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?

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.

Who knew “inside information” would take on a whole new meaning?

Steve Jobs’ personal health has taken as much a position in Apple’s corporate positioning as the newest iPhone. In its most recent article in the New York Times, there are several people who suggest that Apple’s shroud of secrecy is a significant detriment to telling the world about the company’s performance.

Have you ever seen 12 ANGRY MEN, the movie about a jury who, at the onset, was convinced a crime had been committed, only to conclude that the person on trial couldn’t have done it?  Reviewing this situation reminds me of the movie.

To be sure, Jobs has been the face of Apple and is as much an asset as his company’s sleek designs.  But I am having a hard time siding with people who suggest that the company has a responsibility in disclosing his illness.

Let’s turn the tables for a second and leverage SMPR’s view of ethics in thinking about this issue:

• Morally, is there an absolute reason why the matter should be divulged?  What if Steve Jobs worked for any other company, public or private?   One’s personal health should be viewed in the context of how it affects one’s family first.  If he/his family don’t want the news to be released, then should it matter who else knows about it?
• Legally, what court system would hold Apple accountable for withholding information about its CEO?  Is he the one designing the computers and iPods and iPhones?  Last time I checked, there were a lot of other people who worked there who have as much (if not more) influence on product design and performance.
• The brunt of the argument seems to be on the economic impact that Jobs has on the company.  Again, last time I looked at the stock quotes, the doors are still open, and they WERE open while he was off of work.  Sales were high, people are still flocking the stores, the brand still has high equity among consumers.
• Socially speaking, I can appreciate both sides of the argument–if a company is not accountable and clear with its communications, then there is a perceived level of “untruth” unless the company comes clean.  But if a company believes its intellectual property is an asset that shouldn’t be shared, then they have the right to preserve it–however unpopular it might be.

Last point here–have you ever noticed that neither this story nor others like it have made it a point to ask how Mr. Jobs is feeling?

So Mr. Jobs, if you’re reading this, feel better.  I hope you can make it back to work, but if you cannot, I have faith in the people running your company.

As communicators, it is among our responsibilities to not only guide clients on what is trend-worthy, but also to suggest where to define new curves that define future generations. Those defining the green movement are on a one-way ticket with no clearly defined destination.

There is a growing sentiment among many influencers that being green has reached critical mass. We are reaching saturation with the message such that it doesn’t have “oomph” like it once did. You never see anyone talking about shades of green-—you either are or you aren’t.

What does green really mean to a company’s bottom line beyond money and social acceptance? Admitting that one is not green enough could be negatively perceived; yet, green has no middle ground.

Recognizing the need to move beyond what is commonly accepted, might I suggest the following “sustainability rainbow” on how to move sustainability toward more progressive thinking? With apologies to Kermit the Frog, it’s not easy—or enough—being green, anymore.

Sustainability’s initial color was brown. “Brown” communication was representative of nature, i.e., granola, trees, anything earth-related and associated with hippies and related alternative movements. As brown deepened its roots with such movements as grunge and organic foods, we learned that brown stood for a deeper appreciation of natural resources.

Green is where we are today. The current state of sustainability communications—-call it Sustainability 2.0.

Blue will be the next green. Why is it that the earth’s surface is 75% water and we are coloring it green? We associate green water as being filled with algae and bacteria, but we associate blue with skies and water. In Europe and Great Britain, the talk is all about how to make better use of these resources. A burgeoning group of companies, business professionals and environmentalists, alike, have begun researching and harnessing blue’s power in the United States.

The next color is “clear.” (I know clear is more shade than color)
When fuels and energies burn, they are transformed into colorless by-products. Yet, clear also speaks to the connectivity of two business trends. In the early part of this decade, Sarbanes-Oxley and enacted regulations provided financial transparency and accountability. As companies seek tighter connections with influencers, they will strive to be as “clear” as possible about how it conducts business beyond finances and CSR.

Technically, a rainbow has an infinite number of colors. Let’s stop tinting our distortion to sustainability and think differently about the issue.