Edelman takes ownership of Wal-Mart blunder

by Mathew on October 16, 2006 · 23 comments

At last, a response has come from both Steve Rubel of Micropersuasion and Richard Edelman, head of the firm Steve works for, on the Wal-Mart blogger dustup (for some background, see my previous posts here and here).

On his blog, Steve says that he couldn’t blog about it because he wasn’t involved in the file, and “there is a process in place that I had to let proceed through its course.” Knowing how large PR firms work, I have no doubt that that is the case, and knowing Steve a little bit I have no doubt that he was dying to respond to the calls for comment.

Meanwhile, to his credit, Richard Edelman doesn’t try to weasel out of the controversy, or provide any kind of lame, tangled rationale for what happened. He says simply that:

I want to acknowledge our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset. This is 100% our responsibility and our error; not the client’s.

Richard also says that he reiterates Edelman’s 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.”

A little later than some might have liked — and perhaps a little falling-on-sword is being engaged in, to prevent further damage to Wal-Mart’s reputation — but a straightforward and forthright apology. Very classy, I think.

Update:

There is still quite a bit of disagreement over whether Edelman’s apology is honest and/or valid, as you can see from Dominic’s points in the comments here, and on other blogs such as Dave Taylor’s and at PR-Squared. Scott Karp says that Edelman is still trying to control the conversation too much, and that’s why they waited so long. I’ll give Scott one thing for sure: This stuff is hard. Anyone who says differently is full of it.

Tagged as: Blogs, edelman, Marketing, Media, WalMart

Pingback: i-boy :: postcards from the blogosphere
Pingback: Canadian Blogs
Pingback: Sparkplug 9 >> bizhack
http://www.robhyndman.com Rob Hyndman

“At last”. Well, maybe. But surely the ‘sphere needs to settle down a little, doesn’t it, Mathew? A few other things did happen today, and yesterday and so on. This isn’t exactly the Tylenol poison scare. Seems to me a lot of ink has been spilled on not a very big deal. I mean, what’s going to happen when something really dramatic happens – like someone getting a splinter?

OK, a little hyperbole to make a point….
Mathew Ingram

Fair enough, Rob — although that’s a little like saying to the cop who stops you for speeding: “Shouldn’t you be out catching real criminals?” :-) There’s no question that the blogosphere overreacts and the echoes bounce off each other until they become deafening sometimes.

But I think — maybe because I’m in the media as well as being a blogger — that while this little tempest in a teapot may not be all that important in itself, it is instructive for what it implies (or at least could imply) for the future of blog/media/PR relations.
http://www.robhyndman.com Rob Hyndman

Maybe, maybe not. But – and I want to avoid being too harsh here – I do think it’s an object lesson in the ‘sphere’s ultimately herd-like inability to maintain a sense of perspective. Yet another incident that has me wondering about the ‘sphere’s ability to actually amount to something when (if?) it grows up – apropos of another issue you canvassed today.
http://sparkplug9.com/bizhack/ John Koetsier

Rob: I have to say I totally disagree.

This story has been circulating for over a week. I’ve posted on it twice myself … but only after hitting Techmeme and a kind of critical mass of bloggers did Edelman respond.

I think that if only a few blogs would have picked it up, there would have been no response at all … which is why Steve, in his comments, says that he didn’t want to put up a “checking it out, will post later” post.

We needed the firestorm to get the attention of the giant.
http://www.irwebreport.com/daily Dominic Jones

Mathew,

There’s something not quite right about this apology from Richard Edelman.

What is he acknowledging or apologizing for exactly? Here’s the relevant part of the post:

“…our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset.”

What there ever an issue about the identity of the bloggers? Or was the issue a lack of disclosure about them being paid shills?

Sorry, this doesn’t strike me as a real mea culpa. They’re still trying to be cute. I can see Richard Edelman sniggering to himself about this.
Mathew Ingram

Dominic, I don’t know Richard personally, but from what I know of him I don’t think he is sniggering to himself about anything. I think he is genuinely sorry and that he actually cares about Edelman’s behaviour in this case and what it says about their commitment to being open and honest.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think so. In any case, I would personally rather not go attributing ulterior motives or reading nefarious meanings into his apology without a little bit more to go on.
Pingback: Did Edelman drop the ball on Wal-Mart? » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work
http://www.irwebreport.com/daily Dominic Jones

Edelman was pushed into making some kind of apology by blog posts like your earlier one.

This wasn’t something they did because they care about doing the right thing. The delay in replying was all about them hoping it would blow over. If they did care about doing the right thing, then they would never have come up with the Wal-Mart flog in the first place, and someone from the company would have said something much earlier.

Richard Edelman cares alright, but only because his firm got caught and it was damaging their reputation and a client relationship.

I maintain that the error was not failing to identify the bloggers, as Edelman claims, but a whole host of other things, ranging from nepotism to downright dishonesty. Nepotism relates to the brother at Edelman organizing the trip for his sister at the client’s expense. You and I wouldn’t get that.

Your comment seems to me to be rather naive, especially coming from a journalist. Oh, don’t get into a huff about what I just said, think about it.
Mathew Ingram

Don’t worry, I won’t get into a huff — I don’t even know how to get into a huff :-)

But I’d like to know how you can be so sure that Edelman was pressured into making an apology, or that the delay was them hoping it would blow over. I think it’s equally likely that they were trying to figure out how best to respond, and/or trying to deal with Wal-Mart in some way.

And I’m not sure how you know that they don’t care about doing the right thing. Do you know Richard Edelman or anyone else at the firm? I’m as skeptical as the next guy, especially about PR companies — as any journalist is. But I’d rather not jump to negative conclusions without a bit more to go on.
http://www.irwebreport.com/daily Dominic Jones

I have no more insight on the itnernal workings at Edelman than you do. But I do know that their response, or lack thereof, wasn’t the way people with a good sense of ethics react.

What did they need to figure out? Whether what they did was right or wrong? How long did that take everyone who looked at the situation, including yourself, to decide?

A few minutes.

So how do you explain three days before there was a response from Edelman? Either they are very slow thinkers and have great difficulty telling right from wrong, or they were doing something else.

My view, based on my experience both as an investigative journalist and a PR consultant, is they were waiting to see what would happen, hoping it would blow over. When it got to the point that people were saying their silence was the problem, they acted to protect their own reputations. They had no real choice.

So, after three days of waiting, all we have from them is that they were wrong not fully identify the bloggers? That took most people a few minutes to figure out when the story first broke. They provided no details about what went wrong or what they’re doing to fix the problem etc.

Finally, how can it be jumping to negative conclusions when a PR firm fakes blogs, then stalls in admitting as much. Do people who care about doing the right thing behave that way?

It’s just a bit of lateral thinking. Connect the dots. I don’t need a press release to tell me what is in plain sight. Frankly, Mathew, that’s what you should have done.
http://www.robhyndman.com Rob Hyndman

Dominc,

With all due respect, that’s just nonsense. You’re happy to jump to such critical conclusions, but for no reason you can state? “A whole host of other things, ranging from nepotism to downright dishonesty”? It strikes me as quite dishonest of you to allege those motives without backing them up, and then to hide your accusations behind a smokescreen that people who disagree with you are being naive. Shame on you.

I know people in the company and I know their sincerity. So does Mathew. This is not “naivete”. It’s personal experience with how senior people, including Richard, deal with adversity and challenge.

Shame on you.
Mathew Ingram

Dominic:

I may not have insight into the internal workings at Edelman, but I know the people I have dealt with there, and have had some interaction with both Steve Rubel and Richard Edelman, and they have all struck me as honest people with good intentions — therefore I choose to think that they were honestly trying to deal with the situation, not hoping it would blow over.

As for why they waited, it’s true that you and I and plenty of others didn’t need to spend days wondering what to do, but the reality is that we don’t run a company of 2.500 people and we don’t have to worry about keeping Wal-Mart as a client. Behaving in the right way sounds great, but I’ve been around long enough to know that there are financial realities to consider as well. Who’s being naieve now?
http://www.irwebreport.com/daily Dominic Jones

Sorry for hogging your comments, but perhaps most curious of all is the lack of discussion of the ethics of the two “bloggers.”

One is a freelance writer and the other a photographer for the Washington Post. Would you employ the freelance writer or the photographer at the Globe if you were in a position to do so?

That’s another story, I know, but it’s all related. The blurring between journalism, pr, blogging and advertising. Maybe I’m just old school, but I like my journalism plain, just like my morning toast.
http://www.irwebreport.com/daily Dominic Jones

Rob,

Read the stories before you call what I say nonsense. It’s all there. The freelance writer’s brother works for Edelman. He got her the jaunt and it was paid for by Edelman, using Wal-Mart money in part. That’s nepotism. I’d love to back this up by linking to the post on the flog, but it has been removed by Edelman. I wonder why?

Sorry to fault your friends, but a little independent thinking is sorely needed.
Mathew Ingram

The fact that they screwed up isn’t the issue, Dominic — I was one of the first ones to call them on it. I’m just not as eager as you seem to be to assign impure motives to their every action since then.
Pingback: Bloggers are such Assholes - iBLOGthere4iM
Pingback: Starked SF, Unforgiving News from the Bay » Blog Archive » Talk of the Town:Tuesday
Pingback: A few more thoughts about Edelman/Wal-Mart » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work
Pingback: DIGITAL STREET JOURNAL » Edelman and the Flogging of America
Jeff O'Malley

im writing to you to get my $1000 gift card. im a music fan and it came up, because i was the 999,999,999 th person to be on line at that time. and the're surver went down. I would like the $1,000 gift card in full, with every thing on it, with extra KECHUP!! PLEASE & THANK YOU!!!
your friend,
Jeff O'Malley