Well, as one that you might be accusing of zealotry, I thought I’d pipe up. (…) I rather not have journalists and bloggers call us morons

You aren’t the zealot… They are.

It comes down to this – either we police ourselves, or get policed by others. Yes, who watches the watchmen, cui bono (who benefits) and all that.

But … I rather have the internal discussions in PR, and not have journalists and bloggers call us morons. Or, pull back the curtain and expose PR people as what they see as duplicitious. This year, our industry already has had to deal with transparency issues with video news releases, paid spokespeople, satellite media tours – let’s not be called out on blogs as well.

What I am looking for is clarification of when and how the disclaimers should appear.

Don’t play the zealots’ game: You are asking for a norm where there is none. This is the main reason norms emerge, via self-fulfilling propheties. Group decisions are made on issues noone ever cared about before they were raised. And a gell-effect ensures the loop is looped.

To the PR pro, the real questions imho should be:

- How do I appease things when a zealot raise the transparency issue?
- How do I subtly discredit a zealot if he raises it again?

And the answers lie in the psychology behind behavior engineering techniques.

One year ago, a high school student – Ben Casnocha – wrote about the practice regarding Jeff Jarvis. And Jarvis responded. Doc Searls also commented to Ben.

This issue is important for all to consider. In PR, where reputation is currency, the more important the issue of transparency becomes.

What I am looking for is clarification of when and how the disclaimers should appear. In the above example, Doc Searls also notes that he either ignores or acknowledges the relationships. So, when is it necessary and when is it not?

For a PR professional to be blogging and have posts related to their clients go unflagged, I believe, could pose problems.

Agreed. But if said PR pro isn’t good enough to dismiss the question as a non-issue, he should consider a career shift imho.

“Oh? Why yes! These guys happen to be a customer. See my disclaimer page here, I mention I work for XYZ PR firm, which announced them as a customer last month in their press releases. The lads are super cool. But disregard this information, really: In all objectivity, their stuff is simply awesome!”

A good point. I should have used the “PR blogger” phrase everywhere because that was my focus.

For a PR professional to be blogging and have posts related to their clients go unflagged, I believe, could pose problems.

Our profession has enough perception problems. I don’t think we need to add to them by our own actions.

And, may I add, I don’t believe I have all the answers. This post is as much an exercise in learning for me as it may be for anyone else. I like questions because they frequently lead to answers. That’s my goal.

You are the guy that gets the de facto “PR blogger” label from MSM. If anyone is going to be the person to adhere to what they write about – if only for the sake of themselves (let alone the discipline of PR), it should be you.

Certainly, we should all comply. But, you are the role model, if the MSM is correct.

Before I respond, let me offer this. I know you’re getting a bit of flak lately and I’m not trying to pick on you.

Your response here did not have the depth I was hoping for, but I thank you for it.

Yes, I accept your offer to talk. In fact, I’d like to interview you for a podcast. Will you participate, please?

I think you are raising a non-issue. You think of a blogger as a PR pro or a journalist. You are wrong on both counts. A blogger is neither; he is an opinionated average Joe who, at best, is more of a columnist. In this context, _expect_ a blogger to be biaised.

That said, if you are discussing the ‘pro’ blogger, who is in fact a mere puppet in the hands of PR pros, the question is an entirely different one. Yes, let him tell who he really is. If you don’t, the lad will get bad press if he gets ‘caught’. And then, hide the notice some place where noone will look.

(2) Should any blogger try to make sure the relationships are clarified in articles where they are interviewed?

It depends on the influencer and on the context. Research in psychology of influence shows that you’ll be more credible in some circumstances (door in the face), and that you’ll be better off not saying anything in most cases (foot in the door).

(3) Should any blogger answer questions about transparency concerns that are posed as comments in their blog?

Only to dismiss the question as a non-issue. Influence-wise, reacting as if there were real transparency concerns that need ex-post clarification can only work against you. This is where you need that hidden notice discussed above.