BM promotes astroturfing in Norway

Is astroturfing an ethical method for promoting an opinion or influencing a political decision? No, if you are a believer in “new PR” and transparency. Yes, if you are working for Burson-Marsteller or some of the other PR agencies in Norway that willingly serve clients a fake grassroots campaign, as long as they pay the bill.

Claus Sonberg, Managing Director of Burson-Marsteller in Norway tells local marketing publication Propaganda that “our international knowledge database contains 89 such projects”, referring to the infamous Swift Boat Veterans For Truth campaign against John Kerry. Sonberg says that BM for example succesfully helped organize “Women behind the wheel”, a seemingly cross-political movement against higher taxes on new cars. In reality the organization was sponsored by car importers.

Inge Olav Fure at Konsensus PR agency says:

– I don’t see any big problems with starting up an organization for a specific purpose, as long as you don’t lie about who’s behind it.

Well, not lying about something is not quite the same as telling the truth up front. If it looks like an organizaion of female drivers who are concerned with high car prices, then you’re faking it, even if you don’t lie about it.

In the same article Fure says that it is not the agency’s problem if people don’t realize there is a PR agency behind a message, it is media’s problem. But that hardly counts as addressing the real issue, who is paying the PR agency?

New libertarian blog

Swedish libertarians (nyliberaler) seem to be embracing blogs as a vehicle for opinion building, I have mentioned numerous examples before. Tobias Henriksson, who heads Muf in Gävle, yesterday started a blog called Nyliberal.se. See his first post here, where he writes a libertarian manifesto about abolishing income taxes and compulsory school attendance among other things (!).

Jeep brand on a slippery slope

If you are the owner of one of the most well-know brands on the planet, you wouldn’t want the brand to degenerate and become a generic term. But that is what is happening at warp speed for DaimlerChrysler’s classic brand Jeep, at least here in Sweden.

There is a big debate in Sweden about SUV’s and, among other things, whether they should be taxed harder for excessive fuel consumption. At the same time Volvo launches a V8-model of its SUV Volvo XC 90, which fuels the debate on the necessity of these vehicles.

Problem is that the term SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) doesn’t sit well with Swedes, so most people use the term “stadsjeep” (city jeep). A quick search in the media archives shows 1250 articles using the term “stadsjeep”, since 2002. All major media outlets use this term. Even official communication from insurance companies, governmental organizations and environmental movements use the term.

And a new survey by Bil Sweden today also shows that SUV’s are predominantly not bought by people in the city, so the term city jeep makes little sense.

So what can you do? You can’t blame Volvo, they call it an SUV. And the Jeep website is just filled with the registrered trademark symbol ®, so they’ve got that part covered. Can you hold media accountable for diluting your brand? Probably not. Media can lean on the freedom of the press act.

But you can, and should:

> continue to inform media that Jeep is a registered trademark until they realize that they are infringing on a company’s (immaterial) assets.

> help media coin a suitable term instead of SUV. No ideas yourself? Maybe the blogosphere can come up with a few suggestions?

> On top of that I would write to the news agency TT who publish recommendations to media in using the Swedish language and ask them to recommend against using “stadsjeep”. TT already wrote two years ago that a SUV in Sweden should be called suvbil (SUV car) but that “it has already become a standard practice to call them stadsjeepar (city jeeps)”.

Jayson Blair cashes in on fame

The story about plagiarism in Dagens Nyheter has engaged the Swedish part of the blogosphere this fall. Although the Peter Borgström case is not entirely identical to the Jayson Blair story, I find this very interesting. Appearently, the infamous Blair is cashing in on his “fame” and charges $3,000 for an appearance at the mass communications department at Winston-Salem State University (a “portion” of this honorarium will go to a mental health organization).

Will Borgström appear at JMK? Not a chance. But maybe he should.

Via Rhetorica.