At what price will a person justify rounding the edges of his or her values? That question, and the frequency with which it comes to mind for the traditional PR person with any kind of conscience, is a major reason why I am adopting, and adapting to, new social media perspectives at a rate more or less equal to the speed with which my disgust for long-standing PR practices grows.

Ask a traditional PR professional if he's a liar and he'll say no. Ask him if he tells the whole truth — if he commits errors of omission — if he's ever said 'I'll get back to you on that' while knowing he has no intention of doing anything of the sort — and you won't get such a ready answer.

He'll tell you he's not a thief, either, but if a competing agency inadvertently leaves behind a copy of their confidential proposal ahead of your arrival to give your presentation in the same room, will that document find its way into someone's briefcase for examination later? How about bribery? Back in the day if someone were to have asked me if I'm capable of bribery, I would have been made indignant by the question. But I routinely recommended paying hefty research analyst fees if I thought it would get us a positive quote in support of my client's new product. I supported the expenditure even when I knew the client would never take any analyst's advice on anything.

How about spying? Never? Watch exceptionally successful PR people sign in at a corporate prospect's facility. At least half, with a practiced and intended casual air, will flip backwards through the three-ringed binder to see who among their competitors has already been there. Is this punishable by death? Of course not. But now how about this…

Ask a traditional PR person if he or she has ever launched a really bad product, known to be dreadfully flawed upon launch. Those with at least some footing left in the real world will admit they have. Then follow up with this: "Did your press release give anyone any indication that the product was a bomb?" Don't be ridiculous, he's apt to say.

Did no one in charge know the toys had been coated in lead? Did no one know a pill for such and such could cause undisclosed events of premature mortality in some? Do the professional messege makers really think it is always the driver's fault when a top-heavy SUV rolls? If PR people aren't the conscience of the corporation, especially since so much of the picture of our character is defined by what we say about what we do, who is? If we are, and if our own values are pliable, what then does that say about people's trust and confidence in what we say?

In defense, traditional PR people will often say that everyone does it. That's morality by majority rule if you ask me and perhaps that's where we've arrived today. But I also think it is done because it can be a highly lucrative, manipulated transaction, closed at a safe distance, behind  layered veils of propriety, and through others in much the same way Don Corleone could order a hit while he retired to the back yard to water the ripening vines.

Many traditionalists still believe they must own the message, control its distribution, include only the good stuff, omit any of the bad stuff, all while buffering themselves and others from harsh scrutiny and vocal persons who might take exception to the various assertions being broadcast over the wire, through the media, from a distance and with the backing of a corporation that lends an air of legitimacy to the whole process.

Enter social media. It makes most traditionalists cringe. It is the rough equivalent of Crazy Mary or Bombastic Billy Bob standing up at town meeting to deliver a rant about something he or she finds unjust and before they finish the orderly assembly has turned into an angry mob. Being a dictator is so much easier than this democracy thing.

Social media is done in daylight, in the open, while people watch, while everyone participates. Everyone in the room can approach the microphone. This means the value of PR people in the future won't be based on their ability to spin, but on their ability to establish and sustain the character of the good client. Liars, thiefs, spies and bribery advocates won't have the advantages in the transparent world of social media they have enjoyed in secret behind closed doors. They'll be working only for clients with flawed characters than can't withstand scrutiny. Basically, in the coming ten years, the corporation that sustains the traditional PR approach will look like some former famous running back or energy company CEO walking into the County Courthouse.

Share This