« The future -- social computing ? | Main | Greece, Turkey and Thoughts from Vacation »
March 14, 2005
Break the Downward Spiral
Sunday's New York Times article, titled, "Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged News," is further evidence of our need to break the negative news cycle that is enveloping our industry. From the Armstrong Williams debacle to the new storm on the legality and desirability of video news releases, the PR community has serious challenges. Let's recognize these issues and take actions to reflect our unique position as custodians of the public trust, then communicating our changed policies.
Let me repeat some of the phrases used in the story on Sunday. "Under the Bush Administration, the federal government has used a well-established TOOL of public relations; the pre-packaged, READY-TO-SERVE news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations..." It is a world where all participants benefit...Public relations firms secure government contracts worth MILLIONS of dollars..."In three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office has held that government-made news segments may even constitute improper covert PROPAGANDA..." An FCC decision in year 2000 states that "Listeners and viewers are entitled to know by whom they are being PERSUADED..." (Note that the capital letters are my own so that you get the full effect of the words being used).
Though Sunday's article did not focus on the PR agency world, be sure that more negative coverage will be coming. Why am I so sure of this? In part, because we have allowed our profession to be increasing defined as complicit in a cover-up, as willing shills who let money overwhelm our judgment and moral compass. We are accused of foisting government propaganda on the American people, in direct violation of the law.
What can be done? Let's start by revealing the size of our US government contracts. We have heard in the media that PR agencies received $250 million in the past four years ($88 million in 2004) from the US Government each year to promote its programs. At Edelman, our fees from the US Government (we have one account, from the US Department of Commerce to promote travel to the US from the UK) are $400,000, out of our global total of $240 million in fees. I understand from another top-ten firm that they only have 3% of its fees from Government contracts. So a useful first step toward transparency is to end the mystery of size of fees by having each firm reveal total spending by US Government-related accounts.
Second, we should initiate a more stringent set of rules that would govern our behavior on government accounts. We already have a much more onerous paperwork requirement on accounting that is intended to safeguard the public's money. Why not allow the former reporter who is engaged to interview the US Government official to ask a few difficult questions as part of the process of filming the video news release (VNR)? How about identifying the former reporter as such, or including a note to viewers on-screen that the VNR came from the US Government?
Third, we should commit to providing full disclosure on exactly what we for Government contracts.
It is possible that this level of transparency will make it less attractive to the US Government to hire PR agencies. So be it. We cannot allow the impression that we are an outsourcing mechanism that allows freedom from oversight. We are in fact a highly reputable profession that risks its reputation by inaction.
Posted by Edelman at March 14, 2005 9:55 AM
Comments
The central message I distilled from the piece in the "Times" was something a little different from what you have posted. I read the piece as a basic questioning of the validity of Video News Releases (VNRs) as a proper medium for government communication. I agree with your suggestions that greater transparency, heightened accounting measures, and better notice of government-sponsored messages will help limit what seems to be the impending attack on PR agencies. I thought, however, that there was a more important question raised by the story: should the government be involved (or hire people on its behalf) in producing the news?
I would like to hear your defense of VNRs as a legitimate PR method for government clients. VNRs for product releases and corporate communications seem to be one matter, but for government messages seem to cross into dirty-word territory ("propaganda"). I do not think that real "independent journalism" would lessen the role of PR professionals. PR agencies working for the government can still meet their client's needs by presenting the best arguments and facts to independent reporters. The examples of VNR-abuse outlined in the "Times" were particularly egregious: reporters at local stations re-reading government copy to imply originality, local stations hacking off the VNR reporters' correct titles, and VNRs loaded with gushy, value-laden rhetoric.
The long and short of it is that when the pubDriver has not implemented the disconnect_all method. at C:/Perl/site/lib/DBI.pm line 565
END failed--call queue aborted.
lic learns, as they did in Sunday's paper, that the government's message and their news outlet's messageDriver has not implemented the disconnect_all method. at C:/Perl/site/lib/DBI.pm line 565
END failed--call queue aborted.
is remarkably intertwined, they are bound to be suspicious of both. I think that the PR community should be less concerned with ensuring transparent accounting practices for government clients, and more worried about the appearance that PR agencies are delivering their local news broadcast on behalf of the government. On February 28, you wrote that the 2005 Edelman Trust Barometer reflected a "lack of trust in traditional figures of authority and institutions, such as business, government and the media." The perception that PR agencies direct media content for the government (whatever its relationship to reality) will surely lead to similar barometric findings in 2006.
Posted by: Michael Hissam at March 15, 2005 1:24 AM
Your ruminations strike a chord. You probably noticed that by the end of the day (yesterday), the White House had thoroughly endorsed "video press releases," thus blowing off the GAO recommendation to stop them.
Some of the transparency you'd like for your industry can be obtained from bureaucratic sources, with some difficulty. There is a public data base in the General Services Administration called the Federal Procurement Data System-NG, which allows queries by type of service and vendor. It is truly difficult to query, but it should have, under the right "product-service code" all or most all PR contracts above $25K for recent federal fiscal years.
Also,you can request the formal descriptions ("statements of work") from PR firms' federal contracts via a Freedom of Information Act requests, agency by agency.
Your Washington staff will probably know how to query the database and make the FOIA requests. With some sweat and time, that should put some of the facts you seek on the table.
My newsletter, Government Services Insider, at www.gsinsider.com, addresses the management challenges of federally oriented professional services. What you sense in the PR sector is gaining amplitude in the broad swath of my readership in IT services and consulting.
Scrutiny from all stakeholders, including customers, is rising, with a heavy dose of accelerant (a fire marshal's term) from the informed and (my favorite) the uninformed press. The trade press in government services is frequently viewed by many as intimately involved in collaborating with the firms it covers--in various conferences, other marketing ventures, and, of course, advertising.
Favorable and unfavorable scrutiny from customers, the Administration, Congress, interest groups, and the media, such as it is, should be "good" for yoDriver has not implemented the disconnect_all method. at C:/Perl/site/lib/DBI.pm line 565
END failed--call queue aborted.
ur business. The federal government services firms are going to need a lot more of what you know how to do.
Posted by: Michael Lent at March 15, 2005 5:18 PM
In my post dated March 14, 2005 titled "Break the Downward Spiral," I incorrectly stated the "U.S. Government spent $250 million each year" where in fact the "U.S. Government spent $250 million in the past four years ($88 million in 2004) according to the House Democrate report released in January 2005. Thanks to Kevin Kevin McCauley of O'Dwyers for the correction.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at March 17, 2005 1:11 PM
Michael,
If PR by agencies for US Government departments is in any way seen as a stealth operation then we are in real trouble. We cannot be viewed as facilitating propaganda campaigns. We need to offer complete transparency on motive, funder and budget. Once those items are on the record, we can get to the substance of the program. Thanks for writing.
Richard
Posted by: Richard at March 17, 2005 4:06 PM
Michael,
I take your point.
I believe that VNRs are a valid mechanism, even for the US Government Why One, they provide news that would otherwise not be covered in local market due to budget restrictions Second, they are viewed in advance by local news producers who make judgment on whether or not to use on air (so in fact like pitching local newspaper)
What needs to change--I think the content of VNR for government should be more balanced, with some questions that are not softballs. Further, there should be an on screen "crawl" at the bottom that acknowledges at the beginning and end of the VNR, viewable by consumer of news, that this is a piece produced by Government.
Posted by: Richard Edelman at March 17, 2005 4:08 PM
Richard,
Thank you for sharing the numbers of Edelman contracts and not be afraid of hiding the reality behind the mask of independence. We, as an agency, can redefine PR industry as a transparent service with clear deliverables. The glamourous image of 20th century PR evaporates with the new means of communication. I appreciate that you use these new forces instead of running away from them.
Thank you,
Arseny Tseytlin
Posted by: Arseny Tseytlin at March 19, 2005 1:51 AM
Transparency only makes the problem visible. The fact that MY tax dollars are being spent on propaganda designed to get me onboard a train I loathe is sickening.
Posted by: Liz at March 19, 2005 10:43 AM
This post offers good advice for the industry. Thanks.
Posted by: Scott Baradell at April 4, 2005 3:21 PM
Scott,
It will only work if we all commit to high ethical standard and are unafraid to talk about our work Thanks for writing
Posted by: Richard Edelman at April 6, 2005 12:29 PM