bio
Eric Starkman is President and founder of New York-based Starkman & Associates.
He worked more than 15 years as a reporter and editor at major newspapers in the U.S. and Canada, including the Wall Street Journal, The Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, The Detroit News, as well as American Banker. Prior to launching S&A, he oversaw the corporate communications practices at established agencies in the New York area, including Morgen-Walke Associates. He had worked earlier as a copywriter at W.B. Doner & Co., a Michigan-based advertising agency.
Contact Eric
April 22, 2008 1:07 pm : Comments 000
I confess to taking a real pleasure in the pounding Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are getting for their role as moderators in last week’s debate between Senators Obama and Clinton. Even the mainstream media has expressed outrage for the pompous and insubstantial questions posed by Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos, which were clearly intended to provoke rather than elicit intelligent insight. This cartoon best says it all.
So I was understandably taken aback to read Don Hewitt, a veteran broadcaster and the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, actually defending Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Mr. Hewitt told The New York Times that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience”.
“When you’re in television, that’s your job,” he is quoted as saying.
Fair enough. But given that presidential candidates now make the rounds on entertainment talk shows, appear on “Saturday Night Live”, and even do videos for World-Wide Wrestling Entertainment, why bother with the debates if their sole purpose is to simply create some more “show biz”? We get enough of that from them already.
Alternatively, if the debates are merely entertainment, perhaps the networks should consider asking comedians Jay Leno or Conan O’Brien to serve as moderators. Not only would the ratings go up, my guess is so would the level of discourse.
Share This Post
April 18, 2008 2:19 pm : Comments 000
When a company is coming under fire from the public and media, you can count on their related official statements sounding anything but meaningful or spontaneous. Such statements are often perfunctory at best and clearly written with kid gloves snuggly fitted on the committee of writers’ hands. As a result, the issued statement is invariably bland, sweepingly broad, and peppered with enough “PR-speak” so that it doesn’t say very much at all. Example:
Reporter: “How can the company justify paying 300 times book value to acquire a failing company owned by the CEO’s son-in-law?”
Spokesperson: “NEWCO is proud of its corporate governance practices and its commitment to increasing shareholder value. We look forward to expanding the NEWCO brand through this merger of equals.”
Ok, so maybe I’ve crafted more than a few statements in PR-speak myself.
That said, how incredibly liberating to come across a corporate comment in the newspaper that not only speaks directly to the issue, but does so with real gusto…a statement that puts the inquiring reporter in his place and publicly questions his news judgment….a statement where the spokesperson stops being a shiny, happy person for a millisecond to say what he or she is really thinking.
Surprisingly, such a statement was issued by none other than CBS News. In response to a question about the embattled Katie Couric possibly – but not definitely – but, let’s face it, increasingly likely – “barring a change” – possibility of quitting as the anchor of “CBS Evening News”, CBS issued the following statement to the New York Post:
“We think readers are extraordinarily bored with this infantile and nasty pilling on… and will continue to focus not on baseless rumor and conjecture, but on the quality and depth of the broadcast – which is second to none.”
Wow – that’s a big change from the more traditional “we’re very proud of…” and “we have no plans for any changes regarding…” statements reportedly issued earlier.
Alas, the Post didn’t report whether a name was attached to the more recent statement, so I don’t know the identity of the verbal sharpshooter. But whoever you are, I applaud your courage and candor. I’d be delighted to buy you a drink.
Something tells me you could use one.
Share This Post
April 17, 2008 7:45 am : Comments 000
I had lunch this week with a broadcast reporter whose honesty and integrity I truly admire. Having just completed an impressive in-depth feature on a high-profile story, he talked about how dismayed he was about the underwhelming quality of the reporting done elsewhere. It turns out that much of the information that had earlier been put forward as fact proved to be inaccurate and even fabricated. “You know it’s scary just how easy it is to manipulate the media,” he said.
My lunch companion was not the first respected journalist to privately share concerns about the decline of the journalism profession and fellow reporters’ ability to fairly and correctly present facts. Regret the Error, a website that “reports on media corrections, retractions, apologies, clarifications, and trends regarding accuracy and honesty in the press” serves as an ongoing reminder how far journalism standards have plummeted.
More so than ever, the media business has become just that – a business. Daily newspapers have fallen most precipitously – they are now for the most part being run by profit-seeking, non-journalist executives looking to generate profits rather than play the historic noble role of Fourth Estate. While that may not necessarily be a bad thing in theory, it certainly is when the intense bottom line focus leads to the wholesale firings of seasoned reporters and editors with invaluable experience and irreplaceable institutional knowledge. That’s how you wind up with bogus stories like the one The Los Angeles Times had to retract about associates of Sean Combs attacking rap artist Tupac Shakur with the former’s knowledge. Three veteran journalists from The Smoking Gun immediately realized the story “did not pass the smell test” and quickly debunked it. As the saying goes, there is no substitute for experience.
While many seasoned reporters are at least privately acknowledging that the profession needs to collectively run a tighter ship, there are others who suggest that it needs even greater latitude. Among them is Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP), an organization founded in 1970 by the sorts of journalism heavyweights that have no modern day counterparts, including J. Anthony Lukas, Ben Bradlee, Eileen Shanahan, and Tom Wicker. The organization focuses its efforts largely on First Amendment and freedom of information issues.
Ms. Dalglish is the person reporters invariably call when the news-gathering process becomes the news itself. A very recent example would be the shamefully errant reporting in several publications that repeatedly linked Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army bioterrorism expert, to the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people. However, according to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, “there’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do” with the anthrax attacks. Click here for an earlier post with the details.
Dr. Hatfill is seeking legal retribution for having his reputation unfairly and probably forever tarnished. He also reasonably wants to know who provided the damaging misinformation about him to Toni Locy, the USA Today reporter who wrote the stories that maligned him. Ms. Locy has so far refused to divulge the information and Judge Walton has not only held her in contempt, he has ordered that she, and not USA Today, be charged hefty punitive fines as a result.
Ms. Dalglish and the RCFP are valiantly trying to leverage Ms. Locy’s plight to pressure Congress to pass a federal shield law that would protect reporters from ever having to disclose their sources. Ms. Dalglish has publicly portrayed Ms. Locy as a First Amendment crusader and her profession’s latest Joan of Arc.
Personally, I view Ms. Locy’s reporting and the subsequent stories that led to her self-created predicament as the best argument against passage of a federal shield law. No matter how I look at it, I cannot see how the public good is best served by giving reporters carte blanche freedom to publish poorly sourced – or worse, wholly unsourced – and inaccurate stories without the possibility of legal ramifications. Journalists are fed false information every day by parties with hidden agendas. This misinformation is often innocuous, but other times the results are far more dire with the reporter serving as a mere pawn in someone’s propaganda game.
Keeping journalists subject to possible court-mandated source disclosures for erroneous stories compels them to be a lot more selective about the sources they rely on and are willing to go to the proverbial mat for. The U.S. press is free to publish anything it wants, but like any other business, it should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Rest assured, if Congress doesn’t pass a shield law, Ms. Dalglish will have no shortage of journalists whose erroneous reporting she will be called on to defend.
Share This Post
April 10, 2008 1:13 pm : Comments 001
One of the great frustrations for any profession is to be defined in the public’s collective mind by the unethical or scandalous antics of a handful of individuals whose behaviors or values don’t mirror the majority of those in their industry. Just ask any reputable lawyer, car salesman, mechanic, or real estate agent.
Or ask someone in private equity. That sector is most often associated with the likes of Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman, who has reaped billions of dollars by buying healthy companies, crippling them with debt and massive layoffs, and then selling them at a huge profit. Although there are countless private equity firms who have contributed mightily to the economy and the public good, the average Joe or Jane steadfastly identifies the industry with greedy individuals who pillage companies and feast on $40 crab claws.
The PR profession certainly isn’t immune to public misperceptions either, which is more than a tad ironic. Indeed, we are the proverbial shoemaker’s children when it comes to our own reputation management. Our public credibility gap has, sadly, only widened lately thanks to the headline-generating missteps, blunders, and ethical breaches of some high-profile practitioners. While these individuals may occupy corner offices, I am loathe to use the term “industry leader” to describe any of them for they have shown via their actions, words, or values that they do not represent the trail-blazing people in the PR industry who truly deserve professional respect and admiration.
Mark Penn, the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, is the industry’s embarrassment du jour. While the mainstream media has been highly critical of Senator Hillary Clinton’s decision to allow Mr. Penn to keep his day job while serving as a key advisor on her presidential campaign, Burson-Marsteller has largely been given a free pass on its equally problematic decision to allow Mr. Penn to continue on as its CEO.
As someone who has generated a significant amount of new business through referrals from people with whom we work, I appreciate the value of having a CEO who is so connected as to have the ear of someone who could very well be the next president. But one of the cardinal rules of reputation management is that you should never act behind the scenes in a way that would prove to be embarrassing or detrimental if it was covered on the front page of the newspaper.
Mr. Penn’s decision to meet with officials from Colombia, which hired Burson no doubt in part because of Mr. Penn’s connection to Senator Clinton, and subsequent apology after his meeting became public, was an insult to the firm’s employees who dutifully uphold the firm’s published commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and to all the clients who were taken in by the firm’s grandstanding about its ethical approach to business. It also demonstrated that Mr. Penn’s greater loyalty is to the Clinton campaign rather than to Burson’s clients.
But the Colombia incident isn’t the only instance of ethical malfeasance at Burson under Mr. Penn’s leadership. The Wall Street Journal in September reported that Burson was aggressively waging a campaign advocating against Google’s planned acquisition of DoubleClick. But in its outreach to reporters, Burson representatives failed to disclose to reporters that it was working for Microsoft, a major Google competitor. According to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), such subterfuge is wholly improper and a significant ethical breach.
Harold Burson, an industry luminary and the co-founder of the firm that employs Mr. Penn, also has ethical problems with PR firms not disclosing their vested interests. “I’m totally opposed to front organizations that do not disclose where their funding comes from and to my knowledge – we’re a big company – we have never started or organized a group where the funding sponsorship was unknown,” Mr. Burson said in a 1999 interview that was first cited by PR blogger Mark Rose. Things have clearly changed at Burson since Mr. Penn assumed the leadership.
Further, Mr. Penn reportedly has been actively involved in Burson’s representation of troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. For an inside look at one of the most dubious reputation management campaigns ever waged, this article in the Wall Street Journal and this one in Salon is must reading.
Regrettably, Burson isn’t the only global PR firm causing the industry considerable embarrassment. It was reported on Gawker, a media-focused website, that Edelman, which also made pledges about its ethical approach to business and commitment to honesty, tells clients that it is okay to lie to the media. CEO Richard Edelman denies the story, of course.
I’ve met Richard Edelman and even once entertained thoughts of joining his firm (heck, we once cheekily considered calling this blog “5:45 a.m.” as opposed to his own “6 a.m.” blog to suggest we were at work before the Big Boys of the industry). My take from afar? Mr. Edelman is decidedly one of the most decent, personable, trusting, and gracious senior executives in the PR business. But his trust has repeatedly been misplaced. In recent years he has increasingly chosen to surround himself with political operatives, including Leslie Dach, who worked at Edelman for nearly two decades, albeit with some sabbaticals to work on various political campaigns.
Mr. Dach, the subject of an extremely damning profile in The New Yorker, formerly oversaw Edelman’s Wal-Mart account and he has since joined the giant retailer. During Dach’s leadership, Edelman initiated the “Wal-Marting Across America” blog, supposedly penned by a couple of customer enthusiasts who turned out to have been bought and paid for by the PR firm. That campaign was one of the most egregious communications frauds in recent memory. Edelman still retains the Wal-Mart account, which suggests the controversial retailer wasn’t too chagrined after being outed for the deception.
Then there is the issue of Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5WPR, which claims to be one of the fastest growing PR firms in the industry. Mr. Torossian has a penchant for threatening litigation (see Strumpette’s Torossian Lawsuit countdown clock), a brash style, and a rather skewed perception of where he fits in the pecking order of industry giants (To wit, he reportedly said this a few years ago with respect to legendary PR man Howard Rubenstein: “5WPR are the new kids on the block to challenge him as the leading PR person in NYC.”). I will let the folks at Gawker fill you in on a major reason why Mr. Torossian comes to mind while writing this particular post.
Finally, there is Michael “The-Flack-When-You-Are-Under-Attack” Sitrick. As I’ve noted before, I admire Mr. Sitrick’s willingness to rough up reporters who write negative stories about his clients (although some of the reporters he has taken on are among the smartest and fairest in the business) and I salute Mr. Sitrick for his ability to dupe 60 Minutes into doing an uncritically sympathetic story about his controversial client Biovail being an unjustified victim of short sellers. Yet his outrages and messianic attacks on short sellers for their dubious activities loses some of its steam when you read that his firm has apparently engaged in some highly questionable practices itself.
(Full Disclosure: I briefly was retained by an attorney to assist in a matter involving Spyro Contogouris, a hedge fund researcher who was a prime target of Mr. Sitrick’s attacks)
Over the years I have been frequently criticized by PR people for being “extremely naïve about PR” and “thinking too much like a reporter.” I’ve been told that PR is an inherently dirty business that often requires the use of dishonesty and deception to get the job done. But I don’t buy that, nor do the people who work here. At the end of the day, our reputation for integrity and transparency is our most cherished corporate asset, and no client, project, award, or piece of business is worth its sacrifice. These values have served us well.
The PR industry has no shortage of practitioners who are quick to advise others how to manage their reputations. It’s high time we did something about our own.
Share This Post
April 4, 2008 2:08 pm : Comments 006
When it comes to jumping on the latest technology bandwagon, I am always the last one on board. Whereas others tend to await the latest product release by the wunderkinds of Silicon Valley with blissful anticipation, I face them with inevitable dread.
I just don’t “get” technology. I barely passed computer science in seventh grade and it’s been an uphill battle ever since. When something goes wrong with my computer or iPod or whatever, there’s never an easy fix. My colleagues, friends, and probably Dell and Mac’s combined support staffs have learned to dread my phone calls begging for help.
But it seems there’s hope for me yet.
Six months ago I reluctantly leased a BMW. I say “reluctantly” because I actually wanted to lease another Acura, the car I previously leased for a blissful trouble-free 39 months. Heck, I would have been happy to buy my old Acura, but the buyout payment was ridiculously prohibitive, especially considering an unbelievable offer a local BMW dealership gave me. Even the Acura salesman agreed the BMW deal was just too good to pass up. So, despite a panic-attack-inducing dashboard full of high-tech bells and whistles, I went with the BMW.
I’m glad I did. Anyone who knows cars knows that BMWs are legendary for their handling. Having spent some time in the driver’s seat, I can confirm that the reputation is well deserved. I haven’t enjoyed driving this much since I first got my driver’s license! Forget “The Ultimate Driving Machine”, BMW’s marketing folks should call it what it really is – “The Ultimate Driving Technology“.
Whereas some people may pride themselves on having a BMW parked in their driveway, I’m not one for “status symbols” so the car means nothing to me on that level. The pride I derive from the car is being able to triumphantly say, believe it or not, that I have mastered its myriad technology operating functions and amenities. I’ve actually figured out how to use all the “extras” on my dashboard. I can listen to my iPod, use the GPS, or talk hands-free on my cellphone without breaking out the driver’s manual or calling my salesman. Remember, I was essentially a Luddite when it came to embracing new technologies so this is a really big deal for me.
There once was a time when I was equally in awe of Apple Computers’ ability to make user-friendly and reliable technologies. Mac computers were once considerably more intuitive and reliable than those of its PC-based rivals, and the company’s tech support staff was equally accessible. Sadly, those days seem resigned to the history books.
I recently was staying away from home for a while in a corporate apartment. The cable Internet connection wasn’t working with my G4 laptop, so I called Apple, thinking that its tech people would be trained to quickly and easily help me with such a basic function. Guess again.
After waiting a good 30 minutes in the Apple tech support queue, I connected with a technician and told him my dilemma. Imagine my shock to be told dismissively that Apple doesn’t support products that are more than three years old (Excuse me? Yeah, that’s a whole other blog post waiting to happen.). After I begged and pleaded, he said Apple would support me “this one time.” I’m sure there was some significant eye-rolling at the other end of the line.
To make a long and rather unpleasant story short, it took the Mac “genius” more than an hour to troubleshoot my problem. Regrettably, he managed to create a host of other problems along the way that he wasn’t able or willing to correct, including disabling the functionality of my Verizon Wireless card. Fortunately, someone at Verizon Wireless was able to get me back up and running within minutes. As Verizon Wireless doesn’t officially support Apple products, the assistance was twice as much appreciated.
My growing disenchantment with Apple isn’t tied to that one incident. About a year ago, the company redesigned its mac.com email program, for which I paid about $100 a year to use. The upgrade was fraught with major hiccups and glitches, including system outages where the site itself would be down, denying users access to their messages. And if you did log on, it would frequently log you off as you were drafting an email, losing whatever you’d written thus far. Emails you thought were sent never went through to the recipient. It was frustrating to say the least.
Other Mac users, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, report having other problems. Indeed, Mr. Limbaugh recently appealed on air to Apple CEO Steve Jobs for help with a computer problem after failing to get an issue resolved via the company’s tech support desk. Apple’s response? They dispatched an engineer to go work with him. If only the rest of us could get such high-touch, personal customer service.
There is also a broader concern about reliability. Dao, our former creative director who left us to join the Peace Corps, convinced me that she needed an iMac to do her job. Well, guess what? Less than a year later we had to send back the computer because its internal workings were “fried”. Even the new MacBook Dao eventually took with her to Macedonia was infected with gremlins. I believe the tech term would be “Random Shutdown Syndrome.” According to BusinessWeek, problem-plagued Macs are clearly not limited to my little private circle.
Yet Apple continues to enjoy a cult-like following simply because of the lack of formidable competition when it comes to functionality and design. Even I can readily appreciate the superiority of the Mac operating system. And while Apple’s standards for reliability have declined significantly over the past few years, it has never introduced a product as flawed as Microsoft’s Vista operating system, which is so problem-plagued that even Microsoft’s own senior executives have issues with it.
Still, it seems Mr. Jobs is increasingly willing to compromise on the reliability of Apple products in the rush to be first to market. His tolerance of launching “almost good enough” technology is a common mindset in Silicon Valley and the focus of a highly insightful commentary by Stephen Baker in BusinessWeek last September. Technophiles don’t seem to mind the shortcomings and compromises; Dao steadfastly remains a devoted Mac user and sees nothing wrong with needing a software upgrade immediately after buying her laptop. Her successor, Jake, is another devout iPhone-carrying Apple head. (When I told Jake that Apple will no longer support my laptop, he unabashedly replied, “Well you know it is more than three years old.” UGH!!!!!)
Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I refuse to go along with the “almost good enough” mentality and the constant – and sometimes immediate – need for upgrades after products are introduced. In a way, I blame BMW. My experience with them has taught me that technology can be made both simple and reliable, and explained at a level that even a technophobe can understand. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet seen the need to publish a “BMW for Dummies.”
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I suspect that if BMW decided to make computers, their engineers and designers would adhere to much higher performance and service standards than those currently demanded by Mr. Jobs. And the folks at BMW could no doubt give Mr. Jobs a hell-of-a-run on the marketing front. Ah yes, dare to dream…
The thought of BMW making computers might sound absurd today, but who would have thought just a few years ago that Mr. Jobs would one day be peddling music and cell phones. Suffice to say, Mr. Jobs had better hope that my dream never becomes his reality.
Okay, you die-hard Appleheads who blindly worship Mr. Jobs, give me your best shot.
Share This Post
March 20, 2008 10:43 am : Comments 001
Some people are movie buffs, while others are into the theater. Me? I’m a big radio fan.
When I was 12, my uncle Specs Howard (then the top-ranked morning man at WKYC in Cleveland) used to take me to work with him whenever I came to visit. I was in awe of him and his job, and soon dreamed of being a DJ myself at CKLW, a Detroit radio station well known to anyone living east of the Mississippi who came of age in the late 60s and owned a transistor radio. In those days, radio was fun and was dominated by zany and distinctly local personalities such as Cousin Brucie (New York), Larry Lujack (Chicago), Dick Purton (Detroit), “The Real” Don Steele (Los Angeles), and Brian Skinner (Toronto).
Regretfully, radio took a really bad turn some 20 years ago. The FCC relaxed restrictions on the number of radio stations that media companies could own in individual cities. That sparked a massive wave of consolidation and the advent of generic radio formats that plague the industry today. No matter where you live, chances are there is a “Lite” radio station on your FM dial that drones on just like the one we have here in New York.
It is no secret that radio has been suffering a decline in listeners over the last 20 years or so. Everything but the real culprit – vapid programming – has been blamed, from the advent of MTV and VH1 to personal cassette players, CD players, MP3 players, iPods, and even alternative personal entertainment devices like home-based video games. Personally, I point the accusatory finger at the bland, cookie-cutter approach to programming.
Thankfully, there remains one station that still harks back to the glory days of radio. It’s K-Earth 101 (ok, technically KRTH, 101.1 FM), a Los Angeles radio station that sounds as unique and vibrant today as it did 35 years ago when it debuted as Southern California’s “oldies” station.
Even if you’ve never left the East Coast, chances are strong that you’ve heard some of the stentorian voices that have crackled through the airwaves from that station over the years as many of them enjoyed nationally syndicated shows or did commercial voiceover work on the side. In addition to Mr. Steele, they included Charlie Van Dyke, whose God-sounding voice is quite fitting since he left full-time radio to become an ordained minister (and who also lived my dream of being the morning man at CKLW), Robert W. Morgan (”a good Morgan to you”), and Charlie Tuna. Sadly, Messrs. Steele and Morgan have since passed on to that great DJ booth in the sky, but Mr. Van Dyke still does K-Earth’s station identification spots and Mr. Tuna, who has a Star on the Walk of Fame, recently rejoined the station and sounds as great as ever.
I’ve been listening to K-Earth online for a while now. Some of the station’s personalities seem like family. I often fantasize about living in southern California and listening to an LA radio station allows me to live there vicariously. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to hear about their 70 degree temperatures as you bundle up to head out into NYC’s freezing cold, but then again, there is something to be said about listening to news of interminable freeway tie-ups knowing you won’t have to experience them.
One of my favorite personalities is Gary Bryan, a former bass player in a Seattle rock band who subsequently morphed into one of America’s top DJs. In addition to being quite funny with a Count Dracula-like laugh, Mr. Bryan strikes me as a modern-day Ward Cleaver: he frequently talks about his wife and three daughters, and judging by his comments, he’s quite the family man. Mr. Bryan also isn’t afraid to take on controversial issues – for weeks he waged a campaign lobbying for The Monkees to be inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Mr. Bryan’s sidekick is entertainment reporter Lisa Stanley, an effusive and quite likeable woman who sometimes comes across as the stereotypical bleach-bottle blonde. Whether it’s an act or not I don’t know, but either way, Mr. Bryan has great fun at her expense. Once, during a discussion about the incoming Santa Ana winds, Mr. Bryan suggested to Ms. Stanley that she stick her head out the window so she could get a refill. That’s the type of all-in-good-fun banter that goes on during their morning show.
Also accompanying Mr. Bryan is a seemingly soft-spoken producer named Samantha Stander, newscaster Bob Malik (who has a classic 60s news voice), and someone generally referred to as “Timmy the Cabana Boy”, who I assume is the show’s engineer. The ensemble works well together and they seem to genuinely like each other.
Although all the K-Earth announcers are quite talented and all have very distinctive personalities, my other favorites include “Shotgun” Tom Kelly, Dave Randall – unquestionably the hardest working all-night guy in the history of radio– and Christina Kelley, one of the top female personalities working in radio today.
Although oldies formats are fast disappearing round the country, KRTH does surprisingly well in the local ratings. According to K-Earth’s program director Jhani Kaye, the station ranks number four in the highly coveted 25-54 demographic, which underscores there is still a strong market for personality-driven radio.
So thank you Gary, Lisa, Bob, Charlie, Tom, Christina, and all your colleagues at K-Earth. In a world that sometimes moves too quick, is sometimes too impersonal, and is sometimes just too downright mean, it’s comforting to know there are still a few folks left in radio who are fun, civil, and a delight to listen to.
Share This Post
March 14, 2008 9:53 am : Comments 001
Talk about ironies.
Eli Lilly announced yesterday that it has acquired the exclusive worldwide rights to develop and commercialize Transition Therapeutics’ gastrin-based diabetes therapies, which reportedly improve glycemic control in studies. One of these therapies is in early Phase II testing.
The acquisition should be good news for patients who take Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa drug, whose potential side effects apparently include obesity and diabetes. The drugmaker is currently being sued by about 10 states for not properly informing patients of these risks.
That said, Lilly getting the rights to the diabetes treatment seems akin to Philip Morris acquiring the worldwide rights to the cure for lung cancer. You know what they say about covering your bases…
Speaking of Zyprexa lawsuits, if you are interested in some impressive and insightful commentary on one of Lilly’s most recent PR gaffes — issuing one of the more dubious news releases I’ve ever seen — I highly recommend you check out this website.
Share This Post
March 6, 2008 1:20 pm : Comments 001
Eli Lilly and its Zyprexa legal woes have hit the road. The Indianapolis-based company and its lawyers are in Alaska, defending against charges of improper marketing of its aforementioned blockbuster schizophrenia drug.
The State of Alaska has filed suit against Eli Lilly, contending that the drugmaker inappropriately downplayed Zyprexa’s health risks and should now be held responsible for the medical expenses of in-state Medicaid patients who contracted diabetes or other ailments after taking the drug. Many will be keenly watching this trial. Eight other states have filed similar suits and as many as 30 others are reportedly considering doing so. Opening statements were made yesterday.
This blog marks the third or fourth time I’ve written on the topic. I’m beginning to think that few outside Eli Lilly are as engrossed in the details as me and The New York Times, which has also written extensively about it. The newsworthiness of this major legal battle explains the Times‘ ongoing interest; my own stems from the broader crisis communications lessons to be learned from Eli Lilly’s handling of this matter.
While the Times did an admirable job of covering the trial’s opening arguments and setting the legal stage, I must question its reporting in that same article about Eli Lilly being investigated for “off-label” marketing of this drug – a serious no-no in the pharma world. While the reference to those charges was unquestionably relevant, the Times neglected to inform readers that the State of Alaska’s lawsuit had also alleged off-label marketing tactics, but that the presiding judge had already thrown out the claim. While I don’t know whether the dismissal was due to a lack of corroborating evidence or perhaps simply a technical glitch – the Times should have at least given the full story.
As an aside, I can’t help but note the irony of Alaska prosecutor Scott Allen reportedly characterizing Eli Lilly’s alleged conduct as being “reprehensible”. That is the same word that senior federal district Judge Jack B. Weinstein used to characterize the information-gathering tactics of Alex Berenson, the Times reporter who has been following this story for the paper.
Up until today, I had been largely mistrustful of the Times‘ Zyprexa reporting because of the alleged ethical shortcuts the newspaper had taken in obtaining the story. I refused, naively, to accept that Zyprexa, an FDA-approved pharmaceutical, could be as horrific a drug as the Times portrayed it to be. I figured that that Lilly’s communications team was simply doing a very poor job at damage control, woefully mismanaging the escalating PR crisis. The anecdotal evidence that Lilly’s outside attorneys are also actively engaged in Lilly’s media relations efforts only reaffirmed my belief.
But I admit my stance has changed now that I’ve read the initial comments made during the opening statement made by Nina Gussack of the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton, which represents Eli Lilly. In a nutshell, she defended the company by saying that Zyprexa’s benefits outweigh the risks and noted that Alaska’s Medicaid program continues to pay for Zyprexa.
While this cost-vs.-benefit approach is hardly a novel one, it just doesn’t sit well. I understand, of course, that there are inherent health risks with virtually any drug and that, despite the threat of possible side effects, informed patients often decide to take that gamble each and every day, starting new drug regiments to cure what ails them. I also understand that there are times when doctors have to make that decision for them, such as in emergency rooms, where the patient’s life is at risk and giving consent is not possible.
What I find morally repugnant, however, is the thought of doctors prescribing drugs that potentially cause life-threatening illnesses to patients who are unable to give their informed consent when other, less risky drug therapies are available. Is schizophrenia the more pressing health concern than diabetes or vice versa? Who gets to make that call? What about the myriad health complications that are shown to be associated with obesity in general? How do we factor them in to the prescribe-or-not-prescribe decision process?
After reading about yesterday’s Eli Lilly assertions, it is now clear to me why the company has hid behind its attorneys rather than aggressively, publicly address the allegations repeatedly raised by the Times. The “benefits outweigh the costs” rationale is a rather weak one to flog in the face of a mounting public backlash. Then again, the public comments they did make – that the Times had repeatedly taken evidence “out of context” – is hardly reassuring to investors, patients, doctors, and everyone else for that matter. As I’ve noted before, the “out of context” defense is rarely a credible one.
While I don’t think that the ends justify the means with respect to how the Times obtained some of its information for its ongoing Zyprexa coverage, I do admit that I’m grateful that much of it has come to light. Something tells me that Eli Lilly and the prescribing doctors who fell for its sales reps’ spiel are much less so.
Share This Post
March 3, 2008 7:35 am : Comments 001
Microsoft’s proposed $45 billion bid for Yahoo has received some well-deserved critical coverage. It’s pretty much accepted as a given that most big mergers don’t work out, particularly when they involve technology companies (AOL and Time Warner, H-P and Compaq immediately come to mind).
Most of the media analysis on the proposed deal to date has focused on the sizeable challenge of melding Microsoft’s lumbering culture with Yahoo’s more freewheeling ways. But Forbes‘ Victoria Barret raises another potential problem in the February 25th issue that could be far more ominous: a free software product out of Germany called Adblock Plus.
Microsoft covets Yahoo! because of its success selling display advertising. But with Adblock, a product created for users of the ever-popular Firefox browser, intrusive banner ads and annoying videos disappear, replaced with simple white space instead. According to Forbes, three million already have downloaded use Adblock Plus [including me] and every three months another million join us.
Microsoft has antagonized a lot of customers over the years with problem-riddled products that were prematurely brought to market. So the company could be at risk if all those disgruntled customers suddenly came to realize they could even the score by simply downloading some software that badly undermined the rationale for the deal.
It could be like one of those flash mob incidents except, instead of coming together at the rug department at Macy’s to accomplish their task, the masses would descend upon the Adblock servers to get the job done. You know what they say about paybacks.
Share This Post
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
top of page