It’s standard behavior to rush to the call for investigation and change in response to every news item. If a brick falls from a fifth-story window and hits someone on the head, the evening news can be counted on to look into the shortcomings of the brick industry, and ask, “Surely they knew their bricks were lethal. But what did they do about it?”

And so it is in public relations. Following the disclosure that PR agency Burson Marsteller mounted a covert anti-Google campaign on behalf of (at-the-time-undisclosed) client Facebook, we’re all analyzing the behavior of the participants and advising them on how they can do better in the future.

WebProNews writes not only is “Burson’s reputation under assault but also its credibility as knowledgeable and skilful practitioners in public relations is being questioned as a consequence.” WebProNews points out that the Burson executives involved will receive training in ethics, and quotes the WPP (Burson’s parent company) Code of Ethics:

“We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;”

But what is truly learned here? Burson had a code of ethics. Are we to believe the agency really has executives who have never read it, have never received ethics training, don’t understand the importance of ethical behavior?

Or did a couple of people approve and execute a stupid campaign knowing it wasn’t the right thing to do? And if that’s the case, what is the utility of analyzing Burson’s behavior against a backdrop of codes of ethics? What can we truly learn from this approach?

It’s a very simple matter. Let’s not complicate it. My advice to Burson (and to any PR agency or professional):

1. Be honest and ethical
2. Know your agency’s code of ethics, and consult it often
3. If your agency does not have a code of ethics, consult Craigslist and PRSA to find a new agency

What else is there?

Tags: Burson Marsteller, Facebook, Google, smear campaign

In response to recent news out of the UK that primary school priorities may shift from traditional subjects like history and geography to make room for social media education, I offer my views in my April Talent Zoo column Why Johnny Can’t Tweet on when and where children should receive formal training in social media.

“Many things are either so intuitive that they can be largely self-taught, or take five minutes of instruction and years of practice (like riding a bike or tying a shoe), that they have no place in school.”

I hope you’ll take a moment to read and respond to the article.

Tags: social media education, primary school, UK, Great Britain

This morning I joined in a blog conversation by adding a comment somewhat critical of someone’s professional conduct. I sincerely thought I was contributing to the discussion, but it was something I felt strongly about, social media ethics and disclosure, so I may have been a bit rough.

Some of the best lessons are taught by evaluating real world examples, but I detest the piling on mentality in social media, and this morning, I was guilty of this, and I apologize for that.

We (I in other words) need to remember there is a difference between a case study, and a person. It’s hard to know where to draw the line, and how to discuss the behavior without attacking the person.