Transcription
[Music] hello last week we discussed the importance of dialogue in developing standards of public relations ethics. instead of manipulation and exclusion of related publics, dialogue offers inclusion, accuracy, and truth, which are basic values of universal public relations codes. it is the most efficient gateway to ensure long-term survival of the company.
in other words, it is the guarantee of including different perspectives, sensitive sensitivities, global discussions, offensive issues in strategic development. in this sense, it is a utilitarian concern. i mean to maximize the gains and minimize the risks. sound pragmatic enough, right?
but everyone and every organization have different concerns or motivations. while some of them do it to obtain better outcomes, some do it because they feel responsible to a larger section in society, and their definition of happiness is more comprehensive. it is beyond revenues and expenditure, but it is including all the levels of the society. well, this is a more deontological perspective, which is representing which ethical approach here? we had discussed the importance of the loyalty. are you loyal to your employer or to a larger community? probably your answer depends on which role you identify with. it can either be pragmatic social role, or radical social role, or a conservative or idealistic. plus, to whom you feel responsible also matters in understanding your ethical frame clearly. what are your limits? what is your background? as you remember, there are five different levels of ethical justifications. let's remember them with the following questions. are you advocate of your client, or are you ready to use any means to get the desired outcome? or are you being good only if it means that you would have a bigger profit in return? or do you believe that being happy or having pleasure is only possible if it's shared with a larger group of community? your answer is a crucial step to design your own ethical perspective.
we also tried to exemplify some dilemmas waiting for you the moment you step into the field. bribes, free passes, insider trading, falsification of data, etc. you will face so many scenes where you will act according to your set of values, to the way you define loyalty and responsibility. in short, they will be your personal guidelines in managing such crisis. but at the same time, norms and codes defined by certain institutions, by larger structures, larger organizations will also help to find the right way. they will provide a guideline for you too.
let's have a look at bell pottinger case. bell pottinger, a pr company based in central london, very posh, very famous, very privileged, having a reputation of taking risks, tough duties, and finally, they made a terrible mistake. but before this, let's see some of their clients. for example, margaret thatcher, the famous prime minister of britain in the 1980s, or oscar pistorius, maybe you remember the famous south african olympic athlete after he was charged with murder. and furthermore, bella russian dictator alexander lukashenko, and moreover, asma al-assad, syrian first lady, as you know, and chilean dictator pinochet, whom they worked for to be released after his arrest in spain. indeed, very controversial clientele. they took the risk of being hated by many people, so many people turning themselves into a target, but they kept it very well and put up really well with harsh critics for years. however, the elections in south africa has been the beginning of the end.
so what happened? this is what happened. they run a racially charged pr campaign in south africa where they imply the superiority of white owned business in the country. as a matter of fact, it only the final ring of the change. that was only the final ring of the chain. this scandal included a very rich family, their ties with the president, using their power for private causes, and then trying to distract the public opinion by using racial tensions. this was done to fix the image of that powerful family in exchange of a good amount of money, 100,000 pounds in specific, to be specific, and to clear the name of the family and to distract the anger of citizens. they did not hesitate to fool the unrest, the ethnical tensions, buying staged protests, pointing out to certain journalists, and in summary, to manipulate the public in favor of a privileged family.
but after their emails were leaked, they have come up against serious accusations. and prca, you know who they are, public relations and communications association, discharged them for five years. they have been read out of the institution. their membership was cancelled. they collapsed financially, and many clients and partners split with them. very dramatic. imagine you are one of the best pr agencies in the world, very famous, and with so big power, money, and reputation, but you cannot escape from the rest of the society. they have their own pressures and sanctions, and it has been more powerful than the company.
in this case, as you see, they feel loyal to their clients only. they can use any means to reach the desired hands of their clients. they are the advocates of their clients, like a lawyer. they concentrate on nothing but persuasion. truth and accuracy hardly matter. human rights issues such as racism do not matter at all. and it coincides with a self-interest model of barney, since they did not even care for legality in their actions. as you remember, advocacy model at least cares for acting legally. here, even this is not taken into account. and beyond this, it is an example of unprincipled behavior. it is a crisis if ethics of ethics, public relations, of course. it is not the first one the industry has witnessed many irresponsible behavior in the past, and it will be witnessing as well. but the unscrupulous use of sensitivities just to reach the desired end is beyond imagination.
this is a case which reminds public relations people that taking any client is not the same as it happens in law. furthermore, short-term gains do not equal long-term success. another aspect is that maybe the employees were not aware of this unethical process at all, but they are labeled as well. moreover, the whole domain is labeled, and public relations people lost their goodwill once again. it has justified those who believe that pr is nothing but the art of lying or manipulating. what will these employees do after having a work experience in that company, which will always haunt them on their cvs? it will take years to mend this bad reputation personally and structurally. fortunately, prca has taken necessary steps to apply sanctions because maybe they had acted legally, ok, for example, they did not kill anybody, or they did not steal the money of a certain community literally, but they did not act right.
again, this case shows us the importance of the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do. and ethics is knowing distinguishing this too. a pr professional company organization should never be a part of such an inhuman and despicable act. remember, the best crisis management is preventing them before they happen. investing time and energy on sustainability, reminding stakeholders what is right to do and what is wrong to do, defining and redefining the right thing by the right action, by checking existing ethical codes and those who are about to emerge according to sociocultural conjuncture, of course. otherwise, you have to put up with losing clients, losing goodwill, announcing dozens of apologies with your signature, and even lose your company. well, lots of money, good. well done, but no ethos left anymore. good luck with your new life. thank you. see you next week.