Tag Archives: ethics

A Disgusted Capitalist

Let me begin by saying I’m a fan of making money. However, just as with free speech (you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater), I think there are some limits as to what a person can do in order to make that money. I was reminded of what those limits should be this week when I received what is not, unfortunately, an atypical letter in the mail.

I recently registered my business in a new place. I also purchased a car. In both cases, I received letters in the mail that seemed incredibly official but which were, in fact, full of deceptive language and claims. In the former case, I got a “Labor Law Compliance Notice,” that informed me I was required by Federal Law(!!) to hang a poster in my place of business. While that might be true for most businesses, because I have no employees, my business is not required to hang anything other than the 250 pictures of myself I keep around for inspiration. A little research by this company would have saved them the stamp. Still, this notice is extremely official looking, cites Federal Law, and looks like a bill for $84. Had I been required to hang these posters, there are numerous other vendors who will sell you the same thing for a quarter the price.

The same sort of deceptive crap followed the car purchase. Notices about activating my warranty came from a few sources, none of which had anything to do with the car manufacturer, and who were looking to sell me a superfluous warranty (the car will be under the manufacturer’s warranty for quite a while). Obviously, since these folks can see what year the car was made they know that, but they sent the letters anyway.

You’ve probably received phone calls from the “service department” or “IT support” telling you your computer is full of spam. While the aforementioned companies don’t fall into the outright scam category that the computer scammers do, they raise a serious issue for us all:

How far will we go to make a buck?

Charities that give tiny percentages of the money raised to the causes they serve, enriching the folks who run them instead. VW and other manufacturers rigging emission tests. Kellogg‘s claiming Rice Krispies boosted the immune system or Mini-Wheats made you smarter. It’s a long list, one to which I’m sure you could add just by opening your mail.

There are people behind these deceptions, people with minimal ethical principles. Did they at any point ask themselves how they’d feel if their elderly parent bought into a scam they were enabling?

I’m all for making a buck, lot of them in fact. But as with almost everything, there is a right way and a wrong way. You decide.


Leave a comment

Filed under Huh?, Thinking Aloud

Still Not Worthy

I’ve written before about an annual survey conducted by the Gallup folks. They ask people to “tell me how you would rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in these different fields – very high, high, average, low, or very low.” I’m sure it’s not shocking to you that nurses top the chart with respect to the percentage of people who respond their ethics and honesty are high or very high. It might, however, be a shock to you where businesspeople – and ad people in particular – fall on the scale.  

Just 1 in 10 US adults rates the honesty and ethical standards of advertising practitioners as high or very high.  While ad people did manage to surpass car salespeople (8% rating as having high or very high honesty and ethical standards), members of Congress (8%), telemarketers (8%) and lobbyists (7%), it’s still not very good.  In fact, it’s sad.  But is it a surprise?

Unfortunately, I don’t think so.  Not when we can read members of the ad community advocating disguising ads as content.  Not when we knowingly allow robots to access our sites so it appears that we’re serving up more ads to people than we really are.  Not when influencers talk about something they like without disclosing that they’ve been paid to mention the product.

It’s not just the ad business.  Business executives overall were well thought of by only 17% of the respondents.  That falls behind lawyers (21%) and labor union leaders (18%).  Again, not a shock, given the almost daily news reports of unsafe products (hoverboards, air bags to mention just two) that the manufacturers knew had a problem but which were sold anyway.

2016 is only a few weeks old. Maybe instead of resolving to lose weight or to quit smoking, those of us in business need to resolve to up our ethics and honesty?  Maybe we should be focusing on doing right for our customers and not for our shareholders?  What are your thoughts?


Leave a comment

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks

What’s Missing?

Big headline this morning on eMarketer.  It reads:

Good News: Publishers and Media Buyers Both Like Native Ads

I don’t know about you but I feel so much better that native advertising is here to stay.  For those of you unfamiliar with the subject, native advertising is ad content that presents itself as editorial.  Maybe you’re reading the website of a popular magazine and there is an article on what to look for when buying sunscreen.  Maybe you don’t notice that it’s written by the head of marketing from a sunscreen manufacturer.  If you know that, does it call into question any of the information you’re reading?  It does in my mind if that information recommends that you look for certain things on the label (you can bet they’re on HIS product’s label), etc.

This piece over at copyblogger can show you more examples.  My guess is that you had no idea that some of what you’ll see is advertising.  That’s the issue I have with the headline.  Publishers are represented.  So are advertisers through their media buyers.  What’s missing?

You are.  We are.  Consumers are.  They may like it but do you?  I don’t.  And this does not make me feel any better about it:

In a June 2014 study by Mixpo, nearly three-quarters of US publishers said having a native advertising offering was important. And they were taking action. The majority of respondents offered a native advertising solution, and an additional one-fifth planned to do so within the next few years at most.

I don’t want to have to wonder if anything I’m reading is editorial or advertising.  I don’t want to be researching my research to ascertain if it’s unbiased or quietly (some might say sneakily) advocating a brand.  I don’t like native ads unless they are clearly labeled as “advertising” and I’m sad that what I think (or what you think) doesn’t seem to be part of the equation that’s formulated about its future.

What’s your take?

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

What Price Ethics?

So here is an interesting question for you.  I was reading the results of a study conducted by the good folks from Trade Extensions that concerned how consumers view ethics and sustainability and how they affect purchasing decisions.  When you ask people how important it is that companies behave ethically and with an eye towards sustainability, four out of five consumers regard it as important.  That would suggest that doing the right thing (whatever that may be) is a critical factor in purchasing, right?

Not so much:

When asked to rank the three most important attributes when shopping, the most important factor is price – 40% of consumers ranked this number one.  The second most important factor is value for money – 30% ranked this number one. And the third most important factor is quality –  16% ranked this number one.  Choosing an ethical company or brand when shopping is the most important factor and ranked number one for 2% of UK and US consumers.

Hmm.  So is that a license for a company to do whatever they want as long as prices are low?  Given some of the voices speaking out against Walmart, for example, over things such as foreign product sourcing, treatment of product suppliers, environmental practices, etc., apparently not.  Like most things in business, it’s not quite that black and white.  The research shows a desire from consumers to buy ethically but ultimately price, value and quality are the deciding factors.

Other studies have shown similar results.  One from Accenture found that sales and competitive pricing (61%) are by far the most critical factors in getting consumers to make a purchase. Superior products (36%) and customer experience (35%) are also key, according to respondents, followed closely by customer loyalty programs (31%) and relevant promotions (26%). Ad campaigns and celebrity endorsements trailed by a significant margin, presumably as they’re more influential in driving awareness than completed purchases.

So back to ethical behavior.  Can any company afford to ignore it?  I suspect it’s very possible to do good while doing well and to enhance the quality of consumer’s lives in an honorable way.  Maybe it’s not much of a selling point because so few companies have that focus?  What is your take?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Canada Gets It Right

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t even try to play one on TV.

English: Supreme Court of Canada building, Ott...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That said, the screed today is one citizen’s view of something that happened with our neighbors to the North and why I think it should serve as an example for us.  As has been happening here, the Canadian government is trying to expand the scope of warrantless, voluntary disclosure of personal information via digital.  There are bills before the legislature which would permit many of the same activities that have been occurring here for years to go on in Canada.   These include the warrantless disclosure of data to law enforcement as well as immunity from any criminal or civil liability  for companies that do so.  The Canadians are also considering allowing organizations to disclose personal information without consent (and without a court order) to any organization that is investigating a contractual breech or possible violation of any law.  Read that carefully – ANY organization – including non-governmental.

The other day things changed:

The Supreme Court of Canada issued its long-awaited R. v. Spencer decision, which examined the legality of voluntary warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information to law enforcement. In a unanimous decision, the court issued a strong endorsement of Internet privacy, emphasizing the privacy importance of subscriber information, the right to anonymity, and the need for police to obtain a warrant for subscriber information except in exigent circumstances or under a reasonable law.

Revolutionary?  One might think, except we’ve had a similar law on our books for a hundreds of years.  It’s called the Fourth Amendment and it protects each of us from unreasonable searches and seizures.  It also states the government must have warrants which are specific as to what the search is about.  No fishing trips permitted.  I’ll wait while the lawyers tell me I’m missing nuance and maybe I am.  That said, I’m outraged and sickened by what has been occurring with much regularity over the last 13 years and the fact that companies are complicit in allowing fishing trips by government.  It’s just as bad in my book that businesses grab data from users without explicit permission nor do they disclose what data is taken, how it is to be used, and when it is sold to third parties.

Today isn’t meant to do anything except call your attention to the issue.  If you’ve not been paying attention to it you should.  No one can enter your home without permission or a warrant.  Why would you allow them into your digital home without either?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?, Thinking Aloud

On Whose Scarecrow Are You Raining?

TunesDay, and this week it’s one of my favorite artists, John Mellencamp. Starting his career as John Cougar, a name he hated, he’s a member of the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame (2008) who has written some of the most American rock songs ever. Today we’re going to take a business point from one of my favorites – “Rain On The Scarecrow”. First – a listen:

As a founder of FarmAid, this has to be one of his most personally important songs.  It’s the dark cousin of his song “Pink Houses“.  Where does the land for all those houses come?  From the destruction of the family farm.  But the point I want to make today is buried in the middle of the song:

Called my old friend Schepman up to auction off the land
He said John it’s just my job and I hope you understand
Hey calling it your job ol’ hoss sure don’t make it right
But if you want me to I’ll say a prayer for your soul tonight

There are so many things I see these days where I wonder about what human beings are making the business decisions involved and, more importantly, how they live with themselves for having done so.  “It’s just business” is a lousy excuse.  That’s the “blood on the scarecrow.”  I know we don’t do politics here, but have a think about how the “profits over people” mentality has made this country and our world a little less human.

It’s impossible to serve our customers when we’re totally focused on the bottom like.  No, Schepman, I don’t understand.  Customers – and the people who work to serve them – aren’t numbers on a balance sheet.  Cutting staff or reducing their pay to improve profits hurts you because there are fewer (happy) staff to support customer issues.  It may be investors who make the decisions but it’s customers who pay the bills in a well-run operation.  Springsteen wrote in the similar-sounding “Cover Me” that

This whole world is out there just trying to score
I’ve seen enough I don’t want to see any more

Maybe it’s not our economy or our businesses that are in trouble but our priorities?

This is the title song from an album about the fading of the American dream in the face of corporate greed.  That trend has only become worse in the almost 30 years since the album was released (1985).  I may be too much of an optimist but I believe that can be changed.  As with everything, it’s people and not faceless legal entities called corporations that are doing this.  People can undo this too.  What say you?

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Comment

Filed under Music, Reality checks

Kids And Cards

Once in a while I spot something that elicits an “Aw come ON” from me as I read it. Let’s see if you agree. Bowl-BlackBackgroundThe piece was in yesterday’s USAToday and was a front page article in the sports section on the topic of high school football all-stars.  You can click-through the previous link to read it if you care to.  In a nutshell, participants in the U.S. Army All-American Bowl are asked to sign a couple of hundred trading cards each.  The kids aren’t told what the cards are for nor are they made to participate.  It’s “an opportunity, not a requirement.”  The cards are sold and in some cases they become quite valuable.  No money goes to the kids.

While I have some qualms about that, what caused the aforementioned response is the attitudes displayed by the adults involved:

“The answer is, ‘Well, you don’t have to.’ But for many of these players, this will be the only time in their athletic careers they are on a trading card. To be singled out at that point in time for their athletic achievement is not a bad thing.”  Leaf CEO Brian Gray says there is no pressure put on the high school players and they have the option to decline. “But really,” he says, “If you don’t want to be on the card, there’s something wrong with you.”

Seriously?  Anyone care to name an athlete who knowingly permits their name, likeness, and autograph to be used for purely commercial purposes without any compensation?  I’ll wait.  Didn’t think so.   Most of the kids think the cards are being used for non-commercial purposes – donations to soldiers, for example.  They are never told, and when they find out they don’t really understand how much some of them are worth.  Indianapolis Colts QB Andrew Luck (a Stanford grad and by all accounts a smart man) objected to the card being issued, saying he had never approved it.  The company’s response:

Leaf responded by suing him, saying it had a First Amendment right to do so, claiming that the game operators had granted Leaf the license to player likenesses. The 2008 game was before Leaf began issuing sets of trading cards from the game, but it has issued alumni cards – such as the 2008 Luck card.

Now, I’m in my third decade working in sports and I’ve NEVER heard anyone claim they can issue merchandise as part of the First Amendment.  There’s a multi-billion dollar business called licensing that would disappear if that’s the truth.  Rationalization aside, why not just tell the kids clearly upfront what’s going on?  Hiding something?

One of my favorite Saturday Night Live characters is Dan Aykroyd playing a smarmy guy named Irwin Mainway who, among other things, sells “Bag O’Glass” and caters a school breakfast program with coffee and cigarettes.  His take is that “it’s a bottomless cup of coffee” makes it all just fine.  No, it really doesn’t and the trading card company’s isn’t OK either.  You agree?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Huh?, Reality checks, sports business