I’ve always been of the belief that you would never go into a restaurant, eat a meal, and at the end say to the chef, “That meal was fantastic – thank you so much! I’ll tell you what; if I don’t get heartburn tonight, I’ll send you a check in the morning.” So why do people always want to do that with our invoices, AFTER they’ve negotiated a program, the fees, and paid a couple of previous invoices?  Rather than be stubborn about it, though, I’m on the look-out for new ideas.

Therefore, I was interested to read “Coke Pushes Pay-for-Performance Model” in AdAge and “Changes Afoot in Professional Billing Rates” in The Australian Business.

The genesis of both articles is that clients want to know how advertising, PR, social media, marketing…all communication methods translate back to results. It’s the day old question, but now instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying, “But your brand awareness is off the charts!” we’re being held accountable for true bottom-line results.

So, you say, who determines the value? What do we do about the time it takes to ramp-up with a new client? Does this offend the PRSA Code of Ethics? Do you think we’ll try this and go back to the way things are now? Or will we do it only if forced by our clients?

That alone takes away the argument that many of us have been making that executives who managed a company so poorly to put it in a dire financial condition, do not deserve such bonuses.  So the spin question is, were those employment contracts really written with “retention” bonuses or were they “performance” bonuses, or just promises of a general bonus, no matter what? That’s what I’ll want to find out.

According to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, at least 73 AIG executives were given those bonuses, each amounting to at least $1 million. One might also ask, are those 73 employees so valuable and talented that they can’t be replaced?  To the tune of $73+ million in taxpayer funds? I would guess not, but, that is probably not the issue.  To read between the lines of Mr. Liddy’s column, those were employment contracts put in place by prior AIG management and they are legally binding documents.  Not to bash on the U.S. legal system, but I can only imagine the even more ludicrous amounts “we” would have to pay if the new AIG management decided that the company could no longer pay the contracted bonuses and greedy attorneys got involved in that gem of a lawsuit.  That amount of wasted money then would have likely doubled, tripled, quadrupled or even worse.  Is this what one might call “Caught between a rock and a hard place.”? I’d say Mr. Liddy is certainly earning his $1/year salary right now.

One last thought: does it feel to you that our elected officials are reacting in an “Oh crap, I should have thought of that” way?  Maybe they too freely handed our billions of dollars with no oversight, no strings attached? Oops.

To read Mr. Liddy’s full column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703019.html 

However, reports are surfacing surrounding allegations that the advertising department informed businesses Yelp! can move negative reviews down the page, in return for more advertising dollars.  Once this word spread, more and more businesses stated they received the same offer.  While I understand advertisers would want to avoid placing their advertisments next to negative reviews , but is it right for Yelp! to offer the option so consumers won’t dig in deep enough to read negative reviews?

Not to mention, who are these businesses coming forward stating they accepted the option, as well?  By doing so – the viewing public now knows to keep on reading to get the “Real Review.”

Take, for instance, the example they use about a shower curtain. The headline of the news release was “Toxic Ties to ‘New Shower Curtain Smell’ Evident, According to Latest Laboratory Testing.” Most of the major media ran this story before the Consumer Product Safety Commission could determine the truth behind the stories. Turns out, the story isn’t true, but the PR people (and, quite possibly, the client) probably feel like they did their jobs because the story ran. Who cares that it just isn’t true?

While I agree certain headlines attract attention while others do not, it just isn’t ethical to use sensationalism or spin, or to stretch the truth to secure a story on behalf of our clients.

I’m certain there are some PR people who are very successful in using striking words to gain the attention of a reporter, but they are not representative of most communicators. We live to the highest ethical standards of our industry and use our skills to help a company communicate effectively, internally and externally, and with all stakeholders, honestly and ethically.

Let’s elevate our thinking, people!

It’s been everything I can do not to comment on legal analyst, Andrew Cohen (yes, an attorney), when he went on CBS and said, “Show me a PR person who is “accurate” and “truthful,” and I’ll show you a PR person who is unemployed.”

But rather than comment on either (until I’ve had the chance to read the book), I am commenting on ethics in PR.  Like Matt Kucharski, I think a profession that was built around creating and sustaining positive reputations would have fewer ethical dilemmas or critics, such as attorneys.  Turns out, our profession is in the same league as personal injury attorneys, corporate raiders, and politicians.

This article by PRNews is based on surveys with members of the PRSA Counselors Academy, and points to some fairly interesting divergence in opinions on the role and importance of ethics in the field.

Personally, I take great affront to this survey, and to the comparison to ambulance chasers.  If a client were to ask us to “spin” a story or leave certain facts out in order to get better coverage, we’d resign that business immediately.  But then, I guess without unethical people in our profession (thanks Scott McClellan!), we wouldn’t have this blog, would we?

Over the weekend, PRSA Chairman and CEO Jeff Julin was interviewed in the Denver Post.  During the course of the interview, the reporter asked Jeff about a somewhat controversial seminar the Colorado Chapter held last year entitled “Taking the BS out of PR.”  Jeff’s answer was elegant and to the point.

“There is no question that many people think public relations is simply publicity and spin.  That is a challenge to individual professionals and the profession as a whole.  For me, public relations is an overarching communications discipline that focuses on helping organizations develop strong relationships with stakeholders.  When done well, public relations helps organizations grow, prosper, and contribute to the communities in which they operate.”

Heady stuff that.  Convincing clients and others that what we do on a daily basis in’t about weaving stories, distorting facts and, well, spinning issues is a difficult assignment.  It is something we have to be committed to doing — PRSA member or not — on a daily basis.  We must make it our mission to encourage truthful, open and respectful discourse in the public arena.  Only then can we hope to turn the tide and fully restore our image as the trustworthy communicators we know we are.

Check out the full interview with Jeff Julin at  http://www.denverpost.com/businessheadlines/ci_8899305

I’ve been thinking about blogging lately.  (I suppose it’s funny that I am doing that on a blog but there you have it.)  We have been recommending that clients become actively engaged in the blogosphere for some time now but we insist they follow the rules.  “Rules?”, you ask.  Yes, rules. 

While the blogosphere may seem to some like the Wild West, there has been debate as to whether bloggers should follow any code of ethics.  We maintain they should.  After all, they are taking part in the public discourse and shaping opinion.

Specifics differ but most codes of ethics for bloggers encourage the following:

Report honestly, fairly, and accurately – It is important that bloggers identify sources, correct inaccuracies, and distinguish between fact and opinion.

Be transparent – Bloggers should identify conflicts of interest, affiliations, or personal agendas.

Minimize harm – Just because a blogger can take anonymous swings at a person or organization doesn’t mean that is the best course of action. 

Be accountable – The most respected bloggers expose the unethical practices of other bloggers and abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

This in my mind is just common sense.  Maybe I am mistaken but I see the blogosphere is another place where people can debate issues, share information, discuss popular topics, and most of all, connect with one another on a global scope.  Of course, in the end, it is up to the individual blogger to decide what, if any of these guidelines he or she follows.

If you are interested in following ethical blogging practices, two good guides are available at cyberjournalist.net and mediabloggers.org.  Best of luck and keep on blogging!

The Medill School of Journalism used to stand on its own without an explanation. It’s one of the most highly regarded journalism programs in the country.  Yet, somehow the dean of the school John Lavine managed to taint this branch of Northwestern, and the Chicago Tribune told us all about it…a couple of times actually.

It all started when he made the grand decision to integrate marketing classes with traditional reporting classes. Now, coming from a public relations professional who graduated with a journalism degree, I know both sides of the coin.  But when you’re gaining a degree from an accelerated journalism program, you shouldn’t be forced to follow an integrated marketing curriculum. Sure, the fields are linked, but for all intents and purposes, when you’re learning journalism, marketing is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Lavine, obviously hearing some backlash on his curriculum choices, wrote a letter in the school’s alumni magazine using unnamed sources who gave blush-producing praise on the new wave of class requirements.  When it all looked a little fishy to a Daily Northwestern columnist, he polled all 29 students in the class that the quote referred to. Every single one of them denied having given the quote.

Can we say convenient? Did he think that as the dean of the school no one would question his ethics? Did he not dwell on the notion that using quotes from students praising an idea that many others denounced might be questioned?

All the pieces fit together a little too well for Lavine to escape heavy scrutiny.  Pressure from more than 15 fellow professors pushed him to reveal his sources. Apparently, he already deleted the emails. And I guess Medill should start teaching its students that journalistic ethics don’t apply to all types of writing because Lavine clearly states that his letter is different from covering a news story — despite the fact that it appeared in a journalistic publication, written for journalists.

As someone who holds a journalism degree, I’m embarrassed that Lavine stands as a representative of the field. I hope he is too.  And by the way, the apology really doesn’t do anything for me — practice what you preach.

ONE MORE THING: Take a look at the quote that ends this Chicago magazine article.

Really John? Is that the method behind your decisions?