Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian Smart
I'm just boggled by this. 80/20 claims there is no conflict of interest, and yet their 'strategic partner' is a notorious PR company that happens also to be employed by Phorm?? Huh? I'm not a conspiracy theorist - normally they're just fun diversions - but this is extraordinary. Why would a privacy consultancy need to team up with a huge spin-meister anyway? There's got to be more to this than meets the eye.
This article is fascinating:
http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/20...ayingdirty.php
"Burson-Marsteller does not publish a list of its clients, but it has purportedly worked for some of the most infamous governments of the twentieth century, including the military junta in Argentina in the 1970s, Nicolae Ceausescu’s dictatorship in Romania, the government of Indonesia (following the massacre in East Timor) and the Nigerian government (to discredit reports of genocide)...
One of the most effective PR tools is the “third party†technique, where a firm will hire an “expert†to speak on behalf of a company. People don’t generally trust corporate executives who say a product is harmless (say cigarettes, Teflon cookware or household insecticides), but are more likely to believe the same words from a scientist. And sometimes even more effective than hiring experts is getting average citizens to do the same. PR firms have time and again managed to create the illusion of public support for corporate causes through front groups, such as the CCRES."
Sound familiar? |
"Boggled" is an understatement. I was unaware of this until today. Questions must be asked and clarification sought. B-M don't appear to be too choosy with the company they keep. I wonder what the going rate for "ethics" is these days? The trail from 80/20 to B-M to Phorm is a real concern.
This has certainly got me thinking...