COMMENT: EDITORIAL; The cost of a moral stand

Any PR consultant tempted to bid for the task of promoting anti-abortion candidates on behalf of the Family Life Campaign at the next election will need to think very carefully indeed before picking up the phone.

Any PR consultant tempted to bid for the task of promoting anti-abortion

candidates on behalf of the Family Life Campaign at the next election

will need to think very carefully indeed before picking up the phone.



Regardless of the rights and wrongs - and there are PR people on both

sides of the abortion question - it is a tremendously emotive and

politically-charged issue, as the uneasy squirming by party leaders

during the recent ‘morality’ debate has demonstrated.



Given the media’s obsession with its own workings, there is an

increasing tendency to focus on the campaigners as much as the campaign.

Any consultancy which takes on the task must therefore expect to come

under considerable media pressure. But there are also sound business

reasons for erring on the side of caution.



Many consultancy chiefs have a policy of not working for certain types

of client - tobacco companies, for example. There are usually three

reasons for this: their own personal beliefs; their staff’s qualms about

working on the account; and a hard commercial consideration for the

views of other clients, existing and prospective. In the abortion

debate, the ethical positions are more evenly balanced. But the same

caution is needed.



You do not have to have a particularly long memory to remember the

difficulties that Hill and Knowlton got into at the end of the 1980s

when, under Bob Dilenschneider, the agency took on a succession of

controversial clients in the US including the Church of Scientology, and

the Catholic bishops anti-abortion campaign.



While there were other factors contributing to the agency’s woes, it was

clear that its other clients took a dim view of their consultancy

continually being associated with controversy in the headlines.



PR theorists argue that everyone is entitled to the best advice they can

afford in putting their case in the court of public opinion - just as

everyone is entitled to the best defence in law. And it is true to say

that lawyers’ own reputations are rarely harmed by defending seemingly

impossible positions.



But the bear pit of the media and public opinion is not a court of law,

where arguments can be decided clinically, unemotionally and decisively.

Back in the muddy moral waters of the real world, PR campaigners have to

fight their way through debates peppered with inexactitudes, high

emotion and mischief.



The company a consultancy chooses to keep does reflect - for good or ill

- on its own reputation. By all means stand up for what you believe in,

but don’t force your other clients to go along for the ride.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in