the eyes,” so to speak – your 20-odd years as a marketing professional really showed. I noticed quite a few things that (I hope) will help me in future presentations. But also critical was that your theoretical basis in the Hierarchy of needs and the method choice of Brummet’s close reading were clearly applicable and used in a way that showed you understood them fully. In the final analysis, you came across as someone who knew what he was doing. It was 7 minutes well spent – thanks for your hard work!
LikeLike
Hey Neely: Thanks for your feedback. After spending so much time on the OTAP , I had lost all objectivity as to whether it was worth a darn — so it was nice to get a second opinion. Look forward to watching your presentation. Take care, Adam
LikeLike
Hi Adam. I enjoyed your presentation, which clearly demonstrated how crisis management and control is vital to protecting the company brand from both within the organization and externally. In the Dan River spill case, Duke Energy effectively designed a crisis campaign that showed strength and unity among employees, using the words “we/us/our” frequently, and also using this display of unity to extend a deeper message about its commitment to customers; for example, the large visuals of employees with statements that include “I care about safely delivering power to our customers” (Paul Newton). Smart use of words, logos, graphics, and details to layout essentially delivered the point they aimed to convey: Duke Energy is a cohesive company who is positioned to avoid a future crisis and able to deliver on returns. Very smart marketing techniques that we can all learn from. Thanks for the excellent analysis and findings!
LikeLike