Ghosts in the blogging machine

Does it matter that 83pc of CEOs don't actually write their own blogs?

In some ways it clearly doesn't. If the blog sets out to represent the corporate position it is not unreasonable to call on the services of a professional to polish the prose rather than publish the boss's thoughts in the raw. Shareholders want a CEO who can drive the business forward and don't much care whether or not they can write.

So why do 43pc of CEOs surveyed for www.writer4business.com apparently feel that a ghost-written blog was 'marginally misleading... ? Their unease highlights one of the crucial fault lines in the ethical practice of public relations.

If the CEO is unlikely to turn up for an important business meeting in the same t-shirt they wear when digging the garden, why should they present to the world a blog that is full of spelling mistakes?

In this reading, PR is all about making an individual or organisation appear in a positive light; it is the organisational equivalent of combing your hair, putting on mascara or buying a new pair of shoes.

Transparency in PR is not the same thing as decreeing that all should be open and revealed, that there will be no filter between the organisation and its publics. To do so would be both illusory and unattainable, as well as self-defeating and without ethical value.

But PR is about relationship building, and it is instructive to carry the 'wearing you smartest clothes' analogy a little further. You meet someone new, when they are looking their best, when they are watching what they say; as you get to know them better, you might see them in different social circumstances - without make-up, without a toupee, when they are not holding their stomach in...

If the relationship is strong enough, this won't matter. But if it was superficial, it might matter a great deal.

Your reaction will, to an extent, depend on what has been taken away from the impression, the image that had been created.

PR has to decide whether it is in the business of persuasion and advocacy, or in facilitating conversations and understanding.

BL Ochman believes ghost-written blogs are dishonest: "Blogs are for people who have something to say and who know how to say it."

On the face of it, it may seem rather precious to say that having a little - or a lot - of help with writing a blog is wrong whereas it generally acceptable for people to, say, employ a speechwriter. There is a strong temptation to suggest that such an objection seeks to elevate blogs beyond other forms of communication in a way which may seem ridiculous to all but th most fervent blog evangelist.

Again, sort of... because the purist line (and there are many bloggers who take a much tougher line than BL) does have some validity, right now, in January 2006, when blogs are routinely framed as highly personal communications. Whether this ascetic appoach will have a validity in a few years time, when blogging has evolved into something rather diffreent remains to be seen...

The point, as before, is whether or not the organisation - the blogger or the blogging team - are trying to create the impression of adherence to the purest blogging aesthetic... 

So BL is right to say:

Hiring someone to blog for the company is perfectly acceptable -- as long as you let people know the name and credentials of the writer. There's also no reason that only one person has to be the writer of a company blog. CEOs or other executives should contribute to a company blog when they have something to say.

Good practical advice - as is her next comment: "Most of the 17% who said they wrote their own blogs said they first asked for advice from HR and communications colleagues. Nothing wrong with asking for advice: every writer can use another set of eyes."

But perhaps she goes a little awry when she adds: ""Editing is perfectly fine too, as long as it's done to improve the writing and not just to let the lawyers and the flaks vet the copy.

It sounds sensible, until you look a little closer. Surely BL is not suggesting that there is something wrong with passing something contentious before a lawyer (it might be unetheical not to do this)?

So why is it wrong to clear it with a 'flak'?

Because, one presumes, the flak might massage the message. OK, but where is the line? What is the difference between the CEO deciding what they should or should not say, what may or may not enhance their own or their reputation, and a writer tweaking grammar.

Or a PR tweaking the message, predicting how it may play?

Certainly elements on this argument chime with the concept of synthetic transparency proposed by Walter Carl and expanded upon by John Cass, in the New Communcations blogzine. Carl defines Synthetic transparency as involving using blogs to give the impression of openness, honesty, and transparency but without really doing so.

It is a point well made and there is little to be said in favour of 'synthetic transparency'. But If we can accept that PR is - fundamentally - about advocacy and persuasion, about actions and behaviour designed to influence the opinion and beliefs of other people, we need to be able to live with the idea of telling partial truths.

It is neither dishonsest nor unethical to, say, sue a hair dye to take away ageing grey hairs. But it is a different thing altogether to lie about your age - or for that matter, deny you use the hair dye.

Any CEO who feels uneasy about someone else writing a blog in their name knows what to do. Get someone who has something to say - and is comfortable in saying it - to do the blogging.

And if that person is to be found in the PR or comms department, what's the problem?

Comments

[John Cass]

I think you make a fine argument for any CEO who uses a ghostwriter to banish their phantoms and let another writer step into light and blog for a company.

Though I do wonder if a PR professional is really the best person to blog for a technology company. It's been my experience from research that product builders at technology companies gain much from the experience of interacting with their customers. After all every customer really wants to chat with the technical talent.