Parading Biegel: Creatively Naked

Lawsuits are odd things nowadays, sometimes serving as smear campaigns rather than the pursuit of justice for which they are intended. The case of Biegel vs. Denstu, as amended and made available by Ad Age, is one where it becomes very unclear which category it belongs.

Part of the reason is that the Biegel’s revisions further muddle events and allegations while placing even more aim on Toyo Shigeta, CEO of Dentsu Holdings USA as well as another senior executive at Dentsu. The new complaint even includes the web address of the now famous brothel (pictured) where it all went down.

Biegel’s revised complaint now reveals he wasn’t just motivated to stand up just because he was subjected to two years of repeated lewd and sexually harassing behavior, which included forcing him to engage prostitutes, view photographs of crotches, and get naked to “parade” in front of the accused at a Japanese bathhouse. No, Biegel was motivated because another employee was scheduled to take a business trip with Shigeta about two years later.

So Biegel confronted his employer on the presumption that this employee would also be subjected to the same humiliating and sexually degrading experience that Biegel had allegedly endured for years. This was also the time that Biegel chose to disclose that he ought to have reported the bathhouse incident (not necessarily the brothel incident) to human resources.

According to the suit, Shigeta’s attitude toward Biegel changed from positive to negative after that, with Shigeta virtually cutting off all communication between them. (Ya think?) And this is why Biegel now claims he was not only fired because of complaining about sexual harassment, but also because he is Jewish. Huh?

Is there a connection here or is this something out of pulp fiction? In any case, religious discrimination and defamation are added to the case. The latter is presumably because Dentsu denied the charges, which made Biegel look bad. Ho hum.

Meanwhile, Dentsu is standing firm in insisting that the allegations are patently false, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Biegel, they say, ignored formal procedures for making grievances about sexual harassment by lodging claims more than a year after the alleged incidents took place.

Applying Ethics Against Harassment

While I can make no assumptions that any of this occurred or did not occur, I can share what might have occurred had Biegel applied ethics.

• Biegel could have warned Shigeta that he was offended immediately upon being taken to a brothel and took action to leave the brothel, especially after receiving “orders” to participate with prostitutes.

• Upon further insistence or threat, Biegel could have immediately told Shigeta that he would be reporting the incident to human resources.

• Upon further insistence or threat or inaction by human resources, Biegel could have filed a lawsuit.

Had any of this happened, there would have likely been no other occurrences either because Shigeta would have either understood the point or may have been terminated. But then again, there wouldn’t be $1 million lawsuit several years after the fact either.

As I wrote in post yesterday, fearlessness can serve people in business — being “forced” to parade naked in front of your boss would certainly qualify as the time to apply it.

Faking FEMA: Reporters Optional

"At the end of the briefing, questions were asked. I should have intervened and I didn't," said John P. "Pat" Philbin, former external affairs director for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) about his involvement in staging a fake news conference last Tuesday on the California wildfires.

The decision to stage questions with stand-ins for a FEMA news conference came after reporters were given only 15 minutes notice. While the agency also made an 800 number available for call ins, it was a listen-only arrangement. Several channels broadcasted parts of the conference live via a video feed.

Philbin will no longer take over public affairs for the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), which he had previously been offered by Mike McConnell, director of the DNI. Philbin said he understood McConnell's decision.

“It was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I’ve seen since being in government,” came the harshest criticism from Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. “I have made it unambiguously clear, in Anglo Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again, and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against those people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinary poor judgment.”

Philbin may have been the fall guy, but the entire external affairs team could have been let go. No one of them, not a single team member, seemed to comprehend that staging a fake news conference was ridiculous, unethical, and a severe breach of public trust.

Let’s star over.

“Public Relations is the art and science of analyzing trends, predicting their consequences, counseling organization leaders and implementing planned programs of action which will serve both the organization’s and the public interest.” — First World Assembly of Public Relations Associations and First World Forum of Public Relations, 1978

Nowhere in this definition is a public relations professional asked to spin, lie, cover up, or otherwise present fake and fraudulent information for their employer. What is clear, however, is that professionals are to serve both the organization’s and public interest.

Maybe I should make it as clear as I make it for public relations students: the organization you defraud the public for will survive and may even thrive over time, but any abuse of public trust or the media will stay with you for the life of your career.

In this case, FEMA will carry on, while Philbin is out of his DNI job. While I admire his sincerity in saying “at the end of day, I’m the person in charge and responsible for this,” he is not doing any favors for new public relations professionals. The truth is that every single participant was responsible — whether an intern or seasoned pro. Any one of them could have suggested they skip questions and simply make a statement.

Covering Hot Topics: Third Quarter 2007

Every quarter, we publish a recap of our five most popular communication-related posts, based on the frequency and the immediacy of hits after they were posted. While we base this on individual posts, some are related to larger case studies.

Nina Tassler Talks; Jericho Fans Listen

If there is one person at CBS who has captured the curiosity of fans that have a passion for the nuclear terrorist attack/small town survival drama Jericho, it is Nina Tassler, president of CBS Entertainment. While most of her attention has been vested in putting out fires related to the rating challenged, nothing-but-controversial buzz that has become Kid Nation, when she speaks about Jericho, fans listen. Of all our coverage related to consumer marketing challenges and successes of this television show in stasis, none compares to the Tassler post that asks if she has surrendered her early edginess to wrangle ratings. Jericho fans hope they can turn Tassler into “Jericho buzz believer” into a full-fledged “Jericho Ranger.” It won’t take a miracle, but it will take a season 2 start date.

Links: Jericho, Nina Tassler

Bloggers Blog Against Abuse

People spend a lot of time “talking” about social media, but Antony Berkman, president of BlogCatalog (and the entire BlogCatalog team), is one of the few who talks less and does more and has fun doing it. Determined to prove that bloggers can do good and social media can influence change and produce outcomes beyond the Internet, he asked BlogCatalog members to post against abuse on Sept. 27. BlogCatalog members were not the only ones: more than one thousand bloggers from all over the world made abuse the most-talked about topic on the Internet. The largest social awareness campaign in history moves beyond buzz and produces tangible outcomes — bloggers who inspired tens of thousands of people to take action. For our part, we launched the “Blog For Hope Post Competition in cooperation with BlogCatalog. The submission deadline is Oct. 10.

Links: Bloggers Unite, BlogCatalog

Borg Think Infiltrates Social Media

It takes many forms, some with the best intentions, but there is only one outcome. In hoping to guide social media into the mainstream, sometimes prevailing blog think leaders overstep sharing their opinion and offering guidance by staking leadership claims over the Internet. Whether written up by a few as a code of conduct over the many, or proclaiming territorial dominion over the ideas that litter the Internet in posts, on blogs, and a myriad of PDF files, we can only hope that forced assimilation doesn’t sweep across the entire social media structure. The outcome would lead to the denial of new ideas and inability to challenge old ones. While civility is always appreciated on the Web, the pioneers today might remember that collective think or the promotion of fear is not the answer. The solution is clear: lead by example, not by force of law or pirate threat.

Links: Borg, Pirates

John Mackey Tells Whole Truths

John Mackey and Whole Foods Market Inc. (WMFI) beat the Federal Trade Commission with the $565 million purchase of Wild Oats Markets Inc. (maybe that’s the good, or not), but the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation still ongoing. While some people frame the issue up as a possible SEC violation or transparency issue, one of the most pressing aspects of this case study is how it chips away at what some call the tenets of crisis communication. In the case study of Mackey, he largely ignored these tenets and managed to remain at the helm of Whole Foods, with more people defending him for posing as “rahodeb” and using the pseudonym to disparage and deflate the competition before purchasing it.

Links: John Mackey , Whole Foods Market

Veronica Mars Fans Organize

Fans of Veronica Mars, the critically acclaimed teen drama/mystery neo-noir series starring Kristen Bell, demonstrate that they are not to be underestimated in their efforts to encourage Warner Bros. to syndicate the show and prove the power of this fan base is strong enough to support a movie despite the cancellation of the series. In their efforts as consumer marketers, they have developed action points that are reminiscent of a communication plan while remaining courteous and supportive of Bell and series creator Rob Thomas. Unencumbered by the rules of communication, Veronica Mars fans are working to prove consumer marketing works.

Link: Veronica Mars

Runners up (no order) include: Buzz Is Not A Measure, which reminds blog evangelists to focus on outcomes as opposed to buzz metrics; the Jericho Fan Fiction Contest, which shared some great stories and promoted a different look at Jericho on more than 50 sites, blogs, and social networks; one of two blog dramas turned positive by reminding people one gumball is not better than another; the results of an unscientific online ethics poll; and our use of the Career Distinction’s Online Identity Calculator as the basis to flush out the online identities of various public figures individuals.

While a few “bad news” case studies made it into the top spots, this is the first quarter they have given way to education-oriented and social media action, which represents a pleasant surprise. Last quarter, we wished for more attention to be given to our underpinning concept that strategic communication is best suited to drive social media and it looks like we’re getting it.

So there it is once again; the top posts as tracked by reader interest. Thank you all for dropping by, adding comments, promoting stories, and continuing to bring communication issues to our attention so we may offer up our sometimes serious (sometimes silly) take on them. Whether you agree or not, we appreciate that in our pursuit to tackle such issues, our readers have remain steadfast in never mistaking communication discussion for anything but objective discussion of issues, actions, and behaviors as they relate to communication.

Needing Redemption: Glenn Renwick, Progressive

“At Progressive, we have a stated set of Core Values that we use to guide our decision making and actions,” says Glenn Renwick, president and CEO of Progressive. “One of these Values is the Golden Rule — treat others as you would like to be treated.”

Given this quote is pulled directly from an ill-advised statement after the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke a story about how private investigators working for Progressive tape recorded church sessions, it's hard to believe.

Why were investigators recording church members who confessed about abortions, sexual orientation issues, drug addictions and other dark secrets? It seems the company was hoping to discredit a couple who were in an ongoing lawsuit over a traffic accident. The couple has now filed a lawsuit that charges invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality, emotional distress, fraud, and other issues.

“For the past 70 years, we've built our business by building trust,” Renwick continues. “Trust that we will do the right thing on behalf of our customers — every day, every time.”

Coincidentally, trust seems be the buzzword behind Progressive’s TripSense, which allows Minnesota drivers to get discounts if they can “prove” that they drive less. Given that simply asking for an odometer reading might work just as effectively, one has to wonder just how "progressive" the definition of trust has become.

“We make sure we always fall well within the law," said James Purgason Jr. and Paige Weeks of Merlin Investigations, the investigators who were contracted by Wisconson-based Progressive Northern Insurance Co. "How it's interpreted from there isn't up to us."

But not all private investigators feel that way. When reporter D.L. Bennett asked Glenn Christian of Coastal Investigations in Savannah, who serves as president of the Georgia Association of Private Investigators, what he thought, Christian said that some companies would never do that. He said there is a fine line between what might be legal and what is moral.

To be fair, it seems Renwick was personally unaware of what Wisconson-based Progressive Northern Insurance Co. was attempting to do to win its case and there seems little to be little doubt that he is appalled. However, he was clearly aware of the statement that now decorates the Progressive Web site. And frankly, he should be appalled that he signed off on it.

There is only one statement that may have not turned into what Collateral Damage calls one of the more obvious definitions of a public relations nightmare. It would have been the one that skips the messages about trust and company history and cuts right to the chase. Something like this...

Upon learning that Progressive Northern Insurance Co. and contracted investigators, Merlin Investigations, breached our company’s values two years ago, Progressive will be settling this case as quickly as possible. (Um, insert a line about restitution for the couple, the church, AND all those other people who were there). As a company, we are appalled and apologize to all those impacted.

To ensure this never happens again and to send a clear message to all of our divisions, we will be releasing all parties who were aware that this investigation was grossly overreaching for evidence. I only wish that the incident would have been brought to my attention two years ago so we could have acted promptly then and protected this couple from tactics that clearly cross the line of ethical and moral decency.

The end. No gratuitous 3-paragraph company cut line required.

Sure, it isn’t perfect, but even this 3-second solution reads as more genuine than the original. Or, in other words, one can only hope Progressive covers “communication ignorance” because this statement reads like a pileup. Once again, it's never the incident as much as the aftermath that gets companies in trouble.

Ending Fairytales: Judge Denise Langford Morris

According to the Associated Press, Judge Denise Langford Morris has temporarily ended the reverse Cinderella story that took misguided advertising star and self-proclaimed change agent Julie Roehm to the brink of mayhem marketing celebrity. Right, the pumpkin coach she was riding in could not find the right home at midnight and the court unceremoniously dismissed it because Roehm's case against Wal-Mart should have been filed in Arkansas and not Michigan.

In sum, for all that nine months of vicious spin, counterspin, and missteps, the original case seems to have accomplished nothing more than personal brand damage: forever branding Roehm as the former Wal-Mart marketing executive who allowed her judgment to lapse as she leveraged her position for fun and profit. Worse, along the way, she has played virtually every part to create one of the most inconsistent personal images ever, from a heartbroken head of household to a relentless and scrappy street fighter.

As if all this wasn't enough, according to Advertising Age, a spokesman for Roehm said she and her lawyers hadn't yet decided whether to file in Arkansas. No offense intended, but when your best hope is to slowly reverse an impaired image on Facebook, it's probably long past time to focus on the book deal rather than the glass slipper.

Sure, I know more than one person has extended their sympathies to Roehm, but all along I've been miffed by this misadventure. Why? One of my colleagues summed it up nicely. "We were part of a Wal-Mart pitch once and they told us up front, before anything else, 'Wal-Mart is only interested is delivering the lowest possible price to its customers. If you send us a gift, we will send it back and kindly ask that you deduct the amount from our bill.'" It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Telling Two Stories: John Mackey

"The District Court's ruling affirms our belief that a merger between Whole Foods and Wild Oats is a winning scenario for all stakeholders," said John Mackey, chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Whole Foods Market. "We believe the synergies gained from this combination will create long term value for customers, vendors, and shareholders as well as exciting opportunities for team members."

Yes, as predicted, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman has declined to block Whole Foods Market Inc.'s $565 million purchase of Wild Oats Markets Inc. The judge ruled that it does not violate antitrust laws, leaving all speculation to whether or not the Securities and Exchange Commission will rule that Mackey's anonymous postings as the great masked “rahodeb” constitue a violation of securities laws or regulations.

While the reviews have been mixed, several media outlets gave Mackey a free pass despite some documents revealing that the deal could mean the closure of 30 or more Wild Oats stores as well as other details that seem contrary to the public image Mackey has portrayed over the years.

And therein lies the question. How far can Mackey go before he has completely eroded his concept of conscious capitalism? You see, before the controversy, Mackey was working on his book, The Whole Story, which he said would relate his business and life philosophies. And here is an excerpt from one essay that he requested comment on ...

In the early years of the 21st century, major ethical lapses on the part of big business came to light including scandals at Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tyco, the New York Stock Exchange, WorldCom, Mutual Funds, and AIG. These scandals have all contributed to a growing distrust of business and further eroded public trust in large corporations in the United States.

Mr. Mackey, as you so eloquently conclude in your essay ... When we are small children we are egocentric, concerned only about our own needs and desires. As we mature, we grow beyond this egocentrism and begin to care about others—our families, friends, communities, and countries ... I tend to agree. Yet, as much as these thoughts may have been welcomed, it will be exceedingly difficult to take them seriously as you add your own name to the list of scandals that have contributed to a growing distrust of businesses. And perhaps, therein lies the answer.

For while you have earned a pass from the media, forgiveness from the shareholders, beat the Federal Trade Commission, and may very likely survive the SEC investigation, it seems to me that you may have given up your opportunity to ascend to the rank of conscious business visionary. But hey, sometimes the price of winning costs as much, if not more than, losing. In this case, the price could very well be an entire legacy under the pressure of increasing scrutiny as the merger goes through. Indeed, brands are fragile things.

Silencing Crisis: Whole Foods Market, Inc.

There is something to be learned from Whole Foods Market, Inc. (WFMI) beyond its back to school nutritional program. Sometimes silence can be a golden as a July Pippin'.

That's what you'll learn if you visit John Mackey’s blog today. All you will find is silence. The CEO of Whole Foods left his last message, directed to shareholders, on July 17…

“A Special Committee of our Board of Directors' is conducting an independent internal investigation into online financial message board postings related to Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (OATS). In light of this, it is in the best interest of the company to temporarily hold off on posting on my Company blog. The ability to post comments to this blog will be disabled during this time as well. I look forward to resuming our conversations and plan on being in touch with you again soon.”

He will. There is very little doubt. Despite anonymously posting disparaging remarks that may have impacted the stock price of Wild Oats, the company that Whole Foods is now fighting the Federal Trade Commission to acquire; the SEC investigation; the independent internal investigation; and the calls for his resignation by dozens of organizations, including CtW Investment Group, whose members own about 900,000 Whole Foods shares, Mackey will likely retain his position.

Less certain is whether Whole Foods will acquire Wild Oats, but that is another conversation thread all together. Lawyers for Whole Foods and the federal government are set to offer closing arguments today.

More in line with observations in communication is noting: this case study will likely become the bane of public relations professionals because it chips away at what some call the tenets of crisis communication. Maybe that’s a good thing.

For example, against what most PR pros would advise, Whole Foods went silent on the issue after apologizing to stakeholders (never mind Wild Oats shareholders who may have lost money on the advice of the masked Wild Oats stock vandal “rahodeb”). Then, yesterday, earned an extremely rare and generous pass from the media, allowing him to break his company's self-censorship and tout that they beat Wall Street estimates.

"Currently we do not expect the same degree of year-over-year increase in our total pre-opening expenses," Mackey said, as reported by CNN Money. "We are very excited to see the acceleration in our new store openings materialize, as we expect these new stores to drive strong sales and comparable-store sales growth in the not-so-distant future.”

As found in The Wall Street Journal: “I could understand if Mr. Mackey was accused of spreading false rumors about his company to manipulate the stock price, but I have not heard such allegations.” Or perhaps even more telling from The Motley Fool …

“Look, I'm not saying that John Mackey should have gone onto the Yahoo! message board for Whole Foods and posted anonymous messages extolling his company while trashing Wild Oats. It was dumb, an activity with almost no hope for upside. But I understand it. I understand why John Mackey would see the nonsense that some random keyboard heroes wrote about him and his company and find the impulse to shoot back irresistible.”

Chip. Chip. Chip. It is any wonder why some public relations professionals have a hard time finding a position at the proverbial “table?” You cannot get there until you understand business let alone the new state of media, which suggests that today’s editors and analysts would rather be right than write about what is right.

"From a Whole Foods perspective we will be glad one way or another to have this situation resolved because it's taken a lot of management time and we spent a lot of money on lawyers," CNN Money reports Mackey said on a call. "It's been incredibly burdensome on us."

Like a fly buzzing in their ears, I imagine. Whether Whole Foods is allowed to acquire Wild Oats or not, Mackey and Whole Foods will not only survive but will also continue to see their stock fare well. Pending some revelation from the internal or SEC investigation of Whole Foods, it also seems unlikely to me that Mackey will be leaving anytime soon, chipping away at the notion that companies have to make a sacrifice in order to emerge from a crisis.

So what makes Mackey so special? As part of what I call my Fragile Brand Theory, Mackey has always been successful in presenting himself as somewhat eccentric thereby putting himself in the position to garner understanding in the wake of what Mackey himself even called his own “lack of judgment.”

That doesn’t make what he did right by any stretch of the imagination. While some people wonder about the Mackey case study “if we are not falling victim to a distorted sense of hubris in the United States: We are offended to the point of threatening legal action over surficial issues that are probably neither unethical or illegal,” I hopefully offer a clearer perspective.

What Mackey did, posing as an anonymous poster with an alleged agenda to damage his competition for future gain, was unethical.

Whether or not it is illegal is up to the SEC to decide. Whether or not the remedy is his resignation is up to the shareholders to decide. Whether or not shareholders are outraged will likely depend on the price of the shares. And whether or not the media decides to give him a pass or not will largely be dictated by the previous three outcomes.

I’m not saying this is right, but it is what it is. And what also “is” is that public relations professionals need to move away from formulaic approaches to crisis communication and consider the thought processes behind those bullet points. (We’ll compare this crisis to traditional crisis communication check lists next week.)

If they do not, executives will be hard pressed to take the profession seriously when good CEOs like David Neeleman at JetBlue play it by the “book” and are pushed aside while CEOs like Mackey, who clearly breached ethics, can break away and be heralded as a wacky egomaniac who, well, make shareholders lots of money.

Then again, I suppose all those who claimed the remedy is resignation still have a shot to be “right” as this case study seems far from over. But when it is over, I can promise you this: I'll probably have to add a warning label. Don't Try This At Home.

Ordering Up Ethics: Flogs, Blogs, And Posers

After reading that 279 U.S. chief marketing officers, directors of marketing and marketing managers polled in the PRWeek/Manning Selvage & Lee (MS&L) Marketing Management Survey revealed some confusion over ethics, I posted a poll to see if a self-selected group of participants could determine which of eight case scenarios might demonstrate the greatest ethical breach, noting that some were not ethical breaches (but have had some people attach ethical arguments to them).

While the poll was well read, only 22 people participated as of 9 a.m. this morning (before PollDaddy had some challenges). There are several other accounts for low participation, including: ethics cannot really be measured in terms of “greatest;” not everyone was familiar with the various cases; and people are generally confused and/or don’t care about ethics anyway. All valid points.

Fortunately for me, a few people opted in because I promised to make no claims that this is a scientific survey, but rather a discussion opener for today (and an opportunity to try PollDaddy). So here’s our take on eight...

(Poll 23%) John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc., anonymously posted disparaging remarks about Wild Oats, a company that Whole Foods is now hoping to acquire. We considered placing this in a secondary position, until Vera Bass offered the following on BlogCatalog: “… I believe that breach of the more specifically defined duties (especially fiduciary duty) and obligations that are developed and maintained by those who carry more responsibility for others than most people do, is, by this definition, a greater breach.” Clearly, this is an ethical breach; and we’ll be adding something to our case study next week.

(Poll 18%) Julie Roehm accepting gifts from advertising agencies while they were seeking the coveted Wal-Mart account. While there are allegedly other ethical breaches related to this case study, we limited the poll to a single breach because it’s enough. While some argue wooing guests is an industry norm, the truth is Roehm knowingly violated her company’s policy and has been spinning ever since. While the initial action was bad enough, her defense of it continues to damage an increasing number of people.

(Poll 36%) Edelman Public Relations Worldwide published a fake blog (flog) last year for Wal-Mart (there were three actually). What makes this scenario stand out is that it was premeditated by people who knew better. The real irony is that Wal-Mart could have avoided the breach with disclosure. Perhaps more ironic, no matter how you feel about Wal-Mart, it has enough good news not to need fake news. We placed it third, but only because no one seems to have been hurt.

None of the other five are ethical breaches. At least, not to date.

(Poll 14%) While the Cartoon Network bomb scare illustrates a worst case scenario for a guerilla marketing campaign to go wrong and clearly impacted Boston (closing roads, tunnels, and bridges for hours), it is not an ethical breach. While ill-advised and perhaps not well thought out, it really wasn’t about ethics. In truth, Turner Broadcasting Systems acted very quickly and accepted all responsibility. The guerilla marketing firm that oversaw the campaign, on the other hand, was much slower to respond.

The (Poll 0%) Microsoft’s laptop giveaway, (Poll 5%) Nikon camera outreach program, and the (Poll 5%) McDonald’s mommy bloggers have all been questioned and talked about by bloggers. While all of them have the potential for an ethical breach, none of them did (that we are aware). As long as bloggers disclose the gift, loan, etc. and do not allow these items to bias their opinions and/or encourage/obligate them to make false claims, then no ethical breach can occur.

The last scenario, where Jobster sent Jason Davis a cease a desist letter, claiming Davis had violated a non-compete clause for launching a social network called Recruitingblog.com, was not an ethical question. While the method was not prudent, there was no ethical breach. The two have since reached an amicable agreement.

So why do we care about ethics? To take from the preface of the International Association of Business Communicators’ code of ethics, because: “hundreds of thousands of business communicators worldwide engage in activities that affect the lives of millions of people, and because this power carries with it significant social responsibilities.”

However, as mentioned, this responsibility is two-fold. I believe that we must be cautious in applying ethics so broadly as it continuously raises doubt in or damages the reputation of people, regardless of rank or position, who have not breached ethics. As is often the case, asking the wrong questions — “Is it ethical to ask for comments on a client’s blog?” — can create more confusion than clarity.

As the best measure of our ethics, we must not only be honest with others but also, and most importantly, with ourselves. If you are ever in doubt, the simplest ethical self-test is to ask yourself one of two questions ...

“Would I be proud to tell my grandmother?” or (depending on who your grandmother was) “Would I be proud to see a story about what I am doing on the front page of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal?” If you can answer “yes” to either, you’re likely in good shape. Case in point, I think Mackey would have answered "no."

Revealing Ethical Realities: PRWeek/MS&L

Some public relations professionals and communicators scratched their heads because I didn't call for the resignation of John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, Inc. despite the obvious: what he did was wrong. Perhaps part of the answer can be found in the PRWeek/Manning Selvage & Lee (MS&L) Marketing Management Survey.

The survey polled 279 U.S. chief marketing officers, directors of marketing and marketing managers that are focused on consumer-generated media, integrated marketing, and industry ethics. Although some of the questions were somewhat phrased oddly (they are paraphrased here), some of the results might surprise you.

• Wal-Mart’s non-disclosure of its authorship of a blog was a breach in marketing ethics. 55 percent agreed.
• Julie Roehm’s acceptance of gifts and dinners from future advertising agencies was unethical. 46 percent agreed.
• Turner Broadcasting placing magnetic lights in Boston that resembled bombs was a breach. 41 percent agreed.
• Microsoft acted unethically in providing Windows Vista on laptops to technology bloggers. 32 percent agreed.

Clearly, there seems to be some confusion over ethics. Originally, I was going to write something about this, but then decided it might be fun to run a poll to see what some readers think first. Which of the following do you think constitutes the greatest breach of ethics? You can vote for only one (and some might not be ethical breaches); we'll share our take on it next week (after the poll closes).



Incidentally, the MS&L survey also revealed that 17 percent of senior marketers say their organizations have bought advertising in return for a news story; 7 percent said their organizations have an implicit/non-verbal agreement with a reporter or editor to see favorable coverage; and 5 percent of marketers said their companies had paid or provided a gift of value to an editor or producer in exchange for a news story about their company or its products.

So much for the notion that all journalists are somehow pre-equipped to make the right ethical decisions. As I have said before, ethics begins with the person and not the profession. Bloggers have an equal opportunity to be ethical and to suggest they cannot, as some people do, only indicates their own propensity to have an ethical lapse.

Telling No Truths: Whole Foods Market, Inc.

"I sincerely apologize to all Whole Foods Market stakeholders for my error in judgment in anonymously participating on online financial message boards,” says co-founder, Chairman and CEO John Mackey, Whole Foods Market, Inc. “I am very sorry and I ask our stakeholders to please forgive me."

With the lead up to his apology and the very limited number of people he apologized to, I’m not sure this was the best decision, but the fact that this decision was made means fun time is indeed over. Given the possibility that Mackey did not act alone (or at least was not anonymous to everybody who perused Yahoo financial chat boards) while playing the part of the great masked Wild Oats stock vandal, “rahodeb,” it might be for the best. Will it work? Probably not.

Make no mistake, the Whole Foods Market, Inc. board retaining the firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP to advise it during an independent internal investigation means that the damage down the road may very likely exceed “rahodeb” having fun at the expense of others. (The SEC began its investigation the day before.)

While there may be many revelations made during the internal investigation (let alone the SEC investigation), the need to investigate seems to mean: more people may have been involved (it’s hard to keep a secret identity secret for that long without sharing) or they feel a need to analyze whether any of Mackey’s comments did in fact impact Wild Oats stock at any time (online or off). Even more obvious, Whole Foods Market, Inc. wants to apply one of the few “golden no comment” clauses that most journalists respect.

"The Company intends to fully cooperate with the SEC and does not anticipate commenting further while the inquiry is pending." ... "The Board will refrain from comment until the internal investigation is completed."

Why does the “golden no comment” clause work? From a communication perspective, provided the board doesn’t start to squawk, refraining from comment during an investigation gives the company a badly needed pause in its communication, which to date, can be likened to someone hemorrhaging at the mouth. To be clear, the board is concerned about something enough that they feel it is prudent to censor their outspoken CEO for fear it will get worse before it gets better. Most journalists will respect such restraint provided it holds.

Why doesn’t the “golden no comment” clause work? Once a company issues the statement that silence is golden during an investigation, reporters have a nasty habit of looking for anyone and everyone for input and opinion. It almost assuredly increases speculation 100-fold because journalists can no longer turn to the primary source and they have to go out and look for new sources. There is also the risk of someone developing a Deep Throat complex and leaking information to the media, whereby the company won’t be able to respond to any of it unless it gives up its communication blackout. And once you give it up, it’s not fair to ask for it back.

There are other major downsides to applying “no comment during an investigation,” including: all other company news becomes irrelevant (you can’t effectively talk about produce in the room but skip the part where the elephant ate half of it); it makes the company look like there really is a fire under all that smoke (whether there is or not); and, finally, most importantly, it contradicts the concept that someone always talks (because they almost always do).

So, given the company's statements, we have moved from “whole” truths to “no” truths in the case study of Mackey and Whole Foods Market, Inc. Or perhaps, more appropriately, since others are ready to pick up where Mackey left off, we have entered the spin zone where there will be ample hot air about how it’s unfair to comment on a CEO because, as Laura Goldman submits, “I checked with lawyers and confirmed that the postings themselves are not illegal.”

With no disrespect intended, Ms. Goldman is right that this incident should not undo all the good work Mackey has done nor does it invalidate Whole Foods Market, Inc. as a viable company. However, even Journalism 101 students know that you can always find ample lawyers to argue either side of a case. Heck, that’s what makes court reporting sensational enough to have plenty of programming.

Besides, I think journalists and stock traders have been surprisingly kind to Mackey; it’s the public relations and communication people who seem to want his head the most (I’m in the minority by not asking for it, though I think he may have lost it anyway with the apology). Unfortunately for Mackey, I also think the split opinion over his fate will solidify in time; the reactive silence will point most in one direction.

Underthinking Mackey: Steven Silvers

Is it possible to be right and wrong at the same time? Steven Silvers is the principal at Denver-based GBMS, Inc., a group of professionals who “understand the complex nexus of business, government, media and community in which organizations operate today.” And, as focused as he is on complex issues, his well-written post says the Whole Foods Market, Inc. crisis might not qualify. On one hand, he is very, very right.

There was little need for the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) to send out a news release about "reputation impact of undisclosed-identity executive internet postings."

"Corporate executives in all areas of a company must be acutely aware of the ethical implications of communications they initiate, including those under the auspices of being a ‘private citizen,’" said Rhoda Weiss, national chair and CEO of PRSA, in the release (highlighted by Silvers) that aims to capitalize on the case with reactive comment.

Most people get that, I think, which is why Silvers proposes that the most simplified version of the Mackey study is “smart people sometimes do stupid things.” Then he goes on to write a better version of the release: “Don’t post comments on the Internet promoting your company’s stock and slamming your competitors while pretending to be someone else. This is wrong. You could cause a huge PR problem for your company. You’ll probably get sued, and you might be breaking the law. …”

It made me smile, before departing from his assessment a bit. It would be simple, but nowadays things have consequences that are not confined to where they belong. This will not be confined to Mackey. This will not be confined to Whole Foods Market. And this will not be confined to, well, anything.

The consequences, as expected, are likely to be tossed about by folks like Andrew Keen in his admittedly biased war against anonymity and amateurs on the Web. And perhaps, they will even reinforce the call for a code of conduct. And perhaps, there will be some new legislation. And perhaps, we’ll polarize it all.

“We have the most protected, covered, cautious and public relations-barricaded generation of leaders in history. Today’s tightly controlled, artfully packaged executives want to release and spout off, and they somehow think this is a forum where they’ll be held less accountable,” says Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a professor of corporate governance at Yale. Indeed, and executives are not alone in feeling this way.

"It doesn't seem likely that investors who may have read these chat rooms would have had reason to act, thereby materially affecting the stock price, because the CEO's identity seemed to be concealed and the materiality of the comments made looks low," Stephen C. Chick, JPMorgan, wrote in a client note, adding that while Mackey's actions "lack judgment," they are unlikely to affect Whole Foods' stock price.

And there it is. Why is this case study complex? Under the surface of simplicity resides the very foundation of an increasingly challenging issue caused, in part, by public relations’ attempt to mold people into something they are not; the media’s shift to be less concerned with finding the truth and more concerned with gathering up polarized viewpoints; and the public’s desire to create labels for everyone but themselves, good or bad.

The concept that “perception is everything” has permeated every facet of our society to such a degree that most people are increasingly judgmental about the actions of others. And perhaps, it is from this very place where the desire to be anonymous in today’s society seems to have very little to do with people wanting to behave badly and much more to do about their fear of being judged.

Adding rules and increasingly strict guidelines on the Web will only make it worse. I propose our time and energy is much better placed in educating people that it doesn’t make much sense to lend anonymous sources credibility beyond a single comment. While some have better intentions, others have agendas.

"They [the FTC] are quoting rahodeb in some of their legal documents and no doubt seek to embarrass both me and Whole Foods through these disclosures," Mackey has said. In fact, Mackey reports he had fun doing it, implies that he has no regret or remorse, and doesn’t seem to know the difference between making casual anonymous comments about his competitor and manipulating stock.

Is it because he is eccentric or ignorant? Don’t be silly. Mackey isn’t typical, but he isn’t stupid either. He knows that the day he admits that what he did was wrong and apologizes for it will be the same day that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will no longer need to prove that Mackey knowingly violated securities law, intentionally using his anonymous postings to manipulate price.

To be clear, of course what Mackey did was wrong. But virtually every outcome in this case will have little to do with reality and much to do with perception.

The Federal Trade Commission’s ability to prevent the merger will be based on perception. The outcome of the SEC investigation will be based on the determination of motivation, which will be based on perception. Shareholders will decide to buy or sell Whole Foods Market stock based on their perception. And the argument whether anonymity might be protected or abolished will be based on perception. It’s all based on perception because we live in a world that is increasingly focused on, well, perception.

After years of watching us trend toward creating pristine perceptions while nurturing the fear of being judged by others (who might discover the "truth"), maybe it’s time we remember that it is much more dangerous to allow the perception of a personal brand to drift dangerously away from reality and toward some idealized label than it is to manage a brand that represents who we really are; good, bad, or indifferent. (As even Albert Einstein once confessed, he only combed his hair that way for the benefit of the media.)

Or, in other words, Mackey might have considered it would have been equally “fun” to post his comments as himself. People would have the perception he was wacky (they do anyway) and there would be no crisis. But that's the simple part. The harder part is recognizing this issue is complex because we have made the environment complex.

Once we hung horse thieves, now we try to understand and justify them. Once we sought truth, now we celebrate opinion. Once people said what was on their minds, now they hide their thoughts unless protected under the veil of anonymity. Once we shopped because eating dinner with our family was fun; now we ask Whole Foods Market to make it fun for us. Simple indeed.

Telling Whole Truths: John Mackey

According to the Core Values of Whole Foods Market, there is only one way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders. And that is to satisfy customers first.

Oh, make that two ways. According to The Associated Press (AP), John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. (Whole Foods), found that posting under the anonymous name “rahodeb” was a pretty good way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders as well.

According to the story, Whole Foods announced it would buy Wild Oats for about $565 million, or $18.50 per share. But unfortunately, this comes after “rahodeb” posted the stock was overpriced; predicted the company would fall into bankruptcy; claimed it would be sold after its stock fell below $5 per share; declared Wild Oats' management "clearly doesn't know what it is doing;" and that the company "has no value and no future."

Obviously, “rahodeb” must have miswrote because Wild Oats does have value: $18.50 a share, which is sharply steeper the $5 per share that “rahodeb,” er, Mackey, um, "rahodeb" had hoped for as the masked Wild Oats stock vandal.

In fact, Wild Oats is so valued by Mackey, he has taken to misappropriating his company's public relations and social media communication to flame the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Apparently, he is not happy they made his anonymous comments public in an attempt to block the merger nor does he accept that the FTC is trying to prevent the elimination of another competitor.

"As previously announced, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this legal process, and this blog entry is my first detailed effort at transparency," said Mackey in a news release that neglects to reveal how posting anonymous comments on Internet financial forums for seven years might be transparent.

“I provide explanations of how I think the FTC, to date, has neglected to do its homework appropriately, especially given the statements made regarding prices, quality, and service levels in its complaint. I also provide a glimpse into the bullying tactics used against Whole Foods Market by this taxpayer-funded agency,” Mackey continues on his blog. “As stated in our initial press release about Whole Foods Market's challenge to the FTC's complaint, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this process. This is my first detailed effort at transparency.”

Hmmm ... I suspect if there is any "whole truth" that could potentially win a fruit basket then “this is my first effort at transparency” must be it. Unfortunately, had Mackey done his homework, the best time to be transparent is before one damages personal credibility. So, what this all means is the happiness factor of Whole Foods (where I shop sometimes) is about to be spoiled.

How do I know? Well, some of the writing is already on the blog. Mackey, just days before this seven-year ethical breach came to light, published the graphic above for one of his more colorful, but long-winded posts, Conscious Capitalism: Creating a New Paradigm for Business. He says the image represents “a common view of the good, altruistic non-profit organizations versus the evil, selfish, greedy corporations.”

Overall, I don’t subscribe that the notion that this is really the "common view." It seems more likely to me that each company is charged with its own reputation management. And, with this responsibility, each is free to nurture positive public opinion in any it feels fit, starting with the behavior of its CEO.

But then again, if the "common view" is that corporations are “evil, selfish, and greedy,” it seems to me that any CEO who would attempt to drive down the stock prices of a competitor, under the veil of anonymity, certainly isn't helping this perception go away.

In sum, Mackey wants us to accept that there are truths, half-truths, and now “whole truths.” And while that might sound all fun and amusing (enough to start a living case study), the SEC isn’t laughing.

Supersizing Wingnuts: Ronald McDonald

By now, you might have heard that McDonald's hired six "quality correspondent" mommy bloggers to report on the "world at large" about various McDonald's facilities. And, no surprise, for every friendly blogger found, an equal number of contrary bloggers will magically appear. (Or maybe it's the other way around, I forget.)

It's nothing new. Ever since marketing genius Ray Kroc made a deal with the McDonald brothers in 1954, America has had an odd love-hate relationship with Ronald, or least the product he sells.

On one hand, McDonald's is a great American rag-to-riches story of a businessman who created an American icon and believed in hard work, wholesome idealism, and selfless philanthropy. On the other hand, critics say Kroc cut the McDonald brothers out, exploited teenagers, despoiled the environment, hardened our arteries, and made us fat.

Even Greenpeace showed its split decision back in 2003: "We don't like a lot of what it [McDonald's] does and what it stands for but we have to take a deep breath here, and give them some credit where it is due. They've done something [environmentally friendly refrigeration] to help the planet!"

So what's the truth?

Given the recent New York City quick service regulation story, it points to a cultural trend being blamed on social media even though it didn't originate with social media. The trend is the polarization of, well, everything.

Polarization is a tendency to promote every issue as black and white; for or against; right and wrong. It considers consensus waffling at best and knuckling under at worst. It originated with traditional media, often dominates politics, and has been slowly and steadily creeping its way into almost anything we do.

The irony is most polarized issues, whether it is a big issue like global warming or a little issue like McDonald's, are a battle of wills. Usually, it means wingnuts (people with extreme views) have hijacked an issue in the hope that they can appeal to your emotions while you surrender your ability to reason.

To briefly understand wingnut influences, imagine a bell curve. They are the 10 percent on either side, with the rest of us being in the middle. If the wingnuts succeed in moving the middle just a little bit, they can change the direction of Congress. Sometimes, however, the bell curve gets pressed down in the middle (making it look like an M) or, in extreme cases, the middle is almost obliterated (making it look like a U).

Thus, in the case of McDonald's, anti-McDonald's wingnuts have gained some ground using social media as a mechanism. To help offset this, McDonald's did what bloggers have been asking every company to do: pay more attention to bloggers. So they invited a few seemingly pro-McDonald's mommies to take a peek inside and blog about it.

Well, anti-McDonald's wingnuts can't have this, so they want to discredit the mommy bloggers before they write a single word. Really, it's not all that different from the Nikon blogger outreach program (except these mommy bloggers, I am told, are really on the payroll) and as long as they disclose, who really cares?

The simple truth about McDonald's is that like any indulgence, excess is bad (and we didn't need some fool who ate only McDonald's for a month to prove it); the existence of McDonald's does not make you fat (only eating excess quantities of, well, anything will make you fat); and mommy bloggers are not unethical if they disclose, even if they say something silly like it's part of a balanced meal (assuming they buy that). Of course, if they write that, all it means is that they will diminish their own credibility.

You know, I'm starting to believe that America's appetite for convenience is not fueling McDonald's as much as it fueling polarization in America. It's convenient to have only two choices. It's convenient to discredit bloggers as having no influence until they write something we don't like. And, it's very, very convenient to blame other people for our own inability to control what we say, do, or eat.

Seeing Green Over Nikon: Eric Eggertson

Eric Eggertson calls it envy. Mark Rose called it a big payoff. Jordan Behan, who pens Tell Ten Friends (a good blog too) agrees that it is polarizing bloggers, but opted to post his thoughts as a comment.

Never has a digital camera been blamed for so many things or been called so many names. So much so that one might think the "D" in the Nikon D80 stands for Darth Vader. Although the people of Picturetown USA only received free D40s, you would think neighboring towns would form a Rebel Alliance to strike down the Imperial Empire seeded by Nikon.

At least that is what you would think the way some bloggers talk about the 50 long-term loaners (with the option to buy at a discount after one year) that Nikon passed out as part of a blogger outreach campaign. Some think it is important enough of a discussion that CustomScoop's PR Blog Jots even noted Eggertson's and my brief discussion (though reading Eggertson's reply to my inquiry, one might think it was a debate). CustomScoop even asked who might be right, which is humorous to me because I hadn't taken a real position other than to point out there is no ethical breach in blogger outreach unless the loaner is conditional on positive reviews (it is not).

Really, for me, the whole discussion is much ado about nothing. Or, if it is something, then that something is the propensity for bloggers to sometimes make something out of nothing. Eggertson, whose blog I actually like, drives this point home by suggesting the Nikon campaign was designed to create envy in other people ...

"There are giveaways every day on radio stations, in newspapers and elsewhere. And the suppliers of the prizes get more than a product mention in return. Their product is positioned as something that, under other circumstances, you might have received. They are objects of envy."

No, the best blog posts don't always come from comments. Giveaways are not designed to make people envious and jealous (though that might be an unintended side effect). They are and always have been something much simpler: the human equivalent of a Skinner Box.

A Skinner Box, which is a laboratory apparatus used in the experimental analysis of studying behavior, is designed to reward the behavior of an animal (most likely a mouse or a rat) until instrumental conditioning occurs and the animal repeats the actions even without the reward. In humans, it works even better because we don't need to receive a reward; we can simply imagine one, which is why so many people play McDonald's Monopoly.

The Nikon blogger outreach program doesn't really make the cut in being a true giveaway because there is nothing you can do to get the reward. Well, maybe, as Eggerston went on to mention, "I’ve had my eye on the Nikon digital SLRs for years, since I have a few thousand dollars worth of Nikon lenses.'

Ho hum. Cameras don't create envy (or jealously for that matter), people do. Both are emotions: jealousy being the fear of losing something to another person (which clearly does not apply here) and envy is the pain or frustration caused by another person having something that one does not have oneself. Over a camera?

You know, having worked on a few campaigns that have put envy into play, the goal was never to create envy in other people as much as it was to make consumers who could afford the product think that their purchase would create envy in other people. That makes a lot more sense because there would be no point in Nikon trying to create "blogger envy" in an outreach campaign.

No Iago, envy only resides in people who succumb to it. But then again, I'm more inclined to celebrate other people's wins than fret over them or attempt to make them feel less credible just because they happened to have better Flickr photo files or whatever arbitrary measure was applied in deciding which blogger was invited to participate. That's right. Good for them.

As I said before, other than MWW CEO Michael Kempner saying that some bloggers were complaining about the campaign because they did not get a camera (a tactic that surely would produce the opposite of what a blogger outreach program is intended to do, er, I hope), the controversy over the Nikon camera campaign is much ado about nothing. Case closed.

Whacking Wal-Mart: BusinessWeek

If there ever was a case study that I would like to see concluded, it is the continued controversy and media spectacle between Julie Roehm and Wal-Mart. In the end, of the two parties still playing (the rest had the sense to exit gracefully), no one is going to win.

Some members of the media are working hard to make sure of it, looking under every stone for evidence to prove that Wal-Mart is not only unethical but also the embodiment of corporate evil (if you believe some of their accounts). Sure, part of it is Wal-Mart's fault, because if a public relations problem has truly grown out of the case, it is Wal-Mart's apparent inability to keep the story simple: its former marketing executive allegedly based her multi-million dollar advertising campaign decision on who could wine, dine, and woo her the most while using company money to fund an affair.

But that's not the story people are writing. Instead, the latest story to surface in the media's "Whack-O-Wal-Mart" game is BusinessWeek with a write-up penned by Pallavi Gogoi. The lead that Gogoi unearthed from nowhere is the story of Chalace Epley Lowry, who started working at Wal-Mart as an administrative assistant in the communications department in January.

Lowry says she was subjected to a day-long orientation with a heavy emphasis on ethics and was told "if we see something that has the appearance of something unethical we should report it." The person she reported was Mona Williams, vice-president for corporate communications, for what seemed to be related to "insider trading" in Lowry's eyes.

"In all honesty, Mona's transactions could all have been above board," Lowry says, "but I acted in good faith, just pointing out that there might have been some wrongdoing."

According to Wal-Mart, Lowry was confused. The company says she mistook a deferred compensation form for an options exercise request and that Williams did nothing wrong. Williams also learned of the complaint, prompting some inner office tension that resulted in Lowry leaving to find new employment.

There is a lot wrong with this story, but perhaps not in the way some people might think. Although employers might provide ethics training, I suggest employees pursue a better understanding of ethics on their own. Even if your employer tells you to report "the appearance of something unethical" that is not an appropriate solution. Of course, you'll never get this out of the BusinessWeek article.

In this case, Lowry would have been better off asking Williams what the documents were before reporting it. Had the papers been related to stocks and tied to insider trading (as Lowry believed and Wal-Mart refuted after an investigation), she could have given Williams the chance to correct the ethical breach, with an understanding that Lowry would report it if no course correction was made. It's about that simple.

Now I don't believe that Lowry intentionally meant to break her supervisor's trust and breach ethics, but she did. And while that is not the story I read in BusinessWeek, that is what the real story is: give your co-workers an opportunity to correct an ethical breach before going over their heads to report it. If more people did that, maybe there wouldn't be a Roehm/Wal-Mart scuff-up to write about.

Right. Sean Womack could have said, "Gee Julie, those e-mails are a little racy for my taste. Please don't send them." Ho hum. At least he had the good sense to get out of a fight that no one is going to win.

Splitting Frames: The Nikon Campaign

Reading Strumpette’s take on the Nikon Camera D80 campaign, you might think it’s the end of the profession as Amanda Chapel (a pseudonym?) purports to lesson Michael Kempner, MWWGroup, on the ethics of their blogger program.

Don’t get me wrong, Chapel has a fine blog that works real hard offering a smattering of "spicy" public relations observations to lure in the willing or wicked or whatever. There is no question that Strumpette is a popular blog that reads as the polar opposite of Steve Rubel’s Micro Persuasion, one of my favorites.

This time, I don’t really agree with Chapel’s twist on the Nikon story. She claims this is blatant bribery or “blogola.” All I see is that there seems to be some rumbling from public relations professionals that maybe, just maybe, they don’t know whether the campaign is ethical or not. Ho hum.

For the most past, the blogger campaign seems to be a natural extension of “Picturetown” where Nikon gave away 200 cameras to the residents of Georgetown, S.C. ADWEEK’s Barbara Lippert recently wrote that there is “something really satisfying about basing an ad campaign on the real stuff of user-generated content. It bulks up the experience and democratizes the process, not only for picture takers, but also for the viewers.”

So why not bloggers? Eric Eggertson, who pens Common Sense PR, seems to think that it is okay.

“Should bloggers feel guilty if they end up paying the discounted price and keeping a valuable camera? Not in my book. I don’t really expect them to write negative things about the camera. What’s not to like about a top digital SLR from a top brand? There are too many settings?”

Joseph Jaffe of Jaffe Juice says “I have to tell you that in my humble opinion, this has been the best example of blogger outreach I have either experienced (first hand) or read about.” But then again, he has a camera so perhaps that doesn’t count. Or maybe it does because it is blogger outreach.

If we go back to the original definition of a bribe (money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust), there still seems to be some holes in the ethical argument because MWWGroup never placed any conditions on the campaign like “you must write good things about it or send it back” or “you must use it every day.”

Nope. Other than asking the bloggers to include a campaign disclosure if they write a product review, which seems to be the opposite of a bribe, I don’t see any conditions that may influence these bloggers. In fact, it almost seems to me that the threat of making them appear influenced has a greater chance of skewing their objectivity. But that requires a different term all together.

Chapel says I underestimate the true dynamics of the issue. Not really. It seems to me the true dynamics of the issue is not being discussed enough. Public relations firms are being put in an unfair position: they are ridiculed for ignoring bloggers and chastised for inviting them to review products at the same time.

Fair reviews don’t just come from publications with product purchase budgets nor do they come from bloggers with deep purses. Fair reviews come from people who are true to themselves, whether or not they are invited to the opening, asked to take a test drive, or given a loaner.

Any other position is unfair to the reviewer as it attempts to guess their motivation at best and insults their ability to be objective at worst. Any other twisted facts on this issue would force us to conclude that we are all somehow unethical for sampling a cheese square at the local grocery store.

After 15 years of straddling the fence between public relations and journalism (five of those years editing a trade publication for concierges who ask similar questions), the best measure remains with the writer’s own sense of ethics. Better advice might be to resist the urge to name call, especially my readers, as it almost always erodes the name caller's credibility.

Ergo, MWWGroup has done a fine job wading into the waters of social media. While the Nikon campaign might be improved upon, there are virtually no details that deserve mention. They may even be given kudos for the experiment, especially because they tried so hard (maybe overly so) to remain above board.

Bribing Bloggers: Ragan's Grapevine

Michael Sebastian, writing for Ragan's Grapevine, resurrected Amanda Chapel's comments on camera-maker Nikon's "loaning" 50 bloggers a pricey new camera for 12 months. In Chapel's piece last week, she notes that that "most reporters, e.g. NYT, WSJ, BusinessWeek, Forbes, etc., can't even accept a free lunch anymore because of new ethics guidelines. The era of wining, dining and bribing reporters is long over."

Given this, the general theory is that companies are attempting to curry favor with "b" and "c" list bloggers, offering loans, gifts and payments for favorable reviews. The downside for a blogger is that when they accept a gift or loan, they take a departure from the world of journalism. Hmmm ... maybe.

Last December, I wrote a less than flattering piece on PayPerPost, just hours prior to a terms of service change that required bloggers to disclose that they were being paid for their reviews. Had the post been penned after the change, my take on it would have been different.

In such instances, disclosure can make all the difference (though I don't recommend turning every editorial post into an advertorial post or you'll likely lose your readers). The same can be said about the Nikon camera campaign. Any ethical breach is not in the loan of a camera, but rather in the blogger's willingness to be swayed by the loan or if the loan is conditional on a favorable review or frequency of a product mention.

It all comes down to the blogger (or reporter for that matter) asking themselves if they can remain objective despite whatever offer is on the table, Nikon camera "loan" or not. Only the blogger can answer that question. Because, in general, if we attempt to guess the ethics of others, we only demonstrate our own lapse in understanding ethics.

Journalists, reviewers and critics in particular, have always received new products and beta programs (or attended openings) so they could write editorial. The reward for remaining objective is simply a matter of preserving their own credibility as a reviewer. To do the same, bloggers only need to appreciate that credibility is their most valuable asset as well.

So while I agree with Sebastian and Chapel that skewing reviews for favors is unethical, bloggers without journalism or public relations backgrounds only need a reminder now and again that the best editorial is not for sale. Likewise, just because someone sends you something, it doesn't mean you are obligated to write about it.

In closing, I might also add that Ragan entered the social media scene in force. Ragan's Grapevine has been a great addition to communication blogging and its new social network Myragan.com is one of three social networks I think are worth checking out (I'm still wading the waters). The other two are Recruitingblogs.com and BlogCatalog.com.

I'm hoping to share why I think so sometime next week. And given the topic of this post, I might add that I wasn't paid to say that. Grin.

Spinning 2.x: Julie Roehm

If the art of spin is part of Julie Roehm's marketing 2.x concept, she's certainly trying to employ it in court. Roehm's defense tactic against Wal-Mart is to exonerate herself by accusing executives at the #1 retailer of ignoring company ethics policy.

She says they accepted trips and gifts from clients and benefited from preferential prices on jewelry and yachts, implying that maybe that makes it okay that she broke the company's ethics policy by accepting gifts from agencies pitching the Wal-Mart account last November and having what seems to have been a heated affair with a subordinate.

According to The New York Times, the filing says "While Wal-Mart asserts that it has policies which prohibit conflicts of interest and the misuse of Wal-Mart assets and opportunities, those policies do not seem to prevent its executives from using both to personal advantage.”

The story is also generating buzz at The Wall Street Journal and CNN Money. Each publisher has a slightly different take on the story, ranging from outlining Roehm's claims in some detail to brushing them off as a weak defense.

It's difficult to tell what the court might think, given this tactic seems to play more to the media than her case. On the quick, it reminds me of a defense similar to one my then 7-year-old son cooked up about a year ago. "Why were you throwing rocks at that house?" I asked. So-and-so "threw rocks at the house first" was his defense. Ho hum.

Since her termination last December, Roehm has fared the worst of the three most cited in this case study. Other than landing a gig at Sports Illustrated, most businesses have given her a lukewarm reception since she filed the wrongful termination case against Wal-Mart. Meanwhile, DraftFCB won K-mart and Wal-Mart stocks are up on the market.

Addressing Ethics: Virginia Tech

One of the prevailing themes that continues to be discussed in the media, recently on PBS News Hour Extra, is NBC's decision to air the the Virginia Tech killer's so-called manifesto.

NBC didn't have to, as I pointed out last Thursday and again on Monday. However, that is not to say I don't appreciate the decisions that networks face.

When I teach public relations practitioners about media ethics from the perspective of reporters and new editors, I borrow a technique from my media law professor years ago. He asked everyone who believed you "should never publish the name of a 14-year-old rape victim" to raise their hands. About 95 percent of the class raised their hands.

But then, he asked anyone who would change their minds if the victim was related to an elected official to put their hands down. About one third of the raised hands went down.

What if an elected official was the perpetrator? Only about five percent of the hands raised.

What if every other paper is already running her name? Not a single hand remained.

"Oh, so much for never publishing the name of a 14-year-old rape victim," he said. "And that's the point. Most ethical dilemmas are not black or white. It depends."

In the case of Virginia Tech, as noted in the PBS News Hour Extra, the decision to air the gunman's video was one of the toughest. CBS "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith told the Associated Press, "I felt manipulated by the fact [Cho] was getting exactly what he wanted. We could have used the tape more discreetly." And Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news chief Tony Burman called the airing of the video by American broadcasters a "mistake," warning it could lead to copycat killings.

Some of the attention on the crisis and related sub-controversies are somehow partly responsible for what the FBI says have been 35-40 mostly school-based copycat threats since the Virginia Tech tragedy. (We had one somewhat related incident in Las Vegas and even more in nearby California so the figure might be more than the FBI reported.)

From my perspective, I think it was a mistake because the media could have reported on the video without airing it. Still, I find it promising that NBC and other major networks such as ABC, CBS and Fox have since decided to stop or limit broadcast of the video and images. I think that is a positive step toward responsible reporting without regard for ratings.

Not everyone agrees. Some feel the footage is a necessary part of the entire truth and others said it demonstrated how the gunman had really planned everything out. It's an interesting position that might make one wonder about about the public's appetite for voyeurism. As one station executive once told me, we air murders, car accidents, and robberies in that order because when we don't, no one watches.

Ethical dilemmas. They are not always black and white. For my own part, this post will likely be my last on the subject. For those impacted by the tragedy, including some associates, my sympathies and prayers are with you.

Kidnapping Posts: Story Indeed

Someone thinks they have a good thing going. The blog they are working on mirrors a questionable trend in social media that I've seen before. All seven of the associates listed on the somewhat unconstructed Story Indeed site seem to be joining the ranks of republishing blog posts without citing the sources. (My apologies if the links no longer exist after this.)

Sure, they all have their own blogs and some look pretty good. At a glance, I might even be flattered that they decided to rerun some of my posts, if not for fact that they do not cite the source. Hmmm... what was that word ... oh right, plagiarism. Who knows? Maybe they know it too, because when I commented on the blog in question, citing myself as the source, the comment was quickly removed, within five minutes.

To be fair, they are young, but seem just old enough to know better. Search for them yourself. While I only linked to one associate in the original post, I am all for giving credit where credit is due: Alex King, Donncha O Caoimh, Dougal Campbell, Matthew Mullenweg, Michel Valdrighi, Mike Little, and Ryan Boren. Any of them are invited to post a comment on my blog and clear up the, er, content confusion. Oh, as it turns out, someone else posted for them and noted the default setting on Word Press always lists them as associates. It seems a risky default when you don't know what someone will do with a blog, but it is what it is. For these talented developers, my apologies.

You know, one would think that with so many bloggers willing to participate on blogs, they could come up with volunteers for content. Yet, this is also not the first time that I've seen this misguided idea in action. To be clear, the idea is to kidnap posts from those who understand SEO Writing (Search Engine Optimization writing) in order to lead people to a site that has little to do with the author.

Instead of searchers finding what they are looking for, these content confusers are hoping to get people to click on Google ads and Google search engines located at the top of the page. The first time I saw this gimmick was here. It's a shame to see it again.

* this post has been corrected and explained in italics.