Keep that flame a'burnin', John! Good stuff.
John,
Blogging and social media have created a bit of irony in public relations. By practice, PR work is behind the scenes, out of the public eye, eye. It's about our clients; not us.
But -- and it's a big BUT -- the early emphasis of social media calls for PR pros to come out from behind the curtain. (Sorry for the cliches!)
Being totally forthright runs counter to traditional PR practices. It'll be a painful process to include transparency in our work, but, I think, a good one to follow. Of course, there are times when transparency is not needed or called for (talking more traditional PR/media relations work here).
Mike
After looking at the forwalmart.com and other sites, the thought hit me: Wouldn't it simply be easier if Wal-Mart/Edelman set up a corporate Wal-Mart blog? Does having a grass-roots and/or supposed third-party feel or approach really make that much difference?
Common sense. Why is that so often the option executives choose, instead of the first?
I agree that it would be easier and likely more effective for Wal-Mart to blog on its own behalf.
What value does a third-party approach add, especially if it is forced and fake?
The cynic might say "well, no one would believe them if they did" but is anyone believing them now after being "outed"?
These are important questions because there are a lot of companies sitting on the sidelines watching and waiting to see if and how they can use social media.
I've put quite a bit of thought into this issue.
First, on my blog's main landing page, my bio is clear:
I work for Octane - Architecture stratégique et communication (web site in French only) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. A disclaimer can be found here.
Second, the disclaimer links to an admittedly imperfectly updated client list.
Third, I try to mention potential conflicts of interest. For example, in this post about juvenile obesity and business’s responsibility, I mention (translated):
To respect my commitment to mention my potential conflicts of interests, I have to mention that the Quebec coalition about weight issues is a client of Octane (my employer). I have not worked with them and I don't think that the question of youth obesity was studied.
Fourth and last, I also mention potential biases when posting comments on other blogs. My bias this time around is that I think I've got pretty much covered all the bases 
Marc:
Thanks for those reminders about disclosure in the course of blogging, not just when setting up a blog. Those are good for all of us to remember.
Great post and comments.
John - you actually cover this in your comments so i will simply punctuate what you are saying: once you follow the model of disclosure you have outlined in the post, the strategy of the "astroturf" blog doesn't really serve a purpose. As you said, let WalMart have its own blog or whatever. If they are having trouble finding 'organic' third-party supporters, maybe they could just admit the paradox - for Walmart to accomplish as much as it has for people and the economy, there are some problems (wages, benefits, etc...). maybe they could just start a discussion on that. Some critics would respect them for facing the paradox.
Common sense or “conventional wisdom?” The following may be of interest. Or not, depending on one’s CW.
From Levitt and Dubner’s book Freakonomics (chapter 3)
It was John Kenneth Galbraith, the hyperliterate economic sage, who coined the phrase “conventional wisdom.” He did not consider it a compliment. “We associate truth with convenience,” he wrote, “with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem.” Economic and social behaviour, Galbraith continued, “are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring. Therefore we adhere as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.”
So the conventional wisdom in Galbraith’s view must be simple, convenient, comfortable, and comforting—though not necessarily true. It would be silly to argue that the conventional wisdom is *never* true. But noticing where the conventional wisdom may be false—noticing, perhaps, the contrails of sloppy or self-interested thinking—is a nice place to start asking questions.
John, I'm with ya for 90% of the post. The Quick Hit, tho, is what keeps sticking in my craw (not yours, per se, but the general theme of it).
We shouldn't have to delve into the nitty-gritty. As you say, it's about common sense. Just because we're talking about blogging/social media doesn't change that.
We - as PR practioners and, frankly, people - should adhere to the tenets of transparency (Mike Manuel correctly calls it honesty) and integrity, no matter what the medium.
Do that and the nitty-gritty takes care of itself.
Jesse:
I agree, except that too many people are willing to say "Edelman apologized" and move on to the next meme without ever stopping to consider what was really done wrong and what issues are still around and kicking and ready to jump up and bite the next PR firm to try and pull a stunt.
That's why I say we need to examine the nitty gritty. It's too easy to adhere to the commonly accepted principles of disclosure without getting anywhere close to true transparency.
totally embarrassing. wal-mart should just blog - but what if corporate wal-mart is not ready to blog? Instead of going these elablorate ruses, edelman should have just told them blogging was not for them yet. simple as that. with these corporate bureaucracies, it's going to take time to see them do it right, and i guarantee we'll see more flogs for a while. Nellie
John: I don't see this issue as being an online/offline challenge at all. This is a PR challenge. Whatever level of disclosure we determine is necessary online should also be acceptable offline. In the offline world, we are frequently called upon to write op-eds, speeches and even books that are published under the bylines of our clients. So why are you suggesting that if we also draft blog entries that this requires disclosure of the person who actually crafted the written work?
Dan:
Thanks for the note ... hope you are doing well.
Although I don't think it makes sense to ghost-write blog posts, I'm not completely against it. As long as there is some real person who is standing up and taking responsibility for the content -- much like a speech-giver does when he/she makes a presentation.
However, if you don't have a person who is responsible for the content, then don't have a blog. Just create a real website and leave it at that.
The very nature of blogs is that they are personal -- they are direct communication between an individual and his/her readers. If Wal-Mart or Edelman or anyone else doesn't want to put a real individual up front and center, then don't blog.
In other words, I disagree that the same standards of disclosure apply online and off. In my opinion, blogs have different rules.
Commenting by HaloScan
