While contemplating an ethical or legal gaffe or some other action that might discredit a company or organization, many executives forget that their actions will long outlive the media frenzy in the days and weeks after they are disclosed. Some will be forever branded with a scarlet “S” (for screw-up) monogrammed on their blazers and shirt pockets.
Amidst a less-than-stellar earnings announcement by Hewlett-Packard today, new CEO Leo Apotheker blamed the company’s services division and its “missed opportunities” under his predecessor Mark Hurd. Reuters goes on to say “Apotheker indirectly blamed the services unit’s problems on Hurd, who left the company in August amid allegations of sexual harassment.”
It’s been less than a year since Hurd was gently escorted to the door, but his tech media legacy is clear: he’s a cheating lowlife who incidentally ran one of the world’s largest and successful (over the long haul) companies. And the new CEO is also blaming him for the company’s financial woes.
More recently, Kenneth Cole committed an online faux pas that illustrated the blinding speed with which social media transmits news of reputational screw-ups.
We do forgive some who commit ethical blunders, and time seems to help. Nixon was the center of of some of the dirtiest tricks in American politics, yet many have softened their stance in light of his 1972 trip to China, which led to the establishment of formal ties between the U.S. and China. And sometimes we forget. Who ever mentions the late Kenneth Lay, convicted of fraud and conspiracy just five years ago?
What is clear, is that at least for a time, we label people who commit legal and ethical missteps with their deeds, a phenomenon that should be considered carefully before proceeding along any questionable path.
I’ve been amused and disturbed by some of the press coverage of the trial of International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn on charges that he attempted to rape a hotel chambermaid. My favorite piece is this video produced by Reuters which I saw on Yahoo! News.
The video scans newspaper headlines at various New York City newsstands. I could not believe the headline in the screen shot above “HE DID HAVE SEX WITH THE MAID,” from the New York Post.
No one considers the Post the last bastion of accuracy and fairness, but is Reuters negligent, or at least careless, in reproducing, without comment or disclaimer, the Post headline? (Which is of course untrue. Strauss-Kahn has not been convicted.) And what about Yahoo for running the video? In an era where it seems there are only three sources for news video, who has responsibility for reproducing, rerunning, republishing content? When you eliminate diversity, quality and trustworthiness suffer.
Craig’s List continues to come under attack for the “Adult Services” section of its online classifieds. In its latest move, in response to a letter from the attorneys general in 17 states, CL has replaced its Adult Services section (in the U.S.) with a simple graphic that says “Censored.”
According to CBS News:
“…the law sides with Craigslist, says First Amendment lawyer Doug Mirell. ‘The Communications Decency Act says that essentially those who are simply providing a bulletin board by which others can post their content is not going to be liable for the content itself,’ he says. That content is big business for Craigslist, by some estimates potentially $45 million dollars this year.”
Others say Craig’s List is a playground for predators and murderers, particularly in light of the activities of the late Philip Markoff, the man dubbed “The Craigslist Killer.” (Markoff was found dead in his cell August 15.) Markoff allegedly killed a Manhattan masseuse he met through Craig’s List’s Adult Services listings, and also had a habit of hiring prostitutes through CL and then robbing them.
This is a complex situation, a First Amendment issue, wrapped in a morality story, shrouded with a public safety concern. It’s hard to characterize Markoff as “an average Craig’s LIst user.” He was obviously an insane, homicidal freak, who did not need Craig’s List to do what he did, although the site helped.
A popular argument for allowing CL’s Adult Services posts, specifically those that advertise prostitution, is that any time a so-called “morals crime” is “eliminated” in one area, it just goes somewhere else. (This happens in the real world, too. When police do sweeps in one part of a city, prostitutes just move elsewhere.) And there are other sites on the Web that promote prostitution, though none are as visible or well known as Craig’s List.
So perhaps Craig’s List was censored, or more accurately, is censoring itself. I am a staunch supporter of the First Amendment. My degree is in journalism and I had a very traditional upbringing in the sanctity of First Amendment freedoms. Then came the Internet, and some things that already existed became more visible and more talked about, things like hate speech, plans for making bombs, and the use of social sites for planning terrorist attacks.
Arguably, the law allows Craig’s List to do what it is doing. Perhaps the law should be changed, but this is commonly called “a slippery slope.” Once you legislate against one kind of speech, others can quickly fall in behind. I “knew” a lot of things 20 years ago that I am no longer so certain about. I now know freedom of speech is not absolute (the Supreme Court concurs), but I am less certain than ever about where the lines should be drawn.
If you haven’t followed the story, USDA official Shirley Sherrod was fired after Fox News* blogger Andrew (not so) Breitbart, in an attempt to make Sherrod appear to be a racist, posted, out of context, a portion of Sherrod’s remarks made at a meeting of the NAACP.
Putting agenda ahead of ethics and fairness, Breitbart has yet to offer a credible apology for the embarrassment and damage he deliberately caused Sherrod’s career. Bill O’Reilly issued a watered down apology, citing additional “questions” raised for him by Sherrod’s remarks.
Personally, it makes me long for the days of Harry Reasoner, Walter Cronkite, Bob Woodward and Dan Rather, newspeople who had only one agenda: tell the story as completely and fairly as possible, with reliable sources and verified facts.
From an ethical standpoint, there is no difference between this story and that of Jason Blair, the former New York Times reporter who, according to the Times itself, “fabricated comments…concocted scenes…(and) selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.” The parallel is stunning in fact when you consider the use of technology (Blair cropped photos, Breitbart edited videos) to alter the story. Blair, incidentally, resigned after his misdeeds were made public by the Times. Breitbart charges forwards. Truly, we are in a different era.
So why am I attacking “Citizen Journalism”? Sadly, as news outlets find budgets slashed, and fewer people are taking on more work, the old school journalistic system of checks and balances has been dismantled. Breitbart is, for all intents and purposes, a Citizen Journalist who happens to have the use of a very loud media channel, Fox News.* But he is not burdened by editors, fact checkers, legal considerations, or a journalistic canon of ethics.
Breitbart uses the same tools a blogger writing from home, the office, a cafe, or the student union might use. Blogging software is free and intuitive. Most bloggers write and post what they want with no oversight. Anyone can take a digital photo, and edit it in Photoshop or Picnik, upload it to Flickr (or directly to a blog.) Anyone can take a Flip video or cell phone video and do the same.
Social media has given us an environment that has been Photoshopped in multiple dimensions, causing us to call into question the validity of everything we read, see, hear and watch.
With Citizen Journalism, all of the barriers to entry have been removed. Garrison Keillor said, “when everyone’s a writer, no one is.” It could also be said, “when everyone reports the news, no one is a reporter.”
* Andrew Breitbart is not employed by Fox News. I regret the error in reporting that he was.
What are the legal and ethical considerations to consider when launching a social media initiative? Where does a company draw the line between risk and reward when trying to get the most out of its social media marketing or PR?
I’ve had dozens of great conversations about this in the past few weeks, and I have been thinking about a framework for ethical and compliant social media marketing. My intent was to create a simple way of thinking about the legal, ethical, business and reputational aspects of a campaign to evaluate its potential impact, positive and negative, on the company and its brand.
Here’s what it looks like so far (click to see it larger, or download it on a slide below):
Everything a company does represents behavior, and social media communications is no exception. Every behavior signals something about the company, and affects a variety of measures.
Good for Business & Bad for Business
On the top and bottom of the chart are two rectangles representing those things that are either good for business or bad for business. Everything a company does (except perhaps some completely unselfish philanthropic efforts) is either good for the company or bad for the company in a measurable way. Some of these measures include revenue, margin, customer base, subscriber base, etc. Longer term measures may be market capitalization and brand valuation. Every communications effort is either good, that is it improves one of these measures, or bad, in that it does not. Some initiatives can live in both quadrants, because they have some degree of badness, for example, but are good overall.
Ethical & Legal Behavior
At the top left are two circles representing ethical and legal behavior. They do not overlap perfectly, because there is behavior that the law allows which is not ethical, and behavior which is ethical, but not legal. A company or organization should apply both tests to its behavior, but these tests are not enough to give a green light to a program. There are those initiatives which are legal and ethical, but completely ineffectual, and should be abandoned. This is why the legal and ethical circles dip slightly into the area designated Bad for Business.
Unethical Behavior
Though I am sure to get an argument here, unethical behavior is the area that will require the most thought, and probably, the most discussion in your organization. Unethical behavior is represented by a grey circle, which is charitable at best. An ethical organization should not have too much trouble making ethical decisions. Don’t ask whether a campaign will deliver the results, but ask if it deceives people, gives an unfair advantage, or fails to represent the highest ideals of your company.
There are companies in which people know they are stepping across the ethical line, and choose to do so knowingly. This is what’s known as an actuarial decision. Someone has decided the potential rewards outweigh the risks of detection or complaint. While I personally do not endorse this strategy, it happens, so the diagram shows it. In some cases, people aren’t aware they are committing ethical gaffes, or they are unaware of changing custom in a particular area.
Illegal Behavior
Finally, the lower right circle indicates illegal behavior. Doing something against the law, like violating FTC or SEC regulations, is never in the best interests of the company. The risk is too great. Companies that get caught pay a huge price in loss of reputation and, often, revenue. And most companies do get caught.
Like I said, it’s just a framework for discussion, and I hope you find it useful. I am sure many of you have pondered the legal and ethical considerations of a marketing or PR effort. I hope you will share these in the form of a comment.
Since everyone loves slides, I’ve put this graphic on a slide. Please feel free to grab the slide here, use it freely, and if you improve it (I’m no Edward Tufte), please send me an updated version.
Tags: reputation management, executive, ethics
