How’s this for de-privatizing your body – some biotech company could own your genes (yes, own) and you wouldn’t know it until a crisis emerges. I recently read Michael Crichton’s Next, where the main plot revolves about corporate ownership of genes and their right to “mine” them from your body. Good yarn, I thought, but come on, this is taking a flight of fancy into sci-fi. Last Sunday I watched CBS’s 60 Minutes, and one of the segments explored – you got it, corporate ownership of genes via patent protection. University medical school are prevented from studying those genes, testing labs are prohibited from searching for them in your body, and the owning entity will deal with any medical condition related to those same genes if they feel it’s profitable enough. While we fret about the possible creation of ‘death panels’ by a government run health system, the private sector is quietly inserting its imprimatur up our rectum.
Of course companies are in business to make a profit, but within the framework of legal and ethical rules. And there was a time, not so long ago, when even our financial institutions adhered to some kind of ethical standards. Insurance companies used to rely on statistical data to work out premiums, while competition took care of the rest. That is not to say that outrageous situations did not emerge, with sick people being denied treatment on some technicality. But lately the situation has changed for the worse. Large institutions no longer seek to make a reasonable profit; they are actively engaged in swindling the public using any method at hand – very often through advertising.
You have doubtless come across ads for free credit reports, a ruse to get your credit card number and start charging you a monthly fee. You’ve also been exposed to car insurance ads touting the savings you can realize by comparing rates from other companies. If you’re over 65, there’s the bewildering maze of insurance offerings to supplement Medicare (and make Medicare a practical reality). The high cost of developing medicines is more than offset by profits that defy imagination, and the value of said medicines may be questionable in many cases (some manufacturers cheerfully inform their prospective customer that death is a possible side-effect, but not to worry – it’s FDA approved). The unfortunate reality is that unethical companies are run by unethical people. It will not be easy to replace criminal greed with a sense of ethics – besides, no one seems to be trying.
The following is a quotation from Book VI of The Annals, AD 32-37, by Cornelius Tacitus – it requires no explanation:
Hence followed a scarcity of money, a great shock being given to all credit, the current coin too, in consequence of the conviction of so many persons and the sale of their property, being locked up in the imperial treasury or the public exchequer. To meet this, the Senate had directed that every creditor should have two-thirds of his capital secured on estates in Italy. Creditors however were suing for payment in full, and it was not respectable for persons when sued to break faith. So, at first, there were clamorous meetings and importunate entreaties; then noisy applications to the praetor’s court. And the very device intended as a remedy, the sale and purchase of estates, proved the contrary, as the usurers had hoarded up all their money for buying land. The facilities for selling were followed by a fall of prices, and the deeper a man was in debt, the more reluctantly did he part with his property, and many were utterly ruined. The destruction of private wealth precipitated the fall of rank and reputation, till at last the emperor (Tiberius) interposed his aid by distributing throughout the banks a hundred million sesterces, and allowing freedom to borrow without interest for three years, provided the borrower gave security to the State in land to double the amount. Credit was thus restored, and gradually private lenders were found.
Here’s the proposition: Get your news from PR people – you know what they’re selling. If you’ve been following the debate over health care you have surely come to realize that the news channels are anything but unbiased; any last doubts you might have had about the idea of balanced news reporting have finally been put to rest. News people continue to look with disdain upon “flacks” as individuals who will spin a story to any length in order to get a mention for their clients’ services or products. What do you call the endless succession of good-looking men and women who grace our TV screens during prime time news and beyond? The whole thing really becomes unraveled when “anchors” inject their own commentary – do these people know anything besides where to get their haircuts?
So here’s my proposal: let companies and organizations set-up their own news broadcasts, and let the public decide for themselves. Take health care, for example. Let’s hear it from Blue Cross, AARP, the AMA, the Democrats, the Republicans… Who needs a TV anchor to moderate? How does an inept and biased individual help in the process? It’s not the bias so much, you would expect some opinion to creep in, it’s the spectacle of grown man and women with the depth of knowledge of a 10-year-old posturing like adults.
How about this economy? Staunch conservatives are foaming at the mouth as the new administration embarks on a spending spree of limitless proportions. “You’re nationalizing the Bank!” “This is socialism!” “Cut the goddam taxes!”
Well, this may be a case of protesting too munch. At an earlier epoch of our nation’s history robber barons took to the stage, and eventually – through legislation and enforcement – a healthy middle class came into being. This time around the robber barons are less visible, but they are there nevertheless. They hide behind the notion that market forces will take care of everything, when we all know how those forces can be manipulated. As a lifelong marketer I have come to appreciate what it takes to market a product or a service, and I can assure that we are not talking about the same market forces that have driven our economy to the brink of destruction. What we have here is deliberate fraud, also of limitless proportions. Oh sure, one or two rascals have been caught perpetrating Ponzi schemes, as if that pointed to the real culprits. The real culprits are the large financial institutions that have relinquished business principles for the siren call of the credit card mentality. If individuals could live beyond their means, why not corporations? The difference is that individuals don’t usually attempt to defraud the credit card companies. Financial institutions, deliberately and with malice, packaged and sold worthless pieces of paper to unwary investors – under no oversight or enforcement of existing laws.
Advertising of prescription medicines – despite the best efforts of countless lobbyists – has had to reveal to the public that side effects may include death, while financial institutions are under no obligations to tell you anything they choose to keep secret. The cry of“This is socialism!” as it relates to the current Democratic agenda may be right, but make no mistake – slogans are only ever used to camouflage the truth. The same robber barons who brought about this catastrophe now claim to be the defenders of their own corrupt brand of capitalism.
There have been several business downturns during the course of my business life, but none as precipitous as the current recession. In each of those other times marketing budgets – certainly advertising, PR, and trade shows – were cut with dull cleavers. There is no reason to think that it will be any different this time around.
As a committed marketer I have always wondered why the rules get tossed aside in bad times. Just as we get hungriest for customers we stop chasing them. Are marketing costs that extravagant or discretionary? Yes they are – just ask any CFO. Well, CFOs will tell you that about any expenditure, but what about CEOs? It would seem that somewhere it is written than when buyers stop spending we enter the siege state – cut marketing costs, reduce inventories, prune personnel (you can finally get rid of expensive older people without running the risk of being charged with discrimination), and generally circle the wagons. Wow! What a formula for success. Shouldn’t we be looking to steal what few customers remain from the competition? Isn’t this the time to work on your image, while everyone else goes ‘dark?’ What about the old precept that compels us to never say problem when we can say opportunity? Nothing but a worn-out platitude, except that during a recession it might be a truism.
Nonetheless, here’s where we are. What’s your story of marketing woes?
Advice abounds on how to optimize your website so that search engines find you quicker than your competitors. It is an arcane art, but only because its practitioners would have you think that it is. Yes, there are steps that you can take to fare better in searches, although it would appear that some of the more basic and simple remedies are the most efficient. Making sure that each page heading reflects the content of that page, and that the appropriate keywords are entered, are generally accepted as important factors. Naturally, the content of each page should be in step with both, and links into your website also play significant roles. Negative influences – things that might keep you from doing well in searches – include the ‘frames’ architecture of a website, and certain drawbacks associated with the use of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
The operators of search engines are interested in providing a service that fairly reflects the relative value of their searches, while the rest of us are out to skew those findings in our direction, whether or not we deserve it. And so the conflict goes on. Do we need to agonize over our position in searches? To some extent, yes, but there are so many other aspects of business that need our attention that where we end up in the search stakes is not that vital. Building a solid reputation, engendering trust, being responsive…if you can deal successfully with those elements, search engines will find you fast enough.
At this time of severe cut-backs and lay-offs, employees may well ask about the loyalty of companies towards faithful employees.
A sense of belonging is probably innate. We are part of families, tribes, military units, and yes – companies. We feel a sense of pride when our company succeeds much as we relish the victories of our favorite football team. But when can we start talking about loyalty? I think we can all agree that giving away your company’s secrets is at least disloyal if not outright criminal. As individual members of a company we can make judgments about loyalty that range from making extra efforts in the discharge of our duties to ignoring corporate transgressions. But how is that loyalty returned? Can a corporation ever be loyal to its employees? There are cases where a company may appear to be loyal. Some years ago EDS engineered the rescue of its employees from Iran after a bloody revolution, but in that instance the company’s senior management – company president Ross Perot – felt a personal responsibility. If he had allowed events to take their course would he have been charged with being disloyal? I would submit that company loyalty is too abstract to warrant serious consideration.
Companies that do well, and do well for their employees, have loyal workforces. Sometimes loyalty to a company is in fact loyalty to a department manager or to colleagues. In any case, loyal employees tend to deliver better performance and contribute to a more congenial workplace. But it should be remembered that loyalty does not work very well in isolation – it is a group activity. Thriving organizations usually have loyal members, from the company president to the shop floor workers. In essence, there is no such thing as company loyalty, but only the loyalty of each employee to each other. It is the sense of belonging that cements individuals in companies, sports teams, and even whole countries (how else is one to describe patriotism?).
So, don’t expect loyalty from a corporation – there are no loyalty departments and no vice presidents of loyalty.
The current economic crisis has unleashed commentary, advice, admonitions, predictions, and acts of contrition from all quarters. Despite this deluge of words, the economy continues to worsen and actions taken are tentative and inconclusive. Is this another case of Nero playing the lute while Rome burns?
Discussions and dialog are the very foundations of democracy, but there has to come a time when action is taken. Caesar crossed the Rubicon, McArthur returned to the Philippines, Roosevelt got Americans back to work – come on people, enough talk and let’s sort this thing out! What’s the point of a Treasury Department with no fiscal leverage? Why do we have a Department of Energy incapable or unwilling to vigorously pursue alternate sources of energy? Laissez-faire might have worked for the Louis XIV administration or Imperial Britain, but it obviously does not apply to XXIst Century America.
The time for position papers and feasibility studies is long past. The question being asked in the wake of government intervention is: “Do we still live under Capitalism?” Well, folks, whatever works. If you want to indulge in meaningless academic discussions go ahead. The rest of us need to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Enough with the words – let’sget some action.
Maybe this election campaign is no different from any other, if we accept that the amount of misinformation or outright lies is as overwhelming as ever. There are, however, some differences. It began with the emergence of Barack Obama as a captivating orator, someone who was later labeled as a star by his opponent, with the word star used as a pejorative. When senator McCain’s vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin, emerged from the wilderness a second star was born (but now the word star was no longer a pejorative). Before going into the level of candor displayed by either side we ought to clarify the distinction between running for president or vice president. The presidential candidate is responsible for himself or herself alone; the vice presidential candidate needs to be cognizant of the boss’s position, to be an advocate for the boss, and to be less concerned about decorum when going to the attack. Within those parameters, the vice presidential candidate can be more of a demagogue – indeed must be a demagogue unless he or she shares the president’s views on every topic.
So, we can accept demagoguery from a vice presidential candidate even if we don’t entirely condone it. But what about demagoguery from the presidential candidate? I don’t believe that’s acceptable under any circumstances, because that would be the deliberate selling of ideas and positions to win the election – not as a misinterpretation of someone else’s ideas or as a misguided display of enthusiasm, but as mendacity applied for the basest motives. Lenin and Hitler were good demagogues – their true and full agendas emerged only after they gained power, although I don’t mean to compare Lenin and Hitler on any other level; the perversity of the nazi leader was unique in the history of world.
The distinction between orators and demagogues is worth bearing in mind as we get nearer election day. American history boasts a large number of orators amongst its presidents, senators, and many other notables. The demagogues have brought us the KKK and the McCarthy hearings. You can doubtless cite your own examples.
