Me, I’d be more “outraged” if my e-mail address/name had been shown. The way it often is when PR students are sending out group requests to complete surveys, making use of the CPRS member directory to get names/addresses. You can bet I send a return e-mail to the student, as well as to the professor (if known) and/or CPRS administration when it happens, expressing my displeasure at the Bcc function *not* being used.

Oh, and BTW…I have no idea who else was on the list, other than the assurance that it wasn’t a bunch of “PR bloggers.” It really doesn’t matter to me who else was asked; why other people have their knickers in such a knot about the end recipients is mystifying.

And you’re right on the other count…if I send *you* something, of course it’s fine to blog about it. Not that I’m likely to send you anything controversial; after all, I haven’t been acquainted with you for very long. (Although so far intuition/impressions are all good.)

My point is that as the sender of an email you can’t be 100% sure that all your recipients have the same understanding as you (unless you know them extremely well, I guess). That’s why I’d always assume that if you send an email it has the potential for being published.

Ian – re your point about the blogosphere policing other people’s decisions – isn’t that how most communities without strict rules work, both offline and online?

However it’s fair to say that issues can become mini-blogosphere storms extremely quickly, and that often overplays the alleged “transgression” that may or may not have happened in the first place.

Of course I only send that type of message to the people I consider like-minded colleagues and friends. Which, from what I gather from Debbie (because I asked her directly), is whom she thought she was sending her request to as well.

And rumours of it being a “PR Bloggers” outreach campaign are a) fabricated; and b) grossly exaggerated as to the actual numbers. In fact, I don’t think many “PR” bloggers–real ones or self-proclaimed–were on her list….

Cheers,
Judy

As I’ve said repeatedly, I do not believe Debbie’s request was an issue of huge importance, and maybe not even a matter of ethics. It was a matter of taste, I thought.

But her e-mail was not personal. It was a group e-mail, and based on the infrequency of my contact with Debbie and her large network of contacts as a consultant, author and conference speaker, I assumed–and she still hasn’t clarified–it was a LARGE group e-mail.

To me publishing it was no different from publishing the contents of a targeted mailing or brochure that a consultant sent out.

If Debbie had approached ME directly and told me why she was approaching ME, I would have likely sent an e-mail back to her explaining my objections.

But how can an e-mail that begins with “Hi everyone” and doesn’t share who “everyone” is or say why WE’VE been targeted be considered a personal e-mail?

This is a shameless request. I’m working with David Phillips on the
official corporate blog for Marketing, the first management approved, OTC cure for all web 2.0 solutions to the demise of print, radio and TV advertising. You may have seen the TV ads, so you won’t be surprised.

While traffic to the marketing blogs is growing, readers seem shy about leaving Comments about marketing blurb and bling but are happy to engage with granny Phillips on her blog.

You can help jump start the two-way conversation! Take a peek at the
blog at http://www.xxxxx

If you’re inspired or provoked, leave a comment on any entry. No need
to say that you know me, of course.

It really is kind of neat that a Global 1 Million company is doing a blog
like this. It’s not easy. In fact its close to impossible transferring ad 1.0 to web 1.0 to web 2.0.

Your post was one of the more constructive that I saw in this discussion, with a good analysis and some thoughts on alternative approaches.

But I got the sense that you were critical of what had been done originally all the same.

And yes, I find it ironic that David Murray blasted Debbie’s ethics while simultaneoulsy publishing a private email on his blog.

I agree there are some ethics considerations around publishing the original email. I suspect that as different people operate on different moral and ethical codes, then we should assume worst case scenario. For email this means anything we write could be made public without prior permission or even warning, even with your disclaimer / “do not blog” tickboxes.

And no, the blogosphere’s certainly not always a fair place- which does reflect the world generally.

My take on this situation, like so many similar debates that happen around subjective areas like ethics, is that as long as the community can learn from this experience then that’s the best outcome that can come from it.

Thanks for your balanced write-up. On the topic of “questionable ethics” it’s interesting that no one has pointed out that David Murray’s decision to post a private email to him on his public blog – without asking me first – is, well, questionable.Life – and the blogosphere – aren’t always fair, are they?