February 28, 2008 3:05 pm : Comments 001
One of the silver linings (no pun intended) of turning 50 was, I thought, becoming eligible for membership in the AARP. While I didn’t know much about the specifics of what they do, I had always had a generally positive perception of the organization. My impression in a nutshell? They worked doggedly to serve members’ best interests, they were relentless in advocating their causes to key influencers, and members got great deals on financial products and services.
As it turns out, I should have done my homework before signing up. AARP’s slogan “The Power to Make it Better” doesn’t seem to always apply, at least not when it comes to the products they endorse.
I once received a mailer promising me the lowest auto insurance rates available in New York. Even though I was content at the time with the level of service and coverage I had with GEICO, I figured I’d see how much better the AARP plan could do. I called, I gave my personal details, I was given a quote – which happened to be significantly higher than my existing policy. So much for getting great deals!
Turns out specious claims are not only reserved for AARP-endorsed insurance products. BusinessWeek’s Anne Tergesen makes clear in the magazine’s February 25th issue that, in most instances, the endorsement program that AARP offers on third-party financial products may be a better deal for the AARP than it is for most of its members. Royalties from the sale of financial products in 2006 contributed $400 million to the organization’s $1 billion budget, or almost twice the income of monthly dues.
A spokesperson acknowledged to BW that its products are “not always the cheapest.” That said, he also suggested that they don’t necessarily try to compete solely on price, saying that the organization believes it offers “a higher-quality plan with elements that are not included in a lot of competitive plans” and that the products are “designed in part to serve those who might otherwise be excluded from the market.”
Fair enough. But if that’s the case, the promotional literature needs to come with something akin to one of those “viewer discretion” advisories they flash before those paid programming shows they run in the wee hours of the morning: “The following is a paid product endorsement. AARP advises members that better-suited and better-priced products are likely available elsewhere.”
Retirees are typically people most in need of protection from predators hyping financial services products that are not in their target’s best interest. How ironic – and disturbing – that AARP is complicit in the financial exploitation of its own members. AARP would be strongly advised to review its reputation management practices.
Share This Post
February 25, 2008 3:14 pm : Comments 000
After months of trumpeting the Starwood Preferred Guest program and mere hours after reaffirming my preference for its Westin Hotels chain, I regrettably find myself doing a complete 180 as I declare a personal boycott of all Starwood properties.
According to the New York Post, Starwood – whose properties include the Westin, Sheraton, St. Regis, Le Meridien, and Four Points hotels – has reportedly notified affinity program members that it plans to dramatically raise the number of reward points needed to get a free night at more than 200 of its properties – in some cases by as much as 133%. I never got the email notice supposedly sent to members, so I’ll have to trust the Post on this one.
If it’s true, it’s a big disappointment. Unlike the major airlines, which almost never let me use my frequent flyer miles when I want to, I’ve had great experiences with the Starwood program. Rooms are almost always available where I want to stay and on my preferred night(s). I must have stayed at one of my favorite hotels in the country, the Westin on Market Street in San Francisco, using Starwood points more than a half dozen times in the last year. It would have been half a dozen and one times, but there was an occasion last summer when I was told the hotel was fully booked – even though I was able to subsequently get in by securing a room at the same hotel for the very same night via hotels.com. (Hmmmm… so much for no blackout dates, eh?)
As one blogger pointedly noted, it appears that the Starwood program has been incredibly successful and the company now wants to “steal back tons of Starpoints.” Having used my Starwood card almost exclusively since I received it more than a year ago, I feel cheated. If Starwood wants to change the rules of the game, I’m sure the fine print that came with the sign-up sheet gave the company the right to do so. What may be legally permissible, however, is not in this case customer service-wise. The latter would dictate that those of us who essentially invested in the company by using its co-branded American Express card should be permitted to continue redeeming existing points under the prevailing terms when we signed up for the card.
Assuming Starwood won’t be adding such a grandfather clause, I hope other disappointed program members join me in boycotting the company’s properties. As Starwood is certainly not alone in upping its point redemption requirements recently, I am not sure which, if any, major chain will become my new favorite. There are plenty of quality independent hotels to choose from; perhaps I’ll give some of them a go. Who knows – maybe I’ll even find some with the marketing smarts to offer special discounts for disgruntled Starwood refugees in need of a new hotel to call home.
Share This Post
February 22, 2008 2:42 pm : Comments 000
With the snow piling up outside my office window and the ice and slush taking over midtown’s sidewalks 23 stories below, can you fault me for having California on my mind?
It’s not just a weather thing. I love California. If not for some immovable practicalities, I’d pack up and head up there tomorrow – earthquakes, fires, and landslides be damned. For now, I’ll just have to resign myself to visitor status.
Beverly Hills is just one of the many places I like to visit there. Don’t get me wrong – without question, I’m totally a fish out of water there. I’m not a posh guy, I have no clue what’s “hot” or trendy at any given time, I don’t shop in exclusive boutiques, and I don’t get dazzled by celebrities. Hmm…maybe that’s the appeal – the people and lifestyle there are so foreign, I’m drawn to it like a tourist from a small town in Arkansas is drawn to the top of the Empire State Building (And no, I’ve never been. Seriously).
Outsider or not, I’ve been there enough times to get a feel for places to go and places to avoid. Here’s a quick peek at some of my faves:
Where (and Where Not) to Stay
I typically avoid pretentious, trendy hotels. The rooms are often small, the service snotty and often unprofessional, and too often the bar or restaurant is closed because of a private party. I usually go with a Westin property, except when I’m staying in the Los Angeles area.
The Avalon
My favorite hotel is called The Avalon, a retro-style boutique just minutes from the heart of Beverly Hills. The place is indeed fashionable (and, for the record, the bar was closed for a private party one night during my last visit), but the service at the front desk and the restaurant is incredibly friendly and efficient. Think East Coast polish without the accompanying snide attitude. It boasts a romantic outdoor pool and a highly endorsable restaurant called the blue and blue. While the menu is somewhat limited, the food is creative, delicious, and artfully presented. Even their burger is amazing.
Sadly, The Avalon was fully booked one of the nights I was in town (darn those Grammys!), so I checked into Maison 140, which is owned by the same company. Let’s just say you wouldn’t know it to stay there.
Maison 140
Maison 140 bills itself as an “intimate” hotel, which I’ve learned is the hospitality industry’s precious little euphemism for ridiculously small rooms that are badly in need of a major renovation [note to reader: photo to right is actual size]. The hotel staff is a tad snooty, save for this charming woman from Fiji who works the graveyard shift at the front desk. Admittedly, Maison 140 is better situated than the Avalon (it’s located right in the heart of Beverly Hills, around the corner from the famed Peninsula Hotel) and the easy-access self-parking is a big plus, but it’s still a far cry from The Avalon. If you can’t get into The Avalon, I’d recommend the renovated Residence Inn about a mile down the road instead.
Where to Refuel
Peet’s Coffee
As I’ve noted before, I’m a big fan of Peet’s Coffee, a chain of coffee shops mostly located on the West Coast (count your blessings, Starbucks).
The Peet’s on Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills is filled with customers from the moment the doors open at 6 a.m. I couldn’t help but notice that the Starbucks down the street was nearly empty when I passed by. The same is true in San Francisco and Boston: at the Peet’s I visited in those cities, the closest Starbucks were invariably empty.
If I was in executive management at Starbucks, I’d be worried about Peet’s potential expansion plans. If I was a shareholder, well, I would have bailed out of the company a long time ago.
Urth Caffé
If you are hankering for a healthy breakfast and are willing to pay a premium to eat organic, I highly recommend Urth Caffé, which is right across the street from Peet’s. If you are looking for a comfortable perch to watch the beautiful people of Southern California and their dogs, this is the place.
Massimo Ristorante
New York is widely regarded as having the best restaurants, but I got to tell you, the Los Angeles area is definitely a close second. One of the best meals I’ve had in recent memory was at Massimo Ristorante located right off Rodeo Drive. Despite its upscale location, the place welcomes us mere mortals. In fact, my cousin and I were seated at one of the best tables in the house. Everything at Massimo was perfect: the perfectly chilled martini, the atmosphere, the décor, the service, and of course, the food. I can’t wait to go back!
Where to Walk … Or Rather How Not to Walk
Jaywalking is a fact of life in New York. If there’s a break in traffic, you go for it. One of Beverly Hills’ finest was kind enough to remind me last week that it is a big no-no everywhere else. I believe the term he used was “illegal”.
It was a glorious sunny day and I was in the heart of Beverly Hills’ shopping district. Spotting an interesting clothing store across the street, I stepped to the curb and looked left, looked right, looked left again (my mom taught me well) and then trotted across to the other side.
You don’t do that in Beverly Hills. Just ask Johnny Depp.
A motorcycle officer witnessed my civil disobedience and pulled me over… near the dress shirts in the clothing store. He was quite angry. Apparently, he had called to me to stop and wasn’t pleased that I ignored him. The truth is, I honestly didn’t hear him. He demanded my driver’s license, asked me a battery of questions, including the purpose of my visit and what I did for a living. I apologized profusely for my transgression and begged him not to write me a ticket. Alas, he spared me the ticket, for which I am very grateful.
Imagine getting a ticket for jaywalking while inside some snooty store. Oh, the indignity…
Share This Post
7:19 am : Comments 000
Related post about Toni Locy and the federal shield law.
Compared to their brethren in other countries, U.S.-based reporters enjoy unparalleled power and constitutional protection. America’s founding fathers understood the need for a strong independent press to serve as a watchdog against government tyranny, hence the passing of the First Amendment and the notion of journalists’ collective role as the Fourth Estate.
At the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, James Madison and his fellow patriots had legitimate cause for wanting to ensure freedom of the press. The British Empire had “long censored the press and prosecuted persons who dared to criticize the British Crown“; the revolutionists knew all too well the importance of keeping the government accountable to the populace. There was no Internet, no radio, no TV. The only way to expose wrongdoing or communicate new ideas was through the printing press.
But much has changed since 1791. Whereas reporters were once primarily independent ideologues driven by the pursuit of truth and fairness, the industry today is becoming increasingly characterized by glory-seeking individuals who are more concerned with getting scoops and breaking “exclusives” to further build their personal brand. The industry is now dominated by media conglomerates whose primary concern is profits; accordingly, cementing a reputation for consistently being first-to-publish can garner far more professional dividends than consistently being fair and accurate.
The profound journalism shift has been a real boon for those in positions of power that seek to use the media to serve their own agendas. Once upon a time, reporters were a far more skeptical and suspicious lot. They understood the potential to be exploited by outsiders, and were far more vigilant in safeguarding their corner of the public trust. They were not “friendly” with politicians, government prosecutors, or the police, and they never simply took them at their word.
But as I said, times have changed, and not for the better. The mantra of “show me the proof” has been replaced by “give me the exclusive”. This new mindset is disturbing, but it is particularly alarming when it is applied to individuals being investigated by The Law. All too often, names are prematurely named, heavy allegations are lightly thrown, reputations and lives are unfairly destroyed. From the feeding frenzy coverage of Richard Jewell, who the media aggressively – and erroneously – reported perpetrated the bombing of the 1996 Olympics, to the 38 members of the Duke Lacrosse team who were wrongfully accused of rape by a politically driven prosecutor, there have been far too many innocents needlessly sacrificed at New Journalism’s altar.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, is but yet another of these media victims. Back in 2002, USA Today and other media outlets repeatedly reported that Dr. Hatfill was being investigated for playing a role in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. Dr. Hatfill was first publicly fingered by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had said he was a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation.
Like Jewell and the Duke Lacrosse team members, Dr. Hatfill was wholly innocent. He’s now suing the federal government for destroying his reputation by injudiciously leaking information about him to the media. The case is before U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton who on Wednesday held Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote multiple stories about Dr. Hatfill being a key target in the anthrax investigation, in contempt of court for refusing to identify the anonymous sources she spoke with in preparing the stories.
Journalists are crying foul. Judith Miller, whose “exclusives” in The New York Times years ago about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction have since been discredited, wailed on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal yesterday that Mr. Ashcroft, not “independent journalism,” should be held responsible for Dr. Hatfill’s plight. Shamefully, Ms. Miller subtly tries to cast a pall over Dr. Hatfill’s innocence by noting he was “long under suspicion but never charged with any crime.” According to Judge Walton, “there’s not a scintilla [emphasis mine] of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks.
Mr. Ashcroft was indeed the first to publicly out Dr. Hatfill as a target in the anthrax investigation. But Ms. Locy took that ball and ran with it. She did multiple stores citing unnamed sources repeating the allegations about Dr. Hatfill being a target. While it’s true that some of Ms. Locy’s stories noted that the government’s evidence was not conclusive, inclusion of such caveats shouldn’t result in a free pass for reporters to recklessly abandon their Bigger Picture fairness responsibilities or to turn a blind eye to the high-stake ethical issues in play. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, after all. Just ask those whose lives have been utterly decimated because some brash reporter had gotta-get-the-scoop tunnel vision.
Ms. Miller quotes Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as saying that the steep fines Judge Walton has imposed on Ms. Locy will make it “very risky for future journalists to write anything about a suspect who has not already been arrested and indicted.”
Frankly, given the life-altering reputational devastation when the wrong person is named, I would see that as a major step forward.
Share This Post
February 15, 2008 4:01 pm : Comments 001
Let’s face it, most airlines are indifferent about public relations. Although the major ones were once ranked among the most creative and effective brand marketers, today they are more concerned with trying to figure out how to cram more people on the plane than with making sure passengers are happy. United’s friendly skies are no longer quite so friendly, Delta is hardly ready when you are, and few travelers would say that American Airlines is still something special in the air.
But there is hope. I have found a smart, engaging airline public relations executive who is quite remarkable not only for her media smarts, but also for her savvy ability to permanently disarm one of her company’s critics. I’m talking about Abby Lunardini, director of corporate communications for Virgin America.
My dealings with Ms. Lunardini began last month when I contacted her for comment on an item I was considering about Virgin America. Without going into details, suffice to say that it probably wouldn’t have been a blog post that Ms. Lunardini or her bosses would have treasured.
As you know, I had already written some critical things about my experiences with this upstart airline, and had exchanged emails with senior management in the past. I wasn’t sure what type of reception I’d receive from Ms. Lunardini, but I assumed she knew the history and would, accordingly, hardly count herself among the blog’s biggest fans.
Ms. Lunardini defied my expectations. There was no cold shoulder, no blatant or subtle hostility, no Target-esque brush off of a mere blogger, and no tersely worded official statement or tight-lipped “no comment” in response to my less-than-favorable inquiry. Her professionalism, sincerity, and responsiveness were quite impressive.
But what really stands out is the way she subsequently used the opportunity provided by our dialogue to follow up on a request I made months ago to a Virgin America flight attendant for an autographed photo of Sir Richard Branson for my colleague Jackie Condie, who absolutely reveres the guy for his business acumen and PR smarts. Ms. Lunardini let me know that the photo request had not been forgotten and that she was hoping to get the photo signed when she saw Sir Richard at a party the company was throwing to celebrate the launch of service to San Diego.
Now here’s where I must confess to having an utterly shameless moment: I couldn’t help but ask Ms. Lunardini if it might be possible for Jackie to attend the San Diego celebration and meet Sir Richard in person. Not only did she oblige, she insisted that I come to the party as well. And so Jackie and I briefly found ourselves in southern California this week enjoying weather that should be considered sinful in mid-February.
Let’s just say Ms. Lunardini throws a heck of a party.
With help from an impressive group of representatives from the D.C. and Beverly Hills offices of Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, the flawlessly executed party at a trendy San Diego hotel was done in real style and class. Everything was to the king’s taste.
The party was filled with interesting people, ranging from Chamber of Commerce folks to Virgin America vendors. We also met a woman who made a critical video of Virgin America after her flight was delayed for some five hours. She, too, had been invited to the party.
Despite all the pressure Ms. Lunardini was clearly under, she still found time to make good on her promise. When we gave our names at the door, a representative from Ogilvy without looking at the list attentively said to Jackie, “Oh yes, you’re the one we need to make sure meets Mr. Branson.” You would have thought we were VIPs.
Just after 9 p.m., we were instructed to go to a quiet area upstairs. A few minutes later, we were introduced to Sir Richard who shared a few words and graciously agreed to pose for a photo with Jackie. Later we learned he was actually rather sick with the flu. You’d never have guessed it.
I’ve worked with Jackie for more than 10 years and I don’t recall a time she’s ever looked quite so thrilled. Ok, well, maybe at her wedding. Some people have asked us if spending a few minutes in his company was really worth the hassle and aggravation of making a cross-country trip in two days. Seeing the look on her face as she shook the man’s hand, there is no question about it. Definitely yes!
So many thanks Ms. Lunardini for an experience Jackie and I will never forget, and for changing this blogger’s perception of airline PR people. Like Virgin America itself, you are clearly a standout in your crowd.
Share This Post
February 11, 2008 1:34 pm : Comments 002
It looks like we got spun again by The New York Times.
In our zeal to safeguard the integrity of our firm and its blog, we rushed an apology last week to The New York Times and reporter Alex Berenson that now appears to have been premature. The S&A post in question was based on a story that appeared on Portfolio.com earlier in the week. When the Times sent us a statement saying that the original story was “incorrect”, we took the newspaper at its word and felt compelled to retract some of our comments.
Well, it turns out the story wasn’t incorrect. In fact, one could argue that, for the most part, it scored a bulls-eye. The Times insisted that a misdirected email from one of Eli Lilly’s outside attorneys wasn’t responsible for Mr. Berenson’s page-one scoop that the pharmaceutical giant was close to reaching a settlement with federal prosecutors for $1 billion. But Mr. Berenson subsequently admitted on NPR radio, and to the editor of the Pharmalot blog, Ed Silverman, (see his comment on my apology post) that, well, it kinda was.
We could have a field day with the disclosures that have surfaced since our last blog on this topic, but we will stick to the high road and to these two thoughts:
- We owe an apology to Portfolio.com for unjustifiably discrediting its story. While some might argue that the misdirected email Mr. Berenson received didn’t have the depth of detailed information about the proposed settlement as the website hinted, by Mr. Berenson’s own admission the details it did offer provided the confirmation he needed to run with the story;
- This ongoing email saga illustrates clearly that there is truly no such thing as off-the-record. Once a reporter has their hands on a piece of sensitive information, they will finagle ways to use it, despite any handshake agreements not to. As we are forever telling clients, if you don’t want to see something attributed to you on page one of your local newspaper, it’s best you keep it to yourself.
One final thought: For all the blather about the capriciousness of bloggers and so-called citizen journalists, it is interesting to note how quickly those commenting online about this topic last week were quick to issue corrections and clarifications when it seemed their information was wrong. If nothing else, it’s encouraging to see the old-school principles of fairness and accuracy given the primacy they deserve.
Share This Post
February 7, 2008 12:57 pm : Comments 002
Update: Alex Berenson admits some truth on NPR and The New York Times‘ comments had an element of spin.
When we launched this blog, there was unanimous internal agreement that we would adhere to the highest standards of fairness and accuracy. We demand nothing less from ourselves, clients, and the media with regard to the work we do every day, and the content of this blog is no exception.
With that in mind, we naturally became concerned yesterday to read a post on the Drug and Device Law blog that the Portfolio.com story upon which we based our own post Tuesday may have been inaccurate. The item in question reported that The New York Times reporter Alex Berenson was able to break the recent page-one story about a possible $1 billion Eli Lilly Zyprexa settlement because he had mistakenly received a confidential email about the talks from an attorney at Eli Lilly’s outside law firm Pepper Hamilton that was intended for a co-counsel colleague at Sidley Austin also named Berenson.
The D&DL post said that Mr. Berenson had denied that the errant email was the initial source of his scoop (Portfolio.com said he had declined to comment). Above the Law, a well-regarded and extremely popular website, also wrote about the wrong-Berenson email mistake, linking to our post and to the original piece on Portfolio.com. They, too, issued a subsequent clarification once Mr. Berenson’s denial was on the record.
And now it is our turn.
We contacted The New York Times spokespeople directly yesterday to determine if a correction or clarification was indeed warranted. We received the following statement from Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for the newspaper:
Mr. Berenson did receive a misdirected e-mail from Pepper, but that e-mail did not contain a detailed description of the status of the settlement talks. Mr. Berenson had known independently about the settlement talks for some time, and he obtained the details he published in the Times from sources other than Pepper.
The Portfolio version was incorrect.
When a newspaper the stature of The New York Times publicly discredits the reporting of another publication, we clearly take it seriously. It now appears that we inadvertently republished erroneous reporting in our blog yesterday, and for that we apologize to both the Times and Mr. Berenson.
Yet…
If Mr. Berenson knew about the settlement talks for “some time” and had received details of the settlement talks from “sources” (plural) other than Pepper, we can’t help but wonder why he then sat on the story. Doing so meant taking a huge risk of getting scooped by a rival on a story that he has pretty much owned. After all, as the Times itself reported, if the $1 billion figure was right, it would be the biggest penalty ever paid by a drugmaker for inappropriate drug marketing activities. Major newspapers typically require only two independent sources to confirm an unattributed story, which Ms. Mathis suggests he had in hand.
And therein lays a very big question. So who were these non-Pepper sources?
We can appreciate why someone on the government side might leak that settlement negotiations were underway. But we would expect that Mr. Berenson’s editors would insist that he get confirmation from someone at, or very close to, Lilly with first-hand knowledge of the talks. It’s fairly safe to assume that Lilly didn’t offer any confirmation, officially or on background, given their reported statement to the Times saying in part, “…we regularly have discussions with the government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so.”
Mr. Berenson’s scoop is extremely damaging to Eli Lilly. If the company does indeed settle for $1 billion, the Times will again undoubtedly give the story some pretty prime real estate and repeat all the damaging allegations regarding Zyprexa. And with the figure now public knowledge, it would seem difficult for prosecutors to accept a settlement for less than $1 billion without it appearing that they had blinked.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this fascinating story plays out.
Share This Post
February 5, 2008 12:05 pm : Comments 003
Update: The New York Times claims that the Portfolio piece was “inaccurate”.
Update 2: Alex Berenson admits some truth on NPR and The New York Times‘ comments had an element of spin.
More about Alex Berenson.
The New York Times‘ pharmaceutical industry reporter Alex Berenson scored a heck of a Page One scoop last week when he revealed that Eli Lilly was looking to reach a settlement with federal prosecutors over the company’s alleged inappropriate marketing of antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. A staggering “mea culpa” settlement figure of $1 billion or more was mentioned.
This was a big story, no question about it. Eli Lilly is a publicly traded company and the $1 billion settlement would be the largest ever paid by a drug company for improper drug marketing (so said the Times).
In the piece, reporter Alex Berenson cited sources who requested anonymity “because they have not been authorized to talk about the negotiations.” He also included a statement from an Eli Lilly representative saying, in part, “…we regularly have discussions with the government. However, we have no intention of sharing those discussions with the news media and it would be speculative and irresponsible for anyone to do so.”
So how did Mr. Berenson get the scoop? It turns out that it wasn’t through any tried-and-true gumshoe reporting techniques taught at j-school. He simply had the fortune of having the same last name as one of Eli Lilly’s attorneys.
According to a story posted today on Portfolio.com, one of the drugmaker’s outside attorneys at Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton had mistakenly emailed detailed, highly confidential information on the settlement talks to the reporter instead of Bradford Berenson, the intended recipient (co-counsel at another law firm).
The email gaffe, unquestionably one of the greatest fears of everyone handling sensitive information, is apparently the result of very similar email addresses: Mr. Berenson, the reporter, simply goes by berenson in his email address while Mr. Berenson, the attorney, goes by bberenson.
We can’t honestly fault the Times or its reporter for breaking this story. I would have done the same thing back in the day. But Mr. Berenson mislead by omission. He should have been upfront with readers about how he learned of the settlement talks. Since there was no official confirmation from either side, doing so would have gone a long way toward letting readers judge the credibility of the story for themselves. Mr. Berenson quotes Nina Gussack, a Pepper Hamilton lawyer representing Eli Lilly, as saying she couldn’t comment on the case. Judging from Eli Lilly’s own statement, it doesn’t appear that anyone alerted the company’s spokesperson as to how Mr. Berenson got the story.
Mr. Berenson’s earlier reporting on this topic has been called into question before. According to a respected federal judge, Mr. Berenson was “deeply involved” in an “illegal” scheme that effectively amounted to “stealing” documents. (Neither the Times nor Mr. Berenson have ever publicly explained the extent of his involvement.)
Eli Lilly is reportedly sticking by Pepper Hamilton, and I applaud the company for its loyalty. That said, I can’t help but wonder why an attorney at Pepper Hamilton had Alex Berenson’s email address in her email database in the first place. As I’ve argued before, reporters and attorneys are best left in separate corners. Especially when the latter specializes in high-profile, high-stakes crisis work. By any measure, Eli Lilly’s PR handling of allegations of wrongdoing regarding its Zyprexa marketing has been a debacle. If its attorneys are driving the media relations strategy, it’s easy to understand why.
Share This Post
top of page