All organizations are comprised of diverse parts. Ya got your college preps, hippies, greasers and sports primarily. Each subgroup brings their own set of talents. Bottom line: the spokesperson talent does not necessarily come out of the RSS-Geek-Tool-Blog-Moderator-Bald-Douche-Bag type. As such, an undisciplined geek is NOT the guy you want speaking on behalf of the institution. That's something that Rubel and the Me2FlyingGomes just don't get. Rubel has publicly questioned who should speak on behalf the company. That's just painfully goofy. Death by a thousand cuts, where is thy sting?

Okay, I've spent way too much time trying to figure out what in dear God Richard is thinking. I can come up with two possible scenarios:

-- First, it's all about internal control. Think of "The Edelmans" as the over-liberal parents whose solution to high school drinking is to tell their boys that it's okay as long as they do it at home. I mean, the kids are going to do it anyway.

Of course, indirectly, that sanctions/promotes the activity for all the other teen drunks. And of course, drinking soon becomes only a small part of all the God-only-knows hedonistic nonsense that goes on over there.

-- Second, the Me2REvolution is a loss-leader effort to stimulate other profitable sales. It's just sales promotion pure and simple. I mean did Richard buy Rubel for the new business he brought? No. Has Rubel justified his salary in new business or client service yet? Doubt it. Is Rubel's blog Micro Persuasion a huge billboard advertisement for Edleman? You bet. No more; no less.

Good? I don't know. It all has to be weighed against potential exposure. Sure, one could easily argue that besides the RSS-tool stuff, who takes Rubel seriously anyway? But I don't think it's about conversion, per se, it's just plain general awareness. I don't think Rubel's statement regarding companies that "suck" convinced any actually suckie companies. The statement did however negatively tattoo Edelman.

Worse yet, what about the potential for legal exposure that could result from having teenage-drinking parties at your home?

Well first off, there is subtle genius behind Rubel's announcement. Companies that truly suck rarely sue. That's fact. They've got no money. But there's always the odd-ball chance that one will. It might take a thousand monkeys to write Hamlet; but it only takes one to inspire a claim against your company. Simply stated: "Open conversation" is a corporate risk.

Why? Even the Edelman kids understand the central conflict. Edelman's Mike Krempasky says it clearly: "Almost every blogger faces a conflict between his or her writing and the day job." Phil Gomes weighs in to make that boundary clear as mud: "[Some] might take a dim view of the humor and freewheelingly gonzoid writing style of [my] site. That's why [I] have taken to calling it a "perso-professional" website."

See... as much as they might claim "The views expressed on this blog are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer," in light of the conflict, legally that would not hold. Certainly, their differently branded webs sites are nothing more than an extension of their role as social media experts selling social media expertise for their "master." As the PR business is 24/7, when do they take their corporate hats off? Never. Who would argue that Micro Persuasion is not an extension of Edelman?

Now hold that up to the law. Is an employer responsible for an intentional assault by an employee? You bet. Consider this:

"An employer can be held responsible for an intentional tort if it is determined that the employee was within the scope of his employment, or trying to further his employer's business. An example would be a gas station attendant running down someone trying to take off with gas and doing serious harm to them. The seminal case Crittenden v. Thompson-Walker Co. 288 SC 112, 341 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1986): '[I]t is not necessary to find the particular act creating liability was within the servant's authority. Nor is it necessary that the assault could have been made as a means or for the purpose of performing the work the servant was employed to do. If the servant is doing some act in furtherance of the master's business, he will be regarded as acting within the scope of his employment, although he may exceed his authority.' On the other hand, if the servant acts for some independent purpose of his own, wholly disconnected with the furtherance of his master's business, his conduct falls outside the scope of his employment. If there is doubt as to whether the servant in injuring a third party was acting at the time within the scope of his employment, the doubt will be resolved against the master, at least to the extent of requiring the question to be submitted to the jury for determination."

In light of that, now read/reread Krempasky's recent headline "Dana Lejune. Still an assclown." First imagine Richard Edelman (respondeat superior) saying that on behalf of his firm Edelman. Now consider just how close or over the line of legal liability that is.

Lots to think about. Antithetically, there are lessons here for any corporation thinking about defining rules for employee blogs.

Here are a few take aways:

1) Children should be seen and not heard. Better said, loose lips sink ships. I had a boss once that had a hard fast rule: "Get caught talking about company business in the elevators, you're fired."

See, I think that today's juniors take offense to that. And as there are a lot of juniors blogging, the misperception is widespread. It's free speech vs. corporate speech. I had a junior who after being cautioned about her behavior insisted that America was a democracy and free speech was her right. I fired her on the spot.

2) The Edelman kids are flaunting no consequence and just begging to get whacked. Krempasky's "two favorite letters of the alphabet are C & D" (Cease and Desist). Forget the ethical implications of that, just focus on some punk looking at an adversary and pointing at his chin. These aren't just loose cannons, they're loose canons proud of being loose cannons. And when they ultimately get in trouble, dad is going to pay big.

More clarity here is only a matter of time.

EDITOR'S NOTE: As of this posting, Edelman is the #1 fan of Strumpette. I hope they don't like us because we suck.