Jump 5: Trouble in Big PR land & on holiday with the Hoodoos..
Scott Davidson's newsletter on PR, public affairs & lobbying
Welcome to Jump 5. Because practitioners often miss great academic studies. Because I do a lot of reading. Summer seemed to fly by here in the UK, winter is coming and so the newsletter has returned. I will attempt to make this a fortnightly publication from now, let’s see how it goes. In this edition:
Big PR agencies handling protests by their own employees
Big Tech spending BIG in the EU
Lobbying by advertorial
Are cruises the future of rock n’ roll?
OVER THE WALL
Ok, so this section of the newsletter is called over the wall. In this edition that title fits uncomfortably with the issue theme of the research paper in focus - when PR agency Ogilvy faced open anger from its own employees for taking on US Customs and Border Protection as a client. At a time when it was applying Trump administration policies on the Mexican border, including the issue of forcibly removing children from their parents.
The new paper from Camille Reyes (Trinity, San Antonio) provides a fascinating insight into a rare chance to study internal division and dissent within a Big PR agency. A moment when PR practitioners were in open dispute with their employer.
The paper was able to make use of a 35 page leaked transcript of a tense meeting between Ogilvy CEO John Seifert and employees.
The transcript was analysed using concepts from social issues management, as in how did Ogilvy apply issues management with its own internal stakeholders? It provides a fascinating deep dive into how Ogilvy management attempt to defend keeping the account.
For example, this key exchange during the meeting:
“The first question during the Q&A with Seifert was essentially: At what point as the leader do you decide the negative publicity makes a client not worth having? Seifert responded with a defense invoking previous problematic Ogilvy client industries such as ‘Big Oil’ (BP, the corporation held primarily responsible for the largest maritime oil spill in U.S. history, was an Ogilvy client at the time), ‘Big Tobacco,’ and sugary beverages (Coca‐Cola). Seifert summarized, “But in the main we have tried to find and see the good side in most clients and work with them to mitigate things that over time might be deemed negative”…Seifert then returned to individual employee liberty (to protest, to vote), but implied that the workplace was not such a democratic space. Then, Seifert stated, “The work we were doing for CBP is advancing the good of what that organization can and should be doing by getting the most diverse people with the right set of skills serving the needs of that organization”…Following this, an employee said, “I love the fact that you talked about learning from David Ogilvy because in his books”…and continued to offer a different interpretation of the wisdom of the founder than did Seifert, asserting that Ogilvy had a “moral ground” that put people first. The difference between BP and Coca Cola, the employee argued, is that those companies make products that consumers may choose not to buy, whereas the actions of CBP constitute “a human rights problem”…The employee concluded their comment by saying, “This is about people not just about money”…According to the transcript, this was immediately followed by applause from the other employees
In her conclusion, Reyes notes, that employees could not deploy a full range of external PR tactics because of the precarity of their employment. Removing powerful tools for influence on their cause of concern.
Seifert’s reasoning is summarised as “1) his personal beliefs were subordinated to the good of shareholders; 2) the border agency did good deeds elsewhere; 3) the firm could help it hire more compassionate people; 4) his client was blameless as the American system of immigration was at fault”
This all poses the question of PR’s role in ethics and social progress if the profit-motive is assumed to be a legitimate restriction on the ethical agency of its practitioners.
NOTABLE
* New report from Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl provides a review and profile of Big Tech lobbying of the EU. Headline findings include that Big Tech is spending more on lobbying than any other sector, including pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels and finance.
Also in the report - Rhetorical hypocrisy - despite Big Tech claiming to support the EU’s Digital Services reforms, leaked position papers show they are still opposing them.
* Lobbying by advertorial. Investigative report from Politico into EU Reporter - https://www.eureporter.co/ - which on its site describes itself as a Brussels based news portal read by key decision-makers. The article suggests the real rationale for the site is to dress up lobbying as journalism. There seems to be a practice of paid-for content, to support lobbying efforts, that is not transparently revealed as such on the site. Advertorial without the small print to warn it is advertorial. A long read that raises important questions
* Report and proposals from EU DisinfoLab on what to do about deliberate disinformation campaigns, particularly on social media.
CULTURAL HINTERLAND
The future of rock and roll is boat cruises and holiday camps, maybe?
It’s a long way to the top in rock n roll. Even longer now that physical sales of CDs or vinyl has been replaced by streaming - which earns far, far less money for musicians.
I am really taken by a few attempts to create new ways for artists to interact with fans, and generate some money in the process.
There has been the “Boaty weekender”, setting sail from Barcelona with Belle and Sebastian. Which did look like a lot of fun.
There was also the residency in The Maldives by the Hoodoo Gurus - must say a few cocktails by the pool discussing the Australian rock scene in the 80s/90s with the gurus sounds all rather pleasant. Sign me up.
What band in what holiday destination would you get your crazily excited?