By Fraser P. Seitel
Some years ago, a friend of mine worked for the biggest public relations agency in the world.
A dreaded vice chairman at the firm was notorious for "stepping on" the time sheets of subordinates, i.e. adding his $500/hour billing rate on top of an account's monthly statements, even though he had done nothing to assist in the account's management.
The end result was that clients would unknowingly be billed an extra couple of thousand clams a month for work that was never done.
My friend brought this up at lunch one day with the long term CEO of the agency, who was aghast. "I've heard reports of this before. I'll look into it," he promised. But months later, the vice chairman was still steppin', and the kindly CEO, who was subsequently canned, hadn't said a word.
This tale of yore comes to mind in the sudden outbreak of ethical lapses among public relations agencies. Over the past month alone:
• The former head of Fleishman-Hillard's Los Angeles office was ordered to start serving three and a half years in the slammer for padding consulting bills.
• The SEC charged an employee of investor relations firm Market Street Partners with taking money to provide acquaintances inside information about Google earnings.
• Greenpeace alleged that two PR firms, Ketchum and Dezenhall Resources, waged a campaign to steal confidential information, to benefit clients Dow Chemical and Sasol North America.
• Lawyer-turned-PR man Lanny Davis of Lanny Davis & Associates belatedly resigned as spokesman for Ivory Coast strongman Laurent Gbagbo, after pocketing $200,000 to defend the defeated president, whose death squads terrorized the country and infuriated the international community.
Obviously, such ethical transgressions reflect poorly on Fleishman, Ketchum, Dezenhall and Davis. An agency culture that encourages, or even permits, bill padding, insider trading, illegal surveillance or rationalizing the defense of thugs is seriously flawed. And one would hope that in retrospect, each firm conducts its own internal soul-searching to determine how much retainer income its reputation is worth.
Soul-searching would also be wise for those associations that look over the practice of PR, in particular the Public Relations Society of America and the Council of Public Relations Firms. Both are fine organizations, run by competent individuals.
But both have been sadly silent not only in response to these four most recent cases of PR agency ethical abuse, but in the cause of PR ethics generally. Both PRSA and the Council have wonderful Codes of Ethics. But these codes are toothless if the leaders of these groups refuse to stand up when one of their members violates the standards established.
What could PRSA or Council of PR Firms leaders do relative to ethics enforcement? How ‘bout these for starters?
#1. Speak
The first thing an association executive should do when a member has violated association ethical policy is speak out about the infraction.
Acknowledge as to how the conduct violates what the association and its industry stand for. Other professional organizations -- the advertising industry or the medical or legal profession, for instance – aren't reluctant to speak out or write about members who violate ethical precepts.
Talk may be cheap, but in cases of PR agency ethical violation, silence – particularly for a profession that carries the mantle of ethics as a basis for its relevance -- is far worse.
#2. Censure
Last month, when Charlie Rangel thumbed his nose at Congressional ethical rules and refused to acknowledge the severity of his abdication of the public trust, the House censured him.
Some decried the censure as "toothless," in that the 40-year congressman was allowed to keep his seat and his rent-controlled apartments, and otherwise emerge unscathed.
But even the obtuse Rangel himself admitted that the censure was an "embarrassing and painful experience" that had left a blot on his record that would never be wiped away.
Similarly, if PR associations publicly "censured" ethical violators, this would serve a similar purpose, of letting agencies know that in an industry based on ethical comportment, no transgression goes unpunished.
#3. Sanction
It's probably unlikely to expect a trade association that is too timid to even mention a dues paying member's ethical failings to be willing to penalize that member for its questionable conduct. But what a signal it would send to the PR business and the vast army of PR skeptics abroad in the land.
"Impossible," you say.
For inspiration, the PRSA or the Council of Public Relations Firms need only look at a sister organization in, of all places, the Middle East.
Yes, the Middle East, where this month the Middle East PR Association fined a Dubai member firm $4,000 for doctoring and then distributing a photo from the group's awards banquet, that removed the logos of competitors.
MEPRA put the firm on probation and required its staffers to sign the association's ethical code and receive ethical training. The head of the agency acknowledged its "undeniable mistake."
In this country, the birthplace of PR, PRSA apologists argue that the association has never been successful at sanctioning members and has abolished its mechanism for prosecuting or persecuting malpractice.
"Do we want to be known," they ask, "for the number of practitioners we try to kick out each year, or rather, by the thousands of practitioners we help to be more ethical and more appropriately professional each year?"
How ‘bout both?
#4. Study
Finally, if nothing else, the associations responsible for the PR business should lead the charge to examine how PR professionals regard the issue of "ethics."
The last serious study of PR ethics was done 11 years ago by PR Week magazine, which interviewed 1,700 public relations executives and found, among other astonishing conclusions, that "44% were uncertain about ethics in the field" and that "25% lied on the job."
These findings were so unnerving to a field that prides itself on ethical conduct, that no association, university or agency since has summoned up the courage to repeat the study -- perhaps fearful of the notoriety that similarly damaging findings would have on the practice.
But the time for new research is now.
If PRSA or the Council of Public Relations Firms is interested at all in "standing up" for what they claim they "stand for," a good place for them to start would be to dust off and update the PR Week ethics study. |