I’d ask you to ponder this question: Didn’t Peter Shankman, in issuing this ultimatum, himself leverage Michael Jackson’s death to promote his position as a thought leader in the PR industry?

There’s no small amount of irony in the fact that you’ve, in effect, given Peter a “placement” here, as a result of his quickly seizing on Michael Jackson’s death to assert his PR industry thought leadership on what is and what is not an appropriate PR technique.

Peter is a smart PR guy, as evidenced by his artful way of using the PR technique I’ve outlined in this blog post.

PR is, at its core, debate. No debate team, discussing the pros and cons of airport body scanners, would omit the Christmas Day bombing attempt from their argument. So why would a PR firm be well-advised to not leverage this particular bit of bad news to their client’s advantage?

I do agree that poor execution of leveraging bad news for PR gain would be bad for the PR industry. But, bad execution on any front in the PR business is bad for the reputation of the industry. I don’t think this particular technique, executed poorly, is any more egregious than a dull pitch, a poorly written pitch, or an email blast that says “Dear [First Name]“.

The good news is that the PR marketplace will take care of those publicists who leverage PR in a distasteful way. If journalists receive a PR pitch that is in bad taste, they are likely to blacklist the PR professional. In this respect, the technique of leveraging bad news to garner press is not for PR newbies. It’s an advanced technique that comes with no small amount of risk.

As for the Michael Jackson scenario, I don’t think that leveraging Michael Jackson’s death for PR purposes is inherently bad. Again, it depends on the specifics of the pitch. If a drug overdose expert, who advocates tighter control of the anesthetic propofol in order to save lives, used Michael Jackson’s death as an opportunity to get his message to market, I would have no problem with that. You say that we should “set our aspirations higher,” but, in the hypothetical example I’ve given, the PR seeker’s aspirations seem pretty high to me: they want to change the laws in order to save lives. So, I don’t necessarily buy into your argument that having high aspirations to do the right thing as a PR firm in any way precludes the use of this PR technique. Again, it’s all about execution.

Shame on those who leverage horrible news for PR gain in the wrong way. On that point, I completely agree with you.

Thanks tons for your comments. It’s always good to have a healthy dialogue on topics like this, and I hope a few others will weigh in with their thoughts as well.

As for the public relations profession, isn’t what you describe above one of the reasons why many people loathe our profession? In fact, when Michael Jackson died, Peter Shankman from HARO promised to out any publicist/pr person who tried to tie in their client’s product to his death. To me, that highlights how people feel about those who try to profit from the misfortune of others.

I understand the concept of striking while the iron is hot and as a small agency owner, I know a guy’s gotta eat. But, perhaps we should set our aspirations higher.

Lastly, if people do take your advice, they might not want to use the “full court press” concept. A full court press is a defense.

Thanks for writing your blog and giving folks like me a chance to weigh in. Happy New Year.