Doubt we'll see much change in the big agency world my friend. That's why so many folks (like us) go out on their own. And craft business models that don't stick in their craw.
It is lack of faith that will be the downfall of the industry...and people going out on their own and not fighting/collaborating for changes. Edelman is not the FIRST to broach the subject. I have called out him and others on the vague messages about change with no solution. All of us need to get back to basics and learn how to communicate with each other.
http://
12commanonymous.typepad.c...ution_not_.html
http://
12commanonymous.typepad.c...g_to_under.html
Playing advocate of the Devil here...
Let's face it, online tools (among other things) make it easy for everyone to get attention - good or bad.
They make it easy for anyone to "engage in a conversation", to give "negative/positive facts about companies and product" and to "open discussion"...
The questions is; where is the added value of a PR firm and are the agencies not just afraid that at one point they will not be needed anymore ?
Also; if it is true that you need to keep the strategic stuff within your company (instead of outsourcing it)and if it is true that the image of an organization has a direct impact on its bottom line (as proven by research) then why would you need an agency...?
I see communications departments getting bigger again... working with small agencies or free agents...
"It seems to me there's a disconnect between what Edelman the firm says publicly, and what they do in practice."
Indeed. Huge. It's institutionalized hypocrisy.
- Amanda
PS John, I appreciate the link in your article to mine. I'd hoped that you'd come and comment.
Totally agree with your points, John. Too tired tonight to comment more, but wanted to say, "hear hear!" at least!
Ok Mr. Wagner let's have a debate
There is no gap between my words and the actions of our firm
Yes we did hire a few bloggers who had worked on political campaigns in 2004. No they are not using their political connections to work the blogosphere. They are conforming to our policy which states that they will identify themselves as working at Edelman, they will identify the client in question, they will tell what they want to achieve in the conversation, and they will ask permission to interact not just send along spam. I would hope that you and others in PR would agree that these are all important steps to assure transparency and thus credibility for the PR firm. So let's not jump on Edelman for being a large firm or for trying to move the profession forward in the next iteration of the media business. Call me if you want to have a phone discussion 2127048122 or glad to carry on in print. Mr. Defren I have answered you directly on your blog.
Richard:
I apologize for my delay in replying to your post, and I appreciate you taking the time to visit and leave a comment.
You are obviously in a better position than myself to know how your employees are conforming to policy. I only have the reprints of e-mails from the New York Times story on the Wal-Mart outreach program to go by, which -- as I've discussed several times previously -- were less than forthright about the program and its aims. And I'm not the only PR blogger who feels that way.
I have been critical of Edelman in the past because I believe many PR bloggers give your firm a "free pass" ... gushing over the positives while not holding your team to the same "conversation" standards that they hold other companies. I believe that does a disservice to our profession and to the idea of social media in general.
By that I mean: We cannot expect non-communication companies to engage in dialog with critics when the very consultants urging them to do so won't. So I'm especially glad that you've taken the time to comment on my blog.
Commenting by HaloScan
