The Take-Away
Clearly, my posts on this blog over the last couple of days have drawn a lot of attention and comment. Let me today express my perspective and opinion.
We have just entered a new era in the United States where a leader, our new President, has called for principled behavior, and an end to the partisanship and nastiness that has so permeated our society. And so, all of us … or, at least, many of us … are trying to figure out how to mirror that behavior in various aspects of our lives. We have to get away from the nastiness and partisanship.
What James Andrews of Ketchum Public Relations posted on Twitter about Memphis was nasty. In a world that fundamentally is all about relationships, Andrews dissed the town, and, in doing so, he mocked the decision by his employer’s major client, FedEx, to have that city as its home. The mere fact that Andrews is still employed by Ketchum Public Relations, a company owned by Omnicom Group, reveals that his employer neither comprehends nor understands the changing discourse of conversation, the new spirit of change hoped for in America or the online world of New Media.
We are living at a time when there are millons of people who are looking for a unific way to communicate, to change our language, and to rise above the mean-spirited sniping and partisan jibs which have become a form of our communication.
In the mix of all that has been said, the heart of the matter has to do with trying to change an atmosphere that promotes nastiness, a snide laugh by belittling somebody else. That’s really the absolute core.
This is what the call is of our new White House leadership, and it applies just as much to the government as to our corporate relationships. We find it amusing to arrogantly put somebody down, and that sort of behavior must stop in order for our country to move forward.
I believe that Andrews’ insensitive posting on Twitter has triggered the first example of crisis communications in this evolving new world of Web 2.0 online social media. Think about it … two nights ago, more people read my first posting about this issue here on my blog than read the online sites of most major newspapers, and nearly all of the awareness was triggered by Twitter, a social media forum that Andrews’ employer had not discovered.
Regardless of the communications method – whether Twitter, a blog, television news, radio, newspapers – the underlying principles of working with journalists as well as our clients, customers, colleagues and friends remain the same. Openness. Transparency. Accuracy. Honesty. Relationships. Respect.
The same fundamental rules and principles apply to a new form of media in today’s Internet era as with mainstream or traditional media. Ketchum and Andrews apparently are exceptions, and do not embrace those principles. Otherwise, Andrews would no longer work there.
The reality of today’s Internet era is that a crisis can spin out of control globally in a nanosecond because people all over the world have access in new ways that did not exist before the advent of the Internet and the interactive communications tools of Web 2.0.
But the principles of journalism, public relations, and relationships still apply. Openness. Transparency. Accuracy. Honesty. Respect.
Andrews presented his side on his blog. Yes, he has made a statement on his blog but the aspect of New Media is conversation. He does not owe me an interview but the lack of an interview is his response, and that sends a message, too.
Andrews breached the boundaries of business ethics. He used his personal Web 2.0 forum to voice his personal opinion about a town within the context of doing his job. It was the same as a snide aside remark that gets caught on a radio or TV program when the mike is not turned off. He chose to put it out there.
My efforts have been to highlight the benefits and pitfalls, and how a single comment made by a single employee can escalate and cause a corporate problem and crisis. FedEx took exception to this man sent by the PR firm they had hired. Who could blame them? I don’t. That is a warning about what can happen.
Web 2.0 is more like TV and radio because it is immediate, and when you misspeak, you cannot go back and fix it. When you engage in the world of Web 2.0 and social media, you cannot go back and say, no I have nothing to say.
So, we are left with fundamental principles of openness, transparency, honesty, and, let me underscore, respect as we strive to learn this new and ever-changing new world of communication and news online … and, most importantly, the change asked of each of us by our new President.
Filed Under: Featured • Personal notes • 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.
I think the issue has less to do with Mr. Andrews’ comment, which was dumb but I’ll allow that we all sometimes do dumb things when confonted with others’ stupidity, and more with the subsequent failures on the parts FedEx, Ketchum, and Mr. Andrews to admit their errors and participate in the resulting dialogue.
David, Thank you for this truthful explanation of civility as it meets web 2.0 and new media. I agree with you that web 2.0’s great strength is its accessibility, transparency and immediacy, as well as its ability to allow participants to choose relevant topics.
It’s a double edged-sword, sometimes. One can’t participate, and then hide out or retreat to announcement writing when caught behaving poorly, because web 2.0 is an interactive medium and the conversations will continue. The only real means to “control” this medium is to behave with civility and professionalism within it. If one errs, and we all do, stay engaged and apologize.
This gives me great hope for real change in social discourse.
David you have eloquently stated the problem that we all face in this internet age and the fact that civility and graciousness have been lacking for a while now. At some point people will come to recognize that all of our actions have consequences, and todays communications cannot be denied or run from, once posted. We must be civil and think before we speak, no better make that post now a days. Thank you
It’s about accountability as well as civility.
This is a two-fold matter. One is of an individual’s lack of thought. (Didn’t he know Fred Smith is from Memphis?) The other involves the apparent hesistance of an enterprise with a long-standing business relationship with another to acknowledge the inappropriateness of an employee’s word and deed. I am not calling for Andrew’s dismissal. Afterall, what he did was just plan dumb and, I suspect, by now, he realizes that. Further, I do believe in second chances. Rather, his employer should institute a policy regarding posting of any sort, just as it no doubt has for that quaint old communications form…email. (Remember how many times we wished we hadn’t hit the send key?)
I believe FedEx holds to the notion that a stupid move by one individual ought not destroy a relationship of trust and mutual benefit that has been built up over years — unless it has a diasterous effect, which this matter hasn’t and likely won’t.
If, as President Obama has urged, we are to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and get on with what needs to be done, as generations before us did, let’s remember how those hard working folk always made certain to say please, thank you and excuse me.
There’s a reason it’s called common courtesy. It extends to everyone and everything we do. And if we get that, we become accountable for ourselves, our words and our actions or inactions.
@Steve Hoechster,
Thank you for expressing a balanced perspective on the situation.
IMHO — who cares? Does Memphis really think that one person’s post on Twitter will… what? Drive away tourism? Make FedEx decide that it should move? He expressed an opinion. If you disagree, say so. And we move on. And even if it was somehow wrong, do we really think that somebody should be fired because of a Twitter post? (How does that fit into the age of civility?)
My hope is that these Web 2.0 tools, which allow people to share information, to look at somebody as a whole, not any one specific item. In the end, if somebody posts a photo of them drinking on their Facebook profile, so what?
I also think that, increasingly, the line between our work lives and… well, the rest of lives… that line is evaporating. That is particularly true among young people who have grown up with mobile devices — devices that they largely use for both work… and the rest of their lives.
I don’t know Mr. Andrews at all. All I know about him is what was written here. But based on what is written here, I don’t get it. It just seems to be much ado about nothing, IMHO.
If you disagree with Mr. Andrews, Tweet it… and we can all move on.
I really appreciate David’s commentary and this dialogue perhaps because I am not seeing this as clear cut as others seem to be. (and I am a pretty clear cut guy). On the one hand, the guy made a split second instant decision to tweet. I have had such thoughts about some cities when I arrived and commented to my colleagues. (Twitter is a social media cousin to colleagues for those of us who often observe and want to share). The firestorm that resulted will cause a lot more self censorship by Twitter users.
I guess a small part of my discomfort is that this was a tiny mistake and people think this guy should be fired. I guess tweeting puts you in the public eye and ripe for such demands as does any web posting (like this one.) But isn’t civility also forgiveness for minor transgressions?
I think my bigger discomfort is that David’s push for civility is scary to me as we are in an unsettling time with a charismatic leader and I am concerned that civility means it is politically correct not to question or explore major decisions affecting our future.
Perhaps we should distinguish private individuals who make a small mistake tweeting from big picture fundamental shifts in our nation. My fear is that political correctness or it’s partner “civility” preclude serious examination of big issues. Big decisions require close examination and scrutiny – even if that borders on incivility! Small ones by relatively private people, albeit tweeting, are vastly less important.
I guess I am less concerned about civility and more concerned about good decisions being vetted, especially by journalists who do not get caught up in political correctness – or their own beliefs of what should be done.
We made a mistake going in to Iraq because Americans and journalists just went along and did not probe why there was no real evidence of WMD.
We made a mistake giving away billions to banks this past fall in part because most business groups (my association did not) clamored for government to do something – anything.
We are about to have a new Treasury Secretary who is quite qualified but forgot to pay his taxes (where are the journalists and why are they not interviewing average Americans and former IRS officials about the devastating future affects on tax collection).
I have lots of other examples – but I am trying to be prudent. I can live with less civility in public forums – as we have to consider the real life national implications of all these huge decisions!
I feel our nation is heading into an abyss and it is politically incorrect to challenge big decisions. Whether it is the HDTV delay, the proposals by unions who think they own the democrats in Congress, the stimulus funding and all the social shackles put on it, or the the bail outs – few are discussing or exposing the facts – because of panic, or the natural desire to support the new president. I wish journalists would start doing what they do best and forget about the herd of political correctness and civility.
@Gary Shapiro,
Gary,
I just believe we need to start … to be conscious, to be aware … to once again be nice to each other.
David
@Gary Shapiro,
“Perhaps we should distinguish private individuals who make a small mistake tweeting from big picture fundamental shifts in our nation. My fear is that political correctness or it’s partner “civility” preclude serious examination of big issues. Big decisions require close examination and scrutiny – even if that borders on incivility! Small ones by relatively private people, albeit tweeting, are vastly less important.”
I would like to dwell on this matter for a while.
As I see it, and please forgive me for not backing it up with empirical facts, for this is my own personal opinion, that we all agree without a single doubt THAT THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. The world has changed into a different sort of consciousness. The world has changed into a common for us all cloud of shared consciousness. What is put into this cloud, rains on us all. No matter WHO feeds it.
Now, and I’m full aware that what I’m about to say is a cliché but none the less, here it goes for it has not lost its values. If the world should advance towards one entity of and I quote: “Openness. Transparency. Accuracy. Honesty. Relationships. Respect.”, for all those are describings of our common goal, it is not the duty of the nations to take us there but rather it is based on individual efforts. The nations may well build propaganda machines to boast out those ideals but they will fail again and again if the grassroot does not pick up the work.
How does the grassroot do it? It is by considering and reconsidering again what it is about to do. For what it is about to do will rain on us all.
@Gary Shapiro,
A ‘Call to Civility’ is not the same as a call to one-sided Political Correctness. It is a call to respectful communication.
Simply because the 1st Amendment entitles us to certain freedom of expressions does not mean we should be abusive or obstructive in our expressions. Abusive communication does not facilitate either listening or understanding, much less any coming together of viewpoints.
In politicizing “correctness” our society has lost sight of the underlying foundation of it’s intent: to be sensitive to others’ feelings and to use language which is not offensive in referring to people or situation. It was not intended to merely slap on “label of the day” while maintaining the same inconsiderate manners and limited world view as before.
Yes, Andrews was inconsiderate in where and how he chose to express his views. It is not clear whether he spoke from first impression or has the experience with the town to be justify in his opinion.
Yes, perhaps FedEx’s people overeacted and were ultra-sensitive to an insult to their town (and indirectly to their hospitality)
Yes, perhaps Ketchum has bungled the handling of the whole situation.
Perhaps the “Call to Civility” could have started at FedEx, where, instead of feeling attack & reacting by counter-attack, FedEx could have said:
* * It hurts us deeply that you would make such a publicly derisive comment about our town without really knowing the town or the people. We feel that your opinion also reflects an attitude and lack of respect towards us as a company, and thus, we feel used and abused, and that you did not take the time to get to know us. Let us show you the town we love and who we are as people. * *
It’s hard to take that step–either as a person or as a company, but it is an important step to take towards healing a relationship and moving on.
It’s much easier to say, “I disagree” and move on when not feeling attacked.
David, I truly appreciate this posting and agree with your comments. We live in a world today where transparency, technology and “communities of strangers” come together in ways that we never would have imagined a few years ago. We counsel our clients to remember everything they say should be considered “on the record.” With Web 2.0, we can amend this counsel to read that everything we say, do and communicate in every relationship, public or private, is “on the record.”
The Arthur Page Society issued a seminal white paper known as The Authentic Enterprise examining the drivers and implications of a rapidly changing context for 21st Century corporations and those who direct corporate communications. In today’s digital revolution,this report reminds us that channels are exploding in number, easy to use, and belong to everyone. With the proliferation of channels and those who use them, it is increasingly difficult, too, to control the messaging.
It is our responsibility and obligation to understand this new world even as the ground continues to shift beneath us. Further, we are the stewards who must protect our personal “brands,” corporate brands and our reputations by realizing that the new “art and science” of the digital commons belongs to all of us — to use wisely or poorly.
Who will stop the rain? We will.
Seems like this has turned into a witch it. You speak of civility – but want the guy’s head on a platter. He messed up, his client called him on it, and they made the business decision to keep the PR agency on board. Case closed. You have no idea what value the practitioner has for the agency nor do you know if or how he was reprimanded. Ok, he wasn’t fired, but there are other things his employer may have done (privately) to address this and avoid this happening in the future. As you say, you haven’t interviewed anyone from the agency so you don’t have a complete picture.
The lesson learned is “think before you Tweet.”
First the politics: David, while I am happy that Obama’s election has promoted many to re-evaluate their commitment to others and to ethical behavior, I’ll gently point out that George HW Bush (W’s father) called on Americans to seeking those “Thousand Points of Light” and urged a new sense of volunteerism to help their neighbors. His phrase was endlessly mocked, as some on the right are mocking Obama’s call to what they interpret as “forced” volunteerism. (And I believe both calls to service were valid ones.)
So, attempts to politicize volunteerism are invalid, and kind of silly. Most of us on both sides believe in it.
Last thing on politics. Civility doesn’t mean rolling over and allowing one side to win all the time. Yet, “We won” was Obama’s answer today to whether he would negotiate with Republicans in Congress over the stimulus package. I hope you’ll be condemning his “partisanship.”
As for Mr. Andrews, you are totally, 100% correct. I’m still amazed to read the “so what?” replies to your blog posts. It’s not “so what?” when a person broadcasts (or even NARROWcasts) to the world that he despises the city in which his company’s largest client has its corporate offices.
A baseball player a while back got in trouble for making hateful remarks about the kind of people who live in New York City. Why should these stupid remarks about another city (though far less damning, admittedly) get a slide? It’s the same concept.
That said, this was a one-day story, and even though he failed to apologize – which as a PR professional, he knows he should have done – the aggrieved parties, his boss Ketchum and their client FedEx, are ready to move on, so we should probably too.
@Stephen A.,
I do not disagree with you about moving on.
I do hope that we can enter a better spirit in this country. And, it begins and ends with us.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
@DH, Agreed, it’s going to remain as perhaps the first example of crisis communications in online social media.
I’ll add re: politics that bad Washington policies shouldn’t automatically be confused with “corruption” and that in those same 8 years, we’ve had a few Bloggos, Charlie Rangels and William Jeffersons (the bribes-in-the-freezer Congressman from Louisiana) on the Democrat side, too.
But this isn’t a political issue at all, it’s a business issue. D’s and R’s alike should come together and condemn both unethical and uncouth behavior.
@DH,
I agree with AP’s comments above
http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/23/takeaway/#comment-2220
We’re talking of civility — while calling for somebody to get fired and condemning an entire company because they didn’t fire him?
This was a tweet. Am I missing something?
Thank you for your comment.
First of all, this Ketchum/FedEx situation is in no way the “first example of crisis communications in this evolving new world of Web 2.0 online social media.” I’ll just point you to the first one of many that come to mind: http://is.gd/h19l
Second, your flat wrong to say Ketchum hasn’t “discovered” Twitter. For starters, see these folks: http://www.twellow.com/search.php?q=ketchum
Then you say, “Ketchum and Andrews apparently are exceptions, and do not embrace those principles. Otherwise, Andrews would no longer work there.” Not necessarily. Some people understand that some folks make mistakes. Heard of Tim Geithner? The senate still confirmed him to be *treasury secretary* after grilling him about *not paying some of his taxes*! Surely that doesn’t mean the entire senate, Department of Treasury and President Obama think paying taxes is unimportant.
Your point about the importance of openness, transparency, accuracy, honesty and respect are well taken. The conclusions you reach about many of these other matters, on the other hand, feel like efforts to make too much out of too little.
@Mike Keliher,
I believe you have parsed my words incorrectly to draw your own conclusions.
DH
I am at a loss to understand how such a comment, on one man’s opinion, his feelings toward the PLACE he was visiting for business, has made such a dramatic kerfuffle.
I did not read, in his tweet, a dismissal of the company he was doing business with or for. I did not read a slanderous comment about any person he was with or would be speaking to or for.
What I read was a man’s honest feelings about where he had landed and was about to do business. You may believe his comment to be short sighted – as it seems he saw the airport and the drive to FedEx headquarters – but “nasty?
I am not American, and haven’t any idea what your new President’s actual feelings toward this would be, but I cannot imagine he would begin attempting to “heal the nastiness” by pointing fingers and ridiculing a man out of a job, for stating his feelings about a place. He said “[HE] would rather die”. NOT that he thought anyone in Memphis should feel the same way. I cannot believe, so much time and energy has been spent on this discussion, and from the blog of a respected newsman.
Thank you for hearing my words. My feelings on this matter.
For the record, my intention is NOT to be nasty.
@Carolyna Loveless,
While it is hard to imagine how one man’s expressed opinion about a place & what he viewed could be turned into a slam against the company & its employees, nonetheless it did. It is not for us to judge why someone is sensitive or how reactive they are to something.
It serves as an example of how we might all improve our communication with others and how what we say in a public forum can and will get back to the people those words affect.
@Flowersbyfarha,
re: “It is not for us to judge why someone is sensitive or how reactive they are to something…”
Is this not exactly the behavior that James Andrews is being ridiculed for? For being sensitive and reactive to his surroundings?
Now you are saying we are not to judge those who reacted, in my opinion ridiculously, to his personal feelings and voicing of those feelings?
I have had an online presence since ‘93 and been blogging and podcasting, for my own companies and those of others, since before most people knew what a blog was. I set up the social networking platforms for companies who understand the importance of online marketing and the usefulness of the social networking platform to assist in building their online presence. I don’t, however, allow those companies into my personal life. And personal twitter and blog accounts, are just that, personal. We, none of us, have a right to judge this man’s personal accounting of his feelings.
@Dean guadagni,
I believe your comment entirely arrogant. Who are you to decide what Obama’s comment meant to this man. Get over your obnoxious, inarticulate self!
@Carolyna Loveless,
Apparently you’ve misread my comment.
Many seem to feel that the employees of FedEx over-reacted. I’m saying it’s not our place to judge their seemly hyper-sensitivity to his comment.
Nor, really, is our place to judge Andrews for his original tweet. “True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, ‘I would die if I had to live here.’”
None of us were empaneled on a jury to deliberate, nor are we all working with the same and complete set of facts (or even perceived facts). Indeed, as he explains in more than 140: http://www.thekeyinfluencer.com/channel/ this tweet is about his reaction to a a run-in with a particular (and particularly intolerant) individual.
And a client’s employee saw that and jumped to the conclusion–as has the blogosphere, including David Henderson–that it was a slam against the town/people as a whole rather than the “I am” statement that it was. Did the employee, did FedEx, did anyone other than Andrews’ wife or boss stop to ask, “What did you mean by that?”
Apparently not. And without more information–facts not rumours and assumptions– it’s not any of our places to judge either Andrews, or the employee, or FedEx, or Ketchum other that to think, the way this has been handled created problems where none need have existed– AND how could this have been avoided or handled better?
Thus, I feel what is our place is to let the players sort themselves out while the rest of us consider what can we as individuals and as representatives of a company learn from this. How does different information about the situation change how we feel about how it should be handled? What can we distill from this scenario, leaving out the personally identifying information? How does this situation inform what–if any–changes to our behaviour? What is the evolving social etiquette we need to be mindful of?
Since you’re worked and lived in the blogosphere and the environs of social media for so long, you’ve developed mores that seem to have worked for you and the people and clients you surround yourself with. Yet it is naive to think that everyone else, even corporations, also already know much less agree with the cyber-view that you have. All of this is still very new to many of us. Only now is the first generation growing up with the Internet as almost a cultural given–and even they have not been fully trained on the rules of the Wild West because some of those rules are still being written and rewritten.
I find blogs and social media very paradoxical: They provide the potential for being completely anonymous or pseudonymous, if you will, while at the same time throwing open the gates to a complete lack of privacy. On one side, it allows people perhaps a bit more freedom in expressing themselves without the constraints of immediate consequences; while on the other side, it also creates to potential for random unintended consequences.
And such was the case here.
A man expressed his opinion, probably with little more consideration than how to squeeze it into 140 characters or less. Had he known that an employee of his client would see it, would he have tweeted differently or at all?
Instead, would he have merely thought it? Would he have saved it for a more private conversation with his wife later? Would he have said anything at all to his client in the context of relating a fuller conversation?
The moral of the story here is not necessarily about what one or more characters in the story may or may not have done wrong. Rather, it is that when we may think we are alone in the privacy of our home, office, or internet cafe with 23K of our bff’s, what we type is not private. By definition, “social” is not “private.”
David,
The most puzzling aspect of this entire episode is how so many people see the issue so differently. There are many people defending Andrews on his blog and in other forums of discussion.
Lets cut all the garbage out. Andrews job was to educate his client on social media. His job was to understand the far reaching instantaneous impact of social media tools like Twitter. His responsibility was to his company and it’s reputation. And finally, he had a responsibility to himself to protect his reputation.
He failed all of these and as you pointed out he failed Obama’s request for our help. Even more puzzling are the lame, short sighted responses from Ketchum.
Conclusions? America is a country that forgives and forgets–if you own up to your wrong doings. Ask Pete Rose how things have gone for him after his years of denial. People who make mistakes can move forward if they admit to them. For people like Andrews, ego is job 1 and image, something he is paid to shape, must not be that important.
Great response and great piece!
@dean guadagni,
Excellent job in clearing about the clutter to the bones of the issues.
Though Andrews may have failed in his responsibilities to himself and to his company, he has in a very large respect succeeded in his job to educate his client about social media. FedEx is not likely to make the same mistakes.
@dean guadagni,
Good points and good summarization. Thanks, Dean.
Henderson, first of all get over yourself. Your own nastiness sounds like a small town columnist’s tantrum over not getting an interview. Yeah, so the guy was dumb in posting this comment. But anyone who’s traveled extensively knows what it’s like to be crabby and need to vent. Who knows what he encountered as an African-American as well – Memphis is not the most racially tolerant city.
@George Hawkins,
Thank you for your comment.
@George Hawkins,
Though your manner of expressing your opinion is in itself a case in point, that Andrews’ opinion may have had a deeply valid foundation is well-taken.
Nonetheless, part of the lesson for him as well as all of us is that we need to be more thoughtful in where and how we vent.
Thank you David Henderson in taking a step in separating the “one day story” about a particular cast of characters into generic lesson we all need to be more mindful of.
None of us have all the necessary facts to judge the case, nor is it our place to do so. It is our place, however, to learn what we can by it.
Dan-
I’ve enjoyed following this and think you make a good point for all of us playing in social media land while still serving as professionals for our own “brand” hopefully, and certainly for the organizations we represent. I ran the healthcare comm. for another Omnicom agency, Fleishman- Hillard, ATL in the early ’00s and was in and out of another Tenn town for a major client quite a bit in the last year. Any kind of disparaging comment about that town would have been unthinkable, even if it may have looked a bit down trodden upon approach. Some say the same of North Charleston, SC, where our airport is located, but there’s lots more to know about that place than meets the initial eye. Towns (and people) are worth more than a momentary first impression, especially one then “webcast” over social media land. To me, this is your most powerful, pervasive quote, which I will take away from all of this: “But the principles of journalism, public relations, and relationships still apply. Openness. Transparency. Accuracy. Honesty. Respect.”
Keep up the good work, and keep us open, honest and always respestful.
EB
@Elizabeth Boineau,
Really appreciate your comments. Thanks. David
OK- make that RESPECTful:)!
Not sure – I think the ‘Facebook photo of Obama’s speechwriter mock-grabbing breast of cardboard Hilary Clinton’ was social media crisis communications, no? And happened first?
David, James’ tweet on Twitter was his reaction to a racial incident – not something dissing Memphis or FedEx. People wrongly assumed it was about the city and the client – not so.
Let’s be clear – he used Twitter to express his irritation at a racial trashing he experienced. Any of us could have done the same thing had we been in his situation.
This story is developing into a digital lynching – and that’s just totally wrong.
Interesting writeup. It’s obvious that mistakes were made in several instances with Andrews being the most guilty. I will say that even if poor judgement was used, firing Andrews as suggested would be an overblown, kneejerk reaction to a minor mistake. It sounds like Fed Ex and the firm have gotten over the issue but you have not. Nobody owes you an interview and you are coming across as a little pompous when you complain about them. It was a good story, but sometimes, people need to learn when to let things go gracefully. I’m looking at you on that part.
Ken,
From your comments, I can only assume you did not read my posting.
dh
True enough. I read the articles and posted a comment.
While I totally agree Mr. Andrews’ move was about as dumb as it gets (especially for someone who is a consultant!), stating that it was a business ethics violation is quite a stretch. I was pretty stunned at the poor judgment shown but to call it an ethics violation is going a little too far. He also does have freedom of speech (unless his contract with FedEx prohibiting him stating what he thought of their city) and we should not be attempting to regulate people saying whether they like or hate NY, Memphis, Atlanta or San Fran. Let’s keep a level head.
So let me get this straight.
Web 2.0 is all about “openness, transparency, honesty” until such openness, transparency, and honesty offends someone, in which case, it’s “Fire that man”?
“The mere fact that Andrews is still employed by Ketchum Public Relations, a company owned by Omnicom Group, reveals that his employer neither comprehends nor understands the changing discourse of conversation, the new spirit of change hoped for in America or the online world of New Media.”
Gotcha.
If I were in PR, my takeaway would be, “Dissemble as much as possible, create and maintain a fictional Twitter/Online persona, or else suffer the consequences.”
And openness, transparency, and honesty be damned.
-rsh
David,
You certainly have incited robust discourse from thoughtful, intelligent and talented practitioners and other guests not in the field. The mere fact that there are so many varying opinions speaks to the many generations and an era of social changes that has taken place over the past 10-20 years.
Bottom line: it is our responsibility as practitioners to raise the bar on civility, respect and courtesy. We broke loose and perhaps strayed from these principles at the beginning of the dot.com boom. As we have come to round B of the wild-wild Internet, lessons can be learned from the “Aha and oops” moments. Everyone has had them, including yourself I am sure. And there are plenty of cases as one of your guests cited in an earlier reply.
Now is the time to ask ourselves how to instill the change that the world (not just the President) hungers for in the way we conduct ourselves on any front. Change needs to occur now or we have failed ourselves as Americans. There is no need to run to censorship, rather a need to change the way we achieve results. As “key influencers” we have the resources to achieve this change.
What are the best practices we all can offer as takeaways from this situation? I bet Andrews and Ketchum might have some of the best ones…given they have had plenty of time to sit with the consequences and have learned a great deal from this mistake. In addition, what are the best practice takeaways Fed Ex can learn from this experience?
As you so eloquently point out in so many words…it’s time to move on and get down to action. Who will stand up and be accountable? Maybe there is still time for Ketchum to catch up on this one.
LMC
[...] The take-away – posted January 23, 2009 [...]
Andrew’s mistake was unfortunate. And FedEx’s reaction equally unfortunate. Its too bad that this has been blown sky high, but that is the reality of today’s world. As my mother used to say: “Its true that I can’t control what you do. But its also true that you can’t control how I will react.” Whether FedEx overreacted is not important, tho I think they did. They are the customer, and they can take their account somewhere else. That is the bottom line.
I was fascinated by the story as you broke it. I was appalled at Ketchum’s reaction. But you have used far more words to hammer James Andrews than he used to dis Memphi. Tit for tat? At this point your tit seems much larger than his tat. Great stuff though, thanks.
Gene,
Did you read my piece yesterday? http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/28/social-media-crisis-continues-unabated/
David
[...] Here are two important follow-ups to the story, from January 22nd and January 23rd. [...]
[...] “The Twitter Takeaway … How NOT to Twitter,” by former CBS Emmy-Award winning journalist and author David Henderson. [...]
I’m in Mumbai, India and I have had tons of people – both Indians and foreigners express similar sentiments about Mumbai – that they would just die rather than have to live here (isn’t it a manner of speech anyway to say I would just die if ……?). Do I stifle their freedom to express their PERSONAL views about a city I live and work in, just because they are doing business with me? Would I make them apologize for it – hell no. That’s wrong. That’s nasty. That’s not showing them respect. That’s trying to control them. That’s asking them to forget the ‘human’ in them. Sorry.
Mr. Henderson, respect is two-ways. Please respect the right of Mr. Andrews to share his views about a city openly. He has not been nasty about the company or any person there or the work he had gone there for. Why shouldn’t he share what he feels about a place he visits? Why should he be made to feel guilty and to have to apologize to anyone – the company or the people of Memphis, or you and the others who knock him?
I clearly do not get what this whole brouhaha is about. American journalists, PR folks and so-called “social media experts” who are picking on him this way, and googlebombing him, do not seem to understand social media at all. Shame really.
It makes no sense to me. Maybe it’s a cultural thing.
Dear Dina,
All I can say is this … I see and dislike too many cyber-rumors. It’s unconfirmed, and it is gossip. What I did, on the other hand, was to confirm and report what had become very popular online issue … it’s called journalism.
Thanks for checking in.
David
Great discussion, one I need to come back to to finish, but a few points, since cooperative communication and civility are two of my “things”.
1) One can express opinions, disagreements and criticisms without being uncivil. If the goal is to have constructive discussion, that’s how one goes about it.
2) Many people are simply not interested in constructive discussion and simply want to yell, hack at or otherwise attack people and places. So be it. Mostly, they have to deal with the consequences.
As an example of unconstructive uncivil comments: Carolyna Loveless: When I believe your comment entirely arrogant. Who are you to decide what Obama’s comment meant to this man. Get over your obnoxious, inarticulate self!
Ad hominem attacks, personal, and not based on issues.
3) Here’s the thing. The Internet is and has created a lot of people who have loads of opinions, lots of anger, and the means to spread venom and dissension while even gaining an audience. There are no barriers to entrance, and the fact that people are both angry and want to scream does not mean their screaming has much value, and it doesn’t mean the screaming will have a positive effect.
…sorry for the ramble. It’s late, and I’m too tired to read the entire thread. Hope to come back, and digest further.
(great initial post that started the discussion, David)
Robert,
Appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts. Yes, this has been a good discussion and learning experience for all of us over the curious new world of social media.
David