Perhaps because I'm a student I still see the public relations industry through rose tinted glasses, but I cannot understand why in this day and age some PR practitioners are still trying to deceive the public. Have we as an industry not learnt from our past mistakes?

I think outlawing flogs will be a good move for our industry, especially since online communication is becoming more and more crucial to the success of PR campaigns. However I wonder if the fact that flogs had to be banned just goes to show how willing some practitioners are to be unethical.

That can't be good PR for PR.
 

Matthew - I love your words: "some PR practitioners are still trying to deceive the public"

Not been in the industry long, have you...?
 

The sad think is Matthew, our industry actually passed a motion in a PR Week debate saying that is was acceptable to lie on behalf of a client!

There are too many people still coming into this industry with the notion that PR is about spin and bullshit.
 

Is it me or is this the most easily circumventable law i've heard in a while?

Get a friend to do it?
A "spouse" to do it "from home"? Do it in your own time?

I'm not advocating this at all, but unless the law is more detailed than i'm aware, this wont achieve much.
 

Hi Muttley - like I said about the rose tinted glasses. Perhaps I am a little naive expecting PR people to act ethically. But I'd like to think the majority are. Although perhaps when I've got a few years of experience under my belt I might have a different opinion.

Hi Paul - I think I must have missed that article in PR week. I did however see an article in Profile magazine in May/June last year about a debate that took place at the University of Westminster. There was a vote taken and the majority of students said they were willing to lie for a client. It can't be good news for the industry if students are willing to act unethically before they've even started working in PR.

I wonder how the law would judge flogs or comments written to badmouth competitors.

Also, how much effect would one flog have on readers? I know if I wanted to research something I'd read a few blogs first to get a second opinion. Surely if the rest of the blogs have opposing opinions to the flog then the reader will disregard it. For example 9 blogs saying HP cameras are terrible and 1 saying they're great. I know which opinion I'd believe.
 

sorry Matthew, didn't mean to sound harsh. i've been in the game 10 years on both sides of the hack/flack waffer-thin divide and i'm just cynical. PRs shouldn't lie, but many regrettably do - especially in political spheres, as you'd expect.
 

There was a good article explaining these regulations in Marketing magazine this week.

The outlawing of 'flogging' is a consequence of it now being illegal to falsely represent oneself as a consumer. So this means it also covers dodgy case studies, some types of viral, experiential and guerilla marketing not just the PR industry. The implications are wide-ranging but generally beneficial to the industry.

The law wasn't developed specifically against flogging but it helps to draw a line under this usually ineffective and potentially reputation-damaging practice. Web 2.0 and social media are great for engaging with customers but in an open and 'on the level manner'.

If you're product's crap, bloggers will tear you apart anyway. Posing as a brand advocate or excited consumer only incenses the blogeratti posing an unnecessary risk to the brand. Thankfully this practice can now be consigned to the pages of spin history.
 

Hang on then, if Hanna Montanna isn't a real person, then does her blog come under this?