« Intersecting Circles | Main | Trust the One You're With »
February 14, 2005
Come Together Right Now
Sunday's New York Times article by Tim O'Brien, titled "Spinning Frenzy: P.R.'s Bad Press," is a wake-up call for the PR industry. He suggests that the Armstrong Williams imbroglio is the result of the confluence of several trends, including industry consolidation, the boom in alternative media sources, and the continued tension between the two schools of thought in PR (the Edward Bernays school of "manipulation" versus the Arthur Page school of "transparency").
Let's be very clear about one point. We at Edelman do not seek competitive advantage from the Armstrong Williams case, nor should any PR firm. It may be true that independent firms are under less pressure for short term profits but private ownership is no panacea. Several of the professional services firms that were exposed as complicit in scandals in 2002-3, such as Arthur Andersen, were private partnerships.
Industry leaders such as my father, Daniel Edelman, Howard Rubenstein and Jack O'Dwyer, have earned the right to critique current practitioners through their devotion to ethical practice and their long service to the PR business. But there is no returning to the days of the 60s and 70s before the roll-up of much of the PR business into global communications holding companies. We also can't go back to the halcyon days of the past because of technology--Eason Jordan resignation at CNN is another example of the accountability and transparency pressures exerted by blogs.
The real question must be where to go from here.
My response is Come Together Right Now (thank you McCartney or Lennon). We will hang together or hang separately (thank you Ben Franklin). We need to agree as an industry on a serious code of conduct. This famously centrifugal industry should stop for a moment and consider the alternative, which is a continued series of ethical violations leading to lack of public trust causing us to lose our ability to practice.
Here are a few elements of such a code of conduct:
1) No Pay for Play--No payment to a journalist for placement
2) Transparency on Source of Funding or Financial Interest of Spokesperson--This should apply to relationships with traditional media and especially in on-line media.
3) Enforcement--Wrong-doing should be exposed and there should be a forum for adjudication. If ethical violations are confirmed, then there must be consequences.
4) Education--We must bring these issues to important schools teaching public relations, such as Syracuse, Boston University, USC and Northwestern. Cases should be developed to allow students to understand the gravity of these matters. A similar commitment to education of our own staffs must be undertaken around the world.
5) It is implicit but we should state: no bill padding--no hours shall be charged to clients that have not been worked by firm personnel.
I know that the Council of PR Firms intends to issue guidelines for ethical practice in corporate/public affairs and marketing. I would suggest that the Public Relations Society of America, the Arthur Page Society, and the International PR Association do the same. At some point over the summer, these documents could be harmonized into a global directive on ethical practice of public relations. The long cherished idea of self regulation is no longer sufficient given the huge changes in the environment for PR. We need to offer guidance, rules of the road, then enforcement with teeth for those who violate those rules. I echo PRSA President Judy Phair's closing comment in Tim O'Brien's article, "It's an opportunity for people in the industry to stand up and say, here's the right way to do things...we need to map out a new course of action."
Posted by Edelman at February 14, 2005 9:05 AM |
Comments
It's interesting to me that we've seen the same issue ("transparency") surface this past week in three different professions involving public trust, information and communications. I would propose that your guidelines for ethical behavior are as relevant and as necessary in the advertising profession and journalism as they are in public relations.
Eason Jordan was "outed" by a tidal wave of furious blogging pumped up more by (the WEF's or CNN's) game playing and refusal to release a videotape of what was actually said than by the reports and excuses related to Jordan's actual statement. At the same time, we're seeing O&M stand trial for misleading billing practices on the ONDCP account. Ad Age has come out with a good story on this event and a realistic editorial position. I've blogged about it in my Brand Central Station blog, as well.
Add to all of this the cast of characters ranging from Jason Blair to F-H's alleged over billing with the city of Los Angeles this year and none of us come out unscathed.
I would urge the PR professional associations to work with the advertising trades (AAAA's and AAF) and the ANA to help develop some professional standards on ethical practice. Then take those standards one step further and work with organizations like the ICCO who already have practice standards in place for European firms.
In short, I think your sense of urgency is well-placed and your intentions are honorable. If there is any more I can do to help, please let me know.
Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station
Posted by: Mike Bawden at February 14, 2005 6:12 PM
Mike,
As usual a good point. There are problems in advertising and media. I do believe we should focus on our own glass house in PR first. We cannot have any more Armstrong Williams pay for play by PR firms The Fleishman issue could have happened to any PR firm--a couple of executives out of control.
We have such a plethora of governing bodies in PR IPRA PRSA Arthur Page. We need to come together to get best ideas of each Perhaps you could represent the newer breed of PR in blogsphere.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at February 15, 2005 1:37 PM
Richard
Ethical conduct and public company ownership have nothing to do with each other. The linkage is just wrong. And as a CEO of a privately-held PR firm, I am just as focused on profits -- maybe even more so -- than my friends who run units at Omnicom, IPG and the like. In fact, I think that clients want to work with firms who make money and are successful businesses in their own right. My belief is that clients pay for value so making money is not the issue if the value is delivered at the highest levels.
What really troubles me about the Times story is, with the exception of your quote on the need for training, the industry continues to duck for cover on the subject of creating standards of ethical behavior. You mention the Council and its work on developing standards? If it's true, it's long overdue, dont you think?
Elliot Sloane
CEO
Sloane & Company
Posted by: Elliot Sloane at February 16, 2005 2:27 PM
I applaud your harsh critique of, and alruistic goals for, your own industry.
As "Vaspers the Grate" I try to do the same for the web design and blog communities.
I am waging all out war against comment spammers, sleazy "sponsored links", and lack of credible resource links in blogs.
Sleazy sponsored links and commercial comment spam leads users to dubious sites (online casinos, alleged pharmacies, debt consolidation scams, etc.) or detrimental sites (spyware-attaching, Trojans, etc.).
Some bloggers seem to be clueless about measures that can easily be taken to prevent, diminish, and delete comment spam.
I am disgusted and disheartened to see so many lazy, negligent bloggers allow dubious commericial URL-embedded comment spam to sit in their comment threads...even weeks after I've alerted the bloggers to the problem.
Your proposed points for a industry standard of enforced ethics are an important step in the right direction. Let's see who steps up to the plate.
Posted by: Steven Streight aka Vaspers the Grate at February 18, 2005 3:33 AM
Although I am not well known in PR circles, I was reading a post from Andy Lark In the first week of February regarding the formation of a PROTS(Public Relations Online Transparency System).
He related the construction of a JOTS for journalists as a means of helping people within the field of journalism avoid the sort of blunders that Armstrong Williams and Ketchum committed.
I immediately began a blog just for the purpose of fleshing out a system by which current practitioners of PR and future practitioners could determine when to disclose and when to be discreet.
It is my sincere hope that the more seasoned and experienced PR practitioners who understand the value of creating a set of guidelines regarding the disclosure/discretion balancing act will participate.
As I mentioned at the top of this post, I am not well known as a PR Professional, however, I want to understand this issue as well as possible. And create a record of what has been determined as a "best practice" when it comes to transparency in PR Practice.
Posted by: Dwight Stickler at February 19, 2005 1:57 AM