Some final thoughts. The reaction to Richard Edelman’s apology in the PR blogosphere has been mixed, with some bloggers accepting the apology and others aghast that "we" should even consider accepting it when Edelman violated so many ethical principles, including the code of ethics of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA). Hugh MacLeod, in inimitable fashion, has the usual cartoon.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think it is up to "us" (whoever "us" is) to accept or refute the apology. It really does not matter. Sure, this fake blog was a serious ethical lapse by an agency that should know better. An ill-considered campaign, it did not achieve its goals for the client, and spawns far larger problems for the agency. How come the top bloggers at Edelman didn’t know? If I were Richard Edelman, I’d find out. And I am sure he is. For the sake of his business.
But it wasn’t mass murder. Or financial malfeasance. It was a blog. Really, a blip on the radar screen of life.
Yes, it makes PR look bad, and critics of the profession will waste no time in tarring us all with the same sticky Wal-Mart brush. But it’s a big leap to say that any of the PR and marketing blogosphere was actually harmed as a result of Wal-marting Across America.
So, I’m not going to forgive Edelman. I’ve got nothing to forgive.
But we also shouldn’t forget. If Edelman wants to be a social media leader, it really has to start acting like one. There’s been a lot of talk about the me2revolution at Edelman, but not a lot of tangible proof.
Remember: it’s not what you say. It’s what you do.
Tags: Edelman, Wal-Mart, PR, public relations, fake blog, ethics
Good post.
You are dead on in that it’s not up to other bloggers to accept Edelman’s “apology.” The outcome of this incident will be determined solely by the agency’s clients and future prospects.
In my case, I’m looking at it like a giant case study, but to me it goes deeper than just a fake blog. It’s about the entire approach that Edelman has taken with the Wal-Mart account, from the war room to the leaking of information to certain bloggers to the ill-fated sit-down with the Consumerist to this goofy project.
It just smacks of old-school, backroom PR all gussied up to look like social media.
In other words, Edelman was hired to change the perception of Wal-Mart and they’ve used new media to try and do so, but the philosophy behind it was very 1950s.
Perhaps that is Wal-Mart’s fault. Perhaps it is the fault of the Wal-Mart team at Edelman. Either way, it’s fascinating to watch because there are so many valuable lessons there for anyone paying attention.
Yeppers. Spot on. They also didn’t just kill habeas corpus. Maybe I should start planning my cell decoration scheme now…
I think you guys are forgetting that culture starts at the top, and for whatever reason that junior staffer or whomever takes responsibilty for this somehow thought it was an okay thing to do. I say shame on all the top leadership at Edelman for creating a culture that allowes this to happen
i still don’t even understand how this happened – common sense should have kicked in at some point and somebody should have known this was such a hypocritical, stupid thing to do. but as you say- they did their client and their own reputation absolutely no good. Nellie
I am not a professional PR person but just a PR graduate student. This news was really a shock to me.
It did hurt the image of Public Relations again for the ethics of PR. And it must take much more time to regain the trust of audience. Ethical practice is the most important obligation for PR people. However, who can definitely say that we have learned this lesson and it won’t happen again?