While undoubtedly there’s a lot of excellent discourse taking place around the most recent Edelman snafu, a lot of the commentary is little more than rubbernecking.
I’m always nervous of taking a holier than thou position in these situations as it doesn’t take a lot for it to explode in your ever so smug face – unless you’re anonymous of course, but, then if you are anonymous what value has your opinion?
Let me digress for a moment. If you are posting anonymously, how can you criticize the manner in which other people are getting involved in the conversation? Anyone spot the irony?
Edelman screwed up. It’s a little more surprising because it’s strike two and if memory serves me correctly the first episode also concerned Wal*Mart.
But is it the end of the world? Nope.
I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Two pieces of advice I’d give them (if they were listening) are firstly they took too long to come clean and give a statement – I doubt they’d wait so long for a client – particularly as they had all the facts! Secondly maybe it’s me – and I do NOT want to be picky but I’d highlight this comment from Edelman’s post:
Let me reiterate our support for the WOMMA guidelines on transparency, which we helped to write. Our commitment is to openness and engagement because trust is not negotiable and we are working to be sure that commitment is delivered in all our programs.
The term “which we helped write” jarred with me for a couple of reasons. Firstly is he trying to promote thought leadership in an apology? It was unnecessary. Secondly if you helped to write them and you’ve already fouled twice on the same issue… that raises questions n’est pas?
Anyway, no big deal, move on, and for the love of all that’s holy get your act together.
PS: Fair play to Mr. Edelman, he’s posting his socks off in the comments…
tags: Edelman, Transparency
Murphy's Law 