Pr Editable Form 2010: Fill & Download for Free

It's difficult to provide a ''one size fits all'' answer.To a large extent, it depends how narrowly or broadly you want to define PR in terms of where its boundaries lie with other marketing activities. It also depends whether you want to gain a general overview of PR activities or delve more deeply into specific areas - eg, healthcare, financial, fashion & beauty - each of which demands a specialised approach. Finally, there's a distinction to be drawn between PR strategy (the 'why?') and implementation (the 'how?').Frustratingly, my own (British) professional organisation, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, hides most of its more useful information behind a members-only wall. But it may still be worth visiting its website at www.cipr.co.uk. More useful in terms of case histories and thought leader material is the website of the Public Relations Consultants Association: www.prca.org.uk.Many academic textbooks on PR are dated by virtue of having been written prior to the arrival of Web 2.0 and social media. That doesn't render them useless by any means but be careful to consider the extra dimension(s) that social media may have introduced.Try:Exploring Public Relations R Tench & L Yeomans (Prentice Hall)and (all by C Fill and published by Prentice Hall):Marketing Communications: Contexts, Strategies and Applications 2001Marketing Communications: Engagements, Strategies & Practice 2006Marketing Communications:Interactivity, Community and Content 2009Much less academic in approach, but absolutely up-to-date and great value in terms of the ideas and approach it fosters:The New Rules of Marketing & PR D M Scott (Wiley) 2nd edition 2010

To be honest, I'm not surprised.Although I didn't expected that she will go there but when I heard that she went, I was not surprised as she is also from Bollywood and entire industry is known to praise Pakistan and do outrage selectively on any topic. They can go to any extent to promote their movies.My friend sent me this:Ab Deepika bhi(Now Deepika too)Umeed nhi thi(It was not expected)I replied:-Mre liye unexpected nhi tha. (It was not unexpected for me)To be honest,Bollywood wale kch bhi kr skte hai. (To be honest, Bollywood stars can do anything).I think she will face the fate of Shahrukh Khan as as far I remember Shahrukh too said something before Dilwale movie, after that mone of his movies became hit.Many people are saying that some spice PR was behind this PR stunt of Deepika.#DeepikaPadukone#boycottchhapaakWhat's common, between Farhan n Deepika's presence in most controversial protest?Ans:Both are clients of Spice PR.No matter what are the concern of common people, publicity plays its role. pic.twitter.com/rcbE1k8TiB— Sabrina Jaiswal (@JaiswalSabrina) January 8, 2020She could have visited Nirbhaya’s mother as yesterday only she got justice but she shared platform with the guy who is accused of harrassing a girl. Irony is that she is doing a movie on women safety!EDIT:-Why is everyone surprised with #DeepikaPadukone supporting anti-India gang at JNU?Didn’t you know who is her real inspiration?Now, let the whole world know. Share it as much as you can. pic.twitter.com/JK5oWETb5x— Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri (@vivekagnihotri) January 8, 2020She was fond of Rahul Gandhi since 2010.

I took Justice in 2010, and I remember that lecture! Ah, fall of freshman year, how cute...I was there when Prof. Sandel asked (as he does every year): "How many of you are first in birth order?"(video from 2009)I raised my hand with about 80% of the class. So did Prof. Sandel. And so did the kid who was arguing that success wasn't arbitrary.Perhaps this is a biased sample. Maybestudents with higher birth orders are less likely to take Justice as their Ethical Reasoning (a curriculum requirement that can be fulfilled by other classes)students with higher birth orders are less likely to attend lecturefirstborns are try-hards who always go to lectureherd mentality made everyone raise their hands even if they weren't first-born childrenthere are simply more firstborns in the general population, so there are more firstborns in the Harvard populationOr, maybe, there are indeed more firstborns in the Harvard population, but not for the reasons he cites.This year the Crimson published a survey of 1,311 (80%) of the Class of 2017. It notes thatMost freshmen said that they were either the oldest or youngest child in their family, while 16 percent said that they were middle children. Sixteen percent said they did not have siblings.Hang on a minute, this means that almost all of the "either oldest or youngest" respondents would need to be on the "oldest" side to give us about 80% firstborn. Maybe Sandel has a point.But I figured I shouldn't just take him at his word, even though it was a pretty cool moment in class when everyone raised their hands. Here's a report by the U.S. Census Bureau. On page 4, we can see the number of households by number of children:None: 77,844,222One: 15,902,634Two: 13,414,048Three: 5,430,075Four: 2,400,746This means there are 37,147,503 firstborns and 31,476,436 non-firstborns, unless I did my math wrong. Margin of error is on the order of thousands; good grief, census-taking is hard. Especially if you consider the error, the numbers are pretty much equal (~54% firstborns). In this source, 41% of newborns in 1991 were firstborns, which is nothing like the 80% we saw in Justice.But wait! There's another factor we're missing. A well-known trend:And here are the results of the survey of the freshman class. (Note that the chart above only goes to $75,000 and over; here the upper limit is $500,000.)I suspect that rather than setting aside "economics, class, those very significant differences" as Prof. Sandel had hoped, the mystery of the high-achieving firstborn could partly be explained by differences in number of children by household income.To figure out if this can account for the 80% discrepancy, maybe we'd need a statistic on the distribution of number of children over income brackets...Edit: Thanks to Jelle Zijlstra for pointing out this source: Are first-borns more likely to attend Harvard? They do a much better job exploring the "prosecutor's fallacy": assuming thatPr (firstborn | Harvard) = Pr (Harvard | firstborn)when actually,Pr (firstborn | Harvard) = Pr (Harvard | firstborn) * Pr (firstborn) / Pr (Harvard)They conclude thatWhen only the birth order effect is present, the fertility rate of mothers of Harvard students must be the same as that in the general population of mothers, approximately 2.44 ... [This] requires first-born children be 4.3–5.8 times more likely to attend Harvard.[T]he data can also be explained without recourse to any birth-order effect at all if the fertility rate of mothers with children at Harvard is 1.25–1.33.Sometimes our intuitions about the meaning of data are just as flawed, and in need of the discipline of reason, as our intuitions about morality. This is surely a lesson that philosophers can relate to!