By Posted on Posted in Marketing Trends/News, Shel's Personal Life

I was off on a road trip last week, and one of my stops was the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, in downtown Cleveland.

I’m used to marketing products, services, and ideas. The Hall of Fame markets an entire culture. Can I learn a few things from them and apply it to marketing the books, widgets, services, and opportunities that make up my livelihood? You bet!

A few for starters:

* If you want to market a culture, define it broadly. Rock, as the Hall of Fame sees it, goes back to the 1940s and continues through the day after tomorrow. So anyone under about 80 will feel that the museum has something for them.

* Honor the contributions of others. One of the things that really makes the museum stand out is its emphasis on the trailblazers of folk, jazz, blues, R&B, gospel, and world music. Without them, rock would never have come to be. By honoring these pioneers, the museum has made itself accessible to several older generations, and let casual fans trace the music through its roots, so they gain a greater understanding of what makes this a music to take seriously.

* Employ all the senses. Sound, vision, and touch are all part of the experience. I imagine they’ll figure out ways of incorporating taste and smell at some point.

* Make it fun! And make it unique. You’d expect to see Eric Clapton’s guitar, Jimi Hendrix’s wardrobe. But how about John Lennon’s grammar school report card? (His teachers saw him as creative, but undisciplined.) Or a video clip of Bruce Springsteen saying most rock stars wee misfits in school.

I’ll stop there. It was not only a wonderful good time, but it was professionally useful, too.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics

In this age of business scandals, it’s crucial to remember that businesses based on ethics and quality actually work better. With that in mind, here are ten easy and ethical resolutions to inspire your business to achieve a very profitable year.

So why am I posting this in April? Shouldn’t I have posted in January? Well, first of all, I actually wrote this in Januarty 2004. It would have been a natural to post when I started my blog right around the new year, but I didn’t think of it. So I’m doing it now. Besides, Passover, which is only a week away, is one of several New Year’s on the Jewish calendar. So there. Let’s move on to the resolutions:

1) I will base every aspect of my business on honesty, integrity, and quality.

2) I will make sure every employee, from janitor to CEO, is trained to view every interaction with a customer as a key step in the marketing process, and to always give the customer respect and attention.

3) I will train and empower every employee to let the customer go away feeling good about the entire interaction.

4) I will stand behind my products and services. It is better to refund the money and create a positive buzz.

5) Understanding that it costs an average of five times more to bring in a new customer as to keep an existing one, I will see that the entire organization exceeds customer expectations.

6) Recognizing that my competitors can be my strongest allies, I will initiate at least one joint venture (after all, if FedEx and the Postal Service, Apple and IBM, and General Motors and Toyota can cooperate–as they do–surely I can too).

7) If my company is not the best answer to prospect’s needs, I will refer that prospect to the company that can best serve.

8) I will devote business resources to make the world a better place.

9) I will volunteer on a community project, and set up incentives for my employees to volunteer on the projects of their choice.

10) I will base decisions on the Abundance Principle that there is enough to go around, and not on market share.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Marketing Trends/News, Media Ethics

As a copywriter, I’m always looking to better my skill set—so I read a whole lot of copywriting newsletters and books. One of them is Ivan Levison’s “Levison Letter.”

Ivan’s latest issue expressed surprise at the results of an A/B split—a test that changes one variable in a copywriting piece. He had advised the client to format the letter in an old-fashioned typewriter-style font, like Courier–because, in the old days, letters that looked hand-typed usually pulled better. (Direct marketers measure absolutely everything–the number, kind, and quality of the results; it’s as much science as art.) But the client was adamant about doing it in Times Roman. So they did an A/B test: 25,000 letters in each font, no other variables changed.

It was a dead heat, and this shocked Ivan. But it doesn’t shock me. In fact, I wouldn’t have been surprised if the typeset-looking version had outpulled the classic Courier.

Why? Because to the current generation, Times New Roman represents hand-typed. It’s the default font in Microsoft Word, the word processor that completely dominates the market. Many people never even touch their font settings. There are probably a lot of people under 30 who’ve never seen a letter typed on a real typewriter. What Ivan forgot to adjust for is that the principle behind his original conclusions is sound: people respond better to a letter that looks like it was created just for them–but the parameters of what makes that true have changed.

I’m betting that in the last ten years, the only letters you’ve seen that were typed in Courier were marketing documents, done by direct marketers who didn’t realize the territory has shifted. Unless, maybe, you have an elderly aunt who never got a computer and doesn’t hand-write her letters.

Now, this got me thinking about a famous situation where several careers were dramatically altered because of the difference between Courier and Times Roman: Rathergate.

You’ll remember that in the run-up to the election, a memo was leaked that seemed to prove the longstanding allegations that President Bush had not only used his family privilege to get a precious–and safe–spot in the Texas National Guard, but then skipped out on his responsibilities, didn’t show up for a required physical, and lost his pilot status.

Some alert bloggers in the Republican camp noticed that the memo had been done in Times Roman, and appeared to be produced on a modern word processor, and not a 70s-era typewriter. Yes, proportional-font technology existed back then–I even used a funky IBM compositor in 1975–but no sane person would use it to produce a casual memo. It was hard to wrestle with and expensive to purchase and operate, and it was designed to create finished typeset documents for publication. I saw a PDF of the memo at the time, and recognized instantly that it was a forgery. This caused the firing of several people at CBS, and advanced Dan Rather’s retirement to several months earlier than planned.

The interesting side result was to deflect all the piled-up criticism about Bush’s highly questionable service record. Mary Mapes got fired; Bush held on to the presidency.

The question I asked then, and continue to ask, is who really benefited from Rathergate, and who was really behind it? No one has ever really tied this scandal to either the Democrats or the Republicans–but actually, the Republicans had far more to gain. In fact, this story completed deflated the various investigations into the actual military service record–a record which, in a time of war, and a war whose purpose and justification were tangled in a web of deceit (does anyone remember that we were supposed to be preventing Saddam from using his non-existent weapons of mass destruction?), was a valid and crucial election issue. The various trails running through this sordid story are starkly relevant to the election and its outcome. For starters, it would be worth looking at how quickly people were able to trace these memos back to the same source. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we found out Karl Rove had a hand in this.

If that turns out to be true, will the mass media, cowed into submission by this and other instances, raise its collective head, remove the tail from between it legs, and call strongly for impeachment?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Events, Marketing Trends/News, Shel's Personal Life

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/l30ethics.html? (you may need to register)

Not that big a secret, actually: the letters column. Though the Times is notoriously fussy. With other newspapers, I have, typically, about a 90 percent success rate. With the Times, I’ve probably sent well over 100 letters in 33 years (most of them during the 1970s and 80s); this is the third success. The first was in 1972, when I was 15, and I got in a letter criticizing Dean Koontz’s support of Nixon’s Vietnam policy.

This one’s on ethics. The one between was a comment on a travel article.

Two tips:

1. Well-argued controversy seems to be something they like

2. Speed counts. I was responding to an article on page 1 of the Tuesday, March 29 edition. I submitted my letter around noon that day; it ran in the next day’s paper.

The link above is what they actually ran, somewhat abridged, but with the wonderful slug, “The writer is founder of the Business Ethics Pledge Campaign.” and yes, this little letter has drawn quite a number of responses.

–>Here’s what I originally wrote:

“On Wall Street, A Rise in Dismissals Over Ethics” chronicles, somewhat dismissively, the spate of firings over ethics violations within the financial community. The article makes a case that innocents are being shown the door in a hurry for behavior that’s perfectly legal.

The problem, though, is that big business has pretty much destroyed the culture of trust. Consumers are more suspicious of these large corporations than they’ve been in decades. Without passing judgment on the specific individuals cited in the article, I’d say that keeping a commitment to ethics means acting rapidly to prevent or deal with ethics violations as soon as they’re discovered. Whether termination was the correct response for these particular people, I couldn’t say–but the bank acted immediately, and that is better than the all-too-typical non-response we’ve seen in the last few years.

Eventually, the public will simply demand higher standards of accountability. I’m hoping to foster that with an international pledge campaign around business ethics; I hope to make future Enrons and Tycos impossible. The campaign is hosted at www.principledprofits.com/25000influencers.html

–Shel Horowitz, author, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, columnist for Business Ethics magazine, and founder, Business Ethics Pledge Campaign

–>And this is what they actually printed:

To the Editor:

In chronicling, somewhat dismissively, the spate of firings over ethics violations within the financial community, you make a case that innocents are being shown the door for perfectly legal behavior.

The problem, though, is that big business has pretty much destroyed the culture of trust. Consumers are more suspicious of large corporations than they’ve been in decades.

Keeping a commitment to ethics means acting rapidly to prevent or deal with ethics violations as soon as they’re discovered.

Whether termination was the correct response I couldn’t say, but acting immediately is better than not responding.

The public will simply demand higher standards of accountability. I’m hoping to foster it with an international pledge campaign around business ethics.

Shel Horowitz
Hadley, Mass., March 29, 2005
The writer is founder of the Business Ethics Pledge Campaign

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4562664

Going a bit off the topic of ethical marketing here, but this is important.

In the schoolyard, if a bully didn’t get his way (usually it was a boy, back then), he would “take his toys and go home,” ending the game.

Rep. Steve King apparently wants to do the same, only his “toys” are the pillars of American democracy. Threatening to defund the entire court system because you don’t like their decisions is schoolboy bullying taken to extreme, and with dire consequences for the careful and elegant system of checks and balances created over 200 years ago. They already have the Executive and Legislative branches, and a big part of the Judiciary, and have had the luxury of a consolidated media empire that has largely forgotten that its role is to question. But apparently, that is not enough for these unpatriotic extremists who would dismantle democracy.

I believe that ethics and integrity and fair play still mean something; in fact, I’m organizing a grassroots international movement to take a stand for ethics in business (at www.principledprofits.com ). And I believe this attempt to undermine one of the three pillars of the federal government utterly fails the sniff test.

I am old enough to remember when Barry Goldwater, who would be decried as a weak and moderate liberal in today’s climate, was called an extremist. Rep. King’s plan is an attack on the fundamentals of our government, and must not be allowed to proceed.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News

https://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-0503150209mar15,1,3440153,print.story?coll=chi-leisuretempo-hed&ctrack=2&cset=true

Heidi Stevens, of the Chicago Tribune, kept a diary of the”incidental ads”–that is, excluding the persistent barrage of ads where we expect to find them, such as in TV, radio, newspaper and magazines, store signage, and so forth she encountered in one workday. In a 14-hour stretch, there are dozens–and only an hour of TV in the batch. She finds them in public transit, on the backs of supermarket receipts, even attached to a chain-link fence. In other words, marketing messages are creeping in to ever more parts of our lives.

My guess is that her count, if anything, is low. Ads blast at us in elevators, over in-store sound systems, and on and on. Even in toilet stalls.

It seems some marketers believe that the more competition for mindshare, the louder and more obnoxious and more in-your-face they need to be.

Sorry, folks, but this is a failed strategy. When we deliberately or subconsciously tune you out, you don’t make any friends by turning up the “botheration quotient.” You just get filed in people’s mental spam-blocking filters and crossed off the good list.

Advertising has its place, of course–but that place is not every last surface or sound available. Visual and noise pollution do not lead to a long-term happy customer relationship.

I discuss this trend in my latest book, as well as a number of better alternatives; real branding is about relationships, not intrusion. However, I’m not going to name the book, because I don’t want you to think this is one of those hidden ads. It’s not–it’s just a rant.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics

https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ethics12mar12,1,4171595.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

“If you aren’t going to create an ethics committee right, don’t create it at all,” says Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia. “Otherwise, it is a great farce on the body, not to mention the American people.”

Mollohan’s concern is that the US House of Representatives has eviscerated its own ethics rules. While I usually write about ethics in the business sphere, and it seems to me that business has been cleaning up its act, the political dirty tricks seem to get worse and worse with time. We thought Nixon’s people were the masters of political dirty tricks–but we hadn’t met the late Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, who have “elevated it to a high art”–which is to say, debased themselves to the point where one wonders how they can sleep at night. And the Democrats are not so clean-handed either, as witness some of the dirty pool regarding Nader’s presence on the ballot or their lack of willingness to face protestors at the convention (that particular spinelessness extended to both major parties).

This particular chorus of “I didn’t do it, or at least you didn’t catch me” seems largely to benefit House honcho Tom DeLay, who was up to his ears in ethics problems last year. So now the Committee wants to procedurally sandbag any investigation just by stalling for 45 days. Yuck! DeLay’s ethics problems are so widespread that a search for [ethics rules “tom delay” “house of representatives”] (without the square brackets) brings up 12,400 hits on Google, many from within the last few days that the House has been discussing this.

Well, some of us are watching, and we are not pleased.

2. https://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-050604ruhllecture_lat.story

Lecture by John S. Carroll, Editor of the Los Angeles Times: A remarkably candid, if somewhat rambly, look at journalistic ethics, the importance of disclosing a financial relationship, and the monster Orson Welles created by inventing pseudojournalism with his famous War of the
Worlds broadcast.

I happened to notice this as I was clicking on the above story, and went back to have a look afterwards. I liked it enough that I’m going to ask for permission to put it up on my Ethics Articles page at https://www.principledprofits.com — but whether or not I get permission, you can follow the link. (You may have to be registered.)

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Ethics in Government, Media Ethics

https://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/02/media/index_np.html

Is it a coincidence that so much of the real discourse in the last election took place not in magazines, not in newspapers, but in books? Michael Moore on the Left and the Swift Boaters on the Right were the most visible, though far from the only. There were dozens of books from all over the spectrum on the charts, and they were selling.

This article gives some insight into why so many newspapers and magazines were conspicuously irrelevant. Oh, for the glory days of the 70s when newspapers actually took the idea of news seriously!

Among the most disturbing parts of the article:

[quote begins here] Suskind quotes a senior Bush advisor who dismissed reporters for living in the “the reality-based community.” The advisor said, “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Separately, discussing the role of journalists, White House chief of staff Andy Card famously told the New Yorker in a Jan. 20, 2004, article, “They don’t represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. I don’t believe you have a check-and-balance function.” At the time, Card’s blunt assessment was seen as a justification of the Bush administration’s policy of keeping the press at arm’s length. (Bush held the fewest first-term press conferences in modern presidential history.) It’s now clear that while most mainstream reporters were getting stiffed, members of the administration were simultaneously setting up propaganda projects by lavishing the Ketchum public relations firm with nearly $100 million in contracts to “communicate” White House initiatives — by hiring Williams, shipping out bogus video news releases, and other sleazy schemes — and waving into the White House an amateur journalist using an alias and working for a fake news outlet. (The bogus video news releases were subsequently slapped down as an illegal use of public funds by the General Accounting Office.) end of quote]

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Media Ethics

https://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=79271

Fascinating–a look at what a reporter knew that her public didn’t know, and whether withholding the story was appropriate. Of course, every journalist makes choices about what to include and what to leave out in a story–legitimate journalistic choices. A major purpose of journalism is to filter a large quantity of raw information into a coherent and digestible story. When I work as a journalist, I usually have far more information than I can include in (for instance) a 500-word story. But when the choice is not to do the story in the first place, or to do it and leave key information out of the discourse, many ethics questions come into play. Especially if a government or corporate source wants the material held or permanently suppressed.

One of the things I found especially useful in this article is author Kelly McBride’s list of six criteria for when to hold and when to divulge, at the very end of the piece.

Criterion #1:
“First figure out where the information came from. Anything that can be found in a public record, anything that is voluntarily revealed by witnesses or is observed first-hand by a journalist should be considered fair game.”

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Trends/News

https://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5582792.html

“When Web surfers install the [Google] toolbar…and click the AutoLink button, Web pages with street addresses suddenly sprout links to Google’s map service by default. Book publishers’ ISBN numbers trigger links to Amazon.com… Vehicle ID licenses spawn links to Carfax.com, while package tracking numbers connect automatically to shippers’ Web sites.”

Here we go again. First it was Gator, then Microsoft, and now Google. While I do understand that in many ways this could be an enhancement of the user experience, I have serious problems with the idea of a third party replacing content on a website it didn’t create and doesn’t own, without permission and with potentially disastrous consequences for the creator of the content.

And I can see this closing the big swinging door in Cyberspace that lets ordinary Joes and Janes compete as equals among the giants…because on the Web, so far, if you create a useful, well-designed site with good information, and you position the site to be found by search engines and other ways to generate traffic, the prospect can choose to patronize a part-time business working from home, that spent a hundred bucks to put up terrific content, as easily as a Fortune 100 corporation that spent millions. It’s one of the few things left for the little guy in this world of increasing conglomoratization and centralization–and the implications are not pretty:

# The site that generated the content has some kind of revenue plan–perhaps direct sales, perhaps advertising on the found page and other pages the visitor might follow, perhaps commissions from affiliate links. By redirecting the visitor to its own chosen vendors, Google is essentially stealing that revenue. Seems to me the person who created the content should be allowed to monetize it. If the creator of the content wants to send people to Amazon to buy, that should be his or her choice, and accompanied with the correct affiliate link.

# Inevitably, traffic redirection will favor the biggest, best-established, most successful companies–because that’s what visitors have heard of, and Google has stated it will reward the most popular sites. This further centralizes the economic engine in the hands of a lucky few, and marginalizes those with innovative products and approaches, but small budgets.

So, for both economic and ethical reasons, I’d urge Google to re-examine this idea. There may be ways to implement it that address these and other concerns, but until I see them, I will oppose it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail