The Conundrum of Public Relations

My good friend Chrystal often asks me, “What do you do again?” At this point in my career, I’m hard pressed to come up with an answer to the question. Based on Stuart Elliott’s New York Times article, I’m not the only PR professional in this boat. At the time Mr. Elliott wrote his article, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) had just embarked on a campaign to update the definition of the profession.  Per the article, this process should have been completed by the end of 2011. However, a quick trip to the Association’s website reveals that the process is proving no easier than it was in 1982, the last time the definition was updated. Although the Association missed its original deadline, it has narrowed down the search to three options. Truthfully, I would find almost any definition better than the current one:

       “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.”

The current definition of public relations does not encompass the scope and complexity of the profession today. Specifically, I find the term ‘adapt mutually to each other’ unrealistic in the face of the real-life goals and objectives of a modern PR practitioner.

In my experience, the practice of public relations – at least for a consumer goods company – is the practice of persuasion. Specifically, I would define public relations as “the engine that helps an organization define and manage its reputation, while helping to support the bottom line.” I find the current definition of PR a bit too altruistic when in reality, PR is about reputation, brand and crisis management, and about persuading consumers to purchase the brands or services – or embrace the goals and philosophies – of an organization. If a business or organization isn’t achieving its goal – growing the bottom line, however that ‘growth’ is defined – then there would be no need for PR. I don’t believe the current definition addresses this underlining objective. I believe that to miss this element is to devalue the role of public relations to any organization as it is integral in helping an organization succeed.

Ethics comes into play in my new definition of PR with the area of reputation management. Every organization must decide what it stands for and how it wants to do business. Some set a stake in the ground, determined to act responsibly both to their investors (key stakeholders) and to their constituents (consumers). Other organizations are less concerned by social responsibility, but are moved more so by the bottom line (financial). It is my belief that a PR practitioner committed to the industry’s code of ethics must first choose to work for or represent an organization with similar ethical standards.  If one chooses to work for an organization only committed to growing the financial bottom line, that practitioner may find him or herself faced with ethical dilemmas that challenge their personal or the PRSA code of ethics. However, if an organization includes in their definition of the ‘bottom line’ the growth of the community in which it does business or the personal development of its employees or development of a service-oriented culture, he or she may experience fewer dilemmas of ethics.

I find news that the PRSA is working with the Federal Trade Commission to monitor and more clearly define best practices in PR encouraging. Both supposed breeches in conduct by Facebook and the CEO of 5W Public Relations are harmful to the reputation of the PR industry and to the reputation of individual PR practitioners. While the actions of Facebook may have a more direct impact on everyday social media users, the supposed actions of Ron Torossian of 5WPR are equally as disturbing given his position as the head of a PR agency. In both these cases, the reputations of the organizations and the individuals who lead them worked to damage public trust and harmed the communities involved.

I believe that the efforts of PRSA and the FTC can only help the PR field. Stricter regulations on transparency in marketing and PR will help level the playing field for businesses, making for a better place in which to do business. In fact, learning more about these breaches encourages me to learn more about ethics in PR and to explore ways in which I can become a better practitioner in the field.  Doing so may help me better understand the craft, and help me better explain what it is that I do to my friends and family.

OSTRICHES + THE STOCK MARKET

The belief that ostriches will stick their head in a hole in the ground when faced with danger is the stuff of legend – urban legend. Although it is true that they can sometimes be seen with their heads in the ground or seeming to dig a whole to do so, this action has nothing to do with fear, but with procreation. Male ostriches dig shallow indentations in the ground with their beaks to create a nest in which their mates will lay their eggs.  However, the myth persists that the world’s biggest bird is the animal kingdom’s biggest coward and would rather stick its head in the ground than defend itself from attack. If one were to suspend one’s knowledge of the bird’s true actions, one might be able to make comparisons between an ostrich’s seeming cowardice and the behavior of CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer during the financial crisis of 2008, which was featured in Case Study 2-B. It appeared to some that rather than face the reality of the burgeoning economic crisis, Mr. Cramer put his head in the ground – expounding bull market guidance – instead of recommending strategies his viewers could use to defend their wealth.  This extreme bullishness left Cramer with egg on his face  and viewers who acted upon his entertaining, yet flawed advice, with lighter nest eggs to see them through the lean times.

The authors of our text posed several questions relating to this case study, one of which challenged readers to compare the actions of Mr. Cramer on his show with the duties of a bank’s PR professional.  As a practitioner of public relations I found this question thought-provoking and have evaluated the case study using the ethics code set forth by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA).

According to PRSA, its code is “designed to be a useful guide for PRSA members as they carry out their ethical responsibilities.” I find the code itself to be clear and easy to understand, and the tenets it proposes to be high minded and morally correct. The code suggests that a PR professional who chooses to follow the code will not only act with clear and honest intentions when dealing with or representing his or her client’s interests, but also will apply the code’s professional values (advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness) when considering how his or her actions affect society at large. Looking at Case Study 2-B through that lens I would find Mr. Cramer in violation of several of the Code’s guidelines, but not of malicious intent.

The PRSA Code’s ‘Free Flow of Information’ section states:

       “…advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public
       interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.”

I believe that Mr. Cramer’s brand of financial advice erred too heavily on the side of entertainment and personal opinion, failing to provide viewers with the information they needed to make informed decisions during a volatile financial time. Although I see some similarities between what Mr. Cramer does on his show and what a PR practitioner for a local bank is tasked with accomplishing, the situations between the two are quite different. Mr. Cramer was hired by CNBC to deliver sound financial advice to its viewers, but also to entertain them. He owes loyalty to his employer, but more so to his viewers. The more he gets it wrong, the less faith viewers have in him and the less likely they are to watch, which could lead to cancellation of his show by the network. Conversely, a PR professional for a bank advocates on its behalf, presenting it to the media, investors and the community at large in the best possible light. The bank employee owes his or her loyalty first and foremost to the bank and so, would most likely think of the bank's needs before those of the community at large. Unless Mr. Cramer (or CNBC) was accepting some form of compensation from the companies whose stocks he chose to promote or was compelled to push those stocks for some unseen reason, his duties differ significantly from that of a bank’s PR team. 

I would suggest that Mr. Cramer was not guilty of unethical behavior per se, but irresponsibility. He failed to provide his viewers with all the information needed for responsible decision-making or simply misjudged the turns the market would take. John Stuart Mill might argue that it was unethical of Cramer to poo-poo his viewer’s fears about Bear Sterns based only on his personal opinion since – if the viewer actually followed his advice and kept the stock – he would have lost significant amounts of money when the brokerage house was taken over by JP Morgan Chase. In Mills’ Utilitarianism view, the consequences of Cramer’s actions made them unethical as they potentially harmed many people.

The difficulty with using the PRSA code to review this case study was the seeming ambiguity of codes themselves. The PRSA code seems straightforward and absolute, but it appears that the authors and/or the organization as a whole may see the flaws in the guidelines as the preamble states that “emphasis on enforcement of the Code has been eliminated.” If a code is not enforced, or enforceable, does it hold its value? One could view removal of enforcement language from the code as an acknowledgement by the Society of what our text calls the changing view of truth. Pragmatists would argue that truth is relative so one practitioner’s perception (and execution) of any given code can be very different from another’s, but both be ‘true’ depending on the context in which the action takes place. 

I found the discussion questions at the end of the case study very helpful, prompting me to look at the case from many different angles, specifically, that of Cramer, CNBC and the public at large. And though I do feel that Mr. Cramer kept his head to the ground a little too long, I found his bullishness more an error of judgment than of malicious intent.

###

TATTLETALE

(The following scenario actually happened to a colleague, but below I put myself in my colleagues place, examining how I might feel or react had it happened to me.)

While on a business trip I witnessed a senior level executive violate one of the core marketing guidelines by which my company stakes its reputation. As we produce, market and import products for use by those 21 years of age or older, all employees agree to take all possible actions to ensure that no one under this age is given access to our products. However, on this business trip an executive not only broke the law by providing access for her underage daughter to a corporate-sponsored event at a venue that requires all guests be over 21, but she also allowed the minor to have access to our products. Not only had the head of the department responsible for enforcing our corporate marketing code herself broken the code, she’d also broken the law. Worse, she was my boss.

The occasion for this breach of conduct was a global summit of our company’s corporate and brand communications executives. During the summit we discussed best practices in brand (product) public relations, the corporate code that governs the work we do, and the intersection between this work with our corporate communications and social responsibility standards. It seemed ironic, then, that a few days into this summit of excellence that my boss would break one of the basic rules of our company – never provide minors with access to our products. In my mind I had two choices – ignore the situation by keeping my manager’s misconduct secret or follow our corporate code of business conduct, which encourages employees to report misconduct when we see it.

I believed as our corporate code of conduct reinforced, all employees of my company should be held to the same standard. Therefore, if all are held to the same standard then one person who chose to ignore the standard should not be excused simply because of his or her rank within the company. Choosing to make this breach known – to human resources, senior leaders within our company or the press – could possibly put my job at risk.  However, when debating the situation, I believed that asking my company to hold an executive to the standards it asked the entire business to adhere to would in the end produce more trust and respect for the leadership among the workforce than ignoring my boss’s misconduct, or attempting to protect my own job.

As the Universal-Humanitarian communications ethics outlines, I believed that a universal truth existed in this scenario – consequences for misconduct should not be reserved for lower level employees, but employees at all levels should be treated equally. Believing that to be the case, I then determined that my boss, her daughter and myself could potentially be hurt by the release of the misconduct; but also that the latter and myself might benefit from this action. I determined that the harm to my boss would be in the form of a reprimand by our senior leaders and perhaps feelings of guilt for her daughter for inadvertently causing her mother trouble at work. For myself, I risked the stigma of being a whistleblower if anyone were to learn that I’d been the one to report the misconduct.

Putting the situation in context (Contextual Communications Ethics) I chose to release this information to the appropriate executives within my company, but not to the press or other industry insiders. When reviewing the situation I determined that there was no real harm done to the public by my boss’s decision to break our internal code of conduct since as a mother, some would argue, she also had the right to determine what was and wasn't safe for her child. I also believed that making the situation known to the public would unnecessarily jeopardize my boss’s credibility with the media and within our industry.  If I had shared this information with the media or industry insiders I may have also jeopardized my career as a communicator as whistleblowers are often admired and reviled for their actions.

Following the reporting of the misconduct, my boss unexpectedly resigned her position and although procedures are in place within our company to protect those who report misconduct, the fact that I did so did not remain a secret. I was transferred to our London office and later let go during a round of layoffs a few years later.

As a media professional I don’t believe that there is any way to avoid secrets. Rather than ask ourselves how we can avoid becoming entangled in secrets I believe that a communicator should ask his or herself whether they want to be communicators at all as learning and managing secrets is part and parcel of our jobs. As public relations professionals we keep to our breasts the bad behavior or new innovations of our clients. As investor relations professionals we guard news that could affect a company’s stock price. As journalists we gather secrets to provide readers with the truth behind a given situation. The better question is – would there be a need for communicators without secrets?

###

Stop Time: Ethics vs. Emotion

On Thursday my supervisor and I sat down for a mid-year performance review. As we discussed my performance during the first half of the year and the areas in which I can improve, he reminded me to practice “stopping time” – focusing less on ‘getting things done’ (fast and in a hurry), but instead paying closer attention to how I get them done (with insightful consideration). He pointed out that sometimes in my rush to complete a task or solve a dilemma I sacrifice the best solution for the expedient one…or the one that hits me in the gut (or the heart) first. After reading Chapter 1 of Media Ethics:  Issues & Cases, 7th Edition, I understand that when faced with a dilemma I sometimes rely on emotion or my moral compass instead of rational thought and ethical reasoning. I believe that delving deeper into the practice of ethics may help me to ‘stop time’ – reason through an issue – and so become a more thoughtful and effective communicator.

For the past nine years I have worked in Corporate Communications for an industry leading Consumer Goods company and in brand public relations for the past four of those nine years. The Corporate Relations department of any major company usually works hand in hand with the executive, legal, finance and human resources teams, giving communicators access to sensitive business and human related information on a daily basis. As a corporate communicator, ethics are extremely important as the successful practitioner must keep his or her mind sharp and objective when navigating the sometimes rocky business landscape, which can be strewn with product recalls, consumer complaints, corporate restructurings, layoffs, accusations of misconduct and the like.

The industry in which I work is itself a study in ethics. The products produced by my employer can bring consumers great joy or, if abused, unimaginable sorrow. In fact, the production, sale and importation of these products were essentially banned with the ratification of the 18th Amendment of the United States Constitution:

“…the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

In the late 18th century and throughout the 19th century, many Americans came to view excessive consumption of alcohol as the root of the nation’s ills, from poverty to the fracturing of the American family. Unfortunately and according to the Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States, National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, January 7, 1931, Prohibition helped solidify the position of organized crime, which led to an increase in theft, burglary, assaults and battery.  Years later the ‘Noble Experiment’ was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment. Lest we not forget our industry’s difficult and controversial beginnings, the EVP of Corporate Communications at my company likes to remind us that “we’re not selling cereal,” and because of that we have a great responsibility to the consumers that enjoy our products and to those who could be hurt by them.  It is for this reason that our company created one of the industry’s strictest marketing codes, which provides useful guidelines and in some cases, strict rules, by which employees must measure their work. But as the authors of our text point out, codes by themselves do not always offer solutions to the dilemmas we face on a day to day basis. It is where the code ends that our personal ethics must take over.

As a business our goal is to make money for our investors and our employees. We do that by selling alcohol. We continue to provide dividends for our investors and continue to employ and provide raises for our people by convincing consumers of legal purchasing age to consume more of our products or by convincing them to consume the higher priced brands. Some might have a moral aversion to working in this industry while others can look at it from a more rational perspective and so reason that we are simply a business that produces a product that adult consumers have the right to choose, or not choose, to consume. Understandably, my personal view leans towards the latter – as a business that provides a product that adults have the right to choose or not choose and also to abuse or to use responsibly.

As a communicator it is my duty to present our brands and our industry in the most advantageous light possible. In the execution of these duties I rely on ethics every day. I may not realize it at every moment, but they are entwined in everything I do. I must convince journalists and critics that although abuse of our brands can cause some adults to put themselves in harm’s way, it is our company’s intent to do all in our power to ensure that our products are marketed and enjoyed responsibly. In fact, given that our industry is so heavily regulated and that we have no shortage of detractors, my employer’s survival relies upon the majority of consumers using our products responsibly. 

Working to publicize the only industry to have been ratified twice by amendments to the Constitution, I have faced a myriad number of dilemmas and when I catch myself making a quick judgment to solve one of them I try to ‘stop time’. Similar to the steps Bok proposes, I try to take a moment to think about the situation, consider the possible outcomes of each possible decision, seek advice, consult my conscience and then make a decision. Of course, I don’t always catch myself in time to follow these steps. My hope is that through this course I will have identified new tools and philosophies for making ethical and rational decisions and so become a better communications practitioner.

Lastly, as we continue to explore the nuances of ethics in communications, I would like to see our class debate the role of ethics in publicizing and marketing controversial industries or products. I’d also like to discuss the Federal Trade Commission’s updated Endorsement Guidelines, which have affected how my PR team works with celebrity endorsers, bloggers and the media.

###