--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Why do large companies need to hire BM if not to improve their
> reputations
> through perception? BM is in the business of perception. Go to the PRRA
> website and that is what they offer: changing perceptions only, and
> ultimately the firms reputation.
Nice try John, but wrong.
Most people here may not know this, but I also participate on another
board, and there we had a poster who was almost fixated on
Burson-Marstellar. The argument was that since Burson-Marstellar was a PR
firm it was proof that the firm's that hired them were wrong.
Well how about this scenario. A firm is attacked by another group making
bullshit junk science statements. The firm realizes that most people are
not going to interested in just the science so they hire Bruson Marstellar
to help restore their reputation.
See John, your logic IS faulty here. You are assuming that since BM has
in the past done PR work that is questionable that all PR work is bad.
However, doesn't Greenpeace do PR work? Aren't they out there trying to
stir up the public? Isn't this possibly good for increasing donations?
You are assuming guilt by association. That would be like me saying:
"Hmmmm the unabomber lived in the woods....John lives in the woods,
therefore John is the same as the unabomber."
Totally silly and wrong, but it is the same type of argument.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|