You Learn Something New Every Day

As strange as it sounds, I think the thing I’ll take away from this class is our first case study over Mike Leach. Maybe it’s because that’s the case study I got to write. Or maybe it’s because I’m a sports fanatic. Or maybe it’s even because I hate Texas Tech and love Mike Leach (probably), but whatever it is, that’s what stuck with me.

Ethics are, let’s face it, boring. They’re a yawnfest. They’re something you have to just wade through knee-deep until you understand it. And honestly, I’m not entirely sure I still understand it word for word. 

But ethics are something we live by every day. Without them, we’d see business world chaos. Sure, not all of the things we were learning about this semester were laws, but that doesn’t mean the real world doesn’t frown on you for breaking them. Teetering on the brink of unethical is dangerous enough, and at the end of the day, you don’t want to be the person caught off-balance if a situation arises. 

So back to Mike Leach. 

The reason I think it truly sticks in my head is because it was the first real opportunity I had to explore the world of ethics beyond simply talking about them. I had to dive into them head first and hope to grab hold of something I could understand. It turns out I did.

But the fascinating thing about the first case study was hearing people I knew talk about what they found in theirs. It would be totally contradicting what I was thinking. I think that was the first time I ever realized that ethics are 100 percent in the eye of the beholder. Where I think one thing is ethical, someone else will scoff and wonder how I can be so closed minded.

And of course they would be wrong, because everyone knows I’m infallible.

But in all seriousness, it’s something I actually look forward to in my future career. I feel like I can teach people things and they can do the same for me. It’s good to be able to look at a situation from both sides of the table, and at the end of the day that’s how you make friends and keep jobs. 

A good understanding of the entire scenario makes everyone easier to work with. Unless you’re working with monkeys – then I guess just have bananas handy.

Let’s Play the Blame Game

I’m going to preface this blog by admitting that I thought the Super Bowl commercial from Groupon was funny. With that being said, the fallout and backlash stemming from the ad is concerning at the very least. 

But the largest inconsistencies with the stories I’ve read have dealt with whether or not Groupon “fired” CP&B or their contract ended. CP&B CEO Andrew Keller had nothing bad to say about Groupon, instead having flattering words for the company and saying they were hired on a project basis. 

But Groupon CEO Andrew Mason painted a slightly different story with his remarks, basically saying they let the company go because of the bad publicity the ads had brought the company. So whose story is truthful?

And what’s with Mason saying the company had a lapse in judgment letting CP&B control the Groupon brand image?

Whose idea was it to give the agency the reins? That’s like giving someone permission to take your four-wheeler off-roading and complaining when they bring it back muddy and out of gas. Take responsibility for your actions. 

I’m pretty certain they didn’t go rogue and scheme to ruin Groupon’s image. The marketing agency is notorious for off-the-wall campaigns like the “Whopper Virgins” campaign, which also got the agency in trouble (and which I also liked – I’m starting to see a trend here!).

With controversy brings publicity. Whether it’s good or bad publicity, it brings a company loads of free advertising. As long as it’s nothing too terrible, companies seem to take it with a grain of salt so long as it drives sales, which it ultimately has for Groupon. The ads didn’t work, but the free publicity certainly has helped the company. I feel like ol’ CEO Mason knew exactly what he signed up for and simply didn’t stand up to the critics like he should have, instead forcing the blame on someone else – as young people often do. 

And yes, I’m only 23, but 30 is young in the world of CEOs.

Perhaps it’s inexperience on Mason’s part. Maybe CP&B took it too far? I guess without a look behind the scenes, it’s in the eye of the beholder. But one thing is for sure, the publicity worked and Groupon seems to have a plan for the future, as evidenced by the company’s rejection of $6 billion buyout offer from Google last December.

Ethics in PR and Advertising

Ethics are something we need. If we didn’t have them, people wouldn’t act how we wanted them to, and let’s face it – we all want things to go according to plan. Because we all hate chaos, ethics bring us together by making us compromise on what’s successful and what isn’t.

 

After looking over the ethics involved in each of the different organizations like PRSA and Arthur Page Society I was fairly impressed with the consistency between the organizations, but there were a few spots that I was a tad surprised by.

First off, under the first ethic code, honesty, I thought it was strange that Global Alliance and PRSA had basically the same definition, except it seemed that PRSA’s suggested always advancing the interests of your company and the public, where Global Alliance seemed to be saying always advance client and employer interests. Not only does that seem unethical, it just seems weird to have the same definition verbatim and then take the last part off.

For advocacy and expertise, I actually liked the Arthur Page stance on it. The others are good, but the Arthur Page code gives two strong pieces of information. Manage for tomorrow and create goodwill. I think those are both very important aspects of ethics in the business world. As a professional, I feel like those are two things you should always be looking to achieve.

PRSA wins the ethics code battle for loyalty. The organization really hits the nail on the head by ensuring an ethical person balances work priorities with that of the public, who the company it represents ultimately serves. The customer is not always right, but in most situations, they need to be for the sake of good standing with the public.

I actually laughed out loud at the Council of PR Firms’ stance on fairness. “Charge a fair price for PR services.” Really? Nothing about the public, employees or other firms? PRSA has this one right. For shame, Council, for shame.

I think I’m most surprised by the stance of everyone that hiring away from your competition is a bad thing. I understand that you don’t want to ruin the company and go after its employees to damage the company. That would be unethical. But to me, if your company can offer someone more pay, better benefits or just a better chance to get ahead, the person should know that. 

It shouldn’t be whether or not they work for your competition. But instead, it should be about who can provide the individual with the best chance to succeed. Your company can always match the offers made if the employee is that valuable. It happens in the sports world all the time. Team A offers Player_01 more money than Team B wants to pay for him. Is it ethical that they stole him away with more money? No one thinks so. But if it’s in the professional world it’s different? It just doesn’t seem right to me that something like that would be unethical.

All in all, I think the ethics codes do what they’re designed to. They set guidelines for an industry with few legal obligations. Do they have to be followed literally? No, probably not – but they provide a fairly good outline of what the professional world should think and which situation calls for which set of ethics.

The (Harry) Potter Box

            These things are, pun totally intended, pretty magical. So today the class was presented with an ethical decision and asked to use Potter box analysis to decide what someone should have done in an unethical situation.

            So, did I think it was effective? I’d say yes, but I’d be slow to say it worked completely. With differing opinions across the groups, I’d wager it’s incredibly hard to fine tune, and maybe that’s how it’s designed. It generates critical thinking, which is a pretty important thing when you’re trying to make a tough decision, and that’s basically what we were all doing.

            I’d go so far as to say that if I thought about it in a different mindset (disgruntled, tired or maybe a year down the road), I might come to a completely different conclusion about the entire situation. I’ve never been put in a real unethical dilemma, so how do I know how I’d react in that situation? The simple answer is I don’t. I was speculating.

Good vs. Evil vs. Happy Medium?

            The case study that was being looked at was over a young woman in an internship. She wanted a good reference to put on her resume, and the first time I thought about it I thought, “Well, that’s a pretty decent reason.” Work experience is hard to come by, and you definitely want to stay in people’s good graces if at all possible.

But today, while analyzing the same scenario for this blog, I realize that a company which engages in unethical behavior is a terrible thing to have on your resume. If the information ever came out, your potential employer might look at it negatively. Your consequentialist thinking just screwed you. The ends justified the means, but only temporarily. Then it bit you in the ass (read my blog about planning ahead!).

            I mean, think about it this way. How often do you think good ol’ Ken Lay would have left “CEO of Enron Corporation – 1985-2002” on his resume? We might never know, but his zombie told me he’d definitely have omitted it (yes I know he was cremated, but it ruins my joke).

Jedi Mind Tricks

            Did I just infuse Star Wars jargon in my Harry Potter themed blog? You betcha. But seriously, this decision tool will make you play mind games with yourself. One day you’ll think one way, and the next you’re totally questioning your own professional values for thinking that way the day before.

The Potter’s Box asks you to first define the situation with facts. Facts are true. Ethics start with truth. I feel like we’re off to a pretty good start.

            So after you gather the facts, you’re supposed to identify values in the dilemma. This is where I think it begins to unravel a bit. One person’s values may totally discount another person’s. Maybe someone uses professional values to judge the case, but someone else uses morality. 

On one hand, getting the work experience might be all you value as a professional. While in the other corner, the other person is a communitarianist and they don’t think you’re acting in the best interest of balance versus individual rights and the community.

            Then we head to principles. I tend to think just about every situation can be viewed and argued over for every principle, which just makes the entire dilemma even muddier. Here’s an example:

Is it ethical to let everyone who wants to move to America move here? An illegal immigrant might use Egoism to say jumping the border is moral because it promotes their long-term self-interest, while a U.S. citizen says it’s immoral because it’s not in their long-term interest.

And the kicker is that they’d both have an argument. Generally speaking, Americans do have a higher quality of life. But crowding and poor living conditions can also lead to higher crime rates (just look at the murder rates in Houston after Katrina), lowering the quality of life for the people already here. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

So who’s Harry Potter here? I don’t think anyone wants to be Lord Voldemort in this situation.

I’m confused

            Me too. Isn’t it fun?!

So basically, the Potter Box is a bottle of cheap liquor. Your decision making process goes in a million different, unexpected directions after you’ve been using it too long. Put down the sauce, take a nap and head back in with a clear mind later. You’ll thank me in the morning. 

Overall, I think it’s a great tool for brainstorming, but decision making can be a difficult task if you have more than one person looking at it. The Potter Box, while useful, is by no means an end-all conjurer of perfect solutions, but it can help us take a look at the situation based on many different perspectives.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some Potter Box analysis to do. Voldemort’s crew is in dire need of some ethics discussions and I’m not sure how to approach it.

Play Nice, Kids

Seriously, why can’t we all just play nice? I’d be willing to bet that everyone, at some point or another, has learned the difference between right and wrong. Don’t make me pull out The Golden Rule on you heathens.

If we all know what we’re supposed to do, why do we need ethics in the media and business decision making? Because what we’re supposed to do is rarely the easiest (or profitable) option – and humans are, by nature, lazy and greedy. So ethics help us counterbalance those nasty traits, right?

They can help, at least.

Okay, I’m going back to The Golden Rule, because it’s important for these next two examples. Picture yourself as the CEO of a Fortune 1000 company. Everything is going well; you’re looking to expand into a new region, but need your advertising firm to put together some material for you.

Oops, they’re busy with another client – that Fortune 200 Corporation that’s trying to expand globally. With no ethics in decision making, you’re put on the backburner and given half-assed work because your advertising firm is busy (and let’s face it, you’re less important). They tell you it’s their grade-A stuff, but in reality, it’s not and they know it.

Lucky for us, we live in a business world with those nifty ethics I’ve been rambling about.

Let’s flip that equation and say you’re in charge of the Fortune 200 account at the same firm. Well, here comes the CFO of that Fortune 1000 company and (s)he throws you $50,000 under the table. No ethics? No sweat. “Straight to the top of the priority list,” you tell him, and the Fortune 200 company gets thrown under the bus.

 Not that anyone would ever be that greedy.

The U.S. has taken major legal steps to stop the next WorldCom or Enron disaster. And they’re working on stopping the next huge AIG fallout, but without ethical behavior in the business world, our economy is going to experience more turmoil. No one is more responsible for this financial crisis than big business, and in the end, no one can help fix it as much as they can either.

We’re all counting on you. No pressure, though.