On the Importance of Being a Navel-Gazer
Okay, this is my last post on the latest Edleman/Wal-Mart flap. I hope.
As this meme progressed, one of the things I noticed --- in my own blog; in my readers' comments; and across the score of other blogs that weighed in (Constantin Basturea has a great recap) --- was the tone of "righteous indignation."
This led some others to suggest that the echo-chamber-like nature of the blogosphere turned a "minor" event, unnecessarily, into a cause célèbre. We were accused of navel-gazing.
It is absolutely true that the blogosphere tends to blow minor things out of all proportion. But I also believe that the blogosphere is market-oriented. One or two bloggers may rant about a minor issue, but, unless the "marketplace of ideas" pays heed to these rants, the meme is stillborn. The political blogs are ranting non-stop on the Right and Left, every day, but only when their ideas have genuine merit do rants become memes, which can subsequently become game-changers. Ask Trent Lott. Ask Dan Rather.
The blogosphere is a force-multiplier for under-represented but legitimate ideas; just as pack journalism can be faulted for its homogeneity --- but rarely for the legitimacy of the concepts under such intense scrutiny.
In other words: Edelman shoulda' known better --- the fake Wal-Mart blog that Edelman set-up was an egregious breach of ethics (from a self-described paragon of Social Media virtue). It was not an honest mistake in the new era, it was a cynical manipulation of Social Media's bedrock tenets. Edelman deserved to be called out. And, because the Agency's top dogs were originally silent in the face of the resulting storm, the blogosphere whipped itself into a fury. It would not be denied.
And that's the way it should be. That's the beauty of the blogosphere.
Tags: edelman, wal-mart, flog, public+relations, social+media, blogs
Subscribe by Email
Click here for my LinkedIn profile
Comments
Yes, if Edelman and et al hadn't been the "poster boys" for social media, this would not have been *as big* of a deal. But, since it is Edelman, the outcry includes some disbelief. (Like saying Santa Claus isn't real.)
Also, it shows how, no matter what we preach, it's what we practice that can expose how hard it is to really keep our word -- especially when we mix the realistic world of business in it. I don't want to brand Edelman Inc. for one big, huge miscalculation, but it does show how the pursuit of client and business goals can cloud our ethics.
As I noted in my post last night, I wonder how involved Mr. Edelman was in the WalmartingacrossAmerica effort. From his own comments, he seemed to have to collect all the facts before weighing in. It doesn't seem like he was clued into the project. That's surprising if you assume that the biggest company in the world is Edelman's biggest client.
Finally, while Edelman being quiet wouldn't have benefited the company long-term, did Mr. Edelman really owe the PR blogosphere and explanation? No. It's the opinion of his clients and prospective clients that count. However, since they may also peruse blogs and the 'net, some public comment was necessary.
-- Mike
(Hhhmm. That might make for a good blog post?)
Posted by: Mike Driehorst | October 17, 2006 07:59 PM
Todd:
I completely agree with you. Given that this situation drummed up enough talk to make it into PR Week, obviously it's something people feel strongly about.
The concept of, "Oh, we can get away with it because people ignore it or can't discuss it easily. It'll just go away." is dead. This is just another illustration of the importance of honesty and integrity in ALL elements of our businesses.
Posted by: Kevin Behringer | October 17, 2006 08:08 PM