Idea Industry Contribution, Interview With a Recent Grad

Interview with Recent Grad: Kerry Merrill

Describe your role as a project manager. 

“My boss at Wieden explained this in the best way. 
Project Managers are the coaches of an ad team. 
Our main priority is to get the best work finished in the easiest, most efficient process as possible. 
We work very closely with the creative team and the account to ensure things are moving along. Essentially being the liaison between the two teams.
You have to be on top of the campaign as much as possible and be one step ahead of the creative work knowing what to do next when something comes up.
If someone has a question. I have the answer.
If a crisis comes up. I know what to do next.
AKA I have to be high key psychic.” 

How do you think project management differs from account management?


“The difference between project management and account management is the client.
I work closely with the creative team overseeing the creative whereas an account manager works heavily with the client.
Account managers work with project managers relaying feedback from the client to the creatives to make sure any and all feedback is addressed and translated
.”

How is it changing? Where do you see it going in the future? Have you noticed any trends? 


“Being in the industry for only about 8 months now, I don’t have a lot of take on how it’s changed in the past, but my incredible boss at Saatchi is constantly emphasizing how our roles are becoming more complex as advertising is evolving.
Before, a project manager was considered more of an admin position whereas now, we are integrated in every aspect of a campaign from start to finish.
For example, I take on a lot of producer and art director roles along with being a project manager because sometimes you have to jump in and take over when you see a project going south.” 

What skills or characteristics are critical for being a good project manager? 


“Project managers can’t give a shit what someone is going to think of you.
It is important to be stern and confident when it comes to calling out red flags even if that means in front of the entire team.
You have to be hyper aware of everything that is being said in meetings and jump in when something doesn’t seem right. 
Strong communication skills is KEY in this position. Having the ability to read people and understand how they work is crucial. 
You also have to be able to develop respectable relationships with each person on your team because they have to trust you or nothing will get done because no one will listen to you.”

Does any part of being a project manager scare you? 


“Everything about being a project manager scares me. However, I wouldn’t be doing this position if it didn’t. (If you’re not scared, you’re not in the right field)
 With so much riding on you, one minor slip up can cause an avalanche of more problems.
”

What are some challenges you face daily. 

“We are some of the first to walk into the office and some of the last to leave.
In advertising, challenges are constant throughout your day.
For example, your entire creative team could be dead set on their idea and when they present it to the ECD (executive creative director), maybe the ECD doesn’t think it’ll work.
Timelines are so tight, the team has to stay late into the night at the office in these situations to brainstorm and concept entirely new ideas. 
Or on the other side, if you present to the client and THEY don’t like it, that really fucks up everyone and puts the campaign back to square one.
Some challenges are minor and some can be massive. It really depends on the day.
”

Who do you work the closest with? 


“I work closest with our creative teams, ECDs, creative directors, and our CCO (chief creative officer).
”

What is a day at the office like?


“A day at the office usually starts around 9-10AM beginning with an all team status meeting to catch up on what the day will look like.
I and the account team usually leads this.
Throughout the day, there are creative reviews allowing for creatives to catch up with their creative directors and/or ECDs on the work to receive and address their feedback. I sit in on those and monitor the meetings to take notes and send to the creatives for reference. 
If there is a client presentation that day, it’s usually high stress and we are finalizing the deck to ensure we are completely prepared for the review. 
Sometimes I leave by 6PM. Sometimes I leave by midnight.”

What is your role throughout each project? (beginning/middle/end) Does it stay consistent?


“At the beginning, I help source teams. This means that I work with our creative manager to pick the best teams to work on that specific campaign. 
I then create a full timeline including all key dates to send to the entire team in preparation for the creative briefing.
 Once the timeline and teams are agreed upon, we brief teams.
I’d say the middle of projects are full of creative reviews, full team internals, and client reviews. 
This is called creative development. I oversee everything going on and schedule all meetings involving the creatives to move things along.
When the creative is locked, it goes into production. 
At this point, the producer begins to take over and I continue to stay aware of what’s going on, but don’t really do much from there besides keep in the know of the work.  (Except when producers are unavailable. These are the times I mentioned earlier when I have to step in and take on roles outside of my position)

.”

 How did you get into project management? / when did you know you wanted to be a project manager? 
“ I got into project management after speaking with the recruiter at Wieden + Kennedy on the NYC New York trip.I was very torn on the direction I wanted to pursue and she previously was a project manager and felt as though I had the personality and drive to be able to handle project management. I have always been a very organized person and I wanted a position that allowed for me to be a part of every aspect of a campaign.I didn’t want to be secluded to just one part of it.I loved the idea of getting to work closely with higher up creatives and getting the opportunity to run the organization of campaigns.”

A Stream of Consciousness

This blog is here to serve my millions of uncontrollable, sometimes even unrealistic thoughts. I hope they serve someone, but if not, at least it’s an attempt to organize my thoughts and prioritize the important things in life. 

I don’t really know who is interested in reading about what I have to say, but here it goes. I am passionate about many things, maybe even to a fault. All in one year I wanted to be an editor for a fashion magazine, a Jordan x Nike footwear designer, a dermatologist, and a copywriter for an advertising agency. Does this mean that I do not know what I want to do, or that I have so career interests that could make me happy? I hope for the latter, but how will we ever know if the path we choose was the best or most successful? We don’t, and thats okay, but does anyone else struggle with confidence in their career when they think of all the other things they love as well? I am realizing that there may be many paths we could take, and one is not better or worse than the other. How we treat the journey and the process is what makes us successful when it’s all said and done.

Idea Industry Contribution, Things and Sites to Follow

Things + sites to follow

The One Club for Creativity: The One Club is a non-profit organization that strives to celebrate creativity within the workplace. They offer programs, events, and articles that are advantageous for thinkers and doers alike. Any level of project manager would benefit from being a member. 

The One Show: The One Show, produced by The One Club is an awards competition in advertising and design, judged every year by top industry professionals. 

The One Club Podcast: Podcasts about advertising made by people in the industry, for people in the industry. 

Social media to follow: Instagram and Twitter

We Are Next: We Are Next offers a mix of resources, including  job listings and weekly emails. This site is loaded with advice on how to excel in the industry and is extremely beneficial to new project managers getting their foot in the door of the industry. 

We Are Next Podcast: 

Social media to follow: Twitter

The New York Times: Secret weapon for project managers to get their news so they are educated on current events that may affect their projects.

Wherearethebossladies.com: A team of females who made a website about other women who are in boss positions at different ad agencies around the world. A good tool for women AND men new to the ad industry to see who is in management positions and where. Also beneficial for people already deep in the industry to find females in the industry, if needed. 

Follow them on Instagram @wherearethebossladies

Twitter:

@elonmusk 

Elon Musk is an innovator through and through. Although his creativity and profession may not be directly related to advertising, he is an interesting, avant-garde public figure that pushes the envelope. A twitter follow that could encourage leadership that does the same.

@KatyPerry

What does Katy Perry know? Unknown, but she has the most followers on Twitter with a whopping 108.37 million. Following her could provide some insight into what people are looking for in the social media sphere. Which, in turn, could help a project manager guide his or her team to grab the attention of a broad spectrum of people.

A Paper on Threatening Language in the Age of Social Media

Threatening Language and Social Media 

The lack of clarity surrounding the legality of threatening speech has been an issue pertaining to communication law, which has lead to questionable court rulings in cases involving threatening speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution is not absolute and does not protect certain forms of speech, including “fighting words” or threatening speech if it constitutes a true threat. [1]True threats encompass any statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals even though the speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. [2]However, what speech is considered to be a true threat is difficult to distinguish, especially when the speech takes place on social media. With Social Media use as prominent as ever, there are millions of people posting on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms daily, and everyone wants to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech. Commonly found among these posts are examples of threatening speech, however, it is difficult to recognize the level of intent expressed by written statements. The lack of clarity pertaining to what degree threatening speech should be protected raises the question of under what circumstances should threatening language on social media be considered true threat. Without intent, there is no crime. Tocreate a more defined line between threatening and non threatening speech, the law should require proof of a subjective intent in court to determine threatening speech as a true threat. 

            The prominent issue pertaining to threatening speech and social media is the lack of a system, or test, to determine if language is found to be considered a true threat or not. Because of this lack of a set system, courts resort to statutory interpretation and objective reasoning as means of ruling certain cases involving threatening speech. Objective reasoning, also known as the reasonable person standard, which is an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.[3]An objective standard could lead to an innocent person ending up in jail, and therefore, courts must distinguish protected speech from statements meant to inflict fear or harm.

In any definition or meaning of the word “threat” or “threaten”, another person’s feelings is not relevant or present, as the objective standard follows. However, every definition of threat does include a component about intent. The Oxford Dictionary defines threat as, “a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done”. [4]The Merriam-Webster dictionary states that threat is, “an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.” [5]The definition of threat found in the Free Dictionary states that threat is, “an expression of an intention to inflict pain, harm, or punishment”, or, “an indication of impending danger or harm”. [6]All of these English definitions of the word threat include parts about intent, which is the basis for the subjective standard. A subjective standard takes into consideration the mindset of the individual, which makes the most sense in dealing with rulings of cases involving threatening speech. In a subjective test the courts must prove that the speaker intended to make a statement and that he intended his remarks to be received as a threat. This test was adopted in the case of United States v. Casselwhere the court emphasized the requirement that “communication itself be intentional, but also the requirement that the speaker intended for his language to threaten the victim.” [7]

The ruling of the case Elonis v United States directly struggles with the issue of defining threatening speech as a true threat, includingwhat intent the statute requires for conviction and whether that proof is sufficient under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. [8]Elonis was convicted under Section 875(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Codewhich criminalizes the transmission of threats in interstate commerce.[9]The law states that, “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” [10] However, the test that we use to decide if threatening speech poses a true threat is not very reliable. For a criminal offense that has such great consequences, the outcome of a case should not rely on a reasonable objective person, and should depend on a subjective test or standard. 

After his wife left him and took their children, Anthony Elonis posted threatening rap lyrics to Facebook. [11]Included in the rap lyrics were statements to co-workers, the public, his wife, law enforcement, a kindergarten, and a federal agent, which were posted under the name of “Tone Dougie”. [12]The threatening lyrics about his wife read: 

“Hi, I’m Tone Elonis. Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want tokill my wife? It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to say. . . Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife . . . Um, but what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to say I really, really think someone out there should kill my wife. . .. But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher.  Because that’s its own sentence . . .. I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be from the cornfield behind it because of easy access to a getaway road and you’d have a clear line of sight through the sun room. . .. Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated diagram. [diagram of the house] . . ..” [13]

Although Elonis may have not acted upon his speech, it is clearly threatening. He descriptively explains how he would kill his wife and could be considered a threat to his family and the public.  In reaction to the lyrics, his wife stated in court that she was in fear for her life, but there is no set system to prove that the statements possessed the intent to harm any of the victims of his lyrics, even though they were extremely threatening and would be found to threaten most people. This is where the common use of the reasonable person standard can be proved to not be effective in communication law. In the case, Elonis appealed and argued that "true threats" require a subjective intent to threaten. [14]After an FBI agent left his house, Elonis posted on Facebook:

So the next time you knock, you best be serving a warrant

And bring yo’ SWAT and an explosives expert while you’re at it

Cause little did y’all know, I was strapped wit’ a bomb

Why do you think it took me so long to get dressed with no shoes on?

I was jus’ waitin’ for y’all to handcuff me and pat me down

Touch the detonator in my pocket and we’re all goin’ [15]

Proof of subjective intent to threaten should be necessary in any case, and if the defendant was saying that he had no intent to harm anyone, why would he write a post on Facebook about bombing an FBI agent? In this ruling, the court held that an objective standard would risk punishing an innocent person because the crucial element that makes this behavior criminal is the threat, not merely the posting, which is why we need to use a subjective test for threatening speech. [16]The intensity to Elonis’ words should serve some poof of intent to threaten. 

            However, on the other side of the argument, people feel differently about proving intent and value the objective standard.  According to the Obama administration, requiring proof that a speaker intended to be threatening would undermine the law’s protective purpose. In its brief to the court, the Justice Department argues that no matter what someone believes about his comments, it doesn’t lessen the fear and anxiety they might cause for other people. [17]Courts described threats as “unpleasantly sharp attacks”, which is the closest possible description to a true threat without calling it that specifically, so the speech can remain protected under the First Amendment. [18]However, the district court instructed the jury that a "true threat," which falls outside the scope of First Amendment speech protections, requires an objective intent to threaten. The minority ruling of the case wasthat a defendant can be found guilty of communicating a threat, even if he did not intend that his words be taken in that manner, as long as a reasonable person would have understood his words as threatening. Contrastingly, the minority view requires not only that a speaker’s words be reasonably perceived as a threat, but also that the speaker intended that his words be seen or heard in precisely that way. [19]The gray area between these two views continues to provoke the question, where do we draw the line between regulating threatening speech and an individual’s right to free speech?  

Threatening speech on social media should not be as protected as verbal speech by the First Amendment to lessen the confusion in courts and increase the feeling of public safety by individuals. The case of Elonis v United States exemplifies the issue in communication law in defining on what level threatening speech is considered true threat. The use of a subjective test in courts would aid in the debate and uncertainty in determining what speech is to be considered true threat. The use of a subjective test would be more reliable in courts than an objective test which brings in a third party to determine the ruling of a defendant. A subjective test requires proof to be necessary and reduces the risk of an innocent person serving time, but also more consistently assures that someone with the intent to harm someone receives the correct case ruling. Social Media is a constantly growing area of communication and variations to laws and new laws are in need of being implemented to maintain safety online and in person.   

[1]Olson, Kathleen K. "The First Amendment in Theory and Practice." Communication and The 

Law. Northport, Alabama: Vision, 2016. Print.

[2]"Virginia v. Black." Justia Law. US Supreme Court, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

[3]"Reasonable Person Standard." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 May 2016.

[4]"Definition of Threat in English." Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 22 

May 2016.

[5]"Theat." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 22 May 2016.

[6]"Definition of Threat." The Free Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2016.

[7]Larkin, Paul, and Jordan RichardsonThe. "True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment 

Protection."The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

[8]Larkin, Paul, and Jordan RichardsonThe. "True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment 

Protection."The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

[9]"Elonis v United States." Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2016.

[10]"18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate Communications." Cornell University Law School. Legal 

            Information Institute, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

[11]Hananel, Sam. "Should Threatening Speech Be Protected on Facebook?" PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 

21 May 2016.

[12]Snow, Eric. "Elonis v. United States: Social Media Posts and Specific Criminal Intent?" 

Radford University Virginia Police Legal Bulletin. Radford University, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

[13]Snow, Eric. "Elonis v. United States: Social Media Posts and Specific Criminal Intent?" 

Radford University Virginia Police Legal Bulletin. Radford University, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

[14]"Elonis v United States." Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2016.

[15]Larkin, Paul, and Jordan RichardsonThe. "True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment 

            Protection." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.

[16]"Elonis v United States." Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2016.

[17]Hananel, Sam. "Should Threatening Speech Be Protected on Facebook?" PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 

21 May 2016.

[18]Hananel, Sam. "Should Threatening Speech Be Protected on Facebook?" PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 

21 May 2016.

[19]Larkin, Paul, and Jordan RichardsonThe. "True Threats and the Limits of First Amendment 

            Protection." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 May 2016.