After six years of Bush appointees who either had no qualifications or who strongly backed various immoral and heartless positions, it’s nice to see an environmentalist and someone who seems to pay attention to ethics nominated for Secretary of the Treasury: Henry “Hank” Paulson. There’s a nice profile of him in the UK paper, The Telegraph–one of several I’ve read that all seem to agree–at least on casual glance, he appears to be a good guy.

Lord knows, we need a few of those!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

How small-minded and unethical they get! the Washington Post, which offers several articles on the incident, and found these examples:

“People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings.” is softened to “I learned in Washington that there is an ‘overclass’ in this country stocked with cheating, shifty human beings that’s just as morally repugnant as our ‘underclass.’ ”

Leaving aside for a moment the question about whether you want your president’s domestic policy advisor to think that the poor are morally repugnant–he altered this quote while leaving the name of the New Times reporter on the article!

Helen Thomas was all over White House press secretary Tony Snow about the content of this quote and what kind of man Zinsmeister must be–but it wasn’t reported that she addressed the issue of changing the remarks.

On Iraq…

“To say nothing of whether it was executed well or not, but it’s brave and admirable.” The altered copy deleted any hint of presidential criticism, saying only, “It’s a brave and admirable attempt to improve the world.”

Zinsmeister says he did it to increase the accuracy of the quotes and protect the reporter, Justin Park, from embarrassment. But given the very happy thank-you note he sent to Park immediately after the piece ran, this is highly dubious.

I begin to wonder if there is anyone in the high levels of the Bush administration who actually understands ethics. Note to the administration: chutzpah is not a substitute for ethics.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

My progressive friends may be shocked. But even though I’m a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian rights, I actually side with the owner of a video duplication service who is being sued for anti-gay discrimination because he refused to duplicate a film on the early gay rights movement.

The service owner, Tim Bono, found the content of the film offensive. I don’t happen to share his taste–but I totally agree that he should not be forced to do work that violates his moral code, even if it’s quite opposite from my moral code.

When I get an inquiry from a new prospect, I respond with an e-mail that says, among other things,

Please note that I reserve the right to reject a project if I feel I’m not the right person for it. This would include projects that in my opinion promote racism, homophobia, bigotry or violence–or that promote the tobacco, nuclear power, or weapons industries–or if I do not feel the product is of high enough quality that I can get enthusiastic about it.

And yes, I have turned down a few jobs because they promoted ideas I feel are reprehensible–including at least one job I turned down because of homophobia.

I grant Mr. Bono the same right to follow his conscience that I claim for myself, even though we choose to exercise it for opposite philosophies. I would presume that if Lilli Vincenz came to him with a different project that was within his value system, he wouldn’t reuse to serve her because she’s a lesbian. To refuse her on the basis of who she is would in fact be discrimination, and she’d have every right to bring the Human rights Commission or the courts into the fight. But a principled rejection of her content is a different matter than discriminating against her because of who she is.

No one should be forced to do work that goes against their own conscience.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Days like today, you’ll hear a lot about how “the system works.” Enron fraudsters Kenneth Lay, known to George W. Bush as “Kenny Boy,” and Jeffrey Skilling have been found guilty. Lay was convicted on 10 counts, Skilling on 19.

But did the system really work? Why did it take five years to bring these men to justice, during which time they lived a very luxurious life.

Meanwhile, a lot of Enron employees who put their trust in the company saw their retirement wiped out when the stock went worthless. Meanwhile, Californians were faced with brownouts and skyrocketing bills because of the way these men manipulated the state’s energy market. And meanwhile, a lot of Enron and Arthur Andersen employees had to find other work.

19th Century British statesman William Gladstone said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” But at least the wheels of justice have turned.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Last week, at Book Expo America, I attended a panel of NPR producers. I asked how my book on business ethics, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First (published in 2003) could be made timely again for the Enron verdict.

They told me, have something on our desks before the verdict is issued.

So this is what I sent–a different approach to PR:

Expert Commentator: Enron Verdict/Ethics Issues

As a verdict nears in the trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, business ethics author is available for comment on Enron verdict and other business ethics issues.

Hadley, MA (PRWEB) May 23, 2006 — As a verdict nears in the trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, business ethics author Shel Horowitz is available for comment on Enron verdict and other business ethics issues

Suggested Questions to Ask Shel (or choose your own):
* What does this verdict mean for American business? For business worldwide?
* What’s the business secret that Arthur Andersen, the company founder, understood–but that the Arthur Andersen accountants who conspired with Enron were clueless about?
* You say ‘nice guys don’t finish last!’ How can a ‘nice guy’ attitude generate business success?
* How did the Tylenol poisoning scare actually help its manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson?
* Does an ethical attitude matter more in a big company or a small company?

Credentials:
* Award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing that Puts People First (and six other books)
* Founder of the Business Ethics Pledge
* Regular columnist for Business Ethics Magazine
* Speaker on ethics to the Public Relations Society of America International Conference, Publishers Marketing Association University, Folio magazine industry conference, UMass Family Business Center, and many other organizations
* Blogger on ethics issues since 2004
* Host: Principled Profit: The Good Business Radio Show (WXOJ, Northampton MA)
* Frequent interviewee in major print and electronic media (see https://www.principledprofit.com/press-room.html#media for detailed list)

Perspective: In the long run, ethics is *good* for business. Ethical, cooperative businesses make more profit, create intense customer and employee loyalty, and have a much better chance of staying out of legal and regulatory trouble. Greed of Enron’s senior officials blew apart two companies and had a definite human cost. Specific comments will depend on the verdict.

Commentator Personal Profile: Shel Horowitz, 49, copywriter and marketing consultant. Lives on a working dairy farm in Hadley, MA. Married to novelist D. Dina Friedman; two children.

Contact:
Shel Horowitz
Office (and best message number): 413-586-2388
Home: 413-584-3490
Cell:
Email: shel AT PrincipledProfit.com (Subject: Ethics Interview Request)
https://www.business-ethics-pledge.org (Ethics Pledge)

# # #

I’ll let you know how it goes.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Of the five most profitable quarters in the world history of corporations, four have been ExxonMobil’s. ExxonMobil holds the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th places on the list. The number three spot goes to Royal Dutch Shell, another oil company.

And how much did you pay to fill up your tank this week?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I just posted,

Within 12 hours, I read two newsletters with deeply disturbing stories–one about the media, and the other in the retail world. Both of them made me want to jump out with a big protest sign that says “Ethics are Important…Ethics are Profitable!”–but in both cases, I’d have rather too many targets to picket effectively.

So what’s the other story? Roy H. Williams, in his Monday Morning Memo (another favorite of mine despite its weak title–consistently provocative and visionary) talks about “the cashier con,” where offers turn out not to be as they were presented.

His examples include a computer clerk who offered a cheap software upgrade–without disclosing that it involved filing for a manufacturer’s rebate…and an oil change franchise that flat-out lied when Roy started the interaction by asking if they do state inspections.

I agree wholeheartedly with Roy that these are short-sighted and stupid, as well as unethical. He says…

In the short run, these cashier cons are likely to elevate profits. But can you think of a faster way to grind away brand image and erode brand loyalty? I traded with these companies because I believed in them. And now I don’t anymore. I let them keep my money. But I did not let them keep my heart.

I share these stories with you only to alert you to the dangers of shallow, short-sighted marketing. Quicky-tricky profits often come at a terrible long-term price.

Personally, on the inspection sticker con, I would have demanded an immediate refund and filed a complaint with the state Attorney General. The outfit wasted half an hour of his time, did not deliver what was promised, and could have caused him to get an expensive ticket for an outdated sticker.

If your business delivers what it promises, gain the marketing advantage by signing the Business Ethics Pledge.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

First of Two Disturbing Trends: Paid News Placement

Within 12 hours, I read two newsletters with deeply disturbing stories–one about the media, and the other in the retail world. Both of them made me want to jump out with a big protest sign that says “Ethics are Important…Ethics are Profitable!”–but in both cases, I’d have rather too many targets to picket effectively.

Joan Stewart, in her excellent weekly e-zine, The Publicity Hound, writes that more and more media are taking the old concept of paid product placement (to which I’m not particularly opposed on the entertainment side) and extending it…to news stories. Unfortunately, I can’t find it on her site or on her blog.

Whoa, pardner! If people have to pay in order to get covered in the news, it’s not news anymore. And it means that what is news may be bounced in favor of the advertorial stuff. Not good! And yet it’s happening, and not just in small markets. her article cites examples of TV stations in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

KRON-TV Channel 4 in San Francisco, for example, once a well-respected
news operation, now offers “product integration fees” to people who want
to be included in news stories. In February, the station broadcast an
11-part “Spa Spectacular,” in which each featured spa paid a fee and
bought advertising. Anchors offered viewers a chance to buy half-price spa
certificates at the end of each segment.

Of course, this ties in with the related bad idea of airing Video News Releases (VNRs) and pretending they are the original work of the station. And the other important story about consolidation of print media, dismissal of long-time and highly competent reporters, etc., all around the country.

Time to get the bean counters out of media management, I say! Yes, a true news department is expensive–but it can be subsidized by the highly profitable mindless fluff that’s cheap to produce–or perhaps by small cuts in the outrageous compensation of media execs and on-air personalities. We don’t need personalities; we need news. News–do I really have to verbalize this?…

  • Keeps the politicians and corporations honest
  • Creates an informed citizenry that can bring public pressure for change
  • Generates a historical record that will show future historians a contemporaneous account of earth-shaking events as they unfold

    It’s bad enough that the news has been so dumbed down that for the most part, it’s doing a very poor job. Switching to a paid model will be the nail in the coffin, and we’ll have to get all our news from bloggers. Don’t get me wrong–bloggers are great. But there’s also an important, even crucial, role for the professional journalist. (See the post I just made on the Pulitzers.)

    Let’s reverse this trend!

    PS: If you believe as I do that ethics are not only important but contribute to profitabillity, I invite you to sign the Business Ethics Pledge.

  • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    A few quotes from Robert J. Shillman, Chairman and CEO of a phenomenally successful company, Cognex Corp. of Natick, Massachusetts–as interviewed in the April 10 Wall Street Journal by Joann S. Lublin.

    We never paid starting bonuses. It’s morally corrupt.

    The most important thing the package includes is a great place to work. [And] I am going to give you a bonus and options package that will hopefully make you a multimillionaire someday. If you are coming for the short term, I don’t want you here.

    The 15-year perseverance award is a trip for you and your spouse to one of the wonders of the world, like the Great Wall of China. All you do is show up. You get $1,000 in spending money and an extra week vacation.

    For 25 years’ service, we set up a charitable-gift account and make the employee the trustee. We put $25,000 in, and they can contribute it to any IRS-approved charity anytime in any amount. I want them to feel the joy of giving…How many people get to be a philanthropist? Most people never give away $25,000 in a lifetime. I care more about morale below the top.

    Remarkable from anyone. Particularly remarkable from the CEO of a very profitable technology company. The whole article is full of wonderful stuff about his attitude toward employee and executive compensation, and how his goal in starting the company was to make a difference in the world. It’s not just rhetoric, either. When he felt he had enough “toys” in his life–“So I’ve been able to go out and buy a big house, fast cars and some pieces of art. I also have donated more than $17.5 million worth of shares to charitable causes”–he stopped taking compensation and has his substantial package donated to charity.

    All I can say is “Wow!” and “Bravo!” Somehow I don’t think we’ll see him in court facing ethics violations changes any time soon.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail