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.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Will we never learn?
Microsoft and global PR agency Burson-Marsteller are in hot water over a tactic that flies in the face of what we now about the nature of business and transparency in the era of social computing.
There have been enough instances of false-front organizations, funded by a client and operated by a PR agency, being outed by determined individuals to make you wonder: What in the world was Burson thinking?
The tale—as recounted in this Guardian story—begins with an email from Burson director Jonathan Dinkeldein promoting the Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces. The email, delivered to boad membes of several several top UK businesses. The message—characterized by some recipients as an inappropriate cold call—solicited membership in the organization that was opposing Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, the online marketing organization Google acquired in an auction. The email noted that the Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces would soon issue messages addressing Google, Internet privacy, and competition.
Microsoft lost out to Google in the bidding and, as it turns out, Microsoft is represented by Burson in such matters. To make things worse, a Microsoft spokesperson would only admit that the software giant and Burson have a relationship but denied that Burson was lobbying on Microsoft’s behalf. Dinkeldein, in the meantime, did admitted that Burson was working with Microsoft on the DoubleClick matter and that Microsoft had formed the organization. Geez, can’t a PR agency and a client even get their stories straight?
There is nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft forming the organization—such organizations can actually have a legitimate cause and serve a worthwhile purpose. Nor is there anything wrong with a PR agency working with the company to promote the organization. What is wrong—terribly, unethically wrong—is failing to disclose those relationships. And there have been enough instances in recent years to make you wonder what it will take for this simple fact to permeate the practices of the public relations profession.
The world is transparent, and many eyes are focused on the lens peering into the business world. Deceit will be exposed. There is no benefit in trying to get away with something like this, which only hurts the public relations profession, including those who would never engage in such practices. A comment by David Binkowski to the TechDirt report on the kerfuffle articulates the same concern:
I know most people hate PR firms but there are people on the inside showing the light—these types of tactics are unethical and need to be exposed. The consumer revolution will take full hold when we start boycotting the brands of the firms representing this kind of dishonesty.
The TechDirt post, by the way, carries this subhead: from the lobbyists-and-shills-and-pr,-oh-my! dept
Can’t you just feel that brush spreading its paint all over you?
Hat tip to Jim Horton.