Archive for Ethics

Edelman/Wal-Mart blog campaign revisited by Journal of Mass Media Ethics

August 5, 2007 @ 9:49 pm · Filed under Academia, Ethics, PR, Research

The ethics of Edelman’s involvement in the Wal-Marting Across America blog campaigns is the focus of four articles (a case study and three expert commentaries) in the latest issue of the Journal of Mass Media Ethics (Volume 22, Issue 2-3, 2007):

The Case: Wal-Mart Public Relations in the Blogosphere - David A. Craig (Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Oklahoma)

Abstract: This article presents a case study in media ethics that experts will analyze in additional article within this issue. This case concerns bloggers on a site called Wal-Marting Across America, which featured a couple who were traveling around the country and parking in Wal-Mart parking lots. The blogs were generally positive, upbeat stories of the Wal-Mart employees they met along the way. However, Working Families for Wal-Mart was created by Edelman, the public relations firm for Wal-Mart. Laura and Jim were professional journalists paid by Wal-Mart. Moreover, Richard Edelman had been a leading advocate of transparency and honesty in public relations work.

Commentary 1: This PR Firm Should Have Known Better - Lois A. Boynton (School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

Abstract: This article presents the author’s perspective on an ethical situation regarding the public relations firm Edelman and their involvement in a pro-Wal-Mart blog that pretended to be impartial. The author is particularly critical of Edelman’s involvement in the controversy given their participation in crafting a public relations code of ethics, which explicitly forebids the type of deceit they practiced. However, he credits Edelman executives for their rapid response and admission of guilt and responsibility.

Commentary 2: A Case of Covert Persuasion - Sherry Baker (Brigham Young University, Tanabe, Japan)

Abstract: The author makes the distinction between information and covert persuasion, which she defines as advocacy disguised as information or as independent opinion. She feels the episode clearly violated the ethical tenents of both public relations and journalism.

Commentary 3: We Have All Been Here Before - John J. Pauly, William R. Burleigh, E. W. Scripps (J. William and Mary Diederich College of Communication, Marquette University)

Abstract: The author discusses how the ethical code that was supposed to offer guidance for this situation was bypassed or ignored. She also raises ethical questions about the nature of blogging and of corporate information campaigns. She suggests corporations be made more responsible for arguments they create and issue.

The articles are behind a paid firewall, but you can always contact the authors and ask - nicely :) - for a reprint.

Related entries:

Comments (4)

Edelman, Wal-Mart, and WOMMA’s Code of Ethics

October 13, 2006 @ 7:34 pm · Filed under Blogging, Ethics, PR

Update, October 20, 2006:

 

Update, October 19, 2006: Andy Sernovitz, WOMMA’s CEO, responds in comments to my question (why didn’t WOMMA sanctioned in any way Edelman’s violation of the Ethics Code).

 

Update, October 18, 2006: WOMMA Statement on Edelman Blog Disclosure Issue.

In summary: Edelman violated WOMMA’s Code, they’re going to do a better job at educating their employees/sub-contractors, mistakes happen, you know.

No sanction for Edelman. Why?

 

(Final Update, Oct. 16, 2006) What is next, now that Richard Edelman has acknowledged that the lack of transparency for the Wal-Marting blog is 100% the agency’s “responsibility and error“?

Although the details of the brouhaha — who conceived and executed the plan, who did what when, how was this possible, etc. — would make the delight of the blogosphere, it’s unlikely that Edelman is going to make them public. And, maybe, they’re not so important after all.

What’s more important — as I said previously — is if Edelman, a big player in the social media space, will be hold accountable by the Word of Mouth Marketing Association for breaking WOMMA’s Ethics Code (I’m not the only one asking this question). Although enforcing a code of ethics is difficult, WOMMA has the chance to send a clear signal that it will not accept the violation of its Code’s main tenets: the honesty of relationship, opinion, and identity.

Richard Edelman’s reference to WOMMA’s Code in his mea culpa entry shows that he is aware of the agency’s fault. Does it show, also, that he’s willing to accept any sanction that might be decided by WOMMA? We’ll see.

There is a chance to have a positive outcome for this story. If WOMMA’s willingness to keep his members accountable will meet with Edelman’s willingness to accept publicly a sanction, then marketers will get a clear signal that their engagement in social media has to follow clear rules, and that breaking these rules will have consequences.

If not… — then we’re back to the world of Old PR: we have nice ethical codes, but there’s no way to enforce them.

Let’s hope for the best.

 

Update, Oct. 16, 2006: Richard Edelman responds (TechMeme thread):

I want to acknowledge our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset. This is 100% our responsibility and our error; not the client’s.

Let me reiterate our support for the WOMMA guidelines on transparency, which we helped to write. Our commitment is to openness and engagement because trust is not negotiable and we are working to be sure that commitment is delivered in all our programs.

Also, see Steve Rubel’s response.

 

(Corrected & Updated Oct. 14) The story of Wal-Mart’s fake blog (Wal-Marting Across America) is all over the blogosphere (*), but — as Kevin Dugan says — the bigger story might be about Edelman, which is held responsible for its client’s blunder. So far Edelman has failed to respond in any way to the accusations that it’s behind the Wal-Marting… blog — which is quite perplexing.

According to SourceWatch, the Herald Group — not Edelman — is directing the PR campaigns for Working Families for Wal-Mart, the organization that sponsored the Wal-Marting… blog.

But if Edelman was, indeed, involved in this campaign, then the story could become a case study for how marketers’ engagement rules in social media are enforced. As a member of the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association, Edelman should abide by the organization’s Code of Ethics, which is based on Honesty ROI:

  • Honesty of Relationship: You say who you’re speaking for
  • Honesty of Opinion: You say what you believe
  • Honesty of Identity: You never obscure your identity

Wal-Marting Across America campaign/blog was obviously breaking the Honesty of Identity guidelines:

  • Clear disclosure of identity is vital to establishing trust and credibility. We do not blur identification in a manner that might confuse or mislead consumers as to the true identity of the individual with whom they are communicating, or instruct or imply that others should do so.
  • Campaign organizers should monitor and enforce disclosure of identity. Manner of disclosure can be flexible, based on the context of the communication. Explicit disclosure is not required for an obviously fictional character, but would be required for an artificial identity or corporate representative that could be mistaken for an average consumer. [...]

The same goes for Honesty of Relationship:

  • We practice openness about the relationship between consumers, advocates, and marketers. We encourage word of mouth advocates to disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications with other consumers. We don’t tell them specifically what to say, but we do instruct them to be open and honest about any relationship with a marketer and about any products or incentives that they may have received.
  • We stand against shill and undercover marketing, whereby people are paid to make recommendations without disclosing their relationship with the marketer. [...]

(I don’t know for sure if the blog’s sponsorship by Working Families for Wal-Mart was made clear from the beginning. The MediaPost story says it wasn’t please see the correction below; some bloggers say it was. But even if the sponsorship was made clear from the start by a banner posted on the blog, the terms of sponsorship were never disclosed, and it wasn’t made clear that the organization is partially funded by Wal-Mart.)

We’ll see if Edelman is going to be investigated for breaking WOMMA’s Code of Ethics — but, anyway, this story can teach all of us a couple of lessons:

  1. When you’re trying to position your PR agency as a thought leader in social media, be prepared to live up to the expectations you’re setting.
  2. Agencies will be held responsible in the public sphere for their clients’ mistakes (duh!); it doesn’t matter if the client respected or not the agency’s advice.
  3. If an agency’s employees are blogging, people will expect them to explain — in real time — how client’s faux pas were possible on their watch.
 

Update/ correction (Oct. 14, 2006):

In a follow-up article published by MediaPost, Tom Siebert makes clear that the banner announcing the blog’s sponsorship by Working Families for Walmart was posted on the blog from the beginning, but details about the organization’s payment for the trip were never made public:

Although a WFWM banner ad trumpeted its sponsorship of the site, it did not mention that Wal-Mart paid for the couple’s RV, gas, food and other expenses.

Many thanks to Tom Siebert for writing to correct the record.

Another piece of information: the sponsorship banner was posted on the blog when the blog has been started, as shown by the first entry’s Google cache.

 

(*) Resources (updated, October 14-16, 2006)

 

Technorati tags: ,

Comments (43)

Wikipedia editors discussing PR firms participation - Rules of Engagement in Social Media Commons

August 29, 2006 @ 2:45 pm · Filed under Ethics, PR, Wikis

Ward Wiki's logoThe issue of PR firms’ involvement in editing Wikipedia entries for clients strikes again: the German newspaper Die Welt has recently published an article (original) featuring MyWikiBiz, a US company founded by Gregory Kohs, that is writing (for a fee) Wikipedia articles about companies.

Mr. Kohs, who was editing the clients’ articles under the username MyWikiBiz, has been banned blocked for 10 days by Jimmy Wales for being paid to add entries to Wikipedia which — says Mr. Wales — “is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues“. Also, the Wikipedia article edited by Kohs on Norman Technologies has been marked as AfD (article for deletion) which has started a discussion that will likely determine if PR firms will have any involvement in editing their clients’ entries in Wikipedia, and how the process should work.

Bellow you’ll find a list of links pointing to Wikipedia talk pages and discussions lists where this issue has been debated for the last couple of weeks (as well as a couple of other articles that I thought are relevant for this discussion). If you’ll take the time to read them — which I strongly recommend — you’ll see that the issue is not trivial. (I’ll post my views on this issue later.)

The problem of edits by PR firms for client — or any “pay for edit” arrangements — is not going to disappear. This is not only about using Wikipedia to promote one’s clients - it’s also about accuracy and reputation. As Wikipedia’s readership, popularity, and position in search engines results will grow, companies will become more and more concerned about the accuracy of Wikipedia’s entries and on how their reputation is affected by it, and will not stay idle if the entries on their organization, leaders, or products are inaccurate.

Of course there will always be a problem with anonymous editors. But I think there are a lot of PR firms and practitioners that are willing to abide by a code that will state clearly the guidelines to be followed by a practitioner for getting involved in the edits of clients pages.

This code doesn’t exist yet - and the discussion about it is happening, for now, without the participation of PR practitioners.

The problems raised by this case are not confined to Wikipedia. The industry should start working now on the rules of engagement on Social Media Commons — social spaces like del.icio.us, YouTube, digg, MySpace, and Second Life — that will allow organizations’ participation in a way that is transparent and respects the communities’ rules.

 
 

Other articles and blog entries on PR edits in Wikipedia:

 

Hat tip: PR-Kloster, Storryblogger & bitemarks.

 

Technorati tags: , ,

Comments (21)