Catering To Labels: PR Executives

Most public relations executives, especially those looking for a position, would be happy being featured as the lead in an interview for a Forbes article. Not Judith Lederman.

The 50-year-old divorcee who lives in Scarsdale, N.Y. who has yet to replace her former $120,000 salary as a publicity manager at Lord & Taylor took exception to the way the article portrayed her. Calling the reporter out on her blog, she wrote "Instead of painting me as someone seeking an appropriate salary so she could support herself, it portrays me as someone who is torn between the prospect of being employed and being eligible for tax breaks, college scholarships and other incentives."

Except, as Steven Spenser, principal of Praxis Communication in Seattle, commented in response to her post: "I must have read a different article, because I didn't find any text that indicated you want entitlements or handouts." Spenser is right. The perception Lederman had about the story is not the perception that most people will draw from the story. And that's too bad.

Given her uncomfortable position, I don't want to berate Lederman. Rather, I want to focus on the lesson to be learned for new public relations practitioners, especially those who are entering an era where publicly responding to the media is all too easy to do. And based on the lead in to the post, Lederman knew it too.

"I'm going to go out on a limb here - because I know that in the business of public relations, which is my business - and has been for many years - calling a journalist on the carpet for misrepresenting your point of view, can cost a PR person valuable contacts," she began before sharing an e-mail to the reporter to express her post-interview, pre-article sentiments.

What Went Wrong?

The e-mail she wrote (and posted) to the reporter seems to provide a glimpse. Lederman finished the interview and concluded that she was pretty far off from her personal message in a story — one that questions a tax structure which provides incentive for underperformance and disincentives for working harder — she would have preferred not to be featured. It happens. At one point, she even says that she told the reporter to find another person to profile.

It doesn't work that way. While reporters sometimes consider post-interview jitters correspondence, especially in feature pieces, there is considerable risk in writing them out of desperation. In this case, if anything, Janet Novack seems to have listened to Lederman's pleas and restructured the story so that it sticks to the facts. And the facts are the facts.

Regardless of how Lederman feels about the conclusions being drawn, Novack is right. Not finding a job or taking a job for half the salary might be the better bet for Lederman and her daughter. That doesn't mean Lederman, who is inclined to work harder for less of everything in order to feel self-sufficient, wants handouts. It only means that the country's current direction caps success because once someone reaches a certain financial step, they may make less than they did at the step before and, sometimes, two or three steps before.

So, unfortunately, in the Forbes piece, Lederman is a champion against a flawed system. In her post, she presents the very image she wanted to avoid. She comes across as a victim.

Perception Is Powerful.

PRNewser framed up the conversation asking whether Lederman made the prudent move to correct the reporter, if her protest will raise doubts about her abilities, and whether she should have accepted the interview given the context. Lederman addresses some of these questions in the comments that follow, but the initial questions seemed like the wrong ones.

Ergo, while there is nothing wrong with correcting a reporter who misrepresents facts, there is something wrong with being overly concerned about how journalists "present" us beyond the facts, especially when the concern seems to be confined to labels. Most people don't read labels — hard-working professionals looking for comparable work even if it means sacrificing benefits for her daughter's education vs. a whiney 50-year-old single mom looking to cheat the system (as Lederman framed it up) — as much as they saw Lederman, or in this case, a metaphor for dozens of middle-class families.

Sure, there were some commenters who scoffed at her former salary, but most of those could be dismissed for ignorance. When you consider the cost of living is significantly higher in New York compared to other areas, $120,000 suddenly becomes a low-to-mid middle income with a position that probably meant long hours and family sacrifice. Besides, she doesn't make that now and her home is a risk so what does it matter?

Aside from the mistaken follow-ups with the reporter, the real miss here wasn't the story as much as it was a post-story opportunity. Lederman could be grateful for being included because it might had led to job offers. She could have pointed to the article, which sums her resume up nicely enough. And, she could have expounded on her personal views about this subject in a positive manner, picking up on any details that she felt were important but left out. All of this could have been done for a net gain.

Instead, the lessons to be learned here are threefold: manage the message or the message will manage you; measure the facts and not necessarily mistaken inferences made by anonymous commenters; never place too much emphasis on labels, especially those that no one will remember.

Had she left it alone or expounded with the positive, all anyone would remember is that she was featured in Forbes. Instead, all they will remember is ... well ... ho hum.

Dunking Public Relations: Raymond Ridder

Last Thursday, Raymond Ridder, media relations director for the Warriors, was caught posting pro-Warriors points of view as "The Flunkster Dude" on a non-franchise fan site. Once caught, his antics eventually drew a scathing response from James Venes aptly titled "The Art of Deception" on WarriorsWorld.net.

"Immediately, expectedly, the site went into an uproar over someone caught with his hand in the cookie jar, someone from the team coming in to push a pro-Warriors point of view, likely an intern too dumb to find one of the dozen Starbucks in Oakland with wifi access (trust me, I checked) to at least post without it tracing back to HQ. Oops. Big time oops," wrote Venes, before sharing how disappointed the fans were to learn the truth.

Today, it was Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle leading with the headline "Warriors brass are all Flunkster Dudes" and advising management to throw themselves on the mercy of public opinion. And so, the social media debacle has apparently moved mainstream.

"It was a laughably bad idea, with the deserved result. Then again, what good ideas are there in selling a team run as the Warriors are? How do you make a team that has missed the playoffs 14 of 15 times seem progressive and clever?" asked Ratto.

Ratto goes on to highlight just how bad public perception of the team has become, including the owner's last appearance when he was booed at the Oakland All-Star Game while standing next to his young son and giving an award to Michael Jordan; a club president who apparently wants to come across as humorless, stiff, aggressive and power hungry; and a head coach who chants "I'm not in charge" while being in charge. Ouch.

Managers Have Less To Be Concerned About Employees Than Themselves.

On the same day Ridder was masquerading as an All-Star fan, we were posting a Deloitte survey that revealed as much as 60 percent of managers believe that businesses have a right to know how employees portray themselves or their companies on sites like Facebook and MySpace. It seems apparent that managers have more to be concerned about their own behavior; public relations professionals too.

If we accept that Phil Dusenberry, former chairman of BBDO Worldwide, was right — that the "brand is the relationship between a product and its customer” — than faking posts and comments seems like an awful way to treat that relationship. Very little can be gained, even in the case of Ridder's apparent granny throw from midcourt.

Attempting to insert exclusively "pro" fake comments (or any fake comments) into an online crowd generally strengthens the resolve of the opposing viewpoint if no one finds out. And, if they do find out (and they often do), it is almost always disastrous, much more so than any unhappy fans can dream up.

So the fear factor for companies worried about what employees might say online may have nothing to do with what they say as themselves and everything to do with the great lengths some will go to remain anonymous for good, bad, or any other reason.

Fans are surprisingly forgiving, but nobody likes to be lied to. Tell them the truth. If you don't, you're likely to become the poster child for posers. And today, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, that honor seems to belong to Ridder and the Warriors' brass in the NBA. They might as well wear it proudly; it can only get better from there.

Allowing Anonymous: Communicators Divided

Ragan recently released the results of a poll that asked a series of questions regarding anonymous comments. More than 1,000 communicators responded.

Highlights: How Organizations View Anonymous Comments

• 46 percent of their organizations do not allow anonymous comments.
• 46 percent of their organizations do not allow comments of any kind.
• 14 percent of their organizations do allow anonymous comments.

Highlights: How Communicators See Anonymous Comments

• 37 percent were undecided whether anonymous comments should be allowed.
• 31 percent said anonymous comments on blogs and article should not be allowed.
• 32 percent believe anon anonymous comments on blogs and articles should be allowed.

“Our company does not appreciate feedback of any kind from employees, not even on a person-to-person basis. Management is averse to following anything to be made publicly available without executive review.” — Anonymous

How Companies Might Come To Cope With Anonymous Comments

Social media — blogs, forums, Internets — is not a cookie cutter operation, internally or externally. And the decision to allow or disallow anonymous comments might be made with that in mind. Take a look around the Internet and you'll see a great variety of conclusions on the subject to guide you.

This blog, for example, allows anonymous comments. The only comments that are ever deleted are spam ads. We made this decision because we wanted a place where people could engage in open, candid discussions about communication.

However, I also believe that there are only two ways that anonymous posters demonstrate credibility: the quality of the comment, which means whether the post provides insights over insults. And, how or if we respond to the comment.

Why Companies Might Consider Moderated Comments

We manage several other blogs that are much more heavily moderated. The National Business Community Blog is not well-suited for unmoderated comments.

It only has one purpose: to share stories about companies that do good. Every now and again, one example or best practice comes from a company with known dissenters and we become privileged to receive a deluge of negative comments about it.

None of these comments are ever published because we feel strongly that it distracts from our intent. Every now and again, people like to visit a blog void of discussion or drama. We do read the comments though, and on one occasion removed the post.

Why Companies Might Consider No Comments At All

The intent is myopic, like using a blog to publish new releases, white papers, and feature stories about the company. Many social media experts disagree with me on this point, but my feeling is that the long tail of social media need not wag the company dog. If a company doesn't want to benefit from any dialogue from employees, customers, and any other stakeholders, then there is no need for us to force them to.

The only other reason I can think of is that the company representatives, whether a CEO or communicator, are not well skilled in dealing with the occasional criticism, call out, or attack. It takes a balanced hand to respond, which is important to consider since most crisis communication situations have very little to do with what happens and everything to do with how we respond.

What I Teach Students About Being Anonymous

There is no black or white and yes or no answer. Each company, hopefully with input from their communication team, can make the right choice.

However, and I cannot stress this enough, I do advise communicators and public relations professionals to never make anonymous comments or, if they do, they need to be prepared to answer for such posts in a world where no communication is really private. Not anymore.

Corresponding Attorneys: Andrew Dwyer

Corresponding by e-mail with Andrew Dwyer, the employment litigation specialist who owns The Dwyer Law Firm, L.C.C. and is representing Steve Biegel in the Biegel vs. Dentsu case, reminded me why some reporters become cynical over time.

Many journalists are privately bombarded with persuasive babble, coercion, and spin, based on little more than the erroneous notion: if the reporter writes what we want, they are intelligent; if they do not, they are “morons.”

Journalists are not really paid enough to put up with it, but they do.

For those who have been following the suit, a District Court judge recently rejected Dentsu's motion for a summary judgment in the case of Steve Biegel v. Dentsu Holdings. It really wasn’t enough for me to post about, but I added it as an update to previous posts, preferring to wait to see how things plod along before considering it a topic again.

The reason Dwyer contacted me yesterday was to retract a comment that I left on a MultiCultClassics post, which had less to do about Biegel and more to do with some anti-Japanese sentiments that were anonymously left on my blog and elsewhere. Specifically, Dwyer claimed that I had “endorsed” the author, HighJive, whom he has a very low opinion of; that I called his client, Biegel, intolerant against Japanese and a “racist;” and that I might even qualify where I was in agreement with the other author and where I was not.

All of this comes from an attorney who previously told me “none of the posts on any of the blogs will ever have any relevance, except perhaps to support our claims of retaliation by Dentsu.” For someone who had expressly stated his low opinion of blogs in general and dismissed them, there seems to be ample attention paid to them outside the public eye as well as any comments that might accompany them.

No matter. Some might also consider it admirable that Dwyer is obviously looking out for his client. And given that, I did add clarification to the comment.

Unfortunately, the clarification was not good enough. Dwyer wanted a complete retraction and/or removal of the aforementioned comment, which I am not inclined to do because I did not call Biegel intolerant of Japanese.

In lieu of this, I suggested highlighting some of the more interesting points, especially since Dwyer said he would “love” to post his e-mail to me on the MultiCultClassic blog, but the author allegedly only allows comments that fit his agenda. Dwyer rescinded the idea, objecting to anything except the publication of his entire e-mail, going so far to suggest that if I only published portions of it, he would never correspond with me again. In other words, Dwyer is only inclined to allow public discourse to take place when it fits his agenda.

Around and around we go.

Without some compelling reason, I have no intention of publishing his e-mails as this blog tends toward being an op-ed on communication and not Dwyer’s forum for retaliation against the opinions of others. Besides, it would likely be embarrassing for him if I did. Ironically, this is why many journalists probably would publish them, or portions of them, as they feel fit.

So what is the takeaway? If you don’t like "the circus" atmosphere surrounding a subject, then don't create that atmosphere by lending heavy-handed e-mails to it. In this case, Dwyer continually risks more than he hopes to gain by writing e-mails that aim at little more than persuading people to do his bidding behind the scenes.

While it has no bearing on what my opinion might be in terms of the ongoing Biegel vs. Dentsu case, it certainly has a bearing on my opinion of the value of Dwyer’s correspondence. While he closed his last e-mail saying he wouldn’t waste his time thinking I am any different than the HighJives of the world, I couldn’t help but think he wasted mine given he opened with a similar statement.

Don’t they know anything? I might care what Dwyer thinks, but I really don’t care what he thinks about me. Most journalists are the same way. Some bloggers are too. And if he thought more about his communication, he might have better served himself and, who knows, perhaps his client too.

Instead, he did neither. There is no retraction. His points are not heard. And, on the contrary, the comment in question is more prominent than ever. With results like these, one can only hope his effort doesn’t end up in the billable column.

Confusing Authorities: Masked Citizens

As the old saying goes, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and maybe doubly so online. Two anonymous identity stories have played out very differently in recent weeks; they are dramatically lopsided and in the wrong direction.

Lori Drew Escapes Responsibility And Meier Harassment Continues

Authorities struggled with charging Lori Drew for anonymously harassing 13-year-old Megan Meier to the point of suicide. Enough so that Megan’s mother Tina Meier urged a group of north St. Louis County lawmakers and city officials to push for Internet harassment laws.

"Nothing you can do," Tina Meier told the St. Louis Post. "Nothing on the books. It doesn't fit in the box. Too bad, so sad. They get to walk free."

For all her loss and effort, Dardenne Prairie (Missouri) has since passed a law making online harassment a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a $500 fine. These charges do not apply to Drew.

And yet, the Meier family continues to be harassed. Someone claiming to be Drew has set up a new blog called Megan Had It Coming, which seems authentic enough that some are speculating it might be real.

James Buss Gets Locked Up For Criticizing Spending

James Buss, a high school chemistry teacher in Milwaukee, left an anonymous comment on Boots and Sabers and was promptly arrested after authorities insisted the blogger give up the anonymous poster’s e-mail address. Buss was arrested.

The comment was reprehensible, praising the Columbine High School killers and saying they “knew how to deal with overpaid teacher union thugs.”

According to the Associated Press this morning, Buss won’t face charges because it was unclear whether the comment advocated violence against teachers, and even if it did, its language was not likely to incite others to act.

However, one wonders how authorities in one part of the country can take swift action on an apparent inappropriate comment and yet authorities in another take virtually no action after the death of a 13-year-old girl who was maliciously plotted against. And, no action has been taken as the Meier family continues to be harassed.

Being Left Behind: The U.S. Online

The United States may have created the Internet but Chinese youth are catching up and will outpace American youth online, according to a study released by the IAC, which is an interactive conglomerate operating more than 60 diversified brands in sectors being transformed by the Internet, and JWT, the largest advertising agency brand in the United States and the fourth-largest full-service network in the world.

Currently, China’s online population, at an estimated 137 million, is now second only to the United States, estimated to be between 165 and 201 million, according to Pew Internet & American Life Project. But it is attitude more than the numbers that distinguishes American and Chinese youth, with the latter being more expressive online.

While a large majority of youth in both countries feel dependent on digital technology, the attitude is especially pronounced in China. As many as 80 percent of Chinese respondents agreed that "Digital technology is an essential part of how I live" compared with 68 percent of Americans.

"The Chinese people seem to be way ahead of Americans in living a digital life," noted IAC Chairman and CEO Barry Diller today in Beijing, where he spoke to more than 350 Chinese students at Peking University. "More activity online means a more connected and a more evolved workforce - just what China needs as it makes its move from being the workshop of the world, to a developed economy in its own right."

"Like many other areas in comparing Americans to the energy and progress elsewhere in the world, China's speedy evolution in its use of the Internet is fast eclipsing that of the US. I think this is great for China, not so great for us," he added.

One of the most striking differences was that fewer than half of Americans (43 percent) agreed that "I often use the Internet to find the opinions of others or to share my opinions." By contrast, China's culture and political environment place less emphasis on personal views and almost three-quarters (73 percent) of Chinese respondents said they go online to share opinions.

The study pinpointed one difference as to how Chinese view anonymity online. Chinese respondents were almost twice as likely as Americans to agree that it's good to be able to express honest opinions anonymously online (79 percent vs. 42 percent) and to agree that online they are free to do and say things they would not do or say offline (73 percent vs. 32 percent).

What’s interesting to note about this is as Americans grapple with and abuse anonymity while preaching transparency and content controls, these issues may not be a global view nor even the view of the Internet’s majority in a few short years. As one pointed YouTube video reminds us, things change.

Accounting For Anonymity: The License To Kill

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international non-profit advocacy and legal organization that is dedicated to preserving free speech rights such as those guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

One of the cornerstone arguments is the right to say things online that will not be connected with our offline identities, as we may be concerned about political or economic retribution, harassment, or even threats to our lives. As someone who has long valued free speech, I agree with tempered reservation.

The reservation comes from something that is often missed in discussing anonymity: it is often abused as a license to kill. What is missed is that being anonymous demands even more authenticity, sensitivity, and responsibility than those who operate outside the realm of cloaked avatars and general deflection.

CEO John Mackey Poses As An Average Investor

A few weeks ago, Whole Foods Market Inc.'s board, overreacting to anonymous postings by its chief executive, amended the company's corporate governance to sharply restrict online activities by its officials.

The new code bars top executives and directors from posting messages about Whole Foods, its competitors, or vendors on Internet forums that aren't sponsored by the company. If there was ever a case for attempting to pander to the public and perhaps the Securities Exchange Commission during an investigation, this is it.

It was never about what was posted, but rather the deceptiveness of comments made under a fake persona. In this case, the messenger is the message.

State Investigates Political Blogger After Anonymous Tip

Chuck Muth is president and CEO of Citizen Outreach and a professional political consultant. He is well known for his conservative viewpoints, well-thought arguments, and biting commentary.

In early November, the state’s Children and Family Services (CFS), which acts as child protection services in Nevada, launched an unfounded investigation on Muth based solely on an anonymous tip, possibly to the amusement of his detractors. After reluctantly allowing the sheriff’s deputies to inspect his home and interview his children, Muth was cleared by their inspection.

Or, perhaps not. Despite passing the inspection, the CFS has informed Muth that his file would remain open unless he subjected himself and his family to further investigations. In other words, any previous inspection would not be enough.

This is no longer about the accusation, but rather the deceptiveness of the accusation and a potential agenda for revenge under supposedly sealed files. In this case, the messenger is the message.

Megan Meier Commits Suicide After MySpace 'Hoax'

Meier, a 13-year-old girl, who suffered from depression and thought she made an online friend with a boy named Josh, committed suicide over his accusations that she was cruel person, unkind to her friends, and that the world would be better off without her.

Except Josh was not Josh, but rather the mother of another girl who wanted to gain Meier’s confidence in order to know what she was saying online about her daughter. To date, the woman who created the fake “Josh” profile has not been charged with a crime. The entire story has sparked an online maelstrom of cyber vigilante justice.

This is no longer about protective parenting, but rather the deceptiveness of hateful intent under the fake persona “Josh.” In this case, the messenger is the message.

The Future Of Anonymity

In the Meier story, Wired goes on to point to the work of Daniel Solove, professor of law at George Washington University and author of The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet.

The work is important, because as we see with Muth’s story, the danger of unrestrained anonymity remains a license to kill and is not confined to the Internet. It has become the new weapon of choice among con men, vengeful accusers, and hateful posers in a world where everyone is a public figure with the burden of proof landing squarely on those accused, regardless of the masked messengers.

We see it too often, accompanied by unjust justifications. The argument made for Mackey is that if anyone was duped into making decisions based on the financial message boards he posted upon, they deserve no less. The argument against Muth is he ought to have nothing to hide from the authorities. And even as the Meier story, which continues to spiral out of control, is being twisted into the idea that the victim got what she deserved. We need an adjustment.

You see, sometimes in our diligence to preserve some rights, we neglect others. And the most neglected today seems to be found within the Sixth Amendment, which includes our right to be …informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against us …

While this may seem to be an argument for complete transparency, living in glass houses is not a remedy as we’ve given up enough civil liberties in the private and public sectors. If there is any solution, the real remedy begins with shedding our apparent ignorance that the credibility of the anonymous posters, posers, and tips extends beyond a well-reasoned and authentic argument.

Simply put, allowing for anonymity preserves one freedom; whereas placing additional burden on the validity of anonymous accusations will preserve another. It’s something to think about.

Freedom was not born out of emotional polarity, but rather well balanced reason. And until those who use anonymity for selfish rather than selfless pursuits are brought to justice for bearing false witness against their neighbors, we are all at risk to become their victims. Or equally disheartening, we will lose our own right to privacy when it matters most.

Saying Tomato: Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. (Whole Foods) has completed its investigation into CEO John Mackey’s online financial message board postings related to Whole Foods and Wild Oats Market (Wild Oats). The fiasco began months ago after it was revealed that Mackey posted disparaging remarks about Wild Oats on Yahoo financial boards using the anonymous name “Rahodeb.” He did this for years, stopping several months prior to the Whole Foods acquisition of Wild Oats.

The result was one of the biggest games of “you say tomato, I say tomoto” in recent history, with some people insisting it was all good fun (including Mackey before he admitted a lack of judgment) and some people claiming it is an ethical breach of his fiduciary duty with the insistence that he be immediately removed as CEO.

The Whole Foods Board, led by Rahodeb and including "Divad," "Nhoj," "Elleirbag," "Ssah," "Sirrom," and "Hplar," has reaffirmed its support of Mackey. (By the way, Divad, Nhoj, and Hplar led the "independent" investigation.)

So why did they say tomato? They won't say. It’s a secret.

“The Company and the Board intend to cooperate fully with the SEC in completing its related inquiry. Due to the ongoing SEC inquiry, the Company and the Board have no further comment at this time.”

Instead, they have turned over their investigation to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is charged with determining if Mackey violated the law. I do not envy the task; exonerating Mackey will smack as permission for more colorful CEOs to do the same. Not to mention, the media, which was once sympathetic to Mackey, is starting to lose their patience with the whole sordid story.

They have several reasons. Mackey’s activities were carried out despite knowledge of them by senior executives and several knew of the postings as of 2001, according to three people familiar with the matter, reports The Wall Street Journal. The independent investigation no longer looks so independent. The company will not comment further. And, the longer it takes to resolve a crisis communication situation, the less likely the media will be on your side.

So why did they say tomato? That’s no secret. It’s simple.

The Whole Foods Board has nothing to lose by doing so. If the SEC does decide to call Mackey’s antics less than vine ripe, then it simply has to announce something like this … “In light of the SEC investigation, which uncovered additional information, we have decided to say tomoto instead of tomato.” And then call the whole thing off.

Resurrecting Porcupines: New Balance

With so many restrictions being floated around about social media, including who can blog and under what conditions and with what support, is it any wonder some spokes figures are making a comeback in social media? They are more manageable than CEOs, less accountable, and in some cases (but not all cases) are fun and entertaining.

Originally I was going to write about a spokes figure we helped develop, but then I came across JD. JD is a porcupine who gets a second lease on life after a driver resurrects him using the positive energy found in New Balance shoes.

An Ontario native living in Massachusetts, JD’s MySpace page has all the vitals, including the :30 second back story, his own song, and about 163 friends. If that and his “chipper” attitude aren’t enough to make you feel good, pop over to the interactive Web site, play around with the signage, and enter the enter the balloon-popping contest to win a Jeep, sports equipment, and cash.

JD and the campaign is the brainchild of Almighty that aims at influencing culture. You can find out more about the creators at Ad-titude.com. Like many very creative ideas in advertising, we’re not sure if the ads translated into shoe sales.

That question will best be answered if JD has three lives instead of two. New Balance has named five finalists in an ad agency search that includes Arnold, BBDO, BBH, Cramer-Krasselt, and Element 79 to oversee the $15-20 million ad budget of New Balance. The Almighty could easily retain JD’s piece ... or not.

For the sake of feel good social media, we hope JD survives — even if one of the new shops creates a campaign that aims to bring us back to reality. The concept of the spots, by the way, is linked to NB Zip’s “high performance cushioning technology.” Yeah, okay, sure, the defibrillator shoe soles idea was a bit of a stretch in terms of connecting the dots, but we still like many of the campaign elements that came out of that idea.

Targeting Jobs: Daniel Lyons

Originally, I was going to pass on The New York Times outing Daniel Lyons, a senior editor at Forbes magazine, as the infamous fake Steve Jobs blogger. It was already covered ad nauseum and, with John Mackey still in focus, I wondered how many anonymous blogger stories might be too many.

But then, The Buzz Bin highlighted Todd Vanhooser’s comments that cut right to the chase. They clip some of the very best quotes from Lyons during an interview with Sam Whitmore, circa 2005. Back then, Lyons had all but admitted to a bit of a jealousy over bloggers.

"[Bloggers] have a lot of power, and a lot of companies ... live in fear of these guys." Why? Because there are no rules of engagement like there are in the MSM, Vanhooser summed the Lyons interview.

Rules of engagement for mainstream media? If Lyons felt stifled as a reporter, he might have tried a different publication or professional designation (op-ed writers and columnists have more fun). But then again, his plight hints at where mainstream media sometimes goes off the beaten path and leaves the public looking for online content.

You know, originally, there were only supposed to be two rules of engagement for journalists: tell the truth and shame the devil.

Everything else is a much more recent invention, including the need for two sources on every occasion (even when hard evidence is in hand). In fact, most of the new rules — full disclosure, source verification, not really “off the record” solicitations, etc. — were largely overreactions to the few who damaged the reputation of the many, and the overzealous ridiculing of public figures who demanded that journalists abide by the same rules they prescribe.

Fortunately for Lyons, the media is in an anonymous poster joking mood. Hee hee. Ha ha. Mackey, Lyons, Jessica Carter (the anonymous Capitol Hill sex blogger). Aren’t they all cards?

Look, I don’t think Lyons had an agenda against Jobs (like some anonymous bloggers seem to have against their targets). It doesn’t appear he had any malicious intent. And it probably didn’t hurt Jobs or Apple at all. It’s not even really fair to draw a comparison between him and Mackey or Carter.

However, he raises an interesting question. When you can no longer trust the people who were once charged with protecting public interest by telling the truth (as opposed to two sides of the story), who can the public trust?

Silencing Crisis: Whole Foods Market, Inc.

There is something to be learned from Whole Foods Market, Inc. (WFMI) beyond its back to school nutritional program. Sometimes silence can be a golden as a July Pippin'.

That's what you'll learn if you visit John Mackey’s blog today. All you will find is silence. The CEO of Whole Foods left his last message, directed to shareholders, on July 17…

“A Special Committee of our Board of Directors' is conducting an independent internal investigation into online financial message board postings related to Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (OATS). In light of this, it is in the best interest of the company to temporarily hold off on posting on my Company blog. The ability to post comments to this blog will be disabled during this time as well. I look forward to resuming our conversations and plan on being in touch with you again soon.”

He will. There is very little doubt. Despite anonymously posting disparaging remarks that may have impacted the stock price of Wild Oats, the company that Whole Foods is now fighting the Federal Trade Commission to acquire; the SEC investigation; the independent internal investigation; and the calls for his resignation by dozens of organizations, including CtW Investment Group, whose members own about 900,000 Whole Foods shares, Mackey will likely retain his position.

Less certain is whether Whole Foods will acquire Wild Oats, but that is another conversation thread all together. Lawyers for Whole Foods and the federal government are set to offer closing arguments today.

More in line with observations in communication is noting: this case study will likely become the bane of public relations professionals because it chips away at what some call the tenets of crisis communication. Maybe that’s a good thing.

For example, against what most PR pros would advise, Whole Foods went silent on the issue after apologizing to stakeholders (never mind Wild Oats shareholders who may have lost money on the advice of the masked Wild Oats stock vandal “rahodeb”). Then, yesterday, earned an extremely rare and generous pass from the media, allowing him to break his company's self-censorship and tout that they beat Wall Street estimates.

"Currently we do not expect the same degree of year-over-year increase in our total pre-opening expenses," Mackey said, as reported by CNN Money. "We are very excited to see the acceleration in our new store openings materialize, as we expect these new stores to drive strong sales and comparable-store sales growth in the not-so-distant future.”

As found in The Wall Street Journal: “I could understand if Mr. Mackey was accused of spreading false rumors about his company to manipulate the stock price, but I have not heard such allegations.” Or perhaps even more telling from The Motley Fool …

“Look, I'm not saying that John Mackey should have gone onto the Yahoo! message board for Whole Foods and posted anonymous messages extolling his company while trashing Wild Oats. It was dumb, an activity with almost no hope for upside. But I understand it. I understand why John Mackey would see the nonsense that some random keyboard heroes wrote about him and his company and find the impulse to shoot back irresistible.”

Chip. Chip. Chip. It is any wonder why some public relations professionals have a hard time finding a position at the proverbial “table?” You cannot get there until you understand business let alone the new state of media, which suggests that today’s editors and analysts would rather be right than write about what is right.

"From a Whole Foods perspective we will be glad one way or another to have this situation resolved because it's taken a lot of management time and we spent a lot of money on lawyers," CNN Money reports Mackey said on a call. "It's been incredibly burdensome on us."

Like a fly buzzing in their ears, I imagine. Whether Whole Foods is allowed to acquire Wild Oats or not, Mackey and Whole Foods will not only survive but will also continue to see their stock fare well. Pending some revelation from the internal or SEC investigation of Whole Foods, it also seems unlikely to me that Mackey will be leaving anytime soon, chipping away at the notion that companies have to make a sacrifice in order to emerge from a crisis.

So what makes Mackey so special? As part of what I call my Fragile Brand Theory, Mackey has always been successful in presenting himself as somewhat eccentric thereby putting himself in the position to garner understanding in the wake of what Mackey himself even called his own “lack of judgment.”

That doesn’t make what he did right by any stretch of the imagination. While some people wonder about the Mackey case study “if we are not falling victim to a distorted sense of hubris in the United States: We are offended to the point of threatening legal action over surficial issues that are probably neither unethical or illegal,” I hopefully offer a clearer perspective.

What Mackey did, posing as an anonymous poster with an alleged agenda to damage his competition for future gain, was unethical.

Whether or not it is illegal is up to the SEC to decide. Whether or not the remedy is his resignation is up to the shareholders to decide. Whether or not shareholders are outraged will likely depend on the price of the shares. And whether or not the media decides to give him a pass or not will largely be dictated by the previous three outcomes.

I’m not saying this is right, but it is what it is. And what also “is” is that public relations professionals need to move away from formulaic approaches to crisis communication and consider the thought processes behind those bullet points. (We’ll compare this crisis to traditional crisis communication check lists next week.)

If they do not, executives will be hard pressed to take the profession seriously when good CEOs like David Neeleman at JetBlue play it by the “book” and are pushed aside while CEOs like Mackey, who clearly breached ethics, can break away and be heralded as a wacky egomaniac who, well, make shareholders lots of money.

Then again, I suppose all those who claimed the remedy is resignation still have a shot to be “right” as this case study seems far from over. But when it is over, I can promise you this: I'll probably have to add a warning label. Don't Try This At Home.

Telling No Truths: Whole Foods Market, Inc.

"I sincerely apologize to all Whole Foods Market stakeholders for my error in judgment in anonymously participating on online financial message boards,” says co-founder, Chairman and CEO John Mackey, Whole Foods Market, Inc. “I am very sorry and I ask our stakeholders to please forgive me."

With the lead up to his apology and the very limited number of people he apologized to, I’m not sure this was the best decision, but the fact that this decision was made means fun time is indeed over. Given the possibility that Mackey did not act alone (or at least was not anonymous to everybody who perused Yahoo financial chat boards) while playing the part of the great masked Wild Oats stock vandal, “rahodeb,” it might be for the best. Will it work? Probably not.

Make no mistake, the Whole Foods Market, Inc. board retaining the firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP to advise it during an independent internal investigation means that the damage down the road may very likely exceed “rahodeb” having fun at the expense of others. (The SEC began its investigation the day before.)

While there may be many revelations made during the internal investigation (let alone the SEC investigation), the need to investigate seems to mean: more people may have been involved (it’s hard to keep a secret identity secret for that long without sharing) or they feel a need to analyze whether any of Mackey’s comments did in fact impact Wild Oats stock at any time (online or off). Even more obvious, Whole Foods Market, Inc. wants to apply one of the few “golden no comment” clauses that most journalists respect.

"The Company intends to fully cooperate with the SEC and does not anticipate commenting further while the inquiry is pending." ... "The Board will refrain from comment until the internal investigation is completed."

Why does the “golden no comment” clause work? From a communication perspective, provided the board doesn’t start to squawk, refraining from comment during an investigation gives the company a badly needed pause in its communication, which to date, can be likened to someone hemorrhaging at the mouth. To be clear, the board is concerned about something enough that they feel it is prudent to censor their outspoken CEO for fear it will get worse before it gets better. Most journalists will respect such restraint provided it holds.

Why doesn’t the “golden no comment” clause work? Once a company issues the statement that silence is golden during an investigation, reporters have a nasty habit of looking for anyone and everyone for input and opinion. It almost assuredly increases speculation 100-fold because journalists can no longer turn to the primary source and they have to go out and look for new sources. There is also the risk of someone developing a Deep Throat complex and leaking information to the media, whereby the company won’t be able to respond to any of it unless it gives up its communication blackout. And once you give it up, it’s not fair to ask for it back.

There are other major downsides to applying “no comment during an investigation,” including: all other company news becomes irrelevant (you can’t effectively talk about produce in the room but skip the part where the elephant ate half of it); it makes the company look like there really is a fire under all that smoke (whether there is or not); and, finally, most importantly, it contradicts the concept that someone always talks (because they almost always do).

So, given the company's statements, we have moved from “whole” truths to “no” truths in the case study of Mackey and Whole Foods Market, Inc. Or perhaps, more appropriately, since others are ready to pick up where Mackey left off, we have entered the spin zone where there will be ample hot air about how it’s unfair to comment on a CEO because, as Laura Goldman submits, “I checked with lawyers and confirmed that the postings themselves are not illegal.”

With no disrespect intended, Ms. Goldman is right that this incident should not undo all the good work Mackey has done nor does it invalidate Whole Foods Market, Inc. as a viable company. However, even Journalism 101 students know that you can always find ample lawyers to argue either side of a case. Heck, that’s what makes court reporting sensational enough to have plenty of programming.

Besides, I think journalists and stock traders have been surprisingly kind to Mackey; it’s the public relations and communication people who seem to want his head the most (I’m in the minority by not asking for it, though I think he may have lost it anyway with the apology). Unfortunately for Mackey, I also think the split opinion over his fate will solidify in time; the reactive silence will point most in one direction.

Underthinking Mackey: Steven Silvers

Is it possible to be right and wrong at the same time? Steven Silvers is the principal at Denver-based GBMS, Inc., a group of professionals who “understand the complex nexus of business, government, media and community in which organizations operate today.” And, as focused as he is on complex issues, his well-written post says the Whole Foods Market, Inc. crisis might not qualify. On one hand, he is very, very right.

There was little need for the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) to send out a news release about "reputation impact of undisclosed-identity executive internet postings."

"Corporate executives in all areas of a company must be acutely aware of the ethical implications of communications they initiate, including those under the auspices of being a ‘private citizen,’" said Rhoda Weiss, national chair and CEO of PRSA, in the release (highlighted by Silvers) that aims to capitalize on the case with reactive comment.

Most people get that, I think, which is why Silvers proposes that the most simplified version of the Mackey study is “smart people sometimes do stupid things.” Then he goes on to write a better version of the release: “Don’t post comments on the Internet promoting your company’s stock and slamming your competitors while pretending to be someone else. This is wrong. You could cause a huge PR problem for your company. You’ll probably get sued, and you might be breaking the law. …”

It made me smile, before departing from his assessment a bit. It would be simple, but nowadays things have consequences that are not confined to where they belong. This will not be confined to Mackey. This will not be confined to Whole Foods Market. And this will not be confined to, well, anything.

The consequences, as expected, are likely to be tossed about by folks like Andrew Keen in his admittedly biased war against anonymity and amateurs on the Web. And perhaps, they will even reinforce the call for a code of conduct. And perhaps, there will be some new legislation. And perhaps, we’ll polarize it all.

“We have the most protected, covered, cautious and public relations-barricaded generation of leaders in history. Today’s tightly controlled, artfully packaged executives want to release and spout off, and they somehow think this is a forum where they’ll be held less accountable,” says Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, a professor of corporate governance at Yale. Indeed, and executives are not alone in feeling this way.

"It doesn't seem likely that investors who may have read these chat rooms would have had reason to act, thereby materially affecting the stock price, because the CEO's identity seemed to be concealed and the materiality of the comments made looks low," Stephen C. Chick, JPMorgan, wrote in a client note, adding that while Mackey's actions "lack judgment," they are unlikely to affect Whole Foods' stock price.

And there it is. Why is this case study complex? Under the surface of simplicity resides the very foundation of an increasingly challenging issue caused, in part, by public relations’ attempt to mold people into something they are not; the media’s shift to be less concerned with finding the truth and more concerned with gathering up polarized viewpoints; and the public’s desire to create labels for everyone but themselves, good or bad.

The concept that “perception is everything” has permeated every facet of our society to such a degree that most people are increasingly judgmental about the actions of others. And perhaps, it is from this very place where the desire to be anonymous in today’s society seems to have very little to do with people wanting to behave badly and much more to do about their fear of being judged.

Adding rules and increasingly strict guidelines on the Web will only make it worse. I propose our time and energy is much better placed in educating people that it doesn’t make much sense to lend anonymous sources credibility beyond a single comment. While some have better intentions, others have agendas.

"They [the FTC] are quoting rahodeb in some of their legal documents and no doubt seek to embarrass both me and Whole Foods through these disclosures," Mackey has said. In fact, Mackey reports he had fun doing it, implies that he has no regret or remorse, and doesn’t seem to know the difference between making casual anonymous comments about his competitor and manipulating stock.

Is it because he is eccentric or ignorant? Don’t be silly. Mackey isn’t typical, but he isn’t stupid either. He knows that the day he admits that what he did was wrong and apologizes for it will be the same day that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) will no longer need to prove that Mackey knowingly violated securities law, intentionally using his anonymous postings to manipulate price.

To be clear, of course what Mackey did was wrong. But virtually every outcome in this case will have little to do with reality and much to do with perception.

The Federal Trade Commission’s ability to prevent the merger will be based on perception. The outcome of the SEC investigation will be based on the determination of motivation, which will be based on perception. Shareholders will decide to buy or sell Whole Foods Market stock based on their perception. And the argument whether anonymity might be protected or abolished will be based on perception. It’s all based on perception because we live in a world that is increasingly focused on, well, perception.

After years of watching us trend toward creating pristine perceptions while nurturing the fear of being judged by others (who might discover the "truth"), maybe it’s time we remember that it is much more dangerous to allow the perception of a personal brand to drift dangerously away from reality and toward some idealized label than it is to manage a brand that represents who we really are; good, bad, or indifferent. (As even Albert Einstein once confessed, he only combed his hair that way for the benefit of the media.)

Or, in other words, Mackey might have considered it would have been equally “fun” to post his comments as himself. People would have the perception he was wacky (they do anyway) and there would be no crisis. But that's the simple part. The harder part is recognizing this issue is complex because we have made the environment complex.

Once we hung horse thieves, now we try to understand and justify them. Once we sought truth, now we celebrate opinion. Once people said what was on their minds, now they hide their thoughts unless protected under the veil of anonymity. Once we shopped because eating dinner with our family was fun; now we ask Whole Foods Market to make it fun for us. Simple indeed.

Telling Whole Truths: John Mackey

According to the Core Values of Whole Foods Market, there is only one way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders. And that is to satisfy customers first.

Oh, make that two ways. According to The Associated Press (AP), John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc. (Whole Foods), found that posting under the anonymous name “rahodeb” was a pretty good way to satisfy the needs of stakeholders as well.

According to the story, Whole Foods announced it would buy Wild Oats for about $565 million, or $18.50 per share. But unfortunately, this comes after “rahodeb” posted the stock was overpriced; predicted the company would fall into bankruptcy; claimed it would be sold after its stock fell below $5 per share; declared Wild Oats' management "clearly doesn't know what it is doing;" and that the company "has no value and no future."

Obviously, “rahodeb” must have miswrote because Wild Oats does have value: $18.50 a share, which is sharply steeper the $5 per share that “rahodeb,” er, Mackey, um, "rahodeb" had hoped for as the masked Wild Oats stock vandal.

In fact, Wild Oats is so valued by Mackey, he has taken to misappropriating his company's public relations and social media communication to flame the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Apparently, he is not happy they made his anonymous comments public in an attempt to block the merger nor does he accept that the FTC is trying to prevent the elimination of another competitor.

"As previously announced, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this legal process, and this blog entry is my first detailed effort at transparency," said Mackey in a news release that neglects to reveal how posting anonymous comments on Internet financial forums for seven years might be transparent.

“I provide explanations of how I think the FTC, to date, has neglected to do its homework appropriately, especially given the statements made regarding prices, quality, and service levels in its complaint. I also provide a glimpse into the bullying tactics used against Whole Foods Market by this taxpayer-funded agency,” Mackey continues on his blog. “As stated in our initial press release about Whole Foods Market's challenge to the FTC's complaint, we set an intention as a company to be as transparent as possible throughout this process. This is my first detailed effort at transparency.”

Hmmm ... I suspect if there is any "whole truth" that could potentially win a fruit basket then “this is my first effort at transparency” must be it. Unfortunately, had Mackey done his homework, the best time to be transparent is before one damages personal credibility. So, what this all means is the happiness factor of Whole Foods (where I shop sometimes) is about to be spoiled.

How do I know? Well, some of the writing is already on the blog. Mackey, just days before this seven-year ethical breach came to light, published the graphic above for one of his more colorful, but long-winded posts, Conscious Capitalism: Creating a New Paradigm for Business. He says the image represents “a common view of the good, altruistic non-profit organizations versus the evil, selfish, greedy corporations.”

Overall, I don’t subscribe that the notion that this is really the "common view." It seems more likely to me that each company is charged with its own reputation management. And, with this responsibility, each is free to nurture positive public opinion in any it feels fit, starting with the behavior of its CEO.

But then again, if the "common view" is that corporations are “evil, selfish, and greedy,” it seems to me that any CEO who would attempt to drive down the stock prices of a competitor, under the veil of anonymity, certainly isn't helping this perception go away.

In sum, Mackey wants us to accept that there are truths, half-truths, and now “whole truths.” And while that might sound all fun and amusing (enough to start a living case study), the SEC isn’t laughing.

Censoring Farce: WorkFarce

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the heroes and villains of social media. It is the person or persons who moves to censor supposed blog bullies? Or is it the anonymous blogger penning satirical prose? Or maybe, there never were any heroes or villains to begin with. Maybe there is only a whole bunch of people who could accidentally send us into the dark ages.

Sure, most people outside of the recruiting industry have never heard of WorkFarce, which was an anonymous satirical blogger who some might say crossed the line of professional decency while others might say made pointed observations of the absurdness of the industry, the world, and human nature in general. But for people who did know him, the surprise success of his blog seems well-grounded in its objective: give people a good laugh without revealing himself, his employer, or making apologies.

Most people will never hear of WorkFarce because one or several people tracked him down and contacted his employer, demanding that, he says, "I publicly reveal my identity, (who I am, what I do and who I work for) and then issue a public apology." Hoping to circumvent harm to himself, his family, and his employer, he elected self-censorship in the face of threat and ultimatum.

I'm all for calling a duck and duck, and in this case, the duck was blackmail. WorkFarce's only crime was naivete.

Yes, it is extremely naive to believe for one second, that as an anonymous blogger, you will remain anonymous forever, especially if you have taken to criticism, whether or not such criticisms are labeled satire. It is as naive as sending a critical e-mail without the assumption that someone might turn it in to the person you are criticizing. It is equally naive not to recognize that the closer your satire or criticisms touch the truth, the more likely someone will attempt to embarrass, malign, or censor you.

I see censorship as, once again, a growing trend in America and this trend is something that needs to be much more than watched. Censorship, misrepresentation of statements made within a context, and blackmail are beginning to win over "truthful, accurate and fair communication that facilitates respect and mutual understanding."

All around us, singular comments are taken out of context or turned into something they were never intended to be. Bryan Ferry, Don Imus, and a host of others are all being targeted by censors, blackmailers, and people who prey on the fears of others.

To be clear, while I do not endorse or condemn (though I may question their style, logic, and word choice) what any of the above public figures have said, we must be more careful not to confuse the cries of censorship as more valid than the speech they attempt to censor. The remedy for the abuse of free speech is always more free speech.

In an effort to keep this confined to a manageable topic, I was not a fan of WorkFarce and rarely read his material. Many people, however, did. We had an engagement once or twice, but nothing beyond that. On occasion, I freely admit there was something relevant in the writing and the wit could sometimes, er, once in a great while, be appreciated. No, I am not a fan of anonymous blogs, but far be it from me to judge what others feel they must do for the preservation of their jobs and livelihood. Being anonymous is their burden to bear, not mine or anyone else's.

I am also not a fan of blackmail. And in this case, the move to supposedly unmask, embarrass, and censor WorkFarce was pathetic at best, an exercise in malice at worst. Given WorkFarce has gone to great lengths to protect his employer (and hopefully did not attack others in the industry simply for the potential benefit of his employer), the only harm that could have been done to anyone was only what they chose to infer from his posts.

In fact, by most accounts, WorkFarce was not a potential shill, backed by people with political or business agendas. So given that the apparent unmaskers are hoping to conceal their own identities in doing so suggests to me the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Let me say it again: the remedy for the abuse of free speech is always more free speech, lest we forget the immortal words attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I did not speak out;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Ergo, be careful with cries for censorship. For when the worst comments go largely unanswered except for censors, even the worst ideas are more likely to take root within the fabric of the people for all time. Yes, though I am disgusted by the notion, moving to censor hate speech will only lead to more hate speech.

Sure, some might say it seems I am contradicting my own advice on message management within the context of strategic communication. But for me, the difference is exceedingly clear: message management is about trust, honesty, and consensus not fear, force, and censorship. Good night and good luck.

Faking The Net: Sony

I've written about anonymous posters and blogs before, most recently about The Branding Foundry's ill-advised critique on anonymous posters. However, there is one time that the spirit of anonymous blogging is truly abused.

It's a growing trend that breaches ethics and crosses over to fraud: anonymous blogs written by companies to bolster positive reviews. It's not surprising to me that some companies would use anonymous blogs to bump up sales, but I am still surprised by which companies have engaged in spinning fiction and then attempt to justify their actions under the label stealth marketing.

Sony was just one of the companies exposed in late 2006. Considering Sony's annual sales exceeded $16.7 billion with plenty of products considered among the best in the field, it didn't make much sense that it would approve a fake blog, created by viral marketing firm Zipatoni to promote the PSP.

Although MR Wavetheory incorrectly suggests "all publicity is good publicity," the retired Silicon Valley venture capitalist turned blogger was right to say Sony may as well kept the "flog" up when it came under fire. That would have been a fine place to begin some crisis communication efforts.

Of course, the main reason this 2006 news is relevant today is because Sam Coates, writing for TimesOnline, reported and brought additional attention to the fact that "floggers" could face criminal prosecution under new rules that will soon come into force.

Businesses that write fake blog entries or create Web sites purporting to be from customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from “falsely representing oneself as a consumer,” he writes. The change will also become law in the United Kingdom, establishing that floggers can be named and shamed by trading standards or even taken to court. This includes people who write fake reviews on Web sites such as Amazon. (Amazon did tighten its review procedures in 2004 after John Rechy gave himself a five-star review while posing as a reader from Chicago).

Incidentally, what consumers do not know is there are plenty of "pay-for-space" Web sites, magazines, tabloids, and television/radio shows that have been acting as neutral reviewers since publishing first came into fashion hundreds of years ago. Many of them do not provide the consumer any disclaimers or evidence that the reviews and/or puff pieces are paid advertisements, generally called advertorials.

Whether the new law will spill over to the "pay-for-space" arena is unclear. But what is clear is that business people in the United Kingdom and United States posing as supposedly independent customers in an attempt to boost sales is ethically wrong. It's a shame too, because all they have to do is offer up the smallest disclaimer to fall on the right side of the line.

What's also a shame is that "flogging" is completely unnecessary, but some less ethical people in my industry make a living at it, convincing their clients with a kindergarten argument that it's all right because everybody is doing it. Sure, "astroturfing" as Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post correctly calls it, it is not new. Companies, politicians, and governments have hired "influencers" in specific demographics to spread the word about a product or service or political issue for years.

Microsoft even landed in hot water after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on Wikipedia, the community-produced Web encyclopedia site. Microsoft's defense is that the articles were heavily written by people at IBM Corp. Microsoft also claims it has gotten nowhere trying to correct what it defines as "inaccuracies" by following Wikipedia protocol.

To me, the Microsoft case pales in comparison to a business pretending to be a consumer (maybe Microsoft is right and maybe Microsoft is wrong in this case), but it certainly reminds us that Wikipedia is hardly the end all to research. Still, Microsoft would have been better off commissioning an article that refuted Wikipedia or simply finding someone sympathetic who would have done it for free. (Oh right, that would mean developing a public relations strategy. How silly of me.)

The bottom line is that no one needs to fake it to reach the same effect. There are plenty of publications that will run feature releases without a single edit (sometimes, anyway). There are plenty of journalists and bloggers who become product fans. There are plenty of consumers who seem perfectly willing to accept advertorials as fact, even with disclaimers.

And, of course, it doesn't take much to realize that if your advertising is ineffective, maybe you have the wrong message. That seems like a great place to start, at least much better than spending even more money trying to cheat the public.

Bashing Ghosts: The Branding Foundry

The Branding Foundry, which is the brainchild of Rowland Hanson, the former Microsoft marketing "guru" who is credited with coming up with the name Windows, is already facing its first brand challenge.

After a great write-up by venture capital reporter John Cook in Seattle, Kevin Young, president of the unproven and fledgling company, forgets his position and spends more time bashing ghosts (anonymous posters) than he does delivering a message, leaving some to wonder what The Branding Foundry is really about.

"However, in the spirit of our business community, it's sad to see that people take time out of their day to share their venomous comments to feel better about themselves," said Young. "As they say, 'the farther up the flag pole one ascends in life, the more your backend shows.'"

I'm not sure which anonymous post got under his skin more: 1. "This thread is polluted with self-serving tripe. John, you need to weed out the thinly-veiled ads." 2. "Don't see how this adds any value. Looks like a predatory scheme with no risk." 3. [Rowland Hanson] "Looks like a lounge lizard."

Of course, Young's ghost bashing was only met with more ghosts bashing back: 1. "What an incredibly arrogant post." 2. "I don't know what's crappier- the story or the posts that followed." 3. "Maybe the 'guru' and his trolls should ..."

And the debate, whether there "should be" or "shouldn't be" anonymous posters, begins all over again. Ho hum. Boring.

Actually, there is a decent discussion that took place at active rain, which references, among others, Jason Goldberg at Jobster, who asked about anonymous posts a few weeks ago (a great question at the wrong time).

Active rain blogger Barry Hurd made a decent argument, despite taking it a bit too far by questioning the ethics of anonymous posting. On this point, we disagree. Anonymous posting is not about free speech or ethics, in my opinion.

You see, over the last few years, I've seen anonymous posters (and anonymous bloggers) leave as many brilliant comments as they have unrelated, unfunny swipes that are easily dismissed. Their reasons for posting anonymously range from anything and everything from fear (not wanting to lose their jobs) and faux fear (Spocko being 'afraid' of big bad ABC, ha!) to protecting their own brand (I want to say something, but don't want it to rub off on me) and simply being too lazy, or perhaps too busy, to register with the site.

The bottom line is these people have a zillion reasons to post anonymously on sites that allow it. Not all sites do. Cook does. David Maister does not. Seth Godin doesn't allow comments at all, but he does allow trackbacks. Every one of them has different reasons for their decisions.

For example, I do not allow them, but not for reasons that most people think. In my case, I simply grew tired of deleting spam ads, lots and lots of spam ads.

If it wasn't for that, I would allow them (and used to). However, even if I did allow them, I would not personally post an anonymous comment (though sometimes I'm too busy to register and just type in my name). But, for me, it's par for the course. I don't have any reason to post anonymously because I've been threatened several times for working on certain political and commercial campaigns. And in the end, I decided that I would rather be fearless in life than live in fear. (Besides, threats only apply if your candidate loses or your commercial client folds).

However, since most people haven't learned they can live fearlessly, I don't begrudge them for posting anonymously where allowed. In fact, I say leave the anonymous posters alone for some very good reasons.

Cook's anonymous posters always make for an interesting, though sometimes silly, commentary on the events he writes about.

It used to be that way over at Inside Nevada Politics until they disallowed anonymous posters midstream during the 2006 political campaign, after someone called a candidate "dumb as a post" among other things.

Nowadays, most comments on that blog have thinned to nothing, because most people don't want to bash politicians (and the reporters in some cases) publicly. Most don't want such bashes to rub off on their companies. Go figure.

Anyway, what Inside Nevada Politics lost when they made that decision was honest discussion. And, with that, the "subjects" of many posts missed out on what the opposition thought of them.

It's true. When I was working on the Bob Beers campaign, I used to read all those anonymous comments faithfully, weighing their credibility. While I might not have responded to them, I certainly used the negative comments to develop strategies that addressed every complaint, just in case even one of those "ideas" caught fire.

Heck, in one case, an "anonymous poster" outlined a good portion of our opponent's strategy, making the point that for those reasons we would lose. So while other campaign members were up in arms about it, I calmly smiled and saw it for what it was: GOLD!

But then, Inside Nevada Politics disallowed anonymous posts and we were back to flying partially blind. Our window into the minds of our opponent was somewhat diminished. Oh well.

Chalk all this up as lesson number one for Young and The Branding Foundry. It's better to see what the opposition is thinking than to think you are untouchable on your very high horse, er, ladder, as you call it.

The second lesson is for everyone questioning the validity of anonymous posts. Simply put: "Whether anonymous posts (or anonymous blogs for that matter) should be allowed or not" is the wrong question.

The fact is that anonymous posts exist. And the question you could be asking is "What are we going to do about it?"

Well, we could run around the Web chasing ghosts, responding to them (which only gives them more credibility, by the way), and attempting to crush their credibility while looking like we take them ever so seriously ... or, we can file them away as insight into the opposition, maybe using them as another opportunity to get our message out, whatever that might be.

The Branding Foundry, unfortunately picked option A, and for all it gained by a well-written and flattering post by Cook, Young erased almost all of it by trying to be a "ghost buster" rather than a "brand master." I'm sorry Mr. Young, but you cannot hit something that is not there.

Besides, ghosts tend to multiply when you swing at one. I think it has to do with the "whoosh" sound people make, swinging at nothing.

Anyway, in closing, I would like to add that there is no venom here. I wish The Branding Foundry all the best of luck in sticking to a message rather than trying to bust ghosts. Hopefully, they will even share a few lessons with future clients...

No positive news is exempt from criticism, no matter where you think you are on the "ladder" of life. And bashing ghosts is an exercise in futility at its best. Almost always, you'll end up looking silly.

Managing Blog And E-mail Spam

While traveling for business every other week during the last two months may have placed company blog posting on a temporary hiatus, I've still found time to manage non-communication across three blogs. The non-communication I'm referring to is blog spam and by 'manage' I mean to delete any gratuitous, self-serving comments that are designed to do nothing more than promote a link to a non-related site.

The format is largely the same: a member name that is usually abandoned, some pat generic compliment about the blog, and a link to a non-related blog about anything from home sales to latte. The post verbiage is largely borrowed by what once was an acceptable comment between non-marketing bloggers as an introduction.

The increase in spam posting has even prompted Blogger.com and other hosts to provide administrators a new feature to permanently remove such posts, leaving no record of their existence. It is a minor nuisance to do so, but much less annoying than allowing the spam poster's often temporary name to remain on the blog, which leaves visitors wondering why someone's comment was deleted. It is a shame this has to be done because blog spam disrupts otherwise worthwhile communication.

Personally, I've always been amazed at the extent some marketers are willing to employ the most intrusive marketing tactics as their sole source of communication. While it obviously works in the short term, companies that employ such practices or hire marketers to do so fail to establish real product or service credibility in the long term. And now, some countries are going a step further.

Most European countries are beginning to issue steep fines against spammers (and the companies that employ them). In fact, Italy has issued a new law that threatens spammers with jail sentences of up to three years. The United States is also becoming vigilant: Massachusetts hit one Internet spam company with a $37 million fine before shutting it down completely. In all, 18 states in the U.S. have laws regulating spam to one extent or another.

You can do something about it too. Never respond to spam (even opt-out lists unless you know the company), always filter it out of your e-mail, and complain to the provider when possible. If the spam is fraudulent (offers products that don't work or pyramid schemes), you can forward the e-mail to the US Federal Trade Commission at uce@ftc.gov. If the spam promotes stocks, forward it to the US Securities and Exchange Commission at enforcement@sec.gov.

Sure, many businesses are experimenting with e-mail as a sales and marketing tool as the Internet has become a bigger part of our everyday lives. There is nothing wrong with this as long as companies remain as responsible as they would be with any other form of communication. After all, there are many consumers that may be interested in a new product, service, or company news (especially previous buyers).

In short, online marketing isn't spam until it is disruptive, intrusive, or unresponsive. And posting what is nothing more than a thinly veiled link on a blog without permission is certainly all of the above. To which all I think I can say is: keep up the good work, spam marketers, someone will get back to you with a verdict soon enough.