As the public relations industry grows in size and stature, it is coming under increasing scrutiny by the public, media and government. But not all scrutiny is bad, especially if it helps broaden the understanding of a profession and advances its role and value.

Twice in the past year there have been investigations into public relations spending by the federal government. The most recent was launched in late February by Senator Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Senator Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who have triggered a wide-ranging investigation of the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising services. At the initial stages of this inquiry the Subcommittee is seeking data for the past five years pertaining to “contracts for the acquisition of public relations, publicity, advertising, communications, or similar services” at 11 separate Federal agencies.  We have our concerns, which we expressed directly with the Senators and through an op-ed published in Roll Call.

It isn’t surprising that government spending on public relations is being scrutinized during times of economic austerity, when politicians of all stripes compete to be the most prudent with taxpayers’ funds. Such scrutiny — if conducted fairly and objectively — may prove valuable for public relations.

Continue reading " Congress Investigates PR: Will It Like What It Sees? "

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from an op-ed published today in Roll Call. The opinion piece was written by PRSA Chair and CEO Gerard F. Corbett, APR, Fellow PRSA, in response to a Senate investigation into the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising contracts. PRSA also sent letters to Senator Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Senator Rob Portman (R–Ohio), who are leading the investigation, to express its concerns with the investigation.

The Senate’s investigation into government use of public relations services is detrimental to restoring the public’s trust in politicians.

When faced with a tough re-election battle, what is the easiest path to winning over John Q. Public? Proposing proactive solutions that benefit your constituents or taking on an industry you deem to have too much influence?

In the case of Sens. Claire McCaskill (D–Mo.) and Rob Portman (R–Ohio), the answer appears to be the latter. As Roll Call reported Feb. 29, the pair is trying to appease cost-conscious voters with a “wide-ranging investigation” of the federal government’s use of public relations and advertising services.

As chairman of an organization that represents 32,000 public relations professionals in the United States, I share the Senators’ concern that the government prudently spends taxpayer dollars. What I question, however, is their motivation and seeming interest in using the PR industry as a punching bag for America’s dysfunctional political system.

In an era of disastrously low trust in government and politicians, McCaskill and Portman’s investigation may be missing the proverbial boat. It disregards public relations’ central value to government: its ability to engender a more informed society through ethical, transparent and honest communications between the government and its citizens.

Therefore, any investigation into the government’s use of PR firms should not be undertaken unilaterally. It must be met by an equally robust examination of how the government communicates with the public and how it can better use innovative PR firms and professionals to best reach and inform citizens.

Killing the messenger won’t make the government’s public trust and transparency issues disappear.

Continue reading " PRSA to Congress: Don’t Kill the PR Messenger "

It seems pretty clear to just about everyone that home improvement giant Lowe’s made a huge public relations gaffe in its recent decision to pull advertising from the show “All-American Muslim” on TLC. The more interesting story may be how and why Lowe’s made such a dumb mistake.

Lowe’s came under pressure from a group called the Florida Family Association (FFA), which doesn’t like the show because, I guess, they think the show portrays Muslims (at least the ones on the show) as normal people and not as crazed jihadists out to destroy America. It’s certainly not new that people with a political ax to grind might try to eradicate support for the people they’re out to get. If that support comes in the form of advertising dollars, they try to pressure the advertisers to drop support.

It doesn’t work very often, usually because advertisers rightly recognize that the investment of advertising dollars pays off, and a small, but vocal, interest group that threatens a “boycott” will either be seen for what it is or be a blip on the media radar.

In this case, FFA won a battle by persuading Lowe’s to pull its ads from “All-American Muslim,” but I wonder if it hasn’t lost the war — not only for itself, but for all interest groups who attempt to use this tactic.

Before this happened, I doubt many people even thought about the fact that Lowe’s advertised on the show — at least to the extent that they may have considered the social or political implications. A few people in Florida may have been upset about it, but I doubt many other people cared one way or the other.

But once Lowe’s dropped the ads, everyone became aware of it, and not in a way that reflects positively on Lowe’s corporate reputation. Rather than just getting complaints from one group of cranks, Lowe’s is now catching heat from all over the place.

The lesson: You bring more trouble on yourself by pulling your ads from a show like this than if you just keep running them … especially when you claim you support diversity.

Continue reading " PR Lessons from the Lowe’s Advertising Debacle "

Revelations in the U.K. last week of spurious and unethical actions from the renowned global PR firm Bell Pottinger have cast a pall over the U.K. PR industry. For any public relations professional who values transparency and ethics ahead of lofty client billings, the multi-day exposé in The Independent newspaper of London makes for grim reading.

The editorial series is worth a read, and I encourage you to dig into it to form your own opinions.

Before diving into some of the specific issues addressed in the reports, let’s be clear on two important points:

First, offering to manipulate a client’s online reputation through the use of fake online accounts, newly created blog pages or fake online reviews is not only foolhardy (the likelihood of getting caught is very high), it is unethical. Lacking in transparency, such activities would be in violation of PRSA’s Code of Ethics and are banned in both the U.K. and the U.S. (the latter through the FTC’s “Blogger Rules.”).

It has been said before, but is worth repeating: the Internet does not forget. It is one of the greatest truth-seekers the world has ever known. If, like the Bell Pottinger executives, you are asked by a potential or current client to manipulate a Wikipedia entry or online review, your obligation as an ethical practitioner is to explain the lack of ethics behind such manipulation. And, if the client does not understand or refuses to acknowledge those concerns, the next step is refusal to comply.

Second, the act of representing a dictatorship, such as Bell Pottinger would have done had it taken on the proposed work with the Uzbekistan government, is a slippery slope for the public relations profession. As PRNewser reports, “Uzbekistan has a reputation for child labor and other human rights violations.”

Continue reading " Bell Pottinger Lobbying Scandal: The ‘Dark Arts’ of Unethical PR "