Social media doesn't have to be deceitful

Caught up with the ABC hit show, the Gruen Transfer, last week and found the discussion mostly thoughtful and entertaining.  Also got a great belly laugh out of the Pitch, where two agencies produced an ad to help Shane Warne become the greatest cricketing hero in Australia by removing The Don from that mantel.

But when it came to discussion about the recent infamous viral campaign - come mainstream media campaign - for the launch of a new menswear range, I was in shock by some of the comments from the panel ... particularly comments from one Russell Howcroft from George Patterson Y&R.

Firstly one must question comments such as "worked well online because people are used to being tricked and don't mind", "it was clearly an ad and everyone knew it, therefore it was fair to go with" and "at first it was fine" and "online people know the game, its a new language so they play it" or words to that effect given shorthand was never my favourite subject.

Are they for real? Do these people really advise clients on social media?

I am not a social media expert by any stretch, but I do not buy the proposition that the online community accept and agree with deceitful behavior.

Then it got worse, when they moved on to the $8 million plus of free media generated by the campaign and the lies perpetuated by the advertiser, the advertising agency and the publicist employed to push the story out.

To me, Russel Howcroft did not appear to have a problem with it ... and I was not surprised when later he said that he in the main believed "Any Publicity is Good Publicity" (although thankfully some sense crept in when he did say that "perhaps" not in this case)

That takes the cake!

PR should be about helping businesses reach business objectives and to create, build and protect reputation - not about generating cheap headlines through lies and deception.