By now you've probably heard about the otherwise wonderful Rachel Maddow's rant about PR and specifically, about industry giant Burson-Marsteller, regarding B-M's representation of AIG, the big insurance company that has gotten tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout cash.
Maddow let her inner media whiner out and went on a classic anti-PR rant about Burson, saying that AIG shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to spiff up its image, and simplifying (or dumbing down) a segment of Burson's client roster to a who's who of evil-doers (the manufacturer of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, for example) -- the latest of which, by extension, is AIG.
Now my perspective is that this kind of criticism is to be expected in our industry and tolerated to some degree. We are the industry of spin, we are relatively easy to understand (and hence criticize), and we make so many gaffes that we are easy targets. But we're not alone. How would you like to be a "trial lawyer" or a "tax collector" or a "meter maid"? See my point? They get ribbed all the time too, but you don't see them and their industry associations crying about it.
So my question is not whether we are fair game (we are), but is AIG's decision to hire PR help a good move or a bad one? Should AIG be spending any taxpayer money on outside PR counsel, or should it acknowledge that spending money on outside PR help is counter-productive because it generates the negative coverage that AIG is, presumably, trying to avoid?
شركة تسليك بالاحساء
ReplyDelete