Jump to content

Talk:Ketchum Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Article

[edit]

Founded by

[edit]

Founded by whom?

Where was it founded?

Come on people, who, what, where, when, how, and why...

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of information

[edit]

CNBC article - Who's on Putin's American payroll?: Paid more than $1.5 million in the most recent six-month reporting period for its work on behalf of Russia. Distribute press releases; preparing, disseminating or causing the dissemination" of the website ModernRussia.com, a URL that redirects to ThinkRussia.com; managing the Twitter account. Also has a separate contract, paying more than $3 million between June 1 and Nov. 30, to represent the interests of Gazprom Export, the natural gas exporting subsidiary of the Russian energy giant Gazprom, which is itself controlled by the Russian government. Don't get this (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article update

[edit]

Hello. I am here on behalf of Ketchum as part of my work at Beutler Ink to propose a new and expanded version of this article. There are many information gaps in the current entry, which, based on my research, are easy to correct. Due to my financial COI, I don't want to make any direct edits to the article. Instead, I'd prefer if editors could review a draft I prepared, let me know what they think, and move it to the live article if it seems OK. The draft is in my user space (link below).

My main priorities were updating outdated information, adding material to give a fuller picture of the organization, and making sure all claims are supported with inline citations referencing independent sources.

You'll see that I've organized the article into three main sections: History, Major work, and Corporate overview. These replace many of the existing sections, but I did not remove the topics those sections cover. Information from Working for the Russian government is now under the heading Government work. Material from both the HHS video­press release controversy and Sotto Terra Dinner sections have been integrated into History. Based on the relevance of these events when considered in the scheme of time passed and the company’s history, I believe they do not merit their own sections.

I hope that other editors will view this draft as an improvement to the existing article, but I'm open to any feedback regarding the neutrality of the language, the sources, or the information I included. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated a lot of the content from User:Heatherer/Ketchum into this article. I've made some tweaks though, chopping out some text and moving other parts around. (It should be easy to compare the current version of the article with the userspace draft, in case anyone wants to see what I changed.) /wiae /tlk 14:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks to wiae for working through my draft, thoroughly reviewing the content and implementing edits! I think the article is in a much better place now with your help. I've reviewed your changes and nearly all of them look good to me. I have just a few notes on a couple changes that I'd like discuss a little more.
  • In the first sentence, could "branding" be replaced with "digital"? I think digital marketing better represents more of the agency's work.
  • In the History section, can we rework this sentence: "Huffington Post reported in 2016 that Ketchum had created a new branch to promote chemical-dependent GMO agriculture called 'Cultivate'." Here are my concerns:
    • This statement doesn't accurately reflect what the source says. Cultivate supports organic brands not GMO agriculture. From the source: "Ketchum’s new branch, called “Cultivate,” is pitching itself to 'help purpose-driven brands with a natural, organic, and sustainable focus.'"
    • It's a bit misleading to say that the Huffington Post reported this. The source is not an article written by a staff reporter or journalist. It's a blog published on the HuffPost platform authored by the co-director of U.S. Right to Know, an organization "pursuing truth and transparency in America's food system." There is definitely bias there.
    • I'd be OK with revising this sentence, but the entry doesn't mention other specific practices Ketchum has by name and I'm not sure that Cultivate is more notable than the others.
  • In the Major work section, would it be possible to add in "Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger" to the Wendy's work? I think noting what the specific product was is relevant. The phrase might read: "and Wendy's on the launch of the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger in 2013, for which they were nominated as a 2014 Shorty Award finalist."
  • What's the reasoning for including the following in the Government work section? "In January 2015, Politico magazine reported that Ketchum had received more than $60 million from the Kremlin from 2006 to 2014." Budgets aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article, so, in my view, the statement only serves to color a reader's perception of the work.
Please let me know your thoughts! Again, I'm very appreciative of your time and assistance here. Heatherer (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just one other item I overlooked initially: what was the reasoning for removing the sentence "The FCC later cleared Ketchum of wrongdoing" in the Government work section? The statement seems straightforward and is sourced, but I'm happy to make edits to the language or find another source. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Suggestions

[edit]

I'm approaching the end of my project with Ketchum, so I wanted to leave a note summarizing two final changes I'd like editors to consider.

1. From the History section: "Huffington Post reported in 2016 that Ketchum had created a new branch to promote chemical-dependent GMO agriculture called 'Cultivate'."

This statement does not accurately reflect the source it references and I'd like editors to carefully review it. The article does not suggest Cultivate promotes GMO agriculture—it says that “'Cultivate,' is pitching itself to 'help purpose-driven brands with a natural, organic, and sustainable focus.'" In addition, the source is not an article written by a journalist, but a blog post written by the co-director of an anti-GMO organization called U.S. Right to Know. I think this sentence can either be revised or removed.

2. It's important to note in the Government work section that accusations against Ketchum of "covert propaganda" were cleared by the FCC. Here's the sentence I originally suggested be included in that paragraph: "The FCC later cleared Ketchum of wrongdoing.[1]"

Thanks in advance for your consideration. My note above this one contains a couple other suggestions if editors wish to work on the article a bit more. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Christopher Lee (October 10, 2016). "Medicare Drug Benefit Outlined in Campaign". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
 Partly done. I've sort of done the first. It was a blatant misrepresentation of the source. Now it just neutrally mentions that Cultivate is supposed to help organic food companies, which even the writer who is highly critical of Ketchum acknowledges. The source you provided for the second change doesn't list anything from the FCC, but does say that Ketchum was found in violation of federal laws by the GAO, which I've added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for making the first change, Patar knight. I seem to have made a mistake regarding the second change—I appreciate you catching it! I mixed up the two cases. It's actually the No Child Left Behind campaign that Ketchum was cleared of wrongdoing on. I've written a few new sentences below that say what I actually meant (and accurately represent the sources!).
  • In 2004, a series of news stories Ketchum produced for HHS that used actors playing journalists reporting on drug benefits without informing viewers of the government connection were found to be in violation of a federal propaganda ban by the Government Accountability Office.[1] In 2005, the Education Department was cited for propaganda after it directed Ketchum to pay for coverage that praised President Bush's education policies.[2] The agency was found to not be at fault by the FCC.[3]
I haven't removed the information you added, but did clarify that it was the stories that were found in violation, not just Ketchum. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Christopher Lee (October 10, 2016). "Medicare Drug Benefit Outlined in Campaign". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
  2. ^ Greg Toppo (January 7, 2005). "Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law". USA Today. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
  3. ^ Diane Farsetta (October 17, 2007). "Time To Pay for Payola Pundit Armstrong Williams". PR Watch. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
 Done. Thanks Heatherer, that source is great. I added a bit more to show that other parties were cited by the FCC, but kept the meat of your suggestion. Thank you for your contributions. This edit request was much easier to do than most others. Short and simple. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, Patar knight! I like the details you added. Thank you again for your assistance and kind words. My goal is to make it as painless as possible for others to review, so it's good to hear I'm on the right track. These were my remaining major concerns with the article, but there are three minor issues that I'd love your thoughts on if you have any more time to help—and I completely understand if you don't. To summarize from the message above:
  • In the first sentence of the introduction, could "branding" be replaced with "digital"? I think digital marketing better represents more of the agency's work.
  • In the Major work section, would it be possible to add in "Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger" to the Wendy's work? I think noting what the specific product was is relevant. The phrase might read: "and Wendy's on the launch of the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger in 2013, for which they were nominated as a 2014 Shorty Award finalist."
  • Is it necessary to include the following in the Government work section? "In January 2015, Politico magazine reported that Ketchum had received more than $60 million from the Kremlin from 2006 to 2014." Budgets aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article, so, in my view, the statement only serves to color a reader's perception of the work.
Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done. I implemented the second request, and some of the third requests. Adding the Pretzel Bacon Cheeseburger is harmless and is mentioned in the source. How much Ketchum was paid for their work is definitely of encyclopedic interest, so I changed the section a bit. The sentence is now clarified that this payment was for the work done, and not for anything else. I didn't implement the first edit because that would drastically affect the grammatical structure of the first sentence. Besides, "branding" would seem to be the broader term, since it doesn't always mean digital. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Patar knight! I understand your reasoning for the changes you didn't make and I appreciate the feedback. This completes my work on this article for the time being. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ketchum Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ketchum_Inc.&oldid=1203258319"