Category: Transparency vs. Secrecy

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Ethics in Government, Protests and Crackdowns, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , ,

My online friend Christopher Elliott of the full TSA directive following the explosives incident last week, ordering pat-down searches of passengers as they board, and telling airline personnel to impose the equivalent of a lockdown the last hour of flight: no access to a host of conveniences from bathrooms to blankets to our own carry-on.

Next thing he knows, boom, he gets a subpoena!

Excuse me, but this is the kind of petty vindictiveness I’d expect from the George W. Bush administration. Some one rats out a stupid policy by telling the truth, and that someone gets squeezed.

I’m reminded of the old line from “We Don’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who:

Meet the new boss/
Same as the old boss

On issue after issue, the Obama administration acts far too much like “the old boss.” On climate change, Guantanamo, Afghanistan…and now on abusing imaginary enemies. And even when there’s a victory for “change,” like the watered down corporate giveaway they’re calling “health reform,” it’s a hollow, compromised one.

If Obama wants a second term, he darn well better start causing some positive change–and turning his back on both the small-minded get-even tactics and the egregious radical-right extremist policies of his slimy and self-righteous criminal predecessor.

Where is the change we voted for?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Entrepreneurship, Ethics: General, propaganda, Publishing, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

While visiting Minneapolis, I took in the opening day of the new Ben Franklin exhibit at the Minnesota History Center in downtown Saint Paul. I’ve long ben a Franklin fan. To me, his far-reaching curiosity, big-picture viewpoint, multiple interests, creativity, willingness to question authority and even make fun of it, media and persuasion skills, dedication to the public good, and rise from poverty to a comfortable (even hedonistic) lifestyle are all traits that today’s entrepreneurs can learn from.

No one can question that he made many important contributions in science (adding vastly to our knowledge of electricity, inventing a safer and more fuel-efficient wood stove), diplomacy/statesmanship (bringing France in as a powerful and game-changing ally against the British during the Revolution, oldest member of the Constitutional Convention), literature and communication (best-selling author/journalist/printer/publisher who was successful enough to retire from printing at 42, and propagandist for causes and philosophies he believed in), entrepreneurship (training and funding printers for a multistate network to print and distribute his works, anticipating the Internet by about 200 years and the modern franchise system by at least a century), as well as civic good (co-founding a public library, public hospital, fire department, fire insurance company, postal system, philosophical society).

But what struck me were some of the contradictions—there are many others, but these two in particular need a second look:
Slavery
Franklin became convinced late in life that slavery was evil, and served as president of an anti-slavery society. Yet he not only owned slaves for over 40 years, but often published ads from slave-hunters in his periodicals, and refused to put his name on much of his earliest anti-slavery writing.

Integrity
Franklin is well-known for his moralizing, his aphorisms, and his commitment to honesty and integrity. Yet he broke his apprenticeship to his brother, ran away to Philadelphia before it was completed, and started as a printer without the papers necessary to show he qualified as a journeyman.

While none of us are perfect, it does seem that these areas of Franklin’s life, among others, need careful examination, with more detail than was provided by this traveling exhibit (which seemed to be aimed largely at children).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Transparency vs. Secrecy

Guest post by Elizabeth Johnson

I was very proud of the notebook computer I had purchased a year ago; in my mind, I felt I had secured a good deal and that it was value for money. The only flaw (if you could call it that) was that it came with the Norton Antivirus security solution. Now I know that there are many people who prefer Norton as their antivirus solution, but it is just too complicated and bloated for my liking. I feel that it slows down my system and enters every nook and corner and leaves bits of it behind even after you’ve uninstalled it.

But hey, no harm done – it was a free subscription for a year (included in the price of the notebook), so I could enjoy the benefits for 12 months after which I was free to choose my own security package. Or so I thought, but Norton decided otherwise. Once I had it uninstalled and a new antivirus solution installed in its place, I found that I could no longer use Firefox to browse the web. I didn’t think too much of it – maybe there was some bug that Mozilla hadn’t yet addressed. So I switched over to Internet Explorer. But in a few days, IE too began giving me problems.

My system would read the network, it could even connect to Yahoo Messenger, but it just would not open any page in Firefox, IE or any other browser. I was at my wits’ end, until a friend who is also a software expert tried reinstalling Norton again. And voila, what do you know, the pages open as if by magic. So I was forced to renew my Norton license, or should I say my computer was held to ransom by Norton?

No, I don’t like the way things are, but I have to swallow my anger and lump it, because I cannot afford to buy a new OS or a new laptop just because my antivirus provider follows completely unethical business practices. This is typically what is known as anti-competitive behavior – you force your product onto the customer who literally has no choice in deciding for themselves. Companies have been criticized for engaging customers in opt-out marketing tactics where they are signed up for some service or product and must opt out of it explicitly if they do not want it. Very often, the customer does not know of this service until the hefty bill arrives at the end of the month.

But this behavior beats even opt-out strategies, because it has forced me to stay with Norton, something I find an extremely unpleasant experience. I know that I could get someone who is skilled in cleaning the registry to rid my system of these files, but with time being a major constraint, I decided to just let it go, but not without a letter to their customer service department complaining of their anti-competitive strategy. Is this the only way Norton can hold on to its customers?

This guest article was written by Elizabeth Johnson, who regularly writes on the topic of construction management degrees . She welcomes your comments and questions at her email address: elizabeth.johnson1 (at) rediffmail.com

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics-International, Media Ethics, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , ,

If you search on Google for the word Google plus the exact phrase “Don’t Be Evil”, you get 366,000 hits. The company’s motto has been used at least since 2001, according to Wikipedia.

As someone who has been writing and speaking about business ethics for seven years, I applaud this motto. But I question its authenticity as it applies to some of Google’s actions. In other words, I see Google occasionally violating the motto with at least three sets of policies that–intentionally or not–certainly do evil.Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , ,

My friend Elsom Eldridge has a nice article about how to avoid becoming “Social Media Roadkill.” And I agree with almost everything he says.

Almost everything. With my usual focus on transparency, here’s what I disagree with (emphasis added):

Be personable but don’t give people a reason to dislike you. Mention your dog or your kids so that consumers see you in a dimensional way; skip over religion and politics where you are sure to make enemies no matter what you say.

This was my response:
On the whole, good advice–but I think it’s possible to succeed in social media without hiding your politics. As long as you don’t promote them in an offensive way. I’ve had spirited but friendly debates on political issues for years via social media. My politics are part of who I am, and it would be a blow against integrity to hide them.

I find that most people respect my stances, even when they disagree. And I am careful to challenge views while not attacking the person who holds those views, to keep the debate positive, to avoid namecalling or other forms of dumping.

Some of the people I disagree with strongly about politics have in fact sent me clients, endorsed my books, and had long, complex off-list explorations with me about our points of agreement and disagreement. I am seen as a friendly, helpful, and yes, opinionated person.

Shel Horowitz, award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, Politics, Transparency vs. Secrecy

What an outrage! If there is a PR equivalent of disbarment, Bonner & Associates would be a candidate.

As U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello was considering how to vote on an important piece of climate change legislation in June, the freshman congressman’s office received at least six letters from two Charlottesville-based minority organizations voicing opposition to the measure.

The letters, as it turns out, were forgeries.

“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization,” said Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that tackles issues related to Charlottesville’s Hispanic community. “It’s this type of activity that undermines Americans’ faith in democracy.”

You can read the newspaper article here If you prefer audio. Democracy Now covered this today (briefly) as well.

I make a good part of my living as a Pr copywritier and marketing strategist, and I’m totally appalled. I also note that all the press coverage I’ve seen points out that this particular firm has a long history of “astroturfing,” which casts suspicion on the claim that this was an accident. I don’t know how you forge a letter from an imaginary person on someone else’s official letterhead—twice!—and call it an accident. I also don’t know how you can run a PR agency for decades for 25 years and not think that the Public Relations Society of America Code of Ethics has any relevance to you.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , ,

I just answered a reporter query about sponsored blogs and sponsored tweets–specifically whether they should be disclosed. And that led me to meditate on the question of whether it is ethical to ghostwrite tweets and blogs for other people.

I have a very clear opinion on both of these scenarios. But I’m going to shut up and see what y’all think, for a few days, and then I’ll tell you my thoughts, and the reasons behind them.

What do you think?

1. Should a blogger or tweeter disclose sponsorship?
2. Is it ethical to ghostwrite blogs and tweets?

To keep the lawyers happy: unless you specifically state otherwise, posting your response gives me the nonexclusive right (but not the obligation) to quote you in an article, blog post, and/or book

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics: General, Marketing Trends/News, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Perry Marshall has a really good article about online privacy concerns, the Google experience yay and nay, and Google’s first real competitor in general search–Bing. It’s getting a lot of comments, including this one from me. I discuss not only transparency vs. secrecy, but also the Google user experience, talk about the USP (Unique Selling Proposition) I think Google might operate under, and point out the business opportunity that grows out of our society’s lack of privacy.

One point I didn’t make is that in dystopian-totalitarian novels like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, the very tools that provide information and entertainment also eliminate our privacy. While at least in the US, this information gathering has been used primarily for commerce rather than social control, the potential is very real.

The rest of this post is what I posted to Perry’s site:

You write, “Google has done a glorious job of doing what I encourage all my customers to do: Create offers that are so sensationally irresistible that you can’t help but use their search engine. They’ve beat all comers fair and square.”

This is sooo true. If ever there was an example of a huge USP, it would be Google’s. I don’t know how they phrase it, but it may as well be “we let you actually FIND what you’re looking for…in nanoseconds.”

And because they honor and deliver this USP, and because they were smart enough to make ads user-friendly, they have a vast revenue stream. But remember that search was there before ads, a couple of years before, in fact.

As pointed out above, we haven’t had privacy for decades anyway.

–>I feel the lack of privacy is actually an *opportunity* for entrepreneurs. Since we have no privacy anyway, why not run your business with a high degree of transparency and turn it into a marketing advantage? Why not do the right thing and be thoroughly ethical, and then demonstrate this to the world so they beat a path to your door? (This is something I advocate heavily in my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First )

Back to Google: my concern is not *privacy*, but *piracy.* Google’s respect for others’ copyrights is often in conflict with its desire to index the world’s knowledge. As someone who creates a lot of intellectual property (including eight books), it concerns me deeply that Google assumes the right to index first and ask permission later. I could definitely see circumstances where work created (say, for a high-paying corporate client) should not be placed in the public stream. Google claims to be and for the most part acts as a highly ethical company, but on the issue of intellectual property control, I disagree with their approach.

Still, I’ve been an avid Google user, because it does deliver that USP, and that’s something I need.

I wasn’t familiar with Bing prior to reading this article. Did a search for “shel horowitz” and saw very different results than Google. 1,100,000 hits versus about 23,400 on Google (a number that shifts daily between 14,000 and 54,000). Bing’s results heavily skewed toward big portal sites like Facebook (very first result) and Amazon Subsequent pages (I looked through page 3) include a lot of the blogosphere/podcast interviews I’ve done for others, and some of my major media hits. Only three of the top ten were my own sites. Google’s results skew heavily toward my own sites. I love the popup feature on Bing, and expect that Google will implement something similar; this may be Google’s first real competitor for generalized search. (For specialized search, I’ve often turned to Clusty, Ask, and portal-specific search tools.)

By contrast, on Google, I have 7 of the 12 results on page 1. Google itself has positions 4 (Google book search) and 12, and my twitter and Facebook profiles, along with a book review on an outside blog that was published this week, fill out the page.

GMail is still the best web-based e-mail client I’ve used, but that ain’t saying much. I vastly prefer download-based email such as Eudora. Surprisingly, my biggest gripe with GMail is that its search function is just plain horrible. Something you’d think they of all companies could have figured out better. My other gripe is that you can’t do much in the way of batch processing, and dealing with one e-mail at a time, especially over the web, for anything except delete is frustratingly slow.

Shel Horowitz, ethical/effective marketing specialist
https://shelhorowitz.com

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , ,

Great discussion on Green Biz between Green business expert Joel Makower and emotional intelligence expert Daniel Goleman, on the roles of informed consumers, “radical transparency,” and social media in eco-friendly consumer buying patterns. Start with Makower’s post, click over to Goleman’s response, and then read the comments on both pages.

This was my comment:

I don’t see you really at odds. Joel says the eco-friendly products have to show a clear advantage–but couldn’t that advantage be something idealistic like lower carbon footprint, especially if it’s combined with, say, a health benefit from avoiding toxic chemicals?

Daniel puts a lot of faith in social media, particularly for the generation coming behind ours. And he’s right. Social proof is in the process of leapfrogging in importance.

I find it interesting that Daniel looks to the Internet, considering he and I both live in the Northampton, MA area, which has very strong offline culture in favor of eco-friendly purchases. Offline cultures, too, can provide social proof.

In the research I’ve done for my books, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, and my forthcoming eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson), I found that consumers will indeed choose the better choice, the choice more in line with their values, all things being equal. They will even pay more for it. The challenge then becomes to make Green products as good or better than the choices that don’t align with values, and then choosing the better one becomes a no-brainer. Examples abound, from organic food and bodycare to hybrid cars. The danger, I think, is if people find out they’ve been greenwashed (hybrids being an example), the new habits may not stick.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, Media Ethics, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy

Very disturbing article on Total Health Breakthroughs about a deliberate campaign by Merck to intimidate, defund ,and otherwise make life miserable for doctors who dared to speak out about the nasty and sometimes-lethal side effects of Vioxx.

I am not in a position to evaluate the claims this article makes, but if there’s any truth to it at all, we’ve got yet another very serious problem in our health care system.

Isn’t it time we put actual healing in front of corporate profits? And isn’t it time that drug companies and others are held responsible for the consequences of their products–and their strategies?

If you’re in the US, tell your representative in Congress to support HR 676, the Medicare for All bill.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail