Social media must be ethical

If you were at the CIPR annual conference recently you'll be aware that we are looking to update our Code of Conduct to take account of new developments such as blogging - and my announcement of this and other changes to the Code has already generated some debate in the pages of PRWeek.

Our profession is changing constantly, growing in ways that many of us could not have predicted when we first began our careers. One of those growths is in social media, the rise of which is sustained and significant.

Social media opens up new opportunities, but also (as so often in life!) new challenges and problems. In particular, it raises questions of how PR practitioners should engage with this - how we should ensure that those new problems are avoided, and that we act according to the high standards of ethics set out in our Code of Conduct.

That's why I'm pleased the CIPR has launched a consultation in this area. The social media paper they've launched is meant to be genuinely thought-provoking.

The CIPR's Board and Professional Practices Committee have already considered and endorsed it, but now it is down to you, our Members (and indeed, non-member PR people too) to give us the benefit of your views and your experience.

I encourage you all to read the document, think about it, debate it - and let the CIPR know your views on it. This is a vital area for the future of our profession. What we do now matters, which is why we need your input.

UPDATE: The deadline for the consultation on the paper has now been extended to 31st January 2007.

Comments

[Richard Bailey]

This looks very sensible, but I hope it won't result in something very silly.

For example (Q4 in the discussion paper): of course PR practitioners should address the issue of employee blogs. But should an ethical code deal with such specifics. It would look odd today to have a clause telling us how and when to send faxes.

[Simon Collister]

As above. At a first (quick glance) there seems to be a lot of hypothetical ethical questions... some of which I'm not sure we have the answers to yet.

[Ian Green]

Who are the authors?

[Daryl Willcox]

Well done the CIPR for producing this document. It may be focussed rather too much on ethical issues (important, but at this stage possibly a distraction from the main tactical and strategic issues) but at least this very important subject is getting a bit of an airing by the CIPR - and not a moment too soon.

[Francis Ingham]

Our social media paper has certainly proved thought-provoking, with members and non-members alike debating its content. In the course of this debate, it has become obvious that a couple of areas need greater clarity.

The first is that of authorship. The paper was prepared internally by CIPR staff and then amended after detailed discussion with both our Professional Practices Committee and our Board. The Chairman of the PPC is AOL's VP for Corporate Comms, and she certainly understands social media.

The second point to clarify is the nature of this document. It is a consultation document, not an edict. It poses 14 questions, and asks for people's views. For example, it asks what form the ultimate guidance should take -should it be an advisory note or a formal amendment to the Code? It asks for views on astroturfing. It asks for opinions on the ghosting of blogs. What it doesn't do is to opine from on high -we genuinely are seeking people's views here.

So in that regard, please do read the document carefully and with an open mind. And then reply to it, so that we can be more effective in our work.

[David Phillips]

My comments are available (using interactive media) on my blog.
I am not happy with this at all.
The practitioners most involved would expect that, at least, the CIPR would use relevant communications channels. The facilities available for consultation are extensive and do not include a static PDF as a starter for 2.0.

The concept of transparency is not thought through (even as part of the consultative process). Concepts of 'Social Media' that is, the role of PR in interaction with social groups, is just not understood.

The Institute has many practitioners who have both experience and some (all be it incomplete) knowledge which it is not using.

The significance of what is hapening has not been thought through.
This document makes assumptions that PR publics are unchanged. But they are. One small example is local newspaper reporters armed with camaras and able to sell news stories to, for example, the BBC. Their job is changed ... so too is ours.
We have to recognise these influenced for both on-line and so called off-line' PR practice.

[Simon Collister]

I've had a first read now and feel that the document is trying too hard to bring social media developments back into line with traditional viewpoints. Instead, the document should reflect the rapidly changing and updated medium we're working in. This means the document risks seeing social media and its opportunities in a too narrow framework.

I suppose it does do a good job in warning PR practitioners "beware all ye who enter". This may not have been the authors' intention but it certainly comes across in the text. Cf. lines like "Social media presents many traps."!!

[Ellee Seymour]

Tony, I've had a good read and shared this document with other bloggers. Our main concern regards the use of "astroturfing", we regard this as going against the true spirit of blogging, that it even goes against the CIPR Code of Conduct which demands integrity. The very definition involves the word "faking". It cannot be ethical to create a false impression, there is always the risk of getting discovered. Some social media companies are distancing themselves from this.