Ethics and PR

We decided to end the Forum with a group discussion about ethics and PR.  The room was a little sparse by then, but, still, there was a good cross-section of about 25 or so people that played a role in the discussion.

I set it up with a statement similar to the following (I don't remember the exact words): 

"Today, with all of these new communications tools, the boundaries between the inside of organizations and the outside are blurring.  The roles of journalist, blogger, influencer, etc. are also blurring.  This makes it increasingly more difficult to judge what is right or wrong, ethically speaking.  Secondly, these same new tools are also shining the spotlight on PR/marketing practices as a whole.  The game of influence and persuasion, which has heretofore been played behind closed doors (to the general public anyway) is increasingly visible to all.  And the "outsiders" don't like what they see.  Therefore, the excuse that "everyone has always done it this way" no longer holds water.  So, please discuss these points within your small groups, then we will take the discussion to the larger group level.  You have 15 minutes."

When we got to the large group discussion, I was a little surprised at the result.

 

As we drilled down into some of the usual practices of PR - of influence and persuasion - some participants began to wonder if everything is tainted.  What do we disclose, we asked?  If we paid someone?  Sure.  Did we give them a product to test that they didn't return (they rarely, if ever, do)?  Do we state we got a free book (for review)? Does wining and dining count?  Special access to executives?  All of the little hooks we use to influence someone to talk or write about our companies positively?

The conversation spun down into a kind of existential despair...PR is done for. 

But, of course, it isn't.  You cannot say that all types of persuasion are inherently rotten or corrupt.

In fact, I would argue:  Never before in the history of our profession has there been a greater need for professional communicators.

Most of the people I talk to who identify themselves as communicators (be they PR people, marcomm, other types of marketing) consider themselves to be bridge builders and translators.  I include myself among this group.  At least for myself, I am driven by the need to help people understand each other, and, through better understanding, make progress towards their goals.

In a world where people who speak different languages (from French and Swahili to legalese, medicalese and engineering-speak) are more frequently joining in the same conversations, the ability to translate becomes increasingly important. 

 

And bridge building has always required a bit of arm wrestling.  We as humans are sophisticated players of social games, and have developed endless strategies to win and to cooperate.  Some of these are acceptable, others aren't.  Today, we are seeing that some of the old strategies and tactics are becoming increasingly unacceptable, and therefore we must change (transparency is the key).

I felt like a number of people in the room were simply not understanding the point:  that the excuse of "we've always done it like that" no longer applies.  I tried a few times to bring the conversation back around to this point, but it was difficult.  To me, that says that much more education is needed.

Because we professional communicators hold a unique position as bridge builders or translators, because we can cross the line between the inside of a corporation and the outside, because we are sophisticated consumers of news and therefore have a healthy skepticism about what we read, we will be well-positioned to provide advice on how to deal with the situations these new technologies bring up -- but only if we first come to grips with how our own practices need to change.

We owe it to our clients, our companies, our associations, our governments to understand these new technologies because they offer us a better, healthier way to communicate.  It is becoming increasingly clear that no one trusts the old ways.  New ways might just be our only option.