This story is already all over the blogosphere and hitting hard in the pr discourse arena. And as it seems, I am in agreement with you Richard, and Paul Holmes. Nothing unethical was done. A industry principal, and a standard one at that, was applied to a new territory we are only beginning to unlock in terms of relationship-building potential. Nothing more.

Bloggers are no more ethically compelled to reveal a source than a journalist who, as Holmes says, probably recieves hundreds of press releases a week.

I think its great you and Edelman are leading the charge in to this new realm. With benefits already evident, I have been a little surprised more pr firms or Fortune 500s or any organization, for that matter, are not joining the conversation.

A Perfect Job for Steve Rubel
http://theheadlemur.typepad.com/ravinglunacy/2006/03/walmart_enlists.html

Sounds like you did everything right in this situation, what a nightmare. Given the history of republican VNRs, stories in the iraqi press, money for no child coverage and the infamous babies not in incubators - I'd say this one lands in the history of conservatives being willing to repeat things without disclosure. There was the recent planet of the apes box set fiasco that made the left look bad, but other than that...

my takeaway from the story was why do companies wait till there is negative PR and then involve bloggers. Even better why not blog on your own?

As far as MSM (and industry analyst) reaction to bloggers. does not bother me. On my blog I link to WSJ, NY Times, BusinessWeek early and often - if they were smart they would link to us and realize many of us bring a specailized practitioner view to many topics. Not better or worse, but different - and typically much more real time since we do not have to go through layers of editing etc (BTW I am ex Gartner and our best stuff was reports which had time to "mature" not instant analysis)

Looks to me like it did not take long for the blogosphere (and the New York Times) to identify Edelman as the voice for Walmart and the source of the proWalmart pieces. Apparently the bloggers who recycled the Edelman's pieces were already somehow pro-Walmart. Is this a smart PR move? I am not so sure. I admit I am biased since I have no sympathy for Walmart. If those bloggers were already pro-W the new messages will -maybe- somehow reinforce the choir. On the other hand the controversy over the fact that the messages they posted were mere repetitions on the PR text they got is bad for their reputation and I don't think it is good for Edelman. It just looks like a sneaky trick.
Here in Washington State there are precise accusations posted against Walmart about the collective cost of wall Mart employees who go without Health Insurance from Wall Mart and have to be insured by the State.
This is a serious issue. Not addressing it or trying to duck the question will not help W. As for Edelman and the bloggers who recycled the messages it seems obvious to me they should have clearly indicated their source: they look devious and somehow -by association- Edelman does too. The problem is not that a PR firm sends messages to bloggers it is that those bloggers gobble it and try to have their readers believe it is their own reflexion. I find that dumb and the PR firm is de facto associated with those "dumb" people.

On a more positive note I agree 100% with your comments about the need for blogs and I have already started to quote from this post (indicating the source):)

I have to say I read this story and found it very troubling. While I commend you for writing this response -- you could have just stayed silent -- I find myself, at the end of your post, not reassured. I wish I could tell you what would reassure me about this practice, but nothing is coming to mind.

Thank you for clarifying the use of blogs in the PR world and for emphasizing that like good writers, bloggers should cite where they got their information and like good journalists, they need not disclose their sources. What you say about blogging in the new age is another step towards defining what blogging is and how it can be used constructively for communications.

A great post that explains the full situation, and what you guys are doing, but it makes no sense that Spark PR or FON were brought into the quotient. To me, it watered down your point.

Richard, thanks for this. Edelman "gets" this stuff better than pretty much any player out there, and your comments are appreciated. Lack of transparency by bloggers is an issue that they need to think through fully, if they wish to maintain their personal credibility and grow their following. But, like any medium in it's early stages of development, it will take some time to find its' legs.

Thank you for contributing to this conversation.

- Stuart

First, my disclosure: I HATE WALMART! With that out of the way the real question I have is; wouldn't it be better if Walmart themselves were reaching out to bloggers? And better yet doing it themselves through a blog? I've recently read about Walmart expanding their marketing department significantly, and combined with the recent press it makes me think Walmart needs to focus internally.

We are proposing story ideas and inviting dialogue between Wal-Mart and bloggers. There is nothing sinister here--simply a classic PR function. Thanks for reading my blog and rest assured we are committed to transparency and integrity

P thanks for reading my blog. We are trying to inform a broad range of constituencies about Wal-Mart and its actions in environment, health care, disaster recovery. Bloggers are one stakeholder group--we listen, we inform, we discuss. It is the right way to proceed.

We agree that companies must blog on their own. In fact a Wal-Mart blogger in PR unit was source of many of the Hurricane Katrina stories. But we also believe that as a PR firm we can reach out to bloggers and invite dialogue with our clients. We will continue to inform them in good and bad times as we do the media.

Hello, Richard!

I agree that there's nothing sinister about a person working at a PR firm sending a press release to a blogger, and nothing sinister about a blogger reading a press release and deciding to write a post about it, and I don't like or want to be in the position of giving a moral lecture to a PR person because I think that the idea that many people seem to hold that they are morally superior to people they dismissively call "flacks" is, in fact, lazy thinking and kind of crappy behavior.

So, if you will indulge me, a little thought experiment:

A PR person reads a blog, thinks, hey, I should send this blogger some information! Blogger gets email, says, hey, cool, this information is interesting! I will post a blog entry about this. Pushes "Publish."

No problems there that I can see....But:

If readers are coming to a blog under the impression that the contents are the original ideas and opinions of that blogger, and that blogger is doing nothing to disabuse his or her readers of that notion while cutting and pasting material from a press release, I do find that troubling.

And so easy to solve! Just link to the source material so readers can draw their own conclusions, and aren't misled into thinking that the material is original to the blogger. I run a news and community site for Watertown, Massachusetts, where I live. At H2otown, I frequently find items for my site by reading the press release section of the websites of local businesses. Example: a local biotech company was acquired by another company. Hadn't been reported elsewhere. So, I wrote a two-line entry, "Company X of Watertown has been acquired by Company Y of Othertown," and (this is the important part) linked to the press release, saying "read about it in the company's press release."

By providing links to the source material, I'm not fooling anybody into thinking that I did more work than I actually did, or that the information is not coming from my sterling investigative skills, but in fact from a statement issued by the company, and that the reader should use their own judgment when reading this statement.

Now, in reading that, you'll note it says nothing about the behavior of whomever issued the press release. However, I do have some questions:
when you contact bloggers and provide them with information via email or phone, do you ensure that copies of that information are available to link to on the web, and that that material shows in a clear and direct manner who is responsible for the creation of the material?

You might say, well, it's the blogger's responsibility to be transparent to their readers, and that is true. But how easy or difficult you make it to allow a blogger to be transparent and link to source material that clearly shows where the information is coming from is something that is under your control. While you may not be required, ethically or otherwise to do it, I do think that you can do it, and I would be so happy if you did. I think that would rock!

Lisa

Tac i do believe in our clients blogging--this will come. Only 20 of Fortune 500 companies have active blogging programs mostly IT companies Microsoft Sun IBM .

Mike thanks for the note We are trying like hell to make blogger outreach a standard part of our PR efforts

Jeremy I included the Fon reference because I think the story goes beyond Wal-Mart
It is mainstream media questioning relationship between pr firms, bloggers and clients Whether there is conflict of interest and sufficient transparency but as always I respect your views

Let's not throw baby out with bath water, as you say. The trend is absolutely right

Thank you for writing your blog. I think it is a courageous thing to do.
It gives me/us a very interesting peek into how you operate (as a PR
agency) and your conception of blogs.
As often after writing my comment I felt it was not exactly or totally what I had in mind: emailing can be so dangerous... but it was no big deal.
I found I share the opinion of my fellow Bainbridge blogger of lexblog: he thinks Walmart should also blog directly, under its own name.
Everybody seems to agree on the disclosure of the source (except when for specific reasons they have to be protected).
I find the whole story rather educational by reminding readers they have to keep thinking for themselves and be aware of the "planting" of stories.
As for the mainstream media trying to unfairly put down the bloggers I can understand their frustration. The NYT seems still more open to blogs and podcasts than many other papers who don't get at all what is happening.
Yesterday Loic Lemeur was saying plainly he never read the paper version of a daily any longer except in a plane and in the bathroom. I guess he is not alone (I am recycling my neighbor's papers but I quit subscribing or buying except on trips). What about the impact of too much time spent in fromt of a screen?
Ph

hanks for your email. I appreciate your taking the time.

Agree with your comments. I can see how mainstream companies like Wal-Mart are learning blog ropes. I am surprised how many tech vendors, who you think are used to dealing with industry analysts not just media, still have few blogging standards - their own or dealing with bloggers. A friend at one large vendor I write about on my blog quite a bit says he loves my blog but dare not comment. He would get fired.

Still others, like EDS, blog but little about themselves - it is about what else is going in the industry. I have told them they have so much to tell the world about how they are re-inventing and about their storied past - GM, Ross Perot etc.

Still others think they can "freeze" contrarian viewpoints - I write from a buyer's perspective and think lots of technology is over priced. That should invite debate, you would think. One vendor told me their PR advice has been to instead present their viewpoint through "traditional" channels.

Others blog but do not interactively. At Microsoft Scobe is great, but a number of other blogs seem one way. So is my former employer Gartner. Sporadic and one way.

Keep educating your client base..this new channel needs a more robust level of conversation...regards.

Agreed.

And in a weird coincidence - we have met. Many years ago in Chicago. I used to be CMO of Expedia.

I think very highly of your Toronto office as well - I live here now - Greg Power specifically.

Best,
Stuart MacDonald

Richard:

Thanks for your post. Isn't it great to have a blog so that you can respond directly to critics -- and have them respond back?

I agree that communications pros need to be hyper-transparent when working with bloggers. If blogger "relations" moves toward healthcare (i.e., pharma, etc.), this will become even more important.

Best,

Fard Johnmar

Ford
Key point on health is fear of FDA and other regulators
Who should want consumer participation and feedback
thanks

Richard:

Thanks for your quick response to my comment. Yes, I agree that in healthcare -- especially with pharma -- fear of regulators is a key issue holding companies back from engaging with the blogosphere. However, I think, as you do, that it would be good for pharma and other healthcare companies to communicate with customers, constituents, observers and others using any means available. I also think that the FDA and regulators could benefit from communication as well, given current opinion about them.

Shahid Shah, a healthcare IT expert, wrote an excellent essay on this topic that I published on my blog, Envisioning 2.0. You can find it here: http://fardj.prblogs.org/2006/02/05/guest-article-pharma-have-no-fear-of-the-blogosphere/

I also write about the Wal-Mart issue from a healthcare communciations perspective on my other blog, HealthCareVox. You can find it here: http://www.healthcarevox.com/2006/03/walmart_blogger_relations_and.html

Thanks again for communicating!

Best,

Fard

Hello Richard,

A savvy blogger should know when the stuff he or she is receiving is a press release and shouldn't necessarily consider it a confidential source that must be protected--as some of the bloggers featured in the article appeared to project on to the information your representative sent to them.

Further, the bloggers in the article, for some reason, seem to have over-inflated senses of self. In basic blogospheric etiquette, it's a good thing to acknowledge one's sources--whether a p/r agency, or a company, or another blogger. It doesn't mean what you are writing isn't original--it just means that you, like most people who blog, aren't directly traking down stories.

For most bloggers, that's reality. There are few exceptions. Money's tight out here and almost all of us have day jobs.

If both Edelman and Wal-Mart were open with the bloggers, discouraged plagarism and encouraged linking, then the problem was actually with the bloggers, whose egos led them to believe they were, perhaps, doing something more than blogging.

I can't blame Wal-Mart for wanting to create positive public spin (even if I don't care for their policies), and I can't blame your corp. for trying to choose the right people to be part of your campaign. That's life in the corporate jungle.

I can, though, point the finger at egotistical bloggers and say thanks for making the rest of us look bad.

Best,
Tish G.

Richard:

The concern that some people -- myself included -- have with Edelman's effort relates to the language and approach used by your representative in interacting with bloggers.

He was not entirely transparent about who he was or who he worked for. His e-mail did not come from Edelman, but from Blue Worldwide, and the only reference to Edelman was in his sig line, which is easily overlooked.

His introduction was centered on the fact that he was a "conservative blogger" and oh, by the way, he also represented Wal-Mart in "online public affairs."

His ongoing communication was less than appropriate -- at one point criticizing the competition, at another making fun of the NYT reporter who covers Wal-Mart.

His language surrounding the press event appears to be purposely vague, and his over-the-top praise of posts supporting Wal-Mart is, as I said on my blog, cringe-inducing.

In addition, he reportedly sent bloggers approximately 12 e-mails in a short span -- roughly one a week -- which some might considering spamming even if the blogger agreed to be sent information.

Finally, if Wal-Mart -- or any Edelman client -- is truly interested in participating in the "conversation," why can't they engage bloggers directly via comments or their own blog? Why hire bloggers with particular political backgrounds and use them to engage like-minded bloggers? To me, that is an effort to manipulate the conversation, not participate in it.

There is a time and place for engaging bloggers on behalf of clients, but there is an awful lot not to like about this effort.

I think people should take a cold shower and calm down. How can you expect bloggers to adhere to the same "standards" as journalists when the former can establish a blog in 10 minutes and the latter usually does a three year university degree? Even then, many journalists still find it difficult to be ethical, despite their training. If people are so serious about this maybe people need to complete a short training course before establishing their own blogs. Comments welcome.

Here is what I posted as a comment at Kami Huyse's Overtone Comm blog, her "When PR Tactics Compromise the Message".

Forgive the zany satire of my new social media (Medea?) network.

[QUOTE]

Here I come patting Richard Edelman on the back, as my arms sally forth. Edelman is a genius gentleman of the highest moral caliber, and a marketing mind of great impact.

I consider Edelman an ally, a friend, and a collaborator. He has contributed material to my blogs and to at least two of my upcoming books on social media topics.

Now I have not looked into all this Walmart fussiness. I am against all "buzz agenting". I am against Paid Opinion Blogging, in posts or comments.

But I go to another extreme.

I have begun to launch the lurching New Reformed Insane Blog Media Network.

Brains, blogs, and castration blades at your service, sir (or ma'am)!

Highly trained psycho "buzz agent destroyers" will flame mercilessly those sissypants flamers and trollers who try to damage your corporate reputation and mission.

GUARANTEED Nervous Breakdowns: one flamer at a time.

You know what I don't get here? If most of Wal-Mart's PR woes come from the public's perception of its working conditions, why didn't they directly address that perception by having the workers blog? Why did they rely on external bloggers to talk about peripheral issues?

Tish key point here is verbatim use of content if that is the case, there must be attribution of source like bibliography for a term paper thanks for reading my blog

JW
You can see in my blog my standards for disclosure
I believe that Mr. Manson met them
In any case transparency must be our watchword Thanks for reading my blog

Wal-Mart folks do blog note that some of the Hurricane Katrina coverage emanates from blog from Wal-Mart pr guy but there is a lot of outreach to do and we do it well

I've read your whitepaper on employee blogging, Richard. I'm glad to see Wal-Mart's taking that direction.

Perhaps Wal-Mart can go further -- a Wal-Mart employee blogging platform, perhaps? An internal communication campaign to get employees blogging? You said yourself that people trust people like themselves; there are a lot of people like that cashier at the counter.

Richard
It strikes me as odd that people (largely paper-based journalists from the looks of it!) are frowning upon the supply of material to bloggers and questioning their ethics.

Is this not what 75% of all blogging is ANYWAY? Only a relatively small proportion of blogging material is genuinely NEW, so bloggers clearly go through an assessment process to evaluate if someone else's post (properly referenced) is going to be attractive to their readers?

Whether the source of the blogging material is Wal-Mart or John Doe, it makes no odds. The bloggers themselves assess whether they use it or not.

In fact, it raises the point about the quality of the information/story to the bloggers in the first place - perhaps a more crucial part of the eqaution. If it isn't attractive to the bloggers, to whom WILL it be?!

Finally, some of the most popular blogs in the world are hardly closed to offers. Check out techcrunch.com and engadget.co who openly review BRANDED products, yet nobody complains.

Regarding the question of 'ethics', do keep in mind the fairly widespread venomous bile which the mainstream media is only too quick to pour out on blogging.

because blogging is a threat to their traditional role as consensus manufacturers; blogging forces journalism to, well, become journalists.

so really, seen in that light, is it at all surprising to find the lamp calling the kettle black?

Excellent dialog. Here's a summary of a post I sent other bloggers concerning Wal-Mart and your WOM PR topic.

For the non-marketing pros, Word of Mouth (WOM) marketing is a term used to describe activities that companies undertake to generate favorable publicity. People are inclined to believe word of mouth promotion because the source is preceived as credible - often someone you know.

WOM is highly valued by marketers and it has become a managed marketing strategy with significant budgets. It appears a lot of people have just found out.

Here's a few WOM articles and research reports for your readers (follow the links for detailed information):

http://www.harrisinteractive.com
Harris Interactive Inc. analyzed the effect of word-of-mouth communication and found that it strongly influences those making purchasing decisions. The survey shows that word-of-mouth - from friends, family members, colleagues and others - carries more weight than corporate advertising and public relations.

Survey Respondents
- 85% word-of-mouth communication is credible
- 70% ads and PR credible

http://mba.yale.edu/news_events/CMS/Articles/3952.shtml
Recruiting Less-Loyal Customers for Word-of-Mouth Campaigns May Be Most Effective According to Study by Dina Mayzlin (Assistant Professor of Marketing, Yale).

http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/7780.asp
WOM Tactics: Blogs are Upside Down, January 09, 2006, by Andy Sernovitz. The WOMMA CEO gives a five step program for earning a good reputation with bloggers.

http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/w.carl/ Dr. Walter Carl, Northeastern Univ. Download the Article: To Tell Or Not To Tell? Assessing the Practical Benefits of Disclosure for Word-of-Mouth Marketing Agents and Their Conversational Partners.

- Greg Magnus

PS: I don't know why your blog isn't reading the paragraph breaks in the preview, or it might when posted?

"In a world where we don't have a belief in a single source, you don't have a Walter Cronkite anymore. P.R. is the discipline on the rise," said Richard W. Edelman, president and chief executive of the public-relations firm Edelman.

"P.R.," he said, "plays much better in a world that lacks trust." ...
"It used to be I would schmooze you and I was your flack," said Mr. Edelman, whose firm netted about $260 million in 2005. "Today, if we want to get a message into the public's conversation, we just make a post on a blog. If The Wall Street Journal goes after a client, we don't have to accept that anymore. Let's post the documents we gave The Journal; let's show the interviews the newspaper decided not to show.

"You're not God anymore," he said.

---

I've read this several times and the only word I can use to describe this statement is "hypocrite."

Talk about questonable integrity. Divine proclamations aside, it seems ironic that in a world that truly lacks trust, people would be more inclined to believe organizations paid to create spin rather than those paid to remove it. Don't be too smug, Richard. The bloggers probably despise your firm even more than the WSJournal and now you're just kissing up to Gizmodo instead of PC Mag.

Statements like yours greatly concern me as a PR professional. No wonder we're viewed as pariahs within the media community. Keep sticking your foot in your mouth, Edelman. Be sure to discipline yourself and not an associate the next time he/she pitches the WSJournal and gets laughed off the phone.

David I screwed up big time in my comment to ny observer reporter. I clarified in subsequent post on the friday about how I was misinterpreted. Look I am not perfect. I had two glasses of champagne at pr week event. Am sure you can empathize. I do believe in mainstream media. Strong trusted relations with media is key for our business and our clients. In short I apologize to all in the pr business for stupid comment.

Richard,

I appreciated reading your honest and sincere reply. Unfortunately, yes, I can relate to one too many cocktails. In fact, the day I submitted to your blog, I was suffering from a mild headache thanks to a late dinner and too many drinks with a co-worker. So, it's time for me to eat some crow - After re-reading my response, I wish I could pull it back and be a little more PC but I am glad you listened and replied.

I have the honor of being able to occasionally speak to the media on behalf of my company and couple of the industries it represents, and there have been one or two times when I've said things that I wish I hadn't. It’s far too easy to provide reporters with a sound bite from PR hell, and who can blame them for wanting to print it?

I nearly fell out of my chair when I read your comments in the NYO article. I was shocked and disappointment. The last thing we need as PR professionals is to alienate our bread and butter. Our jobs are tough enough, aren’t they?

I'm an old school PR guy who believes print media, whether on the printed page or online, is here to stay. I don't think industry influencers or thought leaders spend nearly as much time on blogs as they do reading a major daily, or even a good book for that matter, and I highly doubt they look to blogs to help them make well-informed business decisions. To me, blogs are nothing more than glorified chat rooms. Perhaps they will grow up enough to one day become a reputable source of "news" but that becomes a little difficult when there’s no barrier to entry. Me, I’d rather read the good ol’ WSJournal to help me better understand what’s happening The Street than to read John Doe’s blog on “Hot Stocks.”

I'll get off my soap box now.

Keep up the great work. Your agency is truly one of the best and a model for many.

DR you are a gentleman
Your comments were received in the positive spirit of the blogosphere I deserved the criticism I always tell my clients don't make those type of over the top comments Especially when you are dealing with a complex topic I endorse your view on the mainstream media Let's stay in touch

I've seen several comparisons between bloggers and journalists, and their use of anonymous sources, and the question being asked is, "If journalists can do it, why can't bloggers?" This comparison falls flat when you look deeper. Journalists don't take press releases and print them word for word, especially without representing at least one alternate point of view. If they do use most of what the press release says, they definitely have to disclose what the source of the information is. If for some reason they can't, then they have to do their best to get the same information from another source. In the instances in which they do use anonymous sources, it is because the information (purely factual, not opinion) could not be obtained anywhere else, or because the source would be at risk if the information was traced back. To compare journalists' use of anonymous sources with bloggers who spit out press releases on their blogs is ludicrous!

Nicola,

Ok I buy your thesis but to hold bloggers to an even higher standard than reporters is also fatuous note he contretemps over a blogger using WalMart materials without attribution which led to ny times story on how pr firm Edelman was using the credulous blogosphere. Just silly conclusion.

Mr. Edleman:
Can you come clean about the site Working Families For Wal-Mart? And the sister site, Georgia Families For Wal-Mart?

I'm curious about the origins of these fake blogs/sites? Did you create them?

Since I now appear front and center on one of these pro-Wal-Mart blogs/sites,

http://georgia.forwalmart.com/

I think it's only fair to ask these kinds of questions.

FYI, no one asked MY permission to excerpt my (idependently crafted) column. Not that anyone ever ask for permission for anything on blogs, but since Working Families For Wal-Mart is SOOOO obviously un-transparent, I'd at least like to know what kinda propaganda machine I'm being used for.

FYI, my column originally appeared here:
http://www.georgiapoliticaldigest.com/

Cheers,
Grayson
Atlanta writer/producer
www.truegritz.com

Dear Mr. Edelman,

Why did Wal-Mart send Andrew Young as it's Ambassador for Working Families for Wal-Mart? It seems to be PR strategy gone wrong.

After Young's apology, Black pundits explained the comments as being about inner city residents paying exorbitant prices for spoiled meat, to outsiders while never having the opportunity to own a store themselves. It is true that officials all over the country have had complaints of shops selling postage stamps for a dollar, and outdated baby formula. Meanwhile, the ADL and other organizations stated there was no worthy explanation for the stereotypes he offered. With that, Young resigned from his post as an image builder for Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart ruined an icon.

Back in February, when Young took the post, Bruce Dixon of The Black Commentator called Young "The Shameless Son", writing, "The cynical misuse of his stature as an icon of the Freedom Movement, preacher, former elected official, and honored elder in black America to mask and obscure the crimes of his corporate client marks Mr. Young as nothing more nor less than a corporate whore." When WAOK-AM radio asked Young to justify his position, you could hear the tomatoes flying through the air. Callers bashed Wal-Mart as a union crushing low wage paying giant dumping "its health care costs on the public sector while receiving government subsidies."

Did Wal-Mart NOT know the Civil Rights Leader would have an uphill battle defending Wal-Mart to poor blacks? The African American press was hanging him out to dry. Trying to get on the level of inner city customers who have a love hate relationship with mom and pop shop owners was always going to be a bigger task for Young, than it would be for say, Spike Lee. Maybe someone at Wal-Mart watched Do the Right Thing, and thought they could cast Young as Spike's character Mookie, fighting Sal's Pizza while Raheem plays Fight The Power on his boom box until the cops show up? You got your Civil Rights Leaders mixed up. John Lewis is the one who still goes out and gets arrested, putting his reputation on the line for social causes and is applauded by the masses.

Let me explain. Today's black family is made up of parents who have only heard second hand of Young's work with Dr. King. That movement successfully galvanized African Americans from both sides of the tracks via Young explaining the movement to the have's, and John Lewis getting in the trenches with the have-not's. While inner city blacks respect Young, they don't feel they have anything in common with him. Middle class blacks respect Young, but don't feel that he is accessible. As respected as he is, Young likely has the most "street cred" with the mainstream business community. Young shopping at Publix or Kroger works. Young with an American Express Card works. Since Spike Lee would have declined an offer, let Fantasia Barrino be the spokesperson for Wal-Mart in the inner city trenches. That is credible. If you need someone who can do no wrong, ask Queen Latifah who appeals to all groups. Now is NOT the right time to ask Bill Cosby to talk to blacks about shopping at Wal-Mart. Nor should corporations hire Michael Jackson just because he is black. Nor should you look for "street cred" from P.Diddy. Puff isn't getting "his sexy on" in Wal-Mart. The day I see Puffy pushing a cart on TV, I will know I have gotten really old. Bill Clinton would be a great choice, you'd have blacks flocking to Wal-Mart. Isn't he from Arkansas? I know, you are scratching your heads, "Why didn't we think of that!"

Just because you like Gloria Estafan's music doesn't mean you send her to build Wal-Mart's image with New York Puerto Ricans. Let me relate this really sad story. Some Frenchmen were visiting Detroit and got lost. They stopped at a gas station to ask for directions in the worst area of town. They were killed. This is a sad story about naivete. So is was this strategy of hiring Young for this task. Yes, it is true that Young was nominated as an Ambassador. Blacks were so proud. But who nominated him? Not a Wal-Mart cashier. He was elected Mayor. Blacks were so proud. Who voted? The same people who always vote. Voters tend to be old people, don't they? But if the Royal Bank of Scotland needs a spokesman, Young is a great choice to appeal to that segment of the black community that is a most likely RBS customer. Blacks would be so proud to see Young in this role. Make them proud, which is what he has always done for black people, and they will find what he has to say credible.

Wal-Mart serves the middle and lower class. I don't know if this was Wal-Mart's idea or Edelman's, but the more Young tried to get in the trenches to explain himself to Blacks, the more he found himself in trouble with everyone. Note to Wal-Mart, please don't ruin anymore icons.