It’s been a while since the SMartPR blog came out of the woodwork.  Thankfully, we have been busy campers around here.

But the recent news involving Penn State University and its athletic department got us thinking about companies that don’t admit fault when things happen.  How can organizations withstand being guilty for so long?

Sometimes, we can chalk up these mistakes to one’s honor code or how one was raised.  In the Pacific Rim, it is common for companies to not apologize because it is dishonorable.  They would rather hold in the guilt and blame and deal with internally.  But ask the executives and Board members at Olympus how much that guilt has eaten them up inside.  If you haven’t seen the news about Olympus, the company hid at least two decades of losses even though a whistle-blower came forward and thought the company was doing suspicious activity…

…which brings me back to the coaches and athletic department in Not So Happy Valley.  There is a clear disconnect between companies and officials who are MORALLY guilty and those who are LEGALLY guilty.  Thankfully, we saw a Pennsylvania legal official make the same reference in Michael Rosenberg’s CNNSI.com.  Either she is a loyal follower of SMPR (a guy can wish, right?), or she understands the realization that there is a big difference between guilt in a court and guilt of one’s actions.

To be clear, no one should condone what the coaches and personnel did to boys and young men; as a father, it pains me to read stories like what happened at Penn State.  We can say “they should get what is coming to them,” but the damage should already be done.  Guilt is a powerful thing–even if it doesn’t show its face in a court of law right away.

The site may be All Things Digital, but their work is All Things Ethical.

Among the many things I read online and in print, I am a big fan of the Wall Street Journal’s “All Things Digital.”  Having been engrossed in media relations for most of my 15-plus years in the business, I have found that Kara Swisher is among the most insightful journalists out there. Every time I read a story from her, I learn something.

I was reading her most recent post about Google’s seemingly pending acquisition of Groupon, and noticed a line at the end of her story:  Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

I was shocked–in a very good way–when I saw a headline that read, “Kara’s Ethics Statement.”  What was even more cool was the choice of words that Kara offered to her readers:  “Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.” Kudos to Kara for sharing with her readers how she feels about the integrity of her work.

Here at SMPR, we hear the stories about PR pros and journalists, alike, who are called into question about the types of work they do.  With many of our clients, we work with them to draft ethical mission statements in addition to traditional mission statements & key messages to distinguish “sales” from “beliefs.”  In both cases, people need to have trust in what the company does, but how you say each has to be completely different.

Some of the best journalist relationships we have are based on ethics.  We know what people will and won’t cover.  We know that when we position a company, that we are prepared to do so objectively.  If there is something negative about a client that someone brings to our attention and we know it exists, we won’t spin things.  We’ll be honest and upfront–and expect our clients to do the same thing.

We would hope that more journalists follow Kara Swisher’s lead and print their ethics statements for all to see.  For now on, I will still continue to read Kara’s work; I will just appreciate it that much more.

Disclosure on my part:  I have never worked with Kara directly, but hope to one day when the right client comes along.

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.

One of the great things about PR is that when you find a company that “gets it,” it makes for an easy time to showcase that client.  In nearly all of those cases, these companies have superior people implementing processes that are DRIVEN by the people who designed them.

It sounds so easy, but people drive processes not only to make them work, but to make them smarter.  People drive innovation.  People look for ways to make systems more efficient and effective.  Perhaps all else, the smartest companies out there continuously look for ways to make both the people and the processes better.  This is the way that SMPR strives to showcase its clients, by looking at all of a company’s value drivers.

Which side is more important for good PR, process or people?

But when an outside company comes in and acquires another company–especially one built on people-based assets such as culture and talent–the equilibrium tends to shift.  Sadly, a former SMPR client (Flat Top Grill) has shifted for the worse.

Let’s be clear here–I am not sharing this information intending to spill “sour grapes” about a former client, let alone a former employer (disclosure–I worked for the company more than 10 years ago).  I am, however, sharing this because this company used to be the epicenter of customer experiences and people management, and it has reached an abyss that is so low that I worry that it will never get out.

I went into lunch at Flat Top Grill’s Loop location because I wanted to see how the company has changed since we stopped working with them.  To be sure, the people who we knew were no longer with the company (not that I expected to see them).  But the product has become so commoditized; what’s worse, the product was so poor, the service was so bad and the people–the very asset we looked to showcase–were so poorly trained and executed that it made me wonder how a company and its culture could sink so fast.

Want proof?

• I had to wait 22 MINUTES for my bowl to be delivered to me (WAY beyond the norm).
• Ingredients are supposed to be mixed together, but in my mouth was the very spoonful of wasabi I spooned in; my mouth was burning hot.
• I would have had water, but my glass wasn’t filled.  I had to run to a bathroom to get water (SERIOUSLY).
• Since when is soy put in beef and chicken?  Oh yeah, as a PRESERVATIVE.  If I wanted soy, I would have asked for tofu.
• As a former Partner (the company’s term for employee), I am entitled a professional courtesy when I dine there; I was asked three different times where I worked, who I was and why I asked for the discount; my bill must have been important to them…
• …but if it was so important, then why did it take all of these people so long to get my bill?  The server’s response–”We’re busy.”  Uh, hello?  Restaurants are SUPPOSED to be busy and you’re supposed to be PREPARED.

Unfortunately, the company has lost touch with the very thing that put the company in growth mode–its people.  Training and systems were tossed aside in favor of processes to save money.  I don’t need to look at their books to know that.  I asked a CEO of a major restaurant group in town what would have happened to his company if any of this had happened.  His response:  “I would be tracking down that customer to get their inputs how we can change things to make things right for him….”

Sadly, I doubt that will happen; Flat Top Grill has lost touch with what was important.  Perhaps one day, they can find what made them successful.

Is this what brand managers hope for when they communicate messages?

What’s the old phrase–fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  I’m

starting to think that this should apply to brands and their marketing practices.

Within the past three months, my business checking account has been hacked.  Twice.  By seemingly the same person.  The Fraud Prevention Department of my bank (A clue on the name:  The bank is “chasing” this customer away) doesn’t seem to know how someone could get both my debit card number and PIN code when I haven’t shared it with anyone or anything other than the ATM machine that gets my inputs.

This is troublesome–for months, banks like Chase and Bank of America have spent millions of dollars on advertising to small businesses like mine about how secure their banking systems are.  Yet here they are having to spend time and energy on another case of fraud; I am sure I am not alone.

Chase has failed on its promise as a bank to keep my money secure, and they have failed to deliver on what their brand is supposed to stand for.  Sure, it is not popular or cool for a bank to admit they’re not perfect, and that accidents can happen.  But doing so is a lot better if you want to stay on an equal footing with your customers.

Truth in messaging is about respecting your customers.  Apparently, the only thing Chase respects is…well, I don’t know what they respect anymore.  They’ve lost me, both for the brand identity as well as a customer.

Back in January, I wrote about the number of people who were relying on “the economy” as an excuse for attracting new business. When client make cuts to budgets, they have a crutch to fall back upon–”It’s the economy…” I had hoped to find examples of companies or people who believed the same thing.

Thankfully, I found a great lead. If you haven’t done so, check out the May 2009 issue of INC. and read Joel Spolsky’s “It Isn’t the Economy, Stupid.” It captures much of what I was talking about in January.  No matter the month, no matter the season, no matter the company’s size or acumen, the best companies adapt to address the needs of their customers.

Mr. Spolsky’s article references the demise of Circuit City and its inability to connect with customers.  Can you blame the economy on consumers not buying electronics? Sure. But what about Best Buy? What about Amazon? What about Apple? They sell electronics and are doing OK. These companies have a host of intangible assets like culture, customer-centric systems, strong infrastructure.

Herein lies a lesson for PR practitioners everywhere. SMPR preaches that we care about what clients think as much as what they do.  We know there are ways to make a brand mean something to a customer, but you need a people-first voice to make it work, not a company-first voice.

When you blame the economy, the company is speaking for people.  When people speak on behalf of companies, innovation can take many shapes.

What other ways can a company get around “It’s the economy?”  I’m interested in your feedback.

Yesterday, I was in The Big Apple celebrating the accomplishments of Pier Giulianotti being named as one of FAST COMPANY’S 100 Most Creative People in Business. At the airport, I noticed a slew of magazine covers touting the possible divorce of Jon & Kate Gosselin, and overheard more than a few people wondering what might happen to their reality show.

I never want to see parents split up from their kids and I hope this is not a ploy by the producers to increase ratings.  Still, this is not news to me; it is news for the producers of the show and TLC (the channel showing it) because they don’t want to lose a valuable property.

Being the father of twins and another daughter, I can understand (to a degree) why people are fascinated with the Gosselins; it’s not every day that a family has eight little kids to deal with; our lives are full with three.  But these reality show producers (and even the Gosselins) would be wise in watching their local news or (perish the thought!) picking up a newspaper and getting to know the plight of single-parented households.

• A kid in the inner city who busts his a.. for a college scholarship while his Mom is working two jobs to make ends meet?  THAT’S reality.
• A group of students who want to survive even going to school while gang violence proliferates their neighborhood?  THAT’S reality.
• A divorced mother having to go to court while she is working because of a deadbeat father?  THAT’S reality.

These are stories that have come from the news desks and newspapers in our community.  These news items are stories; they are unadulterated; they are interesting; some might be sad, but some have happy endings.

Most importantly–and perhaps sadly–they don’t have their own reality show.  I would bet they could use the money as effectively as Jon & Kate.

Social media has become the good-looking girl in high school who everyone wants to call their own.

I saw an article in Advertising Age recently about how ad agencies and other marketers have created these departments dedicated to social media.  Jonah Bloom suggests that they be dismantled; perhaps another approach might be applicable.

Being that this in advertising industry publication, it makes sense that Mr. Bloom discusses the piece from that industry’s vantage point.  But let’s face it–social media is being “claimed” by all agencies, not just those which create advertising.  PR firms, direct marketers, and ad agencies alike are all claiming to do it.  It’s like social media is the hot girl in high school–everyone wants to take her to the prom so they can say, “she’s with me.”

Rather than building towers or knocking towers down, why don’t we take what’s good about the towers and mesh them with the offices and people who have already built towers within their own expertise?

What social media is doing–and where I see the greatest opportunity for its long-term future–is positioning the customer’s voice in front of everyone in a company–not just its marketing department.   The good-looking high school girl might be making the rounds, but she is not going to latch on to just one date; there is value with everyone she is connected with.

Jonah Bloom said it well in his article; consumers are running the biggest recommendation service in the world.  It’s time that we (as marketers) look for ways to collectively embrace these recommendations so that our clients can collectively benefit from them.