Category Archives: Ethics

Marketing with Integrity – Selling Likes and Followers

Do you sell Facebook Likes or Twitter Followers to your clients?

I received this email in the middle of the night. You may have received it or something like it too.

It asks, “I was wondering if you sell Facebook Likes and Twitter Followers to your clients to improve their social media credibility?” The writer then goes on to suggest that, “Some companies sell 500 Facebook likes to their clients for $100, and buy the service from me for $15. It’s a huge profit margin and is a really easy add-on to sell to your current customers.”

My answer in a word is NO!

No, we don’t sell Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers or any other kind of social gesture. Buying followers amounts to pure deception, in my mind. Especially if the intent is to suggest that a large number of followers conveys greater credibility.

True credibility is earned. It is ascribed to you by others based on their experience of you. If you believe that the number of likes or followers conveys credibility, then purchasing them amounts to deception. 

If you are a marketer, don’t follow this path. It is marketing without integrity.

Americans Against Food Taxes shows Astroturfing is still with us

Will we ever be able to stamp out Astroturfing in public relations?

Take a look at this Website and this that the group ran on television and posted to YouTube.

Hold on a second. “Americans Against Food Taxes?” The names on the About Us page suggest to me it really should be called Soft Drink Manufacturers/retailers opposed to a tax on sugar-packed soft drinks. And if this ad really did run on the Super Bowl, as the Website claims, a total of 95, 275 signups on their petition sounds to me like no real grassroots movement actually exists.

The whole thing smacks of disinformation and bad spin. Yes, the ad makes explicit reference to a tax on soft drinks, but look at everything else: the images of fresh fruit on the Website home page, a grocery cart packed with wholesome food, the domain “nofoodtaxes.com” (why not “nosoftdrinktaxes.com?” and the name of the group itself. Take them all together and the uncritical viewer could easily think that there is a broader tax being proposed on all food. No lies are told. But it is possible to mislead by how we frame an issue and (mis)direct attention.

I raised this issue with Martin Waxman and Gini Dietrich in the most recent episode of Inside PR.

Inside PR 2.41 [ 17:02 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

What do you think?

Do you know more about this campaign than I do? Am I setting the bar of acceptable behaviour too high – or does this campaign in fact cross the line?

Also worth a look:

Sourcewatch

Health Habits

PolitiFact

Treehugger

Three questions to ask before accepting a controversial client

Have you ever been found yourself  presented with the opportunity to work for a client who might be controversial.

Recently, my company was asked to work for an organization that many would consider controversial. We struggled with whether we should accept the assignment and, ultimately chose to decline it.

Even though we encounter this type of situation many times in business, it is all too easy to become mired in the specifics of a situation and to lose sight of your longer term objectives.

So, as we deal with these kinds of issues, I’ve written down three questions that I think will always guide us to the right outcome. I’d like to share them with you and get your feedback on this approach and what you do in your own company when confronted with this type of situation.

Business should not be value-free; But it’s complicated

As the CEO of a company, I have to be concerned about the impact our roster of clients will have not only on our public image, but also on our self-image and our internal culture. People should spend their time working on things they believe in. They shouldn’t be compelled to work on assignments or for clients they disagree with.

In the 1980s and early nineties, the CEO of the firm I then worked for famously declared that we would not shy away from taking on controversial clients because “just as every person is entitled to a vigorous defence in court, they also deserve a vigorous defence in the court of public opinion.” Well, I disagreed with that position then and I disagree with it now. There are some bad people in life and they don’t deserve a vigorous defence – at least not from me.

But that’s easy. The “clearly bad” are at one extreme. But we don’t live life in the extremes. We live them in the mushy middle, in shades of gray.

We can’t expect everyone to agree with us or believe in the things we agree in. But we also can’t shy away from supporting a cause or belief that not everyone supports. If we did that, we’d lose ourselves in the depths of political correctness and we’d never do anything.

How do you decide whether to take on a client that may be controversial?

First, avoid the trap of believing that you have to make the decision on your own. I lead a company. But I also work as a team member in that company. The route to the right decision about accepting a potentially controversial client lies first in remembering that we all have a stake in this decision and involving more people than myself in the decision.

Once past this hurdle, I have three questions that will get you to the right outcome for our organization:

1) Do we support the objectives of the potential client as well as the way they go about attempting to achieve them?

The world is full of business opportunities. Why not look for those whose objectives and methods we applaud? Conventional management wisdom advises against grabbing every business opportunity which presents itself but which is off strategy. Similarly, why not focus on bringing in business from organizations and companies that you can easily support. In our case, ff can’t say with pride that we work for a client, we will walk away from the opportunity to work for them.

2) How will this affect the culture of your company?

The answer to the first question cannot be fully provided without reference to the entire organization. Are there people within your company who feel strongly about the potential client? Will it create division and alienation?

This doesn’t mean that anyone individual (including the CEO)  should have a veto. Don’t be afraid to have a vigorous internal discussion. It can lead to an understanding and respect of the different perspectives held by people. Reasonable people should be able to understand another’s point of view and respect that point of view.

Ultimately this is the issue on which management must make a call. Can the normal and healthy differences in opinion be accommodated or is this a situation in which the cultural cost will be too high? If the latter, take a pass on the potential client.

3) How will this be perceived by the external world?

This question comes last because, if you’ve answered the preceding two, you will be ready to weather the disapproval of those who disagree with your decision. And there will always be those that disagree. That’s the great thing about an open and liberal society. We hold different views and we are free to express them.

My objective is not to stop people from criticizing us. My objective is that we appear reasonable and reasoned in our defense of our decision. And if we do that, it will loop back into our internal culture

Bottom line

While we can’t eliminate controversy from attaching it to our businesses (unless we are prepared to be so nondescript and bland that we leave no footprint), by answering these three simple questions we can be true to our essential nature, build a stronger culture, and be ready to respond to comments from the outside world.

How do you handle this kind of situation?

I’d welcome your views on this. What practices do you follow in your company to manage potentially controversial situations?

Up close and personal with Movember and Prostate Cancer

Today is an important anniversary for me. Ten years ago today I had surgery for prostate cancer. I’m one of the lucky ones. I’m still here to talk about it 10 years later.

I was lucky because my doctor had me take a PSA (prostate specific antigen) test while I was still in my 40s. I was younger than the average prostate cancer patient. But thanks to my doctor and the PSA test, my cancer was detected and treated at an early stage.

Prostate cancer is a scary thing for men. It threatens our self-identity. We don’t like to talk about it. And that’s not good.

Prostate cancer can be beaten. But to do this, men have to be less squeamish about talking about it. We need to talk to their doctors about the risk and have ourselves tested. We also need more research into better methods of detection and treatment for those who are diagnosed with prostate cancer.

That’s why I’m participating this year in the Movember campaign. Through the month of November, I’ll be joining thousands of other men growing a moustache to raise awareness of prostate cancer and to raise money to fund research into its detection and treatment.

I hope you’ll take a minute to think about whether you can make a contribution to overcoming this disease. Your contribution can take many forms. You could make a donation to defeat prostate cancer. Or you could participate yourself in growing a mustache for the Movember campaign. But you can also make a contribution simply by talking about prostate cancer and raising awareness that it can be tested for and treated.

With your help, there will be more men like me who can say, “I beat prostate cancer.”

Ethics and Word of Mouth Marketing – What are the issues?

What do you think are the most important ethical issues relating to Word of Mouth marketing?

I’m chairing a panel on Ethics of Word of Mouth at the CMA’s Word of Mouth Conference next week. The panelists discussing this issue with me will be Malcolm Roberts , President, Smith Roberts Creative Communications and Ross Buchanan, Director, Digital & Relationship Marketing, Molson Canada .

As I prepare for this session, I’d welcome your input.

  • What are the major ethical issues confronting the Word of Mouth industry?
  • What questions would you put to the panelists and participants?

I’ll use your suggestions and questions at the session. So, please fire away.

When it comes to ethics, stand your ground

There’s been quite a debate on the Inside PR podcast about why public relations practitioners rank near the bottom of any list of trusted professions (usually right alongside lawyers and politicians.)

The discussion started with a question in episode 101 asked by Rayanne Langdon . It’s carried on over several episodes. And yes, I’ve contributed my 2 cents to it along the way .

Bottom line for me: PR should not reference the legal maxim that every person has the right to a defence in court and argue that "every client deserves public relations representation." No they don’t. Some people just do bad things. And the best public relations advice to them is to own up and make good.

There are industries that refuse to do this. They play for time, using the profits from their morally dubious activities to pave the way for them to transition their companies into other industries. Yes, I’m thinking tobacco. And I abhor the fact that we allow these companies to continue to produce something that incontestably kills people every single day. My view is that they do not deserve public relations counsel and Terry Fallis (who shares this view) and I have refused assignments from tobacco companies when they have come calling.

So, am I claiming that I have the key to good ethics. Heck no. But I like the argument that Julie Rusciolelli has advanced . Every person should be prepared to state their reasons for accepting (or not accepting) a client assignment. Not everyone may agree with the reasons. But over time we will respect people who clearly and honestly argue their positions. And we will also be able to identify and isolate the bad apples, ensuring that they don’t contaminate the entire PR industry.

OK. So that’s easy for me to say. I own my own PR company. The only person I have to answer to is myself. (Well, not quite. I actually have to answer to every employee as she/he decides every morning whether they want to work for my company. But that’s a digression.)

Rayanne Langdon, who you may recall started the Inside PR discussion, has posted a comment on Michael Allison’s post on this issue. Rayanne’s comment:

I’ve already heard stories from some of my classmates that make me cringe. But, I guess I’m the stickler for ethics–being the one who started the IPR discussion. Everyone hates me for it! Hah.

Thankfully, I don’t feel I’ve been put in any compromising situations yet, but I don’t know what I would have done if I was. As bad as it sounds, it seems almost rude to stand your ethical ground and refuse work at this point. Do you know what I mean?

I know how Rayanne feels. It’s tough to be in a situation in which you feel you are at odds with people who have some authority over you. So, here’s my advice to Rayanne and other young PR practitioners:

  • If someone asks you to do something that strikes you as ethically dubious, state your view clearly. Ask the other person to respond. Consider their response. Ask for time to think about it.
  • If you come to see the other person’s point of view, then you may find that you have learned something and you can do what they’ve requested.
  • If, on the other hand, you still feel that you cannot do what has been asked of you, stand your ground! The good people in life don’t compromise their fundamental principles. Once you start to slide, it’s hard to regain solid ground. So, don’t start.

That’s the advice I’d offer. If young PR practitioners (or anyone for that matter) follow it, I’ll respect them for it. And if the people in my firm ever find me offside with the views I’ve stated here, I hope they’ll call me out on it.

Strumpette has thin skin; gives me the treatment

Chris Clarke wrote something in the Blog Herald that Strumpette didn’t like. In a post in the Blog Herald on Friday, Chris wrote,

The PR community online is still growing. According to our official scorekeeper Constantin Basturea, the community almost doubled in 2006 to 630. Terrific, right? One would hope that with more PR blogs, the industry would be increasing it’s awareness of social media. More PR bloggers means more individuals telling their friends and colleagues, “Check out my blog.” Sadly, the second most-trafficked PR blogs is the self-appointed potty-mouthed ombudswoman of the PR community, Strumpette. Even when we do good, the bad stuff seems to stand out above the rest.

Well, it seems that Strumpette, used to visiting criticism on others, has a pretty thin skin. Chris’ post is time-stamped 11:00 January 12. At 11:15, my telephone rang and the first words I heard were, “Joe, it’s Brian Connolly.” Brian wanted to complain to me about what Chris had written. You see, I’m Chris’ employer and Brian felt that I was responsible for Chris’ scepticism about the merits of Strumpette.

Brian and I had a good long conversation. He made his points. Articulately. With some passion. He argued the importance in society of dissension. I listened and did not disagree with that. But I did tell him that I have a problem with people who attack the character of others from behind a veil of anonymity.

We had a good conversation that gave me some points to consider, but that did not persuade me to endorse Strumpette’s approach.

Well, a few minutes ago, I felt the fury of a Strumpette scorned. One of the anonymous Strumpettes has just written an attack piece targeted squarely at me, my firm and our approach to social media.

None of us will find total agreement with everything we say. There is merit in thinking through and expressing ideas and having them challenged. That’s how we learn. That’s how we move forward. That’s how we grow.

Social media provides channels through which new voices may be heard. Some will be intelligent and perceptive. Some will entertain. Some will educate. Others will seek to titillate and to appeal to baser instincts.

So, I’ve just had my Strumpette moment. It’s not nice. I have some scratches.

Time to move on.

Linkworthy

On the Road … Finally Shel Israel and Rick Segal’s Excellent Adventures begin! Shel will draw on his experiences and observations during this journey when writing Global Neighborhoods.

More Evidence that Media 2.0 may be less profitable than Media 1.0 Scott Karp touches a nerve with his analysis of the revenue potential for new consumer generated and social media websites. At the time of this post, he had drawn 19 strongly worded comments – both pro and con his position.
Traditional Media Still Gain Consumers Trust Debra Aho Williamson points to a study released by Lexis Nexis that “that during major national events, consumers turn first to TV, radio and print.” Not surprising. Traditional media continue to have water cooler effect for the really big events.

Edleman, Wal-Mart and WOMMA’s Code of Ethics Constantin Basturea offers a perspective on the application of marketers’ code of ethics to the Wal-Marting Across America flog (fake blog).

Astroturf or legitimate grassroots mobilization? Kami Huyse answers my question

Anti-astroturfingI’ve been following the discussion about astroturfing initiated by Paull Young.

The first participants rushed in to condemn astroturfing. Who wouldn’t?

Well, a lot of people, it seemed. And why were people holding back from such an important discussion?

Much of the early discussion focused on examples of outrageously bad behaviour. Of course, it’s easy to condemn clear cut, extreme cases. But what the average practitioner encounters on a daily basis is much less clear cut.

For serious practitioners that I talked to, the real issue is a working definition of behaviour that we can agree defines the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

I raised this question in a comment on Canuckflack. (Unfortunately, I can’t link back to the post, which wasn’t ported to Colin’s new site when he switched to WordPress in August.) The response to my comment was positive and thoughtful. Paull Young picked up the question in a post and added a related heading on the New PR Wiki Astroturf page. And then Steve Field nudged the issue forward.
Kami HuyseNow, Kami Huyse has published an Anti-Astroturfing Code of Ethics that I think will serve to guide practitioners as they encounter real world situations. Kami’s code:

  • I will not fabricate a public concern by paying or coercing individuals to falsely act as concerned citizens. I will only seek to help give voice to those who already hold an existing concern and/or provide education to stakeholders that might be affected by a particular issue.
  • When supporting grassroots efforts, I will ensure that I am transparent in all my actions and clearly and publicly state what actions I am taking and which organization or client I represent.
  • I will never knowingly distort or falsify information to help my client/interest achieve a strategic/emotional advantage in a public debate.
  • I will encourage all grassroots supporters to be open and honest in all of their communications, just as I will be open and honest in mine.

Well said Kami. I can live by that.