I’m often asked: ‘What do you think about PR?’ and the answer mostly comes in two parts:
- PR is there to tell the story you want to hear as a client. It is not there to tell the truth
- Most PR is an utter waste of money.
There are exceptions but this is pretty much the day to day rule – IMO. PR is about influence. In software, it’s usually about how great, big, dominating, innovative and otherwise gorgeous the vendor happens to be and on those grounds is deserving of attention evidenced by lots of ink on dead tree press. Pretty much all the vendors trot out variations of the same line. What makes this almost homogenous approach truly laughable is that no-one among the serious commentators really believes what’s said or at the very least wants to get behind the spin.
But what happens when PR becomes the driver for marketing? It can get very dark indeed. As last night’s Panorama programme about GSK and its hiding of the truth behind Seroxat amply demonstrated.
At this point in such articles, it is usual to hurl abuse at the press for following the PR line and blaming them for missing important truths. The fact is that it is hard to get at the truth and even then there are nearly always nuances. But in this case, the press are to be applauded. The BBCs investigative reporting was impeccable and, IMO, scrupulously fair. Fiona Godlee, Editor in Chief at the British Medical Journal nails it when she says:
Let’s be clear what is and is not acceptable. There is nothing wrong with getting help from medical writers, provided they and their source of funding are clearly acknowledged.
Nor is there anything wrong with academics or clinicians working with industry, provided they remain personally accountable for everything they say.
What is clearly wrong is writers, academics, or clinicians concealing under their coat tails an army of company spin doctors intent on distorting the scientific record.
During the programme, it was heavily implied that GSKs PR was aggressive in pushing positive messages out, even though it knew there were defects in clinical trials. Edelman lists GSK as one of its clients. For those that don’t know, Edelman is the world’s largest independent PR company. Steve Rubel, one of the very early PR blog evangelists, works for them.
Referring to Edelman’s 8th Trust Barometer, arch-Edelman sceptic Strumpette notes:
Stuart Smith, CEO Edelman London, said: “This year we have seen significant declines in trust across all sectors: business, NGOs, media and government. When compared with other countries we seem to be a national of skeptics.â€
Mr Smith – you’re right. And, it would seem, for good reason. That is why, when I read about KPMG talking up transparency, I’m glad there are people out there prepared to call them to account. And why despite the current interest in A1S from SAP, most serious commentators are keeping quiet – at least in the public domain. Until the new A1S exists, the rest is PR.
Nonetheless, I do get a tad disturbed when I hear that Edelman CEO Richard Edelman and KPMG CEO Mike Rakes are together at Davos. I can however be comforted by the view on Davos from The Boring Made Dull:
a conference where rich, connected Americans go to grovel to the Euros, dictators, and kleptocrats
