PR Firm Burson-Marsteller Makes Big Facebook Campaign Blooper
On May 3, Christopher Soghoian posted an email conversation online. He was livid with Burson-Marsteller’s John Mercurio for not revealing his client in an op-ed pitch. Nine days later, USA Today broke the news that Burson-Marsteller was behind a “whisper campaign to get top-tier media outlets, including USA TODAY, to run news stories and editorials…”. USA Today did not know that the client was Facebook, but it was only hours until that news broke on The Daily Beast.
What is to be questioned in this instance is neither the fact that Facebook made a statement about the matter, nor that Google also commented on the issue, but the reaction and lack of appropriate actions from Burson-Marsteller (also referred to as BM henceforth), a company that is ironically known for their crisis management. Though clearly all three of the major corporations involved (Facebook, Google, and Burson-Marsteller) have reactions that allow for strong analysis and criticism, this particular post will focus on public relations big-wig Burson-Marsteller.
Summary of Burson-Martseller’s Facebook Campaign Blooper
Before analyzing Burson-Marsteller’s reaction on how the news has been handled, it is important to know the basic background of the story. It appears as though Facebook hired Burson-Marsteller, a top-rated PR agency, to help with a campaign that would help Facebook rise above Google in public privacy and trustworthiness. Burson-Marsteller was to pitch negative stories to newspapers, bloggers and influential journalists and push the invasive aspect of Google’s Gmail product Social Circle. Burson-Marsteller came under fire by multiple publications and bloggers for failing to reveal their client and saying, instead, that everything they presented was publicly available information. The news was published by USA Today, as stated above, but continues to gain criticism and fuel conversations today. This case, notably dubbed “Googlegate” by bloggers and reporters, showcases the popular issue of online privacy but also brings into light a case of poor public relations ethics.
Reaction to BM’s Facebook Campaign Blooper
There is a multitude of ways in which this particular event could have (and should have) unraveled differently. First and foremost, Burston-Marsteller almost admits in a statement that it was in the wrong. Part of the statement reads:
“Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined.”
As a firm recognized for its crisis communication, Burson-Marsteller really dropped the ball on this one. Not only did it generate more negative buzz about its own company but it generated negative buzz for its client, embarrassing both in the process. Additionally, the company’s reaction statement is only five sentences - a bland five sentences at that - and basically says that it can confirm its client was Facebook, because Facebook had already released the news, and that it should have acted differently. It does not take responsibility or blame, nor does it say that it was in the ethical wrong.
BM’s handling of the situation has only gone from bad to worse in the time since the story first appeared via USA Today. The company has caught slack for its poor social media practices. Wired.com reported that BM deleted negative posts from its own Facebook account as the public heard about and responded to its slip-up. Since that time, a BM representative simply stated, “That was wrong” and the company Tweeted:
@JessicaRMurray Jessica we're sorry about removing your post. Clearly, your comment was fair. Please feel free to repost.
Though the gesture was nice, the company still fails on other social media accounts. Its only Twitter postings since the news broke have been about winning awards. The sole related response reads:
BMGlobalNews Burson-Marsteller
Our firm's statement on our work with Facebook http://bit.ly/kjkJ0L
On Facebook, BM has made no updates about the news and has not responded to criticism posted by other Facebook users. Over a dozen wall posts with links to various articles describing “Googlegate” have been posted to the page, yet BM has not said a Facebook-posted word since May 11 (the day before USA Today’s article appeared). One would think that BM would feel inclined to comment on headlines and posts such as:
· PR Firms, The Lowest Of The Low, Get Another Black Eye
· Sleazy PR Firm Throws Scummy Facebook Under The Sordid Bus
· Burson-Marsteller, PR Firm Facebook Hired To Smear Google, Scrubs Negative Posts On Its Page
· “I suggest for your latest controversy, you hire a PR firm that's actually competent. Censoring posts on your Facebook? Even a person with an ounce of common sense can foresee the backlash that would cause especially considering the relatively small amount of time that has passed since the original scandal. You're just another in a large line of businesses that are ethically challenged.”- Christopher Jason Henkel, Saturday at 5:47 p.m.
Burson-Martseller is ultimately unsuccessful in its response and corporate communication surrounding the recent events. It is not only discrediting its work and the company, but it also has been slow to comment. Representatives for the company should have crafted a statement that details the company’s role, apologized for its errors, and stated how they will precede in the future (rather than just claiming that the two employees responsible will receive extra ethics training). It also should have responded to Facebook posts and Tweets. Their lack of proper response will most likely harm their business in the future and it discredits their current work. The poor response in this situation was, for lack of better word, a major fail.
