Hi Richard,

Nice to (finally) hear from you.

Steve suggests on his blog that there is a process in place that prevented you (both/all) from talking about the situation until now. Clearly, that process is outdated and needs revising.

At the very least, something like "we're aware of the situation and will respond in due course." At the very least, it would help people understand that you were not turning a blind eye to the whole thing in the hopes that it would simply go away. That is a sure-fire way of growing negative WOM.

Your delay in response fuelled speculation and doubt. Your absence from the conversation shifted the focus from Wal-Mart squarely onto Edelman. Perhaps that's where it belonged the entire time.

I believe that you missed an opportunity to show what the future of PR and communications will look like when done right. Instead, the way this went down has old-school PR written all over it.

This goes down in my book as a complete failure to walk the talk.

And as for working with Wal-Mart, when you hang around dogs, you get fleas.

~G~

Hi Steve,

Nice to hear from you.

Despite the fact that you had "no personal role in this project," your thought leadership and voice was needed during this period of speculation and doubt.

It would have helped Edelman. It would have been good for you.

If there is a process, as you suggest, it needs revising.

You are the last person who needs to be told about active and timely communications. I won't bother, as I know I'd be preaching to the choir.

That said, you missed an opportunity here to show what the future of PR and communications will look like when done right.

The way this went down has old-school written all over it.

~G~