What I said
3:40 a.m. is an ungodly time to be answering questions fired at your through and earpiece while staring into the bright lights of a camera. Intrepid communicator that I am, though, I undertook the challenge—with only one cup of coffee in me, no less—when I answered questions this morning on CNBC’s Squawk Box. The subject: the blogger relations campaign Edelman PR undertook on behalf of its client, Wal-Mart.
A lot of buzz has erupted on the blogosphere around this story since it was reported in the New York Times, so I was delighted to get the call asking me to offer my comments. I arrived at the KPIX studio in Oakland, California at 3 a.m. (per instructions) to find I would be interviewed in the lobby of a building that was, at that hour, utterly deserted and a bit chilly. I sat around chatting with the cameraman until the segment came up. Following is a recap of the questions and answers. It’s not a transcript, but I did TiVo the show, so with luck, in the next day or two, I’ll be able to put the entire segment on the blog.
First, I was asked to explain the approach Edelman and Wal-Mart took. This was a blogger relations effort. An Edelman representative approached bloggers who might be inclined to support Wal-Mart’s perspective. These bloggers were offered occasional emails containing information about which they might be interested in writing. These emails were sent to the bloggers who agreed. These bloggers were asked to use the information to write their own posts and not to reproduce them verbatim. However, a couple of the bloggers did run the emails word for word. Since a blog should reflect the author’s voice, not somebody else’s, I pointed out that when quoting somebody, bloggers should disclose the source. (I always do.)
Next, I was asked about bloggers’ independent voice and whether this type of blogger relations effort somehow manipulated or corrupted the blogs in question. I don’t believe the integrity of these blogs was compromised at all. The bloggers weren’t paid and there were no conditions attached to their agreement to accept the Edelman emails. They could choose to run any, all, or none of the stories. They could offer their own analysis and even disagree if they chose. The posts these bloggers wrote were not the end of a conversation, but the beginning. Their readers could offer comments and other bloggers could write, positively or negatively, about the posts on their own blogs. In effect, Edelman was helping Wal-Mart initiate a conversation on the blogosphere.
I pointed out that the mainstream media—also independent—routinely uses press releases, interviews, and tips from companies and their PR agencies without disclosing the source of every fact. (That would make for long and boring pieces!) I added that Richard Edelman, chairman of Edelman PR, articulated in his own blog the requirements for an ethical blogger relations effort:
- Be transparent about who you are, whom you work for, and the goal of the PR effort.
- Ask permission to share information with the bloggers you approach.
- Disclose any financial arrangements you’ve made with the bloggers who agree to accept your content. (In the Wal-Mart case, there was no compensation at all, despite what some bloggers have suggested.)
- Deliver 100% accurate, factual information without spin.
I pointed out that the Wal-Mart effort met each of these requirements. I also pointed out that the anti-Wal-Mart blogs were undoubtedly getting information from labor unions and other anti-Wal-Mart sources.
Finally, I was asked in more companies would start blogs in the vein of General Motors and Boeing. Absolutely, I said, adding that they don’t have to be authored by senior executives. I cited Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and Thomas Nelson Publishers as examples of companies that have encouraged their employees to blog. These employee blogs create a touch point for customers and other audiences, the authentic, real voice of a real person with whom they could connect and engage in conversation.
I also suggested that Wal-Mart might have been well-served to launch their own blogs to initiate the conversation.
And that was it. In just a couple brief minutes, the interview was over. I was given no opportunity to show the “Blogging for Business” book I co-wrote with Ted Demopoulos (although I brought it in the hopes of doing a bit of my own PR).
Now I’m sitting at Oakland International Airport waiting for my flight to Portland. I expect to collapse when I get back home around 10 p.m. tonight.
If you saw the CNBC segment (that would have been about 6:40 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), let me know what you thought.
Technorati Tags: Edelman, WalMart
Shel,
I already made this comment on your last post immediately after viewing the segment. But I’ll redo it here as a follow up (plus I mistyped something. You DO get a second chance sometimes!)
What you wrote here is an excellent review of the segment. You did a great job of making it a non-issue with factual information. I was actually impressed with the guy with whom you were speaking for not making it a witch hunt. He asked some questions, you told the story. I thought it went pretty well. I do like how you mentioned a) Richard’s blog post and b) how anti Wal-Mart bloggers are probably getting content from someone, too. Those were fine points. I do wish you’d have been able to hammer the traditional media/press release use concept a little deeper. People could have related a little better to that, I think.
Overall, really good for 3:45 a.m. and only one cup of java!Posted by Luke on 03/08 at 08:01 AMShel, you were great and I’m happy for you. The coffee must have been strong, buddy, because you looked good. -Matt
Posted by Matt Podboy on 03/08 at 09:04 AMShel - Thanks for the review of the show. I saw it and you did a great job. As you know, our opinions are different.
Bloggers are natural in sharing opinions. Therefore, it’s smart that companies develop relationships with them. I’m doing this with three companies right now.
But this item, story or non-story, can and should be a learning experience. But are we realzing what can be learned? Or is this going to be the template? (Please, say “no” to the last)
This wasn’t reaching out to bloggers to try a product or service. This wasn’t being available as a resource for research. This was feeding people hungry for attention and information they craved.
This wasn’t a pitch, it was serving up a B.P. fastball. It was blog relations on steroids.
It was an ego massage. This was an experienced, major league company tapping into inexperienced, minor league resources. The major league company should’ve known - and maybe this was the plan all along.
BTW, your book, Blogging for Business, is fantastic. The strategies on pages 81-83 are spot on. Is there a difference between strategies and tactics?
Posted by Mike Sansone on 03/08 at 02:12 PMSadly I was unable to get myself up this morning and watch the interview myself(long night of studying), but today my class was able to talk about what we thought about the topic. I agree with you that what Edelman did was a great idea. They have a client and they want their client to get recognized. Of course who does not know Wal-Mart, but that is not the point. The point is that they took a different means of communication to get their name out there.
There seems to be no discrepancy by how they went about executing it. I believe that it was tactical to find out those bloggers who are interested in that business. As long as no monetary exchanges were made, unless specified, then it is perfectly honest.
Blogging is becoming quite the communication tool. Business people, college students, ordinary people, you name it, are starting to realize the quality of blogging. It is becoming a PR tool to get an idea or announcement out to a vast number of people in a hurry. I applaud Edelman for taking that step and I am interested to see where it will go.
I have a feeling that many businesses will follow Edelman’s lead. We will probably see an onset of companies blogging across the country. With an article written in the New York Times, businesses will pay attention. That is if they know what is good for them.Posted by Christina Brasher on 03/08 at 02:28 PMCarving all the personal stuff way fascinating though it is - isn’t the issue that Wal-Mart’s rep truly sucks for all sorts of real reasons and so until it takes action, it matters not how well the blogopsphere responds to this latest PR wheeze?
I was gob smacked at the ‘Wal-Mart is bad for US business’ vid that has had wide currency on the Internet…factoid that stuck out for me $30 billion net importer.
My UK correspondents tell me that since the takeover, ASDA, once the retail darling, has plumetted in all areas - quality, service…you name it…things that matter to people that buy real goods.
Having said that - good for you turning up in inclement conditions and sticking around.
Posted by Dennis Howlett on 03/08 at 08:39 PMWell measured responses - it kept the issue in the proper perspective.
I’m interested in reading further discussions here on this topic.
Posted by Dave Bakker on 03/09 at 08:19 AMShel, I’m sorry I missed your interview. Hopefully I’ll get another chance to see it when you post the segment to your blog. Congratulations on securing some airtime with CNBC; that’s a great thought leadership opportunity.
Mark Turok
Posted by Mark Turok on 03/09 at 08:06 PMVery good interview. You gave a very balanced assessment of the situation. In fact, you said what I was thinking when you pointed out that journalists have been accepting content from corporations for years via video releases and press releases.
I think that as long as the information is factually correct and there’s no under the table payment, then companies are well within their rights to reach out to bloggers who would be willing to help send their messages.
They should have you on regularly to comment on what’s going on in the blogosphere.
Posted by Rob S on 03/10 at 07:54 PMShel - great interview. You provided a clear over view that both blogger and non blogging audiences could understand. Can’t help but wonder who will be the next C-level blogger…
Posted by Toby on 03/11 at 10:52 PMShel - good, balanced response. I wish they gave you more time to enhance the viewers knowledge.
Here’s a summary of a post I sent other bloggers concerning Wal-Mart and WOM:
For non-marketing pros, Word of Mouth (WOM) marketing is a term used to describe activities that companies undertake to generate favorable publicity. People are inclined to believe word of mouth promotion because the source is preceived as credible - often someone you know.
WOM is highly valued by marketers and it has become a managed marketing strategy with significant budgets.
Here are a few WOM articles and research reports for your readers (follow the links for detailed information):
Harris Interactive Inc.
Harris Interactive Inc. analyzed the effect of word-of-mouth communication and found that it strongly influences those making purchasing decisions. The survey shows that word-of-mouth - from friends, family members, colleagues and others - carries more weight than corporate advertising and public relations.Survey Respondents
- 85% word-of-mouth communication is credible</li>
- 84% opinions of company employees believable</li>
- 75% rated media stories as credible</li>
- 70% ads and PR credible</li>Only personal experience scored higher than word-of-mouth.
Yale School of Management Article
Recruiting Less-Loyal Customers for Word-of-Mouth Campaigns May Be Most Effective According to Study by Dina Mayzlin, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Yale
imedia connection
WOM Tactics: Blogs are Upside Down, January 09, 2006, by Andy Sernovitz. The WOMMA CEO gives a five step program for earning a good reputation with bloggers.Dr. Walter Carl, Northeastern Univ. Download this Article: To Tell Or Not To Tell? Assessing the Practical Benefits of Disclosure for Word-of-Mouth Marketing Agents and Their Conversational Partners
Greg Magnus
[url=http://www.eoecho.com]http://www.eoecho.com[/url] - Strategic minds with knowledge, will travel.Posted by Greg Magnus on 03/14 at 02:51 PMDoes this make you the new pin up for potential bloggers in the US?
Posted by Alexandra Pullin on 03/17 at 02:27 AMGreat Coverage, well spoken.
Posted by Jeremiah Owyang on 05/26 at 03:23 AM
Next entry: The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #118: March 9, 2006
Previous entry: Shameless self promotion: I'll be on CNBC tomorrow