

Blog
Is the de-influencer movement another reputational hazard?
The Two—Facebook.com headline in The Metro is delectable. The people laughing about today’s front pages are probably Microsoft, Google and a few other big global PR agencies….perhaps also thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I”. Congratulations to the agencies (not mentioned) who declined the brief on the grounds it was a bit […] ...Read more
Steve Earl
‘Smearing’ will always go on, the issue is knowing where to draw the line. Reputation vendettas will just make a brand look daft, particularly with the transparency of new media. But ensuring that positioning is as assertive as it can be, and trying to ensure that competitors’ blunders or weaknesses are being talked about rather than submerged, is part and parcel of PR.
I’ve just had a chat with a journalist about this. Question: should PR’s code of ethics be updated to provide clarity here, or should it be left to common sense? And does everyone read those codes anyway? Apparently 14 people out of 2,200 at BM USA had.
Paul Seaman
The really dumb thing was that by blackening Google’s reputation over privacy concerns, Facebook risked provoking the regulators and public opinion to dump their load (their wrath) on both companies. They risked having the same arguments and logic Facebook asked BM to direct at Google coming back to haunt Facebook (BM should have told them as much). However, I’m not sure social media changes much… And I don’t think BM lied or cheated or even deceived, though it broke its own code of conduct and perhaps was sly. Transparency is the new opaque. It is not all it is cracked up to be…and PRs should not over-state its merits – and remain cautious – because this issue could as easily bite us in our bums as savagely as Facebook’s ill-conceived ruse against Google took a chunk out of theirs.