△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

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

Stop harshing Edelman’s groove

I’m sure you’ve all seen some family-oriented TV show in which the teenager screws up big-time. When finally confronted by his parents, the teen is shocked that there will be no further punishment. “You’ve been punished enough,” the understanding parent says.

Edelman has been punished enough. The bashing the global PR firm has taken over three covert blogs maintained for client WalMart has been severe and sometimes downright nasty. The company’s reputation as a leader in social media has been severely tarnished and could take years to recover. The various calls for this or that person at Edelman to be fired or resign make for good copy, but don’t address the issue and certainly don’t reflect reality. Nor do calls for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) to revoke Edelman’s membership and send the firm into exile.

What, then, is reality?

Edelman has more than 2,200 employees in 46 offices worldwide, along with some 15 specialty practices. While I don’t know the dynamics of the company, I have worked for two global human resources consulting firms (William M. Mercer, which is still around, and Alexander & Alexander Consulting Group, now part of Aon Consulting). In both instances the culture was determined more by the local office leadership than the corporate leadership. I worked in Los Angeles for Mercer, which was a miserable environment. When I visited the St. Louis office, I was shocked at how congenial and uplifting the atmosphere was. And to tell you the truth, I don’t think I could have named the president of the company. Leadership was embodied—in Los Angeles, anyway—in a pension actuary named Dan White who ran the L.A. office.

Richard Edelman, the president of the firm, is, of course, accountable ultimately for his firm’s egregious missteps. To his credit, he has openly accepted that accountability and outlined the steps he will take to guard against any future such actions. I wish him well and hope his intentions aren’t undermined by the actions of somebody else in his organization. But let’s be clear: Just because the company president “gets” new media and is evangelizing it in his organization, this does not mean that some 25-year veteran account executive in a remote office has yet consumed the Kool-Aid. This hypothetical AE could look at blogs, rub his oily hands together, and say, “This is how we’ll bullshit the public.” It runs counter to everything Richard and his team may believe in, and the company will be well rid of such people. But with 2,200 employees scattered around the world, show me a president who knows the inner workings of the minds of all of them.

Given the number of people I meet who aren’t even sure what a blog is, it’s no surprise that among Edelman’s 2,200 employees, there might be some who would subject blogging to abuse. The same is probably true of any comparably sized (or larger) agency. This isn’t an excuse. My previous posts on the topic make my position on the fake blogs exceedingly clear. But spreading the gospel of ethical blogging is going to take time, particularly with longtime practitioners who are set in their ways.

As for Steve Rubel falling on his sword over the fake blogs episode, the uninformed thinking behind this is confounding. Steve works for one of those 15 specialty practices. That practice was not called into the WalMart account; he had nothing to do with the account or the blogs. Nobody is obliged to run their blogging plans by Steve for approval. He is not responsible for embedding an understanding of social media in every Edelman employee; he is responsible for meeting client expectations on those engagements in which his practice’s input is sought.  If Steve worked on the WalMart account and recommended this approach, I’d sing a different tune. But his practice was not involved nor should he be held responsible for actions taken outside the scope of his influence.

I’m not sure what good expulsion from WOMMA would do. Sure, WOMMA could crow that its ethics guidelines have teeth. But the fact that a couple account reps acted in a manner inconsistent with the president’s own philosophy does not mean that the entire company has sinned. Remember, these were three fake blogs produced for a single account. Had there been three fake blogs—one each in three separate accounts, managed in separate offices—I would be far more concerned about Edelman’s overall ethics than I am under the current circumstances.

Better that WOMMA insist on working with Edelman directly to better instill the right word-of-mouth ethics in its employees. And some censure might be in order—certainly more than the, “Oh well, mistakes happen” approach WOMMA seems to have taken. (WOMMA’s only action so far has been to open a forum for public debate on the matter—public debate that seems to be happening perfectly well in the blogosphere without their forum.) At dinner this evening with the tireless Constantin Basturea, we speculated that WOMMA could end up being the story here instead of Edelman.

In any case, it’s time for everyone to take a deep breath, remember how the real world functions, and bring some reason to this discussion. Screaming for heads to roll may make some feel better, but it doesn’t help spread the gospel of ethical social communication. That takes time, dedication, and perserverence. I hope Richard Edelman is up to the task and that he puts Steve Rubel’s expertise to good use in the effort.

10/23/06 | 27 Comments | Stop harshing Edelman’s groove

Comments
  • 1.Thanks for adding a dose of reality and a voice of reason to the whole commentary about Edelman/Wal-Mart, Shel! Cool headline too.

    donna papacosta | October 2006 | Toronto

  • 2.Shel,

    Mostly, I agree with you. What I disagree with is the idea that Edelman has been "punished enough." The fact is, a bunch of angry bloggers does not a punishment make. Sure, Richard's blog was crammed with scoldings, but also support from Edelman groupies. Sure, Edelman's name was along side Wal-Mart's in every MSM account of the incident. But people know Wal-Mart, not Edelman.

    Among "new media experts" Edelman's rep, as you say, is tarnished. But why have professional associations founded on ethical guidelines if they don't flex a muscle. Same problem PRSA has, same reason why PR pros don't get the respect they so longingly yearn for.

    I wonder what would have happened had this been another big time agency besides Edelman. I think a lot of people wouldn't be so quick to forgive and forget.

    Mike Sacks | October 2006

  • 3.Great post! I'm glad to see that I wasn't alone in this thinking. I was beginning to wonder if there was anyone out there that thought along the same lines, as what I posted on Sunday.

    I think the calls for resignations, were a little over the top, and just made for great "link bait". There were some good points, which I think Edelman has addressed and acknowledged.

    We're all learning, and companies are going to stumble along the way. It takes great character to admit your wrongs, and open yourself up the way Edelman has (and rightfully should have).

    Great thoughts and nice insight Shel.

    Liana "Li" Evans | October 2006 | West Chester, PA

  • 4.Shel, while your posts on Edelman have been the most elucidating on this subject, I agree with Mike.

    Has Edelman been sufficiently hammered by the PR blogosphere? Yes, and probably twice over.

    But have Edelman's unfortunate tactics and Wal-Mart's generally bogus "grass roots" efforts at self-defense been sufficiently understood by the public for what they are? I don't think so.

    Richard Edelman has a blog and claims that Edelman is at the forefront of a transparent new-media strategy. He employs a leading new-media thinker to blog on the company's behalf. And then Edelman account executives use Richard's and Steve's reputations to draw clients who want the agency to use these new tools in old-fashioned, disingenuous ways.

    It's an old habit in our industry: public relations before implementation.

    Let's not be too quick to give them credit for this little learning experience of theirs. They're making a lot of money from Wal-Mart and duping the public while they learn.

    I still think Richard Edelman, like his father, deserves his reputation as more thoughtful and socially responsibile than your average PR agency boss.

    But I think he and his firm still have some explaining to do, and they have to prove once again that they're something other than opportunistic shills in new-media shells.

    David Murray | October 2006 | Chicago

  • 5.Shel says let-up on Edelman. Shel, I think people are just having too fun fun with this one to let-up just yet. I do agree though that the Edelman issue reflects broader challenges any large organization faces: first, the actions

  • 6.Good point, Mike. I think the punishment is more the damage to the reputation and the business they won't be getting until they can rehabiliate that image -- which isn't going to happen any time soon.

    I do think (as I noted) that some rebukes are appropriate. I noted WOMMA, but a statement from PRSA wouldn't hurt either. But I wouldn't hold my breath, which is why I didn't mention it. The professional associations' inability to hold anybody accountable for violating their ethics codes is a topic for a whole other discussion (one we've had many times on "For Immediate Release").

    Shel Holtz | October 2006 | Concord, CA

  • 7.I don't disagree with you, David (which probably comes as a shock). I was speaking STRICTLY about forced resignations (or outright firings) and expulsion from WOMMA, the remedies many have been suggesting. Beyond that, I agree that censure and further explanations are in order.

    Shel Holtz | October 2006 | Concord, CA

  • 8.My biggest issue with the entire escapade was not whether Edelman would get punished or not ... it was in getting people to recognize what was done improperly and understanding why.

    Too many bloggers were quick to jump on the story without really digging into what we mean by "disclosure" or "transparency." They just read "fake blog" and went to town, without really discussing why it was fake and what would have made it real.

    At the same time, they were too quick to abandon the issue when Richard Edelman "apologized."

    Richard himself wrote -- multiple times -- that the only fault with the blog was the fact that the two travelers' last names weren't used!

    Yet that was probably the least problematic component of the entire program. The two bloggers were being paid to travel and write about the company, and Edelman was picking up the tab for everything including the RV. Plus, one of the folks involved was a relative of an Edelman staff member working on the Wal-Mart account. And the connection to the blog's sponsor was iffy at best, at least to the average consumer.

    Yet no one at Edelman acknowledged those very real conflicts of interest.

    Front groups, astroturfing and lack of proper labeling are major issues in our industry -- and they go beyond blogs or social media. Yet very few PR bloggers have picked up on the meme about just what constitutes proper disclosure for a blog or website created for a "supporter's group" of a major corporation.

    In other words, is Edelman's new background on the bloggers who post content on http://www.forwalmart.com sufficient? Is it enough to merely say a blog is sponsored by "Working Families for Wal-Mart" without really saying who funds the organization and what it's real purpose is??

    These are the kinds of nitty gritty issues that the Edelman/Wal-Mart flap brought to the surface, and they extend to all of us in the profession today because we'll face the same questions some day from a client. We are doing ourselves a disservice if we don't discuss them in detail merely out of respect for the firm involved.

    John Wagner | October 2006

  • 9.Did you read Steve Rubel's latest post?
    Micrisoft is mentioned as an Edelman client, even MS themselves said it's the wrong way to talk about it.

    m | October 2006 | Germany

  • 10.I agree, the gnawing of bones has gone on too long - let's move on.

    maggie fox | October 2006 | toronto, canada

Comment Form

« Back