Tags:
Then again – such is the nature of life in 2025 that to simply state such a position feels radical. Against the backdrop of blatant, increasingly outrageous falsehoods and the removal of the checks and balances that historically provided a bulwark of truth, why bother say anything? Yet silence is the first sign of complicity, as German pastor-turned-poet Martin Niemöller (author of ‘First They Came’) knew all too well.
As a PR practitioner, I’m long trained in the importance of knowing what to say and how to say it (and, of course, when it’s more prudent to say nothing at all). Every press statement, every blog, every social post, must be carefully weighed up to present a client’s best interests. But hey, check the nuance. What does ‘best’ mean? It’s a complex web of interrelating, sometimes contradictory factors: commercial, legal, strategic, and crucially in this context, ethical.
There’s been a real sea change, for example, in how sustainability is communicated. Not so long ago, a company might have considered its best commercial interests served by claiming a product to be 100% recyclable (or some such unprovable, disingenuous rubbish). Today, their lawyers might have a word to say about that, as indeed would their comms team.
This pivot towards more accurate sustainability reporting has been replicated across other areas of progressive policy, notably initiatives for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), which highlight the importance of applying ethics in PR.
The result is that reputation management is no longer about calling in black-hat crisis specialists to bury bad news; indeed, the shocking details of Lively v Baldoni have rather sullied the reputation of reputation management.
Instead, PR – long synonymous with ‘spin’ – is travelling in the opposite direction to the tech-bro, post-truth free-for-fall. Ironically, my much-maligned profession might have actually become one of the last bastions for fact-checking. (Yes, I’m aware that there are still PRs out there representing dictators and polluters and puppy-killers. I’m not talking about them. Screw those guys.)
Our work at Nielsen McAllister, for B2B clients in a variety of manufacturing industries, thrives on accuracy, authenticity and empathy. And, therefore, a good dose of ethics in PR. A good story might be about a global product launch, or it could involve a single employee’s charitable endeavours. And where complex topics risk being dumbed-down, we’re committed to raising, and answering, difficult questions with stakeholders.
The real test will come in the next few years. We already know that a certain administration would like to rip up much of the progress made in recent generations, although so far there’s been a heartening kickback to such philistine thuggery. Over 97% of Apple shareholders voted against a proposal asking the company to “cease DEI efforts.” No fence-sitting there.
Yet for embattled PR pros, it won’t be so easy to write that press statement which says: “No!” I foresee a thousand micro-decisions in the months and years to come. A phrase watered down here, an argument dodged there. Individually, it won’t feel that big a deal; collectively, it will signal a timidity, born of pragmatism, not to rock the boat in such stormy waters.
Which brings me back to Ukraine, Niemöller and the risk of silence. PR has always had a voice, and in recent times found decent things to say with it. With what’s going on, perhaps it might be more prudent not to say anything – but it’d be a huge mistake if we chose this moment to shut up and ignore the value of ethics in PR.
With so many communications channels calling for our attention, are email marketing campaigns still relevant?
Looking back at her previous blog on PR mistakes and hitting rock bottom, Alona was inspired to look into past PR Crises.