Interesting story on how Facebook used a PR firm to attempt to secretly wage a bit of a PR war against Google.Basically the brouhaha is that Facebook hired Burson-Marsteller (a PR agency) to reach out to the media and raise the issue that Google was invading people's privacy (without disclosing that the work by the PR firm was being done at the request of Facebook).
This story kind of made me laugh.
On the surface I don't see anything (morally) wrong with this strategy and Facebook shouldn't have to apologies for how it went about raising an issue - you should be able to raise any issue with the media, it's their job to then go fact check it (if you lie mind you, you will burn your reputation in the end).
The reason I laugh is because the strategy was a dumb one (not wrong, merely dumb).
Anyone who thinks a reporter is going to take a pitch from anyone on behalf of a secret, unidentified client and not try to find out who the client is before taking the story seriously is nuts.
BM: Hi, I've got a great story for you blah blah blah
Reporter: Umm, ok, who do you have that I can speak to about this?
BM: Oh, we don't have anyone, we're just contacting you about this issue so you are in the know.
Reporter: Yes, but you are a PR agency, so you are clearly representing someone in promoting this issue right?
BM: Well yes, but our client wishes to remain annonymous, we're just contacting you to make you aware of this issue, that's all.
Reporter: ummm, ok, thanks, I guess.
(that's how I imagine the conversation going and why it makes me laugh).
Moreover, the first thing any reporter that takes an interest in the story is going to do is call Google to check to see if the facts are accurate and hence if there's even a story there to work with.
So immediately Google's PR people are going to start getting media calls on this topic and wonder why the sudden interest from multiple media outlets. At which point people within the industry will start talking and it's only a matter of time until it becomes known who launched the attack.
Overall it's a pretty silly way to try and get an issue on the media's radar. It's far easier to simply frame the differences between Google and Facebook on the issue and grant media interviews wherein you can highlight your strengths. Pitching the media on a story that you yourself don't want to comment on is a good way to have your efforts blow up in your face.
What's even funnier about all this is how a blogger posted emails they received from the PR firm. This is another thing that makes me laugh. The media, no matter how much you might like the reporter and have a friendly relationship with them, consider all forms of communication to be 'on the record'. This is another reason why secretive PR campaigning is a bad idea, because all your communications with the media become things that can be used against you.
The only reason people think being secretive works is because it does seem to go on in politics a lot. Yet, PR 101, know your beat reporters. Tech reporters are not the same as political reporters. Because information is so highly guarded in the political sphere, reporters deal daily with information transfer from people with agendas who don't want to publicly crusade for that agenda. They work within an ecosystem where that kind of behavior is normal. Yet it's about the only beat in which that is common.
When it comes to every other beat, if you simply launched a campaign in the open, then everything is simple and straight forward and you don't end up with egg on your face.
Which is a good piece of advice I'd give to PR folks. If you find yourself having email exchanges with members of the media and thinking to yourself that what you are saying is 'off the record' then you probably shouldn't be saying it. Or at the very least you need to stop and ask yourself whether you have assessed the risk/reward around disseminating two sets of messages - the first being what you hope ends up in public eye and the second being what you are saying to the reporter privately.
This story kind of made me laugh.
On the surface I don't see anything (morally) wrong with this strategy and Facebook shouldn't have to apologies for how it went about raising an issue - you should be able to raise any issue with the media, it's their job to then go fact check it (if you lie mind you, you will burn your reputation in the end).
The reason I laugh is because the strategy was a dumb one (not wrong, merely dumb).
Anyone who thinks a reporter is going to take a pitch from anyone on behalf of a secret, unidentified client and not try to find out who the client is before taking the story seriously is nuts.
BM: Hi, I've got a great story for you blah blah blah
Reporter: Umm, ok, who do you have that I can speak to about this?
BM: Oh, we don't have anyone, we're just contacting you about this issue so you are in the know.
Reporter: Yes, but you are a PR agency, so you are clearly representing someone in promoting this issue right?
BM: Well yes, but our client wishes to remain annonymous, we're just contacting you to make you aware of this issue, that's all.
Reporter: ummm, ok, thanks, I guess.
(that's how I imagine the conversation going and why it makes me laugh).
Moreover, the first thing any reporter that takes an interest in the story is going to do is call Google to check to see if the facts are accurate and hence if there's even a story there to work with.
So immediately Google's PR people are going to start getting media calls on this topic and wonder why the sudden interest from multiple media outlets. At which point people within the industry will start talking and it's only a matter of time until it becomes known who launched the attack.
Overall it's a pretty silly way to try and get an issue on the media's radar. It's far easier to simply frame the differences between Google and Facebook on the issue and grant media interviews wherein you can highlight your strengths. Pitching the media on a story that you yourself don't want to comment on is a good way to have your efforts blow up in your face.
What's even funnier about all this is how a blogger posted emails they received from the PR firm. This is another thing that makes me laugh. The media, no matter how much you might like the reporter and have a friendly relationship with them, consider all forms of communication to be 'on the record'. This is another reason why secretive PR campaigning is a bad idea, because all your communications with the media become things that can be used against you.
The only reason people think being secretive works is because it does seem to go on in politics a lot. Yet, PR 101, know your beat reporters. Tech reporters are not the same as political reporters. Because information is so highly guarded in the political sphere, reporters deal daily with information transfer from people with agendas who don't want to publicly crusade for that agenda. They work within an ecosystem where that kind of behavior is normal. Yet it's about the only beat in which that is common.
When it comes to every other beat, if you simply launched a campaign in the open, then everything is simple and straight forward and you don't end up with egg on your face.
Which is a good piece of advice I'd give to PR folks. If you find yourself having email exchanges with members of the media and thinking to yourself that what you are saying is 'off the record' then you probably shouldn't be saying it. Or at the very least you need to stop and ask yourself whether you have assessed the risk/reward around disseminating two sets of messages - the first being what you hope ends up in public eye and the second being what you are saying to the reporter privately.
Comments
Post a Comment