Tag: stakeholder

Corporate Reporting?

On By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

ill_p494Corporate Reporting?

Here is a case of a newspaper printing a more complex form of a corporate news release. This news release was designed and marketed to the public as a product of the newspaper when in fact it was sophisticated advertising.

If we analyze this in terms of stakeholder analysis, the shareholders are doing very well. More profits – more dividends.

Of course, another set of stakeholders would be the customers. These unfortunates were and probably are under the misapprehension that they were reading the work of journalists.

With a little work, the newspaper could convert itself totally into an advertisement and avoid all journalism.

James Pilant

The Denver Post’s ‘Energy And Environment’ Section Is Produced By The Oil And Gas Industry | ThinkProgress

The Post’s advertising section may have ruffled a few feathers in Colorado, but the paper is hardly the first news organization to have stories, or even entire sections, sponsored by outside advertisers. Congressional news organization Roll Call has two sponsored sections — a Boeing-sponsored defense section and, similar to the Denver Post, an energy section sponsored by BP.

The Atlantic’s sponsored content caused a stir last year, when the website posted a sponsored story about the church of Scientology. The story was later taken down after readers and other news outlets took notice, and the Atlantic issued an apology for posting the sponsored content. The New York Times, Time, BuzzFeed and TPM have also ventured into sponsored content.

And while one of the major concerns of news organizations and advocacy groups is whether or not readers will recognize sponsored content as advertising, Kelly McBride, senior faculty member for ethics at the Poynter Institute, told ThinkProgress that not much is known yet about how readers respond to sponsored content.

“Clearly news organizations have got to find new sources of revenue, and I think sponsored content is a stream of revenue many news organizations are turning towards,” she said. “We don’t know much about how consumers perceive sponsored content — we haven’t seen many good studies yet.”

via The Denver Post’s ‘Energy And Environment’ Section Is Produced By The Oil And Gas Industry | ThinkProgress.

From Around the Web.

From the web site,

http://allfacebook.com/facebook-featured-stories_b73405

Brace yourself for the wave of complaints that will surely come: As previously announced, Facebook began to add sponsored stories to users’ news feeds Tuesday.

The sponsored stories contain an indication next to the time stamp that the post is “featured,” and users need not worry about random ad content infiltrating their news feeds, as the only sponsored stories they will see are from pages they have already liked.

Content from pages users’ friends have liked and interacted with may appear, as well, but advertisers cannot alter the messages included with that content.

Sister blog Inside Facebook reported that Facebook will initially limit sponsored stories in the news feed to one per day, and they will not appear when the social network is accessed on mobile devices.

TechCrunch took issue with the language being used by Facebook, saying that “featured” doesn’t denote that the content is paid advertising, and that posts labeled with that word could be mistaken for popular content.

Inside Facebook also reported that Facebook teamed up with sandwich chain Which Wich to test the offering of coupons to users who have liked the Which Wich page. As of late Tuesday, more than 4,300 of the chain’s 104,000-plus Facebook fans had claimed a coupon for a free 22-ounce soft drink with the purchase of a sandwich. We wonder if coupons will be an option for featured stories at some point in the future.

No Telecommunications Company Would Deny Another Telecommunications Company The Use Of Its Lines?

On By southwerkIn business ethics6 Comments

Telstra Corporation is an Australian Telecom. It is paying a fine of 18.5 million dollars for denying interconnection between its facilities and those of other companies. Telstra admitted the breach of its legal obligations. The Telecommunications Act, an Australian law designed to prevent just such violations, was the law broken in this case.

Listen to this blogger explain how Telstra caps You Tube at a certain level of band width. He also explains how he is trapped into Telstra’s service and can’t escape.

Guess what? Companies not only want to censor what you can see or slow down things they don’t like, they also want to put the screws to their competitors.

You would think listening to the debate in the United States, that this is all about whether there is enough band width or if we are going to let the engine of “free market” capitalism make this all so cheap we can pay our internet bills with pocket change. This case might give you a different perspective. It would appear given the opportunity that companies would discriminate against each other. Do I have to tell you what that means for your internet service? Sometimes it would be fast, sometimes it would be unaccountably slow and other times, you wouldn’t see anything at all. Is the phrase, internet service provider, an oxymoron?

The way I see it you could make a lot more money denying service. You’d blame bandwidth problems, over regulation, and anybody else that the uninformed might believe responsible.

Ethical? Lord, no!

What do you think this is, some grade school playground? This is the world of American (and Australian) business.

Religious scruples? Golden rule? That shalt not steal? Thou shalt not bear false witness? etc? Not a chance. Religion does not figure into this kind of thinking.

How about philosophy? Kant and the Categorical Imperative? You know, you must do right under every circumstance? I guess we aren’t doing that. What about John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism? Are these business practices producing the best results regardless of their initial rightness? Well, if you only consider your profit, yes. But ole John Stuart probably wouldn’t agree with you.

Corporate Social Responsibility? Caste the peasants some crumbs? Well maybe, some in the company may be church goers, you know, a place to make business connections, and they might throw something extra in the offering plate.

You might say, “James, you are just too cynical and you have unrealistic expectations, after all the business world has been freed from old philosophies, over restrictive religions, and public expectations. We live in a new era of one rule, if it doesn’t make money it is wrong, if it does make money it is right. See how simple it is, James? Get on the wagon! You know if you gave up all this moral crap, and wrote the right kind of stuff there could be a future for you. No more teaching college students, no more tapping out your pitiful thoughts at night. Talk to the right people. Play the right games. There’s money to be had. There is nothing in the world that makes a businessman feel better than a little godlike praise. After all, don’t they deserve it? These individuals drive the economy. They make the world a better place. After all, wasn’t the United States created to enable business to make money more freely? Forget about all that liberty crap. You have to make the sale. You have to get some stupid schmuck to get out there with a gun and make the world safe for profit. Relax, James, you need some therapy. Anger and outrage can get you down. You could develop heart problems or at the very least hypertension. Relax, slow down. You know, there are some web sites where they show examples of business behaving well. Write about them! You’ll feel all better!”

No, I won’t.

James Pilant

Sick But Not Going For Treatment

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, ethics1 Comment

According to a Wall Street Journal article, Americans are foregoing treatment more often than in the past. These are hard numbers based on insurance companies and other health providers.

There are several reasons given for the decline. First, the rise of the ranks of the unemployed. Second, many American businesses and families now buy insurance with extremely high deductibles. If you have to pay the first thousand dollars of hospitalization, you are more likely to stay away from the hospital no matter what you have.

What are the ethical dimensions of this?

Some would argue that increasing costs discourages people from seeking care for minor problems like colds and that it will also encourage people to adopt healthier life styles. I have several problems with this. The most significant is where are your numbers indicating that increasing costs has either of these effects, and if you have such numbers, at what point do people with serious problems stop coming in?

The patients are the stakeholders in this debate. Increasing costs for doctor visits and hospital stay does bring down the costs of health care. But is that the goal of health care – the least possible care for the greatest sum of money?

Health care is not like most products. Let’s say for example that I want to buy a car. I can buy a used one, a new one or seek some kind of specialty model. I have many, many choices as to what I can buy and what characteristics it has. I also can just keep driving my old car or seek public transportation or walk if that’s possible. If you don’t medical care when you need it, you suffer. Sometimes, you die. It’s bad enough if it’s you. It’s worse if it is your child or your spouse.

You can live without some kinds of medical care. You can give up yearly physicals and treatment for high blood pressure and other long term illnesses. You can decide to go to the hospital only if you cannot recover on your own and spend a week or more in pain to see if you can do it (I’ve done that several times). Are encouraging people to do these things wise? What effect does discouraging medical care have on people’s lives and on health care costs over the long term?

What’s are the ethical implications? Is there an inherent problem with private medical care? The disproportionate negotiating power is extreme under these circumstances. Picture this. You are in bed in a hospital. You can’t breath right. Every time you try to take in air, it takes a tremendous effort. You feel yourself gradually, slowly suffocating. How much will you pay to make it stop? How much would you pay for a minute without that pain?

Tell me. Under those kinds of circumstances, are you in a position of equality in negotiating with a hospital over your care?

I didn’t think so. I want a balance between discouraging frivolous hospital visits (if the data indicates that there is such a problem) but not at the costs of people giving up essential health care for themselves and their children.

James Pilant