I could go on and on with other headlines but to me, the most important news of the day is that it is Earth Day. PULLLEEEZZZ don’t roll your eyes! It’s here to stay (thank goodness!) and in this economy, it’s important to our customers.

My past life was in horticulture and several years ago, at our publishing company, we saw the need to be a leader when it came to educating and informing our readers about sustainability.  It was amazing how many in our industry confused sustainability with organic and got all up in arms thinking we were trying to tell them they had to “go all the way” to getting organic certification in order to run their businesses in a more sustainable manner.  It’s much more simple than that and I make that point just to hold the interest of those naysayers who are tired of all the “green” talk and think to be sustainable you have to be a full-time tree-hugging/composting/seldom-showering hippie.

Anyone and everyone can participate in Earth Day in their own small way but I digress…My main point of discussion for this post is a term called greenwashing. I thought. by now, it was common knowledge but just recently I used the term with someone and they asked me to explain. In very brief terms, this is when a company deceptively makes a claim of being green or environmentally friendly to benefit financially. In the beginning of the “green” movement, too many marketers jumped on the bandwagon touting their “greenness” without being able to back it up with real, quantifiable facts.  The key in your marketing message, if you are touting anything about being environmentally friendly or responsible, is to do your research.  Make sure you understand every step of the process when it comes to your sourcing, manufacturing, distribution, employee practices, certification and so on.  Use third party verification sources whenever possible. Be as transparent as possible. Know the terminology; know the hot buttons of your customer.

Lastly, and let’s hope not, but if your research wasn’t enough and something out of your control occurs,  make sure you have a good communications plan in place to handle any crisis that might arise.   

The article starts out with this…

Sleazy. Disingenuous. These are words used in U.K. newspaper coverage of the public relations industry. PR, oddly enough, doesn’t have great PR. People tend to think that PR involves being manipulative and saying whatever is in the employer’s best interests.

Gee. Allow me to keep reading.

(The authors) call PR an amoral industry, a tool for good or evil purposes. There was, alas, Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazi propaganda machine.

More? Why make my face more red that it is right now? Stop reading!  I can’t…it’s like a traffic accident. Must…keep…reading.

I’ve not read this book, but the reviewer goes on to say that in the book the authors debate whether or not it is the role of a PR professional to tell the truth.

I am here to tell you that every journalist (both traditional and new) I’ve ever worked with would tell me where to stick it if I ever lied to them.  If a client asked us to lie (and it has happened), we immediately resign the business.

I’m also here to tell you that PR professionals live by a Code of Ethics and I’ve seen people kicked out of industry organizations for displaying anything but professionalism. So there are good and bad in every profession. Until you walk a day (or five) in our shoes, let’s leave the negativeness and bashing alone.

As you can probably guess, the tests did show that indeed, some products are gluten-free, as the labels claim; some contain small, acceptable amounts of gluten (although it is debatable if any amount of gluten in a gluten-free product is acceptable); and some contain alarmingly high amounts of gluten.  

One of the lines determined to have high gluten levels, despite a “gluten-free” label is an assortment of breaded meat products targeted for children’s consumption, manufactured by New Jersey’s Wellshire Kids and sold at Whole Foods stores. After some initial stalling, Whole Foods did pull the products but only after enough customers complained and they decided it was the right thing to do and take responsibility, no longer placing the blame on the manufacturer.  At the manufacturer level, Wellshire Kids now says they discovered last June that the products were not gluten-free as labeled due to one of the batter ingredients so they found a substitute ingredient manufacturer for the products in question. However; they chose to continue to sell the products made with the old ingredient (that did contain gluten) that was already in inventory.

So, is just enough really good enough?  Yes, both parties acknowledged the problem truthfully and factually (no SPIN!!!) then made the necessary changes to correct the problem and went public with those announcements and changes.  But in today’s world, wouldn’t it be refreshing to have someone take that extra step, be ahead of the bad publicity, do the testing more diligently and ensure all the claims are 100% accurate before being caught in this situation?        

One of Abrams’s investors believes “big companies will be attracted to its ‘expert network’ and it’s pay-per-use model.”

Isn’t this a conflict of interest?  Since when do journalists moonlight as business consultants?  Isn’t our industry trying to stay away from this type of model, citing ethics?

What do you think?

Apparently, there is a new program for journalists to download and it catches any bias or spin in their pieces.  As Katherine asks the question herself “do you think this product is performing a task that editors and newspapers should be doing themselves?” 

If you read the article they say 43 percent of UK newspaper readers don’t trust what they read.  I think the 43 percent is spin itself.  Yes, maybe 43 percent of people don’t trust what they read, but were there follow-up questions asked about that?  Why?  What are you reading?  If the same question was asked to avid readers of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or Forbes would 43 percent still not trust what they read?

I say, in order to be smarter you need to read smarter.  Don’t trust the tabloids and start reading one grade level above.

By giving new journalists tools to catch their spin we are allowing it to happen.  We are allowing our writers to get lazy and that is not something we need right now.

   Until recently I wasn’t familiar with Kiehl’s products.  Because of Brad Pitt, I now know that Kiehl’s is a beauty and cosmetics maker known for its old-school, natural formulas and minimalistic packaging.  Read full article: 

I have always tried to do my small part to be “green”.  My hat is off to Kiehl’s and Mr. Pitt for their collaboration to launch a new product, Kiehl’s Aloe Vera Biodegradable Liquid Body Cleanser that will have a 100% recyclable container and is completely biodegradable.  

Mr. Pitt will not be paid and 100% of the profits from the sale of the product will go to JPF Eco Systems, a green charity that Pitt created with Kiehl’s.  I hope this is a successful collaboration so that other celebrities take notice and join the “green” team.  Let’s face it - consumers love celebrities.  It appears – at least to me – that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are genuine in their efforts to make our world a better place.   by Patti Knight

Take, for instance, the example they use about a shower curtain. The headline of the news release was “Toxic Ties to ‘New Shower Curtain Smell’ Evident, According to Latest Laboratory Testing.” Most of the major media ran this story before the Consumer Product Safety Commission could determine the truth behind the stories. Turns out, the story isn’t true, but the PR people (and, quite possibly, the client) probably feel like they did their jobs because the story ran. Who cares that it just isn’t true?

While I agree certain headlines attract attention while others do not, it just isn’t ethical to use sensationalism or spin, or to stretch the truth to secure a story on behalf of our clients.

I’m certain there are some PR people who are very successful in using striking words to gain the attention of a reporter, but they are not representative of most communicators. We live to the highest ethical standards of our industry and use our skills to help a company communicate effectively, internally and externally, and with all stakeholders, honestly and ethically.

Let’s elevate our thinking, people!

    So, if you hate spin and love FADS, vote here! 

Over the weekend, PRSA Chairman and CEO Jeff Julin was interviewed in the Denver Post.  During the course of the interview, the reporter asked Jeff about a somewhat controversial seminar the Colorado Chapter held last year entitled “Taking the BS out of PR.”  Jeff’s answer was elegant and to the point.

“There is no question that many people think public relations is simply publicity and spin.  That is a challenge to individual professionals and the profession as a whole.  For me, public relations is an overarching communications discipline that focuses on helping organizations develop strong relationships with stakeholders.  When done well, public relations helps organizations grow, prosper, and contribute to the communities in which they operate.”

Heady stuff that.  Convincing clients and others that what we do on a daily basis in’t about weaving stories, distorting facts and, well, spinning issues is a difficult assignment.  It is something we have to be committed to doing — PRSA member or not — on a daily basis.  We must make it our mission to encourage truthful, open and respectful discourse in the public arena.  Only then can we hope to turn the tide and fully restore our image as the trustworthy communicators we know we are.

Check out the full interview with Jeff Julin at  http://www.denverpost.com/businessheadlines/ci_8899305

When I took my first “professional” job in public relations there was a study often touted that said the reputation of PR people was right up there with used car salesmen.

Fortunately, just as the process of buying a car now is more consumer friendly and credible than in 1984, generally the same can be said about those of us who “do” public relations for a living – generally that is.

When it comes to garnering publicity, rule one of media relations is to get headlines for your clients first – good ones – and in the process, do not make a spectacle of yourself, and in turn, make the rest of your colleagues look like charlatans.

Unfortunately, a bunch of “PR” people in some key government jobs, well-heeled agencies, reputable companies, and elsewhere are making some pretty bonehead decisions about how best to “do” PR.

In addition to “doing” PR for a living, I’m on adjunct faculty at Loyola University.  I’m also an optimist and always try to find the good in every situation.  The only good that comes from some of the fiascos of late is that those of us molding the views and practices of future public relations professionals now have access to lots of real-time case studies of what NOT to do.

Let’s start with FEMA – yet again!

A fake news conference!?!?  FEMA Meets the Press, Which Happens to Be . . . FEMA

In 2007, how could anyone – let alone an entire office of public relations cohorts – think this is right or smart?  This is stupid, unforgivable, outrageous, and paid for by our tax dollars.

Now, let’s cruise on to the Navy.  It’s pretty bad when Navy publications are writing negative stories about an endeavor of their own – and then the story becomes a two-part investigation that gets picked up by the Associated Press. Somewhere between a good idea and reality the goodwill journey sailed a bit off course.

“The Navy hospital ship Comfort succeeded as a public relations tool but fell short of realizing its public health potential during a four-month tour of 12 South and Central American countries, critics say. The ship’s crew dispensed free medical care to 98,000 people during a voyage that ended Oct. 19, improving and even saving lives under the Bush administration’s “medical diplomacy” initiative.  Yet when it sailed away, the ship often left patients frustrated and its potential unfulfilled because its agenda was dictated by public relations and politics…”  (Read on at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_comfort_071030/ )

And then there’s the list of banished PR flacks – by Editor in Chief Chris Anderson of Wired who writes “I’ve had it. I get more than 300 emails a day and my problem isn’t spam (Cloudmark Desktop solves that nicely), it’s PR people. Lazy flacks send press releases to the Editor in Chief of Wired because they can’t be bothered to find out who on my staff, if anyone, might actually be interested in what they’re pitching. Everything else gets banned on first abuse. The following is just the last month’s list of people and companies who have been added to my Outlook blocked list. All of them have sent me something inappropriate at some point in the past 30 days. Many of them sent press releases; others just added me to a distribution list without asking. If their address gets harvested by spammers by being published here, so be it–turnabout is fair play. There is no getting off this list. If you’re on it and have something appropriate to say to me, use a different email address.”

I don’t know Chris and I am not on his list.  I do want to meet him because I agree with him 100 percent!  I like people who think like me.  I want him to come be a guest lecturer in my PR Writing class – and while he’s in town, share his views candidly with anyone who will listen! 

And yes, I think his point is not that far removed from the previous two examples. 

The common denominator is the word “RELATIONS.”  Whether you call it “media relations” or “public relations” the word that defines the function, the process, the opportunity to call it a “profession” and yourself a professional is the R word.  RELATIONS — you need them.

Whether offering a briefing about tragic fires, sharing goodwill and health care with those less fortunate, or pitching the latest gadget, hot company, or rock star CEO, you just cannot carry a business card that says “Public Relations” without understanding the concept behind the R word.  If you don’t, you’re a fraud.  You either need to go back to school or try selling something besides the truth for a living.  — Shawn M. Kahle, APR