Guess Who’s Talking: Social Media Ethical Dilemmas
Continuing our series on Social Media Ethical Dilemmas, this post is about the guidelines related to agencies who help client contacts to identify and engage, via commenting, on industry/influencer blogs.
The goal is to insert our clients’ executives and perspectives into industry conversations; to help them build up their credibility, and ultimately to create valuable relationships with influencers.
How do you do this? How can you effectively inform and educate busy clients while also cultivating the bloggers’ goodwill in an authentic way?
Here’s the general process…
The Agency is tasked with monitoring a series of influential blogs.
The Agency staff read the blogs every day, and sometimes comment — with full transparency, i.e., they comment as themselves, since it is not only in the client’s best interest but also in the PR pro’s interest to be engaged with the blogger.
On occasion, the blogger writes about something — a trend, a client competitor, etc. — that truly impacts the client.
At that point, the PR agency pro alerts the client, with a note that describes the blog post, its relevance to the client, and a brief description of the key points that the client might want to use in their own response, should they choose to engage.
EXAMPLE: Let’s say we have a client in the Search industry. An influential blogger drafts a post about the evolution of SEO. Our team reads it, drafts a synopsis, and immediately sends it to our client with a recommendation…
“We recommend inserting yourself into this conversation from a broader standpoint in terms of how many technologies, not just SEO, are changing in response to innovations in Search… Helping consumers move beyond the limits of traditional search is a more important end-goal than focusing on tweaking SEO.” (etc.)
Ethical dilemma #1: is this an unethical engagement strategy?? On the one hand, as I just noted, our PR team is taking an inordinate amount of time to read and really think about each of these blog commenting opportunities, on behalf of our clients. The resulting comments (ultimately written by clients personally) come across as lucid and engaged. BUT, yea, there’s no denying it: many of our clients need us to tell them when, where, why and how to engage — and that engagement is often a cursory exercise. The Agency often does the heavy lifting in terms of monitoring, identification, analysis, and recommendation.
Why? Because the clients are busy running their companies and working with customers. Because there are now hundreds of blogs to monitor. And because, over time, it tends to happen that genuine relationships are cultivated, e.g., when the blogger reaches out to the client contact directly, as a result of their interesting comment. What started out as a 1–level-deep commitment can convert into a true relationship; the Agency just helped plant the first few seeds.
In other words: it’s a gray area that I am comfortable living in.
This is not about misrepresenting the client; it’s actually about a) making sure the client is well informed about the trends and opinions of the blogosphere, b) saving time for the client and, c) making sure the influential bloggers are justifiably made aware of the fact that our clients do care about their content (even if they can’t keep track on a daily basis).
Ethical dilemma #2: it happens that sometimes the Agency’s suggestions can be pretty easily cut&pasted as the actual comment… the busy client might not take the time to put their own touches on it. Worse, they sometimes say, “Yea, that sounds good. Just use that language, and assign my name to that comment: you post it.”
While we are chagrined when our suggestions are used whole-cloth, there’s not much we can do. When asked to post a comment on a client’s behalf, we always decline — both because our IP address could be traced back, and because, well, we don’t think it is ethical… though some clients are left scratching their heads. After all, we will sometimes “ghostblog!?” What’s the difference? I don’t have a good answer. My gut says “don’t go there.”
You can see how, as this series progresses, the dilemmas get trickier, stickier, harder. All I can assure you, Dear Readers, is that we grapple with these ethical issues mightily, and often. We take nothing for granted. We harbor no cynicism nor deviousness. We operate with every intention of maintaining the highest degrees of integrity…but we also live and work in a gray and uncharted land.
Your thoughts appreciated.



A very interesting blog post. I think that if the PR professional in question were an actual employee of the company, this would not be a question of ethics as much as it would be just assumed to be a part of their job. When an agency or contractor takes on this role, I believe that they are assuming the responsibility to be in the know, to speak on behalf of the company and to empower the company to take appropriate action when it it’s relevant. When the company says, “yes, that’s good” or “I like it, let’s go with that,” isn’t it sort of the same thing as when they approve a press release? Thanks for starting this conversation!
Nice post, Todd. This is an area we find ourselves operating in with greater frequency, as well. We navigate the landscape the same way you do, in very close collaboration with our clients.
With regard to “Ethical Dilemma #1” in your post, it struck me that in this paragraph…
This is not about misrepresenting the client; it’s actually about a) making sure the client is well informed about the trends and opinions of the blogosphere, b) saving time for the client and, c) making sure the influential bloggers are justifiably made aware of the fact that our clients do care about their content (even if they can’t keep track on a daily basis).
…you could easily replace “blogosphere” and “bloggers” with “traditional media” and “reporters” and essentially describe what PR firms have done since the dawn of time. We are simply adjusting to the changing times and doing what is necessary to ensure our clients are represented in the media – whether traditional or new – that are important to their key audiences and their businesses.
I think you come to the right conclusions here. In the whole scheme of things, though, I think it is one of the less complicated ethical dilemmas to deal with.
It seems to be there are much tougher calls. For instance, let’s say the Agency has been retained to rep Sony on an upcoming product release in the music area. For understandable reasons, that relationship may not be able to be disclosed.
So can Agency staff write on their own blog about a beef they have with Amazon’s Kindle? After all, Sony has a competing product. It has nothing to do with what the Agency has been contracted to work on, but an absolutist might take issue with it.
And with a huge company like Sony, there are countless other examples of things an Agency staffer might commonly comment on routinely, but are they then off limits based on this undisclosable client relationship even though they have nothing to do with the work the Agency is doing for the client?
Hey Todd,
Really enjoying your series…sharing it with quite a few folks.
This post shows where “We’ll be your social media agency,” starts to bump into a wall.
Building relationships requires a person on both ends of the line. Sooner or later, the “ghost” either has to come out from behind the curtain or ask the client to be personally involved. That’s when “I thought I paid you to do this for me?” comes up.
The “do it for me” approach busy execs are accustomed to worked when we were ad creators, media buyers, and media relations pros. It has limitations in social media.
It’s a slippery slope from “ghost blogger” to “ghost commenter” to “ghost tweeter” to “My avatar has a relationship with someone, but they don’t know I’m the person behind the avatar.” Without a clear Code of Ethics, it’s easy to slip into dangerous territory.
Todd, sorry I don’t have any flak for you. I gotta say I agree.
It seems like a blend of common PR practices, even from way back when: monitoring, coaching, research… I’d argue that it’s unethical NOT to help the client out with this stuff in the way you do. I mean, that’s what they’re paying for, right?
I really don’t see the ethical dilemma if you’ve essentially ghostwritten a blog comment for a client… as long as the client has read, approved, and posted it herself… even if it’s a whole cloth cut-paste.
The dilemma I do see is in the agency-posted comments earlier in the process: “The Agency staff read the blogs every day, and sometimes comment — with full transparency, i.e., they comment as themselves” The dilemma occurs if/when the comment is client-specific. That is, if a comment is general (e.g., “SEO is good”), there is no dilemma. However, if a comment is specific (e.g., “SEO is good”), the post needs to disclose the agency relationship, even if the staff-person is posting as him/herself. You are then consistent with the new FTC rules on the blogger, as well as the long-standing disclosure rules that securities analysts follow.
Of course, there is a gray area. If the staff person is a fan of a particular company and posts positive comments because that’s his own opinion, does he have to disclose that he works for an agency that has a relationship with that company? My opinion is that more transparency is better, especially if the person was reading the blog in the first place as part of his job. Again, the securities industry is the model: analysts disclose not only personal holdings, but also that their company may have an i-banking relationship with the client. Even a generic “I work for a company which has a relationship with , but the opinions here are my own.” is better than a possibly deceptive lack of disclosure.
Sorry — my previous post was mangled. It should say “SEO COMPANY is good” in the second example and it should say “…a relationship with COMPANY,…”
Thanks for the column, Todd. This series has been incredibly interesting and resourceful, especially since you’ve brought us real, relatable examples and not just the 10,000 foot view.
For this particular post, I agree with the other commenters. PR firms are hired to, in short, make their clients look good (I’ll spare the objectives, strategies, and tactics jargon here). If the client agrees with the assessment you provide, it’s not misrepresentation, it’s giving them the information they need and allowing them to make a decision. If the client disagreed, you would hear about it.
There are things that you brought up in dilemma #2 that are important to point out to the client – suggesting they finesse the language, posting from their own IP address, etc. – but monitoring conversation (of all kinds) and helping our clients respond is one of the core functions PR firms are hired to do, and should do, regardless of how the conversation landscape changes.
Great thoughts Todd, I think there is nothing wrong in getting the right kind of engagement with influential bloggers this way as I think that is what you call a PR agency, So its a public affair and you are dealing with it because the client cannot think or monitor so much of content and information within a limited time.
Loving the series….
Interesting post, Todd. I don’t see either scenario as particularly ethically vexing, but rather as the inevitable consequence of working with clients too busy to stay engaged. So long as the client endorses the message (and the subject matter is not archly controversial)it seems to me no different from drafting a quote for a client for use in a press release (for their approval), a practice that goes on all the time.
I’m ok with dilemma 1, but 2 is a bit dodgy. transparency about who the author is, is best. Good discussion.