Wednesday, October 25, 2006

flogging

Wow. I guess this word was chosen as a combo of “fake” and “blogging.”

Here is the apology from Edelman’s blog:
“I want to acknowledge our error in failing to be transparent about the identity of the two bloggers from the outset. This is 100% our responsibility and our error; not the client's.”

I mean, that’s sweet that he wanted to make sure no one blamed Wal-Mart. Come on. Why is it so hard for people to APOLOGIZE? Straight out, no fluffy, unimportant stuff. How about some of this: “I am sorry. What I did was wrong. I am committed to making a change. Please consider forgiving me.” I know it’s not easy – especially when it’s for the public and business matters – but we’ve seen truly humble apologies – and when they are genuine – they work! Ok, I’ll give them credit – they did apologize. I guess every time something like this happens in the media, the apology seems sort of lame. I imagine if the offense were more personal, like between me & my boyfriend – and I wonder how I would feel if his apology was so greatly lacking… “I’m sorry that what I did hurt your feelings.” I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be getting away with that.

Am I being too nit picky? I think not – this is a PR firm. They should have a more complete apology. It sort of makes me feel like they (& others) believe it is not completely wrong to “flog.” The article makes a good point – this company is on the forefront of Web technology – they should have known better. But everyone makes -mistakes, right? Yes. They are a PR firm – they should know how to apologize, humbly.

There should be more than a call for transparency – but a call for honesty. They were not “lacking transparency.” They were dishonest, and straight up lying about what they were doing. This deserves a full apology.

No comments: