Even compared to most content on the indispensible trainwreck that is Wikipedia, the entries of many top PR firms are a mess.
What does it say about a PR agency’s ability to influence people’s perceptions — particularly in the white-hot social media space — when its presence on the Google of Web 2.0 looks like this:
The entry consists entirely of a litany of misdeeds. Co-founder Bill Marsteller’s name is spelled wrong.
Edelman –
Not much better — twice as much content on two recent embarrassing controversies than on the firm’s entire history.
Ah, you gotta love Wikipedia randomness. Two sections devoted to ethics controversies, one section that says somnabulant crooner Perry Como was a client, and the top section, which reads as follows:
Ruder Finn is an United States public relations firm founded in 1948 by David Finn and William Ruder.
Ruder Finn is a privately held, family-owned company that employs more than 450 people. Its public relations cover healthcare, technology, consumer, interactive, media, arts and culture, and environmental programming.[specify]
Since 1978, Ruder Finn has maintained an executive-training program, which approximately 20% of Ruder Finn employees have participated in to date.
Thank God (I mean Jimmy) that I now know the percentage of folks in Ruder Finn’s training program. But dammit — I need more Como!
Poor Fleishman-Hillard. Someone associated with the PR hating group PR Watch apparently is responsible for the bulk of Fleishman’s entry. Someone with Fleishman — knowing the Wikipedia ban on companies posting about themselves — then apparently tried to go through official channels and posted the following in Wikipedia’s talk section:
This article is lifted essentially verbatim from PR Watch (a cousin of Sourcewatch). PR Watch is an expressly biased publication whose self-described mission is “blowing the lid off today’s multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry.” Opinionated content written by a blatantly biased source should not be taken as fact, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.
Well put, Fleishman. Only problem is, this objection was lodged in April 2006 — and nothing has happened since.
One of the longest entries of all the PR firms I checked. Unfortunately, of the entry’s nine paragraphs, seven are about various ethical controversies in which the firm has been involved.
Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide [entry is for its parent firm] —
Flagged more times than a closet-full of GOP lapels.
All in all, if you read their Wikipedia entries, the top PR firms sound more like criminal enterprises than successful corporations. This goes to the fact that Wikipedia has a clear anti-corporate bias — no two ways about that.
But the sad state of PR firms’ Wikipedia entries should also be a lesson to potential clients — don’t believe the hype from agencies that pretend they’ve mastered this new world.
Interesting post, Scott, and a perfect way of highlighting the imbalance in Wikipedia’s editing rules.
Given that these rules do not allow companies to edit their own entries, and Jimmy Wales has gone on record to say that he does not want PR agencies editing articles, how do you suggest any of us go about fixing some of the inaccuracies or biases in our entries?
Hi Niall,
Jimmy Wales’ editing policies are inherently flawed and biased. What’s happened as a result is that a black market has developed in which Wikipedia editors and/or unattached third parties contribute Wikipedia content in return for under-the-table considerations. I know of examples of this happening.
An unethical PR firm could easily alter its Wikipedia entry to be more positive (or at least neutral) in tone, by partaking in this black market. In this sense, it actually speaks well of the firms that their entries are so obviously negative. This is particularly ironic considering that the entries focus on the lack of ethics of these firms.
As for suggestions, I would only advise major PR firms to be a bit more humble in their pronouncements about how they’ve figured out Web 2.0 and social media; obviously, they haven’t. As a corollary to this, that would also suggest that major PR firms shouldn’t be urging all their clients to jump willy-nilly in the social media pool.
Other than that, it’s up to our friend Jimmy to fix his own mess.
Oh — and one last (perhaps farcical) point:
Jimmy’s concept is that the “community” self-corrects and that the truth outs.
So, theoretically, if PR firms did a stellar job of creating a positive perception of themselves with the general public, the general public would come to their aid on Wikipedia and write nice things about them.
In that broadest sense, the major PR brands seems at a loss to overcome the negative perceptions generally associated with the industry — particularly by those most actively engaged in social media.
This is absolutely hilarious! A great entry and well done, my man.
Thank you sir
Big agencies are miles from “getting” online – that’s pretty much a given.
But Wikipedia itself is overrated from an SEO perspective anyway, given how they don’t give link love anymore.
Just my two cents.
onlineprguy http://www.darwinpr.com
yep, that’s true — although when a prospective client does a search on these firms, they’re generally going to see the Wikipedia entry near the top.
Scott, I’m an FH guy, so take this for what it’s worth. I believe Jimmy Wales is having his cake and eating it too with the way the content is controlled on wikipedia. At the very least, I tip my hat to the PR firms who haven’t engaged in black hat wikipedia editing.
At the same time, while many PR firms have been involved with controversial clients over the years, I’m not sure how having these clients written up on wikipedia relates to any PR firm’s proclaimed mastery of web 2.0?
I’m a fan of you and your blog, so don’t take this the wrong way. While it’s easy to suggest that the big firms be more humble and that they’ve caused their own image problems, I’d suggest that all PR firms big and small should be looking at wikipedia entries like these and saying “there but for the grace of God go I.”
David,
I get it and agree with what you’re saying.
I would say, though, that as a small firm going up against the big agencies, I have to deal all the time with the client perception that somehow because of the major agency’s sheer size, it will have the best resources to deal with whatever issue comes up.
So it’s nice to be able to show a client or prospect B-M’s Wikipedia page — so they know that social media isn’t for sissies, and that if someone from B-M tells them otherwise, they know the person is probably full of it.
ah, classic Baradell. I always love your analysis stuff. It is what made me a fan of yours way back when. And by the way, you owe me a call.
Yet they’re not shy about ‘tweaking’ Wiki entries for their clients, Scott, according to Wikiscanner:
http://www.prdisasters.com/?p=331