An Overview of the American Cancer Society - Term Paper Example

An Overview of the American Cancer Society American Cancer Society: Overview / Brief History • An overview of the company and what it does • A brief history or timeline of the company Charitable and philanthropic organizations abound in the United States, working towards a variety of causes they identify as the reasons for their existence. The size of these organizations tends to vary, as does their funding and membership, but for the most part, all of them have had some degree of success in striving towards their identified goals. That they manage to do so in spite of the various difficulties that come their way is even more amazing, and should serve as some proof to their effectiveness in doing what they do. One of the most well-known of these today is the American Cancer Society, which has been around for almost 100 years, and which today has over 900 offices not only in the US, but in Puerto Rico as well (ACS, 2012; Charity Navigator, 2012). The society, which started out as the American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC), was founded in 1913 by 13 of New York City’s most well-known physicians and business leaders. This was no small feat, as should be apparent from how the Society has been operating even up till the present day, but its importance was even greater then, considering how people had lived in fear and denial of the killer disease, despite it claiming thousands of Americans a year. This being the case, the founders thought it best not only to establish the Society, but to further raise awareness through research and recruitment. Going by the Society’s nearly 100 years of service, it would be safe to say that it succeeded in that goal, at least, and on a major, major scale. It is known to be a nationwide, community-based voluntary organization aimed at the elimination of health problems arising from cancer, which it does through research, education, advocacy and service – all of which should be common knowledge by now. Not only that, it also works with other organizations with similar goals and objectives, an example of which would be the Commission on Cancer (American College of Surgeons, 2008). As a matter of fact, the Society is also known for designing and supporting educational programs aimed not only at medical professionals, but at the general public as well. And aside from this, it has also been known for bankrolling cancer research efforts. Examples of such studies include that of Burns et al (1972) and of Calle et al (2002), as well as a more recent one conducted by Krewski et al (2009). And on a more personal level, it assists cancer patients by way of emotional support and treatment. All these can be traced back to Marjorie G. Ollig, who in 1936 suggested that the Society take on a legion of volunteers in its fight against the illness (OrgHub.net, 2012). While even before that time, the Society had already experienced some success in its efforts, much more remained to be done, which in turn created the need for the founders to gather like-minded individuals to their cause. Today, the Society has been noted to have over two million volunteers nationwide which, again, attests to the organization’s effectiveness at striving toward its objectives. American Cancer Society: Stakeholder Publics / Top Challenges / Awards and Honors Describe the stakeholder publics, including customers, of the company • Top challenges facing the company, including the current financial market • Awards and honors the company has garnered in the past 10 years and how the company is using the awards/honors for promotion The Society has been awarded three out of four stars by Charity Navigator, or 48.86 out of 70 (Charity Navigator, 2012). While its score in the financial aspect is more or less average, its focus on accountability and transparency is very high, warranting a full four star rating. Among other things, its board members exhibit a high degree of independence when it comes to the voting process, and has a well-defined policy for compensating CEOs and for dealing with conflicts of interest. The Society as a whole has not only made quite a few breakthroughs in its fight against cancer, but has also recognized those made by other individuals and organizations with similar goals. As noted by Greenwell (2009), Dr. James Block of JA Block Health Associates was given the 2009 American Cancer Society Pathfinder in Palliative Care Award for the contributions he has made in the field of palliative care. In fact, even before this, Dr. Block was already a close collaborator of the Society, as can be seen in his extensive work with its affiliates such as the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) which, appropriately enough, is advocating a prominent role for palliative care in healthcare reform efforts. Founded in December 2001, the ACS CAN becomes a way for the Society to directly advocate its goals, which it cannot do by itself owing to restrictions stemming from its tax classification (ACS, 2012). Compared to its sister organization, the membership of ACS CAN appears to consist of those who have directly encountered cancer in some way, shape or form throughout their lives, such as cancer survivors, caregivers, patients, volunteers and students. Its efforts have also been similar, such as its support for the Affordable Care Act which is aimed at reducing cost burdens shouldered by patients and their families (Green Bay Press Gazette, 2011). Through ACS CAN, the ACS has also been pushing for federal legislation aimed at the advancement of pain care research, education, training and access, besides working closely with state governments in this regard. This is a particularly clear example of the clout wielded by the American Cancer Society, which it uses to further its own goals. What can thus be said is that the Society’s executives are fully aware of the asset posed by good public relations, and so use it to great effect in pursuit of their goals. American Cancer Society: Public Relations Based on Grunig & Hunt’s models of PR, which model is the company using? As has already been discussed above, there is no doubt about the effectiveness of the public relations campaigns of the American Cancer Society. That much is clear from their two million volunteers nationwide, to say nothing of how they even appeared in Charity Navigator’s (2012) various top 10 lists. This being the case, the next point of discussion would be exactly what PR model they follow. Collister (2002) discusses Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) four models of public relations. The first of these is the press agentry model, which Dorian Simes (2010) describes as involving the exaggeration of truth. An example of this can be seen in the descriptions usually written at the back of a book, which may among other things claim to have life-changing impact on its readers. The idea behind this is to overemphasize the product by hyping it up as the best possible product currently available on the market, in the process attracting consumers. The most important thing to remember, though, is that this model can be utilized with little no research involved. That being said, this model is far from foolproof. First and foremost, while the average customer may easily buy into the hype, more astute ones may do research of their own, and then be let down when they find that the product turns out to be less than satisfactory. When the product in question fails to live up to the hype, the market will easily find out. This will in turn have repercussions on the credibility of the company selling that product as customers who bought lackluster products would be less likely to believe them next time. Unsurprisingly, the American Cancer Society (2012) can be observed to make use of this model, first and foremost on its official website. The second model is the public information model, which Bill Sledzik (2008) describes as a transition from pseudo events and half-truths to more ethical public relations practices. Reina Heard (2008) further adds that while this model can be used effectively even without much knowledge of one’s audience, it does require accuracy in terms of the information being conveyed. One-way communication is used, encompassing a wide range of channels such as press releases, brochures and even static web content. All these channels work by being displayed in conspicuous public areas where their message is most likely to be delivered. This is another one that has been used by the American Cancer Society in copious amounts, especially in their tendency to let statistics speak for themselves, and from how it has brochures pertaining to itself available for download (ACS, 2012). Third is the two-way asymmetrical model, which as the name implies is known for being unbalanced. Rather than altering the views of the organization itself, this model instead focuses on shaping audience perceptions as a way of nudging them towards a given course of action. Finally, the two-way symmetrical model is just the opposite, having been conceptualized following further research (Grunig et al, 1992) and as a normative model prescribing the way public relations should be practiced (Grunig, 2001). It involves an organization collecting customer feedback in order to help it adjust its services to their needs and preferences. This particular model is further described as utilizing communication as a means to facilitate negotiation and conflict resolution, which in turn results in mutual understanding and respect between the organization and the public. Of this, Grunig and White (2002) attest that public relations needs to be symmetric, idealistic, critical and managerial in order to attain the most success. Again, both of these models have been used by the Society to varying extents. The asymmetrical model can be seen in how it constantly shills its own achievements and discoveries through a blog written and maintained by Dr. Leonard Lichtenfield (2012), Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the Society’s national office. The symmetrical model, on the other hand, can be observed in that the Society keeps in touch with the public through its media relations representatives, as well as through its openness to accept ideas as well as financial support. It also provides contact information for most of its high-ranking personnel as a way of further guaranteeing strong communication channels between the public and itself. That being said, the aforementioned models of public relations has not gone uncriticized, For one thing, the symmetrical model has a way of oversimplifying human behavior, which is already known for its complexity (Edwards, 2006). As a result, this model tends to overlook organizational hierarchies, as well as the internal power struggles that tend to characterize organizations in general. Both of these may serve to hamper communications within the organization. Leitch and Nelson (2001) attest to this, taking issue with the perceived misconception that publics are fixed categories and can be easily identified. On the contrary, these should be construed as being shaped, to an extent, by the discourses in which they participate. Meanwhile, Karlberg (1996) questions the way such an organizational model encourages PR practitioners to perceive the public as consumers in a marketplace they intend to dominate. Last but not least, its view of the public sphere as a liberal, democratic marketplace is fully applicable only in the US, which means that it may not be quite as effective when applied in other areas (Szondi, 2006). Regardless, the above models are still useful guides with respect to public relations. From what has been said, it should be safe to say that the American Cancer Society has and continues to make use of all four PR models to varying degrees, with mixed results. While the overall effectiveness of this has yet to be determined, what can be said is that its all-around approach to public relations has gone a long way in ensuring that its public support remains strong. ACS: Social Media Presence, Online Newsroom An analysis of how the company uses and benefits from (or could benefit from) social media An overview and critique of the company’s online newsroom Yet another proof of the effectiveness of the American Cancer Society’s public relations practices is its omnipresence on Facebook, with the ACS main page alone having over 340,000 likes. On this page, the Society’s followers are able to keep abreast of the latest developments with respect to various topics of interest, besides being able to somehow communicate with the Society itself. The American Cancer Society has easily over a million followers on Facebook alone when one takes into account its affiliates. Its official online newsroom is also geared towards facilitating easier communication with the public. As already noted, it even provides the contact information of its high-ranking officials, besides allowing real-time conversations with the public from 8:00 AM to 6:30 PM, CST. Those still unable to make it to this time slot also have yet another option in the Society’s Twitter account, which lets them keep up with the Society in real-time. Conclusion – A Possible Career with the American Cancer Society Career opportunities in PR, corporate communication, marketing, etc., within the company Based on your research of this company, are you now MORE or LESS likely to want to work for the company? Why? Career opportunities at the American Cancer Society appear to be promising, with the Society (2012) guaranteeing satisfaction and fulfillment to employees, as well as ample opportunity for advancement with good benefits all throughout. Work-life balance – something virtually every employee considers when he goes job hunting – is also emphasized as a benefit enjoyed by those working with the Society. All things considered, then, is a career with the Society something worth a try? This researcher thinks so. For this researcher, he can very much say that a career with the American Cancer Society is something he is now considering seriously. For one thing, he himself has experienced losing a relative to cancer as recently as the 2010, and so the idea of doing what he can to keep the body count from climbing is one he does not take lightly. The look on his uncle’s face as he slowly succumbed to the lung cancer he had been fighting for almost a year is something he will never forget, and would rather not have to see ever again. Nor are the Society’s achievements and accomplishments anything to trifle with. As a multitude of sources will attest, they have been a major, major player in the battle against cancer, and have gone a long way towards their objective of creating a world where loved ones are no longer lost to the killer disease. That they have millions of volunteers nationwide also counts for something, and is a testament to the nobility of their goals and objectives. This researcher’s struggle with this paper has given him the opportunity to explore the possibility of helping the Society achieve its noble ends – ends which the researcher has now come to identify with. If nothing else, a career at the American Cancer Society would be infinitely more desirable than having to work the graveyard shift at a call center, which this researcher has actually experienced. The biggest difference, in this researcher’s opinion at least, is that one working with the Society actually feels that he is making a significant difference in the world, rather than having to chug down coffee just to stay awake through yet another irate caller’s tirade. References American Cancer Society (2012) About Us: Employment Opportunities. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/EmploymentOpportunities/index American Cancer Society (2012) ACS History. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA_1_4_ACS_History.asp American Cancer Society (2012) Pressroom: Media Relations Contacts. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://pressroom.cancer.org/index.php?s=11 American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (2012) About Us. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/WhoWeAre/what-we-do?sitearea=AA&level=1 Burns, D. M., Shanks, T. G., Choi, W., Thun, M. J., Heath, C. W., Garfinkel, L. (1972) The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study I: 12-year followup of 1million men and women. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph, 8. Calle, E. E., Rodriguez, C., Jacobs, E. J., Almon, M. L., Chao, A., McCullough, M. L., Feigelson, H. S. and Thun, M. J. (2002) The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort: Rationale, Study Design, and Baseline Characteristics. Cancer, 94, 500–511. Charity Navigator (2012) American Cancer Society. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=147 Charity Navigator (2012) Top 10 All Time Most Popular Charity Ratings. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=147 Collister, S. (2002) Grunig vs Pieczka. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://simoncollister.typepad.com/GrunigvsPieczka.pdf Edwards, L., (2006) Systems theories: emergence of public relations research. In R. Tench & L. Yeomans. (Eds.), Exploring Public Relations (pp.143-164). Harlow: Pearson Eduction Ltd. FundingUniverse (2012) History of the American Cancer Society. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/the-american-cancer-society-history/ Green Bay Press Gazette (2011) Top facts about the Affordable Care Act. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from from http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111113/GPG06/111130605/Top-Facts-About-Affordable-Care-Act Greenwell, C. (2009) American Cancer Society honors outstanding innovative achievements in palliative care. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/acs-acs101309.php Grunig, J. & Hunt, T. (1984) Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. & White, J. (1992) The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory and Practice. In J. Grunig et al. (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp.31-65). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. (1992) Communication, public relations and effective organisations: An overview of the book. In J. Grunig et al. (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp.1-28). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In R.L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations. (pp.11-30). London: Sage. Grunig, L., Grunig, J. & Dozier, D. (2002) Models of Public Relations. In Grunig, L., Grunig, J. & Dozier, D., Excellent public relations and effective organisations: A study of communication management in three countries (pp. 306-383). Mahwah: new jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heard, R. (2008) BOA is USING which MODEL of PR:Grunig & Hunt's Models of PR. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://spiritofthesun.blogspot.com/2008/12/boa-is-using-which-model-of-prgrunig.html Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, pp. 262-278. Krewski, D., Jerrett, M., Burnett, R. T., Ma, R., Hughes, E., Shi, Y., Turner, M. C., Pope, A., Thurston, G., Calle, E. E. and Thun, M. J. (2009) Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. Health Effects Institute. Leitch, S. & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: new theoretical frameworks for the practice. In R.L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations. (pp.127-138). London: Sage. Lichtenfield, J. L. (2012) Dr. Len’s Cancer Blog: Expert perspective, insight and discussion. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://www.cancer.org/AboutUs/DrLensBlog/default OrgHub.net (2012) American Cancer Society History. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://americancancersociety.orghub.net/pages/history.html Simes, D. (2010) Theoretical contexts – Grunig and Hunt’s four models. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://doriansimes.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/theoretical-contexts-grunig-and-hunts-four-models/ Sledzik, B. (2008) The ‘4 models’ of public relations practice: how far have you evolved? Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://toughsledding.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/the-4-models-of-public-relations-practice-how-far-have-you-evolved/ The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study I: 12-Year Followup of 1Million Men and Women (2008) American College of Surgeons. University of Florida (2012) The importance of the four models of public relations. Retrieved on September 25, 2012 from http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall99/Westbrook/models.htm Read More