Difference between revisions of "Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces"
(→Microsoft front) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
==Microsoft front== | ==Microsoft front== | ||
The Observer has seen an email sent by a director at leading lobby firm [[Burson-Marsteller]] to a number of top UK businesses. The email urges board members to raise the issue of Google's dominance of search engines with politicians, regulators and the media. | The Observer has seen an email sent by a director at leading lobby firm [[Burson-Marsteller]] to a number of top UK businesses. The email urges board members to raise the issue of Google's dominance of search engines with politicians, regulators and the media. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
The email asks companies to join a new organisation - Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces - which in the next few weeks will make a series of announcements on Google, internet privacy and copyright. | The email asks companies to join a new organisation - Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces - which in the next few weeks will make a series of announcements on Google, internet privacy and copyright. | ||
| − | The email's author is [[Jonathan Dinkeldein]], a director of B-M. He admitted the firm was working with Microsoft on the initiative. A spokeswoman for Microsoft agreed that the firm has an 'ongoing relationship with Burson-Marsteller' but said it is not lobbying for [[Microsoft]]. When asked about the email, Dinkeldein admited the organisation was formed by Microsoft. Dinkeldein added that his initiative attracted several orgnanisations to join it. | + | The email's author is [[Jonathan Dinkeldein]], a director of B-M. He admitted the firm was working with Microsoft on the initiative. A spokeswoman for Microsoft agreed that the firm has an 'ongoing relationship with Burson-Marsteller' but said it is not lobbying for [[Microsoft]]. When asked about the email, Dinkeldein admited the organisation was formed by Microsoft. Dinkeldein added that his initiative attracted several orgnanisations to join it. But executives contacted by The Observer told of their disquiet at being 'cold-called' in this manner… Others suggested that by not disclosing who Burson-Marsteller was representing, the firm was breaking the spirit of political lobby firms' code of conduct.<ref>[http://money.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330793003-110144,00.html Microsoft in row over lobby tactics] Nick Mathiason, business correspondent Sunday September 23, 2007, Observer</ref> |
| − | But executives contacted by The Observer told of their disquiet at being 'cold-called' in this manner… Others suggested that by not disclosing who Burson-Marsteller was representing, the firm was breaking the spirit of political lobby firms' code of conduct.<ref>http://money.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330793003-110144,00.html</ref> | + | |
| + | A PR industry website criticsed the relationship but wondered about getting the story straight: | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Microsoft lost out to Google in the bidding and, as it turns out, Microsoft is represented by Burson in such matters. To make things worse, a Microsoft spokesperson would only admit that the software giant and Burson have a relationship but denied that Burson was lobbying on Microsoft's behalf. Dinkeldein, in the meantime, did admitted that Burson was working with Microsoft on the DoubleClick matter and that Microsoft had formed the organization. Geez, can't a PR agency and a client even get their stories straight? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :There is nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft forming the organization-such organizations can actually have a legitimate cause and serve a worthwhile purpose. Nor is there anything wrong with a PR agency working with the company to promote the organization. What is wrong-terribly, unethically wrong-is failing to disclose those relationships. And there have been enough instances in recent years to make you wonder what it will take for this simple fact to permeate the practices of the public relations profession.<ref>[http://www.eurowebpro.com/eurowebpro-71-20070926WontWeEverLearn.html Won't We Ever Learn?] By Shel Holtz Expert Author EuroWebPro, Article Date: 2007-09-26 </ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Of course the real issue here is not whether Microsoft were a B-M client but whether they were a B-M lobbying clinet. BM also failed to register Microsoft on the [[APPC]]’s register as they should have done if this was a 'lobbying' contract. After discussions with BM, APPC agreed with them that Microsoft had not been a lobbying client at the time. No action was taken. | ||
| + | |||
| − | + | ==Contact== | |
| + | [http://216.182.81.49/Default.aspx ICOMP] rudimentary website | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | [[Category:Front | + | [[Category:Front Groups]] |
Latest revision as of 08:09, 22 January 2008
Microsoft front
The Observer has seen an email sent by a director at leading lobby firm Burson-Marsteller to a number of top UK businesses. The email urges board members to raise the issue of Google's dominance of search engines with politicians, regulators and the media.
The email asks companies to join a new organisation - Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces - which in the next few weeks will make a series of announcements on Google, internet privacy and copyright.
The email's author is Jonathan Dinkeldein, a director of B-M. He admitted the firm was working with Microsoft on the initiative. A spokeswoman for Microsoft agreed that the firm has an 'ongoing relationship with Burson-Marsteller' but said it is not lobbying for Microsoft. When asked about the email, Dinkeldein admited the organisation was formed by Microsoft. Dinkeldein added that his initiative attracted several orgnanisations to join it. But executives contacted by The Observer told of their disquiet at being 'cold-called' in this manner… Others suggested that by not disclosing who Burson-Marsteller was representing, the firm was breaking the spirit of political lobby firms' code of conduct.[1]
A PR industry website criticsed the relationship but wondered about getting the story straight:
- Microsoft lost out to Google in the bidding and, as it turns out, Microsoft is represented by Burson in such matters. To make things worse, a Microsoft spokesperson would only admit that the software giant and Burson have a relationship but denied that Burson was lobbying on Microsoft's behalf. Dinkeldein, in the meantime, did admitted that Burson was working with Microsoft on the DoubleClick matter and that Microsoft had formed the organization. Geez, can't a PR agency and a client even get their stories straight?
- There is nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft forming the organization-such organizations can actually have a legitimate cause and serve a worthwhile purpose. Nor is there anything wrong with a PR agency working with the company to promote the organization. What is wrong-terribly, unethically wrong-is failing to disclose those relationships. And there have been enough instances in recent years to make you wonder what it will take for this simple fact to permeate the practices of the public relations profession.[2]
Of course the real issue here is not whether Microsoft were a B-M client but whether they were a B-M lobbying clinet. BM also failed to register Microsoft on the APPC’s register as they should have done if this was a 'lobbying' contract. After discussions with BM, APPC agreed with them that Microsoft had not been a lobbying client at the time. No action was taken.
Contact
ICOMP rudimentary website
Notes
- ↑ Microsoft in row over lobby tactics Nick Mathiason, business correspondent Sunday September 23, 2007, Observer
- ↑ Won't We Ever Learn? By Shel Holtz Expert Author EuroWebPro, Article Date: 2007-09-26
