Editor's note: Edelman clients have sponsored BlogHer conferences and BlogHerAds.

Hi Morra,

We are really in staunch disagreement on this one! When I read your last sentence, I headed over to your blog, Women and Work, to read your full post where I got a better sense of what you think:

"Did Edelman overstep? Absolutely. Does it have egg on its face? Obviously. Is this growing pains of a medium where big corporate money intersects with an essentially grassroots, social media? I think so.

"Now, I started the department at Edelman that’s come under so much fire. I helped launch the Wal-Mart account (tough for a committed Democrat with a labor arbitrator father). I hired Miranda Grill when it was just me, and she is an honorable person. The department has done great worked. It’s taken risks. I don’t know what led to these fake blogs launching without bylines, but honestly, anyone who’s worked in DC knows there are a million coalitions and groups run by communications firms. Call any 1-800 coalition number for many non-profits and companies and you’ll get a PR firm.

"Why is a blog so different? Because it’s more visible to those beyond the target audience?"

Let's examine the 1-800 number analogy you invoke for a minute. If I call a labor union hotline and I ask who I'm speaking to, and I'm told "Jenny" that's fine. If Jenny tells me she's paid to answer the union hotline, that's fine. If, however, she identifies herself as "Jenny, a union member who volunteers two hours a week on this hotline," and Jenny is really an Edelman employee? That makes Jenny a liar.

Now, let's substitute a blog for the 1-800 number and pay two people to RV across America, blogging about the WalMarts and friendly employees where they stay along the way. The problem in this case of the WalMart blog writers is that they lied to us, their readers. Laura and Jim aren't two people who just happened to vacation across America in their RV on a lark. They were paid by WalMart to write this blog about WalMart stores and employees, who were part of a coordinated blog campaign designed to promote WalMart in the blogosphere. Whether or not their blog entries were true does not matter -- the fact that they were paid changes everything.

As Mamalogues responded to Marianne Richmond's post, "Blogs are the new penny presses; it was only a matter of time before corporate tried to pollute it. In the end all we have is our word!"

What kind of commitment should bloggers make to their readers? I'm one of the people who thinks every blog owes its readers four answers, whether the blog is a corporate blog, a news blog or a personal diary:

1. Who are the bloggers?
2. What are the bloggers doing?
3. Why are the bloggers doing this?
4. Why do I -- the reader -- care?

The WalMart blog flunks every question:

1. Who are the bloggers?

Old answer: Laura and Jim, a couple who likes to travel in their RV

Truth: James Thresher, a Washington Post photographer who is violating his employer's editorial guidelines and hasn't disclosed his full name, and his partner, Laura St. Claire, a professional freelancer. See: Washington Post photographer anonymously promoted Wal-Mart

2. What are the bloggers doing?

Old answer: Laura and Jim, a couple who likes to travel in their RV, are driving from WalMart to WalMart on a lark

Truth: Two professional journalists, paid to blog about WalMart by WalMart and exchange comments with Edelman PR employees who are paid to read and comment on the blog. At a time when Wal-Mart has been widely criticized world-wide as a company that "mistreats workers, destroys small retail businesses and conducts deceptive public relations campaigns", Jim posts items that read, ""Nicole Brown is quick to praise her manager, Stephan Gordon, for making her working environment so positive" (from Oct. 5).

3. Why are the bloggers doing this?

Old answer: On a lark! Wacky middle-aged kids, they heart WalMart

Truth: They're paid to do this, whether or not they are wacky, middle-aged or heart WalMart.

4. Why do I -- the reader -- care?

Old answer from Pam "I liked the blog in spite of my ambivelence about Wal-Mart. Their voice, a sort of middle America, is underrepresented in travel blogging and they seemed to have a sunshiney sort of Studs Terkel approach."

Pam after the truth is revealed: "I am a rube, apparently. That sunshine was corporate backed, by none other than Wal-Mart."

Pam feels tricked -- because she didn't have the full story. It's impossible to have the kind of conversation many people seek online without the full disclosure and transparency that allows people to trust you. Hey, she writes, she probably still would have read it if she'd only known:

Wal-Mart Watch tells you who these regular folks are, here. What a pity for Jim and Laura that they couldn't tell us themselves from the get go. They may very well be telling the truth about their relentlessly positive experiences, but now that we know they're backed by Wal-Mart, do we trust them?

The lesson for bloggers, travel or otherwise? Disclose, disclose, disclose. The blogosphere is full of people who will tell your story honestly, so you might as well do it yourself and control it.

I thought Edelman understood and embraced the tenets of full-disclosure. As you may know, I wrote glowingly of company head Richard Edelman when he came out strongly against Video News Releases (VNRs) in this piece I wrote for PressThink:

From Richard Edelman's blog "Speak Up" on January 15, 2005:

“We cannot tolerate any arrangement that envisages payment for placement. To do otherwise completely undermines the essence of our position as honest advocate and eliminates the separation of church and state for the media. Why bother reading the editorial copy if it is purchased in the same way as the advertising?"

Exactly. Why bother reading editorial copy if it is purchased in the same way as advertising? You may read it, sure -- but you'll read it differently, to Pam's post.

Amen. This is why BlogHer's guidelines for the community and editors spell it out, as I said two weeks ago when we launched BlogHer Special Offers:

BlogHer is committed to the BlogHer Community Guidelines, which state that advertising and special offers on BlogHer.org (and on blogs that run BlogHerAds) should be labeled as advertising and special offers, and remain completely separate from blog posts or other editorial content. In other words, we want our editors, members and blog-partners to post their opinions -- not ads. That's why our guidelines prohibit "editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, and/or contains paid advertising links and/or spam."

As I say again and again -- women are happy to consume and we do it well, firmly in control of 83 percent of household spending. We want to do so as equals with businesses we trust, where we are treated with respect and honesty.

We're the patrons. So thanks, but no thanks - WalMart and Edelman should leave the, erm, patronizing to us.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Two data points:

1. Early in my career, I worked for a non-profit health organization that produced a weekly column for one of our city's major local dailies. The column was labelled as ours, but what we didn't disclose was that we made up the questions and answers. Now, arguably, this non-disclosure was defensible, because we were using the column to disseminate socially useful information, and some of the questions were based on queries we had actually received.

2. When I worked in corporate PR, one of the reasons I felt compelled to leave was that I was ordered to write Q&A articles that seemed to report on dialogues between employees and top executives about the company's downsizing plan. In reality, no such dialogue had taken place -- we made up the questions and the answers and didn't disclose it. Mind you, I made up questions that I thought the employees would have asked, but it was the misrepresentation that didn't sit well with me. That's part of the reason I knew I didn't belong in PR, and I had to make my way back to journalism.

Professor Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor
Law and Journalism/Media

Lisa, you're correct. And Kim, I agree with you: that's why I left corporate PR too!!

But here's the deal: as far as I'm concerned, media entities, politicians, and websites are corporate-sponsored until proven otherwise. Everyone has an agenda: Wal-Mart Watch is a union front group. The lonely girl on MySpace was an actress, repped by a major Hollywood agency. Every word out of a leader's mouth is likely focus group-ed and dial-tested out the wazoo. We're cynical in this day and age because we need to be. The popularity of certain marketing campaigns proves people respond to brand advertising because they like it, not because it's authentic. And yes, usually advertising says it is paid for, but the lines are blurry.

I refuse to believe anyone could be surprised when they saw the Wal-Mart RV blog. It looked slick. It looked Wal-Mart-y. The other "flog," paidcritics.org, has had a link from the Working Families for Wal-Mart site for months.

Edelman f-ed up, but the problem is we gave them too much credit in the first place. Not to use a terrible cliche, but it reminds me of the scorpion and the frog crossing the river. Edelman is a PR firm. It manufactures image.

Asking it to work with the world's largest retailer and be wholly transparent 100% of the time, in retrospect, feels naive, at least to me. I am not excusing Edelman, I'm pointing out the hollow criticism of pundits and bloggers who should know better than to be surprised.

If the approach for Wal-Mart was to use the blog as advertising it probably would have been ok. It may have been a more creative approach from a branding awareness perspective. But using citizen journalism as a ploy does have ethical consequences even though they are well within the rights of freedom of speech.

Wal-Mart is not the only company using blogs in this fashion there are several other corporations yet they remain untouched as well as undiscovered.

Tery Spataro

I'm still shockingly naiive. The surprise for me was at how easily I was duped, not that it was corp. backed. As soon as I read the story, I though, "Duh. Of COURSE it is."

Nerd's Eye View

So tough for you, was it, to make a writer look like a chump when you, or your subordinates, placed my work on the Georgia Families for Wal-Mart site -- without payment or my permission? Oh, that must have been painful for you and your delicate ethics and sensibilities.

Then you and/or the monster you created never deigned to return any calls I left on some dubious voice mail with questions I had about the obvious flog, when I left a message on the very un-transparent contact page number I had to hunt down?

Great customer NO-service you provided in your "baby stepping" around the blogosphere. You set a pathetic trail of deception for others to follow, as while you may have left, with your Prada bag lined with plenty of Wal-Mart cash in the process no doubt, there will be a host of other stomping, ethically-challenged PR "leaders" foaming at the bit now to take your place. Shame on you. Shame on your utterly phoney leadership skills. Shame on Edelman for generating such pure baloney. Hell, shame on me for drinking the Wal-Mart Kool-Aid in the first place. Never again.

http://spaceygreview.blogspot.com/

Grayson

I take your points seriously- I want to make it clear, though, that I no longer work for Edelman and was not involved at all in the Wal-Mart flog incident. I do, however, see the story from a different point of view (one I am not proud of incidentally) because I did work in Corporate PR, and indeed helped launch Wal-Mart campaign at Edelman.

There are no Prada bags in this house- I'm a freelancer/grad student!!!!

However, I encourage you to voice your views directly to Edelman...go to their site and email them.

"Guidelines," eh? That's why I prefer to live in a shoe box, Prada preferably, and lick the road clean. And before you go all corporate-y and rule-y on me for un-Oprahesque behavior, that's all just stolen material. Stuff that boys use all the time and no one bats an eyelash. Less they are false ones.

Believe you me, you won't find this gal lurking on moderated sites anymore. Icky Icky Icky fatang old lady biscuit barrel. I am soooo outta here, ladies. Prada bag and all! Enjoy your moderated environs and lifestyles.

http://spaceygreview.blogspot.com/

That's good to know you weren't involved in the flogs. Just that you kinda cleared a path for them. No worries. All is forgiven. And yes, I contacted Edelman via his personal blog, and he responded as requested. Everyone was polite and nice things were said. I just wish they were meant. Hope you too eventually achieve Prada bag level in life, for what it's worth. My years in corporate communications earned me a few. Like you, I'm outta there now, except as an occasional "vendor." Their money's the same as most folks, and good enough for me. We all gotta earn our blogging money somewhere. I hope our paths cross again one day, in less moderated surroundings. You sound like a pretty cool customer.

http://spaceygreview.blogspot.com/

The pivotal issue with the Wal-Mart case is that it is a violation of trust, that the bloggers were not exactly who they said they were and did not represent who they said they represented.

What’s interesting is, while Edelman has accepted some responsibility and apologized for the whole affair, much of the blame is being put on Wal-Mart. Many of the discussions I’ve read assume that Wal-Mart’s management wanted to do the Walmarting Across America blog over the objections of Edelman, and I believe (I use the word believe here, total conjecture on my part) it is quite possibly the opposite situation. I cannot imagine anyone inside of Wal-Mart conjuring up a scheme involving a couple of hayseeds roaming Wal-Marts around the country in an RV and serving up aw shucks homespun anecdotes about the joys of being a Wal-Mart employee. Wal-Mart is based in Bentonville, Arkansas, home also to thousands of aw shucks RV owners. These people don’t think they’re cute or down-home. There’s nothing novel about this to them, and I don’t believe any Wal-Mart exec would have come up with this idea. I think Edelman pitched the idea to Wal-Mart.

Regardless of whether Edelman or Wal-Mart came up with the concept, there are two violations of trust here, then. The first is consumer trust which has been violated by Wal-Mart. The second is the trust Wal-Mart, as a client, placed in Edelman. How could someone as social media savvy as Edelman have allowed (advised?) its client to embark on such an obviously flawed venture? This case will undoubtedly find its way into the social media J-school textbooks of the future.