Let’s Play the Blame Game

I’m going to preface this blog by admitting that I thought the Super Bowl commercial from Groupon was funny. With that being said, the fallout and backlash stemming from the ad is concerning at the very least. 

But the largest inconsistencies with the stories I’ve read have dealt with whether or not Groupon “fired” CP&B or their contract ended. CP&B CEO Andrew Keller had nothing bad to say about Groupon, instead having flattering words for the company and saying they were hired on a project basis. 

But Groupon CEO Andrew Mason painted a slightly different story with his remarks, basically saying they let the company go because of the bad publicity the ads had brought the company. So whose story is truthful?

And what’s with Mason saying the company had a lapse in judgment letting CP&B control the Groupon brand image?

Whose idea was it to give the agency the reins? That’s like giving someone permission to take your four-wheeler off-roading and complaining when they bring it back muddy and out of gas. Take responsibility for your actions. 

I’m pretty certain they didn’t go rogue and scheme to ruin Groupon’s image. The marketing agency is notorious for off-the-wall campaigns like the “Whopper Virgins” campaign, which also got the agency in trouble (and which I also liked – I’m starting to see a trend here!).

With controversy brings publicity. Whether it’s good or bad publicity, it brings a company loads of free advertising. As long as it’s nothing too terrible, companies seem to take it with a grain of salt so long as it drives sales, which it ultimately has for Groupon. The ads didn’t work, but the free publicity certainly has helped the company. I feel like ol’ CEO Mason knew exactly what he signed up for and simply didn’t stand up to the critics like he should have, instead forcing the blame on someone else – as young people often do. 

And yes, I’m only 23, but 30 is young in the world of CEOs.

Perhaps it’s inexperience on Mason’s part. Maybe CP&B took it too far? I guess without a look behind the scenes, it’s in the eye of the beholder. But one thing is for sure, the publicity worked and Groupon seems to have a plan for the future, as evidenced by the company’s rejection of $6 billion buyout offer from Google last December.

Ethics in PR and Advertising

Ethics are something we need. If we didn’t have them, people wouldn’t act how we wanted them to, and let’s face it – we all want things to go according to plan. Because we all hate chaos, ethics bring us together by making us compromise on what’s successful and what isn’t.

 

After looking over the ethics involved in each of the different organizations like PRSA and Arthur Page Society I was fairly impressed with the consistency between the organizations, but there were a few spots that I was a tad surprised by.

First off, under the first ethic code, honesty, I thought it was strange that Global Alliance and PRSA had basically the same definition, except it seemed that PRSA’s suggested always advancing the interests of your company and the public, where Global Alliance seemed to be saying always advance client and employer interests. Not only does that seem unethical, it just seems weird to have the same definition verbatim and then take the last part off.

For advocacy and expertise, I actually liked the Arthur Page stance on it. The others are good, but the Arthur Page code gives two strong pieces of information. Manage for tomorrow and create goodwill. I think those are both very important aspects of ethics in the business world. As a professional, I feel like those are two things you should always be looking to achieve.

PRSA wins the ethics code battle for loyalty. The organization really hits the nail on the head by ensuring an ethical person balances work priorities with that of the public, who the company it represents ultimately serves. The customer is not always right, but in most situations, they need to be for the sake of good standing with the public.

I actually laughed out loud at the Council of PR Firms’ stance on fairness. “Charge a fair price for PR services.” Really? Nothing about the public, employees or other firms? PRSA has this one right. For shame, Council, for shame.

I think I’m most surprised by the stance of everyone that hiring away from your competition is a bad thing. I understand that you don’t want to ruin the company and go after its employees to damage the company. That would be unethical. But to me, if your company can offer someone more pay, better benefits or just a better chance to get ahead, the person should know that. 

It shouldn’t be whether or not they work for your competition. But instead, it should be about who can provide the individual with the best chance to succeed. Your company can always match the offers made if the employee is that valuable. It happens in the sports world all the time. Team A offers Player_01 more money than Team B wants to pay for him. Is it ethical that they stole him away with more money? No one thinks so. But if it’s in the professional world it’s different? It just doesn’t seem right to me that something like that would be unethical.

All in all, I think the ethics codes do what they’re designed to. They set guidelines for an industry with few legal obligations. Do they have to be followed literally? No, probably not – but they provide a fairly good outline of what the professional world should think and which situation calls for which set of ethics.