Another PR Firm Gets in Hot Water Over Astroturfing

Jackie Danicki writes in that Pierce Mattie PR is getting up in her grill by allegedly spamming beauty blogs. They are purportedly astroturfing, posing as customers of their clients' products and leaving phony comments on her blog and others. Jackie has tracked the IP addresses for the firm. This comes on the heels of some similar shenanigans over at DCI.

This is a good time to talk about the work that Keith Jackson (the Aussie PR guy, not Mr. "Whoa Nellie") and others are doing to stop this kind of nonsense. They have launched an initiative to put an end to astroturfing.

This is becoming a really important issue for the PR community. A small number of black hats are going to give the folks who are engaging bloggers the right way to get an unfair black eye. I urge everyone in the PR community to read and pass along the information that's on the New PR Wiki. This is certainly something we will do at Edelman and I am sure other leading firms are doing the same.

Comments

[Chris Thompson]

This is the kind of behavior that made it very difficult for me to join the PR world after 20 years in journalism. (And no, I didn't do it for the money, as I actually took a cut...)

Clients shouldn't tolerate this behavior because in the long run it does them more harm than good.

If there ever was a need for a black list in the PR world, this kind of behavior is it.

We tell our clients to tell the truth, yet we do do not? How is this tolerated?

[Leo Bottary]

I think it's only fitting that Keith Jackson is on the case. The "whoa nellie" Keith Jackson would be proud. He, too, strikes me as a natural grass kind of guy.

[Leo Bottary]

I think it's only fitting that Keith Jackson is on the case. The "whoa nellie" Keith Jackson would be proud. He, too, strikes me as a natural grass kind of guy.

[Catgirls]

I'm always quite surprised that people don't use an anonymous proxy to post with when faking reviews or pumping products. An anonymous proxy masks your IP address. I'm using one now. There's no way anyone could trace me by my IP number from this post. It would simply dead end at the anon proxy IP fork.

Using an anonymous proxy isn't rocket science. Even PR people can figure it out. One search of Google (assuming PR people know how to use Google) would do the trick. If you’re going to spoof or Astroturf in the first place, why not be smart about it?

Odd.

[Tiffany B. Brown]

hee hee... something similar happened one of my blogs a while back. left a nasty taste in my mouth, and the mouths of my readers.

what some PR are missing is a simple point: authenticity, down-to-earth language and earnestness will endear you to your customers way more than writing about how FABULOUS! and FANTASTIC! your client's new product is.

@catgirls: part of the problem, is that most pr people *aren't* tech savvy. so they do stupid things and don't realize that (a) they can be traced, (b) that the blogger in question will usually call you on your b.s.

[Jeremy Pepper]

Jackie is a great person, and a great blogger, and someone I consider a friend; she sent me an email about her piece, and I planned on writing something up. For its credit, Pierce Mattie was one of the first consumer shops to launch a blog, but it looks like the people behind it did not train the staff.

Speaking of the New PR Wiki, whatever happened to your 25 percent project.

[Mike Driehorst]

I noticed that comments to the Jackie Danicki post about Pierce Mattie are closed?!

I guess Danicki is not giving the agency any public opportunity to voice its concerns. Unless it has a blog, that is.
Mike

[Jackie Danicki]

Actually, Mike, I closed comments because I had to head out for the night and did not want to come back to my hotel (travelling for work) and have to wade into a swamp of poo flinging. I'm going to write an update post and comments there will definitely be open.

For what it's worth, Pierce Mattie (the CEO and person) emailed me, telling me to call him, but would not offer any explanation in writing. I have also had no other written explanation from anyone else at Pierce Mattie, though another blogger has spoken to them about it and has been given an excuse (hey, guess what? It's another 'young staffer' taking the blame.).

[Steve Hultgren]

Dear Beauty & Fashion Bloggers,

Pierce Mattie PR has worked hard over the last five years to develop unique expertise in beauty, fashion and jewelry communications. We have long recognized the importance and potential of new media, and in 2002 we were one of the first PR firms in our media beat category to launch a blog and begin blogging. We have the highest respect for bloggers and their work, and we treat bloggers with the same attention and respect we have for editors from top print publications.

Today, Jackie Danicki posted on her blog, Jack & Hill, a piece about Pierce Mattie PR “spamming” other blogs. Please be assured that it is not the policy of Pierce Mattie PR to “spam” blogs (or spam anyone else, for that matter). However, although we were taken aback by Jackie’s ill-informed post, we want to acknowledge some recent missteps on our part that may have led to a misunderstanding about the matter.

A bit of history first. From 2002 to 2004, only two people at Pierce Mattie PR – Pierce and I – were permitted to post on the PMPR blog. By 2005, however, we took note of the increasing importance of blogging to the public relations industry and began encouraging all of our brand advocates to submit blog posts. This eventually turned into a requirement that each brand advocate submit at least one blog entry per week. The project has been unequivocally successful: brand advocates are pushed to think creatively and they take pride in their submissions, and our increased profile has been great for the firm and our clients. Although our firm’s policy requires blog entries to be approved before they are posted, we encourage our brand advocates to push the envelope with their posts and we give them a large degree of freedom and license.

During a recent staff meeting at Pierce Mattie PR, we encouraged both our New York and Los Angeles staff to start reading other blogs and tracking them to see what topics and products were discussed. When we saw many of our clients’ competitors being talked about, we started a database of blogs so we could send press materials to them, hoping they would also write about our clients’ brands.

With comment boards available on most blogs, we also encouraged our staff to interact with the bloggers and comment on their posts (a treat, and part of the beauty of the internet, since we publicists don’t get to comment on the stories in print media counterparts). Many publicists agreed or disagreed with bloggers (as the bloggers themselves had invited them to do), and would make comments about products they love, including those of our clients. As long as these comments were relevant to the original post or responsive to others’ comments, we did not consider this to be inappropriate.

In retrospect, perhaps it was an error on management’s part that we asked that the publicists use anonymous screen names, rather than their own name, when posting comments on other blogs. We didn’t want to appear to be playing favorites or showing any impropriety when talking about products that we happen to love but aren’t from our clients. Pierce Mattie brand advocates are hugely enthusiastic about beauty and fashion, and often blog about brands that they love, even if they aren’t necessarily clients.

We realize now that this anonymity may have given the impression that we were illicitly seeding our clients’ names on the internet through ghost writers. This was never our intention, and we apologize profusely if it appeared that way.

We also have to acknowledge that a junior publicist recently made several similar, not-very-responsive comments on a few different blogs. While this is unfortunate, by no means does it demonstrate that Pierce Mattie PR has ever engaged in an orchestrated spamming campaign, and we are confident that the blogosphere, once it has considered the matter, will agree. We believe that Jackie’s accusations are not well founded, and we regret her attempts to damage our reputation. In the last couple of years we have occasionally struggled to help our clients understand that even the most reputable brand can fall victim to a rapid flow of misinformation. If nothing else, this incident demonstrates the continuing relevance of that lesson.

Notwithstanding our dismay at how Jackie has dealt with this matter, we thought several statements in her recent e-mail regarding the issue were quite apt and illuminating. Jackie wrote:

“I have been making my living by teaching companies - including PR agencies - how to blog for three years, now. … There is an etiquette to the blogosphere, and it is one that many companies do not bother to learn before they begin their 'campaigns' to win over bloggers.”

It’s great that Jackie has been able to spend the past three years teaching companies how to blog, and her ability to make a career out of it shows that learning blog etiquette isn’t so easy. We’ve been blogging for four years, and even before this incident we knew better than to claim we knew all the rules. It’s not that we hadn’t “bothered to learn” the rules before starting a “campaign” – no, it’s because the rules are in a constant state of flux. For example, we have had clear policies about posting on our internal blog for several years, but before this incident we didn’t appreciate the importance of establishing explicit policies in respect of comments by our staff to other blogs. Of course, we have such policies now.

In fact, we thought that one of the most fundamental rules of blog etiquette existed primarily because the other rules were so ambiguous. I’m referring to the general rule that bloggers should use their blogs to facilitate dialog, particularly about the blog medium itself. That is why we find it particularly disappointing that Jackie made her post and e-mailed countless bloggers before contacting us at Pierce Mattie PR to get the full story, and that she has closed comments to the post, leaving us unable to defend ourselves or explain the situation. We also understand that Jackie may have erased comments that others posted on her blog in response to her claims. We find this troubling – but as Jackie said in her e-mail: “[B]loggers are just people.” And people make mistakes.

We look forward to working with all of you and know that our clients do also. As Julie Fredrickson of http://www.coutourture.com said, this is a new form of media and by working together we can only garner more respect for each other and help to iron out the kinks.

Often PR firms host ‘round tables’ with new media beats to help govern how they would like to receive media trends and stories. I know Pierce, Michael and I are more than happy to host a round table at our office on 45th St. and have you all in so we can create some official guidelines.

Steve Hultgren
President of Pierce Mattie Public Relations

[Jackie Danicki]

A few questions for Steve Hultgren:

1) In what way am I ill-informed? I want specifics. Please.

2) As to “the general rule that bloggers should use their blogs to facilitate dialog, particularly about the blog medium itself,” there is no such rule. Blogs are conversations, certainly, but when it comes to blog etiquette, there is nothing forcing bloggers to talk about the blog format or medium. Believe it or not, there are thousands of blogs where the blogger never actually hosts a conversation about the blogging format. Those bloggers aren’t breaking any ‘rule’. I mean…do you guys really think otherwise, Steve? I’m genuinely curious.

3) I’m loving the attempt to make me look shady with regard to comments. You guys know exactly what went down, because your “brand advocate” Kristen Herburger received an email directly from me explaining it!

For the benefit of those who didn’t receive the email that I sent to Pierce Mattie’s Kristen Herburger, here’s exactly what I said with regard to comments on my first post:

“I am sorry that you think it was inappropriate for me to alert bloggers to this abuse by Pierce Mattie. I respectfully disagree, and the post will remain where it is. I have closed comments on it, because I will be posting a follow-up upon my return from tonight’s work duties. Any comments can go there and I will publish any and all which are not abusive or inappropriate (or thinly-disguised PR company spam).”

Steve, you are either deliberately spinning it to make it look shady, or Kristen has been dishonest with you as her employer. Which is it?

[Steve Hultgren]

Didn't realize Jakie posted these questions here as well, this was my response.

As promised, I am writing to respond to Jackie’s points here.

I want to point out first, however, that we have already apologized for the mistakes that we made, and have attempted to be both prompt and forthcoming in our communications about this matter. We hope that others will view this as an indication of how important the blogosphere is to us. As Jackie noted in her earlier post:

“The best thing Pierce Mattie could do right now would be to explain themselves in writing, show that they actually understand why what happened was not at all innocuous, and make an effort to ensure that no other employee ever does any such thing on behalf of their clients again.”

We have already done exactly that, and we appreciate the many bloggers and commenters who have recognized our past “good citizenship” and also acknowledged that one employee’s mistake doesn’t merit an attack on the reputation of an entire company. As I stated in my previous response about this matter, we’re looking forward to organizing a roundtable event at our offices in New York to continue the dialogue about “best practices” for blogging and public relations.

As we have already stated, we would have appreciated being contacted before having to deal with accusations of being a “company which practices fraudulently and dishonestly.” As we have tried to make clear, this was an isolated mistake that we don’t think should tarnish an entire firm of talented, energetic publicists who work hard for their clients. Quite a few bloggers who have seen our response about this issue seem to agree, and have accepted our explanation – after conducting their own investigation, and finding no proof of systematic spamming or other abuse – that our misstep didn’t rise to the level of offensiveness suggested by the original post. That’s what I meant by “ill-informed”.

As far as the “dialog” point: Just goes to show, again, that there are lots of views about what’s right and wrong. Of course it is any blogger’s right to choose whether or not to accept comments, and plenty of blogs took the opportunity to turn this into a conversation rather than an attack. Though we’d rather this conversation had started in a context where we didn’t have to take a defensive posture, we’re looking forward to continuing with constructive efforts to improve the relationship between blogging and public relations, for the benefit of our clients, our firm and the industry as a whole.

Sincerely,
Steve Hultgren
President of Pierce Mattie Public Relations