I remember the foul quite clearly. It was a Saturday morning and your Grinnell Tigers 8th Grade Boys “B” team was playing its hated rival, the South Tama Trojans.
It was early in the 3rd quarter and the hero of this tale, yours truly, had just been called for a foul, and was protesting under his breath (because I didn’t want a technical. Though I’m not sure those are even legal to give in 8th Grade boys’ “B” team basketball. I digress).
I had just been MAULED by an opposing player; MAULED, I TELL YOU, and had retaliated by slapping at the ball that had been stolen from me. See what happened there? No? Let me explain.
I saw something that I believed to be wrong; my arm nearly being ripped off (perhaps I’m being dramatic…). When I tried to do something about it, I’m the one who got in trouble. In other words, it wasn’t the instigator that got caught, it was the retaliatory action.
A couple of days ago, The Daily Beast broke a story about Facebook spreading a smear campaign against Google. According to the article, Mark Zuckerberg and his team hired Burson-Marsteller, a well-known public relations firm, to plant negative stories accusing Google of being careless with Gmail users privacy.
Image: Jimee, Jackie, Tom & Asha via Flickr, CC 2.0
I’ll wait for you to stop laughing at the obvious irony of Facebook criticizing another company’s user privacy policy.
Here’s what The Daily Beast had to say about this, as they call it, “skirmish”:
“At issue in this latest skirmish is a Google tool called Social Circle, which lets people with Gmail accounts see information not only about their friends but also about the friends of their friends, which Google calls ‘secondary connections.’ Burson, in its pitch to journalists, claimed Social Circle was ‘designed to scrape private data and build deeply personal dossiers on millions of users””in a direct and flagrant violation of [Google’s] agreement with the FTC.’
“Also from Burson: ‘The American people must be made aware of the now immediate intrusions into their deeply personal lives Google is cataloging and broadcasting every minute of every day””without their permission.’ “
Engadget sums up Facebook’s intentions very well, saying its two motives are genuine concern for the privacy of users, and that some of the data collected came from Facebook.
GOTCHA! THERE’S THE ARM-MAULING!!!
Facebook is upset that Google might be getting info from some of its users, so what does it do? Strike back, of course. The bottom line in all of this is that Google comes out looking great here. It doesn’t matter what privacy concerns Facebook has with Social Circle because any credibility it had about privacy (and I’m not sure it actually has any credibility in that area) is out the window because it decided to sling mud.
By no means does that mean a respected PR firm is off the hook. Burson should have counseled Facebook against this rash decision (and after all this came to light, said as much) instead of airing its concerns with the Facebook name behind it.
If Burson and Facebook would have simply been upfront with their reasons behind wanting to publish the stories, and the stories been informational as opposed to hit pieces, we’d be questioning Google’s motives with Social Circle. But that’s not what we’re doing.
If you’re reading this, you don’t need me to tell you Burson and Facebook made an incredibly boneheaded move here, doing some (at least in the short term) damage to both their reputations; though I think Burson is the one who really has egg on its face. A PR firm is supposed to dispense advice and promote tactics to spread a positive message about its clients, or useful information to better the community in some way.
Burson failed on both accounts here, and if I was their client I’d have questions for them about their ethics and what they truly believe in.
![[EVENT]: PR Hacks for Small Biz (online)](https://shonaliburke.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FB-Ad-1200x800-01-01-01-Copy-500x383.jpeg)
[…] Burson-Marsteller’s conduct in the Facebook/Google hoopla was pretty egregious (did you see Matt LaCasse’s guest post about it?), Paul points out that the media’s outrage is “bluster.” Just as much […]
What upsets me the most about situations like this is that frequently the “top” people of some of these organizations are active in PRSA or other organizations that have a code of ethics. When I see this type of thing happen I get upset because it makes me think these folks just give “lip service” to the ethics. I don’t understand why in this case they would even have agreed to take on the project. This gives pr practitioners a bad reputation. I don’t now and have never engaged in those tactics. And I know of many ethical pr practitioners.
This is not the first time one of the “big name” pr firms has been caught in recent years engaging in questionable practices…It is really a sad situation.
[…] these Ad Age Power bloggers the likes of Gini Dietrich at Spin Sucks and Spin Sucks Pro as well as Waxing Unlyrical’s Shonali Burke (who I just watched in a dark video on her blog and love, love her accent; can’t […]
[…] Burson-Marsteller’s conduct in the Facebook/Google hoopla was pretty egregious (did you see Matt LaCasse’s guest post about it?), Paul points out that the media’s outrage is “bluster.” Just as much […]
@LornePike @MattLaCasse @KenMueller Yes, another irony that’s been around for far too long.
@Shonali @MattLaCasse @KenMueller It’s hard to escape the irony of a PR industry with an image problem.
@MattLaCasse @LornePike @KenMueller I wish I could think that we will slowly change perception, but the same perceptions have prevailed for decades, and we have barely moved an inch…
@balemar I used “good face” as a figure of speech. Clearly it’s not a *really* good face. @MattLaCasse @KenMueller @Soulati
@balemar No, I can’t. And you’re right, it’s easier said than done. I’ve been lucky in that I’ve been able to get out of such situations (though nothing like this) when I needed to. But I know a lot of pros can’t for financial reasons, and I feel for them.@Soulati
@MattLaCasse @Soulati @balemar I once had a boss (female) whose initials were BS. Can you imagine going through life like that?
@JayEhret I don’t overestimate them at all. I’ve been part of the big agency world, so I’ve seen the stuff that goes on, but it was never anything like this. Maybe I just got lucky. In fact, when I was in the agency job market, there were certain agencies I never pursued employment with because I couldn’t convince myself that they’d work ethically, or at least, in line with my own ethics. Was I fortunate to be able to do that? Yes, and I recognize that a lot of people aren’t that lucky. But I’m very aware that especially in the big agency world, billings are everything, as @mark.sofman points out.
@mark.sofman You said “billable clouds judgement” and I’ve seen that happen too often at big agencies… I’m not exempting small agencies by any means, just that it didn’t happen at the small agency I worked at, and it did at a couple of big agencies I worked at. So it’s a personal viewpoint. @MattLaCasse
It’s laughable in the first place. The old “pot calling the kettle black” syndrome. Facebook’s intentions were malicious, yes, but I hold B-M just as responsible. It’s really kind of icky that a “once” well-respected global firm really didn’t think of the post-pitch fall-out. As PR professionals, we really have to think hard about whether you want to cross that moral line just to make a buck. And remember, what you do does reflect on the PR industry as a whole.
@MattLaCasse @Shonali @KenMueller @SoulatiI don’t think I’d fire anyone, this is not a felony. If the miscreants at either firm are truly contrite, they will offer their resignations. Then, one or the other firm will refuse to accept the resignation(s) on the grounds that a boatload of money and reputation was just spent on training and development.
@MattLaCasse @Shonali @Soulati @balemar Ten year old boys act like this too. ;-)
@LornePike Unfortunately Lorne, I don’t think you’re wrong at all. There is a perception of the PR community as a bunch of spinsters who will tell any tale we are paid to. I think that’s why it is SO important to lay the smack down on both Facebook and Burson. It’s up to the rest of us that actually have souls in the PR industry to state strongly that we believe in ethical communications.
I think we can slowly change perception, but it will take a strong rebuke from the PR community every single time something like this happens. cc @Shonali @KenMueller
@LornePike @Shonali @KenMueller @MattLaCasse I’m in agreement with your premise, Lorne. I sizable segment of the general public recognizes that much of the “news” they consume is manufactured not reported. Yes, I know that’s cynical. If one considers how sticky this faux pas proves to be, I think Burson will get past this and FB will have it added to the “reputation cross” they have to bear. Just think, in the future this http://bit.ly/iiXkEg may well have a 3rd or even a 4th panel for FB and Google.
@balemar @JayEhret I’ll try not to judge Burson here, but they did take this job from Facebook. I wonder who’s idea it was?
@Shonali @JayEhret Yes. Facebook did it. I think you overestimate the ethics of large companies. My guess is that this goes on a lot. Facebook and Burson just got caught.
@KenMueller I don’t think companies will want to be associated with them publicly. But also I think that this controversy will pass.
You know, stepping outside the PR circle and looking at it from the public’s point of view, this is just the same old story. Whether it’s fronting an Iraqi war or trying to apply makeup to Facebook, this is what the PR industry is widely known for. People think we’re still here to tell them that toxic sludge is good for you. So yes, we should be indignant that B-M gives the public one more reason to keep on seeing PR this way. Ultimately though, we’re living a legacy that has been built over decades and decades of this kind of stuff. Seen from the average living room and even many board rooms, this is just another day in PR land.The public widely knows there’s such a thing as false advertising, with actual fines and penalties for companies that knowingly make false statements. As distorted as ad messages may often be, there’s still some general expectation that agencies can’t just completely make up things without any fear of eventually being penalized. I don’t think the public sees PR the same way. Yes, an exec may get fired or at least demoted, but quite possibly not. No one sitting at home thinks B-M itself or any other PR companies will ever spend a day in any kind of court for this type of smear. They don’t expect the industry will impose any kind of penalty. As far as I know, there’s no body that actually has the teeth to do that.
So, maybe I’m dead wrong here, but I don’t think, down deep, the PR industry has sufficiently taken a stand on making itself accountable for this sort of activity. It’s too lucrative, and too widely practiced. And that’s why it will happen again. And again.
And again.
Am I wrong? @Shonali @KenMueller @MattLaCasse
@Shonali @mark.sofman @MattLaCasse Believe me, I’m not letting B-M off the hook – they are of sufficient renown and experience that they ought to have counseled FB against it. My guess is billables clouded judgement. There’s an irony here too: FB accuses Google of using FB data, while FB has regularly had hiccups on the privacy and data security fronts. Recall the Biblical injunction about sin and casting stones.
In a slight shift on topic, it seems to me there are plenty of smears of varying subtlety, or lack thereof, being conducted by “motivated” adversaries against sundry targets. I have had the professional “pleasure” of working for manufacturing industries on the receiving end of smears and grave terminological inexactitudes for which the slingers thereof were virtually never called to account.
@Shonali @KenMueller Not true. It inflates my ego to see a high comment count, even if they’re hijacked. Hijack away!
@balemar @Shonali @KenMueller @Soulati And that’s why I think Burson comes out looking the worst here. Even if Facebook ordered the hit, by definition, it is not a professional communications company. Burson-Marsteller has a slogan on the front of its website that says, “Evidence Based Communications. Inform. Monitor. Measure.” Nothing that it did in this situation had anything to do with Evidence Based Communications. I cannot see how Burson clients have the same amount of faith in their PR firm today as they did on Monday.
@Shonali @Soulati @balemar I can’t call Burson-Marsteller B-M without giggling like a 10 year old girl.
@Shonali @mark.sofman I agree Mark, but that still doesn’t let Burson off the hook here. If they had a strong ethical core, wouldn’t they have told FB to shove it as soon as it suggested a smear campaign; if that is indeed what happened?
@JayEhret What kind of people are attracted to this? The kind of people that want to get some underhanded work done. Yeah, they may get more business, but it might not be the business they need.
@Shonali @MattLaCasse @KenMueller @Soulati What good face? They come out looking even worse than Facebook! “We did it, but it wasn’t really our fault. They made us do it – ALTHOUGH consulting them in their PR strategy is what they pay us to do!”
@Shonali @Soulati Can you imagine not being proud of where you work? Or wondering if the company has the same ethics/integrity that you do? What do you decide to do? Stay? Quit? Both are easier said than done!
@KenMueller I said nothing of the kind. I asked you to BAKE some cookies. Sheesh.
OK, now I’ll stop hijacking @MattLaCasse comments, otherwise he won’t write for me for a while!
@Soulati @MattLaCasse @Shonali Ugh! It is the PR industry that suffers the most! More “proof” for people that PR is a spin industry. Facebook will bounce back from this; Burson – not so much. Facebook might look like a douche, but it was Burson’s job to make sure they didn’t look like douches.
It appalls me that this even happened, but what appalls me the most is how Burson handled it. Instead of fessing up to their mistake, they are playing the blame game with Facebook. This tactic makes them look even sleazier!
@Shonali @MattLaCasse @Soulati AHHHHH. Stabbing headache! But seriously, you DID make me do it! I’m innocent, I tells ya!
@KenMueller Did you feel your armchair move just a tad right now? Ah, found the crack! @MattLaCasse @Soulati
@Soulati @balemar Definitely. I imagine that’s a struggle a lot of agency pros go through.
@JayEhret Do you really think Burson will get more work out of this? If I were at the kind of organization in the position to hire a large firm, I’d be very concerned that they’d do something like this.
@mark.sofman Agree. But they should have asked that question before agreeing to take on the work, no?
Matt writes, “Burson failed on both accounts here, and if I was their client I’d have questions for them about their ethics and what they truly believe in.”
I suggest that FB itself isn’t sure about ITS “eithics or what it truly believes in” EITHER.
Back in the day, if I remember correctly, H&K took the Archdiocese anti-abortion PR campaign. Hard to justify working for an employer if your beliefs are of another opinion. (Goes along lines of this situation re B-M employees.) @Shonali @balemar
@JayEhret not sure I agree with that. It MAY happen that way, but why do you think they will get more business? All of their high profile clients will now be under scrutiny. There will be a bit of the “guilty by association” thing going on.
@MattLaCasse @Shonali @Soulati
Shonali: “Hey Ken,go steal some cookies from the cookie jar. I’ll make it worth your while”
Ken: “Um. Ok!”
(time elapses…Ken get’s caught)
Ken;” It wasn’t really me! Shonali made me do it! It was her idea!!!! I didn’t want to do it. Scout’s honor!”
@Shonali @KenMueller @Soulati Someone’s head has to roll here, don’t you think? I hate advocating for someone getting fired, but seriously. If I’m a Burson client not named Facebook, I’ve got some SERIOUS questions, and want to know that they know how huge an ethical issue this is.
There are two things that will happen to Burson here: One, the will get a lot of “shame shames” and judgmental head-shaking from the industry. Two, they will get more business. In this case, getting caught was good for Burson.
@Soulati @balemar I was thinking the same thing and I also feel bad for the many BM employees who are NOT douchebags. Just imagine what they’re going through because of the actions of probably a relatively small group of people.
@Soulati @balemar Perhaps they’re best described as sleazy douchebags? Regardless, I agree Jayme. The little guy suffer the most because while Burson is taking a big hit here, the PR industry takes an even bigger hit. We all look like we think smear tactics are a legitimate tool to use, when that’s certainly not the case.
@MattLaCasse @KenMueller I thought Burson’s “statement” was really pathetic. Like @Soulati said, they didn’t want to walk away from a crapload of $$, and now that they’ve been outed, they’re trying to put a good face on it.
@KenMueller Exactly. The focus is less on facebook and more on Burson. Both parties deserve heaping scoops of scorn, but Burson seems to be catching the brunt of it. Can’t say that upsets me. What’s even worse (and what I saw after I’d written this) as Burson’s “explanation”. Horrific.
@Soulati @balemar oooh. Jayme’s gettin’ fired up!
Hard to uphold ethical behavior and image when the “cream of the crop” is leading the charge, eh? Someone wanted a blue-chip social media client on its roster? Fees too good to pass up? Intrigue too exciting? Whatev…it’s we little guys who suffer most when shit like this happens. We need to pick up the pieces and set the record straight and stand taller regardless of the sleazebags (maybe they’re douchebags) who agree to represent clients with less than ethical intentions with agencies of the same ilk. @balemar
Well said, Matt. Burson-Marsteller, in the words of Ricky Ricardo, “has some ‘splainin’ to do!” I’ll be curious to see the fallout on this. As you said, Google come out looking pretty good. Facebook will probably walk away relatively unscathed. People won’t leave, they will continue to grow, and make gobs of money. Burson, however was a willing accomplice, and they are fumbling as they try to explain it. They are the ones who have the most to lose.