On Burson-Marsteller, Facebook, and ethics in PR

News broke this week about global PR giant Burson-Marsteller pitching untrue stories about how Google's Gmail Social Circle feature breaks FTC rules on users' privacy. 

According to various reports, two Burson-Marsteller account executives, one a former CNBC reporter and the other a former political columnist, attempted to persuade influential bloggers and mainstream media to report on (ultimately false) allegations of Google's violations of privacy rules -- and refused to name their client. (The emails between Burson-Marsteller's John Mercurio and blogger Christopher Soghoian, whom Mercurio was trying to persuade to write an Op-Ed on the topic, are posted here.)

Honesty and transparency in PR: the rules are clear

PR has been fighting its own bad PR for at least a generation. An article on the story in AdWeek included the following infuriating (to me) statement: "While sleazy PR firms trying to spread scandalous stories is old hat..."

Ethical, moral, honest practitioners of public relations face this kind of slag on a regular basis, thanks to unethical, immoral, dishonest practitioners of backroom dealings who've come before them and branded their work "PR."

I've heard it myself from former journalists, in the context of joking around. I'm in PR, so I must be all about spin, right? I'm likely a very good liar, right? I must be, I'm in PR!

No, not right. (And on my cranky days, not even funny.) But what can we do about it? It's not as though those impressions are baseless; PR has gotten that reputation because people speaking on behalf of organizations, in the role of "public relations," have taken actions that have brought that reputation on us all.

Here's what we can do: prove that reputation wrong. 

The best thing PR people can do to combat PR's bad rep is to work honestly and ethically. Nothing is more persuasive than personal experience: most journalists, whether or not they buy into the "PR people are liars" storyline overall, have worked with PR people who deal in good faith, and whom they trust. The more above-board PR people they deal with, the less they'll be inclined to believe the old story.

Many PR professionals like me join professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society, the International Association of Business Communicators, and the Public Relations Society of America, among others. Each of these associations has a code of ethics or of professional business conduct that details the requirements for its members to conduct business ethically, honestly and transparently.  You don't need to belong to one of these associations to perform ethically, of course -- but by actively participating in them, you make a commitment to your clients that your work will follow their publicly-stated standards.

The more real PR people consistently deal openly and ethically with their audiences, the less that "sleazy PR firm" image will endure.

At least, I hope.

A point worth making

As I followed this story on Twitter yesterday, I saw a Tweet from British PR educator Heather Yaxley that said something I had been thinking.

(Thank you to @jgombita for re-tweeting it to her followers, including me.)

It's not lost on me that the PR practitioners in question are both former journalists. I wonder whether they also joked about how sleazy PR people are, in their journalism days. 

Even the big guys have to follow the rules.

Here is Burson-Marsteller's statement, posted earlier today on its website.

"Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client.

The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media.  Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources.

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle."

Without its reputation, the product of integrity and ethical dealings, a PR firm can't be successful in building relationships with any of its audiences. Professional PR people almost have to be more honest than everyone else -- or they'll be out of work.

Burson-Marsteller has a big job to do. 

Actually, it IS about what you know.

Oh never mind, 

I'll just go to the next mixer.

I read a good piece on the CPRS Calgary blog this morning about the value of having a strong professional network in public relations.

The writer, recent University of Calgary Communications Studies grad Tammy Schwass, is absolutely right: any PR pro (and especially one just starting out) deciding not to take advantage of professional networking opportunities does him/herself a disservice. If a hiring manager can associate a face (and a positive impression) with the name on one of 200 resumes, that name is far more likely to stick.

Even more importantly, if the hiring manager can see you've actively participated in the local communications community (by volunteering on the local CPRS or IABC or PRSA board, for example, or helping out with special events, or organizing a local tweet-up), that says some things about you:

• "I'm active in my professional community."
• "I have energy and am willing to use it for my own professional development. (Additional subtext: I'm not lazy.)"
• "I may have connections that could help you meet your objectives... if you hire me!"

And, as we know because it just makes sense, a recommendation from a trusted colleague trust can carry far more weight than an "unknown's" resume alone.

But it's not ALL about whom you know.

Ms. Schwass opens her post by saying: "It’s not about what you know, but who you know. These were words that I heard many times over the course of my university career."

I, too, have heard this expression many, many times; usually, the people who say it understand that it's a bit of an exaggeration. (Ms. Schwass' degree tells us she gets it.)

It is, of course, what you know. And, in the longer term, even more so than whom you know.

I've been privy to some conversations online and in person lately involving people who still somehow believe that success in PR is less about learning how to create effective strategies and use a wide range of tools to execute them, than about whom you know and being able to sell yourself.

That may have been the case 20 years ago; but 20 years ago, employers simply didn't have access to nearly as many job candidates who had been trained to do what we do. Twenty years ago, you might have been able to get by with the right friends, good common sense, and good writing skills. Not anymore.

Today's successful entrant into the PR profession needs far more than the right connections and a basic understanding of the structure of a news release. (Also, on a side note, (s)he needs to know not to call it a press release, but maybe that's a topic for another post.)

If you want to give yourself the best possible odds of landing a job in PR, you should absolutely network.

But there are a few other things you should absolutely do.

1. Get some foundational knowledge in the practice, whether that's through a formal program like Red River College's Creative Communications program, or by taking a part-time certificate program at a college or university, or even by going through your professional association's accreditation process (for example, the Canadian Public Relations Society's APR). In 2010/2011, you're competing against hundreds of other candidates who have done just that; good luck to you if you think that won't matter to a potential employer.

2. Build a portfolio of work that shows you can actually do the things you've learned about. Make your portfolio reflect your own versatility and flexibility; an employer wants to be able to see, through your work samples, what you might be able to do to help meet his/her organizational objectives.

3. Wherever you can, show the impact of your communication work. If you developed and executed a strategy to get a new city councillor elected, show how your work translated into votes. If you wrote a news release for an organization, show the coverage it earned. If you built and ran a blog, show how many readers/subscribers it earned, and how much discussion it generated among the client's audiences.

Whom you know will open the door; what you know will get you invited in.

Unless a hiring manager is an idiot, quite frankly, he/she isn't going to hire based solely on someone else's word. (And if he/she is an idiot, plan not to be working there too long, even if you do get the job...) A hiring manager is looking for someone who can make a positive contribution toward achieving the organization's objectives; what you know (and how you can show it works) is key.

So, do get out there and network. All other things between you and a competitor being equal, who you know may make the difference in getting you hired.

But it's what you know that will keep you hired.

Those pesky ethics keep holding me back.

Flying under the radar (har har) of the balloon boy hoax of last week was a media hoax of a far different kind: the Yes Men's successful effort to dupe major U.S. media into relaying their messages on climate change.

The Yes Men are activists whose business, according to their website, is "Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else."

On Monday, their target was the United States Chamber of Commerce. As the National Post reported earlier this week, the Yes Men booked the National Press Club in Washington late last week for a news conference, under the name "U.S. Council on Climate, which has the same acronym as the Chamber. On Monday morning, they called and changed the contact information for the event, and set up their press conference with U.S. Chamber of Commerce logos."

Staff at the National Press Club realized something was up, and alerted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the fraudulent news conference was about to take place. The video below shows what happened when a legitimate representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arrived on the scene.



While the news conference was only a few minutes old when it got broken up, a number of media outlets had already reported on the announcement. According to the National Post,

"Reuters had already filed a story based on a fake press release. The news appeared on several websites and was announced on live television; an anchor for the Fox Business Network retracted the news within seconds of reporting it. Reuters quickly issued a correction."

The situation was an embarrassment for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Press Club, as well as the media who reported the story before realizing it was a hoax. But the Yes Men certainly got what they wanted: national headlines and coverage of their messages on climate change.

Some may see publicity stunts like this one as victimless crimes; and in some cases, they might be (other than the damage done to the credibility of the PR and media industries). But in others, there can be real victims: as the National Post story recounted, in 1994 the same front man for the Yes Men
"tricked the BBC into thinking he worked for Dow Chemical. In an interview with the broadcaster, he said Dow would pay US$12-million to the victims of India's Bhopal gas disaster. By the time that stunt was exposed a few hours later, the company's stock had plunged by US$2-billion."

This story has highlighted the fundamental problem of a "tweet-first-ask-questions-later" approach to journalism today, driven by the need to stay ahead of social media in breaking news. Whereas reporters used to have time to do background research before filing stories, today they are pressured to get the news out, at least in some preliminary form, as soon as they receive it. As the media landscape evolves, journalists will need to find a way to ensure the accuracy of what they're reporting, if they want to remain a credible source for their audiences.

In first-year PR classes at Red River College this year, we have discussed professional codes of ethics, and why professional associations like the Canadian Public Relations Society and the International Association of Business Communicators would need to have them; this story provides us with a perfect illustration of why such ethics codes are needed.

The Yes Men's stunt may have earned headlines, but it did nothing to build relationships. Ethical public relations does not employ dishonesty, arguing that the means justifies the ends; rather, ethical public relations involves open, honest communications between a client and its audiences, in the interests of fostering better understanding and, hopefully, earning trust and support.

It's important for ethical public relations practitioners to denounce actions like those of the Yes Men, because in some circles, their tactics are understood, incorrectly, to be the tactics of PR.

They aren't.