I thought y’all might be interested in the following article/blog I wrote for PR NEWSWIRE’s “Investor Uprising” community.

Is it possible for Groupon to issue a deal-of-the-day for its own stock when its IPO comes around? 

Here’s my thought; what do you think?

Recently, I posted an article on SMPR’s Facebook page about how the DETROIT NEWS (my hometown newspaper) seemingly threw its ethical codes out the window (not to mention selling its soul) and changed an article to soothe an advertiser’s wallet and ego.  Combined with the latest Groupon fiasco and its ad blunder (I wrote about this issue on A Sorry State), maybe it’s time to skin the cat differently.

So I thought it would be cool to share something that is cool about ethics, specifically talking about how our friends in the advertising industry are making efforts to bring more of an ethical position into their operations.

Check out the following article from ADVERTISING AGE on the industry’s attempt to get more ethical.  These are really good ideas; what do y’all think?

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.

The calendar says January; no more 2007 holiday parties, gift baskets–and traditional reflections and prognostications about business and commerce.

Whether you work for a Fortune 500 company or a small mom-and-pop shop, executives are tirelessly and feverishly working on how to improve their position in the marketplace. In my attempt to plan ahead, I cleaned my desk in the hope I can keep things neat, tidy and simple.

But who would have thought that a simple task would develop a primer for how to manage through the tumult of corporate performance?

Tape Theory Applied

Looking through the annals of corporate history, there are several stories of companies trying to accomplish more than their core competencies. In an ever-growing attempt to please shareholders and corporate boards, executives have sought acquisitions of brands, companies or processes in an attempt to maximize business processes, only to find that it makes more business sense to have these companies act individually.

I’m not here to argue which mergers or divestitures make more sense than others.

But I would contend that simplicity and focus should be the key deliverables for businesses everywhere, especially during a time when several companies have divested themselves from what truly sets them apart from their peers.

I have tried to subscribe to this message by looking at a roll of tape. It’s amazing what you can learn from a collection of plastic and adhesive sitting in a sea of simulated wood cabinet. But this “tape theory” could stick to a lot of companies making the choice on how they want to evolve their business models:

Transparent tape is just that—transparent. There is nothing to hide from this kind of tape. The adhesive, the plastic, even the product in which keeps the tape in place is clear. There is no hidden agenda or deliverable—I know what I am paying for.

Tape sets an expectation—it will stick. There aren’t too many products which hold themselves accountable for their actions like tape. You don’t buy tape with the expectation that it doesn’t adhere to something or keep something together. There is an implied knowledge that one knows what he/she is getting when the product is in use. How many companies can say that?

There are other tape types in my drawer, but this one sets the tone for the others. At the time this article was written, there have been countless rumors about GE selling its NBC unit because of the fit amongst its other business units. Conglomerated companies often have vague “About Us” statements when talking about what they do; that lack of clarity is a beacon that changes are on the horizon. When a company has focus, it can communicate its core competencies without long sentences or corporate hyperbole.

Such is the case with transparent tape—masking tape, duct tape and colored tape all have specific functions, but they all drive back to the core deliverable of the product category.

When you have a good product with good systems to back it up, everyone wants to know how to do it. Richard Drew—the 3M engineer who invented the world’s first transparent cellophane adhesive tape in the 1800s[1]—and his peers defined a new category. Once word got out about it, other companies tried to copy the process, but 3M defined the standard that others followed.

It’s a practice which still follows suit today. There are several companies which attempt to do many things, but what value is truly derived from being all things to all people? By continuously working on the things which made you good in the first place, there will always be a new opportunity for innovation, provided you can find those people within in your company to champion the cause.

I don’t have all of the answers to solve corporate performance or improve productivity. But imagine what can be accomplished if we keep our eyes on the prize which we know we can obtain?

Maybe it’s time for all of us to clean our desks more often.