The FDA’s draft industry guidance for off-label responses to consumers’ health care queries is a start but could benefit from specifics to appropriately advise health care communicators.

Last week, PRSA and the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) filed joint comments with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concerning its proposed social media guidelines. Our central points can be summed up as follows: self-regulation works, and professional communicators and marketers are responsible and ethical practitioners.

The comments are a continuation of PRSA’s recent regulatory affairs work with the Federal Trade Commission and the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight.

The feedback we provided the FDA reflects the core values of PRSA’s Code of Ethics. We made clear our belief that public relations professionals are keen to protect consumers’ rights through open and honest communications, while advocating for the brands they represent. Those goals do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, each can enhance the quality of information provided to the public through proactive and transparent communications practices.

Our comments are the culmination of a long-standing advocacy campaign by PRSA to obtain adequate social media guidelines from the FDA. Through a variety of commentary pieces, we have expressed our perspective that the regulatory framework that currently governs health care and pharmaceutical brands’ online communications with consumers is inadequate. Moreover, the lack of specificity in that framework has led to inaccurate and outdated information swirling around the Internet concerning health care and wellness issues.

It is crucial that the FDA presents viable guidance for how companies can utilize social media to accommodate consumers’ fact-finding needs concerning health care and wellness issues. While a start, the proposed Guidelines lack specificity and relevance that communicators and marketers require to successfully perform their jobs within FDA guidelines. (Related: Dear FDA: Your Social Media Guidance is Requested)

Continue reading " Reviewing the FDA’s Proposed Social Media Guidelines "

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 "

Confession: my name is Steve, I am 38-years-old and, and … I am a public relations professional.

Sixteen years ago I thought I was doing a filthy job. I was a journalist: knocking on the doors of just-bereaved parents, phoning ministers of religion for comments on the sin stories I was about to break, stitching up civic dignitaries by quoting them well out of context.

In the past few weeks, given what has happened with U.K. newspaper The Independent’s sting on PR agency Bell Pottinger, I could be forgiven for thinking my hands are dirtier now than they were back then. PR professionals have long faced questions about the moralistic implications of what they do, but rather than the mysteries of the “dark arts,” observers’ thoughts have been drawn to misconceptions of illicit foulness dripping from our greedy hands.

All of which is, in my experience, untrue. In fact there’s a very British word for it: bollocks.

Sure, some PR professionals have always been willing to take on lucrative contracts from dubious sources. None of us are utterly holy, or at least if any of us are I haven’t met them yet. We have all, if we’re honest (and we should be) told untruths — or been extremely liberal with the truth — to protect the interests of clients.

But Pottingergate has ruffled the feathers of many agency top brass and senior managers. The reason is this: we had enough on our plates with the fact that if PR agencies do not fundamentally modernize the basis of their commercial success, they will die. Now we have another challenge: not only must we modernize, we must also sanitize.

Where Should the Line Be Drawn on Ethics?

A lot of senior, well-paid people in public relations have tried to wear the ethical badge in recent years. Without ethics, we are unable to continue to operate in a transparent age when clients require a responsible approach to communication, they say. They’re right, but ethics is a relative term, certainly in the public relations field. The industry organizations have rightly stood up and been counted on this, but PR professionals must figure out themselves where the line must be drawn on what is ethical and what isn’t. Whereas the British media at the moment faces the threat of imposed legislation to govern its conduct, the PR industry  must develop a form of self-regulation.

My bet is that the answer will be driven by market forces rather than a consensus view on ethics.

Continue reading " Time for PR to Cleanse Itself of Ethical Transgressions "

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 "