PR people, start using your common sense when it comes to disclosure

The Word of Mouth Marketing Association's (WOMMA) ethics code says practitioners must be open and honest in their communications with consumers:

"We encourage word of mouth advocates to disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications with other consumers. We don't tell them specifically what to say, but we do instruct them to be open and honest about any relationship with a marketer and about any products or incentives that they may have received."

The PRSA code of ethics also covers this issue by stating that professionals must "reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented."

The problem with these guidelines is that they aren't nearly specific enough, especially around the concept of disclosure.

If my client starts a "grassroots" group and gives it an independent sounding name, and I merely "disclose" that I am working for that group -- without mentioning where that group's funding comes from, who is really behind it, what my financial arrangement is with that group, etc. -- is that enough?

I think anyone looking at this logically would say no.

For example, is this fair disclosure?

This is the way Working Families for Wal-Mart now identifies its bloggers. We have a name, an agency affiliation (although the disclosure doesn't explain who or what Edelman is), and the fact that WFWM is a "client."

So if a consumer wanted to learn more, he or should could click on the "About Us" section, right?

Here's what that consumer would find:

"Working Families for Wal-Mart is a group of leaders from a variety of backgrounds and communities all across America.

"Working Families for Wal-Mart are (sic) customers, business leaders, activists, civic leaders, educators and many others with first-hand knowledge of Wal-Mart’s positive contributions to communities."

Hmmm. Not much information there.

So the question is, does the disclosure on the WFWM site meet the standards of WOMMA and PRSA? I would say that it meets the letter of the law, but not the intent.

It also doesn't pass what I would call the common sense test -- that is, could a regular consumer quickly and easily find out who is footing the bill for the site and who is writing the blog?

Some of this obviously depends on your point of view. If a blog or website is "sponsored" by a particular group, does the general public know what that means? I'm sure some would argue yes ... others no.

But why risk our credibility -- and the credibility of our fellow practitioners -- by purposely being vague? In today's world, it's not right, and not necessary.

As PR professionals, we need to start using our heads and our common sense and put a stop to so much of the drivel that passes for communication today.

What would be so wrong with this?:

"This blog is funded by Group X. Group X is supported financially by membership fees, donations and an annual contribution from Corporation Z. Content for this site is generated by Agency Y, which is paid a monthly fee to research and write blog entries and other associated duties. Sally Smith is an account executive with Agency Y and an expert in this or that field. Her complete bio can be found here."

Think about that the next time you are writing something on behalf of a client. This is an issue that isn't going away -- in fact, it will likely become front and center as social media grows as a corporate communications tool.

Quick hit: I'm not trying to "pile on" the Wal-Mart situation, but I believe there are some valuable lessons still to learn, and too many PR bloggers seem eager to move on without delving into the nitty gritty.