A case study in Public Relations online
April 18th, 2009 by tigtog | Published in Disasters, Ethics, Media, The Web | 20 Comments
Just a little somethingsnark I put together following some events of the last few weeks:
- Large professional organisation covers its operating costs via membership fees and sponsor funding. Many members have pointed out for many years that sponsor funding from certain manufacturers creates an ethical problem: a potential conflict of interest with the public service goals of the organisation as an independent information authority on particular issues.
- One member posts a document in an online discussion group devoted to an issue in which the organisation is seen as an information authority on April Fools Day, clearly dated April 1st in large friendly letters at the top, purporting to be an official press release from the organisation. This document “announces” that the organisation will no longer be accepting funding from the sponsors creating the perceived conflict of interest.
- Other members join in the spirit of the satirical document and contact the headquarters of the organisation asking whether it is true that the organisation has decided to no longer accept the funding from these particular sponsors. Thus the organisation becomes aware of the spurious press release.
What should the organisation’s response be?
- A. ZOMG! People on the Internet are talking about us behaving ethically and it’s not true! Now that the cat’s out of the bag we’d better start behaving ethically right away and claim it was all our idea in the first place!
- B. ZOMG! People on the Internet are talking about us behaving ethically and it’s not true! It’s a big fat lie! We should get the lawyers in and send letters about how it’s all a big fat lie and that unless they issue a retraction letting everybody know that we’re still behaving just as unethically as we always have, then they’ll be in BIG TROUBLE!!!!1!!1!
- C. Ignore it, it’s an obscure online community and the larger public will probably never know about it. If it does get broader publicity, we need a plan of action for persuading people that sponsor funding from these manufacturers is not only ethical in terms of our normal issues but also has some sort of benefit for cute fluffy animals somewhere in a green field with a carpet of flower petals (don’t forget the children’s carefree laughter soundtrack).
Consequences of choosing wrongly
If you have already guessed that in the real scenario the organisation ended up with a PR clusterf*ck, give yourself a cookie. In this case, the American Association of Paediatrics actually chose Plan B. Presumably thoughts along the lines of “we have to defend our actions or those infant formula manufacturers might stop the sponsor funding (and we like the funding)” were involved. [Addendum: if you are unaware of the ethical debate around this issue, the link earlier in this paragraph has the background for you]
Then, to much schadenfreudish delight, at a social media conference that was recorded and broadcast online, someone from the AAP actually got up to ask how they should use social media to deal with a PR crisis involving someone spreading “misinformation” about the organisation. It was spun (implicitly) as if the problem with this situation was that people were being misinformed that the AAP had ever taken funding creating a conflict of interest, not that they actually had done so for years and people were being misinformed that the unethical practice had ceased.
The response from the social media guru to this redacted storyline was that they should have an official blog and Twitter account to put the official position forward to counter the negative discussions online. Apart from this sounding suspiciously simplistic, as mamapundit notes, this use of social media only works if the “official position” engages the discussion where it’s already happening rather than off in a sequestered official forum, and as Lauredhel points out, only if the truth makes the organisation look good, instead of, as in this case, the truth being the actual PR problem.)
PR often involves covering up a pile of slushy mud with bright white paint to make it look purer than the driven snow, and then doing a lot of handwaving to make people look somewhere else. The AAP is trying desperately to make people look at a “liar liar pants on fire” but all they’re doing is turning the spotlight back to their years of sponsor funding from infant formula manufacturers.
Moral of the story
if your organisation is responsible for a decades-old blight on the landscape that you don’t want people to notice, getting very loudly upset when someone satirically claims that you have (finally!) cleaned it up only makes sure that people notice that it’s still there and wonder why you haven’t cleaned it up years ago when cleaning it up is widely regarded as the proper thing to do.
Are you talking about infant formula? If not, what the hell are you talking about?
This has to be one of the most obtuse and abstruse articles I’ve ever read here.
@silkworm:
Not into following links today, silkworm?
That is the usual point of links in a post. Extra information.
Before I even read all the post I guessed they picked plan B. Idiots! I reckon C would’ve been the best option in the hope that if you ignore bad things they’ll disappear.Mind you, that doesn’t always work and in some cases can lead to disaster. And I’m sure we have all delighted at some time or other on how teh Internet can get completely out of control. Seems like this might have been one of those times.
Even “d: echo the propaganda of the sponsors and hope for the best” would have been better that invoking the Streisand effect. Normally I’d wonder if they’re doing this because they have a cunning plan, but in this case I think it’s Baldrick all the way.
These moments seem to be happening somewhat frequently – witness the Amazon schmozzle when they de-rated erotica and included in that novels etc by gays and lesbians. From what I read about it it almost made me want to join Twitter.
Silkworm is right; you could have saved us a lot of time and effort by summarising the situation in the 1st sentence. No reason at all that we should be forced to follow the links to find info that should be on the page (why so conspiratorial?). Opening the post like you did makes it sound like padding/waffle.
Conspiratorial. FFS.
I freely admit that this post is playing with circumlocution, although there are some serious nuggets buried underneath the snark. If you don’t enjoy reading playful snark, then don’t bother.
Monkeytypist, if you needed ‘a lot of time and effort’ to read Tigtog’s post then perhaps this blog is too hard for you.
OT, but Moz, I’m nostalgic for when Baldric’s plans were actually good, a la Blackadder 1, before the sad reversals of the later series. When will the telly take us peasants seriously. Harrumph!
I can see there is a problem here in that I like reading about interesting topics like this, but I also like taking part in discussions about the best way to present them. Clearly most of the internet should be off limits for me. But if you would like to suggest blogs that I am qualified to read and comment on, that would no doubt be very helpful.
Apologies for not understanding snark.
Thanks, Tig Tog, for the excellent posting. Don’t be discouraged.
@Chris Grealy:
Although I don’t post as much at LP as I once did, this level of disapproval of one of my posts is mild, so I’m just fine about this one. Nevertheless, your encouragement is most appreciated. Thank you.
I hereby declare that I shall henceforth cease and desist from using my parliamentary printing and stationery allowance to assist corrupt right-wing tickets in student union elections.
@“Joe Tripodi”:
I’m sure I just heard one of your staffers talking indignantly to a journalist about how someone on the internet is misinforming the electorate about him ceasing and desisting from using his parliamentary printing and stationery allowance to assist corrupt right-wing tickets in student union elections!
How dare that person on the internet misinform the electorate about Joe ceasing and desisting from such things!
I second Chris Grealy, TT.
Nothing conspiratorial about it – just a great post.
I can see that getting endorsement of paediatricians was probably a good way of getting the market revved up initially, the infant formula sellers are probably better off breaking that nexus. It is sort of like Maccas trying to cosy up to the dieticians.
Best for them to rev up their advertising in the open market as does the Mighty M.
For the infant formula makers getting rid of the paediatrician nexus ‘is the proper thing to do’.
Not that I particularly want to be bombarded by ads for NAN over my evening steak and chips, I hasten to add – perhaps I should cheer their present restraint.
;)
Their “present restraint” is not entirely the infant formula manufacturers’ own choice, Marks. There is an International Code laying down guidelines for their marketing, because history has shown that when these companies market unrestrained by a Code then they blithely encourage practices that result in dead babies.
Are so many people here really unaware that there has been a Boycott Nestlé movement for decades now? Not that the International Code is foolproof. There’s a reason that the Boycott Nestlé movement is still active.
SotBO*: yes, there are cases where artificial feeding is truly necessary for infants, and it’s good that there are products which can provide this nutrition when the mother (or a wetnurse or a donor milkbank) is unable to do so.
*SotBo = Statement of the Bleeding Obvious
I have boycotted Nestle ever since they went from being Nessels to (w**k) Neslay.
Which shows how inconsistent I am because my ears grate whenever I hear tennis commentators talking about Kosnetsover and Sharapover. *shrug*
However, to your piece.
I don’t particularly approve or disapprove of them, however, I was serious in saying that I think their association with the paediatricians is probably an anachronism that really is not much use to them any more in marketing terms. I mean, have not the US paediatricians come out as far back as ten years ago stating that breast feeding is the preferred method up to twelve months (iirc)?
What do the supermarket aisles argue?
@Marks:
At least, which is exactly the point of the argument that accepting sponsor funding from these manufacturers creates a conflict of interest.