Stop harshing Edelman’s groove
I’m sure you’ve all seen some family-oriented TV show in which the teenager screws up big-time. When finally confronted by his parents, the teen is shocked that there will be no further punishment. “You’ve been punished enough,” the understanding parent says.
Edelman has been punished enough. The bashing the global PR firm has taken over three covert blogs maintained for client WalMart has been severe and sometimes downright nasty. The company’s reputation as a leader in social media has been severely tarnished and could take years to recover. The various calls for this or that person at Edelman to be fired or resign make for good copy, but don’t address the issue and certainly don’t reflect reality. Nor do calls for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) to revoke Edelman’s membership and send the firm into exile.
What, then, is reality?
Edelman has more than 2,200 employees in 46 offices worldwide, along with some 15 specialty practices. While I don’t know the dynamics of the company, I have worked for two global human resources consulting firms (William M. Mercer, which is still around, and Alexander & Alexander Consulting Group, now part of Aon Consulting). In both instances the culture was determined more by the local office leadership than the corporate leadership. I worked in Los Angeles for Mercer, which was a miserable environment. When I visited the St. Louis office, I was shocked at how congenial and uplifting the atmosphere was. And to tell you the truth, I don’t think I could have named the president of the company. Leadership was embodied—in Los Angeles, anyway—in a pension actuary named Dan White who ran the L.A. office.
Richard Edelman, the president of the firm, is, of course, accountable ultimately for his firm’s egregious missteps. To his credit, he has openly accepted that accountability and outlined the steps he will take to guard against any future such actions. I wish him well and hope his intentions aren’t undermined by the actions of somebody else in his organization. But let’s be clear: Just because the company president “gets” new media and is evangelizing it in his organization, this does not mean that some 25-year veteran account executive in a remote office has yet consumed the Kool-Aid. This hypothetical AE could look at blogs, rub his oily hands together, and say, “This is how we’ll bullshit the public.” It runs counter to everything Richard and his team may believe in, and the company will be well rid of such people. But with 2,200 employees scattered around the world, show me a president who knows the inner workings of the minds of all of them.
Given the number of people I meet who aren’t even sure what a blog is, it’s no surprise that among Edelman’s 2,200 employees, there might be some who would subject blogging to abuse. The same is probably true of any comparably sized (or larger) agency. This isn’t an excuse. My previous posts on the topic make my position on the fake blogs exceedingly clear. But spreading the gospel of ethical blogging is going to take time, particularly with longtime practitioners who are set in their ways.
As for Steve Rubel falling on his sword over the fake blogs episode, the uninformed thinking behind this is confounding. Steve works for one of those 15 specialty practices. That practice was not called into the WalMart account; he had nothing to do with the account or the blogs. Nobody is obliged to run their blogging plans by Steve for approval. He is not responsible for embedding an understanding of social media in every Edelman employee; he is responsible for meeting client expectations on those engagements in which his practice’s input is sought. If Steve worked on the WalMart account and recommended this approach, I’d sing a different tune. But his practice was not involved nor should he be held responsible for actions taken outside the scope of his influence.
I’m not sure what good expulsion from WOMMA would do. Sure, WOMMA could crow that its ethics guidelines have teeth. But the fact that a couple account reps acted in a manner inconsistent with the president’s own philosophy does not mean that the entire company has sinned. Remember, these were three fake blogs produced for a single account. Had there been three fake blogs—one each in three separate accounts, managed in separate offices—I would be far more concerned about Edelman’s overall ethics than I am under the current circumstances.
Better that WOMMA insist on working with Edelman directly to better instill the right word-of-mouth ethics in its employees. And some censure might be in order—certainly more than the, “Oh well, mistakes happen” approach WOMMA seems to have taken. (WOMMA’s only action so far has been to open a forum for public debate on the matter—public debate that seems to be happening perfectly well in the blogosphere without their forum.) At dinner this evening with the tireless Constantin Basturea, we speculated that WOMMA could end up being the story here instead of Edelman.
In any case, it’s time for everyone to take a deep breath, remember how the real world functions, and bring some reason to this discussion. Screaming for heads to roll may make some feel better, but it doesn’t help spread the gospel of ethical social communication. That takes time, dedication, and perserverence. I hope Richard Edelman is up to the task and that he puts Steve Rubel’s expertise to good use in the effort.
Thanks for adding a dose of reality and a voice of reason to the whole commentary about Edelman/Wal-Mart, Shel! Cool headline too.
Posted by donna papacosta on 10/23 at 05:17 PMShel,
Mostly, I agree with you. What I disagree with is the idea that Edelman has been “punished enough.” The fact is, a bunch of angry bloggers does not a punishment make. Sure, Richard’s blog was crammed with scoldings, but also support from Edelman groupies. Sure, Edelman’s name was along side Wal-Mart’s in every MSM account of the incident. But people know Wal-Mart, not Edelman.
Among “new media experts” Edelman’s rep, as you say, is tarnished. But why have professional associations founded on ethical guidelines if they don’t flex a muscle. Same problem PRSA has, same reason why PR pros don’t get the respect they so longingly yearn for.
I wonder what would have happened had this been another big time agency besides Edelman. I think a lot of people wouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget.
Posted by Mike Sacks on 10/24 at 04:33 AMGreat post! I’m glad to see that I wasn’t alone in this thinking. I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone out there that thought along the same lines, as what I posted on Sunday.
I think the calls for resignations, were a little over the top, and just made for great “link bait”. There were some good points, which I think Edelman has addressed and acknowledged.
We’re all learning, and companies are going to stumble along the way. It takes great character to admit your wrongs, and open yourself up the way Edelman has (and rightfully should have).
Great thoughts and nice insight Shel.
Posted by Liana "Li" Evans on 10/24 at 05:14 AMShel, while your posts on Edelman have been the most elucidating on this subject, I agree with Mike.
Has Edelman been sufficiently hammered by the PR blogosphere? Yes, and probably twice over.
But have Edelman’s unfortunate tactics and Wal-Mart’s generally bogus “grass roots” efforts at self-defense been sufficiently understood by the public for what they are? I don’t think so.
Richard Edelman has a blog and claims that Edelman is at the forefront of a transparent new-media strategy. He employs a leading new-media thinker to blog on the company’s behalf. And then Edelman account executives use Richard’s and Steve’s reputations to draw clients who want the agency to use these new tools in old-fashioned, disingenuous ways.
It’s an old habit in our industry: public relations before implementation.
Let’s not be too quick to give them credit for this little learning experience of theirs. They’re making a lot of money from Wal-Mart and duping the public while they learn.
I still think Richard Edelman, like his father, deserves his reputation as more thoughtful and socially responsibile than your average PR agency boss.
But I think he and his firm still have some explaining to do, and they have to prove once again that they’re something other than opportunistic shills in new-media shells.
Posted by David Murray on 10/24 at 06:45 AMGood point, Mike. I think the punishment is more the damage to the reputation and the business they won’t be getting until they can rehabiliate that image—which isn’t going to happen any time soon.
I do think (as I noted) that some rebukes are appropriate. I noted WOMMA, but a statement from PRSA wouldn’t hurt either. But I wouldn’t hold my breath, which is why I didn’t mention it. The professional associations’ inability to hold anybody accountable for violating their ethics codes is a topic for a whole other discussion (one we’ve had many times on “For Immediate Release”).
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/24 at 07:13 AMI don’t disagree with you, David (which probably comes as a shock). I was speaking STRICTLY about forced resignations (or outright firings) and expulsion from WOMMA, the remedies many have been suggesting. Beyond that, I agree that censure and further explanations are in order.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/24 at 07:16 AMMy biggest issue with the entire escapade was not whether Edelman would get punished or not ... it was in getting people to recognize what was done improperly and understanding why.
Too many bloggers were quick to jump on the story without really digging into what we mean by “disclosure” or “transparency.” They just read “fake blog” and went to town, without really discussing why it was fake and what would have made it real.
At the same time, they were too quick to abandon the issue when Richard Edelman “apologized.”
Richard himself wrote—multiple times—that the only fault with the blog was the fact that the two travelers’ last names weren’t used!
Yet that was probably the least problematic component of the entire program. The two bloggers were being paid to travel and write about the company, and Edelman was picking up the tab for everything including the RV. Plus, one of the folks involved was a relative of an Edelman staff member working on the Wal-Mart account. And the connection to the blog’s sponsor was iffy at best, at least to the average consumer.
Yet no one at Edelman acknowledged those very real conflicts of interest.
Front groups, astroturfing and lack of proper labeling are major issues in our industry—and they go beyond blogs or social media. Yet very few PR bloggers have picked up on the meme about just what constitutes proper disclosure for a blog or website created for a “supporter’s group” of a major corporation.
In other words, is Edelman’s new background on the bloggers who post content on http://www.forwalmart.com sufficient? Is it enough to merely say a blog is sponsored by “Working Families for Wal-Mart” without really saying who funds the organization and what it’s real purpose is??
These are the kinds of nitty gritty issues that the Edelman/Wal-Mart flap brought to the surface, and they extend to all of us in the profession today because we’ll face the same questions some day from a client. We are doing ourselves a disservice if we don’t discuss them in detail merely out of respect for the firm involved.
Posted by John Wagner on 10/24 at 08:33 AMDid you read Steve Rubel’s latest post?
Micrisoft is mentioned as an Edelman client, even MS themselves said it’s the wrong way to talk about it.Posted by m on 10/24 at 09:44 AMI agree, the gnawing of bones has gone on too long - let’s move on.
Posted by maggie fox on 10/24 at 11:04 AMShel:
Agree with all points - except one - if Steve had nothing to do with it and said as much (not denying he did or didn’t, that’s not the point) then he shouldn’t be continually trotted out in front of the media as Edelman’s Blog Boy. Therein lies the problem. Of COURSE he’s gonna be blamed for it. Every Google alert on Rubel up until this whole incident has mentioned Steve as Edelman’s Blog Boy.
So who do you look to when Edelman screws up the blogs? Steve. Accurate? Maybe, maybe not - but it’s a classic case of the shoe fitting.
Posted by Peter Shankman on 10/24 at 03:26 PMShel,
An apologist for Edelman? Huh?Posted by Joseph Thornley on 10/24 at 04:34 PMI disagree, and it even goes back to the Ketchum story, when Jay Rosen called out the PR bloggers.
If you position yourself as the leading blogger - in the press, in a firm - then you better step up. A real leader does not say “I was not involved” but steps up and, yes, falls on the sword.
The incident has said a lot to me about certain people. The apologists are embarassing for the industry, and we sure didn’t see them apologize during Armstrongate or DPW-gate or VNR-gate. So why now? Is there any difference here? Does this not hurt PR as much as those scandals did, if not more (we have much, much more to lose here, as we are competing against advertising and marketing to own this space). And, well, I am hearing people talk about this like they talked about Kryptonite. This is their Kryptonite case, and it is going to continue to steamroll. I read some comments - outside the PR blogosphere - about how hurt people are because they felt tricked and used. That’s not good for PR.
Or, go read Suw Charman’s blog on Corante, and a very embarassing response that says that the new looks just like the old.
But, you are right - he’s just one person in the practice. It’s not his practice, but the firm’s (although you do call it his practice).
Posted by Jeremy Pepper on 10/24 at 04:37 PMWhile I don’t fully agree with Jeremy, I come pretty close. There seem to be a lot of leading consultants that are giving Edelmana quick scolding and free pass on this. While I don’t think the CEO needs to fall on his sword here or that Steve Rubel should as well, what troubles me, Shel, is that you seem to pass this off too easily on a fictional 25-year account exec in a ‘remote office’ who is looking to bullshit the public. That doesn’t pass the smell test. I’ve also heard this being passed off on younger ‘low-level’ staffers. You hear that explanation in politics a lot.
Here in DC, there are plenty of groups (PR firms, advocacy groups, etc.) that create fake coalitions etc. Standard operatating procedure. If follows that fake blogs would be the next tool. Edelman (the firm) blew it. And they’re paying a price.
Hopefully it will keep others honest.
Posted by Jonathan Trenn on 10/24 at 06:09 PMI’m certainly not an apologist. After all, I was one of the first out there with criticism when the story came to light and followed it up quickly when the two additional blogs were revealed. Hell, Business Week called me “shrill.”
But I am a realist. I understand how specialty practices work. The fact that an agency trots out a specialist does not mean that New York-based specialist is going to be pulled into an assignment in managed by an AE in the Southeast Podunk office, even if that AE opts to use the tool that is the specialist’s specialty.
When I worked for Mercer, we had specialists in Chicago who knew everything about benefits statements, inside out and backwards. They were the pros and they were available to us—and we often blew them off and did the work ourselves with local vendors. We were, after all, under no obligation to use that practice’s services. If we fucked one up, should those Chicago-based specialists have taken the fall even if they never even knew were were producing a benefits statement? The very notion is absurd.
Read my previous posts and my position on Edelman’s failings will be clear; you have to take these posts in context. Edelman screwed up in many ways: They launched flogs. When they were caught, they went silent. The subsequent exposures were not just flogs, but PR reps speaking on behalf of the client. It is a litany of woe and they deserve all the heat they get, and all the lost business they suffer.
Yet I have a world of respect for many people at Edelman (I’m talkin’ to you, Phil), and I hope they bounce back from this. And I don’t think Edelman or Rubel need to resign or that WOMMA needs to expel them. There are other, more appropriate repercussions, and Edelman is suffering most of them already.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/24 at 06:22 PMJonathan, my “25-year account exec” was a speculation. I have no idea what relationship existed between the instigator of these blogs and Edelman’s senior leadership. If Richard did know about this, or authorize it, then maybe he should resign. But I doubt he did because I’ve met him and I believe he’s sincere in his belief in how social media should be handled.
Yes, it’s serious. Yes, it’s a black eye for the whole PR industry. Once again, go read my previous posts to see the whole picture.
But keep in mind, there are very serious crimes that don’t get you the death penalty, and the business equivalent of the death penalty is what a lot of people are screaming for. And I just don’t think that’ll make anything better. Deterrance? Don’t make me laugh.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/24 at 06:26 PMShel
Agreed in that, I don’t think that Richard or Steve should resign. I’m not the type to look for heads to roll for the sake of having them roll. But often in situations like this, blame rolls downhill to a convenient spot. And some junior guy takes a fall.
The problem is less Edelman the firm and more toward the solid development of correct methodologies and practices. We just had a big player mess up and it hurts the industy.
I’ll read your earlier comments. Came in late on this.
Posted by Jonathan Trenn on 10/24 at 06:56 PMI wonder if praise was due for something on the same scale would it be passed to the fictional 25 year old?
Posted by Mridula on 10/24 at 09:21 PMHa! Mridula, the answer is, in most organizations, it SHOULD but usually DOESN’T. That said, I actually have seen it happen. It’s the exception, of course, that proves the rule.
I’d be willing to bet, though, it wasn’t a 25-year-old behind the flogs, but rather a 25-year-VETERAN, which would put him closer to my age (50s).
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/25 at 08:57 AMFor Rubel or Edelman to resign over this would be pointless. When it comes to blogging, and public relations in general, reputation and credibility are everything. The severity of this punishment will be determined by the steps the firm takes to regain trust. Rubel and Edelman are the two people the firm needs most at this time.
Posted by Bob O'Malley on 10/25 at 10:21 AMThe part that I find a bit sketchy is the explanation that this was some how an oversight or an education issue. From what I’ve read about the previous Wal-Mart/Edelman problems, the people running the Wal-Mart account are political bloggers experienced in fighting battles for the Republican party. They knew what they are doing. I think this was more a case of the actions/tactics of certain folks not matching the high minded rhetoric of Edelman and Rubel. I don’t think this was a mistake made out of ignorance.
Posted by Michael Batson on 10/25 at 03:35 PMJust to further enflame the situation, looks like CBS is researching the story. I got a visit from someone at their New York IP using Google’s blog search at 11:37 a.m. this morning.
I have often wondered how a blogging story would translate to TV… are we about to find out?
Posted by maggie fox on 10/25 at 04:36 PMI’ve met some of the people here in the DC office. One Democrat, one Republican. ONe thing I do know…and this is not an accusation of the folks here in DC.
A common practice of PR agencies, grassroots organizing firms, and some of these psuedo grassroots firms that happen to be corporate fronts, is to develop what seems to be legitimate citizens groups or grassroots advocacy groups. They’ll have a name like ‘the Coalition for a Cleaner Environment’ or there’s one that fast food companies are behind and the name of the group includes the words ‘consumer’ and ‘freedom’. Essentially they’re fake groups. Sounds to me that maybe, just maybe, Edelman extended included that concept in their blog consulting offerings.
I wonder how many families are part of that coalition?
Posted by Jonathan Trenn on 10/25 at 06:33 PMJonathan, I hope this is a former practice for most agencies. While it may have worked once (which doesn’t mean it was ever ethical or right), it will not work any more in an era when there are hundreds of thousands of citizen journalists hell-bent on uncovering just such practices. Speaking as a proud practitioner of PR, this is a practice PR agencies had best put behind them.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 10/26 at 12:26 PM
Next entry: Your worst job ever
Previous entry: The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #183: October 23, 2006