It's standard behavior to rush to the call for investigation and change in response to every news item. If a brick falls from a fifth-story window and hits someone on the head, the evening news can be counted on to look into the shortcomings of the brick industry, and ask, "Surely they knew their bricks were lethal. But what did they do about it?"
And so it is in public relations. Following the disclosure that PR agency Burson Marsteller mounted a covert anti-Google campaign on behalf of (at-the-time-undisclosed) client Facebook, we're all analyzing the behavior of the participants and advising them on how they can do better in the future.
WebProNews writes not only is "Burson's reputation under assault but also its credibility as knowledgeable and skilful practitioners in public relations is being questioned as a consequence." WebProNews points out that the Burson executives involved will receive training in ethics, and quotes the WPP (Burson's parent company) Code of Ethics:
"We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;"
But what is truly learned here? Burson had a code of ethics. Are we to believe the agency really has executives who have never read it, have never received ethics training, don't understand the importance of ethical behavior?
Or did a couple of people approve and execute a stupid campaign knowing it wasn't the right thing to do? And if that's the case, what is the utility of analyzing Burson's behavior against a backdrop of codes of ethics? What can we truly learn from this approach?
It's a very simple matter. Let's not complicate it. My advice to Burson (and to any PR agency or professional):
- Be honest and ethical
- Know your agency's code of ethics, and consult it often
- If your agency does not have a code of ethics, consult Craigslist and PRSA to find a new agency
What else is there?