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.

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.

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.

I was talking to a couple of PR friends about their difficulties attracting business within their agencies. Another one was telling me about potential layoffs taking place if they don’t get some business through their doors. With each of these conversations, I asked why they think these situations are taking place. Their answers were the same–”It’s the economy. People don’t want to spend now.”

That might be true–provided that the agencies where these people work don’t change how they operate. In trying economic conditions, successful firms will change how they do business–provide more virtual teams, adapt work processes to accept lower retainer fees, bill for performance as opposed to billing senior people over junior people. We are talking with companies who have PR counsel, but don’t like that they are not changing the way they do business. What’s more, they like that we can adapt to THEIR needs.

SMPR wants to get to a point where the only excuse we make is that we are already working at our capacity, and that we need to hire more people to meet it.

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.

If I hear “spin” as an equal to “public relations,” I could conceivably lose my lunch.

It’s scary to fathom when people don’t understand the role of PR practitioners. In its shortest form, “A” does not equal “B”.

For those who prefer long-form math, here is a breakdown.

If A= Public Relations, and if B= Spin,

Then…

A = Truth. Influence. Strength. Growth.

B = “Untruth.” Weakness. Tail between your legs.

There will be a quiz later; here’s hoping some corporate executives are paying attention.