This Blog Is on the Record
I know I am late to the party here, but I wanted to comment on the recent brouhaha between General Motors and the New York Times over a piece by noted Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
I think the interaction is instructive as we establish new rules of engagement with the media.
As many of you know, Mr. Friedman wrote a piece rebuking General Motors for its SUV marketing strategy -- likening the auto giant to a drug dealer. General Motors response: “Rubbish.” However, readers of the newspaper never saw that characterization. The Times, known for “all the news that’s fit to print," wouldn’t print GM’s rebuttal, unless it toned down its language.
GM refused and found it fit to print its side of the story right on its corporate blog – FastLane Blog – and, in the process, created more news than the Times could have imagined. For General Motors, it was a masterful stroke of PR.
GM’s response created a media circus – garnering thousands of hits to its corporate site, countless mentions on leading blogs and extensive coverage in mainstream media.
In an unprecedented move, The Times blinked and actually responded to GM’s blog. In the June 26 issue of PR Week, Karl Greenberg opined that this incident “may signal just how far blogging has come as a driver of media and as a platform for issuing opinions that can garner as much attention as top-shelf print columnist.”
How far indeed and at what price?
For me, the more noteworthy aspect of this story is not each side’s perspective on car manufacturing and foreign oil dependency. It was instead GM’s decision to publish its back and forth emails with the Times as they negotiated the terms for a response letter.
We all know the challenges of getting our op-eds published in the Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. These pages are valuable real estate.
If it were as easy as posting a piece on our corporate blog to garner the same amount of prestige and the same number of impressions, I would never again bother to submit an op-ed to a major daily and would rely exclusively on a corporate blog to spread the word.
What I think makes this a cautionary tale is GM’s decision to post the exchange between two parties that was originally intended – or at least I hope it was – as a private correspondence. It was the sausage making and the publication of private negotiations that helped in part to fire up the blogosphere and drive media interest.
I would be interested to know at what point GM made the decision to publish the correspondence and how was the decision made. Were alternatives debated and consequences discussed? At what point did the process become as important as, or more important than, the message itself?
Everyone would love to bring a giant down a notch or two, and I am sure every PR professional has been a victim of something that was intended as off the record that made it into print.
Did the Times know their exchange would be public? Assuming they didn't, would they have acted differently if they did know? What obligation do we have as corporate spokespersons to now tell reporters that their conversations are on the record and are fair game for publication on our blogs? And will the possibility of a public airing of every private conversation have a chilling effect on the transparency and openness that is blogging?
In the age of new media is anything really private? Do we need to preface every conversation with ground rules for what is on and what is off the record? And will they be honored? Are there still rules?
I for one support full disclosure. Even in the new frontier of new media, we need boundaries in how we communicate, what we record and where we post. I might add that these same concerns now extend to surly call center reps and unsuspecting guests changing in health club locker rooms. It appears everything can find its way on a blog.
It reminds me of a T-shirt my friend once saw: “Careful what you tell me. I may blog about you.”
The Times has learned a lesson or two in humility. Given GM’s media windfall, I wonder what lessons we and GM have learned.
Let me get back to you.
I think the interaction is instructive as we establish new rules of engagement with the media.
As many of you know, Mr. Friedman wrote a piece rebuking General Motors for its SUV marketing strategy -- likening the auto giant to a drug dealer. General Motors response: “Rubbish.” However, readers of the newspaper never saw that characterization. The Times, known for “all the news that’s fit to print," wouldn’t print GM’s rebuttal, unless it toned down its language.
GM refused and found it fit to print its side of the story right on its corporate blog – FastLane Blog – and, in the process, created more news than the Times could have imagined. For General Motors, it was a masterful stroke of PR.
GM’s response created a media circus – garnering thousands of hits to its corporate site, countless mentions on leading blogs and extensive coverage in mainstream media.
In an unprecedented move, The Times blinked and actually responded to GM’s blog. In the June 26 issue of PR Week, Karl Greenberg opined that this incident “may signal just how far blogging has come as a driver of media and as a platform for issuing opinions that can garner as much attention as top-shelf print columnist.”
How far indeed and at what price?
For me, the more noteworthy aspect of this story is not each side’s perspective on car manufacturing and foreign oil dependency. It was instead GM’s decision to publish its back and forth emails with the Times as they negotiated the terms for a response letter.
We all know the challenges of getting our op-eds published in the Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. These pages are valuable real estate.
If it were as easy as posting a piece on our corporate blog to garner the same amount of prestige and the same number of impressions, I would never again bother to submit an op-ed to a major daily and would rely exclusively on a corporate blog to spread the word.
What I think makes this a cautionary tale is GM’s decision to post the exchange between two parties that was originally intended – or at least I hope it was – as a private correspondence. It was the sausage making and the publication of private negotiations that helped in part to fire up the blogosphere and drive media interest.
I would be interested to know at what point GM made the decision to publish the correspondence and how was the decision made. Were alternatives debated and consequences discussed? At what point did the process become as important as, or more important than, the message itself?
Everyone would love to bring a giant down a notch or two, and I am sure every PR professional has been a victim of something that was intended as off the record that made it into print.
Did the Times know their exchange would be public? Assuming they didn't, would they have acted differently if they did know? What obligation do we have as corporate spokespersons to now tell reporters that their conversations are on the record and are fair game for publication on our blogs? And will the possibility of a public airing of every private conversation have a chilling effect on the transparency and openness that is blogging?
In the age of new media is anything really private? Do we need to preface every conversation with ground rules for what is on and what is off the record? And will they be honored? Are there still rules?
I for one support full disclosure. Even in the new frontier of new media, we need boundaries in how we communicate, what we record and where we post. I might add that these same concerns now extend to surly call center reps and unsuspecting guests changing in health club locker rooms. It appears everything can find its way on a blog.
It reminds me of a T-shirt my friend once saw: “Careful what you tell me. I may blog about you.”
The Times has learned a lesson or two in humility. Given GM’s media windfall, I wonder what lessons we and GM have learned.
Let me get back to you.
IMO, it is the 'tables turned' point you make re: the Times being on the record with their emails, and having them published that is most interesting. I would think any long time PR flack at GM has had himself/herself or his/her execs misquoted on major initiatives time-and-time-again took great joy in the realization that they now do, appropriately and ethically, what has been done to them. How many times have we, as communicators, gritted our teeth at a retraction or correction on page 17F of the paper..the damage was done. Well, thanks to blogging, we can get our POV out and it can be front page for us. And people will notice. Yep, no doubt, the rules have changed. Reporters don't just by ink by the barrel anymore, do they? That's now a commodity for 'all of us' to use if/when need be, so to speak. (Comment this)
I've long lived by the rule that the only things that are truly private are the things you haven't said yet. Once uttered, you no longer have control. Now, we put all sorts of mechanisms in place to try and keep information private, which of course only work when all the people in an engagement agree and understand the same rules. And not always then either. For example, I have a label at the bottom of my email that says whether the contents are private or bloggable. I expect friends and acquaintances to honor it. Anyone else? It's a hope, not an expectation.
In this case, there probably shouldn't have been expectation of privacy on either side. Either party could have chosen to share it with others in any number of ways. It's just that the blog works so much better and faster than outlets previously available.
Are we obliged to tell that we might blog something? No. Is it common courtesy to do so. Yes. Would I recommend that you do so if you wish to have a positive relationship of any kind with the person you are citing, quoting, whatever. You betcha. (Comment this)
That being said, I would say that the satisfaction gained from getting back at a publication that you feel has wronged you, your client or your employer always needs to be weighed against your need for future interactions with that reporter or publication. (Comment this)