Links Added (DougH):

Sorry for the lack of links here (I’ll add them later), but trying to get this out quickly on a very busy day…

Another PR agency was called out for “ghostblogging” last week, and that agency was… Topaz!

Yes. Ever observant Bryan Person caught a reference to the work we’re doing for a client in our podcast, and posted a criticism of the lack of disclosure on the site.

We’ve had an interesting conversation about this on a couple different blogs, but I’d like to summarize the controversy, explain our position on it, put it to bed and move on as best we can, though I’m sure not everyone will be happy.

It really comes down to whether you agree with Marshall McLuhan, doesn’t it? Is the medium the message here? Is calling something a blog, or using blog technology, an implicit adoption of a corporate communications code of standards that is somehow different that that which is applied everywhere else?

Or is it, as I would argue, just another communications vehicle for individuals and corporations? That the same rules should apply to blogs as to any other communication vehicle. That the blog is not a sacred cow–and let’s be honest it hasn’t been for a long time now–but that it needs to be treated with the same code of standards as afforded other communications vehicles.

Here is the last justification I hope you’ll hear about this from us: The web site we created and manage for this company is a “blog” only in the loosest definition of the term. Really, it’s just a web page that’s frequently updated with information relevant to people who care about air hybrid engine technology. That’s it! Sure, it uses a blog engine to update the web page and provide the RSS feed. But that’s it! It’s not claiming to be something that it’s not. The “blog” team is not posting in the name of any individual employee of our client. The team is not trying to encourage people to do anything except pay more attention to air hybrid technology. It’s hardly “ghost blogging.”

We’ve been very upfront publicly about our involvement in this project, from our blog to the recent PRSA event that touched off John Cass’s original comments on the topic of ghostblogging, and Sterling Hager’s fun (and spot-on) reply, which deserves reading. The only reason we didn’t disclose on the blog itself that we did the blog was because, frankly, it just didn’t seem important. Why?

Because we (apparently) disagree with Marshall McLuhan: “the MESSAGE is the message.” Or to put it in Sterling Hager’s words:

“If you’re not familiar with the details of your client’s company, product, competitive factors, R&D, finance, channels, positioning and differentiation, well, you are a lousy PR person and you shouldn’t blog on your client’s behalf.”

Hell, you shouldn’t be doing any PR for your client if you can’t do that. We felt like the information on the blog, regardless of the editorial process, stood on its own with no need for bylines. We applied the same rules that the venerable Economist magazine uses in its editorial process: the content should stand on its own and speak for itself. We believe it has, but we did go ahead and make improvements based on the feedback the team received. Those improvements include a disclosure statement that as I understand it should address any remaining concerns.

I stand by that original decision, but understand what many of my colleagues are hoping to achieve through this discussion, and welcome its continuation here and elsewhere. I’d like to encourage folks to think bigger though–if we focus too much on the medium, the lesson won’t sink in. Blogs are not the panacea for bad marketing, no matter how well self-policed they are. Transparency and disclosure need to be topics with any communications medium–and the same rules should apply everywhere.