A PR Guy's Musings | Stuart Bruce » Ethics

Tom Foremski Thought Leaders event at the CIPR

Stuart Bruce — Tue, 14 May 2013 16:44:58 +0000

Last week I chaired a ‘Thought Leaders’ event at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in London where I interviewed Tom Foremski who became the first major journalist to quit mainstream media to make a living from blogging when he left the Financial Times to found Silicon Valley Watcher.

The event did leave me with some optimism that corporate media – that is companies paying real journalists to do real reporting – might be one future for quality journalism. Where I wasn’t so optimistic was where the next generation of quality journalists will come from. The traditional training ground was local newspapers and their decline mean opportunities for that crucial early learning are becoming rare. Some see the plethora of blogs and websites covering every conceivable subject area as being the alternative. I’m not convinced as they don’t have the seasoned old hacks who can teach the tricks of the trade. And I don’t mean fiddling expenses or hacking phones, but the old journalistic craft of knowing how to sniff out the truth in a story. How to check and double check the sources and facts. How to write well (and it’s not being pedantic to say that means good grammar, doesn’t need perfect grammar).

We explored a wide range of topics including content, corporate media, ethics, reputation, SEO, ‘Every Company is a Media Company’ and ‘brand journalism’ (we both hate the term).

As I was chairing the event and interviewing Tom I didn’t take any notes or record the conversation. However, I’ve captured some of the best tweets in Storify. If the embed doesn’t work for you then you can see it on the Storify site here.

PR ethics – European Association of Communication Directors’ debate

Stuart Bruce — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:01:18 +0000

In December I took part in a fascinating panel debate on ‘Defining ethics for today’s communicators’ at the European Association of Communication Directors‘ forum in Amsterdam. It was facilitated by Mike Cooper, editor-in-chief of the Holland Herald and the other panellists were Andre Manning, the vice president and global head of external communications at Royal Philips; Nicole Gorfer, the head of communications at Roche Pharma AG Germany; and Professor Rosa Chun, Chair of Global Leadership and Responsibility at University College Dublin.

Much of the discussion focused on the importance of ethical codes of conduct for communications professionals. From the audience Philippe Borremans, chief social media officer and CSR coordinator at Van Marcke Group, asked how many of those in the room had signed the Code of Athens (PDF). Not a lot was the answer. Although personally I don’t believe that means people don’t subscribe to it. My own hand stayed down as I haven’t signed the Code of Athens, mainly because I had no idea you needed to. If Phillipe had asked if I was aware of it and abided by its principles then I could have given an unequivocal yes.

Many of the principles of the Code of Athens has since been incorporated into the codes of conducts of many of the world’s professional public relations and corporate communications organisations. I joined the Chartered Institute of Public Relations in 1988 when I was still a communications student (although it hadn’t yet achieved chartered status) and have abided by its professional code of conduct throughout my entire career.

One of the points that I made was that codes of conduct were pointless unless they were enforced with sufficient vigour. Despite the existence of codes PR and communications people still have a dubious reputation and are constantly maligned in the media with phrases like “PR spin” common parlance. The danger for ethical public relations and communications professionals is that we are too often confused with the often far more high profile unethical communicators and publicists.

We must demonstrate that membership of professional bodies means something. This means rigorously enforcing codes of conduct and sanctions against those who transgress them. At the moment we still have professional PR organisations whose members appear to transgress yet ‘internal investigations’ clear them of wrong doing. The processes need to be far more transparent. The UK PRCA’s investigations into potential malpractice by Bell Pottinger simply reported that “there was no credible evidence of wrong-doing”. The actual report (Word) was slightly more critical, but couldn’t be termed an in-depth investigation.

However, stricter enforcement isn’t the whole answer as most of the ‘PR’ practitioners engaging in unethical behaviour are the 80% who aren’t members of a professional organisation. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations needs to be more vigorous in promoting chartered status and help clients and employers understand that the benefits of employing a PR professional who is a member of a chartered institute are the same as employing a chartered accountant rather than a bookkeeper.

In a recent PRmoment article the CIPR’s director of policy and communications Phil Morgan said:

“The CIPR’s Royal Charter recognises that professional standards in public relations are in the public interest. The status of public relations depends on gaining respect for the quality of the work we deliver and for the integrity with which it is carried out. Vital to this is the accountability provided through codes of conduct such as the one that all CIPR members make a commitment to when they join.

“Ethics within such codes are expressed in general terms – honesty, integrity, transparency, confidence and competence. These concepts need to be applied in a rapidly changing world and both professionals and the public need access to resources that keep them relevant. In key areas, especially digital and social, where the profession is changing continuously and expectations around disclosure and transparency are increasing, everyone needs access to best practice and resources that explains the central ethical concepts in terms of their day-to-day work.”

During the EACD debate I also made the point that indications from the UK were that unless the public relations profession put its own house in order then government might step in and do it by regulation. The Leveson Inquiry and subsequent report into press standards shows that there is appetite for statutory regulation. Likewise the public affairs and lobbying profession is facing statutory legislation to force it to publish a proper register of clients. In both instances it is because the industries have failed to provide adequate self-regulation.

Today unethical behaviour is more likely to be exposed

Another issue that I raised is that today there is a new dimension to ethics. If we believe that public relations is about reputation then fundamentally it must be about behaviour. There has always been a divide between what is right and wrong, although where that divide lies is always open for debate and indeed might change in different circumstances. What is different today is that in the past you had a greater chance of ‘getting away’ with bad behaviour. There was a limited number of people scrutinising you and even more limited number capable of exposing your bad behaviour. Bluntly you had a chance of getting away with it.

The rise of social media and citizen journalism mean that companies and organisations are under far greater scrutiny than they ever have been. Every customer, every employee, every member of the community has the power to record what they see and to publish it in an instant. Your media statements can be analysed by experts – be they bloggers, academics, campaigners or enthusiasts – who will identify every error and have the capacity to expose your ‘spin’.

So even if you don’t subscribe to the notion of doing the ‘right’ thing because it is right you need to behave better, just because you’ll get caught and be exposed if you don’t.

Some of the panel discussion also focused on the difference between personal/professional ethics and corporate ethics. In the same PRmoment article Professor Tom Watson of Bournemouth University gives examples of how personal professional ethics in public relations are frequently violated:

“Every year, a few students coming back from placements with stories of how their PR employers had misled clients, asked them to write fake customer reviews on websites, switched account teams after winning pitches, charge high for untrained internship staff and falsified evaluation data.“

He adds:

“The route to ethical public relations lies primarily in the honesty and moral compass of individuals, especially those who are leaders and managers of PR operations; not in a heavier, quasi-judicial system.”

Professor Watson is right we should be able to rely on “the honesty and moral compass of individuals”, but we can’t make the assumption that it will always automatically kick in. There needs to be far greater emphasis in PR education and training on teaching the fundamentals of ethics and illustrated with practical examples and ‘moral maze’ type exercises. This should start with PR undergraduate and post graduate courses, but also be part of the membership induction when someone first joins a professional body like the CIPR. Philippe’s idea of signing the Code of Athens is a good one and perhaps we should look at getting new members to physically sign the CIPR code of conduct.

The debate about public relations ethics isn’t going to go away and I believe will continue to increase in importance and is an issue that the PR profession needs to take far more seriously.

The truth about dishonesty by RSA Animate

Stuart Bruce — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:02:06 +0000

The RSA in London produces RSA Animate an excellent series of animations on a variety of topics. Courtesy of public relations academic Philip Young I’ve just watched this thought provoking one on “The truth about dishonesty”. It’s well worth the eleven minutes it takes to watch and you’ll want to view it full screen so you can read all the annotations.

Corporate and personal ethics should be at the core of a public relations professionals responsibilities. Your reputation ultimately reflects how you’ve behaved, but understanding what is ‘right’ behaviour isn’t always straightforward or even absolute black or white, but rather more than fifty shades of grey.

Leveson PR and social media implications

Stuart Bruce — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:32:06 +0000

Just to demonstrate that it is old media that still rules Leveson has only made advance copies of his report available to mainstream media. So I’m writing this as the minutes countdown to its release without the benefit of actually knowing what is in it.

Two of my questions are around its implications for both PR professionals and for social media. One fear is that Leveson will point the finger at PR professionals and implicate them in some of the worst that has gone on. I believe that this will be a mistake. There are lots of examples of poor – and even corrupt – PR practice, but there are also lots of ethical PR professionals. PR professionals that are CIPR members and abide by its Code of Conduct. The report will undoubtedly find that there are corrupt and unethical journalists, but it should also find that the vast majority of journalists and ethical.

The question of social media is will Leveson recommend regulation or control for ‘citizen journalism’ and user generated content.

Online PR conference speaking

Stuart Bruce — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:24:04 +0000

A couple of weeks ago I spoke at the Share This: CIPR Social Media Conference 2012 and I have got a few more speaking gigs coming up later this year. It is great to see quite a few friends and acquaintances also speaking at some of them.

Social Media in a Corporate Context 2012

This year’s Social Media in a Corporate Context conference organised by Communicate magazine focuses on using social media for reactive crisis management and proactive reputation and brand positioning.

This year I’m a ‘judge’ for the Social Media Policies X-Factor. Other speakers include:

Alex Pearmain, currently Head of PR and Social Media at O2, but shortly to depart to join Brands2Life
Amanda Coleman, Head of Corporate Communications, Greater Manchester Police
Steph Gray, MD, Helpful Technology
Antony Mayfield, Partner, Brilliant Noise
Sunny Hundal, Editor, Liberal Conspiracy

It takes place in London on Thursday, November 15.

Social Media Results for PR & Comms Conference – Mobile & Monetise

I’m running a measurement and evaluation workshop on the second day. Other speakers include:

Dominic Burch, Head of Corporate Comms and Social Media at Asda
Rob Skinner, Head of PR and Social Media, PayPal
Simon Downing, VP Marketing Western Europe, Discovery Networks
Amanda Coleman, Head of Corporate Communications, Greater Manchester Police

It takes place in London on Wednesday, November 28 to Thursday, November 29.

European Association of Communication Directors Forum

I’m one of the panellists on a panel discussion on ethics and communications organised by the European Association of Communication Directors (EACD). The topic is ‘Defining Relevant Ethics for Today’s Communicators’ and other panellists include:

Andre Manning, Vice President and Global Head of External Communications at Royal Philips Electronics
Nicole Gorfer, Head of Communications at Roche Pharma, Germany
Moderated by Mike Cooper, a Creative Director at MediaPartners Group, the Netherlands leading content marketing agency, and editor-in-chief at KLM Royal Dutch Airline

It takes place in Amsterdam on Monday, December 10.

Commschat on CIPR Wikipedia guidance

Stuart Bruce — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:21:51 +0000

I missed last night’s #commschat with Philip Sheldrake on the Wikipedia guidance that was published by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) last week. I think the CIPR guidance is a great first step and is currently the best way for public relations professionals to engage with Wikipedia on behalf of clients and employers. However, it’s essential that this is just the first step.

My personal view is that PRs must play by the rules of Wikipedia as they stand today. But, that doesn’t stop us from engaging in dialogue to say that the rules need improving. And they do need improving as what should be of paramount importance is the ‘public interest’ and this is best met by striving to ensure that Wikipedia entries are as comprehensive and accurate as possible.

The guidance in its current form is mainly in the interests of Wikipedians (i.e. those who edit and write entries) and PR professionals when what we should care about most is the readers and consumers of the Wikipedia entries. The main reason it matters is that Wikipedia entries rank so highly in search so people can get a false or distorted perspective if entries aren’t up to scratch.

One final thought is quite a few people have suggested that PR people should edit entries about things they are interested in personally, but where they don’t have a conflict of interest. Couple this with the issue that the explanation why many corporate and business entries aren’t up to scratch is that many Wikipedians aren’t interested in those subjects.

One possible solution is therefore for PR people to edit corporate and business entries for companies and products that they have no professional connection with at all. If enough of us did that then it would surely improve the quality of Wikipedia and we’d all be happy? Discuss.

PR practitioners should not directly edit Wikipedia according to new CIPR guidance (stuartbruce.biz)
CIPR to work with Wikipedia on how PR professionals should interact with the Wikipedia community (stuartbruce.biz)
Can CIPR Wikipedia help with a real life problem with a Wikipedia entry? (stuartbruce.biz)

Can CIPR Wikipedia help with a real life problem with a Wikipedia entry?

Stuart Bruce — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:05:11 +0000

I spent most of today providing online crisis communications training for the head of corporate communications for an overseas government regulatory authority. Coincidentally, one of the topics we covered was its Wikipedia page which is incomplete and out of date. It isn’t a commercial company and is notable enough to warrant an entry.

The reason it is so important to improve the page is that on a variety of search terms it is the highest ranking page after the official websites of the organisation.

Unfortunately it turns out that it created some of the existing entry itself and had planned to simply edit and update it again itself. The main reason being is that those responsible didn’t know you couldn’t. One of the concerns here is that an organisation that is resp0nsible for enforcing rules absolutely can’t be seen to be ignoring or infringing other people’s rules.

A further challenge is that it needs to be tackled in more than one language.

It is now going to use the CIPR’s new Wikipedia guidance to engage with the Wikipedia community and see if it can transparently and ethically get the page improved.

I’m going to watch what happens with the page and eventually perhaps publish a case study on how successful it was.

I’ve kept the name of the organisation private – to preserve client confidentiality, but more importantly so that the process can happen exactly as it would if it wasn’t being monitored to see how well it works.

CIPRTV special on new UK public affairs lobbying register consultation

Stuart Bruce — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:51:54 +0000

If like me you missed this week’s CIPRTV on the UK Cabinet Office’s proposals to introduce a Statutory Register of Lobbyists then it’s well worth catching up with it here:

It’s presented by Russell Goldsmith of Marketiersdc and guests are Iain Anderson, of Cicero Consulting and Tamasin Cave, director of Spinwatch and leader of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency.

FIR Interview: Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia

Stuart Bruce — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:35:33 +0000

Global PR podcast FIR co-hosts Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz used Google+ Hangout to record a special FIR Interview show with Phil Gomes (Senior VP, Edelman Digital) and myself discussing current initiatives to improve how public relations professionals can work with Wikipedia.

CIPR to work with Wikipedia on how PR professionals should interact with the Wikipedia community (stuartbruce.biz)
Wikipedia and PR have got to work it out (stuartbruce.biz)
Wikipedia & the PR Pro: Friend or Foe? (forbes.com)

CIPR to work with Wikipedia on how PR professionals should interact with the Wikipedia community

Stuart Bruce — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:12:22 +0000

In my post calling on Wikipedia and PR to work it out I said I’d raise the issue at the next meeting of the CIPR social media panel. Well since then things have moved a bit faster than that and today the CIPR issued a statement about its intention to work with Wikipedia to provide guidance to members on how to interact with the Wikipedia community. I’ve pasted a copy of the statement below.

Another development this week is that Tom Watson MP tweeted Phil Gomes (who published an open letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia) and myself offering to broker a meeting at the House of Commons between Wikipedia and representatives of the public relations profession. The CIPR social media panel is now liaising with Tom and Wikipedia to fix a date for this meeting.

Phil Gomes has followed on from his blog post by starting a Facebook group â€“ CREWE Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement â€“ to further discuss the issue.

CIPR to work with Wikipedia on clear guidance for the PR profession

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations is to work with Wikipedia to provide members with guidance on how to interact with the Wikipedia community.

This move follows the recent suggestions of undisclosed editing of Wikipedia entries by individual public relations firms. Although many PR firms who engage with the public through online communities have policies on editing in line with the CIPR’s Social Media Guidance and also follow community guidelines, there is a need to take action to further clarify the position specifically in relation to Wikipedia.

Commenting, Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO says: ‘The CIPR has clear ethical and practical guidance on the most appropriate manner for PR professionals to work with open, online communities such as Wikipedia. It is not only important they are upfront about who they are and their intentions, but they should seek to deal openly and honestly with the public at all times. This rules out any behaviour that sets out to hide the true source or motivation for any updates. PR without transparency is unprofessional. It has less to do with the ‘dark arts’ and more to do with the dark ages.

‘I am delighted Wikipedia will be working with us on this. There is a need to develop understanding of the mutual advantages of open, transparent engagement with the public through Wikipedia.’

Commenting, Roger Bamkin, Chair of Wikimedia UK, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, the charity behind Wikipedia, says: ‘Recent incidents highlighted by Tom Watson MP and in the national press show that in some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists. We will work with the CIPR to ensure that their members, and through them the wider PR Profession, have access to the clearest possible guidance on the best way to work with Wikipedia.

‘We believe that attempts to mask the true identity of anyone seeking to edit the site are unethical as well as counterproductive.’

Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, added his support for the initiative: ‘Wikipedia is becoming the world’s first port of call for accurate, fact checked information regarding companies, services and people. It is therefore vital that the PR industry adheres to the highest standards when representing the interests of their clients. There has been a number of negative press stories that have not just harmed the credibility of the information contained on the pages of Wikipedia, but caused reputational harm to the PR and lobbying firms and their clients who were the subject of negative stories.

‘PR professionals need clear guidelines in this new world of online information-sharing. That’s why I’m delighted that interested parties are coming together to establish a clear code of conduct.

‘I’m delighted to help in any way I can with this important initiative.’

ENDS