Richard,

Thanks again for your observations on other cultures; the opportunities and challenges they face and the contrasts that may be apparent to us as Americans that we need to take in to account when doing business abroad. Well said.

But it's your postscript that motivated me to comment on your blog today.

As I've said elsewhere, you've provided a great example of the power of social media with your blog. I have to admit, when you first started, I thought your blog was going to be typical of what we little guys too often see from "big agency types" - lip-service about new ideas and generally poor execution (or out-right delegation) once the shine wears off.

Instead, you've raised the bar.

Personal replies to posts and on-going conversation with those who comment mean a lot. Especially when they come from the CEO of the world's largest independent PR firm.

And now, by publicly acknowledging Shel and Trevor's comments about linking to other blogs, you've managed to take these converstations to a whole new level. Thanks.

Have a great '06.

Best Regards,

Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station

Thanks for the link, Richard. Happy New Year to you.

MB thanks for writing as always. On the critique by Shel and Trevor, they were right. I have to do better. I want you to hold me to it .

While I was in the Czech Republic 18 months ago, I ran a session on corporate social responsibility and branding for the Czech PR Society. It was interesting to discuss the differences in how CSR is viewed there versus here in the US.

In the US, we consider corporate giving to non-profits to be a part of our social obligation. As best I could discern from my Czech colleagues, this practice (companies giving money to support non-profits or social causes) was looked upon with suspicion. It was much more common for businesses to second employees to organizations, etc. ? expending the human resource rather than the financial.

I can understand this, though. Given a history of state ownership of most major industries, the only businesses in a position to provide any kind of significant financial resource were former, state-owned businesses. Financial assistance from these enterprises would, in all likelihood, feel a lot like state insiders re-establishing their control over social institutions.

On the other hand, many US companies ? especially those using large, multi-national marketing companies with deep, American ties ? overlooked this problem and would blindly give money rather than personnel. In addition to the suspicion over motive (what?s the American company really trying to do?) there was often local resentment to perceived arrogance on the part of the US company.

I met with Paul Holmes in October while we were both in Krakow and discussed the differences in the approaches to corporate social responsibility taken by US and European companies. I think there are some interesting cultural lessons to be learned there as well.

Thanks again for your reply.

As always, a real pleasure.

Best Regards,

Mike Bawden
President & CEO
Brand Central Station

I am writing because I was impressed with your critique of Berlin, and the passion you showed for the city. I am wondering how much attention you’ve given to the younger generation. I studied near Berlin two years ago, and the city I lived in had a definite age gap. Everyone between the ages of 18 and 35 seemed to be missing. I later found that most young people move west to cities like Cologne or Munich in search of work.
I realize that by bringing business to Berlin, many people will be persuaded to stay, but I believe there is a more direct link to be found between the youth and finding a solution for Berlin. Maybe if they are more involved they will find a closer bond to their capital and not leave the first chance they get.
I’m sure that the west is tired of carrying the financial burden of the east, and revitalizing Berlin could be what is needed to inspire the country. I appreciate the attention you’ve given to the amazing city of Berlin.
Thank you,
J. Dickman

I really believe that more private sector involvement in the city will help young people make their lives in Berlin. If you need a job, and there is none to be found, you have to emigrate to Cologne etc. Besides companies will fund the non-profit sector in an interesting way. Thanks for reading my blog. And I did love Berlin. You know that my grandmother Selma Pfeiffer studied piano in Berlin in 1910--as a 17 year old from New York. Small world, right?

At least three additional things are necessary, imho, for a (non-CEO, non-marketing) corporate blogger to be successful:

- writing talent: I refuse to read poorly written posts; flagrant spelling and grammar mistakes make me got nuts.
- good judgement: an R&D tech (to use your example) that lifts the cover a little is fine; if he lifts it too far he runs the risk of endangering the company?s objectives instead of contributing to them.
- management?s trust: the blogger has to know that someone has his/her back.

Those are my suggestions, others might have others.

MS

This whiffs of command and control. Corporate blogging that really makes a difference doesn't come by appointment - it comes from the bottom up and from the most unliely sources.

Richard,

Interesting insights on corporate blogging and, maybe even more telling, on the different points of view held by English and American marketers. It's interesting that we Americans would have fewer qualms about having a marketing person serve in the position of a corporate spokesblogger, yet the British would consider such a thing to be a contrivance.

This is as much about how marketing is viewed by each culture as it is about responsible blogging.

Thanks again for sharing your insights.

Regards,

Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station

HI!

When it comes to corporate blogging, I feel it's imperative to stick to a pre-defined messaging framework, and one "blogger" who follows the framework by working closely with the CEO and the Communication team. A large organization with diverse interest will have a number of specialists, who will communicate several messages that's not in sync with the messaging framweork. I strongly support SUw's statement "to talk to people as if you are speaking to each individual one at a time." Well, this requires significant time investment, i.e, keeping track of interested bloggers and prospective ones. More importantly, engaging them on an ongoing basis with messages of mutual interest. The exercise entails relationship building, hence one person and not "specific skills bloggers."

I was taken by your comment “It is clear that major companies should have "specific skills bloggers" who can blog reliably and credibly in their areas of expertise.” Of course. But there is a case for looking at many other channels for communication.

I have been working through a number thoughts on the application of Public Relations from a corporate perspective and have six successive posts on the subject.

What is becoming obvious is that there is an emerging need for a wide range of expert communications skills across a wide range of communications channels and consultancy with the knowledge and expertise to be able to manage and deploy these channels and skills.

Furthermore, the monoculture and ubiquitous press relations model is becoming niche and we are all going to have to work with niche channels for communication henceforth.

Not all such channels are new (take, for example wiki's) it is just that their day has come.

Corporations are learning a lot rom blogs. It is showing them the future, a very interactive future and one that needs a shift change in the PR profession to match.

A retro-logo for this vision of the corporate blogger can be found at

http://home.earthlink.net/~jimbonius/nipper/index.html

In the interest of utter transparency, I must admit that I am employed by Edelman. Not that this has any bearing on my comment, but hey.

I agree with those comments made by both Suw and others as to the necessity for "passionate, friendly, genuine, interesting, authentic, honest, open." But I'd like to add "informed" and "on point" to that list as well.

I come to this opinion through some experience--a new recruit at Edelman (shout out to transparency)-- I've just begun a personal/professional blog that lacks both.

Because altho* blogging and internet communities such as thefacebook, myspace and friendster (all to which i belong. . .and oh the list could go on) are LINKED, I believe that the respective purposes and the audiences of these phenomena are DIFFERENT. The existance of a profile, the gimick of 'inviting people' to be your 'friends,' and the messaging possibilities have not required precise or knowledgeable entries to grab an audience and create 'community'--blogging (esp. corporate blogging. . .corplogging??) does.

* and my apologies for grammar and spelling errors to those for whom it drives nuts! ;-)

Being in the PR business, I am sure that you understand how important no matter who the company decides should be the corporate blogger, that ghost writing should not be allowed.

With all of GM's troubles, I would like to think that Bob Lutz actually writes his excellent and insightful entries and not a PR person acting as a ghost writer.

To agree with Dennis, it does smack a bit of command and control. Blogging (even that done outside of the enclosed young adult communities that Katie points out--that are not the best example of anything) are often about a strange synthesis of content and persona. Corporate blogs often want to control the way a blogger's persona is presented by directing the message. So, the first point for a corporation finding the right blogger should be to ask themselves if they like the personality/persona of the blogger, how that blogger presents him/herself to the rest of the blogosphere, and if they are willing to let that person spin the content according to their mode of interaction with the rest of the blogosphere.

Corps. often ask bloggers to write in a specific manner, and thus control how the blogger disseminates information--so the personality/persona of the blogger must dovetail nicely with what the corp wants, or both parties risk losing something in the process.

Corporations should be very, very careful about stepping into the blogosphere, which runs alot on persona and rhetoric. Too much spin and we'll figure out what's going on; then the results could be pretty ugly.

A person in "the research and development unit or an engineer in the technology or design areas" responsible for the company blog?

You've got to be kidding.

Have you ever read anything written by an engineer?

All good additions
Plus unquestioned expertise
Thanks for writing

I don't want command and control. I do want employee blogs. But I also want informed experts in marketing, R&D, HR speaking about their areas of special competence, without a script.

MB sorry to be so late in responding...was on vacation and off line on needed break Agree on your comment on marketing people and difference between UK and US views Based on my trip to Germany with my family, there is even more suspicion of marketing in that market. The idea of corporate sponsorship of the arts is seen as quite revolutionary...the money comes from corporate philanthropy instead of marketing so it is community relations, not aimed at selling the company or product. This is self defeating in my view--smaller budgets and a seen but not heard type of attitude.

Key to success in blogosphere is deep knowledge...that is why I am suggesting specific skills bloggers. I agree with your point on relationships.

Sorry I am so late in responding...even I take vacation!!
Agree that companies have to figure out a blog strategy and that it goes beyond bloggers in specific skill areas. For instance, there is still lack of clarity in highly regulated areas like pharmaceutical or financial markets. I think we need to push regulatory bodies like FDA to allow big pharma to become more transparent without risk of sanction.

TG agree to a point
Companies should select an employee blogger then give him or her enough latitude to operate. It is absolutely clear to me that excessive control of message undermines the entire effort.

Yes I have. And I stick by my statement. Not every R&D person is a born writer of great copy nor is every one a complete incompetent at communications.

I believe you missed the point of my post (if I recall it correctly)...yes, excessive control undermines message, but the corp should examine what it is trying to accomplish with the blog and if they are willing to risk peer-to-peer communication, which may not always be about corp matters. Conversation in the blogosphere among peers isn't always cut and dried content. It has a personal component that, in some ways, corps are not necessarily willing to
demonstrate.

Further, the idea of transparency--how transparency occurs between individuals in the blogosphere is far different than the idea of transparency as portrayed in corporate blogs.

So, what is the corp trying to achieve by blogging?
Does it want to present a personal side or does it want to get out a message? These are two different things--as people are not necessarily brands, nor products nor markets. People approach blogging in one way, corps approach blogging in another, and the two ways aren't necessarily compatable without some sort of mediation and meeting of the minds.

A meeting of minds isn't necessarily controlling the message.

Tish G.

After watching "The Changing Face of Media" on Infusion, I was again struck by the opportunity for PR to connect people to information, whether it's about consumer products or medical treatment options in healthcare. We just need to fundamentally change the way we connect.

Full disclosure: I am 24. I actively seek out information online, and don't enjoy being advertised at. I use MySpace to stay connected to friends, family, old coworkers, and my favorite music artists. I work in Chicago Healthcare. I don't know what I would do without Google.

In case you haven't noticed how MySpace is changing the face of music, ask your 14 year old about MySpace Music. Any artist - from the latest American Idol to my friend's band - can have a site that allows them to post sample songs, upcoming concerts, and information on the band. I can add the band to my list of friends, and then be updated with bulletins they post. I always know the most recent information, I can listen to the latest music, and can go out and buy the new album if I like what I hear. For unsigned bands, prospective record companies can gain a sense of their music, fan following, and potential before offering artists a development deal. The folks at MySpace have just released their first compilation CD in what is sure to be the first in a series highlighting their favorite artists.

As Jeff Jarvis noted, active seekers need corporations to provide attention, materials, training and revenue. MySpace Music does that - gives fans attention, concert information, and free songs in advance. Bands also get attention. Corporate banner ads, song downloads and compilation CDs provide revenue. Bands do not try to proactively penetrate a market, they simply provide information for active seekers.

In healthcare, I believe PR can directly connect with people with a particular ailment, provide them with information, train healthcare providers on new treatment options, and fund valuable research and clinical trials. PR does not claim to provide treatment. Doctors are responsible for that. We are simply trying to connect individuals to information. As more people seek healthcare information online and DTC ads lose their hold in the media, pharmaceutical companies and medical associations have an opportunity to become the source of information. The first company or organization to figure out how to overcome regulatory and medical hurdles will pave the way.

I agree, this is a time for PR to emerge, offering timely information straight from the source. If each citizen can become a journalist by posting online, then every effort we make on behalf of our client to provide factual and timely information on a peer-to-peer level is a form of media relations. We need to encourage our clients to accept the bad with the good, and to disclose complexities.

I see my generation as less formal and more demanding in terms of disclosure, speed and accuracy. PR needs to participate in and provide information for, not penetrate and try to control, existing social networks. Edelman can lead the way in changing the way we connect.

Richard,

Good to see that we (as pr-experts) try to "listen" to teh market, my favorite quote was form ANDREW HEYWARD though:

�I think that credibility is going to be built on honesty-- not just reputation, not just style-- honesty, including the honestly to acknowledge mistakes and to acknowledge complexity. And that again, is something that people I don't think have quite-- you see the trend is starting. You know the pioneers are pushing for this. It's going to take a while for the mainstream to follow, because as you know your business better than I do, the reflex is so often the opposite.�

That is what PR is really about - honesty. Advertising is on the decrease, especially in Europe, no one "believes" it anymore. God save the remote- bye bye god old ads.

The only problem is that companies, particular over there in Europe, still have to realize that they have more possibilities than to advertise in order to get the message out.

They are even not "listening". Still conservative business as usual. However, PR hast to become more popular in showing how we can use relationships, communities (Facebook) to understand by entering conversations what clients want/need and to give them exactly that.

Therefore we have to go an aggressive way of self-promotion/marketing and grow into areas which are hot. (Berlin!? ;) ). Aggressive/pushy spreading of credibility- that is the way pr has to go in Europe, also to differentiate pr from hyperbole, boring advertisement. Independent organic grow is a good way into that direction.

Therefore isn�t our challenge on the two front�s pr-battle to convince CFO�s and CEO�s to spend money for pr than just to convince costumers?

Sebastian

Absolutely we have to push hard with the CFOs and CEOs but most especially with CMOs PR is now proven to be more effective than advertising, per a P&G study.

Exactly why I am so militant about the pay for play mentality! It is not only unethical, it is ineffective. Once the source is questioned, the content is diminished. Thanks for reading my blog

You get it. The whole point is peer to peer instead of top down communications. That is why MySpace is so effective. It is a self selected buddy group sharing experiences with confidence in the information given by friends. Thanks for reading my blog

However, the problem which is remaining still-
How to be in the position to gain access to those peer groups without being questioned?

You cannot just hire peers from your target audience-
It will turn out (see Bush?s administration approach to hire journalists in Iraq) and either way you would be in the advertisement area again.
I think these two areas are becoming indistinct. You are right, I as a consumer don't like it when somebody is speaking down to me, and no one likes that in general. But first of all you'd need a good and satisfying product, first then you can start to persuade peers via direct (mouth2mouth) communication. However- as I just said- the question is staying- how to enhance the perceptions of trust and especially- referring to the Blogosphere- how to counteract negative publicity by "using" (I don't like the word in this relation, cannot think of a better one though) target audience influencers?

Sebastian Goeres

I went to LesBlogs a week or two back in the hope and expectation of hearing you speak. As one of the few PRs who are engaging with the blogosphere, it seemed like a great opportunity to hear you and, maybe, be able to hear a conversation between you and the audience.
Sadly, you didn't materialise.
What happened?

Richard is there a link online to the P&G report referenced in the blog post? Thanks Ged

Richard, I agree completely that we are in the midst of "tectonic plate" change in the media landscape, and with that, enormous change is on the way for the public relations profession. I also agree that now could be our time. For that matter, now should be our time, as marketing "at" people is being replaced gradually by two-way dialogue, a natural fit for our profession. However, two trends temper my optimism: 1) I don't see yet widespread understanding of this change within the profession (on the client or agency side) and 2) clients and employers have unfortunately misdefined our profession so narrowly around traditional media relations that we have a lot of convincing to do before we will find acceptance in this new, broader world. Feeling that the future is now, I started a blog recently about my thoughts on where PR might be headed. I invite you to visit http://marcelgoldstein.blogspot.com/ and I welcome your comments. If enough of us keep talking and blogging about this necessary change, then we can usher in a new era for the public relations profession. All the best, Marcel.

Hello Richard.

I think that one of the most interesting of your observations is the transformation "...from selling to factual, our concept from one big bang to continuous conversation".

It does look as if the current "age" of the internet is all about building affinities, both between business and customer/consumer and business and business. I'm interested in your thoughts about where the point is that those affinities will become coin of the realm.

Of course, even more interesting to me is the fact that the head of a large agency is not just mouthing empty sound bites and actually engaging in conversation via his blog.

Sorry I had a client issue. Am just back from European trip. Glad to see you on next round

GED
I need to get the piece from Ad Age inserted into this blog. I did speak with the head of research of P&G who confirmed the finding. He told me he did multivariable analysis on six different brands--different spend levels, different types of brands (new products, old products, high and low interest categories). This is huge for PR. DC pls put in link

MG
Sorry it took so long to respond...vacation and promise not to go on line for a few days I really liked your blog, particularly the Washington Post vs. Washington Post on line story. Is there really any such thing as local anymore? What is the economic model that will work for the on line versions of traditional media? Thanks for reading my blog.

You call it affinities, I prefer relationships. Why? Because the word relationship implies a trusted connection that lasts. And yes I like these on line conversations.

Mr. Edelman-
I recently did some research into online communities/social networks and posted my thoughts on my blog (justin.prblogs.org). I would certainly welcome and appreciate your opinion on the subject since I know it's something that you think will be big for PR in the future.

I just came across this blog post, and realized it is from Dec., 2005. I visited Germany in the late 80's prior to the fall of the wall, and this sent shivers down my spine.
I think the German people are a proud group, and I was wondering if you have information (first hand) as to how Berlin is doing now? I don't hear anything on the U.S. news, and I have not been back to Germany, although I would love to travel there.
Cheers,
Chris

Here are a couple pro-propaganda views:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19436/

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008314.php

http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008316.php

It's also interesting that this has been going on for a while (Clinton did the same in Kosovo).

Thank you for the excellent perspective. You would think that after Karen Ryan and Armstrong Williams, and that Pentagon advertising office that the administration would get it. They still don't.

As a former journalist and current public relations professional, I am appalled, but no longer amazed, at this continued flouting of the principles of a free press.

These actions damage both the crafts of journalism and public relations and must stop now.
David Cohen

Richard:
I have had several communications with your father regarding why it's important for public relations to be taught in a journalism school, as we do at St. Bonaventure. Your comments today, of which I agree wholeheartedly, help to prove the point. PR professionals with journaism underpinnings would recongize the practices of the Lincoln Group as abhorrent. Lee Coppola

This type of activity tarnishes all professional communicators. It's a good thing that a leader in the industry can call the Lincoln Group out.

As a former journalist and present PR practioner, I could not agree more with your views. And I appreciate you taking the time to make your views known publicly.

This is an outrageous blurring of the lines between advertising and PR and yet another example of the Bush administration's "1984" mindset.

Thank you for exposing this PR firm and administration for what they are.

Your outrage is a bit late - this ship has sailed already. And the media waved to it from the shore as it passed by. In the days after 9-11, the Bush administration quickly learned to use its power to silence "the other side of the story" - from lying about WMD at the macro to refusing to call on Helen Thomas in the media room. And the media ALLOWED this by not riding their asses until they backed down. That was the day the media was bought in this country. First by fear, then by money. What's the difference? With a few notable exception, you permitted - even enabled - the complete corruption of your own profession.

Just read your am blog. You make a strong point. Media should not be for sale. Isn't it though? If not "PR spin" then it is "company spokesman" (paid, of course.) The government hiring the Lincoln Group in Iraq is propaganda in a pure form. The unfortunate reality in our society is that all sectors with the adequate resources attempt to "control the message" through multiple means. PR, Advertising or direct to public communication are all bona fide means to accomplish the "storyboard" intent of the DOD.

I am a paid advocate. I know what I am hired to do and I make no bones about it. I agree with you that the conduct of the US in attempting to control the "free press" in Iraq (is there such a thing?) is reprehensible. Is PR really that much different? Isn't it really all about attempting to or actually controlling the message? In today's highly orchestrated corporate and political climates, is there really "free exchange of idea and information" occurring?

Lots to think about.

Thanks again.

Stephen

As I indicated earlier, this type of behavior pre-dates the Bush Administration (Clinton employed the same tactics in Kosovo - see the links above). It's probably been going for years.

So it's a darn shame that some choose to turn this important ethical and professional topic into cheap partisan sniping. Don't stick your heads in the sand, this has been happening for decades folks.

Best - JG

I believe all of this outrage is woefully misplaced and anyone reading this who thinks their "PR firm" would not do the same thing for a piece of a $300 million contract is fooling themselves. Psyops and information warfare is more vital in this war than most others. Washington used pamphleteers and men like Thomas Paine to "propagandize" at the time. Lincoln used the papers in a similar fashion and the US Army during WWII put out more quality films than all the trash being thrown out of hollyweird today.

If a PR firm gets "outed" as having participated in this type of activity, I have no problem with it. PR firms and Ad firms manipulate the truth and reality on daily basis to coax, prod, con, etc. their target audience.

Joe G is 100% correct. Please, spare me the faux outrage and anger over this. I am more upset that this activity has been exposed...but then again, the media has never wanted us to succeed in Iraq (among other places) so it is no surpise they are gleefully reporting this.

I would have more sympathy with the righteous indignation from you and the media if the MSM wasn't so uniformly and consistently of one political view.
If the MSM themselves could screw up their professionalism and objectivity enough to begin reporting not editorializing, and once again attempt to be a neutral and critical observer of the facts, I could be very sympathetic to your views. The news wire story and video of the staged incidents in Remidi today that the MSM so readily broadcast is a perfect example the uniform and extreme bias of the main stream press. Let's have some righteous indignation over the sorry state of the US and world media.

How is this significantly different than liberal interest groups in the US using PR firms to plant stories in our MSM? Fenton Communications, say?

Conidering the stakes and investment we are making, countering the state-funded, agenda driven media in the Middle East - like al Jazeera - by highlighting the positive developments on the ground is essential.

Three points:

1. Iraq is not the USA. It probably is common practice to use pay for play there, just as it is in many other poor countries where journalists are not well paid. In China, the reporters demand payment to NOT report on disasters, etc. If it is common practice, and you do take the 'high road' you might end up with ZERO results.

2. Getting poor results, but retaining your 'ethics' might be acceptable in peacetime when, say, you're only helping your customers lose market share in China while non-ethical PR firms are getting all the media time with payments. However, when you are AT WAR, you might want to drop some ethics. For example, in peacetime, killing someone is murder, but in war soldiers can morally do so. Hmmmmmm.

3. If Clinton did do the same exact thing, I suggest you FIRST work your outrage on why the media suddenly discovers these stories NOW and not THEN. Because it is very discouraging to see 'ethics' only applied to one political position and the other getting the equivalent of get-out-of-jail-free cards. In fact, if that is how the "ethical' journalists play, then why should the administration listen?

p.s. Point 2 is the real point.

Looks like a lot of people here disagree with you:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/12/1/20659/8833

CJ my only response to your post. It is never too late to correct a wrong. We must continue to make clear the difference between advertising and PR.

Whether a Bush or a Clinton inspired strategy
Pay for play is wrong
It will be exposed and will undermine credibility of our side

I don't know how pay for play got into the strategy. But I hope it is now going to depart through the stage door.

Thanks for writing. I hate pay for play--it is wrong headed and ineffectual.

Lee thanks for reading my blog. There is a very clear line between advertising and PR. Any blurring of it is incredibly damaging to the PR business and to the media.

David..you are so right. In fact we are trying to build democratic institutions in Iraq and a free press is key to eventual success.

I oppose pay for play whether in a Democratic or a Republican Administration I think there is a rather bright line between advertising and PR the most credible communication is an article written by a journalist taking a hard look at both sides of an issue, then opining Our job is to propose stories and spokespeople, not to buy the space or the reporter

Richard,

Kudos for making a strong statement and taking a leadership position in the industry. Many of my colleagues in the journalism community took note and you�ve helped to improve the credibility of the PR profession.

A couple of points for you to consider farther.

You say, "If a free media is a central aspect of a democratic society, then we cannot allow our PR industry to impede its development. It is a perversion of our business, an intentional blurring of a clear demarcation between paid and earned media. We should advise our clients, private sector and governmental, that trust is earned through transparency, continuous communication and dialogue. Let me hear your thoughts on this important matter."

One of my concerns about the PR industry at large is that corporations and industries with deep pockets still utilize firms to create a larger share-of-voice with their key audience: the media. The government plays this role too. In Iraq's case, I wonder how much PR activity is taking place. Do US contractors have ownership over share-of-voice, or is there a sophisticated PR machine in operation promoting a range of views. Do editors at the Iraqi journals understand the dynamic between PR and media?

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights.

Best- Jackson

JS I don't know whether the contractors are using PR in Iraq. What I do know is that we must try to live by the principles that we espouse. So that means reinforcing a free press. PR can play an important role in alerting journalists to story ideas but we cannot be in the pay for play game. No payments to journalists, no payments to media for running articles.

I understand your point of view. But I believe that paying reporters and paying for space is bad business. We lose our effectiveness if we lose our credibility. Again I am not interested in making political points. Just that there is clear line between advertising and PR.

Dear Richard:
I don't disagree with you. But the certainly the circumstances in Iraq are somewhat different than what we have in our stable, democratic republic. I think a case can be made that propaganda in the land of our enemies is a legitimate weapon of war (which ultimately saves lives).

However, I do agree that this was unethical behaviour on behalf of the Lincoln Group and any other US firm which does this type of business with the government. We can draw the line between the actions of government and our business.

Finally, your macro-point about the function of PR is dead-on and absolutely correct. But we should remember that we are working under the assumption that there is a stable, democratic, working government in place.

Best,

JG

Richard, I'm amazed by your amazement. From a historical perspective, it's clear that governments have always bent the truth to achieve their own goals. In recent history however, the US has perfected this art to the point were it is totaly re-creating the (it's own) truth. This is called 'information-warfare'. It works just like bombs, but then on a psycological level. It's very effective!
It's a reality which has been with us for some time now, getting bigger and bigger by the day.

Your blog is great, Richard!

Fred
My dad was in psy ops in WWII. I know we engaged in "black radio" at that time. But here we are at a different time and place. We are held to a very high standard. If we believe in a bright future for Iraq (and I do by the way ) then we have to allow development of a free media.

There has been overreaching by PR companies like Fenton--remember the ALAR scare on apples But we cannot go for paying journalists or buying the space if we claim to believe in a free media

Richard,

What appears to be happening is an example of bad disclosure policies, but not necessarily bad intentions. Obviously, the U.S. military isn?t simply dispensing information; it?s actively looking for pathways to influence Iraqi thinking, true to the discipline of public relations. They may have crossed the line vis-୶is attribution and payments, no doubt, but that should not compel them to revert to a pure information dissemination model. They?d otherwise be robbed of their duty to fight the war with words rather than arms.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We weaken our principle benefit of advocacy when we do.

For all the comments about free media in Iraq, I would state 2 things -

First, it is pretty free, and with over 100 newspapers working to keep a market share, there is some stiff competition. Publishing lies there would lead to a loss of credibility that would impact sales negatively, so I presume that the content was primarily true.

Second, no one was forced to either take the payments or to publish, having taken them. It would be so easy to nod, accept the dollars, and not publish - to whom would the military complain?

I believe the media has shown its true colors regading its reporting of democrats and democratic administrations vs. its coverage of Republicans and Republican administrations. The real story here is that the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, et. al, are full of it! Unethical to the core and not really journalists, but propagandists for the Democratic Party.

Having said that, I believe there are too many hypocrites in the media and PR to even have a fair discussion about pay for play. It seems the media ignores the Clinton Administration, ignores stories that hurt Democrats and makes a mockery of the profession (e.g.: its coverage of Katrina and the 2004 election).

Richard, I've followed your company since the early '90s when I first left journalism to go into PR. I've always been impressed with the way you trained your people, and having heard you speak at WeMedia in New York, I am also glad you are at the forefront of bringing PR into the 21st Century.

So after reading your post and all the comments, all I have to say is this: thank you for reminding us that this used to be the United States of America, where democracy was never a matter of convenience; where we used to defeat our enemies by being better than them, not by stooping to the tactics of tyrants; and where freedom of the press was cherished as an American value, not tarnished as a tool for propoganda.

Best,

Gary Goldhammer

I can empathize with your position and outrage that this imbroglio might be framed as a "bad for PR" scenario, but I think this nuanced approach is not what most people are seeing - it's a communications problem. Tranzparency and credibility or "pay to play" are issues only to those who do not believe that the ends justify the means. Unfortunately, I think we are experiencing (again) the results of a belief by politicians and their (paid) consultants that the latter trumps the former most of the time.

BTW - don't be surprized as The Lincoln Group becomes the story - and the chum.

1) Iraq is not a stable, democratic republic like the USA -- it's a battlefield. It's seems somewhat pretentious to apply our standards to a country which in the middle of a bloody war. And history shows a free media can only occur after the development of a stable, democratic government. And clearly that can only happen if we reach the Iraqi people with the right messages.

2) If propaganda is a legtimate weapon of war, why is it wrong for our nation to use it in a nation where we are fighting? It would be one thing if the US did this in US newspapers (and yes, I know they have in the past.) As a weapon, propaganda is much less deadly than some of the other weapons we deploy (Mr. Goldhammer should read a history book someday about Hiroshima).

3) That being said, there is something smelly about a US-based PR firm being involved with this. Americans prefer to have our weapons wielded by professional soldiers, not hired mercenaries. Perhans The Lincoln Group is acting like mercenaries, and they (and the military) should be condemned for that aspect. But then again, they have already been punished with bad publicity.

I really like the idea of the on line community of what is topical. If MySpace is any indication, this would really work.

The fact that such behavior exists does not mean we should condone it. In fact, those of us in PR should stand up and be counted. We should state firmly that we do not tolerate this type of behavior, paying off journalists and buying space. Thanks for reading my blog

We agree to disagree on this one Alan. I think that if we are buying the space, let's label it an infomercial. We cannot have a free media if we are undermining the premise of journalist judgment.

Ok I accept your free market premise but here we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are teaching journalists how to practice the craft, then undermining the credibility of the end product by doing this.

I am not a political guy. I am simply a PR person trying to point out the distinction between advertising and PR. Stories in the media are trusted because they are not paid, they are earned.

Don't give up. Our principles are the mark of distinction of this nation.

I go back to a very simple premise. We have to conduct ourselves in a manner that lives up to the highest standards of democracy. One of the core premises of democracy is a free press that informs its citizenry. The buying of stories and placements is bad strategy

Gosh, what a surprise!

Our American military trying to get positive news into the Iraqi media to get more Iraqis to:
a. support their fledging government,
b. fight for their new freedoms,
c. appreciate their fledgling democracy, and
d. plant fewer roadside bombs that kill and injure our troops.

You may not know it from the AMERICAN news media -- which has a visceral loathing for, among other things, the Bush administration, the Republican Party and the US Military -- but there IS a war on, in which we are making progress, and in which the Iraqis are taking on increasing responsibilities, month by month.

The information that the Lincoln Group and others are placing in the Iraqi media is probably more accurate and more credible than a lot of the garbage being pumped out by our own "main stream media."

My only regret is that we aren't doing more of it.

Cordially,

Bill

P.S. The political propaganda and bias in our own media has now become so intense and pervasive that it simply is not a credible source of information on anything but the weather, the TV schedule and stock prices.

I now rely instead on a cross-section of blogs, left, right and center, to get an accurate sense of what's going on.

Richard
What can I say? Our industry is in a tailspin, there's little leadership and our credibility slips and slips. I am heartened to see the comments from the Arthur Page Society, the only group in our industry with the courage to put ethics ahead of fat government contracts. You were right in January with the Armstrong Williams situation and you are right now.
Still waiting for the Council of Public Relations Firms to weigh in.
Elliot

Sometimes the truth turns out to be disappoining, painful or simply unecceptable to face.
Facing the truth means taking full responsibility for ones actions. If we are not prepaired to examen and question our actions in an honest way, the only option left is to conceal the truth with lies, thereby justifing the actions we took.
In that case we create a new layer of pain on top of the initial pain we caused.
This is the ongoing process known as 'the chain of pain'. It is the way to chaos. It can only be broken by taking full responsibility for our actions - which is a painful procces for the ego.

In my view the item of taking responsibility for our actions and thoughts has been and still is the single most important struggle of mankind. Responsibility however, can only be taken by every one of us individualy!

We still have a long way to go...

Mr. Edelman, you say you oppose Pay for Play, but doesn't the PR industry routinely pay vendors for guaranteed placement Audio News Release and Video News Release services?

Aren't these products nothing more than a glorified version of Pay for Play?

My understanding is that PR vendors are literally paying radio and TV stations to air ANRs and VNRs that stations would otherwise not run, unless they were paid by the vendor.

To me, that's what the term guaranteed placement implies because the only way to guarantee placement is to pay someone at the radio or TV station for the airtime.

In other words, Pay for Play is being done in Iraq, but it's also rampant in the PR industry in the U.S.

Your thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

The ad and PR businesses are treated with low regard in general by the public. People understand that they are pitched to either to market a product or an indirect product. So, I think that trying to improve the image of these professions is probably not going to alter perceptions much.
The story with the military is slightly different in that the actions may have broken some explicit laws on the use of unacknowledged propaganda.

The arguments about "the other side does it too" are widely used when someone gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but it's no real defense. Providing Iraqi journalists with high tech equipment to improve their reporting capabilities or even a grant to support reporting would allow them to find their own stories. Feeding them the material discredits the stories and the journalists. If it was meant to be above board the military wouldn't have had to launder the stories.

The war is lost when you lose the support of those at home, not on the battle field.

As always you provide a very simple and important point. "We have to conduct ourselves in a manner that lives up to the highest standards of democracy." Most people already have a misguided view of PR. I hear, far too often, PR thrown around for this and that, always missing the real purpose for our work. If we are to change the perception of our business, we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards. And things like this are dragging us backwards!

Mr. Edelman,

Thank you for your response. The media is losing its credibility to report fairly and accurately. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather are shamefully awarded Peabody's and given standing ovations from their peers, yet they are the symbol of all that is wrong with the media and why the public has lost trust with that institution. I don't excuse the pay for play tactics -- this subversion of the rules. However, we are in a war for civilization. The media is full of stories that are anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-U.S.
military, anti-Christian, and anti-war. What about the global media bias against Israel? How does a country like Israel get a fair shake?

The media will proudly carry the water for the Democratic Party. All this "Bush lied" propaganda is just plain ludicrous.

The media says the Bush Administration is staging press conferences, yet a reporter from a Tennessee paper crafts a question for a U.S. soldier to ask of Donald Rumsfeld regarding body armor. Is this not staging? Does the media not pre-package everything it sells? Do you believe the media does not have an agenda?

The media will do its best to downplay any positive news coming from this administration while continuing its agenda to do everything in its power to destroy it. Tell me, do you believe there are positive stories in Iraq that are not being told? Are we to understand that the only worthy news to report are the deaths of U.S. soldiers? The daily ghoulish drumbeat is sickening.
No wonder the American people have a negative perception. They get spoon-fed a daily dose of this garbage. What about Al-Jazzeera and other foreign anti-American media outlets such as the BBC? Do you think the U.S. can compete for its message with the garbage these outlets broadcast? How can you even call these stories "trusted?" How can you even call the NY Times or the LA Times stories "trusted?" I could cite you a hundred AP and Reuters stories that are completely slanted against President Bush. Not to mention activist teachers, professors and the Hollywood left.

It would be one thing if there was a free-press in Iraq. It is not yet a Democracy. I hate to use the term subvert, but it seems to me that we are losing the media war in the Middle East because it is being subverted by Iran, Syria, etc. How do you propose we combat this? Propaganda campaigns have been going on since the days of Washington and Lincoln. Surely, you know the U.S. was involved in propaganda campaigns in WWI, WWII and even the Cold War. Our soldiers are dying because our liberal media and the Democrats are willfully playing into the hands of those who would do our soldiers and this country harm. It is obvious that America and Bush are hated because of the B.S. aired by Al-Jazzeera and other so-called media outlets. Yet, we know this information is nothing but lies and distortions. But our media and the Democrats play right into their hands because of their sheer hatred for Bush.

CNN's former President Eason Jordan admitted that the news organization did not report atrocities in Iraq and slanted its coverage so that its reporters could remain in that country to report stories. Again, another example of this so-called falsehood that PR and media people claim is "trust" and "credibility."

I find the media to be so reprehensible at times that we have long passed the point of no return for absolute truth and credibility.

I wish that this Administration was more competent at playing the media game. Ronald Reagan was a victim of liberal media bias both here and abroad, but he handled it like no other.

Kevin

Lest we forget, PR was born out of propaganda both corporate and government in the past century. PR is a scrawny, squalid little business, but it�s our business. Let�s not pretend that it�s a profession, and please don�t talk down to us from your moral hilltop.

You say you're simply a PR person trying to point out a distinction...c'mon, you're an agency head trying to differentiate yourself in the marketplace with your blog and this bit of fake thought leadership decrying fake PR in Iraq...PR imitating PR that�s imitating news. The irony is so rich!

As someone relatively inexperienced to the PR world, what is the difference between "PR ... alerting journalists to story ideas" vs any other entity trying to twist the media to their advantage (or someone's disadvantage)? I think the longer one is in the business of media, the more one realizes there is always a bias. But I'm somewhat cyncal. I've interviewed old ladies who have tried to control my story :) I guess my point is, whatever stories or people you try and "alert" journalists to would (I'm assuming) have a beneficial impact for you in the end. Even if you aren't paying the media to run a story, isn't that just as bad?

Caroline Smith

Dear Mr. Edelman,

I am a student in the Strategic Communications program at Columbia University, and last week one of my classmates sent this story around with a joke about pr people. I walked into class stating your last paragraph almost word for word.

For the last five years I have been working on the agency side in corporate pharma/biotech public relations, largely in media relations. I have had the good fortune of working with senior management at fantastic firms and I have never been asked to lie about my clients or my purpose. Media relations at its best is about raising awareness or driving action around causes, people, organizations or products that are worthy of attention or discussion. What the Lincoln Group did was completely unethical, and detrimental to the industry as a whole.

Thank you for addressing the issue of "pay for play" head on and clearly stating why it has never had a place in the public relations toolkit.

Those of us in PR risk being stereotyped as flaks spinmeisters or even worse. Thanks for standing up for all of us

JF just a thought perhaps there can be simultaneous development by internal R&D tempered by enthusiast comments from involved consumers. This is co creation of brand

TA
Sorry but we are a profession. And I have been on the record about pay for play for the past year. Note my previous comments on Armstrong Williams

CS I see a distinction. We are simply trying to put forward credible spokespeople. The reporters make the call.

TL note today's NYTimes piece
Protest by MoveOn against Chicago Tribune and LA Times newsroom cutbacks Saying that it will inhibit their ability to monitor important public sector activities So newspapers are a vital public resource!

JE Note President Bush's own speech last April on importance of free press to democratic institution building in Iraq

RF We have to get away from pitching to a conversation. How we do our work really matters

RF We have to get away from pitching to a conversation. How we do our work really matters

Hi Richard,

Co creation is great especially if you have intentions to get into customisation.
My main issue with clients is to help them think and/and in stead of or/or. We are living in a quick-fix age. Like you put in your blog quick fixes are often bad for long term results.
--
Kind regards,
Joris Funcke MBA

I know that we do not pay for air time...whether on tv or radio. Just a point of clarification for you on VNRs

I think the issue is quite straightforward. We need to be willing to allow a free press to develop in Iraq. Pay for play undermines it

El
You are one of the few with the confidence to stand up and be counted. I have always liked that about you. We have to make PR folks less afraid.

Bill
I understand your point of view but I believe that we need to get our message across in a credible fashion. If we buy the space and time without acknowledging the content as advertorial instead of editorial, we are undermining our own efforts. Thanks for reading my blog

Thanks Richard
And I too appreciate your willingness to lead. Wish I had a bigger platform...I might actually be heard.
Hope all is well.

Richard and others,

The underlying principle here is transparency. Ethical communication in democracies is transparent. The point of pay for play is to make readers believe that someone else is the source of the message. Research clearly demonstrates that the discovery of pay for play will have a boomerang effect.

Democracy is impossible in the absence of trust in politicians and trust in the media. Such actions only will make the people we wish to influence less trustful of all communication from Americans and those who would support us.

If any one engages in this type of behavior it is wrong. Saying that Clinton did it does not excuse the behavior of this administration. I don't believe that Laura Bush would buy the logical extension of this argument that it would be okay for George to dally in the west wing with an intern because Bill did.

The fact is pay for play, disception and intentionally misleading communication are unethical and bad strategy. They will harm our chances of bringing democracy to Iraq.

Vince Hazleton, Professor
Department of Communication
Radford University

No PR firm ever paid an American reporter to print a story. Right. The hypocrisy here is astounding. The only question here should be are the stories accurate. Not balanced, mind you, just accurate. We in America only get one side of the story most of the time. It is a little weak of you to insist on better in Iraq.

You only have to look at the Armstrong Williams situation to see that what you say is true. That does not make it right nor intelligent policy. Thanks for reading my blog.