« The Central Role of PR in Tsunami Relief | Main | The License to Operate »
January 7, 2005
Pay to Play PR is Not On
Today's story in USA Today on payments to a journalist by a major PR firm was profoundly depressing. The article states that prominent TV commentator Armstrong Williams received $240,000 from Ketchum PR to "regularly comment on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) campaign during the course of his broadcasts" and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that air during Williams program' The Right Side. USA Today, which cites information secured through a Freedom of Information Act request, reports further that Williams was to use "his contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, to encourage their producers to periodically address NCLB" on TV and radio.
This kind of pay for play public relations takes us back in time to the days of the press agent who would drop off the new record album and $10 to the deejay. It makes our industry's efforts to "clean up" behavior in newly created PR markets such as China and Russia look decidedly ridiculous (my favorite China anecdote is journalists in the mid 90s asking for $40 in cab fare to attend an interview when the newspaper was across the street from our office).
I know Ray Kotcher and Dave Drobis of Ketchum. I am sure that they would never tolerate this kind of contractual arrangement. I am also confident that they will take steps to assure that it never happens again.
Some things are black and white. We need to set a very high standard of disclosure for our business, with total transparency on funding sources and mission. We should also eschew any practice that calls into question the integrity of the information being disseminated. Let's try to turn this negative for our industry into a positive, by making a long term commitment to the best ethical behavior.
Posted by Edelman at January 7, 2005 3:08 PM
Comments
Senior executives are nonetheless accountable for the actions of the people in their firm. It is my sincere hope that there are steps taken so unethical behavior is addressed and openly dicussed among practitioners, instead of giving it the ugly step-sister treatment.
Those in the trenches are often confronted with situations and circumstances in which producing results for clients is paramount. It is imperative for senior leaders to convey the importance and critical need to uphold the ethics of the firm, agency, or company.
On January 7th, Ketchum was caught with the hot potato. Haven't been there instances in which PR firms and practitioners have walked the dangerous line of unaccpetability?
Posted by: Steve at January 9, 2005 8:51 PM
Steve,
Thanks for your post. You are absolutely right that senior leaders must make ethical behavior the most important value for the firm--above making money, above creativity and above anything else. I would tell you that the image of PR is still in a fragile state. We were blamed for the demise of tech in the bubble--too much hype was the charge. We are still carrying the can for large firm representation of the Church of Scientology and other marginal enterprises. We have such a great opportunity NOW to take share from advertising that we cannot let these types of violations mar the image of our industry. That is why I wrote what I did in my blog--some things are just black and white.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at January 10, 2005 10:41 AM
PR is at a cross-roads, and its the nature of open dialogue on blogs that is changing public relations.
As I noted on my blog yesterday, as more and more citizen journalists come out of the woodwork, such practices as VNRs, SMTs and paid spokesmen might fall to the side - and as PR professionals, it will be up to us to find ways to get information to the public. Do I think that PR needs to get rid of the VNR/SMT/spokesperson genre? Not at all - just be smart about it.
Posted by: Jeremy at January 12, 2005 2:26 PM
Richard
I couldn't agree with you more in expressing your disgust at these practices and the risks our industry faces today. I was equally surprised at the rather tepid and apologetic response from our industry trade group in the media regarding this matter...so much so that we have resigned our membership from the CPRF effective today. I also believe the industry is poised to do great things -- as long as we focus on ethics and integrity. In the end, it is this integrity that we bring to our client engagements and interactions with the press, the investment community, elected officials, and yes...syndicated columnists.
Elliot Sloane
CEO
Sloane & Company
Posted by: Elliot Sloane at January 12, 2005 3:17 PM
Jeremy,
When you say we should be smart about it I agree But I have caveats Smart could be construed as clever I want us to be transparent Process matters as much as message We cannot allow any similarity to advertising We don't buy the space we earn it
Posted by: Richard Edelman at January 13, 2005 5:45 PM
Elliott,
You and I have always been like minded
PR has its greatest opportunity EVER to take share from advertising But we are blurring the lines and ruining our credibility We must take a strong stand on ethics and transparency Thanks for your response.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at January 13, 2005 5:47 PM
Its an interesting comment piece Richard. Where do you think that PR should draw the line in terms of practices in order to leave clear water between legitimate practices and the Armstrong Williams affair?
- Should agencies stop using journalists to write bylined articles?
- Is it ethical to pay journalists to do media training with clients?
Posted by: Ged Carroll at January 15, 2005 3:16 PM
This is a joke, right? Isn't this the same hand wringing that accompanied all those outings of interested parties, otherwise referred to as financial reporters/experts back in the dot com days? Try telling a "reporter" what they can and can't do when they're 'off the clock' and you'll see yourself in court. The problem will not be fixed.
Posted by: Hack at January 22, 2005 5:11 AM