For anyone wanting it, it is:

http://www.literalmayhem.com/2007/12/26/ghost-writing-ethics-20-pr-firm-caught-with-pants-down-public-outraged-politics-as-usual/

I agree with your assertion that the rules haven’t changed. Unfortunately, I don’t think the mindes of the C-level folks have much, either. Thus, we’re stuck in the same rut in many oranizations where the chief communicator is told what to say, not consulted before the messaging is made. My hope is that this isn’t true in most instances, but I’m afraid from what I’ve seen, it often is.

Thanks again for such a detailed response. Very good discussion!

thanks
Martin

thanks
Martin

I read it too. And I am a PR professional with 17 years in the business, working agency side, client side and freelance.

I thought that this report was almost all hype, except for the survey results, which were written up by the folks at Financial Dynamics. The body of the report was full of jargon and meaningless catchphrases… like “business ecosystems of proliferating constituencies” and “componentized” responsibilities. And I think it misstates the relevence of PR2.0. (which I DO think will change our jobs to some degree.)

The barebones messages of the piece are these:

1) “Web 2.0 makes it harder to lie.”

2) “Web 2.0 gives more people a bigger voice, and they may say bad stuff abount you; they may even lie.”

Those are not Earth-shattering insights, no matter what kind of yucky consultant-speak they use to outline this “non-trivial, definitional challenge.”

YES: Web 2.0 presents a lot of scary potential scenarios for losing control of message and brand identity. Just as much, however, it offers new channels for fostering communications with and among constituencies.

This latter bit is truly the unique insight in the report. We used to communicate TO individual constituencies. Now we need to be active in the communication AMONG these constituencies because they can now much more easily nfluence each other — in real time.

But it does not change anything about the core mission of communications professionals — it is a tactical challenge. Admitedly a big one. But strictly a tactical challenge nonetheless.

Well… with one exception. If anything the Edelman/Walmart fiasco shows us that it’s an ethical challenge as well. Treating it like an entirely new, non-traditional world has encouraged non-traditional approaches that are, in a traditional view…. unethical.

Finally, the idea that Communucations Chiefs should be at the executive table has ALWAYS been true… whether corporate execs admitted it or not. The idea that “transparency” and “authenticity” are crucial is not new… it has ALWAYS been the case. Those are good, ethical imperatives for our profession. Until now, execs have been abe to ignore them without immediate consequence. Web 2.0 makes the consequences more visible and more “impactful.”

But in the end, good practice is good practice. Ethics are ethics. None of the philosophical “shoulds” about the PR profession have changed. We are just challenged in new tactical ways. But with new opportunities as well.

Just some thoughts….