By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Politics, Publishing

Most book contracts give the publisher the right to sell at a deep discount to book clubs, and to pay much less to the authors on those sales. However, the assumption is that the book club is a distinct and separate entity.

For example, if one of my publishers, Chelsea Green, sold my Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World to Book of the Month Club, I’d get lower royalties, reflecting the deep discount.

But here’s the ethics problem: The New York Times reports on a lawsuit filed by several authors against their publisher, Regnery Publishing–probably the dominant name in books for those with a conservative worldview.

The authors (Jerome R. Corsi, Bill Gertz, Lt. Col. Robert (Buzz) Patterson, Joel Mowbray and Richard Miniter) accuse Regnery of essentially forming a book club of its own with the express intent of defrauding authors out of royalties due, by channeling as many sales as possible into its book club and other wholly-owned enterprises.

In the lawsuit the authors say that Eagle sells or gives away copies of their books to book clubs, newsletters and other organizations owned by Eagle “to avoid or substantially reduce royalty payments to authors.”

This is a rather nasty form of self-dealing, given the small share authors get even under the best of terms. (Yes, I’m a publisher. I know how much publishers have to invest in a book, yada yada–but I’m also a member of the National Writers Union and I’ve seen the way things are stacked against authors in most book deals.)

While I totally disagree with these authors’ view of world and national politics, if what they say is true, I totally support their drive to get their fair share. Selling inventory to oneself in order to pay pennies on the dollar is unethical and disgusting.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News

OK, so I’m a word guy. I use the power of copy to inform, persuade, and hopefully make a difference. When I’m forced to create a layout, it tends to be barebones–the minimum work necessary to get my words to appear.

Still, I have a lot of respect for good design as a component of good marketing. Here’s a link to 45 prize-winning blog designs. Most of them are easy to rest your eyes on, eye-catching, and still easy to read.

If my assistant and I can figure out something easy, maybe this blog will start looking nicer. But then again, I’m a jeans-and-t-shirt kind of a guy, so maybe not.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics: General, Media Ethics, People Helping People

Hey, big CEOs with ethics problems–learn a lesson from Oprah Winfrey. Yes, Oprah, the talkshow queen of daytime television.

She started a leadership school for girls, in South Africa. When she discovered that 15 girls accused a female staffer of sexual assault, she first immediately removed the suspect from contact with the children (and then, noting a climate of fear and intimidation still existed, removed all the dorm matrons and replaced the with faculty), quietly initiated an investigation (in conjunction with law enforcement officials), brought in American experts to help, made several visits to the school, provided counseling and support, etc.

As soon as an arrest had been made, she called a press conference, outlined the steps she had taken, conveyed deep, sincere apologies, and outlined preventative measures for the future.

Here’s a piece of her statement:

This has been one of the most
devastating if not the most devastating experience
of my life. But like all such experiences,
there’s always much to be gained and I think
there’s a lot to be learned. And as Mr. Samuel
said, we are moving forward to create a safe, an
open, and a receptive environment for the girls
and I’m also very grateful to their parents and to
their guardians and their caretakers for their
continued trust and their support in me and also
in the school.
What I know is, is that no one, not the
accused, nor any persons can destroy the dream
that I have held and the dream that each girl
11
continues to hold for herself at this school. And
I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make
sure that the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for
Girls becomes the safe, the nurturing, and
enriched setting that I had envisioned. A place
capable of fostering the full measure of these
girls’ productivity, of their creativity, and of
their humanity. It will become a model for the
world. With each girl who graduates, we will show
that the resilience of the human spirit is
actually stronger than poverty, it’s stronger than
hatred, it’s stronger than violence, it’s stronger
than trauma and loss, and it’s also stronger than
any abuse. No matter what adversity these girls
have endured in their short lives, and let me
assure you, they have endured a lot, their lights
will not be diminished by this experience.

Joan Stewart of PublicityHound.com has a good piece on this.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Politics

In a field of nine candidates within the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, arguably the most progressive of the bunch (with the possible exception of Mike Gravel), finished well ahead of the pack in a straw poll conducted by Democracy for America, with 31.97 percent.

The only other “candidate” to get more than 20 percent was Al Gore, who is not actually running at the moment: 24.77 percent. Edwards and Obama were next, with 15.6 and 13.86, respectively. Hillary Clinton, probably the most conservative of the Democrats, was a very distance fifth with just 4.21 percent.

This organization is definitely on the left edge of the Democratic Party, but there’s a very important message to candidates here: Democrats cannot take the Left for granted. Our support has to be earned. Kucinich, with consistent progressive positions on every issue I can think of, has earned that support–and he carried 41 states in the poll. Those who voted for a more centrist but still liberal candidate they feel could win went to Gore, Edwards and Obama, and not to Clinton.

I have to say, it was a thrill to vote for Kucinich in the 2004 primary (and to hear him speak at the University of Massachusetts that year). The last time there was an opportunity to vote for a serious candidate in one of the two major parties whose positions were so much like mine was for George McGovern–and I wasn’t yet old enough to vote!

I fully intend to vote for him again in the 2008 primary. he is a man of great courage and conviction:

  • A consistent and forthright opponent of the existing war in Iraq (right from the beginning, in 2002), the apparently forthcoming war in Iran, and the highly repressive Patriot Act
  • A visionary who has proposed a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and a European-style single-payer health plan
  • A man so unafraid to kowtow to the administration that he has introduced an impeachment resolution against Cheney and has promised to do the same to Bush
  • A man who sees the connections of energy policy, war, megacorporatism, and their impact on human rights, social justice, and economic well-being

    • To learn more about his campaign, or to get involved, visit his website.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Peace and War, Politics

    Not a good day for news.

    In Pakistan, Musharaf has declared a “state of emergency” akin to martial law, apparently because he’s worried that the courts would rule he was not a qualified candidate in the recent presidential election because he kept his post as head of the military.

    In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez–who can sometimes be a very class act, as when he offered heating assistance to Boston’s poor a few years ago–is also trying to grab more power. I don’t like it when the culprit is on the left any more than when it comes from the right.

    Meanwhile, the Mexican state of Tabasco is appealing for aid after massive flooding that left 500,000 homeless and 80,000 trapped.

    And two key liberal democratic US Senators, Feinstein and Schumer, say they’ll support Mukasey’s nomination as Attorney General even though he wont repudiate waterboarding (and then the Democrats wonder why I turn down their fund appeals). Leahy at least is strong enough to say he will vote no.

    About the only bright spot is Guatemala’s surprise rejection of the military strongman who was expected to win the presidency.

    All this in today’s five minutes of news headlines from Democracy Now. And where is the mainstream US news?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Politics, Social and Economic Justice

    Ralph Nader is suing the Democratic Party, claiming a deliberate attempt to force him off the 04 ballot in multiple states and to bankrupt him in the process.

    According to one of Nader’s lawyers, Carl Mayer, interviewed in Democracy Now, the Dems pretty much admit it:

    Robert Brandon, who’s one of the defendants, and he’s a consultant to the Democratic Party. And he held a meeting at the Democratic Convention in 2004 with Moffett, Holtzman and a group of other high-ranking Democrats, and they said, our purpose is to keep Nader off the ballot. And they went, and they proceeded to do it, spending millions of dollars.

    And when will the US woke up to the idea that the 2-party system isn’t working here. Most other democracies abandoned it long ago, if they ever used it. Multiparty parliamentary democracies have a lot of advantages, IMHO.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Marketing Trends/News, media-general, People Helping People

    The New York Times reports something exciting: two different citizen-journalist initiatves aimed at broadening coverage of the ‘008 election while maintaining journalistic standards–and training the student reporters in them.

    One of them, OffTheBus.net, is backed by Ariana Huffington and her Huffington Post. The other, Scoop08.com, has a number of well-known advisors from NY Times columnist Frank Rich to Senator Joe Lieberman.

    I wish them both well. The more perspectives shared and the more people with journalism skills, the better I like it.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Ethics-International, Media Ethics

    This would be funny if it weren’t so stupid. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA, apparently didn’t want to take the chance of facing hard questions about the California fires as they did when they completely messed up the response to Katrina two years ago.

    So, the Washington Post reports, the agency set up a press conference with just 15 minutes notice, and invited reporters to listen in by phone (but NOT to ask questions).

    Turns out the people asking questions were on staff at FEMA–no wonder they were such soft questions! Did they actually think no one would notice?

    Democracy Now reports that even White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, who shills without apparent shame for the Iraq war, for various repressions of domestic civil liberties, and for the Bush Administrations continued defense of megacorporate interests against ordinary folks, couldn’t stomach this one:

    REPORTER: On Tuesday, FEMA’s deputy administrator held what was called a news briefing to talk about the California wildfires. And from what we understand, the questions were posed not by reporters, but by staffers, and that distinction was not made known. Is that appropriate?

    DANA PERINO: It is not. It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House or that we — we certainly don’t condone it. We didn’t know about it beforehand. FEMA has issued an apology, saying that they had an error in judgment when they were attempting to try to get out a lot of information to reporters, who were asking for answers to a variety of questions in regards to the wildfires in California. It’s not something I would have condoned, and they, I’m sure, will not do it again.

    Oh yes, and DN also notes that these people can’t claim ignorance. They’re a very media-savvy bunch:

    DIANE FARSETTA: Right. Well, there were four staff people with FEMA who all had roles in dealing with the media. So I think it’s important to point out that these are not people who are not used to these type of situations. These are people who work at a federal agency that deals with emergency situations, and they work specifically with press. One of them, John Philbin, who’s — or who was, until last week, FEMA’s director of external affairs, he had a quarter-century career so far working in government with media, specifically working on crisis communication — marketing communications, brand management are his areas of expertise, and I think that’s what we really saw was brand management. They couldn’t have known — or they couldn’t not have known that this would reflect very poorly on FEMA if the word got out. And they basically seem to have been assuming that the word would not get out about what they were doing.

    And to top it off, Philbin actually got a promotion. I couldn’t make this stuff up.

    You’ve just got to wonder what on earth these people were thinking!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics

    Two news stories from earlier this month:

    First, the CEO of Countrywide Bank is accused by the state of North Carolina of dumping stock shortly before the company’s poor performance became widely known.

    What he did was amend his automatic withdrawal plan to sell his shares a whole lot faster–and the second time he did that was just as the stock was cresting. He’s converted $300 million from stock into cash.

    The whole idea of an automatic stock sales plan, of course, is to protect against insider trading. Obviously, the system needs some tinkering.

    According to the New York Times, North Carolina’s State Treasurer, Richard Moore, wasn’t very happy about this news:

    “I’m steaming when I think of the schoolteachers, sanitation workers and firefighters who have taken a loss on this stock and he’s still cashing out,” Mr. Moore said yesterday in an interview. “Where is the sense of shared sacrifice?

    North Carolina’s portfolio with Countrywide is about $9.5 million.

    Meanwhile, the Wall Street Jourjnal reported that Merrill Lynch had to write off $5.5 billion in third-quarter earnings, directly related to the subprime mortgage crisis and its self-admitted poor oversight. The weird thing is–its stock went up on the day of the announcement. I will never understand the stock market.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Politics

    The Village Voice ran a cartoon that strikes me as a searingly accurate comment on the state of Democrats and Republicans in the US right now.

    It shows the GOP for the vicious manipulators and the Democrats for the spineless wimps they have shown themselves to be over and over again. It’s no longer Tweedledum and Tweedledee as it often seemed to be in the 1980s, but it’s not any kind of meaningful choice. If in November 2008, I’m asked to choose between, say, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, I can tell you right now that I’ll be voting third-party, probably Green. And if you tell me I’m throwing away my vote, I’d counter that voting for either Clinton or Romney is throwing away my vote because neither of them come close to representing me. At least in the primaries, I’ll be able to vote my conscience.

    Back in the 1970s, when I first became politically tuned in, the Democrats were a party that took pride in actually standing for something, and the mainstream Republicans of that era would be dismissed by today’s extremists as art of the looney-bird Left.

    Other than Dennis Kucinich, i don’t see a lot of Dems willing to take a stand that could be in any way attacked by the right–and as a consequence, they generate no passion, no enthusiasm, and very few election victories. Where are the Barbara Jordans, the Tom Harkins, the Bella Abzugs, the Shirley Chisolms, the Ron Dellumss, the George McGoverns of today? and how is it that people so extremist they make Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan look like flaming liberals become mainstream? Whatever happened to conservatives who think for themselves, respect individual liberties, and demand government accountability?

    And how much logner will the American people put up with such rotten choices before demanding a political system where third-party votes are not thrown away, and where the two big parties run peole that one might actually enjoy voting for?

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail