The Right Answer

Anyone who’s been abroad knows the problems of bribes, cheating, favoritism and kickbacks – baksheesh – that go with local cultures and officials. Airport customs agents grumble about something in your suitcase until the tourist places, say, a $20 bill on the counter. Suddenly, the problem disappears along with the bill. Traveler and luggage get waived through. A friend who lived in Mexico City for years says the police department routinely assigns cops to beats according to their ability to separate money from the public.

We often gloss over this sort of thing as just “part of the local culture.” But often we forget how stressful and disheartening all of this must be to the locals who deal with it every day. Things can reach a boiling point and people finally take action, as we see currently in India. Social activist Anna Hazare began a hunger strike that caught the imagination of the fed-up masses. The backlash has been big and many Indians now realize something must be done if India wants to become the First World power it could be. Successful nations, businesses and organizations usually attain high rank because of squeaky clean reputations.

Thus it’s disheartening when Americans dismiss ethical problems as just part of our culture. They aren’t – and should not be. Public relations faces the problem as surely as any profession and we must all work to assure practitioners aren’t dismissed as less than honest.

PRSA San Antonio will hear an excellent presentation on ethics at its Sept. 1 luncheon by Dr. Linda Specht from Trinity University. Her topic – Going Beyond Codes of Ethics: What do you really stand for? – will approach ethics in the big picture: Who are you? What are your institutional values and how do you communicate them to others? What do your relationship with employees, clients and competitors say about you? Is a commitment to “social responsibility” part of your organizational identity?

Ethics and honesty cannot be simply some oft-ignored policy that can be changed as needed. You and your organization are either ethical, or you are not. It’s a problem mankind faces everywhere and the right answer, wherever and whoever you are, is always the same.

Desperate Measures by Facebook / Burson-Marsteller Raise All Kinds of Red Flags

One of the most exasperating phases new parents experience happens when their kids hit 3 or 4 years old and the parents get the dreaded call from the daycare or babysitter reporting that their precious child has bitten another. It happens when the little ones are angry or feel powerless, and they don’t have the tools or maturity to know how to respond. Eventually, children grow out of this stage pretty quickly. They begin to understand right from wrong and that they shouldn’t hurt someone else when they themselves are upset or are feeling threatened. Parents get to stop saying, “No biting” and “Play fair.”

Apparently, someone at Facebook and Burson-Marsteller never learned that lesson.

Here’s a rundown on recent events.

• Facebook hires Burson-Marsteller for a particular job and says not to reveal their name (Red flag #1).
• Burson-Marsteller launches a “whisper campaign” to get news stories and editorials about Google’s Social Circle feature in Gmail claiming privacy infractions (Facebook pot calling Google kettle…).
• Burson-Marsteller offers to ghost write stories for bloggers (Red flag #2).
• One FTC blogger asks who the client is, Burson-Marsteller replies: Nope, can’t tell (Red flag #3).
• Blogger publishes email exchange (na na na na boo boo).
• USA Today investigates the stealth claims about Social Circle and finds them false.
• The you-know-what hits the fan.
• Burson-Marsteller releases a statement blaming Facebook, admitting the actions were against Burson’s own policies and they should have “declined” the assignment. (Note the policy about not undertaking work “intended or designed to mislead”).
• Facebook releases a statement Burson-Marsteller, claiming “No 'smear' campaign was authorized or intended.” (It’s not me, it’s you.)
• Burson-Marsteller deletes negative comments from its own Facebook page (Seriously?).

A firestorm of stories and commentary has erupted online and in the mainstream media. Here are some highlights.

• USA Today: “Google deflects PR firm's attack of Gmail privacy”
• USA Today (asks “by what standard does this episode show any sign of adult supervision?”): “Update: Facebook says no 'smear' campaign intended”
• PRSA Chair, Rosanna Fiske: “Haven’t We Learned Anything About Disclosure?”
• Neville Hobson: “How Burson Marsteller can emerge from its Facebook PR fiasco”
• Dan York: "The Facebook/Burson-Marsteller Debacle, Google - and the World War For (Our) Information"
• PR Newser blog: “The Many Layers of the B-M/Facebook Smear Story”
• The Hobson and Holtz Report – Podcast #599: May 16, 2011 – includes commentary on the Burson Marsteller / Facebook kerfuffle: the basics of the story, how the companies responded, ethical issues, what to do: the roles individual firms and the professional associations should play, our roles as communicators and opinion-formers in the social spaces. Discussion starts at about 6 minutes 26 seconds into the recording. You can download the MP3 file (29.5Mb).

Ironically, the same week Burson-Marsteller won the Holmes Report award for U.S. Agency of the Year. And it doesn’t even look like the two Burson-Marsteller employees involved in this mess will even get a time-out.

Express-News Editorial in Error about PR

Yesterday, the San Antonio Express-News published an editorial, “BexarMet needs more than PR,” that frankly gives a pretty dim view of our profession. I have no issue with the headline. BexarMet does need more than public relations. We’ve long known that public relations campaigns cannot fix operational or leadership problems.

The editors are also right to question any expense taken on by the board. I wouldn’t argue that the BexarMet’s days are likely “numbered.” I don’t claim to know anything about the (non-San Antonio) PR firm or the contract it’s been hired to fulfill. And clearly, BexarMet’s history in the PR department has been – shall we say – questionable.

I grant the Express-News editors all of that.

In fact, let’s set aside that this is BexarMet at all.

My concern is the implication that public relations is singularly interested in making someone “look good,” or burnishing a “bruised public image” or casting someone in a “positive light.” I can honestly say, none of these goals are in my job description.

It is paramount that organizations be effective at communicating – especially those that serve the public interest directly. And communication is more complicated than it may seem. There's a whole body of knowledge are research in this area. Communication requires not just speaking, but listening as well. Organizations that are in trouble typically need counsel in this area. There is no shame in getting help where it is critically needed.

Naturally, as in all professions, a few bad PR apples have gotten the spotlight. But these don’t represent our profession by any stretch. If we’re doing our job well, our successes are our organizations’ successes.

Take a look at the code of ethics and professional standards that guides our work. All PRSA members pledge to abide by this code. Any PR practitioner worth his or her salt would of course counsel an organization to do things like, as the Express-News editors call for, end scandals, improve service where it’s been weak, and work with lawmakers constructively, among other things like being in dialog with constituents and customers. And I'm pretty sure that, deep down, the editors know this too.

Tell the Boss: We Need A Social Networking Policy

At a recent PRSA San Antonio Luncheon Program focusing on Ethics, speakers Dr. K. Matthew Gilley (St. Mary’s University Chair of Bill Greehey Chair in Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility) and Earnie Broughton (executive director and ethics program coordinator for USAA), referenced a recent survey by Deloitte CCL called Social Networking and Reputational Risk in the Workplace.
The findings of this survey offer public relations practitioners a clear challenge.

• 58% of executives said that reputational risk and social networking should be a boardroom issue. Only 15% said IT ACTUALLY IS.
• 74% of employees responding to the survey said it is easy to damage a brand's reputation.
  

Even more frightening are the statistics from executives that highlight recognizing and responding to risks.

• Only 17% had a monitoring or mitigating program in place.
  
• 22% cited a formal poicy for how employees can use social networking tools.
  

How can you get executives to take notice or "elevate the discussion" on social networks which Deloitte's study suggests?

First, share the results of this study and take responsibility for taking the discussion with senior management to the next level. After that, do our homework. Spend some time researching policies designed and implemented by other organization (You're bookmarking them in delicious, aren't you?). You will no doubt find organizations of a similar size or culture who have started. That's a great place for you to start in your organization, too.

Finally, expand the dialogue to include other stakeholders. Get a group of your employees, customers and clients together an assess what common questions and practices are already happening. Find a way to harness it.

Last, come back here and tell us how you did it and what your new policy looks like. We can all learn from each other's success.

PRSA Condems Industry Malpractice

On Thursday, PRSA national released a statement criticizing the recent barrage of unethical cases involving deceptive online practices, front groups and pay for play. The statement is online. And I have posted it in full below.

August 27, 2009
PRSA Condemns the Growing Use of Disingenuous Editorial Content, Deceptive Commentary on Blogs and Other Venues

NEW YORK (August 27, 2009) – Over the last few months, there have been several news accounts of promotional tactics that signal a common thread of malpractice under the Public Relations Society of America’s (PRSA) Code of Ethics and PRSA Professional Standards Advisories (PSA). While each tactic varies in method and medium, PRSA states categorically that misrepresenting the nature of editorial content or intentionally failing to clearly reveal the source of message contents is unethical.

Recent reports have included:

• A public relations firm allegedly engaging its interns to write wholesale positive product reviews for online message boards.
• A lobbying firm sending letters on other organizations’ letterhead.
• Bloggers posting positive reviews of products and services while receiving products for free, as well as being paid by the sponsor for such positive reviews. (Proposed new Federal Trade Commission rules deem this practice to be false advertising.)
• A marketing firm creating a program to match clients with tweeters for positive mentions.
• Special interests setting up and/or funding organizations whose only constituent is the organizer or funder, and that take active positions purporting to represent larger constituencies in the current national health care reform debate.

While they vary in method and execution, each scenario shares a common thread of potential malpractice because they fail to conform to fundamental obligations of the professional communicator to protect and advance the free flow of accurate and truthful information and foster informed decision making in a democratic society.

Deceptive Online Practices
Under the PRSA Code of Ethics, the source of editorial material must be clearly identified. Any attempts to mislead or deceive an uninformed audience are considered malpractice. The PRSA code calls for truth and transparency and full disclosure of the causes and interests represented. The goal should be responsible advocacy on behalf of clients, sustaining credibility with all audiences, and strengthening the public’s trust in the information they receive and the profession that provides that information. Deceptive practices produce unethical advocacy. The code also specifically targets deceptive online practices by individuals or organizations using blogs, viral marketing and anonymous Internet posting in Professional Standards Advisory PS-8.

Front Groups
One frequently used vehicle that fosters misrepresentation and unethical advocacy is a third-party organization, known as a “front group,” established specifically to deceive or mislead an audience about the position presented and its source. In Professional Standards Advisory PS-7, the PRSA Code of Ethics spells out the unethical nature of engaging in or assisting such groups’ deceptive descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors, intentions or participants. The ethical communicator is obligated to reveal all information needed for informed decision making, thereby maintaining the public trust. Withholding or deceptively concealing sources or sponsors of information or their intentions or motivations fails to satisfy the principles of truth in advancing the interest of clients and of serving the public interest as responsible advocates.

Pay for Play
Providing payment to generate or influence editorial coverage, regardless of medium, is unethical and constitutes malpractice under the PRSA code because such exchanges of value are hidden from the reader, viewer or listener. The PRSA code clearly champions the values of honesty, fairness, transparency and objective counsel to clients. “Pay-for-Play” also runs counter to the code’s warning to avoid any conflict of interest that impedes the trust of clients, employers or the public. Under Professional Standards Advisory PS-9, professionals are told to disclose any exchange of value so the reader, viewer or listener has the opportunity to make up their own minds about the value, bias, accuracy and usefulness of information provided by others.

PR Is Not the Circus

As you probably heard, the circus was in town last week. Not just any circus, but the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. I’ve got to say, for the money, they provide tons of entertainment. And they are masters of making something look bigger and more exciting than it really may be.

P.T. Barnum is credited with developing several tactics used in public relations today, like press agentry, advertising, product promotion and the pseudoevent. He called his the “greatest show on earth.” He promoted Joice Heath as George Washington nurse (at the claimed ripe old age of 161). He brought us Tom Thumb and Jumbo. Scott Cutlip says Barnum’s audiences were so hungry for entertainment, they accepted his exaggerations. The “willingly deceived,” as the London Times reported.

He was an author, publisher, philanthropist, sometime politician and amateur psychologist. Wikipedia says he was the first “show business” millionaire. But the problem is, as you know, he also used deception, hoaxes and exploitation.

Unfortunately, I believe that this part of his reputation is what plagues our profession today. For the throngs who really don’t understand public relations, it’s easy for then to believe we do what he did: Lie, spin, look out for our organization’s interest above all else. It’s easy for them to believe this because they have been lied to, spun and victims of institutional self interest.

Usually these acts were committed by people other than PR folk. But look at those who worked for organizations that most recently lied to and exploited our faith: key people in Wall Street, financial institutions, and corporations as well as politicians. Not all, but enough.

PR professionals have a responsibility when working with an organization that is headed down that road to speak up or leave. It’s never that easy. It probably sneaks up on them. But there is a point where gray becomes black.

I’ve been there myself. Speaking up didn’t work, so I left. The organization eventually had to close its doors.

But I still reserve the right to enjoy the circus.

PS: The image I used is from a great blog post by Bill Sledzick, “The 4 Models of Public Relations Practice How Far Have You Evolved.”

How Employee Online Behavior Affects your Organization -- PRSA Luncheon Program

Today (Thursday) our chapter holds its annual luncheon in recognition of PRSA’s ethics month. Our focus is on how employee online behavior affects your organization – both sides of the story. I'm so grateful to our panelists, Kelly Smith, assistant superintendent for technology services at Northside ISD, and Jenny LaCoste-Caputo, education editor for the San Antonio Express-News, who will discuss how employee online behavior away from work can affect your company and how you can encourage employees to communicate online without putting you at risk.

Below are links to further information related to today’s discussion.

San Antonio Express-News Education Blog
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education

PRSA Ethics Information
See the PRSA Member Code of Ethics (in English) http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/preamble_en.html

See the PRSA Member Code of Ethics (in Spanish) http://www.prsa.org/aboutUs/ethics/preamble_sp.html

See other resources, including advisories and case studies http://www.prsa.org/aboutus/ethics/

Samples of Policies
"What Employers Need To Know About Employee Blogging"

Blogging Policy Resources on the New PR Wiki

CBS Sunday Morning Rebuttal Defends PR

An excutive VP at CBS Sunday Morning has provided a rebuttal to Andrew Cohen's commentary (see my previous post). Author Gil Schwartz is executive VP of corporate communications for CBS. He's also known as Stanly Bing. On June 22, CBS Sunday Morning aired his response, titled "Defending Public Relations."

The Truth Behind FEMA’s Fake News Conference

The cliché perfect storm is getting real old, but there’s no other way to describe what led up to the so-called fake news conference held by FEMA leaders during the October wild fires in California. And our own Kami Watson-Huyse, APR, gives us the behind the scenes story.

In a first-ever guest interview for the popular podcast, For Immediate Release, Kami talks with John “Pat” Philbin, the now former FEMA director of external affairs, who is quite candid.

It is a tale of overworked and exhausted staff of an agency under fire while responding to a natural disaster. A highly politicized nation’s capitol. Reporters who are either lazy or at least quick to judge. Ethical and tactical mistakes made by junior staff. And a boss with character who takes responsibility rather than pointing fingers – at great personal cost.

You can read the interview on Kami’s blog, Communications Overtones or listen to it at For Immediate Release. You can also join in the discussion on Kami’s blog, where Pat Philbin is participating and willing to answer your questions.

Ethics of Photo Manipulation Blasted Again

It feels like it should be obvious by now that magazines and advertisers “edit” photos of attractive people to make them impossibly attractive. It’s been going on for years. They tell us they have to do it so we will pay attention, so we will buy the thing, so we will trust them. Everyone knows it’s misleading. Everyone knows it furthers the myth that perfection is possible.

But it’s one of those things you know in your head but not in your heart.

Take the recent Redbook cover with Faith Hill. The folks at Jezebel.com got their hands on the original photo that was used for the doctored-up cover. On the cover, Faith is missing some blemishes. OK fine. But she’s also missing body parts. Her arm is thinner without the traces of natural flab that were there before. And that part of you that bunches up around a waistband has disappeared.

I look at the cover shot and think, wow, she’s in shape. How does she do that – especially after having kids? I never could. But I should. And so it goes.

And it’s worse for kids who don’t know the secret yet.

The ironic part is that Faith Hill is really attractive without any adjustments. So why do they do this?

The Today Show covered the story (which you can view online). The Redbook editor-in-chief Stacy Morrison had the audacity to say: “In the end, they're not really photographs. They're images.” Uh huh, and I have some swampland for sale.

One of the guests also said, “That’s what women want to buy.” Which is total *%#. It always has been but it is especially so in today’s world of reality and transparency.

They way I see it, making people appear better than is humanly possible is a deception. Rationalizing doesn’t take away the lie.

And this lie is harmful.

It’s harmful to adults – men and women both – in terms of our self concepts and expectations of each other.

And clearly it’s harmful to kids and teens. Jezebel.com come said it well: “In a world where girls as young as eight are going on the South Beach Diet, teenagers are getting breast implants as graduation gifts… it's __ing wrong.”

As a parent of daughters, as a woman, as a consumer, as an advocate of media literacy, I’m grateful to the likes of Jezebel.com and Dove.

Shel Holtz recently shared that he uses the Dove "Evolution" viral video campaign as an example in his presentations. One of those days, a participant slipped out during lunch, went to his hotel room and e-mailed the video to his daughter. She’d been having serious problems and was even suicidal. He later told Shel that the Dove video changed his daughter’s life.

Media images have an impact. Each of us has to decide everyday if we want that impact to be good or bad.