Part one of two…

I work in the world of marketing and corporate communications, and my track record of business-related posts (here and at my biz site, Black Dog Strategic) probably demonstrates how seriously I take ethical concerns. For instance, not long ago I made clear that I think understanding the truth of a bad news story aimed at a client comes before worrying about how to respond. Back in November, I took a hard look at the eroding credibility of public relations as a profession and suggested that maybe the behavior of PR practitioners had a lot to do with our slide into lawyer, hooker and used car salesman territory. At various points along the way I’ve ventured opinions on everything and everybody from Toyota to Tiger Woods (to Augusta National), BP to LBJ, Target to Dillard’s, and Rupert Murdoch to the Denver Post, which used to be a newspaper.

Sometimes I comment on what strike me as merely bad strategies. Other times it’s about indefensible behavior that calls into question people’s character. But this time we’re so far over the line that we’re not talking about ethics or professional standards or strategic judgment. No, today we’re talking about amorality and the rank sociopathology of an industry (or at least a significant segment of it).

Witness:

Of course, there are always things agencies can say in their defense. It was done before the brutal crackdowns began, or it was a fashion piece, or we only work for the economic development arm of the government, or we’ve stopped now, or it was on behalf of a truly worthy project in the country, or we thought they were committed to doing the right thing. Saying things, after all, and doing so smoothly and elegantly and cleverly and occasionally with the slightest dab of misdirection, is what folks in my industry do.

But sometimes nothing you can say is sufficient. If the thing you’re defending yourself against is reflective of a larger pattern, then we know all we need to know. However – what if, instead, a particular PR firm that has heretofore represented nothing but noble and charitable clients, working tirelessly to improve the world, what if this firm chooses to represent a bottom-of-the-barrel client?

Past accomplishments obviously factor into how we evaluate a crime. Businesses (and individuals) can earn a great deal in the way of presumed innocence, and intelligent observers can usually tell the difference between a one-off mistake in judgment and a pattern of anti-social behavior. Still, there are some decisions that no amount of accumulated good faith can overcome, especially when only a barking moron could have failed to understand the magnitude of the problem beforehand.

Perhaps we can examine client lists and histories and find excuses to mitigate behavior if we try hard enough, but is there some reason why we should? At some point don’t we have to stop the rationalizing and acknowledge that Libya and Syria, at least, are nations with long histories. Long, long histories, and I’m not talking histories of charity, philanthropy and democracy, either. No, we’re talking about things like brutal oppression (you know, like the campaigns they’re waging against dissidents at present) and support for terrorist organizations. There’s simply no way to conclude that the decisions to represent these interests was about anything other than money. If you’d represent Gadhafi, you’d represent Satan if he showed up with a suitcase full of unmarked bills.

The good news is that these firms are taking heavy fire for their actions. Rosanna Fiske, chair and CEO of Public Relations Society of America and an Associate Profesor at Florida International, pulls no punches in a comprehensive beatdown at The Hill.

They were, in effect, counseling enemies of global democracy; ruthless despots who cut down their own people to save whatever feeble remnants of their legacies may remain. When asked to explain their questionable work, most offer a ham-handed response to the effect of: “We’re just the messengers.” This explanation is an insult to all who value transparent and ethical communications from governments and private businesses alike. In trying to improve tyrants’ images and reputations, these firms are damaging America’s international reputation. … Ethical public relations places an emphasis on counseling reputable organizations and individuals in developing and maintaining beneficial relationships with concerned stakeholders. The Libyan, Syrian and Bahraini governments have not shown the slightest inclination to cultivate this type of cooperative relationship. Yet all three have seduced American public relations firms into working on their behalf. One has to question what the attraction is. Is it all for the allure of working with a big-name client and the money? Efforts to “enhance international appreciation of Libya and positive news coverage of the country,” as the Monitor Group engaged in, or to secure a fawning Vogue magazine profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, asBrown Lloyd James reportedly accomplished (Vogue eventually removed the profile from its website after heavy international protest from readers), do little to build Americans’ trust in these governments. Most disturbingly, the work insults the very freedoms that allow these firms to engage in such questionable services in the first place.

Kudos to Fiske for using her very prominent platform to draw a line in the sand regarding this sort of sociopathic activity by firms like those cited above. I’m going to take it a step further, though. If one of these agencies represented my business I’d fire them on the spot (and post an explanation on my corporate site explaining precisely why). In this spirit, then, there might be some value in calling attention to the other organizations out there doing business with these firms. Should an existing client decide that they don’t want to be associated with the kind of ethics normally associated with arms dealers, or should a customer want to call or e-mail one of these companies with a complaint, well, that’s the 1st Amendment in action, isn’t it? And since we don’t live in Syria, Libya or Bahrain, we’re theoretically in favor of the exercise of free speech…

So, here are the client lists of the PR counselors in question. This list is compiled from the firm’s own sites and other sources, effective August 16, 2011.

Brown Lloyd James

New York:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

Al Jazeera English

Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group

Forbes

HartSharp Entertainment

Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute

Russia Today (RT)

CHARITIES AND NGOs

AARP

Autism Speaks

BRAC USA

British Memorial Garden

Carnegie Mellon University

China-US Exchange Foundation

Institute of International Education – Goldman Sachs

Loomba Trust

Marine Conservation Alliance

Pew Environment Group

Reach Out to Asia

Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs(Qatar)

The Open Hands Initiative

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

AstraZeneca

Challenger, Ltd.

Christie’s

Doha Bank

IBM

State Farm

United Group for Projects (Qatar)

WILL Interactive

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

City of London Corporation

Embassy of the State of Qatar

Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme

Independent Panel Review of the World Bank Group DII

The State of Qatar

London:

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

Al Jazeera English

Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Really Useful Group

Associated Newspapers – Metro, Evening Standard, London Lite

Forbes

HarperCollins Publishers

Telegraph Media Group – The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph

CHARITIES AND NGOs

The Prince’s Teaching Institute

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

The Black Farmer

Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (BARB)

Disneyland Resort Paris

Monaco Government Tourist & Convention Authority

OKA Direct

The Royal Opera House

The Royal Opera House Manchester

The Walt Disney Corporation

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Girls’ Schools Association

Judicial Appointments Commission

Lord Levy

Maison de Monaco

Oxford University

The Principality of Monaco

Doha

MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT

Al Jazeera English

@bahrain

CHARITIES AND NGOs

Al Fakhoora

Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar

Georgetown University- School of Foreign Services in Qatar

HH The Amir’s Katrina Fund

Shafallah Center for Children with Special Needs

CORPORATE, BUSINESS AND RETAIL

Carbon Trust

Centrica (British Gas)

Doha Bank

Qatalum

Qatar Financial Center

Qatargas

Qatari Diar

United Group for Projects

GOVERNMMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Education City – Qatar Foundation

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Qatar Tourism and Exhibitions Authority

Bell Pottinger

The government of Bahrain.

Emirates Airline

Fortnum & Mason

Milklink

BPEX

EADS

Airbus

RSA Group

PowerPerfector

Trafigura

Almac Group

DWF

The government of Sri Lanka

Britvic

Cadbury’s

Currencies Direct

Davenport Lyons

DP World

Emirates Airlines

HP

Innovation Expo

It’s Your Choice

Kellogg’s

McAfee

Milklink

Müller

Seven Seas

Skills for Business

Sky

SynCo Bio Partners

Unilever

TAG

Viridor Waste Management

VISA

Vodafone

Waitrose

Potomac Square Group

No information available.

Qorvis Communications

George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate & Gardens

Intel

Kennedy Krieger Institute

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Plasan

Revolution Health

Rosslyn Business Improvement District

The Washington Post

Virginia Lottery

Youthaids

Monitor Group

According to Wikipedia: “The Monitor Group does not disclose its list of clients. Even when discussing clients in-house, Monitor uses acronyms to protect client’s identities, a mark of Monitor’s hyper-confidentiality. Some engagements that have appeared in the press due to their public nature include a major initiative with the Libyan government and an organizational effort with the University of California.

Anybody who can help me fill out the client lists for The Monitor Group and Potomac Square Group, please drop me a note.

Next: Tips for PR Pros Thinking About Hiring on With Distressed Brands…