On Edelman and Wal-Mart

As many of you know, over the past few days the blog community has been actively discussing the Working Families for Wal-Mart blog. As my CEO Richard Edelman explains on his blog, our firm failed to be completely transparent.  I am sorry I could not speak about this sooner. I had no personal role in this project. There is a process in place that I had to let proceed through its course. This is why it took some time. Like Richard says, we are committed to the WOMMA guidelines on transparency.

Tags: walmart, edelman

Comments

[Simon Collister]

Hi Steve

I appreciate due process and all that but you knjownthe rules... couldn't you have just posted a holding statement saying that the affair was being looked into and a post explaining everything will be forthcoming shortly??

Just a thought.

[Christopher Coulter]

Time for an update...

http://globosphere.blogspot.com/2005/11/steve-rubel.html

[Debbie Weil]

I honestly kinda figured this was what was going on... the corporate process at work at Edelman as you guys figured who did what and what to say about it. Too bad it took so long.

[Teresa Valdez Klein]

I tend to agree with Simon and Debbie. But all the same, way to get out there and admit that you're wrong. It's a hard thing to do, harder than it looks when you're telling other people to do it.

[Tony]

I agree -- what took you so long?

Was it so hard to leave a holding message in place acknowledging the snafu before the blogosphere blew it up?

[Mathew Ingram]

It did seem a little long -- but then, time in the blogosphere often seems compressed compared with the "real" world :-)

I'm sure it must have been frustrating not being able to say anything, Steve. Kudos to Edelman for taking ownership of this thing.

[Robert Scoble]

Yeah, Richard Edelman called me too to apologize: http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/richard-edelman-calls/

I too agree it would have been better to post "I see this and am looking into it."

[Dominic Jones]

Fine, but what's your opinion?

That's why I'm subscribed. For your opinion.

Your post says nothing about your personal position on this.

Or are we to take it that you simply follow the part line?

Help me understand this, please.

[Dave Taylor]

Steve, I'm amazed that a client like Wal-Mart comes to Edelman with an idea about a blog and you aren't involved. Wal-Mart is only, what, the second largest company in the world, surely they're an A+++ client and worthy of the best and brightest inside the firm.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more education inside Edelman about WOMMA, ethics, transparency, and how you can *market* without tricks and duplicitousness?

[Ted]

Sorry but this doesn't cut it. You have provided no new insight into the issue. I don't think Edelman is damanged by this all that much, they made a mistake and got burned, and frankly we expect huge companies like Edelman to bungle the blogsphere. However as the ambassador of a huge PR firm to the blogosphere, your personal credibilty has been serverely diminished. One can now deduce that while you are an employee of Edelman, you have very litle juice there while simultaneously not having the personal indpendence to shed some light on how something like this happened in the first place. Rock, meet hard place.

[Amanda Chapel]

At the risk of cross-posting, I just don't think this is going to make it past the censors over on Richard's blog. Here:

"Til the next time.

Richard, bottom line, there is an inherent conflict between what you do and what you preach. As a marketing firm in the "conversation," it is only a matter of time before you or your firm again gets caught withholding information or manipulating on behalf of your clients. Excuse me but... that's PR."

- Amanda Chapel

[Steve Rubel]

Simon, we could have put up a placeholder, but I think it's possible that would have made matters worse. We needed to wait until we had all the facts.

Tony, I wanted to speak out days ago. I read every post - believe me. However, the process had to work.

Dominic, my opinion is we made a big mistake.

Dave, your forgeting that Edelman is a global company with 2,500 employees. I have never even been to Bentonville, nor have I billed one hour on the account.

Ted, I work for a big company and my loyalties first and foremost are to Edelman. Sorry. I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them.

[Ken Leebow]

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Mario]

This is really too bad. While I think that Edelman definitely made a big mistake here, we ought to not forget some of the great things they've done for the blogosphere. The same goes for Steve - without a question.

With that being said, it continues to amaze me that any corporation would dare to fool consumers in such way. Especially Wal Mart. How could they think that this would not backfire.

We recently set up a blog for our client Bosley Hair Restoration - www.battleagainstbald.com - and fully disclosing their relationship was a must. Kudos to Bosley, as they were as animate about such as we were.

Wal Mart...shame on you!

[Dominic Jones]

"I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them [Edelman]."

Do you want to clarify? In other words, you are saying "I don't give a damn about my readers when it comes to who pays my salary."

Wrong answer. When it comes to blogging, your readers must come first every time. That's why you have that salary.

Why did Edeleman hire you if not for your readers?

Heesh, you're having a bad day.

[John Koetsier]

Whoa - kinda have to agree with Dominic on this one.

What comes first: your job or your personal integrity and the qualities that make you who you are?

Here's how to answer that question: what got you the job in the first place?

[Don Alphonso]

I´d like to read something about paidcritics.com, too. IMHO the whole "Working Families for Walmart" group of blogs is some kind of fake blog, even worse than Walmarting across America.

[Steve Rubel]

John, my personal integrity comes first and it is aligned with Richard Edelman and this organization. Question it if you like but go back and search for "an Edelman client" before you do so.

[Teresa Valdez Klein]

I agree with Wal-Mart's "blog" presence isscripted, polished and icky. Maybe Steve should start billing some hours on that account.

To be fair, their opponents don't really blog all that much better than they do. It's all carefully crafted spin and counter spin.

[Teresa Valdez Klein]

Let me try that again:

I agree with Don that Wal-Mart's "blog" presence is scripted, polished and icky. Maybe Steve should start billing some hours on that account.

To be fair, their opponents don't really blog all that much better than they do. It's all carefully crafted spin and counter spin.

[Dominic Jones]

Steve,

Just a suggestion then I'll go away. How about you ask Richard to make you Edelman's official ombud on the blogosphere. That way you can say what you think without worrying about losing your job because saying what you think will be your job, if you get my drift.

Go have a Martini.

[Teresa Valdez Klein]

Dominic: Best idea I've heard all day.

[George Nimeh]

Hi Steve,

Nice to hear from you.

Despite the fact that you had "no personal role in this project," your thought leadership and voice was needed during this period of speculation and doubt.

It would have helped Edelman. It would have been good for you.

If there is a process, as you suggest, it needs revising.

You are the last person who needs to be told about active and timely communications. I won't bother, as I know I'd be preaching to the choir.

That said, you missed an opportunity here to show what the future of PR and communications will look like when done right.

The way this went down has old-school written all over it.

~G~

[Tom Biro]

Teresa - did you mean about the martini or the ombud part?

[Teresa Valdez Klein]

Both.

[Li Evans]

Steve, thank you for finally speaking up about this. It is also very classy and shows a lot of respect to the blogosphere that Edelman reached out to bloggers like Scoble to apologize. The post Mr. Edelman wrote to take ownership of the situation will also go a long way with the community.

Although it wasn't as fast as the blogosphere would have like, Edelman is embracing the conversation and not sweeping it under the rug. That's what the blogosphere is all about.

Hope Edelman bought a drink for you - you need after the beating you've been taking on this! :)

[Ivan Pope]

Problem here is both you and Richard just made holding statements. You're not in the conversation, you show disdain for the conversation. You acknowledge the conversation. But you can't take part in it. Terrible. Look at Scoble, he said some harsh things about his employers and made them stronger. You cop out.

[Tris Hussey]

Steve thanks for e-mailing me back. Okay, while I wasn't satisfied with the answer, I understand why it had to be so.

I like the idea of you being Edelman's blog ombudsman. I think given your druthers you've been responding since Thursday.

I skimmed through a lot of the comments here, but I don't fault you for saying you'd give up this blog before your job. That's reality. Comments and trackbacks don't pay the rent.

Heck if someone told me, okay we'll pay you a very comfortable salary, but you have to stop blogging ... yeah I'd have to consider it.

[Ken Leebow]

I guess transparency has taken a big hit. Just like the Yankees. Come on folks: This is the big leagues and it's happening in NYC. It's all about the greenery and I'm not talklking about Central Park.

[Amanda Chapel]

As long as Richard is signing Steve's check, as long as Wal-Mart is signing Edelman's check, there will always be the perception of impropriety in the blogosphere.

- Amanda Chapel

PS Technically speaking, I am the closest thing Edelman has to an Official Ombudsman.

[Ian Ketcheson]

Steve, Thanks for stepping up on this. I'm sure it would have been frustrating to not even be able to move with holding lines. Glad to see you are standing by your messages. This doesn't excuse the actions and let Edelman off the hook, but it does help rebuild a reputation that was deteriorating fast.

[Brian Rosencamp]

Steve- not to rub salt, but this is a blow to your credibility. I supposed I can understand why you stayed silent, but it's really disappointing.

[Mike Sacks]

Steve had rules to follow, just like any employee. I'm sure he did what he thought was right for Edelman. Edelman doesn't care that blog groupies didn't get the info sooner.

That said, Edelman blew it big time. And Steve, your apology, as well as Mr. Edelman's, is weak. Great, you admit that you weren't "completely transparent." Now what?

[Dee Rambeau]

wow did you blow it here. Sorry Steve, but this line? "I am sorry I could not speak about this sooner. I had no personal role in this project. There is a process in place that I had to let proceed through its course. This is why it took some time."

Or...in another place and sport..."I have no knowledge of whether or not there was any steroid use on the team or by Mr. Bonds. I stand by the Giants in this matter."

What a crock. Process? No personal role? Can you say cop-out?

[sally]

"I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them."

Those are perhaps the saddest words I have ever read on a blog. It is boilerplate old school PR and disregards everything that Web 2.0 and the blogosphere has championed about all of us being individuals.

Perhaps you missed the memo, but this is the PEOPLE'S revolution. Not the corporations. It's time to play by OUR rules, not your old ones. If you don't understand the ground rules and the speed at which things move by now, it's time to take yourself out of the game and rest on the sidelines for a refresher.

The apology is empty as well. OK, you admit to screwing up but there's an even bigger problem now. It's time to explain HOW THIS COULD EVEN HAPPEN. This is basic stuff and calls for the entire Edelman exec staff to be sit down like 1st graders and read the blogging 101 rules in the most pedantic manner possible. Clearly you guys DON'T GET IT and have wasted big bucks spent by your clients. Time for a refund and potential clients should probably look elsewhere now for a trustworthy firm.

For a huge chunk of us, your reputation and credibility are shot. But, even sadder, I'm sure you don't care about the loss of respect as long as you're getting the big bucks to screw over consumers. That's the work of parasites.

[vaspers the grate]

The Walmart blogs are repulsively self-serving. Reminds me of some dumb political party machine.

WOMMA is weak and worthless.

[Ian Green]

"Like Richard says, we are committed to the WOMMA guidelines on transparency."

Until the next time...

[jacek_k]

So, Steve, it turns out that maybe you didn't had the right to criticize others (http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/07/dell_starts_cor.html) for not engaging in conversation?

Because what you, Edelman fellas do is not a conversation, it's a monologue.

[nalts]

No doubt the last Edelman project related to new media that doesn't get run by the "all knowing thumper in the forest of bambis."

[nalts]

Wow- reading some other comments. I say nonsense to the people holding you responsible. If you ran Edelman? Yes. If it was your account? Yes. But this is like holding the Wendy's local manager responsible for mad cow disease. Honestly...

[Nicola Mattina]

It does not seem very elegant that you say: I do not have a persona role... If I where your boss I really would not appreciate this statement. The company is always responsible as a whole: you can't say do not blame me!

[sal]

So Edelman hired you for your "social media expertise" and they launch a social media campaign for Walmart (big client, dontcha think?) WITHOUT you knowing anything about it? That is simply not plausible and disrespectful to even suggest. Are you completely unaware of what the company is doing? This isn't a janitorial closet scandal, we're talking about a major initiative with a HUUUUGE client. How could you not know?

IF you were completely left out of the loop (still not buying it), then it shows a level of stupidity on the part of the Edelman exec team (which, uh, aren't you a part of?) that casts a dark shadow on all of their decisions. And, you would probably want to find a new job.

[Mike Keliher]

Li said that "very classy and shows a lot of respect to the blogosphere that Edelman reached out to bloggers like Scoble to apologize." Of course that's who they reached out to. Those were the only people making a stink about this.

And to those who say Steve's readers should come before all else - and that for him to act as if he believes otherwise is a compromise of his personal integrity - that is overdramatic as hell.

Nalts: nice comment.

Nicola: 2,500 employees! Why can't Mr. Rubel say "don't blame me"?

Still, I wish this would have unfolded differently. I wish Edelman wouldn't have dropped the ball here. I wish we could know if Richard Edelman is really just taking the fall for his client when he says, "It's not the client's fault; it's ours."

[Ken Leebow]

Come on; this is an old story: The emperor has no clothes. Oh, and it ain't a pretty site.

But, it sure is fun watching the human dilemma unfold in the blogosphere.

[John]

I work for a big company and my loyalties first and foremost are to Edelman. Sorry. I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them.

Then please give up the blog. Now. You are a disgrace. Just an ordinary for-hire pr flak.

[Marc Snyder]

Read this while replacing the Dell by Edelman.

Dell could still turn it around if they hurry, but I fear this lack of candor will really set them back. When I read the one2one doctrine, their heart seems like it's in the right place. Their actions don't speak that way. Perhaps it might have been better for them to have stayed silent. Cmon Dell. We know you're bigger than this. Join us. Be real. Walk the talk.

Need I remind you who wrote this?

Come on guys, you can (and should) do better than that.

[Derek Hodge]

"Like Richard says, we are committed to the WOMMA guidelines on transparency."

Your company's actions suggest otherwise.

[Mack Collier]

"I work for a big company and my loyalties first and foremost are to Edelman. Sorry. I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them."

Steve I will say this: You definitely have a 'gift' for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Lewis Green]

Steve,

I agree with Mack. Wrong time and place to say, "I work for a big company and my loyalties first and foremost are to Edelman. Sorry. I would give up this blog before I gave up working for them."

While Richard Edelman is working so hard to put the fire out, you have thrown gas on it.

By the way, I have worked at much larger corporations than Edelman, and everyone is responsible and accountable for ensuring that everything a company says and does is filtered through its values, especially someone with the title senior marketing strategist. Richard agrees with me, based on his response to my post to him.

Lewis

[Rob]

Mr. Rubel:

I hope you take this as a cautionary tale for being more careful on things you say that could come back to bite you.

You could've spoken out sooner? Baloney. You could have, you just chose not to.

And you did have a personal role in this: you trashed someone in July for doing the exact same thing your firm did a few months later...and said nothing.

I agree with the others who have commented before me: please give up your blog. Whatever audience you had before this last post is (poof) gone.

[Don Alphonso]

Mr. Rubel,

in the last 48 hours the blogs forwalmart.com and paidcritics.com received significant changes. The anonymous authors now have names, and they are Edelman employees. It means, those blogs were fakeblogs, too. I don´t see any statement to this new case of forgery. I accept Edelman admits now silently that your company ran both sites, but simply changing the content is just faking transparency. You can see screenshots of the changes here:

http://www.blogbar.de/archiv/2006/10/19/edelman-goes-ekelman-bloggertauschen-mit-heisser-nadel/

After all the Walmarting-Krempasky-Manson-Crises: Will Edelman ever start playing by the rules?

[Steve Rubel]

All, thanks for the feedback. No shortage of opinions and valuable too! Don, I am looking into your last comment.

[Brian Humphrey]

Steve:

You heaped praise on our agency when we negotiated an awkward situation with a client.

As such, I feel obligated to remind you that it's never about the fall - but rather, how you recover.

As a wise man once said: honesty starts with the intellectual state of the man who stares back at you in the mirror.

Please take the time necessary to clear your mind, and then act boldly - so that you can confidently stare that man right back in the eyes today, tomorrow and for the rest of time.

Best wishes and peace be with you,

Brian

[Steve Rubel]

Don, in response to your question, both sites have now been updated.

[Don Alphonso]

Mr. Rubel,

thank you for the information. You might call me a hypocrit, but the update is not about me or others involved in this case who know the whole story, it should be about the ordinary reader. What the average pal reads is:

"In response to comments and emails, we've added author bylines to blog posts here at forwalmart.com."

But according to David Blinkowski, this is not true. Edelman didn´t do it because of comments or emails, they did it simply because of a violation of the WOMMA rules:

http://davidbinkowski.blogspot.com/2006/10/womma-responds-to-edelman-wal-mart.html

"This has really been a PR nightmare for Edelman, who has also revealed two other blogs that were being run "anonymously". They have now been edited to display employee names."

So, if Edelman is honest about this crisis talking to the WOMMA, why is it so hard to tell the truth to the readers of paidcritics and forwalmart?

I´m sorry, but Edelman is still in the hole and doesn´t stop digging. John Wagner might be able to give some advice how to get out of this:

http://wagnercomm.blogspot.com/2006/10/pr-people-start-using-your-common.html

Finally, I beg your pardon for the sometimes inappropriate behaviour on my blog. As you might know from Wolfgang Luenenburger, the German blogosphere is a rather unhealthy environment for public relations in general.

[Andy Sernovitz]

Steve --

We're hosting a public forum on the issue at the WOMMA web site. Feel free to join in at http://www.womma.org/blog-disclosure/

Thanks,

Andy Sernovitz
CEO
Word of Mouth Marketing Association

[David Scott Lewis]

IMHO, let's cut Steve some slack. A mistake was made. And he knows this and admits this.

For those of us who have been longtime readers of Micro Persuasion, we should not -- indeed, we cannot -- question Steve's integrity. If there was a phrase, "P.R. integrity" in Webster's, Steve's caricature (like the "Rubel without a cause" caricature) or picture could easily accompany the entry.