A few of us members of a Yahoo! PR Group are involved in a great discussion, debating message vs. medium, and whether the medium for delivering an honest message really matters. (Pony Express image courtesy of LegendsOfAmerica.com.)
I don’t want to get into the whos involved because, for one, I’ve not asked their permission to repost their comments in their entirety, and two, who they are doesn’t impact the discussion. I will post what I see as a key point made by one person:
I maintain that PR has one standard of ethics that applies to all communications, regardless of the medium involved in transmitting the message. It is the MESSAGE that is either ethical or unethical - not the medium, or how the medium is used….
As long as the messages are themselves honest and ethical, the medium DOES NOT MATTER (or at least should not matter). The same standards apply to all PR - period. The notion that different (and higher) standards apply because the Internet is somehow involved is specious, or so it seems to me….
I further think that PR pros who artificially restrict what they do for their clients because of some arbitrary third-party “rule” that suggests different standards for blogs and so-called Social Media are violating their fiduciary-like responsibility to use their best professional efforts to meet their clients needs, rather than the “needs” of self-appointed arbiters of “standards” for PR tools like blogs, email, etc.
I definitely agree that PR pros should not violate their “fiduciary-like responsibility to use their best professional efforts to meet their clients needs.”
However, best meeting clients’ needs includes delivering their messages in the way that their audience(s) wants to receive them. It’s about being adaptable. Or, as I noted in the discussion:
You abide by the rules in the arena you play in; you don’t make up your own rules because that’s the way you’ve always done it.
The messenger does matter. And, if our audience expects us in PR or the corporate world — those actually delivering the message — to be upfront and transparent about the companies we represent, it does not dampen the message.
As we all have seen, this is a difficult concept to grasp for many — actually, most — PR professionals. Even inside the world’s largest independent agency that is such a proponent of social media.
It is a radical change for us to step out from behind the curtain. But, to best serve our clients, it is our responsibility to know what the message should be, and to know what is the proper messenger.
– Mike
Technorati tags: social+media, public+relations, PR
Mike:
I’ve heard similar comments from PR pros — “well, I ghost write speeches, so what’s wrong with a fake blog?”
I’ve also heard people say “Well, there’s no disclosure on a television commercial … nothing that says the people are actors and the company paid for it.” But of course there’s an implied knowledge there.
I don’t really have an answer for these complaints other than the blogging medium — as it was conceived and has grown — demands transparency.
It does seem there is a bit of hypocrisy by PR pros in social media. That’s why I think so many find it difficult to be transparent.
We’re not being deceitful when we make up quotes for clients in news releases (assuming the client approves them before publishing or has some check and balance), but we are when we publish a blog “authored” by the client.
I think we have to look at the realm we’re working in, and what is accepted and expected. Complete transparency is expected on blogs and boards.
In my more traditional PR (which is still the bulk of my work), I may “make up” comments from clients, and write speeches for them, but they see them before those communications are made public. So, they do sign off on them and approve them. It’s accepted in traditional PR.
That’s why I say we have to know our audiences, anbd what they expect so we can best counsel clients on how to communicate with their varied audiences.
It’s called “public relations” because it’s all in how we “relate to the public.”
Mike
I think John has touched on the heart of the issue here. Each of these mediums have very specific cultural conventions that have accreted around them.
People understand the concept of television and the degree to which reality is suspended, bent (or broken). Similarly with newspapers etc.
With blogs, there is a set of (perhaps still emerging) conventions that revolve around honesty, intimacy and collective responsibility. For PR professionals -who, after all, are paid to convey their expertise and understanding of these media to clients- to ignore (or wilfully pervert) these conventions is both professionally negligent and ethically repugnant.
Personally, I don’t see this as a complex issue: if you want to blog, do it in the spirit in which the community has grown and prospered. Otherwise, produce reality TV…
/j