So is this an ‘even evil has standards’ move; or is having your firing of a particularly scummy client ‘inadvertently’ made public the sort of clever PR move that abhuman PR flacks would deliberately engage in periodically in order to keep their reputation in the zone deemed best for business?
Because when an entity is singularly dedicated to deceptive signaling it’s hard to take even their apparent setbacks without a grain of salt large enough to make an entire cardiology conference nervous.
That’s unpleasantly likely. You dig up one layer of evil, another stratum is just below. I guess it’s turtles all the way down…
Especially evil tempered Snapping Turtles.
kappos is not a word… think you meant capos
In between.
not ready to award any medals to them because this scumbag client was too hot to add to their list of other scumbag clients.
Perhaps those in Edelman that feel GEO should have been kept as a client should spend a few weeks in the concentration camps, to really get a feel for the proper way to spin them? Couldn’t hurt. Look forward to their informed feedback at that point.
yeah, please do circle back and let us know
Anything that isn’t totally about bilking the government or vulnerable people out of money is “pearl clutching” when it comes to a disaster capitalist.
Set aside for a moment the decision to do business with this particular client. Edelman seemingly did not take into account risk to its reputation for the relationship and work that would be deemed unethical and immoral, not only through the media and in the eyes of a segment of the public but also within the organization.
That’s a glaring mistake to a relationship and reputation, and risk management within the company and outside of it.
Now Edelman must decide how to wisely problem solve internally and externally. Reckless decision making. Creates an unsavory perception.
In today’s age, companies like Edelman should know the risk of such business practices.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
