Fickle with Short Term Memory Lapses. Ethics anyone?

I know you were thinking I was going blog about the stoner-slacker species. But in fact I am talking about our species. And it fits. And it gets worse every day.

Back in the day when times were simple. When we spent all our waking and sleeping moments stressed about food supply, basic necessities, and hoping some armed group with swords and bows didn't decide to over run where you live. Back then the smallest of good will gestures could earn a lifetime of good will back. Screwing someone could lead to the reverse.

Today with the news and gossip on 2 second sound clips and our days broken up into micro segments we are as erratic, forgiving, and forgetting as ever. This truly benefits brands specifically because of this fracturing of our time vs reality view. For the average person who cares about ethics and this planet we all try to do the right thing but often we have no idea if we are.

I recently read a very disturbing article in the Economist about Vietnam imprisoning political dissenters for multi-year terms. One over 10 years for doing nothing but speaking out peacefully. So I decided I will try not to buy products made in countries with oppressive Governments like China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia etc. The problem is in 3 months something else will grab my attention and I will get lazy (slacker) and forget to check labels here and there and eventually all together. Unless I am getting mail and seeing news reinforcing long term I will forget. And companies like Nike and Exxon who do business in countries with bad governments will over the long term have no reason to move their operations.

And this short term memory loss, sadly also helps reduce a company's incentive to do the right thing. Nike pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce in protest over the Chamber's opposition to carbon regulation. Not completely altruistic. Nike has plants located in low lying Southeast Asian countries that would be under water if oceans rise from global warming. But still a positive move. A few months later no one remembers! Technically as a reward I should be choosing Nike products when made in a non-human rights violating country when all things are equal vs their competition who did not withdraw from the US Chamber of Commerce.

One positive is that ethically responsible Public Companies tend to out perform their peer competitors in almost every study I have seen published. So maybe ethical business practices in reality magically are more cost effective with a higher ROI than abusive practices.

The risks of unethical behavior I feel will always out weight the reward. Simple examples is there is potential for jail if you cook the books, operations being halted if your abuse of workers causes a strike or makes it hard to attract talent, or calamity when the oppressive foreign Government protecting your business (oil rig or clothing factory) get's over thrown via revolt with them nationalizing your business (see Iran and Cuba revolutions).

So in closing, the way out society has developed our Mode of Daily Operation after the industrial revolution, has become a deterrent to companies doing the right things. There tends to be a lot of PR but very little substance when it comes to businesses changing habits to be more ethical when it comes to workers, environment, and the inhabitants of this planet. We don't boycott Exxon over Human Rights or the environment when they are $0.03 cheaper than the station across the corner. I will succumb and buy my next running shoes from China or Vietnam potentially due to lack of alternatives. And companies like Nike will sometimes ponder if doing the right thing was worth it. And it is 'us the people' who are to blame for this situation. But luckily the 'profit incentive' tends to reward ethical behavior over the long run.

Why the Supreme Court Decision on Corporate Campaign Spending is Bad for Media and Advertising

Yesterday the Supreme Court gave Corporations full freedom of speech rights by ruling they can spend unlimited monies on advertising positive or negative that support their positions. Even though it was never part of the discussion it will be a boon then a bane for Media Companies and Advertising Companies and even Brands which I will discuss.

One of the issues regarding 'ethics' that I struggle with for accessing 'free' content has it's roots with the decision to create a new Media Format way back when called Television. Somehow the revenue metrics for Television allowed content to be viewed for free by consumers supported by Advertising. But it was not a contract with the consumers. Nothing forced consumers to view a commercial. We can switch channels, leave the room etc. So this created a true 'opt-in' relationship with consumers. This has been the root of most of today's troubles for Media Companies aside from the Movie Industry.

Until 2 years ago I was not in Advertising. I was very happy to use FireFox with Ad Blocking and No Scripts Ad-Ons so I see pretty much ZERO digital Advertising. And while I valued Advertising-Media it was a Love-Hate relationship because the industries can be evil in pursuit of profits, such as the marketing of cigarettes to children. I also witnessed the demised of most quality content on the major networks so that in 1999 when High Speed Internet came out I canceled cable for DSL and stopped watching TV altogether. Why pay good money to receive crap in my living room.

After entering the Ad Biz I started thinking about the ethics of accessing content and blocking all the Ads. And while I am a champion for paying directly for content in return for not seeing Ads until this becomes a reality what am I supposed to do? So I have 'unblocked' the Ad Blocker from specific Web Sites that I enjoy free content from out of a sense of Ethics and Honor. But since the Media-Advertising Industry doesn't force people to view advertising I refuse to unblock all websites. Sorry. Earn my eyeball time.

But now things might become different. With the Supreme Court ruling, at first Media Companies and Ad Agencies will benefit from increased Ad Spend for political advertising. In some cases this could be dramatic. As of today the Insurance Industry can buy up all the Ad Time and pitch lies about Healthcare reform because nothing in the Ruling Requires Truth! And they can hide behind Special Interest Entities which make it impossible to know who is paying for the Ads. This will dramatically increase people's negative feelings towards Media and Advertising and eventually turn people off. They might start TiVoing everything just to remove commercials from their lives.

Case in point during the Kerry - Bush election I was in Ohio and Florida for business and couldn't watch TV because every other commercial was an attack ad against one or the other candidate. I had to give up Sports Center! Now it is going to get worse.

So if a Media Company is willing to take money from groups with Nefarious Purposes (meaning they do not require transparency), then my view of Ethics changes and maybe I shouldn't feel obligated to unblock websites from Ad Blocking. Maybe I will be more ok with eliminating commercials from my life for good?

This will be interesting to see how this unfolds. But as the first case in point. Yesterday my local paper had a full page Ad from a mysterious group with no website, just a gmail address attacking a Democratic Senator over the GOP win in Massachusetts. Was this paid for by Insurance Companies? A Right Wing Religious Group? Who knows. But I am punishing the paper for the lack of transparency and not for the content. So for the next 30 days I am reading the paper online and blocking all Ads.