And secondly, yes I totally understand that it was probably unwise of Steve to say that about PC Mag, seeing as how Edelman pitches companies to PC Mag, and that we all have to watch what we say now, Twitter is not like instant messaging, etc. etc. Totally get that. But still — what the hell is Jim Louderback doing posting a long commentary on what Rubel did to some anonymous PR gossip rag like Strumpette? He has his own website, although it currently just hosts a bio and some links. Why not put it there?

Better yet, why not post a comment on Steve’s blog, or send him an email? Or talk to Edelman privately? Instead, he posts it on Strumpette, and muses aloud about penalizing Edelman in some way — not to mention that he takes what Rubel said completely out of context. What kind of person does that? It’s like overhearing someone say something offhand on the streetcar and then writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Bizarre.

Rather than being anonymous, as they were before, posts on both blogs are now credited to individuals, whose names (first names only) are hyperlinked to bios that clearly say they work for Edelman. There is no mention of who Edelman is, however, or that the PR firm represents Wal-Mart, and there is no link to the Edelman website — and on the “About Us” page there is no mention that Edelman was involved in creating either site, or that both are financed by Wal-Mart.

Of course, as more than one commenter has pointed out, pretty much anyone with a functioning brainstem would assume that anything called Working Families for Wal-Mart was obviously being paid for by Wal-Mart, and that any site trying to out and/or bash critics of Wal-Mart was also a paid shill. Which in raises the question that the MediaPost article gets into near the end, and that Tony also mentions:

If you’re being totally transparent, doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole purpose of having such a blog? Feel free to let fly in my comments. BL Ochman says Edelman should be thrown out of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, and Shel Holtz says he thinks even the disclosure of ties doesn’t make the blogs any better. Freelance copywriter Carson has some thoughts here.

Update:

Steve Rubel says Edelman is listening to all comments and wants to do better, and Richard Edelman outlines some of the ways the firm is trying to do that. And Suw Charman has an excellent post on the topic at her Corante blog — she says the Wal-Mart blogs show that “too many people at Edelman think the old school way, about control and being on-message and spin” (Richard Edelman has posted a comment there in which he disagrees with her). My friend Rob Hyndman also has some thoughts about the “atomization of media” that are worth a read.

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.

It’s an issue that strikes right at the heart of the debate the blogosphere has been having lately about PayPerPost and blog “payola,” and whether bloggers should disclose their conflicts of interest.

The issue has to do with Edelman, the PR firm that Steve Rubel works for, and Wal-Mart. Tony’s post lays out it pretty well, as far as I can tell — as well as a story in Business Week, and posts from Shel Holtz and Biz Hack. In a nutshell it has to do with Wal-Mart paying for a couple of bloggers to drive their RV across America and write about how great Wal-Mart is.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. More power to them. Except that the connection to Wal-Mart, and the extensive financial backing the company has provided, is never mentioned anywhere on the blog. In light of comments made by Richard Edelman the last time the whole Wal-Mart/blogger thing blew up, where he said bloggers should “disclose receipt of product samples, membership on advisory boards or any other financial consideration that might affect their impartiality,” you would think Edelman would have made sure to do so in this case.

This doesn’t just cause confusion by blurring the lines between blogging and payola, or blog-vertising, but it arguably does Edelman harm too — and that would be a shame, since they are the PR firm that probably walks the walk the most when it comes to blogging and the conversation (the Wal-Marting Across America blog has a post that puts all the blame on Wal-Mart haters). I’m hoping Richard Edelman responds to this one in some way soon. As Tony points out in an update, the PR blogosphere is unanimously critical of Edelman on this one.

Update:

Scoble has weighed in, as have several others, including John Dowdell, who says that he isn’t sure the story is as cut and dried as it has been described. He argues that the relationship with Wal-Mart was disclosed (although I think Tony and I would argue not well enough) and that it’s not clear Edelman orchestrated the whole thing. All fair points, which it would help to hear from someone at Edelma. If I have rushed to judgment, I will be happy to apologize.