Not sanctioning Edelman for violating WOMMA's Code of Ethics -- especially after Richard Edelman bragged that they helped write them -- damages WOMMA's credibility.

And the vapid comment I read earlier today by Dave Balter didn't help either.

WOMMA has to prove that its Code of Ethics has some teeth or it'll just be hot air.

Edelman's excuses sound more and more lame by the minute. Three junior execs are responsible. Yeah right. They won't do it any more. Who cares?

Posted by B.L. Ochman on 10/20/06 | Link

Hi all --

Rick Murray from Edelman here.

I'd like you all to know that we're listening to this conversation - not simply because we're curious what you all think about the events of the past week, but because we hope you might have some ideas as to how we can, through this issue, make our collective practice better.

I look forward to reading, and thinking about, what you all have to say.

Cheers,

Rick

Posted by Rick Murray on 10/20/06 | Link

As long as Edelman only names authors of its fakeblogs - three young pals getting all the negative attention right now from blogs to cnn.com - and not those who are responsible for the blogs and decided to put them up, this conversation might need some analysis of what really happened.

Edelman is still violating the principle "Honesty of Identity: You never obscure your identity". Does anyone believe a newbie like Kate Marshall actually runs paidcontent.com? Is this honest: "Kate Marshall works for Edelman. One of her clients is Working Families for Wal-Mart." - this is all we get to know. Does every reader know what Edelman is? Why don�t they write: "The author works for PR Firm Edelman (Link) as an account exec for Wal-Mart. Paidcritics is a project of WFWM in charge of Edelman. Edelman Anything Mike/Steve/Richard/Cornela (email) is project supervisor." It's not a matter of a shortcoming of printing ink, isn't it?

Posted by Don Alphonso on 10/20/06 | Link

You guys are saying and doing all the right things Rick. I'm just not sure it'll be that easy to let this slide.

Right now, you could use a pledge... try what I came up with.

http://www.blogkits.com/bloghonor

Posted by Jim Kukral on 10/20/06 | Link

Clearly what's needed is not to focus on censuring Edelman, though I obviously have concerns about what happened, how they disclosed their role, and the surprisingly quick acceptance of their apology by the blog cognoscenti.

What I suggest we do, and what Rick @ Edelman and I have already briefly discussed, is to create a Blog Disclosure Best Practice or recommendation, have some sort of "ethical blogger" seal for people who subscribe to the disclosure best practice, and then start requiring that all WOMMA members and everyone else in the space who wants to be respected begin using and following its guides.

I know that I would be very interested in participating in the creating of a fair and transparent guideline in this area.

Posted by Dave Taylor on 10/21/06 | Link

An open letter to Edelman:

"Don't lie."

Any "lessons learned" from this experience SHOULD have been learned at your mothers' knee.

This has very little to do with "the new era of social media." It is about LYING. Oh - and "cynical manipulation" and "hypocrisy."

Thanks for listening.

Posted by Todd Defren on 10/21/06 | Link

Attributing flog articles to individuals or PR companies isn't transparent to the consumer. And Jim's meaningingful Honor statement is too long-winded.

Why not be completely honest and simply add a "Paid for by Walmart" graphic to every webpage?

Rick: your company's errors and omissions have tarnished your reputation and arguably the fundamental purpose of WOMMA.

What form of censure or penalty do *you* think would be appropriate to 'encourage' others to take seriously WOMMA's stated ethical commitments?

And if you're caught backsliding a second time?

Posted by ceedee on 10/21/06 | Link

I've read and re-read Richard Edelman's post several times this week. Though it looked like an apology the first few times I read it, I still don't see words that say anyone is sorry for having done anything.

Acknowledging that an error was made is not the same thing as saying that the agency regrets the error, or apologizes for its actions.

Posted by Eric Eggertson on 10/21/06 | Link

ceedee

Whoever you are

I have already shared a recommendation as to next steps with Ed Keller, and I expect that he and the rest of WOMMA's Board will be reviewing it when they meet on this subject on Monday. Stay tuned.

As to future offenses, I can quite sincerely say that we hope there are none. Contrary to what you've seen over the past two weeks, that's not how we built our business, and it's not how we work.

RWM

Posted by Rick Murray on 10/21/06 | Link

Richard Edelman states:
"We are establishing a 24/7 hotline so our me2revolution team can review, provide counsel and apply best practice guidelines on social media programs before their implementation. This ensures that programs adhere to the WOMMA guidelines or best-in-class standards around the world."

I have two questions for Richard Edelman, both of which have been submitted for review as comments on the Richard Edelamn's blog.

-Can we be assured that Edelman is applying the aforementioned best practice guidelines to your programs that do not fall within 'social media'?

-Shouldn't 100% disclosure include revising the Working Families for Wal-Mart 'About' page to reflect the most updated info. on the bloggers?
"Working Families for Wal-Mart is a group of leaders from a variety of backgrounds and communities all across America. Working Families for Wal-Mart are customers, business leaders, activists, civic leaders, educators and many others with first-hand knowledge of Wal-Mart�s positive contributions to communities."

Posted by Colin Bohanna on 10/21/06 | Link

Murray,

This was posted in part on your boss's blog. Listening?! Your riding this thing hoping the heat dies down. It�s just more spin and no substance.

Want to know what to do? Here again:

- suspend ALL blog related activity until you can ensure that best practices have been fully and publicly vetted.

- hire an independent investigator and/or audit firm to vet this event in total and publicly.

- fire those responsible no matter how high up that goes.

As I told Richard, excuse me but these things are NOT going to happen. If you were for real, they would. You�re not.

- Amanda Chapel

Posted by Amanda Chapel on 10/21/06 | Link

Andy -

What happened to the task force that you put together a few months ago to develop a code of ethics for bloggers and for companies that were interfacing with bloggers? If I recall we had one conference call and no follow-up. This might be the right time to resurrect that initiative.

I agree with B.L. If WOMMA is to be more than a 'feel good organization' it will have to step up to the plate and take a stand on the hard issues and that includes when one of its friends throws a ball thru a glass window. An assumption that Edelman is at the Governing Member level. If so it sure does appears as though a Governing Member, who pays a $10k membership fee, might account for WOMMA's stance on the issue. Be careful of appearances WOMMA.

The Statement that WOMMA issue was so PC that it almost didn't matter. The professionals in this emerging industry were looking to WOMMA for strong leadership. WOMMA lost a great opportunity to reinforce its positioning. The wording "of grave concern" did not quite make it.

"Such transgressions, particularly by a member, are of grave concern to WOMMA, which has led the fight for high ethical standards in word of mouth marketing and social media. Our Ethics Code sets clear guidelines for disclosure by marketers."

Ever the optimist, I have no doubt that working together we can continue to position social media strategies as credible marketing tools.

Rick is it possible for Edelman to share its new training program? Doing so would be a tangible, good faith gesture that might help other companies.

Posted by Toby on 10/21/06 | Link

So Edelman want some idea of what action to take - how about these ideas ?

a) Using their PR muscle to get a public apology into the press, apologising for using deceptive practices and not having the management oversight to prevent staff from breaking guidelines the corporately stand by.

b) firing the managers involved (not the poor juniors who I expect were simply doing what they were told). After all they would be fired for ignoring other moral guidelines (discrimination, harassment etc)

c) Donating the portion of their fees related to the blogging part of the campaign to a charity (nominated by WOMMA?)

Finally, I do think that WOMMA should suspend Edelman for a year to show that it wont tolerate these breaches.

Posted by Ian McKee on 10/22/06 | Link

Toby --

There are two related WOMMA projects that will go public this week. We've actually been working on them for a few months.

* Blogger Relations Code: A proposed set of guidelines for marketers to follow when working with bloggers.

* Ethics Assessment Tool: A set of questions for marketers to ask before implementing any word of mouth program. Designed to identify any unethical practices before they are implemented.

Stay tuned, we'll be making an announcement this week.

Andy

Posted by Andy Sernovitz on 10/22/06 | Link

Amanda -

Considering that you are widely known as a blogger working under a fake identity, I'm not sure you have grounds to weigh in on this issue.

Andy

Posted by Andy Sernovitz on 10/22/06 | Link

Andy,

Here, let me help you make a distinction: there are good lies and bad lies. For the record, lies make the world go around. Without lies and a dozen roses, you'd never have been born. The distinction is that some lies raise the bar while other are only there to pick your pocket.

Edelman was caught picking the blogosphere's pocket. The counsel I provided above stands on its own and raises the bar in this discussion.

Regards,

- Amanda

Posted by Amanda Chapel on 10/22/06 | Link

Amanda --

That nicely sums up the challenge that faces us all. What are the boundaries, where are the lines, and how do we educate everyone?

Open debate raises the bar, so let's all keep talking.

Andy

Posted by Andy Sernovitz on 10/22/06 | Link

Andy: What's needed here isn't new ethics codes. It's teeth in the one WOMMA already has.

Edelmnan violated the WOMMA Code of Ethics. If there is no sanction of a member who violates the code of ethics, then WOMMA is nothing but a bunch of hot air.

It's unethical to have an ethics code that isn't followed.

And Mr Amanda: "there are good lies and bad lies." sounds like you'd fit right in at Edelman.

Posted by B.L. Ochman on 10/22/06 | Link

Andy,

The introduction of “Blogger Relations Code” and the “Ethics Assessment Tool” are both encouraging developments to hear.

However, as Toby and others have stated while guidelines, certification, and seals of approval are needed, consequences of violating the WOMMA ethics are needed as well.

I understand that there would be tremendous difficulty in addressing this, if we were to proceed: Who would be the jury? Who would judge? What would the consequences be? What about the appeal process, if any?

If WOMMA members lack the political will to create a more strict system of rewards/punishment on following WOMMA ethics, let’s place forward a more comprehensive guideline on actions a WOMMA member should do in good conscious if they feel they have violated the WOMMA ethics and guidelines, including public apologies (and how?), charity donation (a self-imposed financial penalty) and even self-suspension as a member for a period of time.

Perhaps even use a tiered system depending on the violation, where the marketer has to publicly choose how unethical their conduct was and stick to the prescribed concequences as given in the guidelines.

It is imperative,however, that among the tiered levels of possible violations, rules on the highest ethical violation must contain a mechanism where WOMMA can choose to *unilaterally* remove that marketer from WOMMA. If there is no ultimate threat of banishment than WOMMA means thing.

Andy and everyone else at WOMMA, I really hope we see some major changes due to this incident. While this has damaged Edelman’s reputation, what is also at stake is WOMMA (thus the industry, too) and how it acts.

- Daniel

Posted by Daniel R on 10/23/06 | Link

Speaking on behalf of a WOMMA member marketing agency working in the blogosphere, the way I see it is we're all working in a new space, and mistakes are bound to happen as we push traditional marketing boundaries.

Edelman has made a mistake, and Edelman has apologised. WOMMA took a strong stand on the case. It's been a learning opportunity for everyone in the industry.

WOMMA doesn't have a disiplinary body, nor do I believe we should invest resources in one. WOMMA's role is not to ostracize transgressors of our industry's standards but rather to educate our members and the industry at large on how to do things the right way.

Let's focus on education and moving forward on the projects Andy mentions, to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

Posted by Patrick Thoburn on 10/23/06 | Link

This is the first time I have visited this site.

I have been following the story.

This is taken from the WOMMA code of conduct-it seems pretty clear to me.

Honesty of Identity
Clear disclosure of identity is vital to establishing trust and credibility. We do not blur identification in a manner that might confuse or mislead consumers as to the true identity of the individual with whom they are communicating, or instruct or imply that others should do so.

Campaign organizers should monitor and enforce disclosure of identity. Manner of disclosure can be flexible, based on the context of the communication. Explicit disclosure is not required for an obviously fictional character, but would be required for an artificial identity or corporate representative that could be mistaken for an average consumer.

We comply with FTC regulations regarding identity in endorsements that state: "Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented, directly or by implication, to be "actual consumers'' should utilize actual consumers, in both the audio and video or clearly and conspicuously disclose that the persons in such advertisements are not actual consumers of the advertised product."
Campaign organizers will disclose their involvement in a campaign when asked by consumers or the media. We will provide contact information upon request.

Posted by michael b. on 10/23/06 | Link

Andy - thanks for the update on the WOMMA initiatives. Agree, lets move on but let's not move on without embracing lessons learned.

WOMMA might be interested in the Code of Ethics developed by AAPOR - http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/AAPOR_Code_2005.pdf
A major difference between AAPOR's code and WOMMA's is members are expected to take action if a company goes against the code. "We further pledge ourselves to reject all tasks or assignments that would require activities inconsistent with this code."

Posted by Toby on 10/23/06 | Link

I'm going to skip right over the
"why this was wrong" part of this debate -- plenty of other folks are pointing out the obvious, that lying about who you are violates every PR ethic we're all taught. My question is, Why was this necessary? We all know that Wal-Mart gets a lot of negative press for pushing out the mom-and-pop stories in small communities. What Wal-Mart doesn't get credit for -- and what I would have assumed Edelman would spend its time trying to push -- is all the contributions, both in monetary and human resources, Wal-Mart makes to society. I work for a children's hospital foundations; where I live, Wal-Mart and SAM'S Club associates have raised more than $1 million over each of the last three years for the state's primary children's hospital. These are people who are sitting in rocking chairs for hours on end, on their own time, asking for donations as customers walk in the door. They are holding bake sales and staffing booths at community festivals, on their own time. So my question to Edelman, as the role-model PR firm in this country, is this: What did you think this flog would accomplish that tried-and-true PR tactics would not have? How did you decide that the risk to your reputation was worth it?

Posted by Cindy Dashnaw on 10/23/06 | Link

For Edelman:

1. Directly fund a governing board for WOMMA, and honor its decision in regards to your transgressions and violations to WOMMA's Code of Ethics. Any time there is a Code of Ethics, or as Dave Taylor suggested Blog Disclosure Best Practice, there needs to be enforcement. Without consequence there are no boundaries for those who wish to lie and manipulate.

2. Your business can only grow as fast as your systems can handle it. You overlooked this fact and put your reputation at risk. Put Steve Rubel at the head of overseeing all social media campaigns, as obviously Richard is not a "buck stops here" kind of leader in this space.

3. Stop Lying and hand out the appropriate punishment for those that do. What's the first thing you do when you find out the well is poisoned? It's not to dig a new well, it's stop drinking the poison.

You can't have it both ways. Either you're corporate culture is to be honest and transparent, or it's to scheme and manipulate. Admitting you have a problem is the first step, now it's time to correct it.

Be swift, take action and best of luck. As a perceived leader in this space you drag all of us through the mud.

Posted by James Clark on 10/23/06 | Link

UPDATE: I received two seperate emails from Richard Edelman this morning in response to the questions posted above. Bear in mind that these questions were submitted to his post but have not been approved.

Please see below for the responses.

"We will look at this. I did meet the woman who runs the group and she is a bright independent minded businesswoman."

"Good point. We are reengaging our recently retired vice chairman mike morley who will be looking at our major programs as ombudsman and will travel to speak on ethical practice to offices
globally."

I am assuming that the first response is re: 100% disclosure on the 'about' page of Working Families for America and that the second response is re: best practice guidelines in all programs.

Thanks to Richard Edelman for at least responding although it would be nice seeing the organization approving comments that are not damaging rather contributing to their ability to respond accordingly.

Posted by Colin Bohanna on 10/24/06 | Link

James,

First, WOMMA has a governing board, and while I am on it, I have recused myself from all conversation regarding this issue. We will absolutley agree to and live by the decisions of the Board.

Second, I am the guy at the head of me2. I may not blog as often, nor maintain the public profile of Steve Rubel, but I am the one charged with accelerating the pace of change within our culture.

Third, no one is getting fired over this. We have an amazing [independent] culture, and a very empowering leadership. We don't like to make mistakes, but when we do, we try to use them as learning -- and growth -- opportunities. This is one of those opportunities.

Finally, the people of Edelman are incredibly proud of their pioneering role in this space. We have every intention of learning from this experience and re-earning the trust and respect of our peers by leading the way from here on out.

rwm

Posted by rick murray on 10/24/06 | Link

Make that, nobody gets fired over anything if we're getting paid for it. WOMMA just lost all credibility along with Edelman. Walmart are really doing this the 'death by a thousand cuts way' and yet the solution is a simple; practice what they pay to preach.

Posted by Charles Edward Frith on 10/26/06 | Link

I don't think Edelman has the first idea the damage it has done to the PR industry or itself. As someone sitting on the outside, it is almost farcical to see a company that doesn't take responsibility in a demonstrable fashion other than to say 'we will do this that or the other' and has the nerve to ask the community how it should learn.

Rubel is the poster child for PR blogs and you guys can't figure it out?

To my simple mind, Rubel and others inside Edelman have been carrying on a cynical fraud in pontificating about openness, transparancy and honesty. Sorry Steve - connected or not, you get tarred with the same brush as your employer for whom you're on record as saying you'd give up your blog.

Isn't the reality that Edelman has used blogging as a way of reinforcing the command and control aspects of PR? It's not just fake, it's a con for everyone. As experts in the field, I'm sure Edeleman would have been consultted by Wal-Mart as to the best way forward for such a campaign.

Would not the honest thing have been to insist on authentic voices instead of cranking up billable hours on a fake blog? Or pointing up the dangers of using this method of communication? How can Edelman effectively cry: 'Ignorance is my saviour' when the company has been pounding the blog beat and claiming thought leadership for so much longer than anyone else?

I guess it's a case that if you fabricate for long enough, you end up believing your own stuff - even if it is fake.

Posted by Dennis Howlett on 10/26/06 | Link

I think Edelman is trying their best to crawl away from this fiasco as unscathed as possible similarly to what anyone else would do. It takes confidence to not resign from WOMMA after such as incident, but Edelman would not be where they are without confidence...

WOMMA, on the other hand, is the real loser here. We can all agree that word of mouth is very powerful, but it needs to be accompanied by word of ear, or listening to your market. WOMMA, listen to what your base is saying and act upon it. Otherwise forever lose your credibility.

Posted by Jason Sparks on 10/27/06 | Link

Thanks to WOMMA for facilitating this dialogue. I would like to weigh in on the issue, offering insights from what I consider to be effective and ethical principles of organizational communication. My comments are somewhat long so I would invite interested readers to visit my post at http://wom-study.blogspot.com/2006/10/weighing-in-on-edelman-wal-mart.html and then continue the discussion here.

Walter

Posted by Walter Carl on 10/27/06 | Link

I have a post on my advertising blog that describes our experience with Edelman. I warned them about what they were doing and was ignored.

http://adverising-for-success.blogspot.com

Posted by Eileen Trainor on 11/13/06 | Link

Hey guys, nice discussion. very interesting ideas.

Posted by Strafverteidiger München on 04/19/07 | Link

Thanks for hosting this forum WOMMA. I hope you can find a way of giving yourself some credibility, but pure greed and deception are what was behind this stunt exactly as the "Working Families For Wal-Mart" site, $4 prescriptions, walmartfacts.com, and all the other bull they try to foist upon us is. Enjoy your corporate propaganda all you like but stop expecting others to buy into it. I can only hope they don't discover how to manipulate us without being caught soon after.

Stop blaming the tools who facilitate these sorts of things and start blaming the corporations who pay for them. Does ANYBODY really believe they didn't know exactly what they were paying for?

Mike

Posted by Mike Olson on 11/ 6/07 | Link