Musings & Meanderings

The Walmart blog saga over the past couple of weeks leaves me bemused.

The general cry of betrayal over the blog itself is hard to understand. That goes for other fake ‘reality’ plays as well. Among the distinctions I observe made by those offended are 1) that there is some sort of inherent promise conveyed by the the phrase ‘reality television/video’ or the word blog which requires a standard of brutal honesty not found in any other form of entertainment, communication, or day to day life, and 2) that any fictionalization is a deliberate con job.

To some extent the phenomenon of blogging itself has fanned the fire of these sentiments. Before blogs, people who communicated publicly on the web, using their real names rather than pseudonyms, were mostly all selling something. This included those selling goods and services as well as those selling the brand of themselves, through dispensing free advice or to attain fame and notoriety, as examples. When you’re selling, you present your story. Is it a true story? Usually? Sort of? You’re going to tell the best story you can and leave out things that don’t improve your prospects, no different than you do on a first date or in a job interview. We take each story offered publicly with however many grains of salt we choose.

Why is blogging so different? Do we really believe that no one is ever telling any fictions on their blog? That everything written is some sort of soul-baring absolute truth? Since when is entertainment only acceptable when put on by private citizens at personal risk and for no material gain?

‘Real’ people in media is hardly a new phenomenon, either. They’ve been going on quiz, game, and talk shows since the 50s. Most of us develop a personal way of viewing the daily examples of this, a way of deciding how much to believe. We understand easily enough that real people in media are there to get something out of it, whether just their 10 minutes of fame or including material rewards as well. The requirement that participants meet some standard is usually the best of this genre.

Fake ‘real’ people aren’t exactly new either. When you watch an infomercial with people just like you telling how company A or product Z changed their life does it never occur that they might be paid actors?

I keep getting the strong impression that the Walmart blog is viewed as fraudulent, but since no one has actually been defrauded, the strongest words being flung at it are sleazy and unethical.

This sentiment is mostly being expressed in the blogosphere - I doubt that most Walmart haters or shoppers, many of whom aren’t even aware of what blogging is, have much interest in yet another corporate marketing ploy which is just a simple piece of theater.

Thanks to media, we are finally living in a world and time where good personal theater can offer attention and rewards to anyone and everyone. We know that we have to learn to discern constantly whether what we hear and see from others is real.

In blogging we have individual voices with an opportunity to be heard widely for the first time. That is important and valuable. Expecting that this medium, as it grows and evolves, won’t be largely usurped by money driven individuals and companies is naive. Those of us who value this platform as a personally enabling one, and who wish to protect that value, will not be able to do so by fighting the big money interests over the turf. They’re on their way in and no individual or group is going to stop that, either by banding together in protest or by crying over the corruption of this world that so many have invested so much of themselves into building. The only answer for those who care about this, I believe, is to focus on change and evolution, to evolve new versions and layers of this world ten steps ahead of the money. Remember that money doesn’t lead or innovate, it only follows.

I do recognize and value that there are core groups of bloggers who abide by ethical and moral standards in anything they publish, including journalists and a few business leaders. The defining factors of different types of personal gain that motivate blogging will continue coming into sharper focus as the medium grows and changes. This just is.

As for the Edelman role in this mini saga, I am equally bemused, not by their actions but by the general response to them. Reading Rick Edelman’s and Steve Rubel’s blogs gave me a very clear and immediate image of who these men are. I grew up in business with men like Richard Edelman, and met plenty of charming consultants such as Steve along the way as well. Edelman is a public relations firm. This means that their entire business is composed of numerous, and often elusive, hidden agendas. That’s how they make their money. They are agents, hired guns.

Here’s the letter post I’d wish I could write if I were in their place:

Dear Fellow Bloggers,

Our business is spin. We are masters at it and aim to be the best in the business. Theoretically, we could vow to accept only truths for spinning and decline to spin lies, but the reality is that truth isn’t black and white, and spin is manipulation. The actual lines we can and do draw are based on fraudulent or otherwise criminal actions, not on shades of illusion. More importantly, it is the nature of our business that our clients are forever bringing us ugly, unpleasant and messy situations which we are then expected to make pretty. That is much of what we do. It would be wonderful if shiny brand spanking new clients consulted us from day one about how everything they decide to do is going to look, but they don’t. Even better, if we could direct the day to day thoughts and actions of every one of their (and our) employees, then everyone Edelman would always smell like roses. In our dreams.

As bloggers participating in conversations about marketing and pr, we freely share our knowledge and expertise. We do not and can not discuss our clients or their business, and this is the normal way of things. Transparency in this business is a fairy tale. We believe in working towards higher industry standards of ethical behavior and practice. Our efforts in this regard start with communicating best pr practices to every one of our clients, but ultimately their business decisions and behavior are not in our power to change. We’ve had the courage to join the conversation here and believe that we’ve made a valuable contribution. Doing so benefits us and our clients, but it also benefits the community as a whole.

Sure, there’s an inside story to the Walmart blog. It’s not going to be told. There are thousands of stories, magnificent as well as tawdry ones, that will never be told. If you want to be privy to such stories, then get to work, get successful, and start living them, from the mundane to the brilliant to the hair-raising.

We’re good at what we do. We care about what we do. Let’s get on with it.

Disclosure Does Not Eliminate Conflict

Disclosure is a ‘remedy’ for conflict. The word remedy here is used in the legal sense. Making full disclosure is nothing more than revealing the involvements and relationships where the agent has legal and moral obligations. It reveals that the agent has potential conflicts, and it further connotes that they have hidden agendas. Disclosure puts you on notice of this, and requires you to evaluate how much risk you might be incurring in dealing with them, an evaluation that can frequently rest on the simple question of how much you trust them personally, since their disclosure cannot include any material facts. It effectively puts the onus on you to observe caveat emptor in dealing with them on related matters, and usually mitigates or removes potential legal liability that the conflict may result in for them.

Making disclosure may seem like a simple and clear business practice, but it usually isn’t. The professions that deal with it daily include advertising agencies and real estate brokers. They serve clients who operate in the same industries, and the legal concept of agency carries more onerous duties and obligations than, for example, the simple ‘duty of care’ required in law by an officer of a company. It is not uncommon for an agent to disclose relationships to each of two clients in related businesses, and subsequently have to withdraw from one of them.

One of the ways in which professionals who deal with conflict regularly attempt to address it is through erecting what are known as Chinese Walls, imaginary (and movable) barriers between members of their organization who work with competing clients. This mechanism, originating in the legal profession, is only as effective as the ethics of the person practicing it.

A lawyer’s fiduciary duty carries an even stricter standard of obligations than an agent’s duty, and their policies and practices regarding conflict will be much stricter and more clearly delineated. Any large enough organization usually does have the ability to separate individuals working on competing accounts completely, but there will usually be (and needs to be) one or more senior partners who have a clear overview of conflicting account activity.

Although these concepts are formal and legally defined for any business area where the ever present and real risk factors translate into large sums of money, (or highly personal such as medical information) they can be as easily applied to any service business at all. Their importance is directly related to the sensitivity of the information involved. For example, you might rely on your hairdresser not to reveal the touch ups he or she performs for you on thinning or graying spots, but wouldn’t think twice about your mechanic discussing the replacement of brake lines on your car.

Transparency

I find the attempt to apply this concept to any agency practice, or any multiple relationships requiring confidentiality for that matter, impractical. It limits itself to nothing more than basic ethical standards and codes of conduct. Being someone’s agent means being privy to confidential information about them, their practices, and their plans. It means constantly increasing one’s knowledge base about them and their business …on their dime. This is where some of the greyest areas are.

If an agent is paid by X to develop intelligence and derivative approaches about and for their business, then he/she will be better informed and wiser about these business areas in general. In practice they may share this knowledge freely in a variety of circumstances, providing they do not disclose any specific client information. Sharing wisdom and experience with one’s peers can advance the status of the profession as a whole. Displaying it to prospective new clients is a natural process in continuing to grow one’s business.

Exactly what is shared, and how and when, though, are such situation specific questions that it is usually impossible to construct detailed guidelines of conduct for them. In practice, this area is based more each individual’s personal judgment calls than on any written or formal guidelines. Every agency relationship is a personal one, and we are well advised to consider every professional who acts as an agent based on everything we know and learn about them personally. If that individual is not the final decision maker, then we should understand that we are also deciding to specifically and personally trust the person with final authority, as well as any others in any chain between them.

Transparency for a service where an agency relationship is created applies, at most, to a clear statement of business practices with a commitment to follow them, any practices which are identical for all prospective clients, and might also include some delineation of the parameters of ‘custom’ practices. Beyond that, for any ethical agent, lies the general knowledge area better described as Opaque, and past this the full scope of their business activities, which is carefully guarded by complete Privacy.