China Blogosphere: PR firms are not nice

As the editor of a website that runs Thomas Crampton's videos and, occasionally, writing, I would like to comment.

Firstly, Thomas Crampton just joined Ogilvy. He used to be a journalist and he has worked in new media in an entrepreneurial role. So no one who previously quoted him could be expected to note that he works for a PR company, because until last week, he didn't.

Secondly, Kaiser Kuo no longer works for Ogilvy. When he did, he was routinely described in media reports and blog posts as being connected with that agency.

So I don't think there's much substance to your complaint.

As to the question: Are PR companies evil?

Probably.

But what do you do for a living?

Hi there. While I do happen to be evil myself, having worked tirelessly for the extirpation of all that is holy and righteous in our world in the service of the cloven-hooved prince of darkness and his cruel minions, in fact I was never working directly for Ogilvy PR -- a lost chance, sadly, to advance the cause of inhumanity and injustice. Rather, I worked cross-discipline, for the Ogilvy Group in China, which nominally included advertising, digital/interactive, PR, and activation, and I wasn't ever client-facing, a fact I view as yet another lost chance. See above. Sadly, I was relegated to looking at startup companies in the digital space, many of which -- to my great consternation -- regularly subverted the evil agenda in our masterplan through facilitating communication and individual self-expression, anathema to my diabolical overlord's designs. Having left my position at Ogilvy largely out of despair at not being able to bring on more needless suffering, I trust that new Ogilvy employees like the thoroughly wicked Mr. Crampton may carry on in our sinister Luciferian undertaking, leading souls astray. Hail, Satan!

The truly horrifying thing is that we're all so damn nice in person. You'd never know how evil we are. Hell, you'd introduce us to your sister after a sociable coffee. But turn your back on us and there we go again, eating the children and boiling kittens for soup. We can't help it. Like the scorpion in the parable of the frog and scorpion, it's in our nature.

Will, I have had your kitten soup...it's especially evil tasting. When is Crampton going to show up? // AjS

Crampton is at the annual PR "Apostasy, Blasphemy, and Your Business" retreat in Rangoon. If it's half as fun as last year's in Khartoum, I'm sure he's too busy to be online. Will Moss went a bit far last year with that wounds-of-Christ self-flagellation pantomime, I thought. But I personally thought it was funny.

顶, big ROFL @ Kaiser :D

Thanks for commenting all. I won't put any counter points or whatever. People who read the post can now get both sides so to speak. That's great.

However, Jeremy, there is substance to this post, as much as it's a 'pop-post'. International PR firms like Oglivy are unscrupulous and get most of their business doing spin. The examples I quote are horrendous. BP a green company? Their whole business is to manipulate and they need special care when using as a source of any kind. Not just a name check.

"..firms like Oglivy are unscrupulous.."

Ogilvy!

@Feng37 ..can you please explain how a typo in the name (I peck, don't type)... has any bearing on the company's role or the issues brought up in this post?

@Kaiser

You're obviously an intelligent guy. How did you feel working for that company, knowing what they get up to globally? Did you ever think about it at all?

@Adam

Do you have anything to say on the topic itself? I would love to hear it as you have a wide range of experience on many topics.

What do you feel about PR flak and spin and do you see it in the blogging world?

I don't know if PR companies are evil or not, but Kaiser's comments reminded me that their post-web2.0-social-media jargon is some poisonous shit. From www.ogilvy.com/ogilvyaction:

Focused on helping marketers win in The Last Mile™, OgilvyAction utilizes a discipline-neutral mix of communications services that connects brands with consumers at key moments of truth.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for a new variation of my evilness! At the NY Times and IHT I was attacked for being part of the evil MSM conspiracy.

(I appreciate righteous indignation as much as the next man, but didn't the "evil-doer" meme jump the shark when W left the White House?)

In the interests of your own full disclosure, I am curious about your job. All I could find is "poet, charlatan and plotter".

In any case, it was nice to find your blog thanks to this. We should meet for coffee next time I'm in Shanghai.

Tom

Hi Thomas

Sure, I went to Drama school and have always traveled doing teaching of either English or Drama as well as some creative writing (theatre mainly)and music to supplement that.

Did you see the blog's "about" page?

But how about something on topic?

What do you feel about joining on of the PR Giants? What about their Greenwash of BP? Do you feel you can be a trustable voice working for them? What are some pros and cons?

@Kaiser: You didn't like the Christ self-flagellation thing? Dang. And this year I was going to do Joan of Arc. Was going to bring a whole meaning to the word "flaming drag queen".

@Andy: More seriously, I suspect the reason why no one is mounting a real defense of PR here (aside from the possibility that we're indefensible) is because your post paints such a one-sided caricature of the business that that most of us probably assume a priori that it would be a waste of time.* Perhaps that's unfair. But most of us have heard this kind of thing before and learned the hard way when we can have a reasonable discussion about the business and when we can't. And when we can't, the next best thing is generally to have some fun.

If I'm mistaken, I do apologize. You have my e-mail address in the comment record and I'd be happy to engage you in a substantive discussion on the topics of PR ethics, the role the PR professional in business and media, and exactly what share of the vast galaxy of clients genuine evildoers represent. But, really, no need for either of us to go through the effort if we're just spitting into the wind.

Hi Will

I'm just happy you guys are replying at all. Thanks. How you choose to represent yourselves here is up to you.

Ogilvy PR's main operations are pretty horrendous. The two examples I give are true and clear cut. Not a caricature at all. Surely it must prick one's conscience to work for them in any capacity?

I just noticed recently that a lot of blogs and content in the China English language sphere are run/written by people who work in PR. Without a full client list how can I discern any spin or conflict of interest.

The word for today is 'context.' These non-answer answers to Andy's modest assertion only confirms it.

The question isn't if you've made a living, but how, why, and what are the secondary effects. For starters, let me gamely ask if there's a moral difference between working with mentally retarded adults and smashing harp seals with an iron club for profit? The bonus question is 'What action words should accompany the latter in a press release?'

Too dramatic? For a field whose task is making the outrageous seem calm and unremarkable, a little drama can't hurt.

I'm actually only a former PR company employee, and not nearly one as accomplished of as Messers Imagethief and Kuo above, however, 100% of the work I did, oversaw and even saw/heard about in the almost 2 years I was in the business was about trying to get people - whether consumers or other businesses - to buy services or products. Not one single time was I ever in a meeting or pitch where the discussion was about "How do we cover up for this company?" I'm not denying it happens, but I worked for a large firm at a somewhat senior level, and if we weren't doing it, who was?

While driving consumerism could be evil (with a small e), it's not really the type of large E evil you're hinting at in this post. And to defend Ogilvy PR slightly here, if my friends there work on getting consumers to say, purchase adidas shoes or drink Johnny Walker whiskey, does that really make them accountable for any large E evils you attribute to the company as a whole?

Evil seems a little strong to describe Kaiser or Thomas. They're both very nice guys....Satan's little helpers, maybe. ;)

Hi T ..nice comment.

What do you think about the two examples I gave for Ogilvy PR? Someone was doing them. And their work for homeland security? As for cover ups, both them and Edelmen have 'crisis control' in their services.

@normandy

Global PR's are pretty bad. They are. As for Kaiser Kuo or Thomas Crampton, who just joined as my post points out, I have no idea about their personal levels of involvement.

My point about them is not they they are 'evil' but that if someone works for a PR firm, we then have to take care with any content they produce. For obvious reasons.

@andy EVERY large PR firm has a crisis team. It's a pretty necessary service - which could be used for what people would nominally ascribe as either good or either.

I think its probably best to backtrack and think about the way you're framing the discussion. Rather than discussion of your examples, I think it's probably better to start with good and evil and your characterization of some companies as evil.

That's a difficult assertion to make. Companies are profit and revenue driven, and beholden to stockholders. If there was a way for BP (or Halliburton or whomever) to be profitable by doing good works, you can rest assured they'd be planting trees or helping grandmothers across the street or picking up trash on the weekends.* I would describe companies as amoral, rather than immoral, for the most part.

So what about PR companies? Well, one of the things that PR consultants might do for a nominally bad company like BP is suggest they take up more CSR activities (and here I'm greatly oversimplifying things due to my lack of sophistication in the oil PR industry. I worked in consumer goods). Plant some trees, invest in alternative energy, work to clean up messes left behind. While the motives behind this sort of work are still profit based - does the rational invalidate the work done? Or is it better that at least they did something?

Finally as to your assertation that people need to be somehow careful of Kaiser or even Adam Schokora, I can't ever recall seeing or reading a quote from any of them without mentioning where and in what capacity they are employed.

*however, there are millions of exceptions - melamine, Bhopal, Jardine Matheson trading opium, Halliburton, most weapons companies, you probably have a longer list than me.

And as to the issue with trust, I can only speak for myself, but any sort of personal discussion (like here or elsewhere in the blogosphere) that involved a client of mine, I would be very forthcoming about any conflict of interest or relationship I had with the company in question.

Why? It's not very difficult to figure out - and let's say I was defending Apple products on some blog without disclosing my professional relationship, and somehow it got discovered (say by using a magical tool like Google) - then I'd have no credibility at all. It's much easier to say upfront what your biases are then launch into what ever point you need to make.

Thanks for the detailed replies, T.

Hi Andy,

I think that by focusing on things like Ogilvy's attempt to portray BP as a green company it is a little misguided. As an example as the evil PR machine manipulating the thoughts of the masses, it isn't a very good example - when BP comes to mind to most people, it is still an oil company with whatever (probably negative) connotations that brings.

Also, PR is a diverse industry and that is especially true of Ogilvy in China, which has a range of subsidiaries which I think it is fair to say fall outside the typical PR umbrella.

My main exposure to PR people, both in-house and outsourced, is in my work as a journalist. At their best, PR people are actually quite helpful - they might suggest story ideas, they might be able to arrange access to their clients for interviews which would be unavailable via other means, or they might clarify things that you are working on (journalists often misrepresent things without help). These all might benefit their clients, in the form of publicity - but this is not in itself a bad thing, because none of them necessarily imply misrepresentation.

On the other hand, PR people can feed you jaw droppingly large fibs, point you in the wrong direction, or be deliberately unhelpful. But it is up to journalists, a cynical but generally not stupid bunch, to react accordingly. PR people can also be very annoying - I've written up stuff because people have practically pleaded to have something published. But then again, it's a reciprocal thing - in the future they're more likely to help me out when I want something.

When companies use PR companies to guide their communications with the public directly, without the intermediary of the media, I can't really comment, but I don't think that the few extreme examples you've picked out are probably not representative of the industry as a whole.

Hello Andy,

I think the issue is not the evilness of a worker bee at a PR company, but the evilness of moving product or branding anything as a goal in itself. I s'pose a PR person might work very hard to brand something we all might agree is a big G good. That's fine. They're paid to do that. They're paid to brand or shift the products and ideas that the boss says to brand or shift. The likelihood of such products and ideas being vile is huge. It's not the PR people, per se, it's PR as a discipline. And in my opinion it goes for a lot of otherwise wonderfully kind, generous, charitable worker bees in other fields. Their priorities and goals are all screwy.

I just thought I'd leave a comment here so that I could be in the presence of such influential China online PR personalities.

That's all. I have nothing of value to add to this discussion.

Seriously, I never worked in PR per se during my two-year stint at Ogilvy, and part of the reason I no longer work for them or for any oother marketing communications company is I couldn't make myself give enough of a shit about the mission. While at Ogilvy I only blogged on an "official" blog (http://digitalwatch.ogilvy.com.cn), clearly disclosed as a corporate blog. But my role was never to blow Ogilvy's horn as a digital agency, or to promote the interests of any clients, but rather to write broadly about the digital media landscape in China In fact I had running battles over certain criticisms and implied criticisms I made on that blog of clients. I was a technology journalist for years and years prior to joining Ogilvy.

More to the point, though, people need to put food on the table, and not every compromise with The Man is an epic Fustian pact. There are few multinational companies whose practices are morally or ethically unassailable. You can do more, though, working from the inside than you generally can just railing about evil from the outside. And on Ogilvy's behalf, recall that for every BP the company might represent, there's also a Greenpeace (which is in fact the only client of Ogilvy's I've ever worked directly with, as it happens).

Now that I've actually read the 27 comments to this post. I am a little confused. There is no denial that PR is indeed the work of Satan. And even Greenpeace is evil in that it threatens the livelyhood of honest loggers and fishermen.

What then, in your collective wisdoms, is a commercial pursuit that is not evil so that I might steer my children on the path of righteousness?

@Andy, no, I don't. Or at least nothing that hasn't been said already here or elsewhere. Honestly, I am just here for leftovers of Will's kitten soup. // AjS

@Andy: You write:

"I just noticed recently that a lot of blogs and content in the China English language sphere are run/written by people who work in PR. Without a full client list how can I discern any spin or conflict of interest."

Totally fair question.

For the first part, I suspect many blogs in the China English blogosphere are written by PR people because we like to write, we're interested in China, and we're news junkies. Some are company blogs, many --such as my own-- are not.

As for client lists, there are many situations --most of them completely un-sinister-- in which we cannot disclose client names, so you're not likely to ever get a "full client list" in a blog, company website or anywhere else. So you have to be willing to evaluate the content and decide for yourself how trustworthy a blog or its author might be. I can't speak for others, but what I do to address those issues is threefold: I use my real name; I disclose on every single page that I am a PR pro; and I publish a transparent set of policies that includes the policy that, as mine is a personal blog, I specifically don't write about clients on it.

Of course, I could be lying, but my personal reputation would be at risk if I was.

If the fact that someone works in a PR firm makes them completely untrustworthy in your eyes, so be it. There comes a point in any communication, be it blogging, newspapers, television, or bullshitting with your friends over beers at Blue Frog, where you have to make a decision how much trust you will invest in the relationship. In most cases, many factors will weigh into that and "full disclosure" will rarely be an option. I've worked to earn the trust of my readers --such as they are-- over five years and 1300 posts. I squander it at my peril.

@Andy:

There are PR firms and PR people who do amoral, reprehensible things. There are also PR firms that manage to do good stuff. The former capture headlines. The latter let their clients shine while they hide in the background.

First, the firms that do bad stuff are not exclusively big and global. I've seen some local PR firms do stuff that would make the most morally relativistic Ogilvy person blush, if not spit green vomit.

Second, your suggestion that all PR people - or even all PR people who work at global firms are evil - is like suggesting that all musicians are lazy sex-crazed talent-free communist freaks. As with any craft or profession, PR attracts its share of people who are willing to compromise whatever moral code they may have in return for a paycheck. PR is by no means alone on that score.

Third, while you may not read about them in the paper, there are also those of us who recognize the dangers implicit in the tools, tactics, and techniques we employ. We refuse to work with companies whose businesses or ethics we object to, or we make a determined effort behind closed doors to smack our clients around and get them to change their practices. Many of us have the good fortune to work with clients who are genuinely good companies with great products, but who suck at explaining what makes them different/better.

A note on client lists - I run my own (very small) firm, but as Will notes we, too are constrained from releasing client lists. Disclosure is the best policy.

Keep in mind that the business is not evil. We straddle a very dangerous line, though, and it is incumbent on each of us - and the people who own and run our firms - to see that line and to veer onto the right side of that.

@Andy

Not to belabor the point, but yes, I did read your "about" page and it says nothing about your job. You say: "I get up to all kinds of stuff and I'm currently in Shanghai, China."

Your question of disclosure is an excellent one.

That is why I blogged about my job as soon as it became public (Thanks to Twitter, that happened a week before Ogilvy announced it).

I wanted my readers to know what I am doing. For the most part they congratulated me, so it was refreshing to have your take.

Will my blog change? No. I do not intend to re-focus my blog on clients and their issues. Who wants to read that? Instead, my blog will continue to be a space to write about my passions: New media and Asia.

How do I feel working for Ogilvy? Been great so far, thanks. (People don't smoke or drink liquor as much as in Mad Men.)

In case your interested, I'll put up a blog posting shortly about my lunch at work yesterday.

Thanks everyone again for the good comments.

@Daniel
Yes, and that's a huge issue in the media today. The use of PR companies or 'official releases' as news is part of Herman/Chomsky's Western Propaganda System (from their book Manufacturing Consent. It's inherently biased and rarely declared or contextualized as it should be.

@Adam
That's a pity. You work for Edelman and focus on social media ... and you run a big popular culture blog which is high quality and well read. There a lot of mileage there.

How does a client use blog comments, posts or forums to promote their image or product? Do they put something like 'this was a promotional activity by PR company Y on behalf of company X' after each tweet or something? That would be fairly useless.

@ David
Yes, you do straddle a dangerous line. The very nature of being a PR pro means that your writing cannot be taken as objective or trustworthy at any time. Namechecking your company is not enough as most people haven't got a clue as to the extent of PR work or the identities of the clients.

Without access to client lists it is a matter of taking the writer's word for it. Taking a PR pro's word at face value that they are not promoting or spinning something?

Actually, I'm glad of all the good comments but puzzled as to some of the dismissive attitudes. I'm sure we're all aware that PR Flak and branding is one of the hottest issues in the modern world of mass communication... and the purposeful manipulation of it.

Andy, I don't want to speak on behalf of an entire industry, but I tend to cringe when people, bloggers included, get their basic facts wrong. Since BP has hardly any business presence in Nigeria (it essentially stopped operating there over a decade ago, and its presence was tiny when it did operate in a part far from Ogoniland), and the controversy involving Ken Saro-Wiwa involved Shell, and BP was nowhere in the picture then or now, and these facts are so easy to find out and so widely known, I can only assume that the rest of your comments are also as likely to be incorrect :-) I've known Thomas as an extremely competent journalist. Bloggers' credibility would get enhanced considerably if they start paying greater attention to facts. Good luck!

Salil

@ Salil,

No problem. Thanks for the smear and complete avoidance of the topic at large. We've had an unusually large run of honest comments and it had to end at some stage.

All the links are there for people to follow up and see the connections.

Do you think Thomas can be trusted as much now he works for Ogilvy ..and what's you reasoning for your answer?

Actually, the topic could come away from big 'evil' PR, why not. Perhaps I could run a post listing up all writers, bloggers and sites that have PR affiliations - or branding or ad companies etc - and point out that without full client disclosure they basically cannot be trusted. I think it's where the discussion was heading anyway.

@Thomas

Not to belabor the point, but yes, I did read your "about" page and it says nothing about your job. You say: "I get up to all kinds of stuff and I'm currently in Shanghai, China."

Not to, but you had to :)

I asked you about Oglivy in a bit more detail remember?

What do you feel about joining one of the PR Giants? What about their Greenwash of BP? Do you feel you can be a trustable voice working for them? What are some pros and cons?

I don't think you can answer that in detail, as you work for them ... and that's the point.

I don't know why you think it is a 'huge issue' in the media. I think you're reading sinister undertones into something where there are none.

You don't know why I think it's a huge issue in the media? You have never come across any discussion about PR and 'news' ever? You don't see any inherent conflict in the PR system within media and news sources?

Dan, even within the large media conglomerates and their accepted levels of dissent, it's massive.

For example, have you heard of this book, for a start?

Flat Earth News

I'm just going to have to assume that you have never looked into media issues or theory in any particular depth before. Sorry, mate.

Andy,

Smear? I stated a fact: The company that did business in Nigeria, to which appeals were made to get clemency for Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni Eight who were executed with him, was Shell, not BP. I pointed out that you got that fact wrong. How does that become a smear? So yes, Shell and BP are different companies.

If you are willing to name and shame a company based on information that's incorrect, I can see the reason why companies would want public relations advice, so that they can clarify inaccuracies.

To the extent what I've responded about this issue, what I've said is entirely honest :-)

Do I think Thomas can be trusted because he works for Ogilvy? My short answer is yes, because the last thing Thomas would want is to undermine his own credibility. Why do I say this? As journalists, we've been colleagues having worked for the same organization some years ago, and I've read his journalism over the years - and enjoyed it and learned from it. I expect him to bring the same sort of clarity in public relations.

And I have no "client" connection or "agency" connection, or PR connection. You can search me on the Internet, but I'll make it easy enough: I have written for the WSJ, the IHT, FEER, WaPo, Philadelphia Inquirer, Mint (India), Tehelka (India), Guardian, Independent, New Statesman, Spectator, Index on Censorship, and a few others. Yes, they are from the "right" and the "left" spectrum. And I do write on politics, business, economics, literature. Sadly, I can't disclose companies in which I own stocks, because I don't own any stocks, and never have. What more disclosure do you want?

Flat Earth News, OTOH, is a good critique of British media. But luckily, all media outlets don't follow the British media traditions Nick Davies criticizes.

Salil

@Salil

Actually, I personally feel the Flat Earth News falls way short in it's critique. I mention it as an example for Dan.

If you don't work in PR then you won't have to disclose your clients. That's obvious. I think you confused that second reply (for Dan) as a reply to you.

Here's quote from this page, one of many sources.

There will be four carving seats in hard timber a round the central moving sculpture, two of this seats will carry relief faces and to be painted in colours reflecting the multi-cultural society of London, the fourth seat will carry the emblem of Shell, BP, and Nigeria flag as Nigerian Government owned 51% of Shell-BP in Nigeria. And other oil company involved in Nigeria. The fourth carrying some quotation by Saro Wiwa etched into copper and screwed on to the sit. This also will be painted.

Do you mean that It was Shell in isolation that gave the appeasement gift to the junta when you say I have it wrong? Or are you suggesting that BP have their hands clean in Nigeria? You say hardly any presence ... I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Hi Andy,

Oil was discovered in Oloibiri (sp.?) in Nigeria in 1956, in commercial quantities. Shell had been operating in Nigeria in a joint venture with BP until mid-1960s. Then the Biafran war interevened. In 1979, BP's stake was taken over by the Nigerian Govt in the venture known as Shell-BP. Shell has of course continued to operate in Nigeria, and is today the largest foreign company operating in the country. Other foreign oil companies active in Nigeria include Chevron, Exxon, Total, and Agip (of Italy). Lately, China has got some concessions in Nigeria.

The controversy with the Ogoni people goes back to the protests Saro-Wiwa led since mid-1980s. In 1993 (IIRC) Saro-Wiwa and eight of his colleagues were arrested, on murder charges, which international human rights groups believe to have been trumped up. Saro-Wiwa's target was Shell, whose old pipelines often leaked and destroyed the Ogoni countryside. In that venture, as in other ventures, the majority stake is owned by a company called the Nigeria National Petroleum Corp. Shell's stake varies between 35-49% in these ventures. Often, two or three companies combine and work together, as is the industry's norm.

Saro-Wiwa mainly campaigned on the issues of pollution and the brutality of security forces. Sani Abacha's Govt had him arrested, and he faced these murder allegations. Despite valiant efforts by human rights groups and a few governments, the executions were carried out. Many NGOs, including Amnesty, appealed to Shell to use its influence on Abacha, but Shell said it could not interfere with the political process in Nigeria. Saro-Wiwa was executed in Nov 1995.

Later, Shell executives have said they could have done more.

So if activists - Saro-Wiwa's family included - want to target anyone for having executed Saro-Wiwa, the first target has to be the Nigerian state. If Shell can be accused of anything in this specific story, it is that it did not use its influence to prevent the death penalty from being carried out. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that Shell sought the death penalty against KSW. Nor have I seen any evidence suggesting that Shell assisted in the carrying out of the penalty in any way. Shell has a case to answer for the environmental devastation in the Niger Delta, as well as what it did - or did not do - to prevent security forces from using force at Odi, Odioma, and many other similar instances.

It would be a stretch, to put it mildly, however, to hold BP to account in this particular instance. I'm not saying BP's record is entirely blameless elsewhere in the world; but not in this case.

Salil

Thank you for the excellent comment and clarification, Salil.

...although that's not to say that I agree with all of it.

First, congratulations for attracting so much attention to your blog with a simple "ad hominem" attack, substantified by little more than by a convenient selection of unchecked facts. You are lucky the current state of blogs as media led so many people to allocate time in commenting.

From your comments, you seem to know what is right and what is wrong, good and evil - and to assume that those things are some form of common sense. Though you do not mention it explicitly, your posing as a judge of a whole profession is highly entertaining.

Now I would like to point out a few other things: PR firms speak for their client, and it is not dissimilar to lawyers. If you have seen "To kill a Mockingbird" you surely realize that even though you might have a distrust of lawyers, it is not always the best thing to rely on "common sense" and "public opinion". Can the mob judge?

This might end up adding to your disappointment about the state of media, but the bias, vested interests and downright cover-up operations is not specific to PR, but concerns media (and governments) as a whole. In the following article, the former head of CNN Asia explains the news bias and selection CNN does. CNN serves what people want to eat. Hamburgers? Chocolates? You name it. (http://www.jamco.or.jp/2004_symposium2/en/03/index.html). You seem to like "manufacturing consent", you might enjoy the movie "Network" from 1976 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

This probably won't make you feel any better but might help you wake up to the fact that common sense and broad judgments are not necessarily helpful. You might use this idea in your future posts and endeavors. If by chance you come up with a system that would be in your view a satisfying replacement to media (paid by advertising), PR (paid by brands) and governments (whose main purpose is to remain in power), feel free to share.

@ V

You're welcome! Glad to have annoyed/entertained you. Whoever you are.

That those PR firms are involved in Greenwashing and harmful spin is 100% true. That news and media are overrun with PR and marketing of one form or another is also a fact.

PR is one wing of it, concentrated corporate ownership is another part, advertising is another and ideology. PR kind of breaks into 'flak' and sourcing.

You say:

Now I would like to point out a few other things: PR firms speak for their client, and it is not dissimilar to lawyers. If you have seen "To kill a Mockingbird" you surely realize that even though you might have a distrust of lawyers, it is not always the best thing to rely on "common sense" and "public opinion". Can the mob judge?

What is it that you're pointing out here? People shouldn't express their opinions? The proles can't trusted to rule themselves? Could you explain more. I don't quite understand. Just imagine I'm completely stupid and that I have never seen that movie. Just say out what you are thinking directly.

Please note that I do not disagree with the negative aspects of PR (to which I added media and governments) that you highlighted. I am simply saying that you only look at the negative part, which is something one can easily do with anything. Electricity powers the electric chair too. To clarify what I meant with the movie example (which I highly recommend you as it inspired generations of lawyers to get into the trade for the greater good): cannot you find instances where PR firms (+ media, governments) play a useful role? Why not asking their evil executives how they see this aspect?

Your condemnation of spinning BP into a green company is - unless you ride only bicycles - amusingly hypocritical. To quote a popular prophet "All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!. Oversimplifying issues and framing conversations is a common and effective dialectical tactic but is not a great foundation for reaching any form of truth.

Last, you ask if I meant that "People shouldn't express their opinions? The proles can't trusted to rule themselves?". For the first, though I am a supporter of free speech (and enjoy the benefits of temporary anonymity) I am surely not convinced that every opinion is a thoughtful one: opinions share this with the digestive system that everybody has one. Collecting more opinions lead to a better view on issues, but the opinion of the majority is far from being a guarantee of the best result. It is a sad shortcoming of democracy that people vote generally for their selfish short-term interest rather than the greater good. Of course there is no guarantee that a dictatorship would achieve a better result - unless it is an 18th-century-style "enlightened one".

Again, I am eager to hear what innovative system you might have in mind as an alternative to PR firms spin and media bias. Maybe this would provide employment opportunities to ethical professionals trapped into evil PR and media companies.

@V

I'm sorry, your latest post is completely ridiculous.

A person can't talk about the huge negative aspects of the PR industry without being able to suggest an entire alternative system? You can't be concerned about the environment if you own a car? It's the same fallacy as the more common variation 'you can't talk about poverty if you're not poor'.

I have made the point that PR greenwashing is bad and to be condemned. I have made the point that the media is awash with PR material (spin)and that there is not enough disclosure.

If you want to debate that then come out with opposing points. It's up to you to inform me of the 'positive' aspects.

Also, don't stop ..tell me more about 'enlightened dictatorships'.

"I have made the point that PR greenwashing is bad and to be condemned."

"I have made the point that the media is awash with PR material (spin)and that there is not enough disclosure."

This is agreed on (how could anyone disagree with such statements?) and I think this could have constituted the entirety of your initial blog post.
Unfortunately, you conveniently point only half of your initial statement - which in the above form would not have gotten a glimpse of the attention it generated. The reasons you got attention are:

(1) "exactly what an international corporate and governmental PR firm actually does? Two helpful words: spin, evil."

This statement sounds like this is the main trade of PR firms. Basically, you condemned (as I mentioned in my previous comment) an entire industry by conveniently keeping silent any socially beneficial use they might have. How about when a company is unjustly attacked, or victim or rumors? How about "doubt"? (here is another interesting movie for you). Yourself count on readers to correct your poor fact checking (a trendy "web 2.0" attitude) and drop names of companies linking them with a variety of wrongdoings, jeopardizing their reputation as well as those of all the people working there due to your poor fact checking and attention craving. Have you found out if Pfizer was the one after you re-attributed the arms issue from BP to Edelmen? All this lightheartedly with your conscience clean of doing the right thing.

(2) "These people are not grassroots sources or trustable experts - they work in international PR and what's worse - their focus is how to manipulate social media."
What a nice personal attack. You are surely aware of the extremely negative connotations of "manipulate". Such conversation framing is utterly manipulative in itself - and constitutes an unfounded ad hominem attack (you don't provide any evidence aside from a lightweight "conspiracy theory").

----

So to summarize:
- your fundamental idea is common sense (spin is bad and disclosure is good)
- the attention comes from broad condemnation and personal attacks

In fine, the most entertaining in your post is at the end:
"Same issue of trust, be it 'crisis control' or Greenwashing... or trying to sell us stuff.".

Would you be against consumerism? That might be one way to go: no purchase means no sale, means no money for ads nor PR, thus no evil?
One country successfully implemented this but it is unclear whether it could be qualified a success. It is the DPRK.

Hello again 'V'.

Come on, who are you? Everyone else here uses their real name.

As to your points:

1) Yes, it is the main trade of global PR firms. If you go to the websites of those companies and see their sample projects, you can see for yourself. Now: come on, what are the social benefits you talk of, the ones that outweigh the damage they do?

2) Yes, people who work in PR are a special case in need of extra disclosure, it is their business to spin. Come on , where's your counter point?

As for the rest of your reply. Attention craving? What's that got to do with anything? The DPRK? Are you serious? That's the worst kind of illogical diversion tactic 'the hard choice'. Do you really believe that anyone criticizing spin and consumerism therefor wants a Stalinist dictatorship?

You have yet to make your own points that oppose mine. All you are doing is repeating a series of personal attacks and odd diversions. You have highlighted the two points well - so where's your reply to them?

Come on, who are you? Everyone else here uses their real name.
V: "So what?" - would you agree that free speech can sometimes go hand in hand with anonymity?

1) Yes, it is the main trade of global PR firms. If you go to the websites of those companies and see their sample projects, you can see for yourself. Now: come on, what are the social benefits you talk of, the ones that outweigh the damage they do?

V: I am not in the PR trade and feel no need to speak for them. If some PR execs wish to stand up and talk about the benefits, the mike is on. You keep calling all PR activities "spin", which is another effective way to frame the conversation and a manipulative in itself. Consider for a minute your own favorite activities and think about how somebody who do not like them could label them under an unpleasant broad term.

2) Yes, people who work in PR are a special case in need of extra disclosure, it is their business to spin. Come on , where's your counter point?

V: I did not disagree with this point. Hence, no counterpoint.

As for the rest of your reply. Attention craving? What's that got to do with anything?

V: Conscious or not, it has everything to do with your initial post that could have limited itself to the two lines of the key commonplace ideas.

The DPRK? Are you serious? That's the worst kind of illogical diversion tactic 'the hard choice'.

V: I do not promote DPRK's system. It is the only country-sized one I know of almost totally absent of consumerism, ads and PR.

Do you really believe that anyone criticizing spin and consumerism therefor wants a Stalinist dictatorship?

V: See above. Of course I never stated anything like this. If you read my previous post, you will see that I do not say that you supported this idea either.

You have yet to make your own points that oppose mine. All you are doing is repeating a series of personal attacks and odd diversions. You have highlighted the two points well - so where's your reply to them?

V:
1. If they are inclined to, PR firms ("Spin firms"?) will speak for themselves, which might or might not happen on this blog. Unfortunately, the tone of your first post lead them to laugh at your possible though awkward attempt at having a conversation rather than name calling. I picked the discussion where they left it.
2. I hope your efforts promoting disclosure will bear fruits.
3. By choosing to attack publicly PR firms, my impression is still that you are missing the forest for the trees or "shooting the messenger". If you truly care, pick your fight and go for it.
4. Now, I also hope you will improve fact checking, have a stronger conscience that you bear responsibility when calling names companies (which in addition to immaterial brands have people in them) and individuals, and that you will try and see a broader and more nuanced picture than easy condemnations. Companies are the product of their time, the legal system and the economic interests that allow them to exist. You might not like the idea, but using oil even in indirect ways turn you (and me) into supporters of the oil business - good or bad. All the rest is chit-chat.

OK ..to summarize

You don't have any specific reply to the points and don't have any defense of global PR.

You just take umbrage with the way I brought it up. Like it's 'bad form'.

Fine.

But really, anytime you want to explain the 'social' benefits of global PR companies that you mentioned, i'm open to listen. I'm also interested in hearing more about your thoughts on 'enlightened dictators'that you also mentioned.

You don't have any specific reply to the points and don't have any defense of global PR.

V: Sadly, you seem to still be promoting the idea that PR is ONLY spin. PR is public relation, it is the voice from organizations to anyone outside the organization. You surely understand the need for such work, whether inside or outside any organization. The couple of instances of cover-up and actual "spin" you mention are drops in the water of this larger role. Wikipedia defines spin as "an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure". In other words, it is "interpretation and persuasion". It can be positive or negative, for good or evil. That PR firms have a mixed bag of business is, anytime and even more so in current economic times, quite understandable. Some might want to differentiate by serving only clients doing what is perceived to be public good (or "no evil" at least). What is good or bad changes with the time and people. It's in the eye of the beholder and history. You condemning PR firms is like saying "nobody should try to interpret actions and facts, or persuade in any manner". Such situation would need the entire world population to achieve some form of enlightenment - we are still far from it.

You just take umbrage with the way I brought it up. Like it's 'bad form'.

V: it is surely bad form, but as I wrote above, the issue is more fundamental of you posing as judge and happily stereotyping an industry that is essentially a tool that other organizations use (hence the "tree for the forest" and "messenger"). Is a tool evil?

But really, anytime you want to explain the 'social' benefits of global PR companies that you mentioned, i'm open to listen. I'm also interested in hearing more about your thoughts on 'enlightened dictators'that you also mentioned.

V: See above. PR firms convey all sorts of messages. What to do with those messages relies on your own judgment. The Dalai Lama has PR (though not via a global firm) but is seen as evil in China. Could over billion Chinese people be wrong in calling this "spin"? How can any foreign romantic who spent all his life 10,000 miles away be sure to know better? To clarify: I am not stating any personal preference on this topic, just showing that good and evil are in the eye of the beholder.

I hope this example underlines not only the need for PR ("public relations"), but also the difficulty to rely on a democratic vote to define good or evil. Until people are aware of the numerous facets of complex issues, only government that do not have to rely on short-term crowd pleasing can have the ability to pursue long-term goals for the greater good. Unfortunately, this would assume those governments (1) know better (2) pursue this greater good. I would love to quote examples but do not see any outside of mythology and romanticized Greek history.

Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I'v just started to learn this language ;)
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo