The Ketchum-FedEx-Twitter Saga Continues
The purpose of this posting is to pull back the veil, and attempt to get added perspective on what may have developed as one of the first, if not the first, examples of crisis communications in today’s new and evolving online Web 2.0 social media world.
Last evening, there were so many visitors to this blog to read How Not to be a Key Online Influencer – approximately 118,000 at one time – that my VPS hosting service crashed for a short time. Reading the comments from visitors, I saw a recurring appreciation for hearing both sides of an online story. I viewed it as bringing journalism to blogging, and no big deal. By the way, I really appreciate people taking the time to post those comments.
It demonstrates, I believe, the enormous power of Twitter and social media. As Lyelle Petersen (@93octane) commented on this blog, “a perfect example of how dangerous social media can be if not taken seriously.”
First let me explain my personal perspective – I am a trained journalist as well as a veteran media strategist in Washington, D.C. I won an Emmy Award for investigative journalism. Call me old-fashioned, if you wish, but I want to get both sides of a story, even an online story. But, if you feel inclined to call me old-fashioned, consider that I today manage 18 blogs; have actively blogged since 2003; am the publisher of BoomerCafe.com since 1999, the Internet’s most popular online magazine for baby boomers with active lifestyles; run BlogStrategies.net; have just published a new book on communications in Web 2.0 – “The Media Savvy Leader;” have a new, free ebook for download on the subject, “Media Savvy in the Internet Era; and I consult globally with major organizations on how to communicate openly, transparently and effectively in today’s new online world.
I first learned about this story last Friday through an email from the CEO of a major organization. He learned of it from his PR company (not Ketchum). The email clearly was making the rounds. But I viewed it as nothing more than cyber-rumor, and I was not going to write about until hearing the full story. I should note that lack of confirmation didn’t stop New York publicist Peter Shankman from blogging about it last Friday. But, it was unsubstantiated, and just recycling rumor which, I personally believe, will eventually erode and detract from the credibility of blogging.
In the interim, until yesterday, I monitored how the story unfolded but it remained just rumor. So, I did what any reporter would do and picked up the telephone and sent emails. I first called James Andrews (right), the Ketchum PR account person in Atlanta who posted the unfortunate open opinion on Twitter. I left him a detailed voicemail. He has never bothered to return my call, which is incomprehensible behavior by any PR person, in my opinion … but I will get back to Andrews in a minute.
I then emailed Ray Kotcher, CEO of Ketchum (an Omnicom company), but never received a reply. I will return to that in a minute. 
Then, I called the FedEx corporate communications department in Memphis and spoke for some time with a person who confirmed the whole story, provided names, details, and followed-up by immediately emailing a statement from FedEx that essentially pointed the finger of blame at Andrews. The only people who acted like professional communicators, in my opinion, were those at FedEx.
After writing the story and waiting a reasonable time, I posted it.
Then, at 5:03 p.m., I had a call from Marv Gellman, director in Ketchum’s technology practice. He said he could provide a statement, and I asked that it be emailed. I received this two-line statement which, like FedEx, pointed the finger of blame at Andrews. It arrived via email at 9:34 p.m.:
It was a lapse in judgment and we’ve apologized to our client. We greatly value this long standing client relationship. It is our privilege to work with them.
Gellman called afterwards to claim he had sent the email at 5:17 but then admitted, twice, that he used the wrong email address. He then wanted me to back-time the mention of it on my blog, but I told him I was not covering up his mistake.
What subsequently developed was enormous awareness and discussion on Twitter that has lasted into today – hundreds of thousands of people are online, discussing. But missing from the Twitter social media discussion have been the alleged social media experts at Ketchum. I personally find that lack of online savvy to be very revealing.
What I note, most glaringly, is the seeming lack of awareness about a possible brewing crisis. Ketchum and FedEx, instead, did the old-PR thing to point the finger of blame at the junior person. It’s not a characteristic of responsible leadership by a big PR firm, in my opinion, to blame staff. I don’t think anyone gets off that easy in today’s online world, of which Ketchum seems to be a novice.
Today, I heard from James Andrews, the Ketchum account person in Atlanta, who started this whole thing with his unfortunate Twitter posting to the world. He didn’t call so I could not interview him. But even he pointed the finger of blame at someone else when he posted:
My friend didn’t get your message although I’m locked away in a new biz pitch 1,000’s of mi away and not very accessible.
His excuse was sort of like, the dog ate my homework, even though the switchboard person at Ketchum Atlanta says Andrews checks his voicemail, “all the time.”
I asked him via Twitter direct for a telephone interview but he declined, referring me instead to his blog, TheKeyInfluencer.com.
I explained, that his blog was merely one-sided, and did not afford an interview. I then asked these questions, which all seemed reasonable:
- How long has he been in PR? With Ketchum?
- What social media, Web 2.0 training did he have?
- What was his major in college?
- How old was he?
- Has he ever worked in a newsroom?
- I explained these were legitimate questions, and asked why didn’t he want to be interviewed?
- Had he been told by Ketchum not to give interviews?
Andrews responded, “David I have a job to do and last week posted a response that I have moved on. I’m not sure what you are looking for.”
I asked him what part of those questions he didn’t understand.
Andrews responded, “WSJ-2000, and I too am an online journalist. Please allow me my space.”
That was the end of the Twitter direct exchange. I am not sure what “WSJ-2000″ means. Of course, an interview with Andrews by phone would have permited me to ask but that was not to be. A Google search suggests that some online work done by Andrews may have been reported by the Wall Street Journal some years ago but there is nothing to suggest that he worked for the Journal or any other media.
Early today, I also emailed Gellman, the technology practice director, with a list of questions:
- When was it (the tech practice) formed?
- What is the level of expertise in blogging, Web 2.0 (I know that is a broad question) and social media?
- What sort of training programs do you have for members of the Technology Practice?
- What is your background in social media, other than telling me you once worked for a small radio station?
- How long have you been director of the Technology Practice?
- Have you ever started a blog, and if so, what time and is it still online?
- Why didn’t Mr. Andrews, whom I assume is a member of your team, not return my telephone call yesterday?
After now seven hours, I have not heard from Gellman so I can only assume his agency has no plausible answers.
The scenario all this paints is how badly big PR is comprehending today’s interactive Web 2.0 world of openness, transparency and accuracy. It also demonstrates an astonishing level of hubris and/or lack of knowledge for how the media, Web 2.0 or otherwise, works, in my opinion. Ketchum clearly doesn’t get it, and I wonder how they manage media for their clients.
Big PR is locked in its decades-old bad habits of pushing stuff on behalf of clients out the door – pushing press releases, pushing one-sided promotion, pushing press kits. In other places, that would be called, propaganda. All one-sided push. Pushing stuff is what Andrews has been doing with his blog. That’s not where today’s world is.
Whatever it is labeled, it is the antithesis of communications in today’s interactive Web 2.0 world, and it is the opposite of journalism. Reporters … legitimate and trained journalists … need interviews, and a chance to write both sides, and that goes for blogging journalists, too, because blogging is the New Media. Clearly, that’s not where Ketchum PR is in today’s online world. Incidentally, Ketchum is the agency responsible for producing several fake video news releases a few years ago that were nothing more than promotion of an education-related political agenda by the Bush White House at taxpayer expense that caused a scandal.
While researching “The Media Savvy Leader,” I found a trend developing among companies and organizations, large and small – in order to achieve a more effective footprint of awareness in the fast-evolving world of Web 2.0, companies are either hiring enhanced expertise in-house and/or hiring consultants who authentically have the credentials to help. Big PR is stumbling badly or fading online. With big PR generally stalled in past days of glory, such a trend may have a profound impact on the future of the public relations industry.
I call it the changing face of PR leadership.
Lastly, let me mention FedEx, the company that permitted the whole image crisis to happen by not having guidelines in place to restrict employees for writing messages to external audiences that appear to be on behalf of the company. FedEx dropped the ball on one of the rules of communications 101.
Filed Under: Featured • Public Relations • Reputation management
About the Author: David is a veteran communications strategist ... writer ... blogger ... online publisher ... and Emmy Award winning former CBS Network News correspondent. He lives in the Washington, D. C., area, and works worldwide.
Excellent analysis. I think inclusion of “hubris” in your criticism (as opposed to a company just “not getting it”) gets at an interesting issue for anyone responding (or not) to a brewing crisis. Whether it is hubris, or just fear, perceptions do matter.
A response to the effect of “I’ve moved on, what more do you want” seems like willfully bad crisis communication. Can you imagine Ketchum advising a crisis communication client to tell their customers “We’re over it. Why aren’t you?”
@Melanie Phung,
Melanie,
Thanks for the comment.
David
@DH,
I learned in journalism school to report the story, not become the story. I think you’re starting to take the “I’m a journalist who blogs” bit too far.
The story has been heavily, and inaccurately reported, in many places. You badgering a place of business to prop up page views is silly.
Hi,
Thank you for your extensive account of the story. While i thought that the initial account of andrews twitter faux-pas was quite amusing, i dont really get why such a huge story is made out of it.
from my point of view a non-senior employee did something stupid. period.
ketchum, by not giving a proper statement and leaving it with a short email treats the case as what it is a minor “lapse in judgement”. would they, in case, start offering interviews and CEO – level statements, they would only overemphasise the whole matter and make the impression that this is something major.
i seriously dont beleive that a guy not liking a city, and lacking the polite wording to express that is worth all this back and forth.
nevertheless the story itself was really hilarious.
thank you
adib
If you are an investigative reporter, you’d know that James Andrews is a VP, not that junior.
@Chris,
Actually, in today’s PR world, VPs are fairly junior.
@DH,
Would you consider Mark Zuckerberg a junior employee because he’s 24? The term junior is very relative and anyone that has risen through the ranks of a traditional PR Agency to VP, while they may not be over 50, are still hardly junior in experience.
@Chris,
I have no idea who you are talking about or what the point is you are trying to make. VP is a job title agencies freely hang on people to impress clients.
@DH,
Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook. I’ve worked with enough VP’s at PR Agencies young and old that do manage teams to say that I disagree. Most agencies would be foolish to to freely adorn people with titles like VP without merit.
David, What I love about your style is the savvy mix of traditional journalism — digging and working sources — with the immediacy and linking aspects of social media. Congrats.
David congrats to you for bringing this story to life and allowing us all to learn from it. I will add it to my list of case studies in the category of do-not’s.
I must say I am feeling sorry for poor James Andrews, just glad I am not in his shoes.
Superb piece, David.
Years ago I had a day job as a reservationist for a major airlines. My supervisor used to emphatically tell us “you are the first and last image of this airline with every person you speak with today. Never forget it…never underestimate your impact.”
Similarly, at the other end of the hierarchy scale, meet Mr. James Andrews. By the very nature of his Twitter usage, he became the New Face of Ketchum. How proud they all must be and so very nice that he’s gotten up, dusted off and moved on. A skunk may leave an area but the scent remains.
And if you’ll now excuse me David, I need to move on. Just like Mr. Andrews did. I’m simply trying, by extension, to allow him his space.
Best,
Christopher
very interesting post. blurring the lines of private/public interaction.
This is just a big pissing match between a bunch of self-righteous hacks who, in trying to assert ’social media’ authority, just come off looking like a bunch of fools.
This Andrews fella is clearly a smug punk making his quick buck off people who openly admit ’social media / web 2.0′ ignorance. At least the good people at FedEx have made an honest attempt at evolving. What is sad is that they put their faith in this d-bag who really doesn’t know his ass from his elbow anyway.
I’m sick of people who install Wordpress and get a Twitter account and all of a sudden think they are some sort of expert on ‘Web 2.0′ or ‘Social Media.’ Give me a break. We all know the speed at which this world changes – and it is ridiculously ignorant to try to claim some sort of upper hand over anyone else.
The reason why this story about Andrews is so great is the ironic twist at the end. He was on his way to teach a major client about ’social media’ and through social media ended up upsetting and insulting them. He got called out, and people are eating it up like crazy all over the internet. This is irony at it’s finest.
But seriously – I am sick of the pissing match. None of you know everything, and you never will. Quit pretending you do.
Would any of you dare call yourself an expert on cars if you don’t understand how a gasoline engine works?
Pick up a book on Apache, MySQL, Javascript, PHP, XHTML, etc. Learn as much as you can about the technology before pretending you know everything there is to know about ‘Web 2.0.’
David – have you even bothered to click on the ‘XHTML’ link in your footer here? Do you know what it means to make sure the code on your website validates?
Clearly not – and I think this illustrates my point pretty clearly.
@Alex,
Alex,
You raise interesting points. I wouldn’t know an Apache server from a Chevy Malibu, but quite frankly that’s not my area of expertise. I will leave the under the hood technology to people far smarter. My area of expertise is advising organizations on understanding Web 2.0’s communication opportunities, the responsible use of online communications tools. Not about rules but common sense communication practices.
Got an idea – I’ve like to invite you to be a guest blogger for BlogStrategies.net on the things we need to know about Apache, MySql, Javascript. Don’t get too technical but the floor is yours if you so wish.
Thanks,
David
I’m confused. What exactly did FedEx do wrong? How did anyone there “[permit] the whole image crisis to happen”? If anyone, its Ketchum in the crisis here, and I don’t see how FedEx enabled that.
@Mike Keliher,
Many organizations restrict employees from expressing their personal opinions publicly about organizational policy, issues or controversies. At first, for example, there was confusion that this employee’s email was a statement for the corporation. When an employee goes public with their opinion about an issue related to a company, it might run at cross-purposes, sending confusing and mixed messages that impact stakeholders, customer, etc. At companies, such as Apple, it’s just not done because it muddies corporate strategic positioning and messages. So, it’s is surprising that a company as large as FedEx has no policy in effect.
I hope that is helpful.
A reply from keyinfluencer’s wife found via a link in his twitter feed:
http://adjix.com/qqi2
Her spin control is… interesting. She says, “The person who was initially offended by the tweet made an incorrect assumption and the readers of Shankman.com ran with it.” At first I thought she was trying to say that he wasn’t talking about Memphis. But no, the misunderstanding is (apparently) that keyinfluencer had a an encounter with a racist, vented some steam via twitter, and everyone took it out of context. Well without any context provided by keyinfluencer, how else could anyone take it?
David,
I happened onto your blog from a Twitter link and appreciate your thoughtful analysis.
I am embarrassed (honest?) to admit that the big puzzler in my mind is this: Never having heard of Emmy-Winning You or your blog before today, I don’t understand why you think you deserve a response from Ketchum leadership, Mr. Andrews himself, or anyone else. Sure, I think you’re free to ask questions of anyone, but they’re just as free to say “No comment,” and they may or may not add “…because WHO are you, again?”
Your claims of journalistic integrity ring hollow (to me) when later in your post you editorialise, deriding FedEx, Ketchum, and Mr. Andrews personally (and as well dismiss your lateness to the game compared to Peter Shankman as a consequence of his own rush to spread rumor). David Meerman Scott (in the Comments here) commends your “savvy mix of traditional journalism — digging and working sources — with the immediacy and linking aspects of social media,” but I believe that very mix necessarily discounts your claims of both expertise and journalistic ethics.
I learned more about this episode from Mr Shankman’s post and the resulting Comments conversation than I did from your two posts.
I fail to see the importance of this incident.
If its just something bothering you, then fine, by all means go ahead. How it has an effect on the business of the 2 firms involved, I really don’t see.
All I see is an overzealous FedEx employee trying to suck up to his bosses and making a pyramid out of a pebble.
Is the management of FedEx so touchy to someone calling their city intolerable. Are they school children. To me, what Mr. Andrews wrote, doesn’t even see to have any derogatory intent at all.
And also as Rita points out, and no offense, why would CEOs/VPs of major organizations respond to your mail?
If this had happened in India the said senior officials from both the firms would be laughing over it over drinks. And that’s how things should be. Why create stress in everyone’s lives by being so touchy about a tweet on the internet?
On a lighter note, can you use a plugin to allow comment posters to get notifications of followup comments to this post.
Bravo, David. This is an excellent write-up about the behind-the-scenes world of new journalism. Thanks for sharing. I’m going to link to it from the 60 Second Marketer.
All the best,
Jamie
David, I’ll add my voice to the chorus of praise to your coverage of what I like to call Twitter-gate. Rather than rehash points made in other comments, I’ll thank you for an insight I’m now taking back to my staff — blog is not synonymous with transparent. You made the point — a blog post by James Andrews is not the same as a dialogue with you or any other journalist. That’s true openness. One request, however — please don’t assume all PR agencies are hapless digital dinosaurs. My agency is mid-sized so am not sure we qualify as Big PR — though our clients are big — my point is, we work very hard to be active participants in and students of the ever-evolving digital world and if our digital case study portfolio is thinner than our traditional PR case study stack well…perhaps that says more about our clients’ willingness to stretch out of their marketing comfort zones in a space that is still (let’s all be honest) challenging to measure. This is certainly true for big packaged goods clients who only know from traditional market mix modeling metrics (alliteration theirs, not mine!)
We’re fighting the good fight, David, believe me. Though I suspect that by time my Web 2.0 case study stash equals my traditional PR case study portfolio, hell, we’ll probably already be on to Web 4.0!
Wow, seems like this days no one can say anything without avoiding people to take it ser¡ously.
David,
Your dragging this out onto your blog is the most blatant form of linkbait that I’ve seen in a very long time.
Here’s the thing: You claim journalistic ethics and checking your sources and looking at both sides of a story, yet because you ASSUMED Peter Shankman did not have a credible source for his story you decided not to link back to him? Does.not.compute. One of the first things any good journalist does is research, and in today’s blog world that is the absolute first thing you do. It’s an ethical imperative to link to the initial coverage — especially when the first 3/4 of your blog post appears to be a direct copy.
The thing is, David, that no one is doubting that you got more information on this story. Kudos to you for sending an email or two. You brought more color to it, but that does NOT diminish the fact that you were not the one to originally break the news and when called upon the fact that this had been floating around for a week, your response to me was, “But I had the full story.”
Tsk, tsk.
Cheers,
Jennifer
So far one of the few people I’ve seen who gets the real story is Matt.
Whether you fault James for lack of context or not, it’s pretty simple – he got trashed by a racist and tweeted about it. Not Memphis, not FedEx. The racial incident.
Let’s listen and learn here. Interesting that it appears most of us aren’t getting it.
David,
I find your accounting of this case scenario to be solid. True there are some big PR agencies out there riding the coattails of the new media. And there seems to be a lack of accountability and responsibility when it comes to owning the problem. But size has nothing to do with it. After all, any practitioner is only as good as their mentor(s).
Offering employees the proper training with regard for the appropriate new media protocols and timing of pro-active communications, accountability and professionalism seems to lag behind feeding egos with enlarged titles beyond the years of experience it takes to truly service a savvy, global client such as Fed Ex.
Sounds to me like this is a great opportunity for Ketchum and FedEx to create a solution that prevents this situation from occurring again.
Lisa-Marie,
I research and write about the dynamic and qualities of leadership communications. And, I must say that your perspective has “true leader” written all over it. Thank you for providing such a solid and constructive opinion.
David
If I learned anything from leaders including Frank Mankiewicz, Tom Hoog, Jackson Bain and many others in the crisis communications field, David, it is that we all have responsibility for our actions.
Four key principles to good crisis communications:
Admit
Acknowledge
Apologize
Act
LM
Lisa-Marie,
Well said! Very well said.
David
You may quote me on that:) LOL I’ll be visiting your site from time to time. I like the fact that you are asking the hard direct questions we should be asking on all fronts. There has been a lot of surface bantering about this issue and more finger pointing. But the real root of the problem still needs to be addressed. Perhaps a revisit to Fed Ex on how they will handle future social media situations might be in order?
Just one other point on this case that I ruminated over this morning….where is the business contingency plan for Fed Ex? As I pondered this thought it occurred to me that the plan along with many others could be collecting dust on a shelf. Plans need to be embraced by leaders in the company and training needs to occur on an annual if not semi-annual basis. There may have been some shifting over the years in leadership and this is tantamount in keeping consistent key messaging within the ranks.
A former client had many senior executives who all hailed from Fed Ex. They could not say enough great things about the company (and their city LOL).
Lisa-Marie
[...] The Ketchum-FedEx-Twitter saga continues – posted January 22, 2009 [...]
[...] Here is a more thorough take on the story from communications strategist and blogger, David Henderson. [...]
[...] 29, 2009 · 3 Comments Through a circuitous route, I got to thinking about experts. Seems a Ketchum PR man who’s billed as a social media [...]
So a couple of quick points here. First of all David, I think you have posted a private twitter conversation, I hope you got James’ permission to do that. Whatever your journalistic ethics may tell you that is a very uncool thing to do in the social media world.
Here is what James said:
“True Confession but I am in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say “I would die if I had to live here!”
So what?
I grew up in San Diego. I grew up hating Los Angeles. Seven years ago I took a job in Los Angeles but chose to move 70 miles south east of LA because I hate everything about it. I told my boss I hated LA in my interview. I tell just about every customer who will listen that I hate LA including all of my customers in LA. I have told people at the LA convention center and visitor’s bureau that I hate LA and I have done business with them.
I don’t actually hate LA but I simply prefer not to live there and avoid it whenever possible.
So what.
If a multi-billion dollar company makes its business decisions based on a supplier hating their home city I would say that is a very dumb company that has probably forgotten how they got so big.
Or maybe the rule is if you work for a PR company you can’t ever speak the truth or offer an opinion?
Maybe I have misconstrued your point?
Rick,
Thanks for commenting.
dh
[...] are two important follow-ups to the story, from January 22nd and January [...]