Ethics tool: 20 questions
The Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) has recnetly issued a draft version of their 'ethics tool'. This tool consists of 20 questions designed to help clients make ethical decisions when creating campaigns. http://www.womma.org/20questions/
This tool makes me wonder if asking 20 questions before starting a campaign is enough- are there questions that should be asked but are not included in these 20? How much education do practitioners need before being able to make ethical decisions on behalf of their company? Recently some large PR firms, ones who should have known better, have had their ethics called into question. Who should be in charge of ethics in an organization?
posted by Anonymous @ 11/27/2006 01:15:00 PM
4 Comments:
I believe that a lot of people disregard their ethics because of money. If a public relations firm is in danger of losing a client that supplies a large part of their income, they may be more inclined to bend the rules and do things they may not usually do. I don’t know if there is any one person that can make all of the ethical decisions in an organization and I don’t know if any amount of education will prepare practitioners for some of the ethical decisions they will have to make.
Practitioners should be educated in the values and morals of the organization they work for and then make ethical decisions from there. There will be some situations that will definitely be ethical violations, but there will also be situations that are questionable. In questionable cases, practitioners should talk to each other and their bosses in order to get advice and other opinions, and then they can make a more educated decision.
I think asking 20 questions is the least practitioners can do before starting a campaign. And I found it interesting that WOMMA specifically focused on a "word of mouth" campaign. Isn't ensuring ethics aren't violated a necessary step for any public relations campaign? And not only are the 20 questions not enough; the list must be constantly updated based on the ebbs and flows of how the campaign is being implemented. Some issues may arise that were never considered at the beginning of the campaign, and they must be dealt with accordingly. Likewise, one of the 20 may have nothing to do with the campaign at hand. While ethics is clearly an important part of public relations, a published list of 20 required questions should just be put in the arsenal and should be considered guidelines.
This reminds me of the post from September 13, "Ethics in Public Relations: Do We Need a Month?" The fact that WOMMA posted a web site outlining the criteria for an ethical word of mouth campaign implies that there have been issues with unethical tactics in the past. The 20 questions, like the ethics month, is a good tool to get pr practitioner and members of WOMMA thinking more about the ethics of their campaigns. As Lauren said, though, this list is not comprehensive, and not all of it will apply to every campaign. It must be fluid and adapted for each individual program to be truly effective. These organizations might do well to read Ruth Edgetts's article "Toward an Ethical Framework for Advocacy" (2002).
I also believe that Jennifer's assement that PR professionals sometimes let their ethics slip for the almightly dollar. Case in point: Edelman's Flog. I am not well versed in the details of this situation, but my understanding is that Edelman supported the flogs for their largest client, WalMart. I wonder if the company would have engaged this tactic for a much smaller, less recognized client.
Also, Jennifer asked who should be in charge of the ethics of an organization. Many of our readings suggested that it is the responsibility of PR staff to be the ethical voice of a company. For this to be well supported, though, I think senior leadership must apprecicate and embrace ethical principals of leadership and entrepenurship.
As Meredith notes, this blog brings us back to the very first discussion of our foundations class. Additionally, I remember listening to a lecture from Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson concerning ethical public relations and ethical leadership. The bottom line of it was that public relations has to be done in an ethical manner at all times, and it takes effort to do so.
As we all know, The Public Relations Society of America has a code of ethics that members are obliged to participate in. Under the categories such as honesty, advocacy, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness, a professional pr person must act in ethical methods for the well-being of the public.
However, like many things in life, engaging with the ethics code seems easier said than done. Because of the nature of our profession; serving as a public advocacy and working mostly with corporations, there are bound to be times when unethical behaviors occur; intentionally or unintentionally.
We see international PR firms such as Ketchum practically breaking free from the ethics code, and recently the respected Edelman went through trouble due to the lack of transparency and false flogs regarding issues with Wal-Mart.
Why is this so? Personally, I don’t believe this is heavily relied on the lack of an ethical mind set. We see enough education going on; Ethics awareness month, ethical guidelines for WOM campaigns, seminars and lectures. Rather, I think this is because public relations is in the lower position of the hierarchy, pr practitioners are unwillingly engaging with unethical behaviors not to loose the money bag.
Furthermore, in some countries where relationships are based on rather personal bases, it becomes more difficult to act objectively. This is why many Korean pr agencies are faced with balancing ethical methods with the risk of loosing the relationship entirely due to acting “up-tight and hidebound.”
The big question in my head is that is it possible to engage entirely with the code of ethics regardless of situation. I “know” ethical pr will contribute on building positive relationships and do us better good in the long run. I am just confused why we still see unethical pr happening when evidently we all know it’s “wrong.”
Post a Comment
<< Home