Comments on: Edelman’s Apology: “Acknowledgement” vs. “Acceptance “

By: Andy Sernovitz

Andy Sernovitz — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:13:30 +0000

Todd –

We’re having an open discussion on the situation at http://www.womma.org/blog-disclosure/

I hope you’ll join in.

Andy Sernovitz
CEO
Word of Mouth Marketing Association

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:22:18 +0000

I am completely shocked that in this day and age with the Internet and blogs being so prevalent that companies still think that information that they wish to keep under wraps will actually remain that way. Especially a company like Wal-Mart that is constantly under fire and always has people hoping for their failure. I hope that those who need to will learn from Edelman and Wal-Mart’s mistakes and not attempt to dupe the public. We will find out.

By: Todd Defren

Todd Defren — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:36:15 +0000

Basically, this flog and the lame response after its exposure SHOULD be grounds for action by PRSA and WOMMA.

I predict nothing will happen.

And the PR INDUSTRY will suffer for it.

Again.

By: Dan Keeney

Dan Keeney — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:58:38 +0000

Discolosing the organization that is funding a public relations initiative is not just a “rule of social media,” it is in the PRSA code of professional standards.

Beyond basic “netiquette,” the attempt to create the appearance that these brand advocates were independent third parties was unethical. Our profession must accept that it needs to operate in the open both online and offline.

By: John Wagner

John Wagner — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:20:59 +0000

And Todd, when you read closely, you find that Edelman simply acknowledged that they should have required the use of last names for the two bloggers.

That to me is amazing. As if the bloggers’ last names were the problem.

By: jen

jen — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:43:44 +0000

*unbelievable* of edelman. they knew better and chose to play by a different set of ruls other than their own. shame on them.