Hill+Knowlton Strategies

So… In a recent post, Kevin Dugan points out that McDonalds has set up a new (and this time real) blog focused on talking about its corporate social responsibility activities. Like Dugan, I applaud this effort and look forward to seeing how this site will evolve. Blogging in the area of CSR is, in my mind, a “no brainer” for corporations, as it speaks directly to many of the foundational elements upon which CSR is built — communicating openly and forthrightly with stakeholders, making the discussion an inclusive one, and being transparent in behaviour.

What I hope this site doesn’t become is a one-way communications channel built on a blogging platform — rather, that it seek to acknowledge meaningful criticism and discuss it openly and frankly (so far so good given that it has opened itself up to comments). That said, I also hope this site is accepted for what it is, and doesn’t become the whipping boy for all who might take issue with this company.

(Updated – Jan 27, 2006)

Stephen Baker, a BusinessWeek blogger, provides additional background on McDonalds’ larger blogging strategy and the company that produced it. You can read that here.

So… I read an article yesterday that reminded me of an old ‘Bloom County’ cartoon – you remember Bloom County, no? Opus the Penguin, Bill the Cat (Ack!), Tales too ticklish to tell? Pear Pimples for Hairy Fishnuts? (fourth from the top)

Anyway, Opus is the trends reporter at the International Bloom Picayune. The clock is ticking, and he’s struggling to find a new trend to write about but realizes all the good trends have already been covered — yuppies, single parents, cabbage patch things, republicanism, ice cream (note – this dates back to the mid-80’s). His journalist colleague, Milo Bloom, then offers up the fact that “maybe the country is growing suspicious of media-manufactured trends” … which, of course, becomes the trend…

This is a fine example.

So… has the posting of media interview transcripts by interviewees — even before the article is published — become the latest trend in communications? Dan Gillmor at the Center for Citizen Media appears to believe this is the case. The evidence seems to support him.

Most recently, Dan, along with Mathew Ingram of the Globe & Mail, have written about the travails of Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne in his dealings with Tim Mullaney, a reporter for BusinessWeek.

In response to receiving a long list of questions from Mr. Mullaney, Mr. Byrne elected to post Mr. Mullaney’s questions, and his responses, online. You can read the questions here, and Mr. Byrne’s responses here.

This story raises a number of important issues… not least, it expands upon the comments made by my colleague Niall Cook in his blog on the ethics of posting private emails. As Mr. Byrne states in his response to Mullaney, “Since you did nothing to indicate the interview was off-the-record I am treating it as on-the-record (that is the journalistic convention, I believe), and so have reprinted your letter below. I trust also that you do not mind me responding in this public forum, as you also failed to stipulate otherwise (as some reporters have when they interview me by email).” When it comes to privacy, should media be treated any differently? (a partially loaded question, no doubt)

Certainly, this activity would appear to level the playing field with respect to the traditional journalist – interviewee relationship, and offer further safeguards against the potential for lazy or shoddy journalism that can occur even at the most respected of publications. It provides a clear window into the motivations of the reporter and the style of questioning being employed. Moreover, and where reporters tend to publish only small snippets of interviews, the ability to view full transcripts can provide critical context behind the selected quotes. Then again, does this activity not contradict the role of the journalist in presenting the “whole” story… not simply one side, as such a transcript would present. Might one also look at the possibility that what was posted is in fact not what was said… who to believe?

What do you think about this trend, faithful reader?

So…. a la Martha Stewart, Kenneth Lay, ex-CEO of Enron, has created a website by which to…. well, do what exactly?

From a communications perspective, I can’t imagine how this site will help his cause. And while some marketing experts being quoted by the Houston Chronicle are saying it’s a smart move – particularly his use of Google adwords and pay-per-click advertising, I’m not so sure. Others would seem to agree…

It appears to be a classic “He said / She said” exercise that will do little to counter or change current public opinion, regardless of how spotless Lay’s professional record prior to Enron’s ignomious collapse. In any instance where clients have been faced with accusations of unethical behaviour, the cardinal rule has been to defer to a ‘higher authority’ — an independent review or investigation from a credible third-party that will, hopefully, validate your claim of innocence — versus attempting to fight back based on the strength of your own convictions. To simply say “no, I didn’t” in response to a chorus of “yes, you did’s” achieves little, particularly when you’re the face of the big bad corporation accused of bilking billions from the savings of investors and employees.

Should Lay be found guilty, his attempts to publicly defer or denounce responsibility will be even more harshly criticized. If found innocent, his capacity to walk away a free man will be based not on a website lauding his character, but on the determination of that “higher authority” that he is – in fact – innocent of any wrongdoing.

…the second theirs that permit them.” Ancient English Proverb

I, for one, shall sleep easier in 2006 knowing that our media brethren are fallible also … a very bad year, indeed.

http://www.regrettheerror.com/2005/12/crunks_05_the_y.html

So it appears – according to the New York Times – that News Corp has incurred the wrath of MySpace-ers by allegedly blocking access to a competitors video sharing site. What with Sony getting caught earlier in the year for quietly installing copy protection software on PCs behind our backs – and getting fleeced for it – you’d think a powerful lesson would’ve been learned in what not to do when it comes to tinkering with technology behind the backs of users (if in fact, this is what News Corp. techies tried to do – the competitor is calling it all a misunderstanding)

The author of the article, Julie Bosman, highlights a key challenge facing large companies – media or otherwise – in 2006:

“The incident underlines the peril corporations face as they buy blogs and networking sites like MySpace, which depend on the good will of their users. Mr. Murdoch paid $580 million for MySpace, a significant investment for a two-year-old Web site primarily populated by fickle teenagers and users in their 20’s. Like other members of free community Web sites, MySpace users often react with indignation if they believe their content has been tampered with.”

It will be interesting to see how many other companies make similar mistakes in 2006 – is anybody keeping count?