While I accept the fact that it is reasonable for a periodical representing the PR practice to find a positive side to otherwise negative developments, I have to say that it is an egregious lapse of logic to suggest that the fall from grace by one of IR's icons, Mark Koenig of Enron, "will serve the IR profession well."
Investor relations is inexorably dependent on reputation for truth, honesty, ethics, and integrity. All of which Koenig, at the apogee of an IR career, ignored or admittedly violated.
One might as well say that the PR practice will ultimately benefit from the dishonest billing and the charges of money laundering and misrepresentations because it will stimulate better management control.
Perhaps that may be the case, but we've seen no evidence - and that embraces PRWeek - that the practice has been sufficiently introspective.
PRWeek's leadership - and credibility - would have been better served had it challenged the industry to forcefully respond to its own series of malfeasances, warned again by IR's unfortunate day in the headlines.
John Budd, Jr. Founder and chairman
The Omega Group New York
PR Play is 'troubling'
Your magazine must really be hard up to fill the PR Play of the Week column. "Britney jab proves toxic to Mineta" is a non-story and you should be ashamed to run something as made-up as this.
How can the writer concoct a biased piece based on Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's comment that Spears' child ride-along was "troubling" and that "her actions send the wrong message to millions of her fans?" Indeed, the article itself is "troubling" for this reader and I'm sure many others.
Didn't the author see the footage of Spears driving in traffic with her baby on her lap? The writer probably thought it was cute.Ray Eisbrenner
Eisbrenner Public Relations Troy, MI
In our February 27 Market Focus, "Uniting biotech with pharma," we stated that Nektar Therapeutics was not mentioned in a front-page New York Times article on Exubera.
In fact, Nektar was mentioned in the Times story.
In the feature, we erroneously used the article in the January 28 issue of the Times as an example of a biotech company not leveraging its relationship with a pharmaceutical company for PR value.
Our story was mistaken both in the facts, and in the assumption. We deeply regret the error. We apologize to Nektar Therapeutics, in particular, for this mistake. The fault was entirely PRWeek's.
In the February 20 story on Omnicom's earnings, John Wren was quoted saying, "They were up against some pretty tough competition in 2004." It should have been "comparables." We regret the error.