Digg/shelholtz
Flickr/shelholtz
Facebook/Shel Holtz
Linkedin/shelholtz
Twitter/shel
YouTube/shelholtz
Del.icio.us/shelholtz
GMail/Shel Holtz
Technorati/shelholtz
MyBlogLog/shelholtz
Utterz/shel
§ Subscribe
§ Utterz
§ Podcast
- For Immediate Release
A weekly podcast for professional communicators from Shel Holtz, ABC and Neville Hobson, ABC.
Podcast Feed
Vote for FIR
§ PR Search
§ Places
- Shel's link blog
- Blogs I read
- Holtz Communication + Technology
- IABC
- Ragan Communications
- Society for New Communications Research
§ Dead Trees
- How to Do Everything with Podcasting
by Shel Holtz with Neville Hobson
- Blogging for Business
by Shel Holtz and Ted Demopoulos
- Corporate Conversations
by Shel Holtz
- Public Relations on the Net
by Shel Holtz
§ License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Ethics
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Ragan spotlights Britannica WebShare
Ragan Communications—one of my clients—has produced a video of an interview with Jorge Cauz, the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, another one of my clients. I love it when synergies like this happen. How often can you hype two clients in one post?
Ragan also has a write-up on WebShare, Britannica’s initiative to provide bloggers with access to Britannica content. Staff writer Melissa Underwood wonders about the ethics of offering free accounts to bloggers, an issue I haven’t seen surfaced anywhere else. No comments so far, but it’ll be interesting to see what people have to say.
Ethics • Social Media • Web • (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Following up on the case study proposal
Dan York points me to a post from Jeff Pulver about what he wants from a PR firm. The underlying message: In most cases, these typically are not the things he actually gets. His post lists the kind of problems he experiences, from interns assigned to his account to account reps taking credit for his work.
Pulver, CEO founder and chairman of Pulver Media, is widely read, as are Chris Anderson and Tom Coates—just three who have used their blogs to complain about bad PR practices. (There have been—and will be—many others.) This rising tide of negative publicity about the profession is what led me to propose that agencies post case studies for each engagement that outline their approach to the assignment.
In a post calling the proposal “unfeasible,” Clemson PR professor Mihaela Vorvoreanu suggests that the work of PR bloggers will will improve the PR’s reputation and professionalism. It’s a nice thought—and it’s certainly flattering that there are those who believe we can influence the behavior of others. Experience is a cruel teacher, though, and it has become clear to me that social media is a two-edged sword. While we can blog our opposition to unethical behavior, anybody can use social media to engage in just such practices. As I noted in the post proposing the case-study solution, our profession will always be contaminated by these people. Social media gives prominent bloggers a channel for complaining about them. Consequently, all of us are painted with the same brush.
The case study proposal is a means by which we can begin painting our own picture, particularly since nobody seems interested in enforcing the existing codes of ethics to which members of professional associations are supposed to adhere.
Objections to the proposal fall into two camps:
- We can’t expose our secret sauce to competitors
- Nobody has the time to write these case studies
I’m not suggesting that we give away any secrets, although I question how many firms have the equivalent of the recipe for Coca-Cola in their vaults. Generally, what distinguishes one agency from another is the quality of its people and its leadership. It’s an incestuous business where people bounce from firm to firm. (Look at David Jones as one example; the author of the PR Works blog worked for Thornley Fallis, then went to Fleishman Hillard, and is currently at Hill & Knowlton. I don’t suspect each firm erased his memory when he left to keep him from sharing their secrets with his new employer.)
The case studies are meant to be published after the PR effort is launched and would be summaries, one-pagers that encapsulate the steps taken. Any good agency is already producing a written project plan; it shouldn’t take more than a few minutes to edit the plan into a web-ready outline.
Of course, I’m not so naive as to believe that the case study idea will be broadly adopted as some sort of industry standard. I just think those who do begin publishing their work plans will stand apart as the blogosphere-wide condemnation of PR continues to spread.
Ethics • PR • Social Media • (13) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Monday, November 26, 2007
A proposal for raising the profile of ethical PR
The latest controversy over deceptive and unethical PR practices doesn’t even involve a public relations agency. No, this time Dan Ackerman Greenberg is in the hot seat after posting the steps he and his company, The Commotion Group (which describes itself as “New Media and Marketing and Consulting") take to improve the chances a YouTube video will go viral. These include having staff members post heated comments to the videos they’re promoting and using misleading titles to draw viewers to the video.
The fact that The Commotion Group doesn’t tout itself as a PR firm won’t help offset the damage the firm’s revelations has caused. Once again, the behaviors of those who seem untroubled by deceptive tactics are tainting everybody working on similar projects regardless of the steps they have taken to ensure they are behaving ethically.
Sadly, this will continue to be the case. Those too lazy to employ ethical techniques, those who delight in misleading consumers, and those who will do anything for a buck will always be with us. The question, then, is this: How do the rest of us differentiate ourselves and deflect the bad rap PR and marketing are getting thanks to the actions of the bottom-feeders?
The idea of a code of ethics has surfaced several times, but it’s a non-starter. The codes of ethics already in place are having no significant impact; PRSA goes so far as to insist there is no enforcement behind its code. A code without teeth is hollow, since only those inclined to behave ethically in the first place will abide by it while others may claim to embrace it while simultaneously violating it since they will suffer no consequences for doing so.
I’ve been toying with a possible solution that I’m ready to propose. This idea has been percolating in my head for a while and I can’t find a downside.
Companies or agencies engaged in a PR or marketing effort should create a page that outlines the elements of the assignment. The page would include the goal, objectives, strategies and tactics. Objectives should include any metrics the project is designed to achieve. Each tactic would include the specifics about approaches taken. For example, if blogger outreach is one tactic, the outline would cover the steps taken, from how bloggers are identified to how they are contacted.
Call it disclosure. Call in transparency. It would end speculation about how a company or agency goes about its communications. Those who adopt the practice should stand apart from the rest of the herd, assuming they are honest and forthright in their reporting. If enough organizations adopt this idea, those who do not share their project plans may be perceived as having something to hide. If you’re looking for a template for the contents of such a page, look no further than the evaluation form for IABC Gold Quill judging. If you can answer all of these questions on your project pages, you’ll be in good shape. (The link is to a PDF of the form.)
It seems to me an ideal way to draw a line between ethical and unethical practitioners.
For those who would shy away from such transparency, it’s an idea you’d best get used to. After all, deceptive project plans are being revealed all the time. Why not expose your approaches to the light of day? It could wind up being the best PR you could possibly produce for your agency. And for those who see this is extra unbillable work, look at the bright side: Your IABC or PRSA award competition entries will already be completed.
Ethics • PR • Social Media • (17) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Friday, November 09, 2007
Only ethical people will abide by a voluntary code of ethics
I was not aware that the Public Relations Society of America added the following language to its Code of Ethics until Adam Denison pointed it out to me:
Emphasis on enforcement of the Code has been eliminated...Ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member.
The general reaction to efforts aimed at establishing a code of ethics in the blogosphere has been that those who are not inclined to behave ethically won’t abide by such a code because there are no consequences. It is best left to the organizations to which these people belong to enforce their own codes. BUt if the organizations that supposedly hold members to ethical standards are not willing to take action to enforce those standards, then they have absolutely no meaning.
Right now, the practice of public relations is under assault. Hardly a week goes by without somebody taking aim at PR, usually over actions taken that range from naieve to clueless to blatantly unethical. If ever there was a time the profession needed to get serious about policing itself, it’s now. Enforcement of an ethics code can show everybody outside of PR that we are serious about the way we practice our craft. It can make it clear that those who behave contrary to the code are a minority, even if they do get the lion’s share of attention from media and bloggers.
Yet PRSA seems to have tucked its tail between its legs and left it to each member to choose whether to abide by the association’s code. That’s discouraging.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Unacceptable behavior in a feud between PR firms
The Code of Ethics that binds members of the International Association of Business Communicators features several provisions, among them…
- Professional communicators refrain from taking part in any undertaking which the communicator considers to be unethical.
- Professional communicators do not use confidential information gained as a result of professional activities for personal benefit and do not represent conflicting or competing interests without written consent of those involved.
Further, Article 1—which deals with “honest, candid and timely communication”—begins with these words: “Professional communicators uphold the credibility and dignity of their profession.”
I am most familiar with this code because of my 30-year membership in IABC. I have never been a member of the Public Relations Society of America, but PRSA’s code includes similar language:
- Public relations professionals work constantly to strengthen the public’s trust in the profession.
- (It is a member’s responsibility to) build respect and credibility with the public for the profession of public relations.
PRSA’s code also addresses hiring practices, requiring members to “Follow ethical hiring practices designed to respect free and open competition without deliberately undermining a competitor.”
Finally, there’s the Council of Public Relations Firms, whose code of ethics offers this concrete rule:
Members of the Council commit to standards of practice that assure clients, the public and media, employees, and business partners and vendors the highest level of professionalism and ethical conduct in every relationship with a Council member. This commitment is a requirement for application and continued membership in the Council.
If either BlinnPR or 5WPR are not censured by any of these three organizations to which they may happen to belong, then we can relegate these codes of ethics to the dustbin of inefficacy. Both organizations have engaged in behavior that stains the profession and reinforces the worst perceptions of public relations. If ever there was an incident over which these codes need to be implemented, the BlinnPR/5WPR slugfest is it.
Equally disturbing is the fact that the smackdown started over Chris Anderson’s post that called the PR profession out for unprofessional behavior! You may remember that Anderson listed over 300 email addresses of PR people who sent him unrequested, irrelevant pitches. Gleeful that his nobody from his own company was included, Steve Blinn evidently sent emails to employees and clients of 5WPR, employees of which did make Anderson’s blacklist. 5WPR could taken the high road as the aggrieved party. Sadly, both EVP Adam Handelsman and founder Ronn Torossian opted to sink to the same level, threatening to poach Blinn employees and clients. You can read many of these emails over at Silicon Alley Insider, which is covering the story, but here’s just a taste from an email Torossian apparently sent to Blinn employees:
Show us your paychecks and we will give you a $20K raise. Email me anonymously. If you send me your clients contact info and we close them I will give you $10K and your firm will never ever know. Please feel free to contact me and no one will ever know.
Restraint and dignity are clearly notions alien to both parties involved, and the result is the reinforcement of all those perceptions we struggle to overcome every day. Take, for example, this comment posted to the Silicon Alley Insider blog:
Ah, this is nice to see. I always thought that PR was a bullshit industry run by idiots who generally do more harm than good for your company.... and now I see that this is the case.
Thanks for the insightful emails… always good to see the shards exposed for the jackasses they are.
Like Lawywers and Venture Capitalsits, these are parasites on the creative and productive.... and their desperation makes it clear that they know it!
We need this? We don’t have enough trouble building PR’s reputation as a valued and ethical service? Once again, all the hard-working, professional practitioners who serve their clients’ needs and interests by toiling every day to be innovative and ethical are painted by the brush wielded by fools who clearly care more about their own feud than they do the public relations profession of which they are a part.
There has been some coverage of the BlinnPR/5WPR catfight, but most of it has reflected amusement. Ed Lee, in his terrific post, says, “Fantastic stuff—I had a great laugh while studiously ignoring some crappy medical drama…”
Maybe I have no sense of humor, but I didn’t laugh. There can be no excuse for this kind of behavior and the associations that oversee the profession cannot condone it.
You can find more reporting on the dustup here:
Neville and I also covered this on today’s FIR.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Ownership doesn’t necessarily equal hypocricy
A couple days ago, as I was checking out the latest view-count for the Dove “Onslaught” video on You Tube, I stumbled upon a video that took the “Self-Esteem” campaign to task. The video—which included bits and pieces from “Onslaught”—called out Unilever for its alleged hypocricy: The same company that owns Dove and its “Campaign for Real Beauty,” which decries the expectations the beauty and advertising industry force on young girls—also owns Axe, the men’s skin-care line that uses those very same images to sell its product.
Here’s the video:
I’ve been thinking ever since I saw the video about my response. Interestingly, Sarah Wurrey from CustomScoop posted about a video that makes exactly the same case in with a little less bashing over the head:
The LA Times was all over this, too, reporting on The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood’s letter-writing campaign aimed at yanking the Axe ad campaign.
The Netherlands-based Unilever is a massive corporate entity, generating $52 billion in sales last year with 189,000 employees contributing to the effort worldwide. Those employees report to a variety of business units and divisions, ranging from Lipton to Slim Fast. The company even owns its own tea and oil plantations. Like many large companies (this one is a joint venture) many of the brands in its portfolio were added by acquisition. Most of the brands continue to operate as companies.
AdAge’s Bob Garfield makes a valid point when he asks, “What happens when Dove sales begin to flag and market share begins to slide? That will be the test of true righteousness. Does the ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’ then get disposed of, like last year’s fashions, or dubiously ‘enhanced,’ like a pair of fake breasts?”
But Garfield’s point doesn’t diminish the validity of the Self-Esteem campaign or the people working for Dove who brought it to the marketplace. To suggest otherwise is no different than claiming hypocricy when someone on Fox News asserts a disdain for a business practice praised by the Wall Street Journal and dismissed as irrelevant on MySpace: All are owned by News Corp., but each is an independent operation. The portfolio of the owners doesn’t necessarily render the values of a business it owns are insincere merely because they conflict with the values of another brand in the portfolio.
This wasn’t always an issue, back in the days when only a few companies reached behemoth proportions (think Standard Oil). But today, when “grow or die” is the business mantra, the fact that a holding company has acquired businesses that take different approaches to everything from marketing to business ethics doesn’t mean that cynical hypocricy was involved. Dove is a distinct brand that happens to be owned by Unilever, and I continue to applaud the company’s efforts. The fact that, way up the ladder, the company that owns them also owns Axe doesn’t diminish the message—or the sincere people who created and delivered it—at all.
Business • Ethics • Marketing • Video • (1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bloggers get pitched. Get used to it.
I find, on average, five pitches in various formats in my inbox each day. The delete key lets me deal with most of them in short order. When I see one that I find particularly irksome, I may be inclined to blog about what was wrong with the pitch; I might forward it to my friends over at The Bad Pitch Blog.
What I don’t do is whine about it.
I’m a blogger. I reach a group of people who share common interests. That makes me a target of others who want to reach the same people. As a result, I get pitched. A lot. I get pitched badly. I get pitched well. Not surpringly, I sometimes actually get something from one of these folks that’s relevant and interesting enough that I actually write about it. I mean, hell, I spend a fair amount of time checking my RSS subscriptions for interesting content to share. I sometimes write about something I saw on TV or heard on the radio. Every now and then, a friend, reader, or podcast listener will forward an item. So do I care if a good piece of content comes from a PR person in the form of a pitch or press release?
Nope. Don’t care. In the end, they’re all just sources. It was an unsolicited press release from the American Cancer Society, for example, that led me to write about the Society’s success with its fundraiser in Second Life. I actually appreciated getting that release. I would have appreciated it even more if I had been contacted personally first, but ultimately it was the quality of the content that mattered to me.
Interestingly that defines the role of PR, an industry that prominent blogger Tom Coates holds in such low regard. PR is not about buying off a blogger (or TV station or newspaper); that’s the advertising business. PR is all about knowing the publisher/blogger/channel well enough to provide material in which he actually might actually be interested. Advertising is bought. PR is earned. That’s why I’m more or less okay with spending 30 or 40 seconds every day deleting bad pitches by clueless practitioners in order to get to the infrequent nugget that appeals to me.
What disturbs me about Tom Coates’ fit over being pitched is that he lumps all blogger outreach together, suggesting that it is inappropriate under any circumstance for anybody in the wretched and subhuman PR profession to reach out to him (or, by extension, to any blogger).
This all started when WebitPR’s Stephen Davies posted a list of 100 influential UK bloggers to his PRBlogger blog, which included Coates. Coates evidently started getting a flood of pitches after the list appeared, which prompted his tirade:
It really pisses me off that press people consider me an outlet to push their marketing messages. It upsets me that people in the world can look at me and only see ways that they can scavenge some limited advantage through which to push their agendas. They see my personal expression, my unadulterated opinion and they think they can use it as a host for their parasitic bullshit.
Worse still, I’m not sure they understand how revolting I find the whole thing. I’m not sure they get that I don’t consider it part of my life’s mission to carry the messaging they want to distribute. I don’t think they understand that it’s an insult to me for them to think that my voice is so apparently for sale. I find it degrading, patronising, cynical. It makes me want to hurl.
Coates has resolved to never, ever talk to his readers about something that was pitched to him. It doesn’t matter if it’s something his readers might find useful. He doesn’t care about the value of the content, only that it came by way of a press release or a PR shop. He draws no distinction between good pitches and bad ones. “I will absolutely never talk about something that I receive through a press release, or as a consequence of someone giving me a freebie.” He seems to think that passing along information he got from a PR source somehow means he sold out.
Incidentally, there’s nothing new about this idea. There are even icons, published in mid-2005 on MobHappy.
Even that’s not an adequate solution for some people. A comment to Davies’ blog from someone named Mark reads, “Why should Tom, I or anyone else be required to post a ‘do not pitch’ policy on our sites? Why should we be required to engage you on your terms? Our time is valuable, and I’m not going to apologise for reacting badly when people act antisocially towards me.”
Hmm. Okay. So every PR agency with a blogger outreach program, no matter how ethically and intelligently they implement that program, and no matter how much other bloggers find it to be useful, should just pack it up and go home? All blogger outreach is antisocial and inappropriate?
What utter nonsense. I’ll speak from my own personal experience: I have never been rebuked for one of my blogger outreach efforts; more often, I have been praised by bloggers who appreciate that I’ve done my homework. I really have read their blogs. I really do believe that my client’s message is relevant and of interest to their readers. I ask first in a personal email if I can forward the content. And I’ve prettymuch always been right. That’s not to say there aren’t PR practitoners who spam bloggers or otherwise fail to execute proper blogger outreach. But for goodness sake, do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
There are a couple few lessons that emerge from this kerfuffle:
- If you’re going to engage in blogger outreach, do it right. Don’t be one of the buffoons who earn the wrath of people who will paint an entire profession with your behavior (like Coates) or prompt bloggers to ridicule your specific pitch (like me). There are plenty of resources to help you.
- Be prepared for those who reject your place in the blogosphere regardless of how well you do your job.
- If you’re a blogger, and you develop a sizable and targeted following, be prepared to get pitched. Put your policy on your blog. Get ready to use your email filters and your delete key. Don’t be shocked and offended to find that someone with a commercial interest believes you might actually share an interest in their message. Just find a way to deal with it.