John,
You make some valid points, and while I have some issues with the aggressiveness of Edelman's efforts to manipulate a medium that many believe should be above manipulation, the point I tried to make in my posting had more to do with the transparency of the agency's pitch process, and the (unfortunate) lack thereof by citizen journalists on the receiving end of Wal-Mart's message points.
Net net: the definitive "best practices" white paper on blog relations is still a work in progress.
John:
If you don't mind, I'll just repeat the post I put on Scoble, with some added comments:
[Over at Scoble] Shel mentions someone questioned Edelman’s choice of bloggers to target: that was me, and I’m quite startled that this entire discussion, both here and elsewhere, overlooks that Edelman’s blogging work seems to reinforce the philosophical divide between pro and anti-Wal-mart groups.
It’s not really about conversations or even sharing information: their work concentrates on providing ammo to pro-groups and denigrating anti-groups.
Is there any room for conciliation or discussion in an environment like that?
Is the corporate strategy now suffering because of some poorly conceived and executed tactics?
John:
Nice post on this topic. I've commented on your post (and others) extensively on my blog, HealthcareVox. Please check it out when you get a chance.
Best,
Fard
I must say, reading that email is very sobering. The tone of Manson's emails is way over the top.
I can assure you that my so what post has nothing to do Edelman's high profile and everything to do with egregious media hypocrisy about their relationships with sources.
I have taken to task some of the biggest names in journalism over the abuse of anonymous sources. Publications of enormous power and ones I where I try to place stories. I don't style myself as any sort of nanny, but if I think something is important, I don't hesitate to post about it.
Peter:
I agree with about the "best practices" issue ... it's one reason why I have devoted so much time to this topic. I believe it's critical that we learn from these episodes.
Colin, you make an incredibly valid point that I haven't seen elsewhere ... this isn't about conversation but about providing ammo.
The whole strategy is designed like a political campaign -- with a war room and operatives who pass along information to friendly bloggers.
It seems to go completely against the grain of what Richard Edelman posts about in his blog, and that's why I am so surprised that people are giving this a pass.
Alice:
Thanks for your note ... I guess I find the argument that some are making -- the mainstream media does this all the time -- as somewhat beside the point.
The idea of the blogosphere was that it was supposed to be more pure than the old-fashioned relationship between MSM and PR folks.
I think that's one reason why the NYT wrote this story ... they are tired of being beaten up and want to shed some light on what is really happening in the blogosphere.
That's why I'm disappointed at PR bloggers reactions here. They are saying it's okay when they should be calling for MORE transparency in blogger relations, not less.
The whole strategy is designed like a political campaign
It is a political campaign. Actually it is worse; it is a labor war and will probably get worse, much, much, worse. If you have ever seen the films created by industrial relations consultants to be shown to captive audiences, or the fliers unions create to counter them, you understand this is nothing.
I am religious and a big believer in original sin. Technology has no impact on human nature. Whatever happens off-line is going to happen online. What blogs do is offer a voice to everyone. It will never again be possible for a few entities to control the dialog.
Alice:
I have to be transparent and say that I have no experience in labor relations.
But I'm not against providing information to bloggers. I just think you have to do it in the right way, and I don't think -- having read the e-mail exchanges between the Edelman rep and the blogger -- that this was done in the right way.
What frustrates me is that all the people who are glad-handling this topic will pounce on someone soon for a blogging misstep ... someone who is a lot less deserving of scrutiny than Edelman, who supposedly "gets it."
And they'll be all high and mighty about it, too, blogging about the sanctity of the forum and the importance of listening and such.
Kinda makes me wish I wasn't a PR blogger today.
John - A voice crying in the wilderneess?
Thank you for your voice! The concern I have over the "so what" opinions is that this "non-issue" suggests some will think of this as a template.
Thank you for saying that we have to learn from this incident - not accept it as the norm in reaching out to indiviudals willing to share opinions.
Did the Edelman team not take human nature into consideration when it started reaching out by massaging egos? And isn't that what the invite to Media Day was?
Thanks again for your voice and stance.
Mike:
I appreciate your visit and your comments.
I have two thoughts about the reaction to this story.
1) I don't think many people really read the e-mail exchanges between the PR rep and the blogger. For example, many people have written erroneously that he properly identified himself. But the only link to Edelman was in his signature, which is easily overlooked. His main introduction was that he was a conservative blogger himself. Not a major issue, but certainly not transparent.
2) I honestly believe that if Wal-Mart was using a local Arkansas firm, and that firm approached blogger relations in the same fashion, the PR world would be up in arms! There'd be much moaning and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the lack of understanding, etc. There is no doubt that some PR bloggers are reluctant to thoroughly discuss this issue.
As I said, reaching out to bloggers per se is not problematic ... the devil is in the details, and these are a tad on the fishy side.
What frustrates me is that all the people who are glad-handling this topic will pounce on someone soon for a blogging misstep ... someone who is a lot less deserving of scrutiny than Edelman, who supposedly "gets it."
I think you have something there, although BL Ochman certainly did not hesitate to criticize Edelman.
Since Edelman signed Wal-Mart there have been no stories about illegal alien janitors locked in overnight. Whether it is because Edelman told them it had to stop or the Wal-Mart legal team persuaded them that this could lead to criminal charges or conspiracy to commit false imprisonment I know not. But it has stopped which is a big plus and a sign of how bad things had gotten at Wal-Mart.
I have a friend who is a retired union organizer. At one time she had a car with bullet holes along its side from a organizing campaign at chicken processing plants on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. I don’t think the Wal-Mart campaign will reach anything like that.
I don't think many people really read the e-mail exchanges between the PR rep and the blogger.
Very true, I only saw the NYT story. My view of this changed after I saw those emails. They are truly over the top.
Neville has now chimed in to say that there should have been more transparency and even offers a alternate pitch. So, you aren't entirely alone out here.
According to Kremanski, WalMart's goal was to give bloggers that cover their "beat" access. Of course only sympathetic ones. At any rate, Edelman is co-opting the social media "reporters" into the mix without allowing for their:
1) blogger bias (with no editor to mute it)
2) likely lack of knowledge about how PR works (a journalist woudld have caught the agency connection),
3) and, lack of knowledge of PR players, probably wouldn't know Edelman is a PR agency
My concern this campaign was run more like a MSM outreach and the agency became the story, obscuring the client's messsage.
Kami:
Thanks for your comments on this issue, here and on other blogs. You are really looking at this in the right way, which is "how can we all learn?"
As I've said before, I believe there is nothing wrong with outreach to bloggers. In my original post on the topics, I said I had "mixed feelings." I become more heated when I saw how many people were just blowing off the whole issue without really thinking about it fully.
Some of the most thoughtful commentary -- in my opinion -- has been from people who question the idea of only reaching out to "friendlies" and not engaging critics. I can see why Wal-Mart would not want to do that due to its size and scope, but the issue is worth thinking about at least, right?
Commenting by HaloScan
