BL,

Excellent! Here is what I posted on my blog, bizsolutionsplus, yesterday:

Recently, WalMart and its Public Relations (PR) Agency, Edelman, were outed for their lack of transparency and, in my view, their deliberate attempt to trick readers on a phony blog. Here is how Publishing 2.0 describes the incident:

"It’s inevitable that a PR firm like Edelman would create a phony blog for one of its clients (in this case Wal-Mart). For all of the hype over “conversation” as the new media paradigm, no one has yet figured out how to use conversation to reliably achieve any business objectives. So Edelman naturally fell back on the approach that has worked for decades — control the conversation by manufacturing it, because if you can’t control the conversation, then you can’t make it do what you want. Edelman wanted to make consumers think that Wal-Mart is a hip place that you’d want to use as the anchor point for a roadtrip. The problem is it’s not. And because blogging is not a conrol-based medium, Edelman couldn’t make Wal-Mart appear to be something it’s not. It rang false, and they got caught."

Although I agree completely with the view above, two words make me uncomfortable: inevitable and manufacturing, which I underline in the above paragraph.

All PR Firms are not created equal. In my opinion, what Edelman did was not inevitable and manufacturing is just another word for lying. As the owner of a business who offers PR, I am obliged to comment that of the PR practitioners I personally know, including my competitors, none lie and none believe there exists such a thing as a "version of the truth." The truth is or isn't. When it isn't 100 percent true, it is a lie or an opionion, nether permisable in public relations unless clearly labeled as suce.

I believe, most PR practitioners work hard to tell the truth 100 percent of the time. I am surprised by Edelman, which before this charade I held in esteem.

I cannot tolerate lying at any level, however, and now am forced to question everything the agency does from hereon. I can only guess that Edelman created this falsehood for the money. Shame on them, and shame on WalMart for either creating the idea or for approving it.

well, give a look at these comments: http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2006/10/a_commitment.html
what do you think about: are they true or fake? did they post them to show their transparency or they are for real?

Seems like those comments are real, Gianandrea. Many are challenging and/or negative, so they don't appear edited or fabricated.

Sad that you have to even wonder that, though, huh?

As Joe Jaffe said on his blog today

http://www.jaffejuice.com/2006/10/edelman_exec_ap.html#comments

...he still feels empty inside, despite the Edelman apology. That's probably because Edelman is the poster child for effectively leveraging emerging media...we just *expect* better.

Edelman has done a great job of its own PR up to now, but I'd like to see the social media projects they have done for actual clients other than Wal-Mart.

Are there any that actually employ social media or is it all just so much hype?

ann, i suppose they were real but my comment was about the uncertainess (hope the speeling is right) that consumers may face. and this may prove to generate a loss of confidence for the entire industry. by the way, in italy there is not any news about this story but sooner or later it will come out.

Ann,

I agree with Gianandrea. I just posted a comment and a trackback to my post above at Richard Edelman's. Both comment and trackback are tough but what Edelman did hurts everyone in this industry.

Many think I am too tough on mistakes. I, on the other hand, think public apologizing has run amuck, from celebrities to runaway brides.

The problem with apologies is that they don't fix anything. Yes, we can forgive the person making the apology but we can neither forgive nor forget the act. It isn't within our power.

For one moment, does anyone believe what Edelman did was a mistake? They are too good at what they do not to have understood the charade and the lack of transparency being committed.

In this instance, they are what so many have accused us of being: Sideshow barkers with one goal in mind, to sell us snake oil.

My tone is harsh, I know. But honesty, trust and credibility is all we have. I cannot help but get angry when those values are assaulted.

Lewis

To all:

Here is my Mea Culpa: not a public one for anger at the Edelman Agency, but a personal one to Richard Edelman from whom I just heard.

Here in full disclosure is first Richard's reply to my rants and then my response to him:

"LG I know, I know.

"I am really unhappy with our performance on this one. We will prove ourselves with good work and ethical behavior."

My personal reply to Richard Edelman:

Richard,

"I was really angry with your Agency, as whenever those of us in this industry make these sorts of mistakes, it hurts all of us. And, unfortunately, so many in the business world expect bad behavior from us.

"I believe you 'will prove ourselves with good work and ethical behavior.' Count me in as a converted Edelman WOM evangelist."

Lewis

I'd love to know how Mr. Edelman is deciding who to contact with his apologies: Robert Scoble, Lewis Green, and apparently a few others have had calls and emails from him.

Edelman: "I am really unhappy with our performance on this one." What about I'm really sorry we screwed up. An apology is necessary. The only I've seen apologizes for getting caught, not for doing the deed.

I havent' really kept up with this story, but in reading posts on other blogs this morning, I've noticed that Steve Rubel seems to be getting a total pass on this. And in his response on Micro Persuasion(http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/10/on_edelman_and_.html#comment-24065768), Steve offers no explanation other than 'I had no personal role in this project.'. That seemed to fall far short of what his readers were expecting, as you can see from the comments he's receiving.

I especially noticed this comment he left: "I work for a big company and my loyalties first and foremost are to Edelman. Sorry. I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them.".

Seems to me like he's basically telling his readers to take a flying leap, they don't pay his checks, Edelman does.

Very curious comments, and again I find it interesting that none of the other 'A-lister' blogs seem to be calling him on it. Or hell maybe they shouldn't, maybe I'm being a bit too cynical about the existance of the secret 'A-Lister Cabal' ;)

Mack,

Thank you for sharing. This seems totally out of line with Richard Edelman's comments. It seems as if Steve is on a different page, and maybe he should give up the blog.

Furthermore, if his loyalties are to Edelman, he better check out his boss's communications strategy. It is very different from Steve's.

And, this goes to CK's excellent post yesterday. This is a good example of why corporations need to be concerned about blogs that represent their brand. Here we see messaging gone astray, and readers being told their points of view don't matter to Steve. Not a good thing for Richard Edelman's promise to rebuild its image and ensure everyone within the company understands its values.

Lewis

I wrote about Rubel yesterday on my blog http://www.whatsnextblog.com/archives/2006/10/edelman_and_social_media_the_emperor_has_no_clothes.asp

"He's just a PR guy with a job. Rubel, March 8, 2006 said he had no knowledge of the situation because he'd only been with the company a few weeks. And he promised:

"At times this means I may even be critical of my employer, the industry and competitors"

I'm sure Rubel has learned by now that's not how it is when you work for a huge company."

His credibility is down to zero and I bet he doesn't believe it.

Sounds like a lawyer wrote his statement.

If he has balls, he'll walk away from Edelman and make himself a social media hero. But I wouldn't bet on it.

After all, social media doesn't write his paycheck.

B.L.,

Man, I love your grit. Say it like you believe it! Go Girl!

Lewis

It's so disconcerting. Not only the act but that it came from Edelman. Worse still, the apology seems just an afterthought, part of (sigh) protocol.

What gets me is that I've been praising Edelman as an example to so many of my clients, both for how he leverages social media and how genuine his voice has been in the 'sphere.

My hope? That many, many clients will learn from this--that we'll be spared from scores of these social-media scams. It's such a disappointment. Yes, we do expect better.

What's all the fuss about. All PR and advertising is designed to manipulate (that's not necessarily a bad thing - what are you doing when you tell your children "Santa knows when you're naughty or nice"). Edelman have a job to do and that is to sell their clients. Nobody got hurt, nobody died.

Paul,

I could not disagree with you more. It is not our purpose to manipulate our audience. It is our purpose to persuade, a very different technique.

And everyone gets hurt when Marketing tells a half-truth, lies or conceals information the reader should know.

Your analogy has nothing to with Marketing. And when parents tell little children about Santa, the purpose is to bring joy into their lives and to begin helping them to develop imagination. If we continued into their developing years to believe in Santa, we would be hurting them.

Lewis

Seems that Amanda over at www.strumpette.com had Edelman pegged from day one.

Having spent this morning presenting the business value of blogs to corporate clients I was pleased that the Wal Mart story was one they were aware of but it had not dented their enthusiasm so much as helped educate them.