Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Public relations versus public interest

This blogger wonders why Ketchum, a public relations company had 375 hits on this blog? Watch this space.

"Ketchum’s European presence covers all major commercial, political and media centers and regionally services Kodak, Procter and Gamble, Roche, Whirlpool, Samsonite and FedEx."

Earlier|Later|Main Page


Small Voice said...

They have quite an interesting pdf on this page:,1943,3207,00.html

attached to this item:

'"PR View" - In a September 2006 article in Medical Marketing & Media magazine, Ketchum Associate Healthcare Practice Director Nancy Hicks examines how U.S. regulatory issues involving marketing practices are shaping today's healthcare landscape...'

Small Voice said...

There's also a missing article on that same page, a 'dead' link to the item called:

"A PR Job Is to Present Facts Positively, Not Hide Them" - Excerpts from an interview, featuring Ketchum Chairman Emeritus David Drobis, that was conducted by reporter Ashok Dasgupta and appeared in the April 12, 2003, edition of Business Line (The Hindu)."

As Ketchum is PR for Proctor & Gamble, maybe on their next visit they should recap on that interview which can be found here:

where Ketchum say:

"Obviously, our job is to present the products of our clients positively. And our real job is to help the organisations figure out how to do that. You know bad things happen to good people occasionally, and so, I think, the answer to your question is that we, as the public relations people, should not try to hide something from the media because the media is too smart."

Given the situation here:

"...A pharmaceutical benefactor (Proctor & Gamble) repeatedly refused to provide raw data including randomization codes to academic "collaborators". Data was required by the academics to verify scientific reports, statistical analyses, meeting abstracts (1,2), and draft publications "ghost written" in their names..."

Will Ketchum be explaining to the media how one of their Corporate Clients was involved in scientific shenanigans?

Small Voice said...

"...I would want the media to understand the situation, the true facts and then expect him to be as objective as possible..."

(Mr David R. Drobis, Chairman, Ketchum Inc)

I can't wait to see Ketchum in action on this one!

Anonymous said...

This PR company is well summarised on the site.

I fear anyone waiting for "true facts" to come from Ketchum is in for an exceedingly long wait.

Anonymous said...

It appears that historically you can't rely on Proctor & Gamble for true facts either.
"...28. Rely Tragedy
‘As sales of Rely tampons mounted, so did evidence that the product was linked to toxic shock, yet P&G management refused to print warnings and instructed sales people to deny the link. The company pulled the product from the market in 1980 only when it was apparent that the Federal Government was prepared to order a recall....’

P&G have learned well from Ketchum. Maybe they should consider presenting each other with an appropriate award. These could be made cheaply and in record time by P&G labourers in China who receive little respect or dignity despite working long hours for little pay and no job security.

Its a cover-up award, therefore it would seem particularly fitting to use the toxic and corrosive metal compound Chromium and Neodymium by extracting it from P&G's recently suspended cosmetic product "SK-II" (sold to previously unsuspecting Chinese) to forge a warped medal with 'TRUE FACTS' inscribed on its face.

Anonymous said...

Haven't they been given one by the
MHRA (Muffle & Hoodwink Recovery Agency) yet?

Anonymous said...

Interesting question Stratter. I for one haven't heard that they have. Perhaps you could write to P&G's Public Relations company, Ketchum, and make enquiries?

Don't forget to adjust any answer you might receive to take into account their unusual definition of the word "true" and the word "facts", ie, if they say "No!" assume they mean "Yes?" and vice versa.

If they say "Yes?" (meaning "No!" of course) that would not necessarily exclude P&G having received an award, as it is just conceivably possible that these are traditionally presented by a member of the CSM (Committee for Safety Misinformation) while on a visit to collect a consultancy fee.