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?

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.

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.

Blogs have become the modern-day version of the press kit. It seems like every client program these days includes at least one recommendation for a blog or video blog to help showcase a client’s story, or a place for a client’s customers to share their stories.

Unfortunately, like many press kits, they aren’t being read. Resources that went into developing blogs have gone for not. Why?

Our guess–there are way too many blogs out there; a select few actually accomplish the connectivity that clients crave.

Now might be a good time to start rethinking about how we segment and position blogs, at least in the eyes of the deliverables clients are seeking.

Our role as PR practitioners starts and ends with doing what is possible to advocate our clients’ positions. Accordingly, our role in making recommendations about blogging—should be based on “BLOGVOCACY,” a term SMPR has coined to advocate a set position or theme on a blog, staying away from personal opinions in order to move toward a measurable objective in communication.

Without question, I am an avid blog supporter. I read them as part of my content repertoire and find many of them interesting. Unfortunately, too many blogs don’t connect to customers and influencers as strongly as we would like; if the Internet had a drain, it would need to be pulled because there are simply too many blogs out there.

As we move forward with making recommendations, let’s do what we can to amplify clients’ positions; I am sure they’ll thank us for it.

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.