Over the last few years, there have been more than a fair share of  “pot shots” thrown at PR people who perform less than what is expected of them.  Recently, there was a case of a firm posting favorable comments on iTunes–and the FTC called them out.  Without question, they deserved to be caught.  And as most cases like this play out, many media outlets take any chance they can get for rolling PR under the proverbial bus.

What happens, though, when the tables are turned?  What happens when media outlets don’t do the necessary fact-checking to make sure THEIR work is ethical, objective and above ground?

I bring this up as I was sent an online video from CRAIN’S CHICAGO BUSINESS this week.  In it, an events company account executive touts how good this one restaurant was, how amazing some of the dishes were, how you couldn’t walk out of there without feeling like you were at one of the best restaurants in Chicago.  If I were their PR person, I would be ecstatic with such a piece.

Yet, I have to wonder if the people putting this segment together did their homework about the restaurant, the source and the history between the two.

• The account executive mentioned in the video just happens to be the daughter of one of the restaurant company’s top executives.  I know this because I met them both at a charity function, and I entered the father’s business card into my Rolodex.
• The father was a top executive at one of Chicago’s TV stations, so it is my business to know who works where in the media, as well as who moves on.  His name is recognizable, so it piqued my curiosity to confirm that the daughter was the same person I met at the event.
• The story neglects to mention that this account executive also used to work at this restaurant at one time in her career.

Those who know me how much I respect business media, and I LOVE CRAIN’S here in Chicago.  It is such a good media outlet and enterprise, that it surprised me to see something like this story actually making it to the public.

I am passionate about ethics in both PR and journalism.  This story reads and feels awkward, especially since it’s my job to know the city’s “who’s who.”  This is not the fair, balanced and objective journalism I am used to seeing in CRAIN’S; it looks like Daddy’s little girl is promoting Daddy’s company on CRAIN’S dime.

Doing some digging around, I learned that people at CRAIN’S don’t produce the segments; they come from the group hosting the segment.  Still, there is a level of responsibility that comes into play here, and something SMPR takes very seriously:

• In all of our endeavors, we are supposed to fact-check, do our homework and make sure that nothing that we communicate on behalf of our clients could be called into question.  If we do it, our clients are smart enough to know about it–and they will show us the door.
• We have a responsibility and “code of honor” to respect the journalists, analysts and other groups who we work with.
• As PR counselors, we have a responsibility to help our clients tell the truth to all of their constituents and influencers, even it the truth ruffles feathers.

Maybe the folks at CRAIN’S who were provided the video package didn’t know the truth; hopefully, they know about this and will do something about it.  I trust CRAIN’S will do something; that is what good journalists do.

If we were counseling the restaurant company, we would advise them to come forth and acknowledge the relationship, discuss their knowledge of the story being done and (if needed) who was at the root of the video being done–the daughter or the father.

I’ll continue to pick up my CRAIN’S every week and read the daily news digests in my mailbox.  But when it comes to getting objective restaurant reviews, I’ll go somewhere else.

BP should exemplify the need for businesses to have "insurance policies" for their corporate processes.

A few days ago, I was talking with a journalist about my insights of corporate reputations in light of the BP fiasco.

Certainly, there are many people who would subscribe that all it takes is one chink in the armor to knock a company like BP and its people down–and we all know there are people lining up at the door.  Tony Heyward has become corporate America’s latest addition to America’s Most Wanted.  If things weren’t bad enough, Heyward’s attendance at a yacht race has the PR people swimming uphill yet again (uh, Tony, unless your yacht is solar-powered I wouldn’t be going to these sorts of events anytime soon–word to the wise).

Just as we hear about consumers needing insurance policies for when they become disabled or hurt, companies need to think about the types of insurance available to them to protect themselves.  In honor of Heyward’s latest snafu, following are some suggested options for companies to consider when “insuring their safety”:

• “Long-term care”–What happens when a company and/or its employees need to stop work for extended periods of time?  How are internal processes handled such that work disruption is minimized?
• “Whole life insurance”–Companies should offer self-imposed fire drills about how to handle a catastrophe before it happens.  From my vantage point, I am surprised at how much BP is “winging it” as opposed to following an established set of protocols. As a result, they are digging themselves a deeper hole from which to climb.
• “Disability”–A comprehensive review of policies and procedures is in order for any company to protect itself from internal issues which could hamper the company making money in either the short- or long-term.What other types of policies are out there?

CBS won't allow ManCrunch to run with the ball.

I am really excited for the Super Bowl–the teams are getting ready to put their best face forward; millions of people will see stars in the making and see others thrown to the side by armchair quarterbacks wondering what they would have done differently.

And oh yeah, there will be a football game, too.

The marketing community’s annual tradition of Super Bowl advertising hype is in full force.  This year, there is controversy even before I can throw the hot dogs on the BBQ.  This morning, I saw a story about CBS pulled the plug on the following ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating Web site.  The PR people at CBS are already spewing statements noting that the site also has issues with its credit.

If anything, I would question the credit of CBS.

How does a network like CBS draw a line in the sand between Florida Gator Tim Tebow appearing with his Mom in an anti-abortion ad and the ad from ManCrunch?  Is one ad more or less acceptable than the other?

Analyzing the drivers of these decisions are crucial to the study of PR ethics:

• Tebow has a bright future ahead of him in the NFL (although many scouts think he is the next Gino Torretta).  He is a safe bet to be a poster child for something which can be good for the NFL, i.e., family values.
• I have never seen morals get in the way of Super Bowl ads until now.  Where were all of the pundits when GoDaddy ran its ads on the air?  Sure, sex sells, but does the thinking go that it only works for heterosexual men?
• Then there’s the almighty dollar discussions, especially if the prevailing thought is that sponsors would leave the game because there is an “offensive” ad.

If the “sex sells” argument is being utilized here, then what about the “no sex sells” idealism?  Rather than going in the direction that the Tebow family went, what about an alternative message promoting safe sex that prevents thinking about abortions?

ManCrunch is gaining a lot of publicity and ad views online because the CBS brass said no to the ad.  But in what I think will be an ongoing debate leading up to the Super Bowl’s kickoff, there is already a penalty of offensive interference–and there hasn’t even been a snap count yet.

What do you think?  Am I off-base here?

I am one of those PR people who often gets feelings of guilt when he gets coverage for himself; I would rather get the coverage for our clients.

Still, when we have a good idea and the media likes it, we like sharing the news.  Last week, PRWeek printed an article I wrote which speaks to something near and dear to me–how to create more value out of the results that PR firms generate.

I thought you might be interested in reading it (if you cannot open it or don’t have access, Tweet me @shmaraksmpr and I will send it your way), and hope you can apply some of what is here to your company and its clients.  If you’re ever up for discussing specific ideas within your agency, the door (and e-mailbox) is open.

Many thanks–

Michael Shmarak

We just coordinated an interview for the CEO of Flat Top Grill (www.flattopgrill.com) that is slated to run in the Chicago Sun-Times in the coming days. The crux of the story–authored by Sandra Guy–is about how restaurants in the city of Chicago are dealing with the increased tax of restaurants in Chicago, on top of the sales tax hike recently enacted by the Stroger administration.

Discussions around this story got me thinking about how the city of Chicago might wish to consider raising revenue in a downward economy. At SMPR, we advocate learning from other business models and industries to provide insight on how to do things differently. So let’s throw an idea out there, courtesy of sports stadiums, corporate branding and buzz marketing.

Here is the ultimate sponsorship initiative–rename the city of Chicago, with the assistance of the world’s foremost authority on Internet search.

Chicago + Google = ChicaGoogle

What a way to attract Olympic officials for 2016!!! Mr. Daley, Mr. Brin, Mr. Page, are you there? Has one company or group ever gone as so far to “buy” a city? Kim Basinger paid $20 million for a small town in Georgia in 1989, but not even her (ahem) star power could be as powerful as Chez Google.

Is this idea farfetched? Sure. But raising taxes for Chicago restaurants to 11+ percent seemed like a pipe dream, too–and look where we are now.

It’s been a while since I posted anything here, more or less because life–and SMPR–are about to change a whole bunch when my wife gives birth to twins (this on top of the cutest 2 year-old girl any guy could have as a daughter).

But it’s this kind of love that makes me wonder why more PR folks don’t bring the same type of love from their personal lives into their work life (don’t ask me about relationship help if you’re single–can’t help you there).

When we talk about PR measurement, everyone talks about ROI; clips; new business generation–the realm is endless, so much so I think some people talk about it just to hear themselves. Why don’t we ever talk about such a “deliverable” as Client Love?

* Do clients not love their agencies?
* Do we need something simpler–Client Like; Client Respect; Client I Like You But I Really Cannot Commit?

For if there is a real test of the value of an agency, and the RELATIONSHIP between a client and agency is so important, then why not measure this?

Maybe–like a personal relationship–that love is a hard thing to come by. But if you prep your client and your people internally that love is what makes the world go round and not the other brouhaha of our lives, then the relationship takes on new meaning.

Am I off base here? Am I riding this wave of emotion with my new kids on the way? Perhaps. But if you ask some of our clients, they would tell you that our value is reaped far beyond the dollars invested in our services or that we deliver results over and above expectations.

We aim for Client Love as the ultimate deliverable? Do you?