« Greatness Beyond Numbers | Main | Consumer-Degenerated Media 2 »
March 8, 2006
Wal-Mart, Edelman and transparency
Can we have it both ways in our relationship with bloggers?
Can we, on one hand, reach out to bloggers with our messages and encourage them to spread the word?
On the other hand, can we chide bloggers for sometimes being wanton communicators with no ethical boundaries who can cause irreparable damage to client reputations?
Disclosure: I don’t like Wal-Mart for many reasons. But I find it hard to argue with its approach to reaching out to bloggers via its public relations agency (Edelman). The issue, as reported in The New York Times yesterday, is whether the bloggers who received the pitch and wrote favorably about Wal-Mart were obligated to be transparent – that is, report that they were pitched and/or used content provided to them by Wal-Mart/Edelman. What Wal-Mart and Edelman did was neither wrong nor unethical. What the bloggers did is questionable – if they desire to be considered news gatherers and reporters on the same level as professional journalists.
Whether you think pitching bloggers is good or bad, bloggers bring this issue on themselves. The unwritten rule among bloggers is that you are to be transparent. In a sense, it’s their code of ethics. Professional journalists abide by a more formal code of ethics as set forth by the Society of Professional Journalists. But bloggers are not professional journalists (though some bloggers, this one included, are or have been professional journalists). Bloggers have a responsibility to let their readers know that, while they may take sides on an issue, they were approached by a public relations firm or a corporation if they use information from those sources. In this case, mentioning that they received information from Wal-Mart would have been appropriate.
Bloggers are highly influential and should not be ignored. But as Edelman and Wal-Mart are discovering, you can’t count on your message getting through clearly each time or escaping without scrutiny. It’s the nature of the beast.
In the spirit of revealing source material, following are links to information I used for this entry:
The New York Times: Wal-Mart Blog PR Backfires
Richard Edelman – 6 A.M.: A Word to the Wise
BuzzMachine: Does the “P” in “PR stand for “press” or “public”?
Consumerist: Source Email From Wal-Mart’s Blogtrusion
Consumerist: PR Agency Steps Up About Wal-Mart Blogging
Holmes Report Blog: Wal-Mart Bloggers Exposed!
MicroPersuasion: Silence Happens…Temporarily
Posted by Rich Sharp at March 8, 2006 3:38 PM