Comments on: Ethical questions about Edelman and Wal-Mart’s blog campaign

By: DL Stickler

DL Stickler — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:40:28 +0000

Hello Stuart,
Addressing your inquiries brings me back to the day I created the PROTS Blog after reading about how there seems to be no fast and hard rules about transparency
and disclosure. You can see the PROTS (Public Relations Online Transparency System) Blog at http://protsblog.blogspot.com/

To your inquiries;
"So the question is what is full disclosure? Do all of these people have to declare their employment status? Or only some of them? If so which ones and why?"

Full Disclosure in my view has to do with appropriate disclosure to the relevant public you are addressing. So determining this would involve invoking a rule somewhat similiar to the "need to know basis" within military operations.

You ask these kinds of questions to figure out what to disclose and to whom:

1. Who am I addressing?
2. What am I disclosing?
3. Why do I want to disclose or fail to disclose this bit of information?
4. Where would I disclose such info? Within a private meeting or within some larger group dynamic?
5. When should I disclose?

As you move through the answers to these questions, it is likely you will arrive at some answers.

Naturally, if you are working within any sector and any capacity, you should have a copy of your agency's contract right in front of you while you are reviewing these questions.

The scope of your agency relationship for your client is determined by your agreement. That is one thing that seems to escape so many PR Practitioners these days; the fact that if you are working, you are doing so under an agency agreement of some type.

This creates both the need for discretion and disclosure that is guided by the fiduciary responsiblilites incumbent within the agency relationship as guided by the agreement to service.

Nice blog by the way...:)

By: Denis Howlett

Denis Howlett — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:06:25 +0000

Looking at it from the outside – the important point is 'PR.' For many people that has specific connotations that need explaining. The fact it is Edelman IS important. They are an extremely powerful organisation. IMO.

By: Stephen Newton

Stephen Newton — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:18:39 +0000

Like you say, the issue is education. Journalists understand that PR is often outsourced and many bloggers don’t. Consequently there’s a certain amount of wheel re-invention and focus on irrelevance.

The issue is that Manson speaks for Wal-Mart and he’s open about that. In this case he does work for Wal-Mart, so nobody’s been misled in any way.

Similarly, if you’re attending an event on behalf of a client you’re more likely to have the client’s name on your badge than that of your consultancy and to introduce yourself as the client’s representative, all of which is true. You’re there to push your client’s business not your own.

Nevertheless, his status as an Edelman employee might be relevant if it shows some connection to potentially competing, conflicting or conspiring businesses.

By: Neville Hobson

Neville Hobson — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:32:19 +0000

Good commentary, Stuart.

This isn't about whether you work for a big PR agency or not. It's about open, up-front and full disclosure.

I don’t think the Edelman employee made sufficient disclosure, especially where the wording shown in the email transcripts is ambiguous. The first paragraph, for instance, could give the impression that the writer works for Wal-Mart itself.

And the email signature shown in the transcripts is equally ambiguous if you’re not in the PR community or know who Edelman is.

The point, though, to me is why wouldn’t the writer want to give full and unequivocal disclosure in order to be wholly clear and transparent as to his relationship with Wal-Mart?

That’s certainly what I would have done, ie, be unequivocal.