Bottom line: PR positioning - online or off - is fundamentally lying. And puffing is as much a part of nature as a peacock’s tail. Self interest is in every breath you take.

Here: The new call for ethics online is NOT about a paradigm shift in business or human nature. It’s about a fundamental breakdown in the system of institutional checks and balances that made/make personal interest a social productive endeavor. Cheating the system is as entrepreneurial as the design for the next big thing. The problem is when it’s rampant in a system gone helter skelter.

Wanna know how f-ed up it is? Look at the latest from Edelman: “As our society careens into a challenging and turbulent era, our value systems change. For the first time, trust and transparency trump product quality in our decisions about brands.” http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/transparency-and-trust-the-edelman-2010-trust-barometer.html?lastPage=true#comment8013582 . HELLO!! People are so confused, bullshit has supplanted reason. And without reason, PR loses its legitimacy. Ethics is meaningless.

@AmandaChapel

It would also be neat to make these circles more fluid, in that each company gets to make these calls. Sometimes taking a calculated risk has long term benefits, just as the easy decision now may have unintended consequences.

Take google for example. They chose to flout Chinese law. They had little to gain by continuing course as it was, so they took the high road, but I am pretty certain not the legal one (I could be wrong). Short term they have people accusing them of expedient decisions, long term they get the credit for “doing the right thing.” They gain in reputation.

I think if you move away from a good/bad dichotomy into something else, the ethical sphere is a bit harder to place. I’m not arguing situational ethics, but often the choice is difficult to make, if it was always so clearly delineated these choices would be a lot easier.

The argument of sacrificing jobs for the environment for our future is the classic example. Is it ethical for men to go without work to preserve an endangered tree frog that stands a good chance of dying regardless?

I think for the most part companies try for the conservative approach, but it’s often a risk/reward equation, which is what gives us bank bailouts, etc. No one wants to make the choice that bankrupts their company, no one wants to make the choice that gets them bad press, no one wants to be the idiot who tried to do things ethically and made no money.

An examination of real effects over perceived effects would also be of value. Sometimes choices that cost little in real dollars can have a huge impact to reputation.

I don’t have an argument with the graph as it stands, but the placement and overlap are definitely open to interpretation and really shouldn’t be fixed as the placement of one influences all.

On the other hand, I firmly believe that ethics are returning to fashion and social media may accelerate that.

I’ve had in the back of my head for awhile the idea of a conference on ethics online and you and your writing have no doubt kindled it.

Keep up the good work.