Throw Edelman Out of WOMMA!

It's time for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) to throw Edelman PR out. Edelman clearly violated WOMMA's ethics code, not once, not twice, for four times. Or doesn't the code mean anything?

Richard Edelman pledged last week that his company would henceforth be honest and transparent. Yet today's MediaPost reports that Edelman is behind two more fake blogs (flogs) that it left out of its mea culpas.

Edelman bragged last week that Edelman helped write WOMMA's ethics code when he admitted that Edelman was behind two fake Wal-mart blogs (flogs.)

One of the newly exposed fake blogs appears on the home page of Working Families for Wal-Mart, the allegedly grassroots advocacy group formed by Edelman last December, which is "committed to fostering open and honest dialogue...that conveys the positive contributions of Wal-Mart to working families." The second blog is on WFWM's subsidiary site Paid Critics.

"Doesn't anybody at Edelman see the irony behind having their own paid critics writing Wal-Mart's Paid Critics blog?" asks Sean Carton, a blogger, author of eight books about technology and the Internet, and chief strategy officer for Baltimore interactive consultancy idfive

Both blogs posted notices saying that "In response to comments and emails, we've added author bylines to blog posts here."

Every entry on the blogs is now credited to one of three contributors: Miranda, Brian or Kate. A click on these first names reveals biographies of Edelman employees Miranda Gill, Brian McNeill and Kate Marshall, whose clients include Working Families for Wal-Mart, the sites say. Their bios say "____works for Edelman. One of her clients is Working Families for Wal-Mart."

Read the first paragraph:
"PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM EDELMAN, WHICH last week pledged to be more transparent in its involvement with client-related blogs, Thursday revealed it is behind two more 'flogs,' or fake blogs, created on behalf of Wal-Mart."

Edelman revealed it was behind the other two blogs. It fessed up. It came clean. It is, we are lead to believe, making an effort to bare it's blogging soul and be transparent.

Not to dismissed what the firm -- collectively -- has done, but see that it has stated and taken action to be completely transparent.
Mike

Quite the pickle they are in. Thrown out? Dunno about that.

They won't be using any blog honor badges that's for sure :)

http://www.blogkits.com/bloghonor

BL -

We're hosting an open discussion on the issue here: http://www.womma.org/blog-disclosure/

I hope you'll join in as we collectively figure the best way to deal with these issues.

Thanks,

Andy Sernovitz
CEO
Word of Mouth Marketing Association

I've pointed this out elsewhere - Edelman's notion of disclosure is minimalist and designed to not really disclose anything much.

Although the people writing the blogs are now listed as 'working for Edelman', it is not stated what Edelman IS, nor is Edelman linked to from the 'disclosure'. So anyone visiting who doesn't know who Edelman is (and why would they?) may just assume it's, you know, who they work for. Not that Edelman is paid by Walmart to write this stuff, so effectively these are the hired hands of Walmart.

This is the WOMMA code on the subject:

Honesty of Identity

* Clear disclosure of identity is vital to establishing trust and credibility. We do not blur identification in a manner that might confuse or mislead consumers as to the true identity of the individual with whom they are communicating, or instruct or imply that others should do so.

I do not believe this is complied with. I have to say that as WOMMA itself was started by and is run by an historic shill, it's not entirely surprising.

Mike, Edelman knew since monday that questions on paidcritics would pop up immediatly, see this and other comments on Steve´s blog.

http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/10/on_edelman_and_.html#comment-23979565

The issue appeared already in July on Richard Edelman´s blog, but he didn´t respond. This time, they had no other choice but telling some kind of truth.

Nice poll over here:

Do you believe Edelman should be removed from WOMMA for ethics violations?