I think Strumpette makes some spot-on points about the seaminess of the practice, but really, is it PR's job to establish ethical standards for journalists, bloggers or anyone other than themselves? In other words, if the emerging reality is that there are influential communicators who adhere to lax ethical standards (or who simply don't buy into the rigid standards set by other in another place and time under other circumstances), and that PR can leverage this reality to the benefit of our clients, why shouldn't we?
In reaction to the extremely rigid ethical standards of the mainstream media, PRSA established its own very strict policy governing thing like blogola. From PRSA's Ethic Policy:
A member [of PRSA] shall:
Preserve the free flow of unprejudiced information when giving or receiving gifts by ensuring that gifts are nominal, legal, and infrequent.
Example of Improper Conduct Under this Provision: A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist, to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product.
But this policy was adopted when the mainstream media dominated. I'm old enough to remember the before/after moment when MSM ethics became this strict -- it was an aftershock of the Watergate period. Prior to Watergate, PR showered the media with gifts and prizes. [I experienced this first-hand as the son of a NY-based journalist who came home all the time with free stuff, until it abruptly stopped. And he would be the last to even suggest that it compromised his ethics -- it was just how things were done]. After Watergate, everything got much tighter, and it became improper for MSM journalists to accept anything but the most nominal gift.
So naturally, since the MSM is the constituency the PRSA can least afford to offend, the group adopted guidelines that hewed to the media's norms.
But that was then. This is the new era, when anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can become an influencer and essentially, a member of the media. So it's time for PR to rethink its ethics policies as well.
In the rethinking, a few things are obvious:
- There no point shoving it in the face of the MSM -- we must still align our ethics with theirs when dealing with them
- There's little to be gained by announcing "we've opened the spigot" for journo-bloggers who don't buy in to the MSM's ethics standards
- It's still appropriate for PR to adopt an air of, shall we say, cultured innocence ("what me, try to buy your affections? I would never think of such a thing"). In that sense, MWW's public statement about blogola was spot-on as well
- Establishing standards for journo-bloggers and the PR pros seeking to influence them won't be easy. Check out the reaction to Tim O'Reilly's attempt to suggest a Bloggers Code of Conduct merely for how bloggers treat people (he doesn't get into the question of compromising your integrity by accepting gifts in return for a write-up)
It took the better part of 100 years for the MSM to evolve to its current state of ethical standards. Even allowing for Internet time, it's going to take years if not decades for a set of blogger ethical standards to emerge. PR should definitely be part of the discussion and should develop ethical standards for the industry that reflect the changing reality. But in the meantime, PR doesn't need to feel guilty.
A junior recently said to me that the reason why we have to keep discussing this is because the issues are not black and white. I told him that the reason we need to keep discussing this is because you and others don't understand that it is black and white.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to:
"In other words, if the emerging reality is that there are influential communicators who adhere to lax ethical standards (or who simply don’t buy into the rigid standards set by other in another place and time under other circumstances), and that PR can leverage this reality to the benefit of our clients, why shouldn’t we?"
I've never heard a more hopeless or depressing summation of the Web or PR. It's come to that. Sad actually; True but sad.
- Amanda
These aren't gifts, they're loaners. Hence, no blogola. (Is it being called that for search engine purposes??) Nikon and MWW both have been pretty transparent about the whole process. The nameless one ("A man, duh...") wants more information, but I'm wondering if it's just sad it didn't get a camera?
ReplyDeleteAs a publisher on the front lines of the grassroots journalism movement, I take offense at being told I have lax ethical standards because I took a loaner camera. I'm not reviewing the camera, but it's come in handy in many ways, helping the communities I publish in. From firefighters to police to local politicians and even the local Elks - a lot of people have benefited from me having this camera. And by helping me help my communities, Nikon has done a good thing in my book, something that will be remembered in years to come.
So, people can say I'm this or that, but I'm happy I was selected for the Picture This program. I can maybe see how it would be different if 1) Nikon straight out gave us the cameras, 2) we were expected to write positive things about it in a trade pub, 3) we couldn't tell people Nikon gave us the camera as a loaner... but you know what, NONE of those things happened. We have to return or buy the cameras. We don't have to write anything about it if we don't want to write about it (good or bad.) And we were told that we SHOULD be transparent about where the camera came from.
If "Amanda Winchell" and others want to say what I've done by accepting the loaner camera to help the communities I publish in shows 'lax ethical standards', well, this is the web and they can say what they want (anonymous or not.) In my heart, though, I have no problem with accepting the loaner camera. Saying this is some sort of Payola is totally off the mark if you know what Payola means, where the term came from. This is different. By accepting the camera, I'm reviewing the gesture moreso than the camera - the actions of the corporation, not the product.
""Example of Improper Conduct Under this Provision: A member representing a ski manufacturer gives a pair of expensive racing skis to a sports magazine columnist, to influence the columnist to write favorable articles about the product.""
Even that example doesn't fit. 1) I didn't get a free camera and 2) I don't review cameras for a living!
I really think "Strumpinchell" does stuff like this as an attempt at 'link bait.' (Something you marketers out there should know about...) That's its decision, though. As for me, I'll use my real name and try to be constructive on the web instead of destructive.
K. Paul Mallasch - Publisher
http://www.kpaulmedia.com
KPaul -- When you title a post "Thank You Nikon", you're asking for a reaction like the one you got from Amanda and from me (talk about link bait). If you wanted people to know about all the good works you plan to do with your free-for-now camera, you should have written about it on your blog. PR isn't about bribing people, it's about creating positive images. Don't you think you contributed to that effort (as MWW and Nikon intended) with your "Thank You Nikon" post?
ReplyDeleteThere are other posts on that blog as well. Have you read all of them? That was the post mentioning it the first time. Perhaps I should have been more in depth, but it was my first reaction post.
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on the other things in my comment here? Namely that, 1) it isn't a free camera giveaway, 2) Nikon/MWW asked us to be transparent and 3) they told us it was ok NOT to talk about it. Also the bit about my not being a camera reviewer is important.
Sorry if I came off a little harsh, but I take what I'm doing here in the front lines to save journalism for the people seriously. And when you or someone else questions my 'ethical standards' (by linking to a single initial post of mine on my informal blog chronicling my adventures in grassroots journalism), it kinda gets to me.
I'm not out here making a lot of money, but I really truly believe what I'm doing is helping people in the communities I publish in. If nothing else then to spur Big Media/Old Media into doing more for their communities rather than cutting newsroom staff and worrying about the bottom line.
Nikon let me borrow a high-end camera for 6 or 12 months and I took it so I could better serve the people in this area. And I'm fairly certain what I'm doing with grassroots journalism is one of the main reasons I got the camera loaned to me. (Again, these aren't freebies...)
I've yet to really understand what your beef with the program is. If they were giving cameras away and I was a camera reviewer, I could see it, but as the facts are now, I don't see anything too sketchy about it (they seemed to learn from Microsoft's mistakes last year...) I'm sure as the web continues to evolve, things like this will happen more often and the 'rules' will be a little more defined.
Until then, bravo to Nikon (via MWW) for helping an independent publisher try to save journalism for the people.
-kpaul