Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.

Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business.  Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.

The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.

Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place.  It is part and parcel of what the business world.  Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.

That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor?  Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged.  Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses.  Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.

All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.

The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:

• Mercurio is Burson-Marsteller’s Director of Media Practice in Washington.
• Mercurio was a former journalist, specialist in politics, who between 2002 and 2005 was CNN’s Political Editor.
• Mercurio’s experience appears to lie within the political sector, certainly this was his sole beat between when he graduated from Boston University with a degree in Journalism and until he left The National Journal as Executive Editor.

Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project.  Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:

• In Mercurio’s opening email on May 3^rd, John addresses Chris Soghoian as ‘Mr. Soghoian’.  Would a person who had a close working relationship with this blogger address him as ‘Mr’?  Isn’t this quite a detached introduction from somebody who does not have a strong working relationship with said blogger?
• Mercurio is a Burson’s Director of Media with a background in politics, why is he involved in blogger relations?  Surely this would have been the responsibility of a tech team or at least of somebody who would not approach Soghoian with a ‘Mr. Soghoian’.
• While Mercurio offered the opportunity of an op-ed piece, why is it he and not somebody with a better working relationship offering Soghoian this opportunity?
• Why is Burson using email to connect with bloggers, knowing full well that email correspondence can be leaked?

Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on.  Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.

Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics.  Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.

From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric.  There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.

It has been an interesting year for public relations.  The recession has affected how businesses communicate.  Reputation and issues management have been the watchwords as companies throughout the world battled to safeguard their image and reputation during what could be described as the first major downturn in this globalised era.  And it has taken no prisoners as it spread across sectors and continents, highlighting how interconnected we all are today.

What’s been interesting is that while the recession was causing havoc around the world, consumers became better connected.  Issues that once might have only affected reputations in a small geographic region spread like wild fire thanks to social media and networking.  Media outlets across the world wasted no time in reporting issues that were trending online.

While this was happening companies continued in their monologue culture, dictating at consumers while they engaged and networked online – sharing feedback and their experiences through websites, blogs and real-time platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube

And that is the point.  Social media and networking has empowered consumers.  It has given them a platform through which they can share knowledge and experience.  It has also raised their expectations with regards to what they want and how they want it.  They expect good service and that expectation crosses sectors.  Today, if you have outstanding service when buying a car, you expect the same level of service when dealing with your bank or utility company.  Social media has unified the expectations of people and it is now up to companies to realise this.

The fear that the business community has is that it isn’t able to control the conversation.  Entering into a conversation with current or potential consumers on a digital platform “entails considerable risk” as the Accenture report says.  Risk because if your levels of service do not meet the expectations of your empowered audience, said stakeholders will amplify their displeasure and share it with others, may others.  In fact, the Accenture says that “one-quarter of respondents have used these channels [digital] to relate their negative experiences to others.”  In fact, nearly nine in 10 consumers globally told the people around them about their bad experiences.  And this is not what businesses want during an economic recovery.

You just have to look at how Eurostar created a rod for its own back by behaving in such as detached way from what was affecting their customers.  A lack of empathy and the use of corporate language only helped turn an issue into a crisis.  Such was the reaction to horrendous customer service that customers turned to Facebook and other online sites to vent their anger at how they were treated.

And let’s not forget how Rage Against The Machine became the UK’s Christmas Number 1.  Tired of being fed ‘pop-tastic’ fodder, people joined a Facebook group that attracted over 1 million supporters who wanted to break the monopoly of X-Factor.  People power at it’s best.

So, what should businesses do in order to meet the ever-increasing expectations of consumers?  Accenture rightly says that companies should dump the ‘one-size-fits-all’ customer service model and “embrace a service model that provides differentiated service experiences based on the expectations and requirements of individual—and closely understood—customer segments.”

Businesses in the so-called emerging markets have become more vulnerable to the power of people.  One could argue that it’s because consumers are keener on making the most of their new found wealth, while customers in mature markets are more patient and will only as a last resort take their business elsewhere.

For quite some time consumers have had customer service that’s been designed for them rather than with them.  With the speed at which the public can create a backlash it is going to be essential that businesses learn to listen and start developing models that can be customised by customers.  Collaboration and prompt attention and the understanding that each consumer is unique will help businesses succeed as the economy climbs out of recession.  This culture and philosophy will work to turn consumers into advocates, turn people into an invisible word-of-mouth and online sales force.

I believe that 2010 will be a year where public relations forces businesses to take note of what customers want.  A year where cultures will need to change, because if they don’t and consumers ever increasing expectations are not met reputations will suffer.  Businesses will start noticing that their customers are now critics that will make their opinions known not just through word-of-mouth but online, to a much wider audience.

In 2010 consumers that share their positive or negative thoughts and experiences will attract cult following.  Of course on issues such as banking we already have this with MoneySavingExpert.com’s Martin Lewis.  Just think of what he’s achieved and wonder what others could do in sectors in which they are customers.

We are witnessing a change and social media is the platform through which consumers will fight for the service that they expect.

But as Niccolo Machiavelli said, “whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

Old skool v new media

We had another great CIPR Greater London Group event last night with BBC Head of Online Journalism Pete Clifton, Telegraph.co.uk Shane Richmond and PR Blogger Stephen Davis discussing the impact of social media on journalism and PR.

Facebook group members sent questions that were posed to the panel.

We had a very good debate and a lot of counter points from both sides of the fence.

The first question picked up on a leaked story that appeared in Press Gazette that said that The Guardian, of all places, was going to cut back its numbers of traditional reporters in order to focus more on new media.

The view was that The Guardian was doing what The Daily Telegraph had done in preparation of its move to Victoria a few years back. Both Pete and Shane stated that integrated newsrooms are the way forward and that the days of the traditional journalism were ending.

Stephen made a great point that PRs are just, well, lagging behind stubborn old hacks in adopting new media and social networking. Petedid share with us his experience in getting the BBC to change the way that it’s newsroom works. Really, as I understood it, a case of dragging a child kicking and screaming forward.

We then went on to discuss if social media has the potential to restore trust in the media?

Social media was very much running a tightrope, between gossip that media can’t run because of the lawyers. Having said this media organisations now find themselves with a tool that can tell it readers and viewers why they have decided to make such an editorial decision. High profile journalists like Robert Peston and Nick Robinson can go into detail on a story that they are running. Pete Clifton gave the prime example of how the BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson ran a story from the White House on his blog from his blackberry. A case of where social media gave him the opportunity of reporting a gaff by President Bush as it happened. The result of which led the White House Press Office from effectively banning him.

But what about non-aligned bloggers that are not members of the media pool? Well, as was said, they have a duty of been as careful about their stories as trained journalists, especially those that have good authority ratings. Getting stories right is a must for everybody.

Interestingly enough though when Stephen Davis was asked who would he give a story to, a journalist or a blogger with a high-authority rating – only choosing one of the two, Stephen said a journalist (he wanted to issue a story to both). Shane came in and asked why not a blogger first given that they are, to all intense and purposes, a journalist.

Finally that tool of our trade came in for debate, the press release, or as it often is, the pr release, given that they are often written in dour language. The question was, is it dead?

The answer, well, as you’d expect was a no. Not yet. Sending cold press releases to journalists is a no, yet the same thing is done to bloggers. And the results aren’t just bad for relations, they can be damaging. The rule of thumb is, develop a relationship with them, ask them if they want to receive press releases, treat them as individuals. Email them as people. Bloggers are influential, like leading columnists. So treat them with respect.

So a lot of debate, a lot of dicussion, some controversy and an equal amount of profanity. All in all, another great night, so if you missed it and want to come to the next event then join the 
Facebook group, and we’ll see you soon.