△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Edelman-WalMart Update: Richard speaks up

On his blog, Richard Edelman has responded to the flurry of conversation about the Wal-Marting Across America flog. To his great credit, he has apologized, acknowledged that the tactic was wrong, and indicated the company is going through an education process. He has replied to comments posted to his item, and has even posted a comment among those left to my original post on this blog.

Edelman has also noted that the company refrained from comment until all the facts were in; Steve Rubel has also posted an item explaining this reason for the prolonged silence.

Comments posted to both Rubel’s and Edelman’s blogs run the gamut from praise for admitting the mistake to questions about what took so long to outright dismissal and an assumption that the same behavior is bound to repeat itself. An optimist, I’m willing to give Edelman the benefit of the doubt and assume that, after three conecutive social media blunders on the WalMart account, they’ll undergo some serious introspection and establish some processes and guidelines. I think it takes guts to admit you’ve made a mistake and even more to apologize. A lot of CEOs would never take that step no matter how egregious their acts.

The problem I still have is with how long it took to begin participating in the conversation. I sympathize with Edelman’s desire to get all the facts, but this was a genuine, bona fide, reputation-damaging crisis. As the title of Gerald Baron’s excellent crisis communication book informs us, “Now is Too Late.” Nobody should know this better, as it relates to social media, than a PR agency that promotes and implements social media solutions (not to mention provides crisis communication counsel). It should have taken hours, not days, to ascertain the facts in order to address the crisis quickly. I would hope fast response is another issue Edelman is addressing with his employees. Even “We’re listening and looking into this and will let you know what’s going on once we have the facts” would have been better than the deafening silence.

At the same time, of course, I do understand that the cobbler’s children have no shoes.

Another curiosity arises from Edelman’s admission—he calls the blog “the cross-country tour that Edelman designed for Working Families for WalMart.” This seems to contradict assertions made in the final post that appears on the blog itself, which insists that the tour was the blogger’s idea: ” I called my brother, who works at Edelman and whose clients include Working Families for Wal-Mart, in order to find out if we???d be allowed to talk to people and take pictures in Wal-Mart parking lots. As a freelance writer, I???ve learned over the years that it???s always better to ask about stuff like that in advance. They didn???t just give us permission. They said they would even sponsor the trip!”

Go read the post for yourself to see how it squares with the admission that the tour was designed by Edelman. From what we’ve learned based on Edelman’s and Rubel’s posts, this could be true, semi-true, or completely untrue. We just don’t know.

So props to Richard Edelman for the admisison and the mea culpa. Best of luck to his company in making sure they get it right in the future. And sincere hopes that more answers to the many lingering questions get answered now that the company and its representatives have started engaging in the conversation.

Comments
  • 1.Definite kudos for the apology, though one wonders what else he could possibly have done. Continued silence was not an option. The apology was also pretty thin on detail, as have been all of Edelman's replies. I'm not sure what "facts" they were waiting to gather (did they or did they not do that blog for Wal-Mart?)

    I also find it interesting that the PR agency got the worst end of the PR stick in this whole debacle - to add to your analogy, it's like the cobbler's kids have the ugliest damn shoes in town.

    maggie fox | October 2006 | toronto, canada

  • 2.I think the main problem here is Walmart. Whether or not Endelmans do it again probably depends on whether they keep working for Walmart. Such a standard Walmart tactic.
    And, as you point out, someone is still lying here. If Endelman is telling the truth in his blog, then the blog that Endelmans write is lying. Hmm. If the blog is telling the truth, then for some reason the boss of Endelmans is lying about writing the blog. Strange. Stinks.

    Ivan | October 2006 | bluk

  • 3.(Final update, Oct. 16, 2006) What is next, now that Richard Edelman has acknowledged that the lack of transparency for the Walmarting blog is 100% the agency’s “responsibility and error“?
    Although the details of the brouhaha &#8212...

  • 4.Shel:

    Being attacked in the blogosphere seems to elicit one of two reactions -- respond quickly, or retreat into a silent defensive shell.

    The fact that a PR firm that presents itself to the world as "getting" social media could let things escalate without even a neutral acknowledgement that they're aware of the issue is pretty sad. Yet, it fits the pattern of previous blogstorms.

    Eric Eggertson | October 2006 | Canada

  • 5.So Edelman apologized but I agree with Maggie, what else could they have done? I find it rather strange that Richard Edelman and Steve Rubel as well only wrote very short responses. Why not use the blog for a longer explanation? Reinstall some trust. Stimulate discussion.

    Sebastian | October 2006 | Germany

  • 6.Only in a world so disallusioned by corporate leadership do we applaud a CEO who admits a mistake. Where I'm from, you don't get credit for doing what you should.

    I think there is an old Chris Rock bit about how ridiculous is it to be praised for stuff you should be doing anyway.

    Mike Sacks | October 2006

  • 7.When the large public relations firm Edelman went into a protective silence instead of engaging its critics over a pro-Wal-Mart blog, it reminded me of HAL, the computer in 2001, A Space Odyssey. HAL was just doing his job. But we learn in the next movie (or book, for Arthur C. Clarke fans) that HAL's psychotic behaviour was a natural reaction to being given two contradictory orders by its programmers. Edelman has repeatedly stated it wants to uphold transparency and honesty in its word-of-mouth…

  • 8.Shel, thank you for being one of the clearest voices on this subject. I appreciate your simple explanations. I reviewed Wal-Mart's blogs recently and was dismayed by their smarminess. I'm glad the magnifying glass has yielded such an illuminating, if disappointing find.

    Let's all look out for other stinky corporate blogs and motivate them to improve by talking openly about their shortcomings. Yes, compliment business blogs' strengths - but also pay attention to their failings. How we bloggers respond now will influence the path corporate blogging will take down the road.

    Easton Ellsworth | October 2006 | AZ

  • 9.Mike:

    maybe it is true, but at least this "admission of guilt" is a recognition that we should avoid those mistakes - in that light, it is praiseworthy.

    The bigger question is however HOW to avoid those mistakes - here's my two cents.

    I hope a healthy discussion follows.

    Gianni | October 2006 | Milano

  • 10.The sad fact is, Mike, that a corporation is a legal entity with fiduciary obligations. This makes corporations very skittish. While an individual may be inclined to admit mistakes and apologize, corporations are less so. Whether that's right or wrong, it is a fact. While CEOs are legal representatives of the corporation with fiduciary responsibilities, a blog allows them to speak on their own a bit more sincerely; I have seen several corporate leaders admit mistakes and apologize on blogs whereas before, such admissions and apologies would be far more rare. The fact that the mindset is changing is worthy of praise. If we don't recognize those who do it right, where's the incentive for others to change?

    Shel Holtz | October 2006 | Concord, CA

Comment Form

« Back