So it seems that even though Mark Penn is CEO of Burson-Marsteller and Burson-Marsteller is handling the PR account for Aqua Dots -- the toy that's come into ill-repute for having an adhesive coating that turns into GHB, thus putting children into comas -- Penn has nothing to do with Aqua Dots. Much as he has nothing to do with Blackwater, another Burson-Marsteller client. And how he has nothing to do with Burson-Marsteller's union-busting practice. So what does he do? And how can a CEO be so uninvolved in so much of his own company's activities?
« Katulis vs. Kahl | Main | Vladimir Putin, "National Leader"? »
What Does Mark Penn Do?
09 Nov 2007 03:18 pm
Comments (22)
Dude, you said today that "everyone" you know thinks Clinton is running an excellent campaign.
Mark Penn is exhibit #1 that you need to meet some folks who understand politics.
If John Edwards were still a trial lawyer, he'd be suing some corporation represented by Mark Penn. And he'd win.
Come to think of it, that's basically the '08 primary campaign.
I have no idea how PR firms work. But if they are anything like law firms, the CEO would usually have nothing to do with the firm's clients (other than the CEO's specific clients). Each partner at the firm (or whatever the equivalent is in a PR firm) is responsible just for his or her own clients. The CEO is more of an administrative position rather than a position of responsibility for all of the firm's clients.
Also, I find it odd that someone would fault the PR firm for taking on a client like Aqua Dots. I mean, that's a client that really needs PR help! It makes no sense to limit the premissible clients of a PR firm to clients that don't need any PR help. It's like faulting a defense lawyer for having a criminal as a client.
"It's like faulting a defense lawyer for having a criminal as a client."
Hiring O.J. Simpson's defense lawyer to be one of the main surrogates for your Presidential campaign would be tone deaf, to say the very least...
Penn is the Alberto Gonzales of Burson Marsteller.
"Penn is the Alberto Gonzales of Burson Marsteller."
Y'know, I thought my 3:39 PM comment was going to easily win the thread, but KCinDC's definitely gives me some real competition.
How many of the bloggers has Devid g. bradley met?
All of us.
How many of your posts has David G. Bradley commented on/participated in drafting/seen?
None, obviously, but it's still his company and he's still responsible for what goes on. That's the point. He either needs to decide he trusts me, Ross, James, Marc, Andrew, and Megan to do our jobs as he's laid them out or else fire us. You don't get to just wash your hands of your subordinates activities while continuing to employ them.
Defense attorneys are ethically required to defend anybody*. If attorneys refuse to defend people because of bad reputations, innocent people who are presumed guilty by public opinion could not get fair trials. So, society insists that everyone be adequately represented, and defense attorneys are not judged for representing the truly heinous.
That doesn't apply to the PR business. When you do PR for someone, you are tying your reputation to them.
*Every defendant is entitled to counsel. While many lawyers can turn down a defendant, some lawyer must defend him, and any lawyer could be forced to do so. At least I think that's how it works. Any lawyers want to say?
The 'black helicopter' dudes was right!!!
Hillary's trying to help the ChiComs secretly poison our kids and feed 'em mind control drugs to be sex slaves for Big Govmit!!!
OMIGOD!!!
When Penn's reputation really bottoms out, and B-M takes him on as a client, will Penn disavow any involvement with the campaign to plump up Penn's image?
You don't get to just wash your hands of your subordinates activities while continuing to employ them.
But are the people who bring on clients like Aqua Dots actually Penn's "subordinates"? In a corporation like the Atlantic, yes - everyone is the subordinate of the CEO. But in a partnership like a law firm, no - they're all partners, and the CEO is not responsible for his other partners' clients.
As I said above, I don't know which model a PR firm runs on. But it's potentially not the same structure as the Atlantic.
"B-M",
Appropriate, no?
Al --
By its very nature, the term CEO indicates a hierarchy, as opposed to an administrative partner role.
That's why law firms don't have CEOs - they have managing partners. Assumedly, B-M wouldn't give out the title CEO and Penn wouldn't accept it unless it correctly indicated what his role is. Otherwise, they really are an awful PR organization.
That's not true at all, Matt Singer. Plenty of law firms have CEOs. For example, DLA Piper, Greenberg Traurig, and Orrick. But I'd say "Chairman" is the most common title for the head of a law firm.
Actually, many law firms call it a CEO. In practice it makes little difference. There's really no reason why you would structure a PR/lobbying firm much different than a law firm.
In general, the issues of what sort of clients are acceptable, whether to bring on controversial clients, etc., are decided collectively among the partners of a law firm rather than by sole fiat of the CEO. At a firm like B-M I'd expect it to work much the same way. The top people at a firm like this would be perfectly capable of opening their own shop, and they're unlikely to cede veto power over their client list to a single individual.
I find Matt's position on this pretty weird and I think it betrays a certain lack of understanding of the business world. That said, it's certainly painful to be on the same side of the argument as Al.
Brief Summary:
Mark Penn isn't necessarily a douchebag representing many disreputable firms, but some of his partners at B-M are.
Q: What Does Mark Penn Do?
A: Screw the little guy with a stick.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
joejoejoe--since this is another edition, is there a collection of these simple answers to simple questions?
Matt Singer and Steve are correct. A law firm is set up as a partnership because the practice of law, like medicine, is considered a "learned profession". A lawyer cannot shield himself from unlimited personal liability for any malpractice he commits. In a general partnership, every partner is responsible for the actions of every other partner. In recent decades, lawyers naturally have pushed the ethical envelope and now set up firms as "limited partnerships" or "Limited Liability Companies" to shield the partners who did not work on a case.
However, since any partner is still personally liable for his actions (and for associates and legal assistants working under his supervision), other partners have a strong incentive NOT to get involved in their partners' cases or they themselves lose the legal protection of a limited partnership arrangement. Even the managing partner (or CEO as some firms label the job) will stick to merely administrative matters so as not to risk his limited partner protection.
In contrast, a corporation is set up as hierarchy and the phrase that pays is "respondeat superior", although no employee faces personal civil liability, the corporation as a whole is responsible for all of their actions. As such its irresponsible and a breach of a corporate CEO's fiduciary duty to his shareholders to not have his finger in every pie because the shareholders' are on the hook for every pie up to the value of their investment.
B-M is a division of Young & Rubicam which is itself a subsidiary of WPP Group, which is a publicly traded corporation (listed on both the London and NASDAQ exchanges). So yeah, Penn is a tool, he's not managing partner of a law firm (I'm surprised he hasn't asserted attorney-client privlege yet), he's a midlevel corporate manager.
athEIst - I stole that line from Atrios. Tune in tomorrow when Matt asks 'Does Burson-Marsteller care more about America or it's own bottom line?'.
katsup unexpeditated bourbonism crowshay uprest sycamine soloist endogalvanism
http://www.waterloochronicle.ca/wat/news/news_730716.html >Renowned astronaut plans visit with Waterloo cub troupe - Waterloo Chronicle
http://www.fremontefc.org/
Comments closed November 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In a company with over 2000 clients, it's quite plausible that the CEO has contact with almost none of them. How many of the bloggers has Devid g. bradley met? How many of your posts has David G. Bradley commented on/participated in drafting/seen?
Posted by old guy | November 9, 2007 3:34 PM