So, you think you don't have to pay attention to the internet?
Guess again. You could be the next victim of the "pink slime" debacle. Please see my post on the subject below.
Here's an update. "In the traditional media, ABC News ran a series of reports earlier this month, which widely disseminated the 'pink slime' moniker.
"'This shows the impact of the social media,' said Kevin Concannon, former director of the Iowa Department of Human Services and now Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. 'There is absolutely no evidence that this product is unsafe, and it is low-fat.'" (http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2012-03-27/Beef-industry-braces-for-loss-of-pink-slime-filler/53802154/1)
And now, hundreds are about to lose their jobs. And we're all about to pay more for our burgers. It's all about perception. "The announcement Monday by Beef Products International, (BPI) that it would close three plants ... that make 'finely textured beef" that has taken hits on social media, has the beef industry wondering what impact the loss of the low-fat beef product will have on beef prices that already have risen 10 percent to 20 percent in the last year."
This ingredient has been added to beef, hotdogs, and lunch meat for about 20 years. "Like most meat processing, the process of making 'finely textured beef" is not particularly appetizing to watch. It involves taking the scraps from the meat cutting process, running it through a heat and centrifuge process and then giving it a bath in ammonia to kill potential E Coli and salmonella."
And how is grinding up dead cows appetizing? Nevertheless, adding ammonia is supposed to be gross?
Truth, like meat packing, isn't necessarily pretty. Perception is what it's all about.
Put that in your bun and think about it.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Susan G. Komen's Pink Has Leaders and Others Still Seeing Red
The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation remains in crisis over its ill-fated decision to attack Planned Parenthood over abortion. We all should take note, and that includes conservative politicians hitching their careers to social, read "women's," issues.
Komen is a poster child for why organizations are best served by using consultants, such as the Institute for Crisis Management. Speaking for ICM, we have decades of collective experience handling crises. Wishful thinking on my part was that the storm clouds would blow over and Komen would resume the great work it has done for many years on behalf of women's health. Unfortunately, the crisis consultant side of me expected a lingering effect because of the way Komen was using the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" approach.
A Komen board statement February 3 in the heat of the controversy read, in part, "It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women." (http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=19327354148) Too bad the board didn't understand that earlier.
"The chief executives of the Greater New York and Oregon affiliates, among the most outspoken in their criticism of Komen’s unsuccessful attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, are leaving. Three officials at the Dallas headquarters have left or announced their resignations, a spokeswoman said.
"Meanwhile, questions are being raised about the breast cancer charity’s ability to raise money after the public relations fiasco. The New York affiliate postponed two events, including its annual awards gala, 'because we were not certain about our ability to fundraise in the near term,' spokesman Vern Calhoun said Wednesday.'" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/komen-foundation-continues-to-see-fallout-from-planned-parenthood-controversy/2012/03/21/gIQAtfviSS_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)
Komen is asking staff to review budgets for the fiscal year beginning in April "because of anticipated drops in revenue, according to a source familiar with the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation."
Some affiliates have said it's too early to tell whether the controversy has affected fundraising. Others say they have seen no impact at all. Nevertheless, Komen needs to budget and plan for a worst-case scenario. That's what crisis planning is all about: anticipating so that business can return to normal following a crisis.
Komen's top management is seeking ways to decentralize and give more authority to affiliates. At its annual meeting last month, "top leadership apologized and sought ways to give affiliates more of a voice in decision-making. Komen established a new group of local affiliates that will work with the national board to set policies and priorities, officials said. Details still need to be worked out."
We may see more blood on the floor. Last month, Karen Handel, vice president for public policy, a top official who played a key role in the decision to pull funding for Planned Parenthood, resigned. Robin Prothro, executive director of Komen’s Maryland affiliate, is one who thinks more leadership needs to change.
“'I don’t think anybody said, ‘Liz [President Elizabeth Thompson], I want you to quit, or Nancy [Brinker, founder and chief executive], can we have your resignation letter,' Prothro said. 'But I do think there was discussion around leadership of the organization and who are the current players, and is that the best way to serve the organization as we move forward. What people want to see is the decision-making be made all-inclusive. To me, the most emphatic voice that I heard was that the affiliate leadership wants to be part of the decision-making.'”
Aun claims the board has complete confidence in management. Not everyone agrees. The three executives who have left or plan to leave the Dallas-based organization in protest of the Planned Parenthood crisis are the executive vice president and chief marketing officer, vice president for global networks, and a director for affiliate strategy and planning.
No matter how experienced an "insider" might be when it comes to crises, a fresh set of eyes -- at least the right fresh set of eyes -- can be invaluable. When it comes to crisis planning and dealing with an existing crisis, it's no time to get cheap. Are you listening, Komen foundation?
Komen is a poster child for why organizations are best served by using consultants, such as the Institute for Crisis Management. Speaking for ICM, we have decades of collective experience handling crises. Wishful thinking on my part was that the storm clouds would blow over and Komen would resume the great work it has done for many years on behalf of women's health. Unfortunately, the crisis consultant side of me expected a lingering effect because of the way Komen was using the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" approach.
A Komen board statement February 3 in the heat of the controversy read, in part, "It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women." (http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=19327354148) Too bad the board didn't understand that earlier.
"The chief executives of the Greater New York and Oregon affiliates, among the most outspoken in their criticism of Komen’s unsuccessful attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, are leaving. Three officials at the Dallas headquarters have left or announced their resignations, a spokeswoman said.
"Meanwhile, questions are being raised about the breast cancer charity’s ability to raise money after the public relations fiasco. The New York affiliate postponed two events, including its annual awards gala, 'because we were not certain about our ability to fundraise in the near term,' spokesman Vern Calhoun said Wednesday.'" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/komen-foundation-continues-to-see-fallout-from-planned-parenthood-controversy/2012/03/21/gIQAtfviSS_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop)
Komen is asking staff to review budgets for the fiscal year beginning in April "because of anticipated drops in revenue, according to a source familiar with the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation."
Some affiliates have said it's too early to tell whether the controversy has affected fundraising. Others say they have seen no impact at all. Nevertheless, Komen needs to budget and plan for a worst-case scenario. That's what crisis planning is all about: anticipating so that business can return to normal following a crisis.
Komen's top management is seeking ways to decentralize and give more authority to affiliates. At its annual meeting last month, "top leadership apologized and sought ways to give affiliates more of a voice in decision-making. Komen established a new group of local affiliates that will work with the national board to set policies and priorities, officials said. Details still need to be worked out."
We may see more blood on the floor. Last month, Karen Handel, vice president for public policy, a top official who played a key role in the decision to pull funding for Planned Parenthood, resigned. Robin Prothro, executive director of Komen’s Maryland affiliate, is one who thinks more leadership needs to change.
“'I don’t think anybody said, ‘Liz [President Elizabeth Thompson], I want you to quit, or Nancy [Brinker, founder and chief executive], can we have your resignation letter,' Prothro said. 'But I do think there was discussion around leadership of the organization and who are the current players, and is that the best way to serve the organization as we move forward. What people want to see is the decision-making be made all-inclusive. To me, the most emphatic voice that I heard was that the affiliate leadership wants to be part of the decision-making.'”
Aun claims the board has complete confidence in management. Not everyone agrees. The three executives who have left or plan to leave the Dallas-based organization in protest of the Planned Parenthood crisis are the executive vice president and chief marketing officer, vice president for global networks, and a director for affiliate strategy and planning.
No matter how experienced an "insider" might be when it comes to crises, a fresh set of eyes -- at least the right fresh set of eyes -- can be invaluable. When it comes to crisis planning and dealing with an existing crisis, it's no time to get cheap. Are you listening, Komen foundation?
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Safeway Meat Will Be Slimed No Longer
A rose by any other name is still a rose. But ammonia by any other name becomes pink slime.
Safeway, the second largest supermarket chain in the country, said it will stop putting the so-called pink slime in its product called lean finely textured beef. Most of us call it hamburg. "The product is made from lower-quality meat scraps treated with an agent, such as ammonia, to prevent the growth of microbes. The meat industry has repeatedly defended the product, saying it's safe and that the anti-microbial agent is not an additive and therefore doesn't need to be noted on food labels." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-pink-slime-20120321,0,1068196.story)
News reports began referring to the added agent as pink slime. Who wants pink slime in their hamburgers? If it had been called a deterrent to microbe growth, the story wouldn't have come off so negative and probably few would have taken note.
Communicators must pay attention to terminology being loosely spread through traditional and social media. I haven't seen any supermarkets yet telling their story and correcting perceptions. I looked for an announcement on Safeway's website, but found none. A reader on Safeway's Facebook page is wondering about the same thing.
"Where is the Formal Press Release that 'Pink Slime' added to Ground Beef will no longer be sold in Safeway Supermarkets? ABC News mentioned it... A Press Release to the Public and posted on Website & Facebook would confirm the Corporate Decision." (https://www.facebook.com/Safeway#!/Safeway?sk=wall)
This should be a positively received message for customers. Why no confirmation posted, Safeway?
Safeway, the second largest supermarket chain in the country, said it will stop putting the so-called pink slime in its product called lean finely textured beef. Most of us call it hamburg. "The product is made from lower-quality meat scraps treated with an agent, such as ammonia, to prevent the growth of microbes. The meat industry has repeatedly defended the product, saying it's safe and that the anti-microbial agent is not an additive and therefore doesn't need to be noted on food labels." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-pink-slime-20120321,0,1068196.story)
News reports began referring to the added agent as pink slime. Who wants pink slime in their hamburgers? If it had been called a deterrent to microbe growth, the story wouldn't have come off so negative and probably few would have taken note.
Communicators must pay attention to terminology being loosely spread through traditional and social media. I haven't seen any supermarkets yet telling their story and correcting perceptions. I looked for an announcement on Safeway's website, but found none. A reader on Safeway's Facebook page is wondering about the same thing.
"Where is the Formal Press Release that 'Pink Slime' added to Ground Beef will no longer be sold in Safeway Supermarkets? ABC News mentioned it... A Press Release to the Public and posted on Website & Facebook would confirm the Corporate Decision." (https://www.facebook.com/Safeway#!/Safeway?sk=wall)
This should be a positively received message for customers. Why no confirmation posted, Safeway?
Friday, March 16, 2012
Goldman Sachs Blasted By Former Employee And Others
The Institute for Crisis Management founder, Bob Irvine, said he used to talk to CEOs about brand image and they would glaze over. He had to reach them in terms of dollars and sense.
I guess Goldman Sachs has no sense, and its weak response to a crisis is about to cost it dollars. How it responds to a former employee can make -- or break -- this crisis. An article, "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs," appeared on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times Wednesday.
"Goldman Sachs, arguably the most storied investment bank on Wall Street, has been compared to a money-sucking vampire squid. On Wednesday it got a different kind of black eye — from one of its own. Greg Smith, an executive director at the bank, resigned with a blistering editorial that accused the bank of losing its 'moral fiber,' putting profits ahead of customers’ interests and dismissing customers as 'muppets.' The decline of the bank’s culture, he wrote, threatened its survival after 143 years." (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120314/BUSINESS/303140159/Exiting-exec-rips-Goldman-Sachs)
Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn told the bank's employees in an on-line letter that Smith's claims did not reflect the culture of the bank. They cited glowing internal reviews of the service Goldman provides to clients. "In a company of our size, it is not shocking that some people could feel disgruntled. But that does not and should not represent our firm of more than 30,000 people.... It is unfortunate that all of you who worked so hard through a difficult environment over the last few years now have to respond to this. But, our response is best demonstrated in how we really work with and help our clients through our commitment to their long-term interests." (http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/comments-and-responses/current/nyt-op-ed-response.html)
However, it's not just one disgruntled ex-employee who trashed the company. "The bank paid $550 million in 2010 to settle civil charges that it misled investors while selling them investments in the U.S. housing market as the bubble burst — even as Goldman reaped hundreds of millions from its own bets against housing.
"A congressional committee recommended that law enforcement authorities look into a series of deals that Goldman sold while executives derided them in emails as 'junk,' 'crap' and another profane adjective. And last month, a Delaware court nearly blocked a merger between Kinder Morgan and El Paso, two energy companies, because Goldman had ties to both companies, raising questions about a conflict of interest.
"'This is the latest entry into a long-running narrative that they don't put their clients first,' said Michael Robinson, a former official with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 'If your business is built on trust, that's not going to fly.'" (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/viral-resignation-letter-not-goldman-sachs-only-trouble)
The key is to identify your enemies and develop messages in advance. If people feel positively about your organization, criticism has less credibility. But if people believe you are the evil empire, criticism is easy to believe. What is your perception of Goldman Sachs now?
I guess Goldman Sachs has no sense, and its weak response to a crisis is about to cost it dollars. How it responds to a former employee can make -- or break -- this crisis. An article, "Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs," appeared on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times Wednesday.
"Goldman Sachs, arguably the most storied investment bank on Wall Street, has been compared to a money-sucking vampire squid. On Wednesday it got a different kind of black eye — from one of its own. Greg Smith, an executive director at the bank, resigned with a blistering editorial that accused the bank of losing its 'moral fiber,' putting profits ahead of customers’ interests and dismissing customers as 'muppets.' The decline of the bank’s culture, he wrote, threatened its survival after 143 years." (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120314/BUSINESS/303140159/Exiting-exec-rips-Goldman-Sachs)
Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn told the bank's employees in an on-line letter that Smith's claims did not reflect the culture of the bank. They cited glowing internal reviews of the service Goldman provides to clients. "In a company of our size, it is not shocking that some people could feel disgruntled. But that does not and should not represent our firm of more than 30,000 people.... It is unfortunate that all of you who worked so hard through a difficult environment over the last few years now have to respond to this. But, our response is best demonstrated in how we really work with and help our clients through our commitment to their long-term interests." (http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/comments-and-responses/current/nyt-op-ed-response.html)
However, it's not just one disgruntled ex-employee who trashed the company. "The bank paid $550 million in 2010 to settle civil charges that it misled investors while selling them investments in the U.S. housing market as the bubble burst — even as Goldman reaped hundreds of millions from its own bets against housing.
"A congressional committee recommended that law enforcement authorities look into a series of deals that Goldman sold while executives derided them in emails as 'junk,' 'crap' and another profane adjective. And last month, a Delaware court nearly blocked a merger between Kinder Morgan and El Paso, two energy companies, because Goldman had ties to both companies, raising questions about a conflict of interest.
"'This is the latest entry into a long-running narrative that they don't put their clients first,' said Michael Robinson, a former official with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 'If your business is built on trust, that's not going to fly.'" (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/viral-resignation-letter-not-goldman-sachs-only-trouble)
The key is to identify your enemies and develop messages in advance. If people feel positively about your organization, criticism has less credibility. But if people believe you are the evil empire, criticism is easy to believe. What is your perception of Goldman Sachs now?
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Syracuse Enters NCAA Tourney With Rules Crises and an Ineligible Player
March Madness gets underway in full swing today. But nowhere does "madness" take on a more literal meaning than it does at Syracuse, where the Orange enter the NCAA tournament with red faces.
The basketball program's embarrassing descent began with the firing of associate head coach Bernie Fine after two former ball boys accused him of sexually molesting them in the 1980s. (Hey, Penn State, Syracuse didn't sacrifice the head coach at the alter of gotta-do-something-dramatic-now.)
Last week, school officials said that more than a year ago the university had self-reported possible violations of its internal drug policy by former team members and that the NCAA was investigating. None of the current players was involved.
But a current star is involved in a crisis. Fab Melo was ruled ineligible for the entire tournament by the school. Coach Jim Boeheim won't comment on the latest suspension except to say it's for some transgression in the past week. It's his second suspension this season. The first was for academic reasons. The NCAA could punish the program if it finds the center was improperly cleared to return after the first suspension.
Melo averaged 7.7 points and 5.8 rebounds. Syracuse spent six weeks ranked number one in the country and lost just two games all season, one of which occurred while Melo was out.
Syracuse faces UNC-Asheville in its opening tournament game at 3 p.m. today. Melo, seven feet tall, blocked 88 shots this season, the same number as UNC-Asheville blocked as a team. The Bulldogs don't have a starter over 6-5. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-ncaa-unc-asheville-syracuse)
A team can't afford to enter the postseason with a crisis. I think Syracuse, a number one seed, will win two games, maybe three, in the tournament, but it could have gone farther without its crises. Similarly, a business can't afford crises either. Besides your competitors, you have to compete for investors' dollars, customers' loyalty, communities' confidence, and employees' trust. Prevent crises and minimize those you can't prevent. You improve your chances of winning with an effective, regularly practiced crisis communications plan. For help, see http://www.crisisexperts.com/certcourses_main.htm.
The basketball program's embarrassing descent began with the firing of associate head coach Bernie Fine after two former ball boys accused him of sexually molesting them in the 1980s. (Hey, Penn State, Syracuse didn't sacrifice the head coach at the alter of gotta-do-something-dramatic-now.)
Last week, school officials said that more than a year ago the university had self-reported possible violations of its internal drug policy by former team members and that the NCAA was investigating. None of the current players was involved.
But a current star is involved in a crisis. Fab Melo was ruled ineligible for the entire tournament by the school. Coach Jim Boeheim won't comment on the latest suspension except to say it's for some transgression in the past week. It's his second suspension this season. The first was for academic reasons. The NCAA could punish the program if it finds the center was improperly cleared to return after the first suspension.
Melo averaged 7.7 points and 5.8 rebounds. Syracuse spent six weeks ranked number one in the country and lost just two games all season, one of which occurred while Melo was out.
Syracuse faces UNC-Asheville in its opening tournament game at 3 p.m. today. Melo, seven feet tall, blocked 88 shots this season, the same number as UNC-Asheville blocked as a team. The Bulldogs don't have a starter over 6-5. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-ncaa-unc-asheville-syracuse)
A team can't afford to enter the postseason with a crisis. I think Syracuse, a number one seed, will win two games, maybe three, in the tournament, but it could have gone farther without its crises. Similarly, a business can't afford crises either. Besides your competitors, you have to compete for investors' dollars, customers' loyalty, communities' confidence, and employees' trust. Prevent crises and minimize those you can't prevent. You improve your chances of winning with an effective, regularly practiced crisis communications plan. For help, see http://www.crisisexperts.com/certcourses_main.htm.
PR 'Professionals' Sling Mud
I moan and groan about business leaders who think they are doing their organizations a favor when they ban certain reporters and choose not to cooperate with the media. I can't think of a time when such a strategy paid off. Can you?
So then it seems short-sighted for the leadership of the Public Relations Society of America to snub O'Dwyer's from its national conference and refuse to take or return phone calls. You would think PR professionals and business role models would know better. I guess not. PRSA, in a 23-page statement, accuses O'Dwyer's, specifically Jack O'Dwyer, of unethical reporting.
The National Press Club has fed the fray. I question what benefits it expects by choosing sides. Nevertheless, NPC wrote, "The National Press Club was disappointed to learn that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) banned veteran reporter Jack O’Dwyer from covering the PRSA General Assembly last weekend (in October 2011) in Orlando. We understand that Mr. O’Dwyer has covered the event for more than 40 years. We also understand that Mr. O’Dwyer and the PRSA have had a long running series of disagreements that have tested and continue to test their relationship. The nature and content of these disagreements is of great concern to both PRSA and Mr. O’Dwyer.
"What we find concerning is the solution chosen by the PRSA, which was to ban a reporter who will write stories that may be critical of their organization. We asked PRSA to reconsider its position and to allow Mr. O’Dwyer in. We suggested that if he behaved in a disruptive way he should be removed. PRSA was unwilling to do this....
"While we find many of the points in the letter (accusing O'Dwyer of ethics violations) unfortunate and even highly disagreeable we do not think they constitute a reason to ban a reporter who has been allowed access for 40 years....
"On the issue of access for reporters, however, we are generally in favor of it as long as the reporters do not disrupt events. Asking difficult questions designed to get answers that an organization would rather not provide is not disrupting an event. We would rather see a group like PRSA allow reporters who might write negative stories about them into their events than not. We think it sets a good example for their members whereas banning reporters does not." (emphasis added) (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3436-NPC-Disappointed-in-PRSA-ODwyer-Ban.html)
PRSA responded: "However, as we espouse and require ethical behavior on the part of our members, we cannot tolerate and accept unethical behavior on the part of a representative of the media. Furthermore, we cannot allow a journalist to disrupt our meetings or degrade the experiences of the PRSA members and other professionals who attend our events. Even without having been given press credentials, Mr. O’Dwyer was a guest at our conference hotel for more than three days, during which time he initiated a number of unwanted, unwarranted and uncomfortable interactions with Conference attendees, presenters and exhibitors."
The plot thickens. "Arthur Yann, VP-PR of the PR Society, posted on prnewswer.com March 6 that the Society 'does not maintain a boycott against the O’Dwyer organization or any media outlet.'" (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4175-PR-Society-Makes-Contradictory-Statements.html) If there's no boycott, what the heck was the 23-page report about?
Prnewswer.com ironically goes on to report, "O'Dwyer's has published the 2011 version of its independent PR firm rankings, with nearly half of the top 50 firms on the list showing double-digit growth.... Absent from the list is IMRE (http://imre.com/), which previously raised objections to a request from O’Dwyer’s for an ad purchase of $3,000. In an email sent to us and included in that link, Jack O’Dwyer, the publisher and EIC on the site, said, 'Firms that benefit from our rankings must support the $500,000 website on which the ranking reside[s].'” (http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/odwyers-rankings-show-2011-growth-among-independent-firms-imre-not-included_b34862)
O'Dwyer offers what to me is a weak reason for leaving out IMRE, which should have been in the top 30 on the list. "O’Dwyer also points to the foreword of the O’Dwyer’s Directory of Public Relations Firms, which addresses the rankings, as one more reason why O’Dwyer’s doesn’t have to include IMRE, even though his numbers would qualify. 'The rankings should be regarded as an expression of the Directory’s opinion, rather than a statement of fact. The rankings are only intended to be approximations in the Directory’s judgment of a firm’s standing within the industry, and are not warranted to comply with any specific objective standards,' it reads."
I guess it's okay for O'Dwyer's to ban a firm that won't pony up to help pay for its place on the list, but it's an injustice for PRSA to ban denying any "J.R. O’Dwyer Co. employee or assign for media credentials." (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4175-PR-Society-Makes-Contradictory-Statements.html)
It's too bad when professionals in our profession act unprofessionally.
So then it seems short-sighted for the leadership of the Public Relations Society of America to snub O'Dwyer's from its national conference and refuse to take or return phone calls. You would think PR professionals and business role models would know better. I guess not. PRSA, in a 23-page statement, accuses O'Dwyer's, specifically Jack O'Dwyer, of unethical reporting.
The National Press Club has fed the fray. I question what benefits it expects by choosing sides. Nevertheless, NPC wrote, "The National Press Club was disappointed to learn that the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) banned veteran reporter Jack O’Dwyer from covering the PRSA General Assembly last weekend (in October 2011) in Orlando. We understand that Mr. O’Dwyer has covered the event for more than 40 years. We also understand that Mr. O’Dwyer and the PRSA have had a long running series of disagreements that have tested and continue to test their relationship. The nature and content of these disagreements is of great concern to both PRSA and Mr. O’Dwyer.
"What we find concerning is the solution chosen by the PRSA, which was to ban a reporter who will write stories that may be critical of their organization. We asked PRSA to reconsider its position and to allow Mr. O’Dwyer in. We suggested that if he behaved in a disruptive way he should be removed. PRSA was unwilling to do this....
"While we find many of the points in the letter (accusing O'Dwyer of ethics violations) unfortunate and even highly disagreeable we do not think they constitute a reason to ban a reporter who has been allowed access for 40 years....
"On the issue of access for reporters, however, we are generally in favor of it as long as the reporters do not disrupt events. Asking difficult questions designed to get answers that an organization would rather not provide is not disrupting an event. We would rather see a group like PRSA allow reporters who might write negative stories about them into their events than not. We think it sets a good example for their members whereas banning reporters does not." (emphasis added) (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3436-NPC-Disappointed-in-PRSA-ODwyer-Ban.html)
PRSA responded: "However, as we espouse and require ethical behavior on the part of our members, we cannot tolerate and accept unethical behavior on the part of a representative of the media. Furthermore, we cannot allow a journalist to disrupt our meetings or degrade the experiences of the PRSA members and other professionals who attend our events. Even without having been given press credentials, Mr. O’Dwyer was a guest at our conference hotel for more than three days, during which time he initiated a number of unwanted, unwarranted and uncomfortable interactions with Conference attendees, presenters and exhibitors."
The plot thickens. "Arthur Yann, VP-PR of the PR Society, posted on prnewswer.com March 6 that the Society 'does not maintain a boycott against the O’Dwyer organization or any media outlet.'" (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4175-PR-Society-Makes-Contradictory-Statements.html) If there's no boycott, what the heck was the 23-page report about?
Prnewswer.com ironically goes on to report, "O'Dwyer's has published the 2011 version of its independent PR firm rankings, with nearly half of the top 50 firms on the list showing double-digit growth.... Absent from the list is IMRE (http://imre.com/), which previously raised objections to a request from O’Dwyer’s for an ad purchase of $3,000. In an email sent to us and included in that link, Jack O’Dwyer, the publisher and EIC on the site, said, 'Firms that benefit from our rankings must support the $500,000 website on which the ranking reside[s].'” (http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/odwyers-rankings-show-2011-growth-among-independent-firms-imre-not-included_b34862)
O'Dwyer offers what to me is a weak reason for leaving out IMRE, which should have been in the top 30 on the list. "O’Dwyer also points to the foreword of the O’Dwyer’s Directory of Public Relations Firms, which addresses the rankings, as one more reason why O’Dwyer’s doesn’t have to include IMRE, even though his numbers would qualify. 'The rankings should be regarded as an expression of the Directory’s opinion, rather than a statement of fact. The rankings are only intended to be approximations in the Directory’s judgment of a firm’s standing within the industry, and are not warranted to comply with any specific objective standards,' it reads."
I guess it's okay for O'Dwyer's to ban a firm that won't pony up to help pay for its place on the list, but it's an injustice for PRSA to ban denying any "J.R. O’Dwyer Co. employee or assign for media credentials." (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4175-PR-Society-Makes-Contradictory-Statements.html)
It's too bad when professionals in our profession act unprofessionally.
Jury: Virginia Tech Libel in 2007 Shootings
An update to yesterday's post about Virginia Tech:
The jury ruled in favor of the two families and against the university. The state is expected to appeal.
"It took jurors 3½ hours to find that university officials botched their response to the April 16, 2007, massacre that left 33 people — including the gunman — dead. The jury determined in the wrongful death lawsuit against the state that the parents of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson each deserved $4 million. The award likely will be sharply reduced because Virginia law requires such awards to be capped at $100,000." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0314/Jury-finds-Virginia-Tech-liable-in-campus-shooting)
For more, see the March 12 post by Larry Smith, Institute for Crisis Management at http://www.crisisconsultants.blogspot.com/.
The jury ruled in favor of the two families and against the university. The state is expected to appeal.
"It took jurors 3½ hours to find that university officials botched their response to the April 16, 2007, massacre that left 33 people — including the gunman — dead. The jury determined in the wrongful death lawsuit against the state that the parents of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson each deserved $4 million. The award likely will be sharply reduced because Virginia law requires such awards to be capped at $100,000." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0314/Jury-finds-Virginia-Tech-liable-in-campus-shooting)
For more, see the March 12 post by Larry Smith, Institute for Crisis Management at http://www.crisisconsultants.blogspot.com/.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Virginia Tech On Trial for Alleged Poor Decisions On Day of Shootings
You've heard about the gift that keeps on giving. Well, this story is about the curse that keeps on cursing.
The state rested yesterday and the jury was expected to begin deliberations today into the wrongful death civil suit against Virginia Tech brought by two victims' families. They are seeking $100,000 in damages, claiming their children should have been warned after the first two shootings on campus in 2007. Other families divided an out-of-court settlement for $11 million.
Colleges and universities across the country took note after the shootings, implemented or upgraded electronic warning systems, and made note to err on the side of overaction in the event of a gun on campus. Virginia Tech did just that in August when high school students at the school during an educational camp reported what they thought was a man carrying a gun under a towel. No sign of the man or gun were found, but Virginia Tech wasted no time in ordering an immediate lockdown that lasted hours.
A second learning is the way a crisis can dog your organization for years and even decades. The Institute for Crisis Management calls these "aftershocks." In the case of Virginia Tech, reporters from around the world remained on campus in many cases for more than a week, filing follow-up stories. The country watched memorial services, police reports, information about Virginia Tech's warning system, and the first, second, and so-on anniversaries of the shootings. If the shooter hadn't killed himself, there would have been a lengthy criminal trial. Now we are seeing the civil suits.
"The defense called to the stand Virginia Tech officials, police and experts on campus security who all agreed that Tech police and school administrators did the right thing when they concluded the first two shootings were domestic and isolated. As a result, they delayed alerting students and faculty on campus because they believed the dorm attack was targeted and the gunman did not pose a threat to the wider campus. Less than three hours later, Seung-Hui Cho chained the doors to Norris Hall and killed 30 students and faculty in the classroom building. He then killed himself." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/defense-rest-va-tech-shooting-trial-15907912)
University officials said there was no way to anticipate the 2007 shootings. The parents of two victims, however, filed their lawsuit because they believe their daughters would have survived Cho's attack if the campus had known of the first two shootings. They also accuse President Charles W. Steger and other university officials with attempting to cover their mistakes.
From the start, I've taken the side of the university in its decision not to send out a general alarm. See my posts on May 19, 2010; December 10, 2010; and August 9, 2011, and a related post about a false alarm at Western Kentucky University from October 26, 2008. It's easy to second-guess decisions made during a crisis. What's not so easy is making operational decisions when you may not have much information for a while.
We are approaching the fifth anniversary. Look for reporters to descend on Virginia Tech again. And watch for the jury's decision in the next week or so. The aftershocks keep coming. And, necessarily, so do the defenses from university officials and their lawyers. And sadly, so do the accusations and doubts about the university's actions.
The state rested yesterday and the jury was expected to begin deliberations today into the wrongful death civil suit against Virginia Tech brought by two victims' families. They are seeking $100,000 in damages, claiming their children should have been warned after the first two shootings on campus in 2007. Other families divided an out-of-court settlement for $11 million.
Colleges and universities across the country took note after the shootings, implemented or upgraded electronic warning systems, and made note to err on the side of overaction in the event of a gun on campus. Virginia Tech did just that in August when high school students at the school during an educational camp reported what they thought was a man carrying a gun under a towel. No sign of the man or gun were found, but Virginia Tech wasted no time in ordering an immediate lockdown that lasted hours.
A second learning is the way a crisis can dog your organization for years and even decades. The Institute for Crisis Management calls these "aftershocks." In the case of Virginia Tech, reporters from around the world remained on campus in many cases for more than a week, filing follow-up stories. The country watched memorial services, police reports, information about Virginia Tech's warning system, and the first, second, and so-on anniversaries of the shootings. If the shooter hadn't killed himself, there would have been a lengthy criminal trial. Now we are seeing the civil suits.
"The defense called to the stand Virginia Tech officials, police and experts on campus security who all agreed that Tech police and school administrators did the right thing when they concluded the first two shootings were domestic and isolated. As a result, they delayed alerting students and faculty on campus because they believed the dorm attack was targeted and the gunman did not pose a threat to the wider campus. Less than three hours later, Seung-Hui Cho chained the doors to Norris Hall and killed 30 students and faculty in the classroom building. He then killed himself." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/defense-rest-va-tech-shooting-trial-15907912)
University officials said there was no way to anticipate the 2007 shootings. The parents of two victims, however, filed their lawsuit because they believe their daughters would have survived Cho's attack if the campus had known of the first two shootings. They also accuse President Charles W. Steger and other university officials with attempting to cover their mistakes.
From the start, I've taken the side of the university in its decision not to send out a general alarm. See my posts on May 19, 2010; December 10, 2010; and August 9, 2011, and a related post about a false alarm at Western Kentucky University from October 26, 2008. It's easy to second-guess decisions made during a crisis. What's not so easy is making operational decisions when you may not have much information for a while.
We are approaching the fifth anniversary. Look for reporters to descend on Virginia Tech again. And watch for the jury's decision in the next week or so. The aftershocks keep coming. And, necessarily, so do the defenses from university officials and their lawyers. And sadly, so do the accusations and doubts about the university's actions.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Psychiatric Hospital Responded on Website to Shooting
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic seems to have been prepared for last week's crisis. The hospital, part of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, has a message from the president about a shooting there on its home page. What looks to be a dark site was able to be uploaded rather quickly, from what I can tell. Take a look (http://www.upmc.com/HospitalsFacilities/Hospitals/wpic/Pages/default.aspx) and learn from it if your organization isn't ready on your website for a crisis.
"Details of John Shick's previous involvement with mental health professionals come as investigators piece together a motive for last week's shooting that killed one person and wounded six others in the lobby...." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alleged-pa-clinic-shooter-previously-committed-15908278)
Shick was shot to death by police.
Jeffrey Romoff, UPMC President and CEO, wrote on the web page, "Though this senseless violence struck our UPMC family at its core, it vividly demonstrated yet again the consummate professionalism, compassion, skill, and dedication that are the hallmarks of what we do each day for everyone who suffers similar tragedies and illnesses. We are extraordinarily proud of our employees and are deeply grateful for their commitment to our patients and families.”
Claudia Roth, President and Chief Executive Officer of Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, added condolences to the friends and families of the staff member who was killed in the shooting.
Elizabeth Concordia, Executive Vice President, UPMC, and President, Hospital and Community Services, added, “The safety and well-being of our patients and staff always have been and continue to be of utmost importance. UPMC’s facilities treat thousands of patients, receive thousands of visitors and employ tens of thousands of professionals. While UPMC’s current security measures are in line with the standards nationwide, all procedures are being rigorously reviewed. The trade-off between public access and security is an issue all hospitals in major metropolitan areas have struggled with in recent years. Unfortunately, random acts of violence can’t be predicted. In addition, we are providing comprehensive support and counseling to our employees and co-workers of the victims.”
The website provides a toll-free number for those wanting counseling services.
Concordia is right when she writes that "random acts of violence can’t be predicted." That's why a crisis communications plan is such a useful tool. It lists audiences and messages when the communications staff finds itself dealing with a sudden crisis. A well-done plan buys you some time when the satellite news trucks are parking in your lot.
"Details of John Shick's previous involvement with mental health professionals come as investigators piece together a motive for last week's shooting that killed one person and wounded six others in the lobby...." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/alleged-pa-clinic-shooter-previously-committed-15908278)
Shick was shot to death by police.
Jeffrey Romoff, UPMC President and CEO, wrote on the web page, "Though this senseless violence struck our UPMC family at its core, it vividly demonstrated yet again the consummate professionalism, compassion, skill, and dedication that are the hallmarks of what we do each day for everyone who suffers similar tragedies and illnesses. We are extraordinarily proud of our employees and are deeply grateful for their commitment to our patients and families.”
Claudia Roth, President and Chief Executive Officer of Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic of UPMC, added condolences to the friends and families of the staff member who was killed in the shooting.
Elizabeth Concordia, Executive Vice President, UPMC, and President, Hospital and Community Services, added, “The safety and well-being of our patients and staff always have been and continue to be of utmost importance. UPMC’s facilities treat thousands of patients, receive thousands of visitors and employ tens of thousands of professionals. While UPMC’s current security measures are in line with the standards nationwide, all procedures are being rigorously reviewed. The trade-off between public access and security is an issue all hospitals in major metropolitan areas have struggled with in recent years. Unfortunately, random acts of violence can’t be predicted. In addition, we are providing comprehensive support and counseling to our employees and co-workers of the victims.”
The website provides a toll-free number for those wanting counseling services.
Concordia is right when she writes that "random acts of violence can’t be predicted." That's why a crisis communications plan is such a useful tool. It lists audiences and messages when the communications staff finds itself dealing with a sudden crisis. A well-done plan buys you some time when the satellite news trucks are parking in your lot.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Think You'll Never Have a Crisis? Try Telling That to Indiana Loggers and Lumberers
We in the crisis consulting business hear it from business leaders all the time: "We're not going to have any crisis -- not while I'm in charge. I won't let it happen here."
All right, fight the urge to slap this person on the side of the head in hopes of knocking in some sense. A good Management Early Warning System (MEWS) should prevent most if not all smoldering crises. But please: someone show me a CEO who can stop an earthquake, prevent a major power blackout, reroute a hurricane, or -- in today's blog post message -- calm a tornado.
Tornadoes last week cut a wide path through southern Indiana and parts of Kentucky, mainly toward the east. People lost their lives, some lost their homes, and some lost their jobs. Some 300 people make a living from the lumbering business in Washington County, Indiana. Worley Lumber Co. in New Pekin employs just 14 of those people, but "indirectly helps feed roughly 50 families of loggers and other related businesses."
Worley Lumber is gone. It will have to rebuild, just as it did for eight months after a major fire in 2009. Nearby, Saroyan Hardwoods also was destroyed, leaving 17 of 20 employees laid off. "Bookkeeper Sherry Cress said the damage to Saroyan’s warehouses and kilns is so massive it may be six months before the yard reopens and a year before it gets back to normal, depending upon the insurance settlement." (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012303060065)
Are these companies victims of poor management? Of course not, yet they suffered a crisis just the same. Any manager who thinks his business is above any kind of crisis better stay away from tornadoes because they'll blow straight through his or her ears. Every organization needs a crisis communications plan, as well as a crisis operations plan and a crisis recovery plan. If you aren't prepared with all three plans, preferably all rolled into one crisis plan, you better get started. It's looking like this could be an active spring for storms across much of the country.
If you're a CEO unable to part the Red Sea, you probably can't control stormy weather either. Have an effective plan in place, and for goodness sake, practice with it. For more, see http://www.crisisexperts.com/.
All right, fight the urge to slap this person on the side of the head in hopes of knocking in some sense. A good Management Early Warning System (MEWS) should prevent most if not all smoldering crises. But please: someone show me a CEO who can stop an earthquake, prevent a major power blackout, reroute a hurricane, or -- in today's blog post message -- calm a tornado.
Tornadoes last week cut a wide path through southern Indiana and parts of Kentucky, mainly toward the east. People lost their lives, some lost their homes, and some lost their jobs. Some 300 people make a living from the lumbering business in Washington County, Indiana. Worley Lumber Co. in New Pekin employs just 14 of those people, but "indirectly helps feed roughly 50 families of loggers and other related businesses."
Worley Lumber is gone. It will have to rebuild, just as it did for eight months after a major fire in 2009. Nearby, Saroyan Hardwoods also was destroyed, leaving 17 of 20 employees laid off. "Bookkeeper Sherry Cress said the damage to Saroyan’s warehouses and kilns is so massive it may be six months before the yard reopens and a year before it gets back to normal, depending upon the insurance settlement." (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012303060065)
Are these companies victims of poor management? Of course not, yet they suffered a crisis just the same. Any manager who thinks his business is above any kind of crisis better stay away from tornadoes because they'll blow straight through his or her ears. Every organization needs a crisis communications plan, as well as a crisis operations plan and a crisis recovery plan. If you aren't prepared with all three plans, preferably all rolled into one crisis plan, you better get started. It's looking like this could be an active spring for storms across much of the country.
If you're a CEO unable to part the Red Sea, you probably can't control stormy weather either. Have an effective plan in place, and for goodness sake, practice with it. For more, see http://www.crisisexperts.com/.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Tales From the Crypt, AKA Park Haven Nursing Home
My mother turned 80 last month. She is of sound mind and body. But if I'm ever forced to find nursing care for her, I'm relieved to have discovered the perfect place, and it's not far from where she lives in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
Park Haven Home in Ashtabula, Ohio, sounds lovely. According to Our Parents website, "It is primarily engaged in providing skilled nursing care and related services for residents who require medical or nursing care; or rehabilitation services for the rehabilitation of injured, disabled, or sick persons. Skilled nursing facilities cater to patients who either need short-term rehab while recovering from surgery; or require long-term nursing and medical supervision." (http://www.ourparents.com/ohio/ashtabula/gantz_sara_administra_park_haven_home#type_description)
The evaluation forgot to mention that it's also close to a reliable meth supply -- unless the lab blows up, as it did last weekend.
"An initial investigation of the Sunday fire at Park Haven Home in Ashtabula, east of Cleveland, indicated the blaze broke out in a room where someone apparently had brought in what was needed to make meth, rather than a room used as a makeshift lab, the Ohio Department of Health said." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57392239/nursing-home-with-meth-lab-fire-was-cited-in-2011/)
The fire damaged one room and part of a second-floor hallway. Park Haven has 31 rooms. Make that 30. In addition to the fatality, another non-resident and three residents were hospitalized. The health department, police, the state Department of Aging, and the Department of Job and Family Services all are investigating.
Park Haven is no stranger when it comes to investigations. "A federal rating system gives the nursing home one star out of five — the lowest possible on health inspections and quality measures. Inspectors noted 11 fire safety violations in 2010 and 2011, including a finding that the building did not have a written emergency evacuation plan."
Deficiencies Overview (Past 2 surveys)
"Alleged violations found in a December survey included: inadequate care; failure to investigate how a resident was injured; and improperly responding to residents' complaints about missing property. A review of the home in June resulted in citations for violations that alleged Park Haven failed to provide proper care for a resident in pain from a fractured leg and another whose vital signs changed critically." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57392239/nursing-home-with-meth-lab-fire-was-cited-in-2011/)
All this leaves me wondering. You'd really have to hate your parents to put them in such a place. It's amazing that Park Haven is allowed to stay open and even more amazing that anyone would allow a family member to live there. Park Haven is doing itself no favors when, "The home did not respond to a message left Tuesday. An attorney on Monday said Park Haven would have no comment."
Whoa, that's the icing on the cake, or the last chemical in the meth batch, or something. I suppose if Park Haven isn't successfully dealing with all its violations and its meth fire, silence in this case might be as golden as the golden years that will be moving to someplace safer.
Be sure management takes inspections and violations seriously. If it does, be prepared to communicate with key audiences -- in this case, the families of residents and prospective residents and fire investigators -- that it's no longer business as usual.
Organizations in such crises need to see the light -- and that light better not be the flash from a meth explosion.
Oh, and Mom: Remember that time you embarrassed me in front of my friends in seventh grade? You're just going to love Park Haven!
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Bounty-Hunting Coach And His Employers May Face Criminal and Civil Suits
"Bounty always receives part of its value from the manner in which it is bestowed." --Samuel Johnson
It's unlikely Johnson was speaking of the National Football League. Nevertheless, the value of a bounty depends in part on how it is bestowed. In the case of the NFL, it was bestowed by an assistant coach who admits he knew better. He and four teams he coached face a crisis from the offices of the NFL and from a court of law.
"A scandal in which US football players got rewarded for injuring opponents could have legal consequences, with prosecutors, players and even fans getting in on the judicial action." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0305/NFL-bounty-payments-involved-four-teams-say-media-reports)
Four teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Washington Redskins, Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans -- are linked to a bounty scandal that came to light in Friday's NFL announcement that New Orleans Saints defensive players were paid for big hits that knocked opponents out of the game. Knockouts were worth $1,500 and cart-offs $1,000, with payments doubled or tripled during the playoffs. Saints' defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, accused by the NFL of organizing the Saints' bounties, was on the coaching staff at each of the four teams.
"The NFL, which is trying to improve its image in the face of lawsuits by former players over concussion injuries, is likely to mete out its own punishment against teams involved in making bounty payments, which could include suspensions, fines and restrictions on player recruitment. But pieces of the scandal could well end up in the courts, say legal experts."
Leigh Jones of Reuters reports criminal charges of assault and battery against the teams and Williams are possible according to Ryan Rodenberg, an attorney and a sports management professor at Florida State University.
Federal prosecutors could also bring charges, said Paul Callan, a former New York City prosecutor. If bounties were paid for games played outside a team's home state, then interstate telephone calls, computer use, and travel could trigger federal charges that include wire fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering. Tax evasion charges are another possibility for the money that players earned for making big hits.
"Messages seeking comments for this story from the four NFL teams were not returned. In a statement on Friday, Williams, now with the St. Louis Rams, confirmed that the system had been in place at the Saints. 'It was a terrible mistake and we knew it was wrong while we were doing it. Instead of getting caught up in it, I should have stopped it,' he said. 'I take full responsibility for my role.'"
We can hate what Williams did, but we should respect the way he is shouldering the responsibility. I can't say as much for the four teams that wouldn't return the reporter's phone calls.
"Fans who had tickets to games involving bounty payments could assert they paid to watch games based solely on athletic ability, not on side bets for taking players out, Callan said. Damages likely would be limited to the price of the tickets, but considering the value of those tickets and the thousands of fans who attend, the damages could add up quickly, he said....
"Other civil claims could include battery and conspiracy made by injured players. In their defense, the Saints and other teams likely would argue that even if bounty payments had occurred, the opposing players assumed the risk of injury and could not recover for them, said Kenneth Shropshire, an attorney at law firm Duane Morris in Philadelphia and professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. That defense could be persuasive to a court, he said."
Court challenges will be difficult to prove, whether in criminal or civil court. That might not matter. The legal fees Williams and the four teams could accumulate will make the bounty hunter cases a crisis for all named. The four teams Williams coached for must investigate internally to see who knew what and when, and then create a defense.
That defense better not involve bounties set against the plaintiffs.
It's unlikely Johnson was speaking of the National Football League. Nevertheless, the value of a bounty depends in part on how it is bestowed. In the case of the NFL, it was bestowed by an assistant coach who admits he knew better. He and four teams he coached face a crisis from the offices of the NFL and from a court of law.
"A scandal in which US football players got rewarded for injuring opponents could have legal consequences, with prosecutors, players and even fans getting in on the judicial action." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0305/NFL-bounty-payments-involved-four-teams-say-media-reports)
Four teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Washington Redskins, Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans -- are linked to a bounty scandal that came to light in Friday's NFL announcement that New Orleans Saints defensive players were paid for big hits that knocked opponents out of the game. Knockouts were worth $1,500 and cart-offs $1,000, with payments doubled or tripled during the playoffs. Saints' defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, accused by the NFL of organizing the Saints' bounties, was on the coaching staff at each of the four teams.
"The NFL, which is trying to improve its image in the face of lawsuits by former players over concussion injuries, is likely to mete out its own punishment against teams involved in making bounty payments, which could include suspensions, fines and restrictions on player recruitment. But pieces of the scandal could well end up in the courts, say legal experts."
Leigh Jones of Reuters reports criminal charges of assault and battery against the teams and Williams are possible according to Ryan Rodenberg, an attorney and a sports management professor at Florida State University.
Federal prosecutors could also bring charges, said Paul Callan, a former New York City prosecutor. If bounties were paid for games played outside a team's home state, then interstate telephone calls, computer use, and travel could trigger federal charges that include wire fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering. Tax evasion charges are another possibility for the money that players earned for making big hits.
"Messages seeking comments for this story from the four NFL teams were not returned. In a statement on Friday, Williams, now with the St. Louis Rams, confirmed that the system had been in place at the Saints. 'It was a terrible mistake and we knew it was wrong while we were doing it. Instead of getting caught up in it, I should have stopped it,' he said. 'I take full responsibility for my role.'"
We can hate what Williams did, but we should respect the way he is shouldering the responsibility. I can't say as much for the four teams that wouldn't return the reporter's phone calls.
"Fans who had tickets to games involving bounty payments could assert they paid to watch games based solely on athletic ability, not on side bets for taking players out, Callan said. Damages likely would be limited to the price of the tickets, but considering the value of those tickets and the thousands of fans who attend, the damages could add up quickly, he said....
"Other civil claims could include battery and conspiracy made by injured players. In their defense, the Saints and other teams likely would argue that even if bounty payments had occurred, the opposing players assumed the risk of injury and could not recover for them, said Kenneth Shropshire, an attorney at law firm Duane Morris in Philadelphia and professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. That defense could be persuasive to a court, he said."
Court challenges will be difficult to prove, whether in criminal or civil court. That might not matter. The legal fees Williams and the four teams could accumulate will make the bounty hunter cases a crisis for all named. The four teams Williams coached for must investigate internally to see who knew what and when, and then create a defense.
That defense better not involve bounties set against the plaintiffs.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Students Sell Shirts To Help Tornado Victims in Their Hometown
This is a commercial. No apologies. I'm promoting a product that is helping a school and community in crisis and is providing therapy to two high school students.
The community is Henryville, Indiana, one of the towns in Indiana and Kentucky leveled by tornadoes last Friday. The Henryville campus, which housed high, middle, and elementary schools, was largely destroyed. School is cancelled this week as the district weighs options to reconvene sometime somewhere.
Carli Pendelton and Brittany Jessee designed a T-shirt they're selling to raise money for the community. "'This is like burying our grief into our work, and I'm really glad we're doing this,'" said Jessee, displaying a perceptiveness beyond her years. (http://www.wlky.com/news/30619342/detail.html)
For images of Henryville's schools and a glimpse of the spirit in Henryville, view the news story at http://www.wlky.com/news/30619480/detail.html.
The shirt says, "Our hearts are full of Henryville pride," and has Friday's date and a ribbon in yellow and black, the school's colors. The teens hoped they might sell 10 shirts. Instead, they have taken hundreds of orders from around the world. They started with their offer on Facebook. Others have spread word of the fundraiser.
"The reason behind the saying on our shirts comes from a marquee that was left standing in front of our school, even after the tornado destroyed the rest of the building," according to the Facebook page. "The sign says: our hearts are full of Hornet pride. The saying gives us all hope that our community will get through this tragedy. Information about the shirts: $14 per shirt/ for any size -all proceeds go to the community -we accept cash or check, no methods like PayPal and no credit cards....
"After this Saturday- March 10/12 we will start taking online orders for the next order to be placed. We will keep you updated on THIS PAGE."
For ordering information, visit https://www.facebook.com/HenryvillePrideTShirts. These students and this community are worthy of our help to deal with the dozens of crises faced by businesses, nonprofits, and government due to horrendous destruction by tornadoes.
The community is Henryville, Indiana, one of the towns in Indiana and Kentucky leveled by tornadoes last Friday. The Henryville campus, which housed high, middle, and elementary schools, was largely destroyed. School is cancelled this week as the district weighs options to reconvene sometime somewhere.
Carli Pendelton and Brittany Jessee designed a T-shirt they're selling to raise money for the community. "'This is like burying our grief into our work, and I'm really glad we're doing this,'" said Jessee, displaying a perceptiveness beyond her years. (http://www.wlky.com/news/30619342/detail.html)
For images of Henryville's schools and a glimpse of the spirit in Henryville, view the news story at http://www.wlky.com/news/30619480/detail.html.
"The reason behind the saying on our shirts comes from a marquee that was left standing in front of our school, even after the tornado destroyed the rest of the building," according to the Facebook page. "The sign says: our hearts are full of Hornet pride. The saying gives us all hope that our community will get through this tragedy. Information about the shirts: $14 per shirt/ for any size -all proceeds go to the community -we accept cash or check, no methods like PayPal and no credit cards....
"After this Saturday- March 10/12 we will start taking online orders for the next order to be placed. We will keep you updated on THIS PAGE."
For ordering information, visit https://www.facebook.com/HenryvillePrideTShirts. These students and this community are worthy of our help to deal with the dozens of crises faced by businesses, nonprofits, and government due to horrendous destruction by tornadoes.
Before Criticizing Those Who Don't Agree With You, Think First; There's No Rush
Rush Limbaugh has made a living by being controversial and insulting people who don't agree with him on his radio program. Maybe this time he took his arrogance too far. Despite his apology to the Georgetown law student he called a ''slut'' and a "prostitute," he still is under criticism, leading him to insist his apology was sincere.
Nine sponsors so far have abandoned Limbaugh's show. Watch to see if radio stations stop carrying his poison on their airwaves if the uproar persists. One station in Hawaii has pulled the plug already. A 100,000-member veterans group, VoteVets.org, is starting a petition calling on the Pentagon to take Limbaugh off the military's network.
Of course, none of this is Limbaugh's fault -- according to Limbaugh. No, it's those no-goods in the media. Come on! Own up! "He blamed the media for the pressure. 'Talk about a double standard,' Limbaugh said. 'Rappers can say anything they want about women. It's called art. And they win awards.'" http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8570230)
Hold it, Rush. You are part of the media and your mouth is responsible for the pressure. So I guess in that respect, you're right: It's the media's fault. Plus I did a search: I can't find a single rap song that calls a university student by name a whore.
Nevertheless, Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates have turned their backs on Limbaugh, even though they may agree with the point he was trying to make. Sandra Fluke, the student in the eye of the hurricane, had been invited to testify to a House committee about Georgetown's health care plan, which does not include contraception. Republican lawmakers barred her from testifying during that hearing, but Democrats invited her back to speak to Democratic lawmakers at an unofficial session.
Limbaugh's crudeness and Susan G. Komen for the Cure's short-lived snub of Planned Parenthood could be creating a crisis for the Republican party. Moderates are said to be leaning toward the Democratic dogma they see as being better than attacks on birth control, abortion, and women's health.
While Limbaugh draws criticism from both parties and advertisers, he remains defiant and smug. He "suggested he'd have little trouble finding new sponsors. 'I reject millions of dollars of advertisers a year much to the chagrin of my hard-working sales staff,' Limbaugh said."
Limbaugh's politics and apology aside, the lesson he should take from this is that it's okay to run down an opposing viewpoint, but not the Jane Q. Public who delivers that viewpoint. Say what you want about public figures, but don't gnaw on the ankle of a "regular" person. Same goes if you sell consumer goods. Be careful about visibly supporting candidates or political views. You may make some friends, but calculate the enemies you'll make, which can lead to reduced product image, lower sales, and depressed stock price. That's a worst-case scenario, granted. But consider the consequences of a smoldering crisis based on political views of management before you Rush into anything.
Nine sponsors so far have abandoned Limbaugh's show. Watch to see if radio stations stop carrying his poison on their airwaves if the uproar persists. One station in Hawaii has pulled the plug already. A 100,000-member veterans group, VoteVets.org, is starting a petition calling on the Pentagon to take Limbaugh off the military's network.
Of course, none of this is Limbaugh's fault -- according to Limbaugh. No, it's those no-goods in the media. Come on! Own up! "He blamed the media for the pressure. 'Talk about a double standard,' Limbaugh said. 'Rappers can say anything they want about women. It's called art. And they win awards.'" http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8570230)
Hold it, Rush. You are part of the media and your mouth is responsible for the pressure. So I guess in that respect, you're right: It's the media's fault. Plus I did a search: I can't find a single rap song that calls a university student by name a whore.
Nevertheless, Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates have turned their backs on Limbaugh, even though they may agree with the point he was trying to make. Sandra Fluke, the student in the eye of the hurricane, had been invited to testify to a House committee about Georgetown's health care plan, which does not include contraception. Republican lawmakers barred her from testifying during that hearing, but Democrats invited her back to speak to Democratic lawmakers at an unofficial session.
Limbaugh's crudeness and Susan G. Komen for the Cure's short-lived snub of Planned Parenthood could be creating a crisis for the Republican party. Moderates are said to be leaning toward the Democratic dogma they see as being better than attacks on birth control, abortion, and women's health.
While Limbaugh draws criticism from both parties and advertisers, he remains defiant and smug. He "suggested he'd have little trouble finding new sponsors. 'I reject millions of dollars of advertisers a year much to the chagrin of my hard-working sales staff,' Limbaugh said."
Limbaugh's politics and apology aside, the lesson he should take from this is that it's okay to run down an opposing viewpoint, but not the Jane Q. Public who delivers that viewpoint. Say what you want about public figures, but don't gnaw on the ankle of a "regular" person. Same goes if you sell consumer goods. Be careful about visibly supporting candidates or political views. You may make some friends, but calculate the enemies you'll make, which can lead to reduced product image, lower sales, and depressed stock price. That's a worst-case scenario, granted. But consider the consequences of a smoldering crisis based on political views of management before you Rush into anything.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Komen for the Cure Hires Consultant to Assess Support or Lack Thereof
I don't need anyone to tell me how to apologize. I usually say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake. But I learned from it and won't make the same mistake again."
Susan G. Komen for the cure seems to agree with Elton John's lyric, "Sorry seems to be the hardest word." It has hired a consultant to survey supporters to see, among other things, what kind of apology if any will be best received.
"Penn Schoen Berland (PSB), which was founded by former Democratic pollsters Mark Penn and Doug Schoen, circulated a survey among Komen's supporters last week to assess the damage caused by the public backlash against the charity in early February. The 20-minute questionnaire first asks a series of questions to determine how favorably people feel about Komen now and how likely they are to donate to it, as compared to the American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation." (http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=5578847910147133486&gid=114852&type=member&item=97860299&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprdaily%2Ecom%2FMain%2FArticles%2F10933%2Easpx&urlhash=bIpa&goback=%2Egde_114852_member_97860299)
The on-line survey offers a series of statements, then asks, "How believable is this statement?," "Does this message make you more or less favorable toward Susan G. Komen for the Cure?," and "Based on this statement, how much more or less likely are you to participate in a Susan G. Komen for the Cure race or walk?"
Statements tested include, "Susan G. Komen is an organization of right-wing conservatives with an anti-choice agenda. They decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood, which has become a punching bag of anti-choice Republicans, even though Planned Parenthood helps to provide life-saving cancer screenings for young and low-income women who do not have regular medical care."
"(The survey) then launches into a series of questions about messaging: Did you read the media stories about Komen defunding Planned Parenthood? Which parts of certain passages most affected your opinion of Komen? Are you upset with the organization as a whole, or a few individuals? Was the decision about political ideology?...
"Perhaps most interestingly, one section of the Komen survey asks participants whether they feel that the organization still owes them an apology, and then lists a series of potential apologies to test whether or not they are effective. The options range from deeply apologetic to defensive and deflective of blame. 'We made mistakes, but political elements on the right and left have sought to use our missteps to advance their own political agenda,' one potential apology reads."
The Komen crisis is one we can learn from. If you depend on donations for your existence, stay in the middle of the road, not on the right or on the left where you risk offending supporters. In this case, it appears it was one forceful manager who drove the car into a ditch.
"Komen founder Nancy Brinker and its public relations team maintained throughout the Planned Parenthood controversy that their decision was based on a routine change in grant criteria that disqualified organizations who were under federal, state or local investigation. But emails later surfaced showing that Karen Handel, Komen's senior vice president for public affairs and a former Republican candidate for governor in Georgia, actually drove the decision to defund Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics provide abortions. Handel then apparently led the effort to make the move look non-political."
Handel has since resigned, a martyr for social conservatives. Surveys and consultants aside, we'll see how well Komen rebounds from its blunder. I predict the good it does for breast cancer research and screenings will eventually trump its little stray into unpopular politics. We'll see by the end of summer.
Susan G. Komen for the cure seems to agree with Elton John's lyric, "Sorry seems to be the hardest word." It has hired a consultant to survey supporters to see, among other things, what kind of apology if any will be best received.
"Penn Schoen Berland (PSB), which was founded by former Democratic pollsters Mark Penn and Doug Schoen, circulated a survey among Komen's supporters last week to assess the damage caused by the public backlash against the charity in early February. The 20-minute questionnaire first asks a series of questions to determine how favorably people feel about Komen now and how likely they are to donate to it, as compared to the American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation." (http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=5578847910147133486&gid=114852&type=member&item=97860299&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprdaily%2Ecom%2FMain%2FArticles%2F10933%2Easpx&urlhash=bIpa&goback=%2Egde_114852_member_97860299)
The on-line survey offers a series of statements, then asks, "How believable is this statement?," "Does this message make you more or less favorable toward Susan G. Komen for the Cure?," and "Based on this statement, how much more or less likely are you to participate in a Susan G. Komen for the Cure race or walk?"
Statements tested include, "Susan G. Komen is an organization of right-wing conservatives with an anti-choice agenda. They decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood, which has become a punching bag of anti-choice Republicans, even though Planned Parenthood helps to provide life-saving cancer screenings for young and low-income women who do not have regular medical care."
"(The survey) then launches into a series of questions about messaging: Did you read the media stories about Komen defunding Planned Parenthood? Which parts of certain passages most affected your opinion of Komen? Are you upset with the organization as a whole, or a few individuals? Was the decision about political ideology?...
"Perhaps most interestingly, one section of the Komen survey asks participants whether they feel that the organization still owes them an apology, and then lists a series of potential apologies to test whether or not they are effective. The options range from deeply apologetic to defensive and deflective of blame. 'We made mistakes, but political elements on the right and left have sought to use our missteps to advance their own political agenda,' one potential apology reads."
The Komen crisis is one we can learn from. If you depend on donations for your existence, stay in the middle of the road, not on the right or on the left where you risk offending supporters. In this case, it appears it was one forceful manager who drove the car into a ditch.
"Komen founder Nancy Brinker and its public relations team maintained throughout the Planned Parenthood controversy that their decision was based on a routine change in grant criteria that disqualified organizations who were under federal, state or local investigation. But emails later surfaced showing that Karen Handel, Komen's senior vice president for public affairs and a former Republican candidate for governor in Georgia, actually drove the decision to defund Planned Parenthood because some of its clinics provide abortions. Handel then apparently led the effort to make the move look non-political."
Handel has since resigned, a martyr for social conservatives. Surveys and consultants aside, we'll see how well Komen rebounds from its blunder. I predict the good it does for breast cancer research and screenings will eventually trump its little stray into unpopular politics. We'll see by the end of summer.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
More on Jimmy John's, Sprouts, Law Suits, And Retaining Customers
It was only a matter of time, Jimmy John's. You remember Jimmy John's. They serve a mean sandwich as long as you pass on the sprouts.
"Heather Tuttle filed the lawsuit Tuesday in Des Moines seeking damages for pain and suffering. Tuttle was diagnosed with E. coli poisoning after eating a Jimmy John’s turkey sandwich in West Des Moines last month. Tuttle is one of 12 patients in five states whose recent E. coli illnesses have been linked to raw sprouts from Jimmy John’s restaurants." (http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-21/news/31083542_1_raw-sprouts-salmonella-outbreak-coli) The family of a 16-year-old girl filed suit earlier last month.
And this from Marler Clark, "The nation’s foremost law firm with a practice dedicated to representing victims of food poisoning:"
"Tiny Greens Brand Alfalfa Sprouts and Spicy Sprouts, grown by Tiny Greens Organic Farm of Urbana, Illinois, have been identified as the source of the Salmonella outbreak among Jimmy John’s customers.... If you or a family member became ill with a Salmonella infection after eating sprouts at Jimmy John’s and you’re interested in pursuing a legal claim, you can contact the Marler Clark Salmonella attorneys for a free case evaluation." (http://www.marlerclark.com/jimmy-johns-sprouts-salmonella-illinois/)
The Food Poison Journal contradicts Marler Clark's fingers pointed at Tiny Greens Organic Farm. It says the sprouts came from several sprout suppliers and that it was the alfalfa seeds sold to those growers that were contaminated. (http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/foodborne-illness-outbreaks/jimmy-johns-sprouts-e-coli-outbreak-who-is-ill-and-where/)
Jimmy John's decided to drop sprouts from its offerings, now that they have been responsible for a fifth outbreak of food poisoning. But Jimmy John's says eliminating sprouts isn't because dozens of people have been sickened by its sprouts in the past few years. No, it's all the news media's fault.
"While there has been no public comment by Jimmy John's since the outbreak was announced February 15, a Kirkville, MO franchise owner says 'Jimmy himself" has ordered all sprouts permanently removed from the menu. 'Jimmy decided he was tired of the negative press from it and he thinks sprouts aren't necessary for Jimmy John's to rock,' franchise owner Will Aubuchon told the Daily Express in Kirksville, MO." (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/jimmy-johns-gourmet-sandwich-franchise/)
And if blaming the media isn't enough, Jimmy John's has chosen to lie to its customers. "Linda DeGraaf, a Jimmy John's customer from Omaha who was sickened in the 2009 outbreak, was told by a corporate email that sprouts have been dropped. 'We no longer serve sprouts because supplies are too inconsistent,' wrote a Jimmy John's spokeswoman." After a 2010 salmonella outbreak, founder Jimmy John Liautaud switched the sandwich chain to clover sprouts, claiming the reason was because "clover sprout seeds were smoother and would be easier to clean."
A history of Jimmy John's love affair with sprouts and denial, according to Food SafetyNews:
- February 2011 -- Twelve are sickened in five states.
- December 2010 -- Sprouters in Washington state issued a product recall after the company's clover sprouts had been implicated in an outbreak in Oregon and Washington, but not until seven people got sick. At least some of the victims had consumed clover sprouts while at Jimmy John's restaurants.
- December 2010 -- Illinois Department of Health reported 140 sickened after eating alfalfa sprouts at various Jimmy John's franchises. Four days later, Liautaud asked all of his franchises to remove sprouts from the menu as a "precautionary" measure. The Centers for Disease Control reported cases in other states. An investigation indicated a link to eating Tiny Greens alfalfa sprouts.
- February 2009 -- A total of 256 were sickened in an outbreak first reported by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Alfalfa sprout consumption was again the cause, this time traced to several sprout growers who bought contaminated seeds from Caudill Seed Company of Kentucky.
- 2008 -- An outbreak of E. coli in Colorado's Boulder and Adams counties, including the University of Colorado, sickened 28 and was linked to alfalfa sprouts from Jimmy John's franchises in the area. "In addition, the environmental investigation identified Jimmy John's food handlers in Boulder, CO who worked while infected with E. coli. The health department investigation found a number of critical food handling violations, including inadequate hand washing."
You'll never read about sprouts or E. coli or salmonella or concern for customers' health on the Jimmy John's website. (http://www.jimmyjohns.com/company/news.aspx) Nor will you learn that some tainted sprouts were traced back to Tiny Greens Organic from that company's website. In fact, Tiny Greens' last blog entry was in 2008 (http://tinygreens.org/blog/).
What's so hard about that?
Friday, March 2, 2012
One Case of Government 'Overseeing' And One of Government 'Oversight'
What role does PR play in government? That question is just sort of rhetorical, because there's no one easy answer. When I worked for a Department of Energy contractor, we couldn't start any new publication -- even about benefits unique to our company -- without permission from DOE in Washington. That could take months and persistence.
Now Congress is looking over the shoulders of some government communicators, while in Kentucky no one is paying any attention. Make that, no one was paying attention. Maybe somewhere in between is a place where PR people can do their jobs while paying attention to those jobs.
That may be a confusing intro to the topic. Bear with me. "Sen. Rob Portman (D-Ohio) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) have dispatched requests to 11 federal agencies to look at PR contracts in a bid to gauge 'how much money the administration is spending to promote its own policies.'
"Portman, the ranking Republican on the Senate’s Subcommittee on Contract Oversight, said the move is not partisan but is a reaction to 'accounts of wasteful federal spending on PR contracts....' An unidentified Portman aide was more blunt speaking to Roll Call in saying, 'This investigation will further probe this administration’s use of taxpayer-funded spin.'" (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4111-Senators-Seek-Administration-PR-Records.html)
The Department of Health and Human Services, DOE, Department of Justice, and Department of Defense, among others, must produce documents by March 16.
In Kentucky, perhaps more overseeing is needed. A lack thereof cost the commissioner of Kentucky's Department of Travel and Tourism his job and a British PR firm its contract. Gosh P.R. used derogatory Kentucky stereotypes on a website it created. No one in state government noticed for three months.
Late Wednesday, Mike Cooper resigned his post over the incident. “'I am announcing my resignation … effective March 15, 2012,' (Mike Cooper) said in a statement. 'I am doing so due to the issues surrounding the Gosh P.R. website.'” (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012302290079)
The company has been under contract since 2007 to promote the state, according to Gil Lawson, spokesman for the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet. Lawson said Gosh P.R. has received $647,769 from the state since July 1, 2008. The current contract was for $179,900.
The site recommended that British tourists visit “Hazzard County,” which it said was the community on which the old television show “The Dukes of Hazzard” was based. It also said the original home of Kentucky Fried Chicken was in London, Kentucky.
"In fact, there is no Hazzard County, Ky. Hazard, Ky., is in Perry County, and it was not the basis for the television show. And Col. Harland Sanders’ restaurant where he first used the 11 herbs and spices recipe is, in fact, just outside the city of Corbin.
"But the biggest problem may have been the stereotypical portrayal of Kentucky. 'Drives can drag a bit, even with the jingle jangle of the banjo on the bluegrass-playing radio stations, so it’s good to spice them up with fun car games,' according to a cache of Gosh P.R.’s website.
“'One popular game for long-distance trips is ‘roadkill bingo,’' the site said. 'OK, it seems a bit sick, spotting dead animals, but you will never see so much roadkill in your life, and so varied. Sadly, roadkill is a fact of life in Kentucky. The locals are used to it, and as they say, when in Rome. ... So if you can get over the sadness, and the blood, give it a whirl.'”
As an aside, Cooper already was in trouble concerning Gosh P.R. for a trip he made to England last June. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported Tuesday Cooper violated state ethics laws when he allowed Gosh to pay for $735 in expenses on the trip.
Government has a responsibility to oversee how taxpayers' money is spent. Too much hand-holding can paralyze communications; failure to pay attention to products produced on behalf of government is just as bad.
If you work in a private enterprise, the same lesson applies. Communicators have a responsibility to spend the owners' money effectively. Not doing so is a smoldering crisis that could cost reputation, jobs, and contracts with outside providers.
Now Congress is looking over the shoulders of some government communicators, while in Kentucky no one is paying any attention. Make that, no one was paying attention. Maybe somewhere in between is a place where PR people can do their jobs while paying attention to those jobs.
That may be a confusing intro to the topic. Bear with me. "Sen. Rob Portman (D-Ohio) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) have dispatched requests to 11 federal agencies to look at PR contracts in a bid to gauge 'how much money the administration is spending to promote its own policies.'
"Portman, the ranking Republican on the Senate’s Subcommittee on Contract Oversight, said the move is not partisan but is a reaction to 'accounts of wasteful federal spending on PR contracts....' An unidentified Portman aide was more blunt speaking to Roll Call in saying, 'This investigation will further probe this administration’s use of taxpayer-funded spin.'" (http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/4111-Senators-Seek-Administration-PR-Records.html)
The Department of Health and Human Services, DOE, Department of Justice, and Department of Defense, among others, must produce documents by March 16.
In Kentucky, perhaps more overseeing is needed. A lack thereof cost the commissioner of Kentucky's Department of Travel and Tourism his job and a British PR firm its contract. Gosh P.R. used derogatory Kentucky stereotypes on a website it created. No one in state government noticed for three months.
Late Wednesday, Mike Cooper resigned his post over the incident. “'I am announcing my resignation … effective March 15, 2012,' (Mike Cooper) said in a statement. 'I am doing so due to the issues surrounding the Gosh P.R. website.'” (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012302290079)
The company has been under contract since 2007 to promote the state, according to Gil Lawson, spokesman for the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet. Lawson said Gosh P.R. has received $647,769 from the state since July 1, 2008. The current contract was for $179,900.
The site recommended that British tourists visit “Hazzard County,” which it said was the community on which the old television show “The Dukes of Hazzard” was based. It also said the original home of Kentucky Fried Chicken was in London, Kentucky.
"In fact, there is no Hazzard County, Ky. Hazard, Ky., is in Perry County, and it was not the basis for the television show. And Col. Harland Sanders’ restaurant where he first used the 11 herbs and spices recipe is, in fact, just outside the city of Corbin.
"But the biggest problem may have been the stereotypical portrayal of Kentucky. 'Drives can drag a bit, even with the jingle jangle of the banjo on the bluegrass-playing radio stations, so it’s good to spice them up with fun car games,' according to a cache of Gosh P.R.’s website.
“'One popular game for long-distance trips is ‘roadkill bingo,’' the site said. 'OK, it seems a bit sick, spotting dead animals, but you will never see so much roadkill in your life, and so varied. Sadly, roadkill is a fact of life in Kentucky. The locals are used to it, and as they say, when in Rome. ... So if you can get over the sadness, and the blood, give it a whirl.'”
As an aside, Cooper already was in trouble concerning Gosh P.R. for a trip he made to England last June. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported Tuesday Cooper violated state ethics laws when he allowed Gosh to pay for $735 in expenses on the trip.
Government has a responsibility to oversee how taxpayers' money is spent. Too much hand-holding can paralyze communications; failure to pay attention to products produced on behalf of government is just as bad.
If you work in a private enterprise, the same lesson applies. Communicators have a responsibility to spend the owners' money effectively. Not doing so is a smoldering crisis that could cost reputation, jobs, and contracts with outside providers.
Orange Triangle Belongs on Washington, Not On Amish Buggies
This is a story of two religious crises. I see considerable similarity between them, but with one major difference: Politics.
First, in Kentucky, the house voted 90-9 to pass legislation that would allow a conservative Amish sect to use strips of reflective white tape on the backs of their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange slow-moving vehicle triangles that some claim is against their religion. Forcing them to use the shape and bright color violated their religious freedom, the Amish claimed. Several were jailed and one was killed in a buggy accident last year as a result of this quest for religious freedom. The bill now goes to the state senate. (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2012/03/01/237664.htm)
On a larger scale is the controversy about President Obama's requirement that all employers who provide health benefits must provide contraceptive benefits as well. Catholics, like the Amish, feel the government is interfering with their religious freedom. The Senate just upheld President Obama's birth control requirement, 51-48.
All but three Democrats voted with Obama; all but one Republican voted against him. "But even as she voted with her party, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she hoped the chamber would 'move forward to address the many important, pressing issues facing our nation and stop engaging in what is clearly an election-year ploy.'" (http://azstarnet.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/senate-dems-halt-reversal-of-contraceptive-mandate/article_3407ebbd-b33a-57a4-b072-a40bcc309e4c.html)
Can I get an Amen? Sen. Collins called this issue for what it is. It's not about religious freedom It's about politics and which party will capture the White House in November.
"But while some insist that the rules, which spring from last year's health law, break new ground, many states as well as federal civil rights law already require most religious employers to cover prescription contraceptives if they provide coverage of other prescription drugs....
"'We've always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits,' said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. 'It's something that we've come to expect for ourselves and our family.'" Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.(http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)
Michaud pointed out that Catholic hospitals and universities don't just employ Catholics. Anyway, "'even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options.'" Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.
In all, 28 states currently require contraceptives to be offered in health plans that cover other prescription drugs. Eight of those laws don't exempt religious organizations.
So where were the anti-birth control advocates when these laws were passed? Quite simply, it must not have been a presidential election year in which one party was seeking to oust the other.
"'Institutions like hospitals and universities ... you're required to include contraception coverage in your insurance plan where you include coverage for other prescription drugs, as a matter of basic gender equality,' says (Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union).
"That's the result of a ruling in 2000 by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found that employers whose health plans offer prescription drugs and other preventive services but not contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1978 civil rights law that amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
None of that seems to matter to those who would like to see a conservative in the White House. "All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States oppose and have publicly denounced a regulation issued by the Obama administration that would require every health insurer to offer contraceptives, including those that induce abortion, free of charge. The bishops oppose the mandate because, they argue, it is a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment – in this case, the federal government forcing individual Catholics to subsidize products and services that are contrary to their religious beliefs." (http://nation.foxnews.com/contraception/2012/02/17/100-catholic-bishops-oppose-contraceptive-mandate)
Others see "religious freedom" differently. "Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU says this isn't a fight about religious liberty. 'What the bishops and their allies are asking for is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them,' she said." (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)
As factions of some protestant denominations splinter from their old pews over political hot buttons, the Catholics must act to prevent politics and birth control from doing the same to that faith. It's a sticky issue. How does the Catholic Church retain its core doctrine as an apparent majority ignores it? Smoldering crisis or not? You tell me.
The Amish in Kentucky may have found an acceptable compromise. Is there any nationwide compromise in an election year?
First, in Kentucky, the house voted 90-9 to pass legislation that would allow a conservative Amish sect to use strips of reflective white tape on the backs of their horse-drawn buggies rather than bright orange slow-moving vehicle triangles that some claim is against their religion. Forcing them to use the shape and bright color violated their religious freedom, the Amish claimed. Several were jailed and one was killed in a buggy accident last year as a result of this quest for religious freedom. The bill now goes to the state senate. (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2012/03/01/237664.htm)
On a larger scale is the controversy about President Obama's requirement that all employers who provide health benefits must provide contraceptive benefits as well. Catholics, like the Amish, feel the government is interfering with their religious freedom. The Senate just upheld President Obama's birth control requirement, 51-48.
All but three Democrats voted with Obama; all but one Republican voted against him. "But even as she voted with her party, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she hoped the chamber would 'move forward to address the many important, pressing issues facing our nation and stop engaging in what is clearly an election-year ploy.'" (http://azstarnet.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/senate-dems-halt-reversal-of-contraceptive-mandate/article_3407ebbd-b33a-57a4-b072-a40bcc309e4c.html)
Can I get an Amen? Sen. Collins called this issue for what it is. It's not about religious freedom It's about politics and which party will capture the White House in November.
"But while some insist that the rules, which spring from last year's health law, break new ground, many states as well as federal civil rights law already require most religious employers to cover prescription contraceptives if they provide coverage of other prescription drugs....
"'We've always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits,' said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. 'It's something that we've come to expect for ourselves and our family.'" Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.(http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)
Michaud pointed out that Catholic hospitals and universities don't just employ Catholics. Anyway, "'even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options.'" Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.
In all, 28 states currently require contraceptives to be offered in health plans that cover other prescription drugs. Eight of those laws don't exempt religious organizations.
So where were the anti-birth control advocates when these laws were passed? Quite simply, it must not have been a presidential election year in which one party was seeking to oust the other.
"'Institutions like hospitals and universities ... you're required to include contraception coverage in your insurance plan where you include coverage for other prescription drugs, as a matter of basic gender equality,' says (Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union).
"That's the result of a ruling in 2000 by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found that employers whose health plans offer prescription drugs and other preventive services but not contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1978 civil rights law that amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
None of that seems to matter to those who would like to see a conservative in the White House. "All 181 Catholic bishops in the United States oppose and have publicly denounced a regulation issued by the Obama administration that would require every health insurer to offer contraceptives, including those that induce abortion, free of charge. The bishops oppose the mandate because, they argue, it is a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment – in this case, the federal government forcing individual Catholics to subsidize products and services that are contrary to their religious beliefs." (http://nation.foxnews.com/contraception/2012/02/17/100-catholic-bishops-oppose-contraceptive-mandate)
Others see "religious freedom" differently. "Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU says this isn't a fight about religious liberty. 'What the bishops and their allies are asking for is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on people who don't share them,' she said." (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage)
As factions of some protestant denominations splinter from their old pews over political hot buttons, the Catholics must act to prevent politics and birth control from doing the same to that faith. It's a sticky issue. How does the Catholic Church retain its core doctrine as an apparent majority ignores it? Smoldering crisis or not? You tell me.
The Amish in Kentucky may have found an acceptable compromise. Is there any nationwide compromise in an election year?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Green Door Shows Most People Can Be Trusted To Be Honest
I hated when I felt like an employer didn't trust me. I always gave a full day's work-plus for a full day's pay. I was part of a team and I wanted the team to succeed. But I didn't always feel trusted, most notably when working for a government contractor. Sometimes the boss -- or more likely, the organization's rules -- would look over my shoulder, figuratively speaking. I didn't appreciate that.
I believe I treated the people who worked for me with the trust and respect I expected for myself. My philosophy was to trust everyone until someone showed he or she wasn't worthy of that trust. Why would an employer keep someone it couldn't trust?
Clearly not everyone shares that philosophy, and I believe it's their loss. A restaurant in Corydon, Indiana, is proving I am right: Trust people and most will do the right thing. Menus at The Green Door have no prices. That's because the customers set their own prices. Owner Desiree Thayer believes she'll profit more by trusting customers than by collecting set prices. “'We ask you to experience the meal and give a donation based on what it’s worth to you.'" (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012302240102)
Trusting people seems to be paying off for The Green Door. "Thayer said her business formula has been amazingly successful because people respond generously when their experience exceeds expectations. 'If I had to put prices on my menu, I’d be working a lot harder,' she said." She is considering opening a second location after operating the first restaurant less than four months.
She admits that not everyone has been totally honest. A few have underpaid. But others more than make up for any shortfall. A table of four recently left $200.
Most restaurateurs would be uncomfortable letting customers set their own prices. Likewise, many if not most organizations and bosses have similar problems in "letting go." The few employees who you can't trust should be weeded out anyway. And those who are laboring under a cloud of suspicion and excessive oversight will flourish -- if you let them.
Contented employees are more likely to report possible smoldering crises in such an open environment.
I believe I treated the people who worked for me with the trust and respect I expected for myself. My philosophy was to trust everyone until someone showed he or she wasn't worthy of that trust. Why would an employer keep someone it couldn't trust?
Clearly not everyone shares that philosophy, and I believe it's their loss. A restaurant in Corydon, Indiana, is proving I am right: Trust people and most will do the right thing. Menus at The Green Door have no prices. That's because the customers set their own prices. Owner Desiree Thayer believes she'll profit more by trusting customers than by collecting set prices. “'We ask you to experience the meal and give a donation based on what it’s worth to you.'" (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012302240102)
Trusting people seems to be paying off for The Green Door. "Thayer said her business formula has been amazingly successful because people respond generously when their experience exceeds expectations. 'If I had to put prices on my menu, I’d be working a lot harder,' she said." She is considering opening a second location after operating the first restaurant less than four months.
She admits that not everyone has been totally honest. A few have underpaid. But others more than make up for any shortfall. A table of four recently left $200.
Most restaurateurs would be uncomfortable letting customers set their own prices. Likewise, many if not most organizations and bosses have similar problems in "letting go." The few employees who you can't trust should be weeded out anyway. And those who are laboring under a cloud of suspicion and excessive oversight will flourish -- if you let them.
Contented employees are more likely to report possible smoldering crises in such an open environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
