We all keep talking about the idea of conversations -- the "market as a conversation" (as opposed to the companies shouting at us to buy their stuff) and, nowadays, as the blogosphere as the manifestation of this. The problem is: A conversation between whom and whom? And, more important, what happens when the conversation starts getting spun, as all conversations do?
I've grown increasingly skeptical of the genuineness of this conversation: as PR gets wise, as (some) bloggers get greedy and (other) bloggers lose sight of, or fail to understand the need to maintain some ethicaleboundaries, the conversation has gotten skewed. I'm not alone in this, although cutting through to the chase remains hard. The current case of the Wal-Mart/Edelman thang, where the chain's PR firm reportedly sponsored a blog about driving across America and turned it into a vehicle (sorry) to promote Wal-Mart, helps bring clarity to some issues, or at least to highlight the questions.
(Because there's so much out there already on this, I should probably point out the facts as we know them: A couple hoping to drive across the country , BusinessWeek reported, discovered that Wal-Mart allows Recreation Vehicle users (RVers) to park in their lots for free, so they decided to do that every place they stopped. They sought the approval of an organisation called Working Families for Wal-Mart, an organization set up by Edelman to fight bad press against the chain. The organisation decided to sponsor the couple's entire trip, paying for the couple to fly to Las Vegas, "where a mint-green RV would be waiting for them, emblazoned with the Working Families for Wal-Mart logo." The group also paid for gas, set up a blog site, and paid the woman a freelance fee for her entries. The final post on the blog discloses all this, including the connection between the couple and Edelman. But until then the only evidence of a link to Wal-Mart was a banner add for the Working Families group.)
This is how I'd put the issues:
- Can a blog written by someone with an interest beyond merely informing the reader be ever considered something other than promotion for that interest, however well-concealed or unconscious? We get all upset about PayPerPost (rightly so) but far more insidious are blogs that earn their wages in less obvious ways.
- What happens to a conversation when it turns out to be between people who aren't who they pretend to be? The conversation, in this case, appears to be between, not two ordinary folk casually mentioning how good Wal-Mart is on their travels, but between the PR company and their employer.
- When is a spokesperson not a spokesperson? How should we regard Edelman's Steve Rubel if the one thing he's not really covering in his blog is the issue about his own company? At the time of writing the story's been out there for three days already, and not a mention, even a "I can't comment on this at the moment, let me get back to you." Given that Steve is well-versed in these nuances, I'd expect him to be quicker off the mark in this case, company sensitivities and procedures notwithstanding. (Update: Steve has now, on the fourth day, posted something.)
Why do I sometimes feel we're caught in a kind of Groundhog Day in the blogosphere, where we are doomed to repeat ourselves until we learn the lessons our forebears learned? Are we so arrogant that we think we're smarter? The lessons are:
- The Chinese Walls aren't just for the Chinese. They're for us: to protect us against conflicts of interest, snake-oil salesman, shysters and shills. These walls were built over centuries, and we shouldn't think we're so smart we don't need them, however imperfect they are.
- You write to promote your company, however tangentially, and you speak for that company. It's not a cherrypicking job. You can't just ignore topics you don't like the look of. If you don't know what the line is, find out and tell your audience asap. If the story is wrong, get your version out asap.
- Define the conversation, and the conversationalists. Too much talk about conversations, already. It's a nice, neutral, inclusive word. But it's not really. Because most of the time we don't know who's talking, and what their real purpose is. When PR firms with clients, or venture capitalists with an interest in seeing their investments rise in value, or whatever, start to get involved they naturally want to steer the conversation a certain way. Nothing wrong with that, except they must accept that they remain on one side of the conversation. They can't claim to be on both sides. Journalists learned this a long time ago. It's time we all remembered it.
