Fateful breach in the beech

By DITA DE BONI marketing writer

If you spend an inordinate amount of money on public relations, your cause is favourable to the government of the day, you have on side some of the best PR minds in the land, and your name is prominent in the media for many, many years afterwards, does that mean you've had a successful campaign?

If you are Richard Branson, yes. If you are Timberlands, no.

This week, the two-year dispute over PR firm Shandwick International's tactics in promoting the interests of client Timberlands - the Government-owned logging concern - drew to an end.

The case had been laid at the feet of the Public Relations Institute (PRINZ), which passed it on to independent QC Hugh Rennie, who cleared Shandwick on almost every count of breaching ethics.

Except one: the use of the word "extremists" in reference to Timberlands' greenie foes.

After Mr Rennie's findings were referred back to PRINZ, the institute agreed with his assessment and Shandwick last week responded by resigning from the organisation in a fit of pique, pointing out that the QC had actually said "at times the complaint against [Shandwick] seemed to be 'they shouldn't be allowed to be this good'."

Several questions are raised, but not entirely answered, by Mr Rennie's rulings.

Can a public relations firm be extremely effective and keep within ethical boundaries in a highly charged political atmosphere? Can it be "too good" in that circumstance?

And what role should PRINZ - or any industry body - have in maintaining the integrity of a group of divergent professionals?

First, a history. In 1998, Timberlands spent around $1 million defending itself against those who wanted native logging stopped. These payments were made to a number of agencies. But with the position of in-house practitioner at Timberlands empty, Shandwick's Klaus Sorensen and Rob McGregor found themselves almost quasi-executives of the SOE as a result of being the company's "eyes and ears" in Wellington. (Timberlands had its headquarters in Greymouth.)

Complaints were laid with PRINZ in October 1999 by Nicky Hager and Australian journalist Bob Burton, charging that Mr Sorensen and Mr McGregor had breached professional ethics laid out in the PRINZ constitution in their efforts to keep the green lobby at bay.

The two men were members of PRINZ and appeared to agree with a hearing into the allegations.

After legal proceedings, costing PRINZ around $45,000, and 18 months of bickering, a verdict of sorts was returned. A long dossier of complaints made by Mr Hager and Burton was boiled down into four in Mr Rennie's judgment.

The first was that someone at Shandwick paid a third party to attend meetings of the anti-logging Victoria Environment Group. This was found to be unethical but not the fault of Mr Sorensen or Mr McGregor.

The second was the use of the word "extremists" in documents created by Shandwick, an action found to breach the PRINZ code of ethics.

The third complaint concerned letters drafted by Shandwick and sent to sympathetic parties for them to sign and send as lobbying missives, (not a breach), and the final point - a group of behaviours that could be described as actively manipulating media coverage - also not in breach.

Shandwick has charged that the hearing was biased from the outset and the complaints "vexatious."

It says finding fault with the use of the word "extremists" is a slight on its integrity, and that the institute did nothing to "support our position against complaints led by individuals whose intentions were clearly politically motivated and self promoting," according to Mr Sorensen.

He said the Rennie report vindicated Shandwick, and pointed out that it stated "Shandwick delivered what the client wanted, and expected, to high effect."

"We look forward to the publication of the PRINZ list of words and phrases that its members are no longer permitted to use and opinions that can no longer be held," he quipped.

It is the lack of any sign of remorse for actions undertaken that has PRINZ national president Cedric Allan concerned.

"We did not censure these members because they used a naughty word," said Mr Allan. "The word extremist and more like it are not exactly unknown in public relations.

"But Hugh Rennie found that there were disturbing aspects of the [Timberlands case] where undue pressure was put on individuals opposing the company and the QC said to us, if you think parts of the campaign are unacceptable, you must find that there was a breach.

"Shandwick agreed to the process, the timetable, in fact, everything - and no one has had a more thorough trial than those two. The committee was unanimous in their decision. I would have thought Mr Sorensen and Mr McGregor would accept a decision from their peers with more dignity than this."

Opinion is divided among the practitioners spoken to.

One, who did not want to be named, says the tactics employed by Shandwick, including "very active media management," are often requested by clients. "Shandwick may appear to some corporates to be bold and courageous, the kind of agency that kicks opponents in the balls and is proud of it."

Another says that while the tide of opinion in the industry was against Shandwick, certain tactics such as sending strongly worded draft letters to people to sign and send on to the media or politicians was "par for the course - everyone does it."

But these tactics can cause a backlash or antagonism if they are too insistent.

Neil Green, head of PR firm Porter Novelli, based in Wellington and also serving Government clients, says too much communication from a client's perspective can kill any relationship you are trying to build, just as in real life.

The fallout between PRINZ and Shandwick was unfortunate but fair, he said.



Paul Hemsley, head of Hill & Knowlton, says the whole process has been healthy for the industry. "Not the least reason is to have busy PR professionals thinking about the issues. 'Ethical' is a term that has lost a lot of its currency because it is bandied around willy-nilly, regardless of the real significance of issues."

Government clients required a practitioner who was experienced and had a highly sensitive "political antenna," he said.

"Unlike commercial clients, you have to be aware that people and organisations beyond the 'client group' can have access to your material, so you have to take care to be absolutely unambiguous."



Mr Hemsley said he was not a member of PRINZ because its approach to industry issues was inconsistent.

He cited its treatment of Michelle Boag, who resigned from PRINZ before it delved into the issue of taping the winebox inquiry hearings, as "overblown."

Mr Allan disagrees. While PRINZ covered just over half the people in the industry who called themselves PR practitioners, membership numbered 700 and was growing, he said.

"The principles we work to are determined by our members, our peers. We are not about blindingly defending everything our members do."