12/20

Nonetheless, a billion hurts at a time when one isn't profitable.  I like to think of it as the price of dishonesty, and it should become a classic PR case study for what happens when one tries to fool the public once too often. 

In all, 12 firms are supposed to fork over fines.  Merrill Lynch already paid out $100 million to settle its part in the scandal.

The settlement also is supposed to change how analysis is done on the Street.  Some firms would separate stock research from investment banking.  Some will probably deemphasize research unless they get paid real money for it.  For years now, institutional investors have gotten research for "soft dollars" -- that is, in trade for business.  It will be interesting to see how the institutions value research when it costs cash.

Once again, PR had little or no role in Wall Street's practices.  In fact, PR aided and abetted what was going on by never challenging embedded behavior.  While practitioners are not supposed to be consciences of firms they represent, they are supposed to maintain relationships with the publics who allow firms to survive and succeed.  It is clear that they had no role in doing that while Wall Streeters were raking in the dough. 

Now, of course, practitioners are spinning in every direction to help their firms get out of trouble.  Wouldn't it have been cheaper to have done it in the first place?
 

12/19

The Commission determined that health-related Web sites should clearly identify and communicate to their target audiences and ensure that the content is appropriate for them.  One might ask here what was happening with Europe's 100,000+ health-related Web sites that this obvious statement had to be made? 

Further, the Commission provided six criteria for these sites -- transparency and honesty, provenance (that is, why is a site an expert on the subject matter), privacy and data protection, information updating, accountability and accessibility.

About all I can say for these standards is "duh."  I hope it is not symptomatic of what European health-related information publishers are doing that these standards need to be promulgated.  If so, then the Web is far worse off than I imagined. 

Frankly, EVERY Web information site should keep the Commission standards, not just health-related sites. 

It's PR 101.  And, it's a shame that the Commission felt it had to issue such recommendations.
 

12/18

We who speak English and long ago appropriated many French words don't understand the difficulty.  Language is alive.  It changes, enlarges and shrinks with every generation.  Some words stick: Some enter and leave.  The French, however, don't seem to think that way.  If a word enters, it must be official and if it leaves, it must be officially dispatched.  Of course, it is all silly, because the French "man of the street" continues to use comfortable words and ignores official dicta. 

A couple of weeks ago, a story appeared that the French were "unhappy" that the "at" symbol -- @ -- used for Internet e-mail was called "at" by French speakers.  This would never do.  So,  the French General Committee on Terminology got together and coined a new term for the symbol.  It is now to be called "arobase" -- a combination of Spanish and Portuguese, no less.    I suspect the French "man of the street" will continue to say "at". 

This folly is part of a general effort among the French to purify the Internet.  Other terms that have been added to the official French Lexecon are 'anneau de site' (webring),  'portail'  (portal) and "mel" (e-mail).  But guess what French speakers are still using?

I suppose someday French bureaucrats will relax and accept impurities into their language because they have to.   Meanwhile, don't forget to use an arobase when you address e-mail.
 

12/17

This cliché should be taught in Japan where the economy is entering its 11th or 12th year of no growth.  There the Liberal Democratic Party, which has run the country since World War II, is out of ideas.  But it clings to old policies while trying to fix the economic slump. 

The LDP is now in its 11th  attempt to fix the country's problems with no better prospects than before but a worsening economic condition.  And, any attempt to do the right things are swiftly shouted down by party leaders, bankers and others whose influence is threatened. 

So, what happens?  The prime minister and his appointees talk big but act little.  They seem to think that words can overcome structural flaws.  Of course, they can't and one country after another has told them so.  Their own economists have told them so, but there is no will to act.

Without a will to act, words are hypocrisy and Japan has seen much political hypocrisy over the last decade.  The sad part is that one prime minister after another has tried to fix the problem, but has not been willing to take the steps necessary to FIX the problem.  It is the old story about the drunk who fiercely desires to be sober but won't quit drinking.  He tries everything -- pills, saunas, exercise, doctors -- but he won't put a stopper in the bottle. 

At least one commentator I have read has written confidently that Japan will turn around -- in another 10 years!  By that time, there will be a new generation of workers and politicians who will have scant memory of the heady days of growth and inflated values from the 1980s. 
 

12/16

Living in New Jersey and watching our Democratic Senatorial candidate drop out in the 11th hour of a campaign raised this thought.  It is almost too late as far as a presidential race is concerned.  The candidates for 2004 have a short time to raise funds, get their machinery in place and position themselves with voters.   Gore should have been done with this by now.  He was the known brand in the Democratic Party and the "default" candidate. 

I had, in fact, constructed a scenario in which Gore had a good chance to win in 2004 if the Republicans failed to get the economy moving again.  (It shows what a great political prognosticator I am.)  I did note with some faint satisfaction that Gore apparently stressed last night in his TV interview that "it is the economy, stupid." 

In retrospect, Gore seems to have weighed his polls and found them wanting.  It was also clear that the Democratic Party continued to be angry with him for losing the presidential race to Bush.  The feeling was that it was "Gore's to lose" and he did in the worst possible way -- by winning and still losing.

I find it odd that Gore's publics turned against him so strongly and are so unforgiving.  We are supposed to live in a society that forgets quickly.  But, apparently, there are key publics that don't forget  -- and some of them are in the Democratic Party leadership.  

So the Democrats get to scramble for a new face and new voice at the last minute.  They would choose Clinton if they could.