JD on EP

Hmm, I've kept on reading some of the earlier documents, and it seems that the original reports didn't say Edelman hired the bloggers or that the relationship was not divulged.

The people who wrote the blog describe how they came up with the idea on their own, with the goal of selling the story to an RV magazine...they sought permission from WalMart to use their property for that purpose, and "They didn’t just give us permission. They said they would even sponsor the trip!" She had contacted her brother, who worked at Edelman, which may indicate that the other Edelman bloggers should be cut some slack.
The Oct8 BusinessWeek story from which this PR-blogger angle slowly crept described the actual issue as this, down towards the bottom: "While there is a Working Families banner on the Web site, nowhere does it mention that Wal-Mart has paid for the flight, the RV, the gas, and the blog entries." So the problem wasn't that there was no disclosure; it was that there wasn't enough disclosure, or the right kind of disclosure, for somebody else. Hmm, that changes things....

When I look at the blog here on Sun Oct15, there's a clear "sponsored by Working Families for Wal-Mart logo with links for more info"... I think everyone would agree that there's good disclosure on the blog today. I'm not certain if this banner changed over the week.

But the more I looked into this issue, the less I saw was here:

The original blog did have disclosure;
The idea was not an intentional campaign, but was a happy by-product of some other activity;
We don't know the nature of the sponsorship, so there's no umbrage possible on this angle yet;
I can see how the writer might have asked her Edelman-employed brother for advice, instead of going through the company's website to find a contact;
The other bloggers at Edelman might not have even heard of this issue before this weekend... they automate the tracking of company mentions, but not all staffers may have access to all info;
If they had heard of it, they might have wanted to contact the workgroup involved with WalMart first, to get their side of the story before saying anything;
If the blog's disclosure was improved over the week, then all involved may have thought that this was enough to solve the issue.

Summary: The more I study this, the weaker it seems. The anti-WalMart angle does try to get its story in the press, so there's potential incentive for a false push to get this story into the public eye. Among bloggers, they often, ah, give each other advice, which might have repercussions down the road... if I got roasted by someone on ethics, and later learned they were actually doing what I was accused of doing, then that would catch my attention too. There are multiple hypotheses available right now, and I don't have enough evidence to choose among them.

It's still good to disclose affiliations, though, that much still seems sure.... ;-)

isn't this a corporate PR site?

[jd sez: I'm not deleting this comment, even though I can't see sense in it... "this" might mean my blog, might intend to mean something else. There's also the lack of disclosure in whichever human took the time to type it....]

Are we reading the same businessweek article?

The fact that a blogger asked them: "In a blog posting for the Web site The Writing On the Wal, Reese published an open letter to Laura and Jim challenging them to reveal themselves and asking who paid for their RV and gas."

... means that at some point it _wasn't_ clear who sponsored them.

And as for your own query ""While there is a Working Families banner on the Web site, nowhere does it mention that Wal-Mart has paid for the flight, the RV, the gas, and the blog entries."

... well the Businessweek article does in fact metion this:

"Working Families decided to sponsor the couple's entire trip, although that meant a change in the itinerary from the short Pennsylvania/North Carolina trip to something more grand. The group paid to fly the couple to Las Vegas, where a mint-green RV would be waiting for them, emblazoned with the Working Families for Wal-Mart logo. "

Paid flight? Free RV? Come on.
If the conflict of interest doesn't stick it in your craw, surely Laura's denouncement of the blogging community critical of her Wal-Mart ventures as "Imaginary" should.

[jd sez: Sorry, maybe our details are passing in the night here... that wasn't "my query", but it was a direct quote from Pallavi Gogoi's BW story... she acknowledged there actually *was* disclosure of a connection to pro-WalMart groups, even though it didn't disclose details of that connection. Tony, thanks for the visit... you don't have any connection to UFCW, Edelman, or other stakeholders here, right? (I don't think I do, fwiw... closest might be the Edelman does some kind of work for Adobe, but I don't know details.) ]

Hang in there. Thanks for teaching by example re: reputation management. The whole post could have been deleted, but walking through the real-time discovery process moves your 'rep' up a notch based on full disclosure. Thanks for thinking out loud.

Update: The "WalMarting" weblog did indeed disclose it was sponsored by a WalMart group, as this (time-sensitive) Google cache shows. Thanks to Constatin Basturea for the catch.

Speaking of disclosure, I think it would be great if BusinessWeek described how this story reached Pallavi Gogoi, and the New York Times documented the process of Michael Barbaro's coverage. Should we regard it as news, just because these media centers say it is "the news"...?

Stakeholder? Ha ha ha -- valid question, but no.

Just another interested blogger wondering the whys and wherefores about social media. :)

But to just finish the thought -- even though there was the mention of disclosure, the *nature* of the disclosure seems the critical thing here.

And in my humble opinion ... that's something of a legitimate concern.

[jd sez: Cool, thanks for the word, Tony!]

Update: The "nondisclosure" charge seems a non-starter, because the group Working Familes For WalMart issued a press release promoting the story site, on Sept29. The link at Yahoo News may rot soon, so I'll include the first few paragraphs below:

LAS VEGAS, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Working Families for Wal-Mart, a national organization with more than 150,000 volunteer members dedicated to getting the truth out about Wal- Mart's positive contributions to working families, today launched an RV tour, "Wal-Marting Across America." Over the next 10 days Wally 1, a red, green, and blue RV, will travel from Nevada to Georgia parking at Wal-Mart stores overnight and purchasing all supplies, including gas, at Wal-Mart stores along the way. Wally 1 will also be meeting fellow RVers and signing up volunteer members who want to add their voice to the national debate about Wal-Mart.

"America's working families benefit from Wal-Mart," said Catherine Smith, Working Families for Wal-Mart Interim Chairman. "We wanted to take that a step further so two of our members are hitting the road to hear, first hand, the many the opportunities Wal-Mart provides to its customers and associates."

"We're excited to get on the road and learn more about this growing RV community," said Wally 1 traveler Laura St. Claire. "Many RVers choose to make Wal-Mart an essential part of their travels. By both saving money and utilizing the company's parking lots to overnight, RVers have realized the value and convenience Wal-Mart provides. Throughout the tour we will highlight the stories of these RVers and everyday working families that depend on Wal-Mart."

Trite, maybe, but not corrupt, and certainly not under-the-table.

The story site itself is down (which I don't understand!), but it's currently in Google Cache... try term "site:walmartingacrossamerica.com -poiu" to see what's still there. I saw writing which might have seemed curious had the affiliation not been disclosed, but the most propagandistic stuff was about a WalMart staffer who liked the low-energy bulbs so much that he switched to them as soon as he moved into a new apartment, then: "He is proud that Wal-Mart has helped improve property values in Oklahoma City by purchasing deteriorating buildings in neighborhoods such as the I 240 Santa Fe store. In addition to his commitment to his customers and the environment, Louie speaks fondly of the 200 chinchillas that he and his partner, Hong, raise for pets." Seems less strikingly manipulative than many other media communications.

But it was clearly not an undisclosed relationship if it arrived with press releases, right...?

Great pick up John ;)

I would still argue, however, that the press release doesn't discuss the nature of their sponsorship -- RV, gas, supplies all paid for.

I would also argue (flogging the dead horse, it seems), that at the end of the day, while it may be "transparent", in the sense that 1)) there was a press release and 2) there was a logo on the site mentioning the sponsorship -- I think some PR types who drink the koolaid of social media / web2.0 and all that will still view this as phony.

As in "not real" -- or rather, not real enough. Edelman couldn't get "real" bloggers to evangelize their client, so they (ostensibly through an organization they funded) funded a couple of interested people to blog for them. [jd sez: True, but in that case I'd first object to labor unions extraction of mandatory dues to fund anti-WalMart blogs. Both disclosed, but it's still unclear to me how far the web of influences actually extend.]

While the disclosure does take the sting out of the whole debacle, I think the total silence on Edelman's behalf (for four whole days -- what's that ... like 10 news cycles on the Internet?) and the fact that it took YOUR hard work to find this tidbit out speaks volumes. [jd sez: Agreed, I'm still puzzled by the lockdown on those who advised *others* against lockdowns... let's give 'em some time Monday to get together inside their group, see what happens.]

Great work, though! :)
Cheers
t @ dji.

Hi,

Thanks for stopping by my blog, JD.

Just thought I'd mention that my problem is less with Wal-Mart than it is with Edelman.

Wal-Mart is sleazy, and everyone knows it. [jd sez: I don't. I've never been in one, but I see how others campaign against them.] One silly blog marketing stunt pales in comparison to all the real problems they have as a business. If marketing transparency was their biggest issue, I'm sure they'd be very very happy.

The real issue, if we're talking about the impact on internet marketing and communication, is Edelman.

Richard Edlman and Steve Rubel should know better than do this kind of sh*t. They should be ashamed. They should own up to it. And the last thing they should be is silent. [jd sez: If you or I had the choice "Hey, shall I blog or not, tossup either way?" then I could agree with you. But we don't know their situation, their constraints, which is why it may be useful to give them a weekend cycle to talk within their group.]

I respect Richard Edelman. I think he is a bold, creative thinker who is running a fine shop. Heck, I even got email from the guy after commenting on his blog. Extra points in my book.

And I respect Steve Rubel. He is an A-list blogger and deserves to be one. His commentary is informative and I quote/reference him all the time.

[jd sez: Me, I've known of them, but haven't gotten much for the reading time I've invested there... I'm neutral, disinterested.]

What concerns me is how such a supposedly smart company and a smart VP/blogger can be so stupid. [jd sez: Maybe, but as there are women being stoned to death for adultery in Iran today, it seems like the umbrage might be a little more usefully directed.]

The fact that they have said nothing to date about this fiasco is incredible. It goes against every principle of good PR. And if anyone should know, it is Edelman. [jd sez: Another target for wrath might be the usefulness of the United Nations -- we know a little more about their motivations and handlings than we do of the Edelman PR staff at the moment. Just sayin', in a priorities-wise kind of way. ]

And by the way, that Newswire press release from WFWM you reference is dated 29 September, and the Business Week article is dated 27 September. As far as I can tell, the press release was issued after the fact. Or am I missing something? [jd sez: Good catch on dating. Outfront enough to issue a press release, covert enough to nonblog, let me think about that....]
[jd update: Pallavi Gogoi's BusinessWeek article was actually dated Oct 8, and its initial text was the date the weblog started, Sept 27.]

~G~

Hi,

Thanks for the fisking.

George sez: Right back at you, JD ...

You need not ever to have been in a Wal-Mart to know how sleazy they are. You're a smary guy. You watch the news and read the papers, right? Given the references to Iran and the UN, it doesn't look like Adobe keeps you locked up in the basement or anything.

For someone so quick to reference headlines of women being stoned to death or the validity of the UN, you must miss all the labor law issues and other scandals at the retailer. I guess last week's $78 million fine slipped under your radar screen. Fair enough.

That "weekend cycle" you talk about flies in the face of every recommendation Edelman/Rubel makes when it comes to communication in the blogospere. It is an echo chamber in here, and things get loud in 4 or 5 days with no answer. Crisis communications, especially online, do not know wait for weekends. Edelman and Rubel know it. They practically wrote the book.

For that matter, Steve Rubel has been posting all weekend and has already posted today (Monday). They're a PR firm. They know what this all means.

If your "stoned to death" comment is supposed to make me feel guilty for talking about this issue, then why did you blog about it? I don't see any posts about anything other than technology on your blog, JD. Don't be hypocritical or try to play that game with me. I won't have it.

Re: the UN comment. See above. Go visit Daily Kos or someplace else if you want to talk about the UN. The blogosphere is full of open and honest conversation about a myriad of topics including Iran, the UN, Wal-Mart and Edelman. Just because we discuss some topics doesn't mean we don't care about the others.

And yes, do have a think about the 2 days in between the Newsweek article and the Press Release (post-fact "disclosure") from WFWM. It doesn't look like they needed a "cycle to talk within their group" on that one, did they?

George sez: Thanks again for the fisking, and I really enjoyed your condescending tone.

~G~

You wrote:

[jd update: Pallavi Gogoi's BusinessWeek article was actually dated Oct 8, and its initial text was the date the weblog started, Sept 27.]

That is false.

The article and by-line are clearly dated 27 September.

[jd sez: Hmm, that's odd, at first I suspected a caching issue or perhaps a varietal page, but on every machine I check the Google search shows this URL, which states Oct 8 as the publication date. Do you see the same as me? If not, then how might I see the same as you?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_579137.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
]

If I didn't know better, I'd begin to wonder. You thinking about leaving San Jose for Bentonville?

~G~

ps: It is tough to know when you have replied to a post on your blog when you edit and re-edit your own in-line comments in people's posts. You're the only person I know who does this.

Here's news of two more fake blogs Wal-Mart blogs from Edelman. Well, at least they're coming clean ... But they wouln't have if it were not for the "blogosphere tizzy."

No press releases on them to debate. Sorry.

[jd sez: George, I think you don't realize I don't care about WalMart. I've never been in one, have no connection to the store, and simply don't care. What I'm focusing on is how bloggers are vulnerable to being led around like sheep by the latest rumor, the latest two-minute hate. Your hobbies are your own choice, although I believe that something like knitting might be a little more productive. ]

~G~

=========================================

Edelman Reveals Two More Wal-Mart 'Flogs'
by Tom Siebert
Friday, Oct 20, 2006 6:33 AM ET

[jd sez: Extraneous copyright material snipped, but it should be available in a Google search.]