PRSA ExecutiveBlog Logo
  • Home
  • About PRSA
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home

Currently viewing and reading

Unethical Product Reviews Have No Place in Public Relations

Posted by Gary McCormick in September 2nd 2010  
Tweet

To commemorate PRSA Ethics Month, PRSAY is offering a monthlong series of posts on important ethics issues facing the public relations profession. This is the first in the series.

On Aug. 26, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Reverb Communications had settled charges alleging that the public relations firm had engaged in deceptive advertising practices by having its employees write and post positive reviews of clients’ games in the Apple iTunes Store, without disclosing that they had been compensated to do so.

The settlement brings to a close the Commission’s first case under its revised “Guidelines on the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” which took effect on Dec. 1 of last year.

Those guidelines state in part that advertisers (in this case Reverb) are subject to liability for failing to disclose material connections between themselves and their endorsers. In a section entitled, “Disclosure of Material Connections,” the guidelines state that:

“When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.”

It seems pretty clear that Reverb’s actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these guidelines. An ordinary consumer who read a review written by a Reverb employee would, in all likelihood, believe that the review had been written by an ordinary consumer, not a paid advocate.

By way of example, ask yourself which one of these two product reviews might lead you to conduct a little more research:

• “I just bought Roller Coaster Tycoon, and I highly recommend it. The game is addicting and the graphics are awesome.”

• “I just bought Roller Coaster Tycoon, and I highly recommend it. The game is addicting and the graphics are awesome. (PAID ENDORSER.)”

Reverb, however, seemed to disagree.

“Rather than continuing to spend time and money arguing, and laying off employees to fight what we believed was a frivolous matter, we settled this case and ended the discussion,” Reverb executive Tracie Snitker was quoted as saying in The New York Times. Snitker hastened to add that the settlement did not involve any admission of lawbreaking.

But whether or not there was an “admission of lawbreaking” misses the point entirely. Legal or not (and that still seems to be something that could be debated), Reverb’s actions were unethical.

The PRSA Code of Ethics, to which all PRSA members pledge, calls for truthful, accurate and transparent communications. What could possibly be truthful, accurate or transparent about posting positive reviews of a client’s product, without disclosing that you’ve been paid to do so?

PRSA addressed this issue specifically in a Professional Standards Advisory — a periodic update to the PRSA Code, based on evolving technology and changing social and professional mores — that was issued in Oct. 2008. The advisory states that “Misrepresentation by organizations and individuals using blogs, viral marketing, and anonymous Internet postings with undisclosed sponsorships and/or deceptive or misleading identities or descriptions of goals, causes, tactics, sponsors or participants,” is improper under the PRSA Code of Ethics. The advisory also reminds practitioners that “open communication is essential for informed decision making in a democratic society.”

The FTC seems to agree. It was quoted in The New York Times as saying, “We hope that this case will show advertisers that they have to be transparent in their practices and help guide other ad agencies.”

The same ethics that apply to off-line communications also must be applied to social media conversations and other forms of online communications. Consumers have a right to know that the information they read online is accurate and truthful. They also have a right to know if a product “reviewer” has been paid to offer a positive opinion of a product or service.

Illegal or not, it’s the ethical thing to do.

Gary McCormick, APR, Fellow PRSA, is chair and CEO of PRSA and director of partnership development at HGTV in Knoxville, Tenn.

Note: This article was originally published on the PRBreakfastClub blog.

under: Advocacy, Board of Directors, Ethics, Pulse of the Profession, Social Media, Trust
Share: Digg it del.icio.us Facebook Stumble it Technorati Twitter

Related Post

  • No Grand Slam for Miami Marlins’ PR Practices (April 23rd, 2012)
  • A CEO’s Most Powerful Tool is Communications (April 18th, 2012)
  • Infographic: Measuring PR Pros’ Engagement with Wikipedia (April 17th, 2012)
  • What the USC Annenberg GAP Study Tells Us About Public Relations’ Success (April 12th, 2012)
  • Reviewing the FDA’s Proposed Social Media Guidelines (April 9th, 2012)
  • http://lastshredsofsanity.com Shan @ Last Shreds Of Sanity

    There is another side to this whole thing, namely when Bloggers are afraid to, or told by the PR rep of the company, not to post a negative review.

    Bloggers do this, in my opinion, to not lose the relationship with that PR firm and therefore any future product review opportunities. I do not subscribe to that line of thinking and I will post my honest opinions, regardless of what the unwritten rule is. I have an obligation to my readers to be honest and ethical.

    This whole FTC thing has many scared, but the loss of revenue or opps from posting a negative review seems to be even scarier for some.

  • Pingback: Friend or Foe? Online Reputation Management Firms

  • Pingback: The State of Ethics in Public Relations

  • Pingback: Guest Post: The Importance of Ethics Within the PR Industry - PRNewser

  • Pingback: British PR firm under fire for unethical practices « Best Practices Blog

« Public Relations’ Role in Navigating Polarized Media
Let ethics slip into cyberspace? No way! »

Subscribe to the PRSA blog.

  • Feed Icon via RSS Feed or eMail


    Your email is safe. Privacy Policy.

Welcome



PRSAY is a forum for PRSA members and other public relations professionals to engage in a dialogue with PRSA leaders, exchange viewpoints, and share perspectives on issues of concern to the Society and the public relations industry as a whole. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of PRSA.

Search

Join PRSA

  • With your PRSA membership, you will:

    • Stay on top of emerging public relations trends and industry news.
    • Be a part of a vibrant community of more than 22,000 public relations professionals.
    • Accelerate your career -- at any level.

PRSA on Twitter

#prsa on Twitter

Categories

    • #PRin2012 (13)
    • Accreditation (8)
    • Advocacy (150)
    • Awards (4)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Board of Directors (17)
    • bylaws (7)
    • Careers (11)
    • Chapters (9)
    • Conferences (4)
    • Counselors Academy (4)
    • Crisis Communications (13)
    • CSR (5)
    • Districts (3)
    • Diversity (26)
    • Ethics (73)
    • Financial (7)
    • Friday Five (17)
    • Governance (12)
    • Guest Posts (44)
    • Industry Trends (62)
    • Intelligence (13)
    • International Conference (7)
    • Learning (10)
    • Measurement (5)
    • Member Benefits (17)
    • Membership (12)
    • Multicultural Marketing (3)
    • National Assembly (13)
    • Network (2)
    • Networking (6)
    • Nominating Committee (3)
    • Professional Development (16)
    • PRSA Foundation (2)
    • PRSA Leadership (25)
    • PRSA News (38)
    • PRSSA (8)
    • Public Affairs (4)
    • Public Relations Defined (3)
    • Public relations measurement (5)
    • Publications (3)
    • Pulse of the Profession (36)
    • recession (7)
    • Regulation (1)
    • Regulatory Issues (8)
    • Reputation (37)
    • Research (11)
    • Resources (10)
    • Sections (5)
    • Silver Anvil (2)
    • Social Media (29)
    • State of the Society (12)
    • Technology (1)
    • The Business Case for Public Relations (46)
    • The PRSA Interview (1)
    • Trust (24)
    • Uncategorized (17)
    • Universal Accreditation Board (1)
    • Video (2)
    • Web site (1)

Archives

Recent Entries

  • Friday Five: Measurement as a Second Language
  • Why Professional Communicators Should Care About CISPA
  • Friday Five: Advertising Faces Challenges in a Digital and Social Age
  • Friday Five: Key Learnings in a Social Landscape
  • No Grand Slam for Miami Marlins’ PR Practices

Recent Comments

  • Marvin Gurgold in A Tribute to Jean Way Schoonover (1…
  • Dennielle Howes… in Analysis: PR Lessons From The Penn …
  • Facebook, Burso… in PR Pros: Haven’t We Learned Anyth…
  • Link Ch. 12 … in Occupy Wall Street Abandoned PR 101…
  • Stop Worrying a… in Merely ‘Image Men’? Hardly

Most Comments

  • Public Relations Won’t Fix Penn State’s Crisis  (48)
  • Paid or Unpaid, Time to Evaluate PR's Use of Interns (34)
  • To Remove — or Not To Remove — the APR Requirement for Board Service (31)
  • ‘Prize-Rigging’ Can Undermine Your Brand’s Online Promotion (27)
  • #PRin2012: 12 Trends That Will Change Public Relations  (27)
©2008-2012 PRSAY – What Do You Have to Say?
Powered by WordPress 3.3.1
Box-Tube Box Modulize WordPress Theme By Dezzain Studio
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Membership
  • Professional Development
  • Publications
  • Resources
  • PRSA Home
  • Blog Policy