Chapter 5. Discussion

In this chapter I will discuss the results of the data analysis carried out in Chapter 4, their implications for this study’s hypothesis, as well as for some of the reviewed theories in Chapter 2.

The research hypothesis of this study stated that new communication technologies have given the general public the power to cause direct negative consequences for organizations. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be divided into four parts, supporting the following consecutive statements about the Edelman/Wal-Mart communication crisis examined in this study:

Statement 1. The organization suffered significant negative consequences.

Statement 2. These consequences were caused primarily by blogs.

Statement 3. The consequences cannot be isolated on a “per blog” basis: i.e., they have an impact only as collective action.

Statement 4. The individuals and groups behind these blogs represent multiple publics and cannot be defined as one specific public according to existing theory. A mix of multiple publics can be also described as the general public.

After providing a brief review of the case, augmenting it with findings described in Chapter 4, I will discuss the negative consequences for all parties – Wal-Mart, Edelman and the two “fake” bloggers – which resulted from their involvement in this case. This discussion will demonstrate evidence supporting Statement 1.

To support Statement 2, I will show that these negative consequences where caused by the blogosphere.

To support Statement 3, I will elaborate on the blogosphere’s unique ability to facilitate conversation. I will explain how this characteristic is instrumental in shaping the impact of the blogosphere as a whole, as opposed to individual blog posts and comments.

After examining the identities of the bloggers who were the main, or most influential, participants in the conversation, I will map these individuals to specific publics, which can be identified through existing public segmentation approaches, described in Chapter 2. The results of this mapping will support Statement 4, thus, supporting the main hypothesis of this thesis.

I will conclude with discussing the results of this study and their implications for some of the theories described in Chapter 2, as well as the practice of public relations in general.

Summary of the Case

On September 27, 2006, a couple known only as Jim and Laura started a blog, “Wal-Marting Across America,” where they described their cross-country trip in an RV. The couple parked for the night in Wal-Mart parking lots. The blog contained regular interviews with Wal-Mart employees, “who were dependably happy about the company and their working conditions.” (Gogoi, 2006a) The blog web page contained a disclaimer, according to which it was sponsored by Working Families for Wal-Mart – an advocacy group, launched and financially supported by Wal-Mart.

Within a week, activist blogs dedicated to investigating and covering Wal-Mart-related issues started raising questions about the authenticity of the blog and the bloggers’ identities. There were many issues with the blog which raised such concerns:

1. The posts and interviews with Wal-Mart employees were all positive, which suggested that the writers might have been not entirely objective. However, Laura, later identified as Laura St.Claire, “doesn't feel like she's misleading anyone. In the week that they've been traveling, Laura also found it refreshing that she didn't run into a single disgruntled employee in the many Wal-Mart stops that she has made.” (Gogoi, 2006a)

2. The photos published on the blog were of high quality and taken with an expensive camera; besides, the blog itself featured a high quality custom web design, which made it different from a traditional blog. However, these concerns can be explained by the Working Families for Wal-Mart sponsorship of the blog; although, the blog mentions no details about the type and amount of sponsorship received.

3. The blog did not have a comments feature, which prevented readers to leave their opinions and participate in the conversation. Some blogs do not have comments enabled; so a comment feature is not a prerequisite of a blog. However, a blog is first and foremost a dialogue, or a conversation. A blog without comments turns into a monologue. A monologue which praises a company known for its controversial employee policy (Gogoi, 2006a) and sounds “like a roll call of happy Wal-Mart workers paraded for the blog” (Gogoi, 2006a) inevitably raises suspicions of its authenticity.

On October 9, Business Week (businessweek.com) published an article revealing the truth behind the blog:

1. Laura was identified as Laura St. Claire, a freelance writer and an employee at the U.S. Treasury department.

2. Wal-Mart provided the RV, covered the couple's trip-related expenses, and paid the fees for writing the blog. This was done indirectly through Edelman, the public relations agency which was responsible for planning and launching the blog.

The next day, on October 10, walmartwatch.com revealed that Jim was Jim Thresher, a Washington Post photographer. (Jack, 2006)

What followed were 76 blog posts (according to the data I was able to collect), out of which 77% where negative. The discussion mainly focused on Edelman: it appears that most bloggers did not have any expectations about Wal-Mart behaving in an ethical manner. However, bloggers were alarmed by Edelman not disclosing the identities and the true motives of the bloggers, as well as coming up with the idea to launch a fake blog in general, thus tricking its readers into believing that the posts they were reading were authentic and unbiased. This concern was amplified by Edelman maintaining silence for a whole week – until October 16, when Richard Edelman, the agency’s CEO, together with Steve Rubel, a prominent blogger and a senior vice president at Edelman, finally posted statements about the incident to their blogs. These statement triggered even more controversy: bloggers were not satisfied with Edelman’s acknowledgement that the agency failed to be fully transparent (as opposed to an expected apology for unethical practices) and Rubel’s statement that he had nothing to do with the situation (which was highly unlikely given the fact that Rubel was the agency’s top expert on blogging).

The main discussion lasted until the end of October, however, a year later, related posts still appeared in the blogosphere. The incident was also covered in mainstream media, which, in addition to Business Week, included online articles in CNN Money, The Washington Post, and 18 articles in various print publications.

Summary of Negative Consequences

The following section will demonstrate evidence supporting Statement 1, according to which the organization, affected by the situation, suffered significant negative consequences.

All the parties involved in the case suffered negative consequences. The two bloggers lost their privacy and were accused of unethical behavior. In addition to that, Jim Thresher was accused of breaking his employer’s policy about freelancing and was ordered to remove his photos from the blog and repay his share of expenses initially covered by his sponsors. Wal-Mart suffered the least consequences: the company’s reputation, most likely, was not affected by the incident: Wal-Mart’s ethics had been continuously questioned before the case, so an incident with a publicity stunt presented as a blog could not have affected public opinion on Wal-Mart significantly. In other words, in terms of reputation, the company did not have much to loose.

The negative consequences for Edelman were the most significant. The results described in Chapter 4 clearly show that the case generated a large amount of negative publicity – both in the blogosphere and mainstream media. However, what makes these consequences especially significant is not the scale of the publicity, but its implications.

Prior to this case, Edelman was positioned as a leader in the public relations community in regards to online communication technology, social networks and new media. In a way, the agency served as the profession’s advocate to the blogosphere. Edelman was known for making statements about transparency and corporate blogging and was, to some extent, an example for other public relations agencies and practitioners. However, after the agency and, specifically, its CEO, were exposed attempting to trick the blogosphere with a publicity stunt, their reputations might have suffered permanent damage, at least among those who participated in the conversation, both as readers or contributors.

Chapter 4 describes the negative publicity themes in detail, both in the blogosphere and in mainstream media. The following statement summarizes the consequences for Edelman’s reputation:

To position oneself as the world’s guru on corporate blogging and blog ethics/transparency, and then to dive head-first into this cesspool puts an irreversible stain on Richard Edelman’s and his firm’s reputation and blows to bits any claims the agency might have of being a pioneer in corporate blogging. All the vainglorious pronouncements Edelman has made in the past on transparency and integrity are exposed for what they are - empty phrases. (Richard, 2006)

It may be concluded that the negative consequences for Edelman, both the agency itself and its top management, were far more significant than consequences for the other parties involved in the case. Therefore, I will use Edelman as the organization, which suffered significant negative consequences, in discussing the main hypothesis of this study.

The Blogosphere as the Primary Cause of Negative Consequences

The following section will discuss the evidence supporting both, Statement 2, according to which negative consequences resulting from this case were caused for Edelman primarily by blogs, and Statement 3, according to which these consequences cannot be isolated on a “per blog” basis and have a significant only as a collective action.

In my opinion, these negative consequences can be interpreted in two ways. One, and the most obvious, is negative publicity – both in the blogosphere and mainstream media. The negative publicity was started by the article published in Business Week, which is a mainstream media publication. Most of the articles on this case published in mainstream media could have appeared as a direct consequence of the story published in Business Week. However, considering that the first suspicions were voices on activist blogs, it might be speculated that without the blogosphere Business Week might not have picked up the story at all.

Most importantly, without the blogosphere, the Business Week story, most likely, would not have circulated on 156 web sites (which is only the number of discovered blogs which covered the case; the true numbers can be higher). Besides, if the story were picked up and discussed by multiple web sites, that would be, in fact, another version of the blogosphere, or a very similar concept: a network of web sites engaged in a mutual discussion, or even simply sharing the same news. However, the blogosphere, most certainly, spreads negative publicity on the Internet much faster than regular web sites, which is demonstrated by the chronological analysis of the conversation in Chapter 4.

However, negative publicity was only a partial, if not minor, negative consequence for Edelman caused by the blogosphere. The other negative consequence is directly related to the blogosphere’s ability to facilitate a conversation. This characteristic, which supports both, Statement 2 and Statement 3, is instrumental in shaping the impact of the blogosphere as a whole, as opposed to individual blog posts and comments.

The blogosphere is more than a collection of web sites providing information. One indication of that is the practice of commenting and elaborating on other blog posts, linking the text of a post to those other posts, which connects individual posts and forms a discussion, spanning multiple web sites. The posts examined in this study were connected by 1.548 links (or 774 connections between posts), which not only provided readers with access to more information and/or opinions, but also facilitated a conversation. The other, most obvious indication of the uniqueness of the blogosphere as a conversation facilitator, is the comments feature, which enables both readers and other bloggers to carry on the conversation on the post’s web page. The examined posts contained 1.623 comments, most of which were an integral part of the conversation.

John Dewey considered that knowledge required for the formation of public opinion was generated through ideas being “communicated, shared and reborn in expression” (Dewey, 1927) – i.e., through conversation. In the words of Dewey, “there is no limit to the intellectual endowment which may proceed from the flow of social intelligence when it circulates by word of mouth… That and only that gives reality to public opinion.” (Dewey, 1927) Knowledge generated through conversation – that is what makes the blogosphere so unique as compared to other web sites, and so powerful – even in comparison to traditional mainstream media – in regards to fostering the formation of public opinion. I suggest that the conversation about Edelman, Wal-Mart and the “fake” blog caused the shaping of a new public opinion, most importantly, on Edelman; an opinion shaped through a massive online discussion, carried out by hundreds and listened to by thousands.

I conclude that Edelman suffered significant negative consequences, which were caused primarily by blogs. And, while the initial negative publicity component of these consequences can be analyzed, to some extent, for each blog or comment individually, the publicity that followed as a result of the developing conversation, as well as the more significant component – the formation of a distinctly negative public opinion of Edelman – can be described only as a result of collective action on behalf of all blogs participating in the conversation.

Identities of the Most Influential Bloggers

This section will examine the individuals who were responsible for the conversation in the blogosphere, which caused the described negative consequences.

The blogs examined in this section cannot be easily classified into a set of predefined groups. Some of these blogs are maintained by one individual, others have multiple contributing authors. Blogs can be personal, with one or more authors; they can also be operated by an organization, in which case they can not be considered personal. However, a blog operated by a company can publish posts from multiple authors, some of them – not members of the company operating the blog. A business blog can post movie reviews, a personal blog can advertise the owner’s skills or business. A public relations consultant can write about technology, while a programmer can cover topics on public relations. Some blogs do not allow comments, whereas Business Week publishes a story, followed by more than 200 comments. To conclude, the boundaries between personal and business, mainstream media and online diary, employee and independent consultant, communicator and technologist are hopelessly blurred.

To describe these blogs, I will only provide a very brief summary of each blog, including the author’s name (or the company operating the blog), the author’s occupation and background, where applicable (or the company’s profile), and a very brief sample of some of the topics the blog covers. This will provide enough information for attempting to map these authors and organizations to specific publics.

It is necessary to note that there is no guarantee that the names of the authors are real. For example, Amanda Chapel, the author of strumpette.com (42), is known to be a fictional character, protecting the anonymity of the real authors (which may be explained by the critical nature of the blog).

Following is the list of individuals and organizations who run the top 50 blogs which proved to be most influential in the context of the Edelman/Wal-Mart case.

1. Basturea.com is a blog by Constantin Basturea, who works at a communications agency specializing in business blog consulting. Constantin writes about blogging, public relations, journalism, social media and other topics.

2. The post on blogbar.de was written by a German journalist. (No further information is available.)

3. Blogbusinesssummit.com is operated by The Blog Business Summit – a company specializing in business blog consulting through conferences and seminars. Topics include public relations, marketing, advertising, blogging, technology, etc.

4. Blogher.org/node/11792 is a blog by Morra Aarons. Morra is a graduate student and a consultant; she works with clients to help build online communications programs; she is a columnist and a media commentator. In her blog, she writes about issues dealing with women, politics and the Internet.

5. Blog-relations.com is operated by Blog Relations, an online communications agency, with an expertise in business blog consulting. It is run by two British business journalists, Matthew Lynn and Hugh Fraser. Topics include public relations, marketing, blogging, technology, etc.

6. Blogwriteforceos.com is maintained by Debbie Weil, who is a corporate and CEO blogging consultant, a book author and a journalist. She writes about a wide array of issues relating to business blogging.

7. Bloombergmarketing.blogs.com is a blog maintained by Toby Bloomberg, a business blogging consultant. Topics include various aspects of blogging, marketing, social media, etc.

8. Businessblogwire.com is a blog by Easton Ellsworth, who is an editor for an online business news and information network. Easton writes mostly about business blogs and technology.

9. Businessweek.com is a mainstream media publication.

10. Buzzmachine.com is a blog by Jeff Jarvis. Jeff is an associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. He is also consulting editor of a news startup, writes a new media column for The Guardian and consults for media companies. He writes about blogs, journalism, media, news, politics, etc.

11. Chrisabraham.com is a blog by Chris Abraham, who is president of a consulting company, specializing, among other things, in business blogging. Chris writes about a wide array of topics.

12. Consumerist.com is an online media publication devoted to the consumer: “We're biased towards the consumer. We favor bad company stories over happy customer tales.” (Consumerist.com, 2007)

13. Dailykos.com is a collective blog “with political analysis on US current events from a liberal perspective.” (Dailykos.com, 2007). The writer who wrote the related post covers two subjects: Wal-Mart and the politics of food, and is affiliated with the Writing on the Wal, an activist blog covering issues related to Wal-Mart.

14. Deepjiveinterests.com is a blog by Tony Hung. Tony writes about various topics, including media, the social web and marketing.

15. Edelman.com is Richard Edelman’s blog.

16. Evans.blogware.com is a blog by Mark Evans, who works for a Canadian-based blogging company and writes mostly about technology.

17. Getgood.typepad.com is a blog maintained by Janeth Duque – a Colombia-based web designer and marketing consultant. Janeth writes about blogs, social media, technology, etc.

18. Holmesreport.blogspot.com is a blog by Paul Holmes, who is editor of The Holmes Report, a weekly electronic newsletter for the public relations industry.

19. Hyperorg.com is a blog by George Nimeh, a UK-based entrepreneur, who writes about a wide range of topics, including social media, marketing, technology, etc.

20. Intopr.prblogs.org is a blog by Owen Lystrup, who is an account coordinator at a public relations agency.

21. Intuitive.com is a blog by Dave Taylor, a book author, speaker, programmer and consultant. In his blog, Dave focuses on business and industry analysis.

22. Jaffejuice.com is a blog by Joseph Jaffe, a consultant, speaker and book author. Joseph writes on such topics as marketing, new media, creativity, etc.

23. Lostremote.com is an online media publication focused on media.

24. Marketingvox.com is an online media publication focused on online marketing.

25. Mathewingram.com is a blog by Mathew Ingram, a Canadian-based writer. His blogs covers topics on technology, blogging, journalism, social media, etc.

26. Money.cnn.com is a mainstream media publication.

27. Mpdailyfix.com is a blog by B.L. Ochman, who is a consultant specializing on Internet marketing strategy, social media participation and blog advertising.

28. Nevillehobson.com is a blog by Neville Hobson, a consultant based in the UK. Neville covers a wide range of topics, including business, communication, technology, etc.

29. Newpersuasion.typepad.com is a blog operated by New Persuasion, a communication consultancy. The blog covers a variety of topics, including marketing, public relations, social media and technology.

30. Open.typepad.com is a blog by Antony Mayfield, who works on new services and tools for PR, marketing and media professionals in the area of online communications, social media and content.

31. Overtonecomm.blogspot.com is a blog by Kami Huyse, who is a communications consultant.

32. Pop-pr.blogspot.com is a blog by Jeremy Pepper, who works in public relations and communications.

33. Prblog.typepad.com is a blog by Kevin Dugan, who works in public relations and marketing communications. Kevin writes about a variety of topics, including public relations, marketing and blogging.

34. Prdifferently.com is a blog by Peter Shankman, who is the CEO of a public relations and marketing company. Peter writes on a wide range of topics.

35. Pr-squared.com is a blog by Todd Defren, who is principle at a public relations and social media agency.

36. Publications.mediapost.com is an online media publication focused on online media and marketing.

37. Publishing2.com is an online media publication focused on media on the Web and in new digital technologies.

38. Sarahcarey.ie is a blog by Sarah Carey. Sarah describes her blog as social, political and domestic commentary.

39. Scobleizer.com is a blog by Robert Scoble, a prominent blogger, technical evangelist and book author. Robert is famous for “humanizing” the image of Microsoft through corporate blogging.

40. Sparkplug9.com is a blog by John Koetsier, who is a technology consultant.

41. Strange.corante.com is a blog by Suw Charman, a social software consultant and writer.

42. Strumpette.com is a blog, providing a critical view on public relations.

43. Toprankblog.com is a blog on marketing, blogs, social media and online public relations.

44. Wagnercomm.blogspot.com is a blog by John Wagner, who is a communications professional and writes about public relations, marketing and advertising.

45. Walmartwatch.com is a blog operated by Wal-Mart Watch, a joint project of The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics, a non-profit organization studying the impact of large corporations on society and its advocacy arm, Five Stones. The blog covers issues related to Wal-Mart.

46. Weblogs.macromedia.com is a blog by John Dowdell, who writes on business and technology.

47. Webomatica.com is a blog by Jason Kaneshiro, who is a web designer and works in online education. Jason writes mostly about technology.

48. Webpronews.com is an online media publication specializing on news for Internet and technology professionals.

49. Whatsnextblog.com, like mpdailyfix.com (27), is a blog by B.L. Ochman.

50. Zdnet.com is a blog by Donna Bogatin, who is a Web-based business development consultant.

Mapping the Bloggers to Publics

This section will describe the process of mapping the individuals and organizations, representing the most influential blogs, to specific publics, which can be identified through existing public segmentation approaches, described in Chapter 2. The results of this mapping will support Statement 4, thus supporting the hypothesis of this study.

The previous sections demonstrated that the negative consequences were caused by collective action on behalf of all blogs participating in the conversation. If these blogs can be described as one public, which could have been identified through existing public relations approaches prior to the consequences it caused, it will be possible to conclude that the general public had no consequences for the organization in this case. Therefore, the purpose of this mapping is to attempt to identify this public. However, if that proves to be impossible, Statement 4 will be confirmed: the individuals and groups behind these blogs represent multiple publics and cannot be defined as one specific public according to existing theory. And, since a mix of multiple publics can be also described as the general public, I will draw a conclusion that the empirical data supports the hypothesis of this study.

To assign bloggers to publics, I will examine and apply, where possible, the public segmentation approaches, described in Chapter 2.

Situational Approach

According to situational theory, people are grouped into publics based on their perceptions of a specific situation or problem. Four types of publics are defined: latent publics, whose members do not detect the problem they are facing; aware publics for groups who recognize the problem; active publics – groups that organize to discuss and do something about the problem; and nonpublics for groups which have no consequences for the organization.

The individuals and groups representing the top blogs, certainly, can be classified as an active public: all bloggers were aware of the problem and were actively “doing something” about it. However, situational theory attempts to predict when people will think and communicate purposively about situations, when they will develop opinions and attitudes about situations, and when they will act. Based on such predictions, an organization can attempt to prevent negative consequences which may be caused by an active public. Preventing negative consequences, as mentioned in Chapter 1, is the underlying purpose of public relations.

But is it possible to identify all participating bloggers as an active public prior to them causing the damage? I suppose, before the Internet and the blogosphere, such an approach worked: a new active public simply did not have the time or the chance to cause significant negative consequences before the organization’s PR people reacted. However, today the situation is different: the data described in Chapter 4 shows that such consequences happen immediately, sometimes within hours. Moreover, with the blogosphere, these consequences are the indicator of the degree to which a public is involved in a situation; therefore, it is impossible to identify bloggers as an active public before they cause the damage.

Therefore, I conclude that the situational approach, as a method of identifying publics in order to prevent negative consequences, does not work in the context of the blogosphere.

Stakeholder Approach

The stakeholder approach is based on defining a public based on its linkage to the organization, i.e., on the public and the organization having mutual consequences for each other. Chapter 2 described several ways to segment the general public into individual publics, or stakeholder groups. Scholars suggest various sets of these groups: some offer a simple enumeration of very general groups, such as employees, media, investors, community, etc.; others define primary and secondary stakeholders based on the scale of the consequences they may have for an organization. Some scholars take a very detailed approach and try to create a multi-level hierarchy, enumerating all possible groups affecting the organization, including such categories as specialists, clerical personnel and drivers. (Hendrix, as cited in Newsom, Turk, and Kruckeberg, 2006. p. 91) Needless to say, this categorization is too specific to be useful in this study.

The common trend in the described approaches is abstraction: it seems that any group that can be linked to an organization can be generalized into a category and defined as a specific stakeholder; and even if does not fit any reasonable description, some of these sets contain generic categories like “special publics” or “other publics” created precisely for such cases. In other words, any individual or group can be labeled as a public, as long as there is some linkage with the organization (which is also a very flexible concept).

Mapping Results

I used the stakeholder approach to map each blogger to a public. As the criteria for mapping, I tried to identify the possible linkage between each blogger and Edelman. As a result, I was able to define the following publics:

• media (both, mainstream and specialized)
• employees
• competitors (consultants and agencies specializing in any type of communication, as well as agency employees)
• activist groups
• bloggers who write about communication topics (PR, marketing, blogging, etc.)

Certainly, a more specific list can be generated; however, since the point of this experiment is to map the bloggers to one common public, I made the public descriptions as general as possible. The last category is a borderline-reasonable way to generalize: identifying members of such a public is almost impossible due to the size of the blogosphere.

Table 8 displays the results of this mapping.

Table 8. Mapping Results

The results of this mapping clearly demonstrate that the top 50 bloggers cannot be assigned to one public. Even when the most general category is used – “bloggers who write about communication” – there are still 8 bloggers left out (16%), which do not fit this description. Moreover, these 16% do not fit any suggested public, which means that the organization cannot identify them as a public prior to them causing negative consequences, which supports Statement 4 and concludes the analysis of the evidence supporting the hypothesis of this study.

Hypothesis Supported

The hypothesis of this study stated that new communication technologies have given the general public the power to cause direct negative consequences for organizations. The organization was represented by Edelman. New communication technologies were represented by the blogosphere.

It has been shown that Edelman suffered significant negative consequences which were caused by the blogosphere. It has been also demonstrated that the consequences cannot be isolated on a “per blog” basis and were caused by collective action on behalf of all the blogs involved in the conversation. Finally, it has been shown that the individuals and groups behind these blogs represent multiple publics and cannot be defined as one specific public according to existing theory.

Public relations theory provides no specific definition of the general public, other than describing it as containing multiple publics, varying in the degree to which they may affect an organization. Based on this description, I conclude that a mix of multiple publics, including individuals and groups who cannot be classified as a key public, can be described in the context of this study as the general public. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study is supported: new communication technologies, such as the blogosphere, have, indeed, given the general public the power to cause direct negative consequences for organizations.

Implications of the Results for Existing Theory

This section will discuss some implications the results of this study may have for existing public relations theory.

Revisiting Segmentation Approaches: Blogosphere as Media or a Separate Public

After applying existing public segmentation approaches, I reached the following conclusions:

1. The situational approach, as a method of identifying publics in order to prevent negative consequences, does not work in the context of the blogosphere. Identifying publics based on their perceptions of a situation can be done by either analyzing every blogger’s posts, which is impossible due to the size of the blogosphere, or identifying only those bloggers who have already expressed their perceptions of the situation through their posts – which defeats the purpose of segmenting, since negative posts are the negative consequences the organization is trying to avoid.

2. The stakeholder approach can be applied to segmenting the blogosphere public into smaller, more specific publics. However, it has been shown that this approach does not offer specific guidelines in regards to the criteria (other than linkage to an organization) according to which a public can be defined. In other words, any group, linked to the organization, can be defined as a public. Following this logic, the blogosphere can be described as “the new media” or “the bloggers” public, or even as a type of media, which makes the blogosphere part of the media public. If this were a valid case, it would have an implication for the hypothesis of this study: since all bloggers are assigned to one public, prior to the situation which triggered the negative consequences, the study’s hypothesis would not be supported.

The obvious way to contend such an argument is by observing that the descriptions of the suggested publics are too general. Since I was not able to find any specific guidelines in existing theory on how general a public description may be, I will try to prove this point by using common sense.

Can the blogosphere be considered a separate public? No, because there is no linkage between bloggers and the organization except when a blogger is a member of another public. Table 8 shows that 16% of the top blogs cannot be identified as a public.

Can the blogosphere be considered part of the media? There has been much debate on this topic and there is no clear consensus yet. Despite significant differences, both are mediums for mass communication, which separates the two from most other publics defined by existing theory, such as employees or investors (in which case, the linkage between blogs and the organization can be defined as the blogosphere’s potential to reach a mass audience with content related to the organization). However, there is one characteristic of the blogosphere which makes it fundamentally different from traditional media in a public relations context: even a single blogger can have a significant impact.

Public relations attempts to prevent negative consequences from the media by communicating with and building relationships with key publications through the people who represent them. However, with the blogosphere, every blogger can be treated as a, potentially, “key publication.” Some blogs have a readership comparable to leading mainstream media publications, others do not – but the data from Chapter 4 demonstrates that blogs may have a significant impact regardless of their popularity. In the words of Peter Shankman, “Ordinary people can have extraordinary voices in the daily life of Earth instead of a few media elite.” (Shankman, 2006)

Therefore, even if the blogosphere is identified as part of the media public, the way to contend its potential negative consequences is through building relationships with all bloggers. But that is impossible due to the size of the blogosphere. I conclude that Statement 4 holds true and the study’s hypothesis is supported.

Building Relationships with the Blogosphere

Based on the discussion in Chapter 2, public relations can be described, without loss of generality, as a function that “establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Cutlip, Center, and Broom, 2000. p. 6). This study has shown that the success or failure of organizations depends, in part, on the general public. That might lead to a conclusion, that, in order to prevent or minimize the negative consequences from this public, organizations should establish and maintain “mutually beneficial relationships” with the general public.

I will show that it is impossible to build a relationship with the blogosphere. And, since the blogosphere has been shown to represent the general public, at least in the context of this study, the following argumentation may be applied, possibly, with some limitations, to the concept of the general public as well.

The size of the blogosphere is not the only reason why a relationship-building approach which might work with any other public will fail when applied to the blogosphere. Building a relationship with every blogger is, clearly, impossible. However, what if one identifies the key players and communicates with them, or through them – with the rest of the blogosphere? It may be speculated, that Richard Edelman attempted to do precisely that:

1. He commented on several influential blogs, including his own: 24, 29, 48, 135 (blog details are given in Appendix B);

2. He called Robert Scoble (blog ID 128), who is one of the most prominent bloggers in the blogosphere, to personally apologize.

Calling Scoble, actually worked to some extent. Scoble wrote: “Richard Edelman, head of Edelman, just called… He says ‘this should not have happened….’ Richard also apologized for his firm’s error. That’s enough for me.” (Scoble, 2006). Being an influential blogger, Scoble, most likely, had a considerable impact on his readers with his positive post about Edelman acknowledging his agency’s mistake.

I further speculate that Edelman’s approach to the blogosphere can be explained by his assumption that key players, or leaders, play an important role in shaping the blogosphere’s public opinion. That is why, seeking to apologize to the entire blogosphere, he personally calls a prominent blogger. That is why he comments only on a select number of the most influential blogs. That is why he wants to see his agency as “a leader” on the blogosphere:

I can tell you that our determination to be leaders in the blogosphere is undiminished. We are taking this as an important lesson, that we have not done sufficient education of our team on the proper way to interact with new media. Our Me2Revolution team is doing three company wide mandatory training sessions next week to ensure that the WOMMA guidelines are strictly applied. We are establishing a 24/7 social media hotline which will vet programs before they are presented to clients. We will participate in development of best practices outside of the US and will comply with the rules in each country. We will do better. Count on it. We are listening. (Edelman, 2006c)

However, the data from Chapter 4 shows that even the most prominent bloggers cannot shape the blogosphere’s public opinion. While speaking about leadership, transparence training and complying with other countries’ rules, Edelman misses the point of the blogosphere, which is best described in the following reply to his previous comment:

It’s that kind of hubris that leads to “do anything to win” reckless behavior and got you in trouble in the first place… This is the blogosphere, we’re not looking for “leaders….” I really hope the lesson is learned but that comment hints otherwise. We’re all the same. Think flat. Stop worrying about the A-list, the tops, the bottoms, the midlands, etc. Just treat everyone with the same amount of respect as you would a friend [emphasis added; A-list referrers to a list of most popular blogs]. (Krucoff, 2006)

Indeed, the blogosphere is “flat” and communicating with a select number of bloggers based on their perceived “importance” may not have the same effect as, for example, building a relationship with a major national publication while ignoring a local paper.

By communicating with key bloggers, one sends a message that other bloggers are not important (or less important). But that goes against the fundamental concepts behind the blogosphere, according to which “everyone will be heard.” It is true that some are heard better than others due to their social or professional status, writing ability, or initial popularity (there is a mathematical explanation to that, based on the concept of power law distribution, which is beyond the scope of this research). However, the data described in Chapter 4 supports the notion that the blogosphere is a means for people to communicate, and anyone willing to participate in the conversation is given an opportunity to speak up and be heard by the community. Like in a small town hall meeting in the XIX century: one might convince a select group of prominent citizens to support a cause, but if the cause is not beneficial for the town, the rest would oppose it. Scoble defended Edelman’s position, but it didn’t affect others bloggers’ opinions in any visible way, and the damage to Edelman was not prevented.

I conclude, that, although the results of this study suggest that the traditional assumption about the general public being powerless and insignificant might have been wrong, the concept of communicating and/or building relationships with specific publics, rather than dealing with the general public, was correct. Grunig and Hunt (1984) argued that if an organization has no consequences for a public and if that public had no consequences for the organization, there was no need for public relations. (p. 139) It has been shown that the general public may have negative consequences for organizations. Nevertheless, while there may be a need for public relations in some other form, a traditional relationship-building approach will no longer resolve the situation.

Revisiting Public Relations and Community

Based on the results of this study, together with the arguments presented in the final sections of Chapter 2, it may be suggested that the general public is reclaiming its role in society, in part, through a global community, facilitated by the blogosphere. In that case, there is a question, which has remained unanswered from the discussion in Chapter 2: what is the role of public relations in this new community?

I will not speculate on how public relations might adapt to the changed social environment, for this was not the object of this study, and there is no data to support such speculation. However, the results of this study may be applied to some of the community-related theories of public relations discussed in the literature review.

Kruckeberg and Starck (1988), in their Community-building theory, suggested that the field of public relations appeared as a result of the loss of traditional community. This study has shown that such an assumption may be true. An overview of the history of public relations made in Chapter 2 has demonstrated that the primary focus of public relations has been and still remains the influencing of public opinion through the use of mass media. However, as it has been argued in Chapter 2, this practice would have been impossible in a traditional community, due to the simple fact that there were no secrets in the small town: “engineering public consent” by sending different messages to different groups became possible once the community was gone.

This study has shown that there are no secrets on the blogosphere either: “Today, there's nowhere to run and nowhere to hide … The moment you hide something, you will end up being exposed and picked apart.” (Gogoi, 2006b) That leads to a conclusion, that, if public relations in its traditional form could not have existed in a traditional community, and if the blogosphere is, indeed, a form of traditional community being restored, the traditional form of public relations may have to undergo some changes in order for the field to remain relevant.

Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) argued, that public relations practitioners should use their communication skills to help restore and maintain a sense of community, which exists through communication. That may be a possible direction for the field, although, the results of this study have demonstrated, that, at least in one particular case, the communication skills of public relations practitioners, represented by one of the most prominent agencies and its top management, were questionable. The following opinion about the role of public relations in the new community, expressed on one of the examined blogs, may serve as a reasonable suggestion for the profession:

The fact is that the smartest people in social media do not lie within public relations … The smart people in the room are the bloggers … and other long time practitioners of this new medium. So the bottom line is that public relations firms can’t control the message and they shouldn’t try. They should assist their clients with relating to the public in an honest, intelligent and entertaining manner. They can also assist their clients in monitoring the conversations so that these firms can take part and reap the benefits of community. But before [they] can do this they must reach out to get some education from the people who long ago made the choice to make social communication a part of their daily lives. (Safuto, 2006)

However, Kruckeberg and Starck’s (1988) assertions still may be valid in theory. In this respect, the Organic model of public relations, which, in a way, has been supported by the results of this study, deserves to be mentioned: the organization is, indeed, an organic part of the whole social system of society, it’s only a member of the community, and its responsibility should extend to all members of this community, which is also the general public, or, as envisioned by John Dewey, the Great Community, restored by the public itself through communication and conversation, which was made possible by the blogosphere.