Shoddy Journalism on Party Pieces in The Times

I was going to blog on corporate governance and may still get back to that today, but first I need to rant about cheap and shoddy journalism.

Cashing in on the royal family and Will & Kate wedding fever The Times, once a paper of record, chose to publish a nasty article insinuating criticism of the bride's parents probity. What was the ostensible casus belli? Well they wonder how the Middleton's (her parents) earn a very comfortable living from what appears to be a small, party goods mail order business. None of anyone's damn business I would have thought, but there you are. What did they find fault with? Well...breathless shock...they object to the company renting out its mailing list of customers. Now this is perfectly legal and most transactional websites do it. Indeed Google will do it whilst making it very hard to opt out. If you search for partyware on Google you are liable to find you receive targeted ads about...partyware. So then Dominic Kennedy, The Times 'investigations editor' (or sifter of sleaze, muck and non-stories, as the role might be renamed) moves on to complain that it is recommended best practice to allow customers to 'opt in' to receive ads, rather than 'opt out'. Be that as it may, I don't know of many websites that do that. Who is going to tick a box to say they actively want to receive advertisements and promotional emails? Not many saddo's around with nothing better to do than read ads.

But then, hang on a minute, in the very middle of the article they tell us that Party Pieces was achieving around 1,000 sales a week just 13 years after the business was founded. Well, I think there's your answer, staring you in the face. Having had a really good idea, the Middleton's built a really successful business - probably through hard work and intelligence. That sort of sales level probably gave them very substantial profits - and good luck to them. But the journalist is not finished. How did they buy a property in London and a paddock in the country? Well, that's nobody's business but theirs either but here is a thought; maybe they don't live extravagantly but put money aside from a business making healthy profits. It probably speaks well of the sort of people they are but that matters little to the snide insinuators at The Times who desperately seek a story where there really isn't one.

Talent Management

A new book “The Value of Talent”, by Janice Caplan is about Talent Management but, it seems to me, has clear overlap with corporate governance. I have tried to summarise some of the main ideas of the book, though omitting the detail of how to achieve the goals described.

Talent Management is far more than an approach to recruiting and retaining business leaders but is a new way of managing and leading people and organizations that suits our times.

The rise of new economies as significant markets and competitors, increasing globalisation of trade and the breathtaking speed of new technology changing how we think and how we do things are just three of the factors that are leading to a new global business environment. This ‘new world’ demands new business models, new leadership models and new HR models.

The old order

had businesses;

·         developing ad hoc, unconnected solutions to short-term problems,

·         burdened with a legacy of command and control

As a result, management systems developed for control result in unintended consequences that block flexibility and slow change. Nonetheless new systems such as competency frameworks and performance appraisals are now widely accepted and most business leaders do believe that people are their greatest asset.

What does the new world need?

In the new world, significant change or inspiration, although shaped by leaders’ strategic vision may emerge from anyone: in a team or an individual at any level.

It needs ‘joined up’ management processes to be integrated to support the business strategy. It demands flexibility to react quickly and to innovate; new ideas to emerge at all levels within organisations, for teams to form, rearrange themselves and disband when projects are complete; sensitivity to what is happening in markets: to new competitors, new technologies, new ideas and new opportunities; because change happens faster than it used to. It demands collaborative working within organisations and with external consultants, suppliers and partners, all working within virtual teams, to achieve common goals. It also demands constant attention to engineering out costs.

What must be done?

These challenges demand new ways of leadership. Talent Management focuses on bringing out everyone’s talents because everyone is essential to the future of the organization. A clear Talent Management strategy identifies current organization and individual capabilities, where they need to be, and focuses on actions to get from here to there. This goes beyond learning and adapting. It engages people with the business strategy: not keeping up with change but keeping ahead of it.

This is a holistic approach. It includes provision for exceptional performers and future leaders and also deals with underperformance and with refreshing existing skills. It is likely to cover also those, such as suppliers and consultants, who are not directly employed but are still part of your team.

The approach uses job experiences as well as conventional means to develop people and emphasises providing stretching work. It challenges those at the top to think through the capabilities needed to deliver their strategies.

Talent Management is not just about systems or people but about integrating them to achieve the organization strategy so that line managers must manage talent just as they are expected to manage other resources.

The overlap with the governance agenda arises from this integrated approach that has to start from the boardroom. It also calls for the sort of communication and leadership that is a critical part of good governance beyond the boardroom.

'Boob Job': manufacturers, Rodial threaten to sue

I cannot do better than quote sense-about-science on this,


One of Britain's leading consultant plastic surgeons has been threatened with libel action by the manufacturer of a £125 'Boob Job' cream for speaking out about her doubts of its effectiveness. Dr Dalia Nield of The London Clinic was quoted in an article in the Daily Mail on 1st October 2010 saying that it was 'highly unlikely' the 'Boob Job' cream would increase a woman's breast size. The manufacturer, Rodial Limited had claimed that the cream, reported to be a favourite of Scarlett Johansson, can increase breast size by 2.5 cm. Dr Nield said the company had not provided a full analysis of tests on the cream and that if its claims that fat cells moved around the body were true it could be potentially dangerous. Rodial Limited has threatened Dr Nield with libel action. Dr Nield stands by her comments.

Two really important points emerge. Firstly, how can a manufacturer advertise such extraordinary claims for a product without providing evidence? Where is the Advertising Standards Authority in all this and why is there not an equivalent of the EU Food Supplements Directive applying to skin products that appear to claim a medicinal effect? And secondly, why pick on Boob Job? What about 'Bum Lift' or 'Tummy Tuck' for £100 a tube of cream: no really, they do exist, go look at the Rodial website...it's a real hoot. No sign, though of peer reviewed, scientific papers to support a host of revolutionary claims. How come also that a reputable doctor can be threatened with legal process merely for expressing mild doubts and asking for proof?

Glaxo SmithKline and Corporate Governance

Because I am researching for my forthcoming book "FT Business Briefings: Corporate Governance" I was intrigued by this news story.

In 2002 Glaxo Smithkline, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, sent Cheryl Eckard, one of their global quality assurance managers, to their Puerto Rican plant at Cidra to fix manufacturing violations cited by the US Federal Drug Administration. She found problems that went far beyond these violations. They included defective, misidentified, below strength and over-strength drugs and those not manufactured in accordance with FDA approved processes. Her concerns were so serious that she tried to get the plant shut for two weeks in order to sort out the problems. She tried to raise her concerns with superiors, including making a full report to GSK’s Compliance Department. Court papers show that Eckard made numerous attempts to get her superiors to take action before GSK fired  her in May 2003. Even subsequent to this Eckard claims she tried to call the, then, UK chief executive who would not take her call. As a result of her failure to get her reports investigated properly she reported the matter to the FDA and subsequently filed suit against GSK on behalf of the US government under the US False Claims Act, which allows individuals to sue suppliers to the US government on its behalf and to receive a share of any recovery. Amongst other things her suit alleged that there was an attempt at a cover-up. 

In 2009 the plant was closed and in 2010, after nearly seven years, GSK settled this claim for $750m. The company “declined to say whether further lawsuits from patients may be expected”.

I am guessing that companies don't agree such huge settlements in cases where allegations are completely without foundation.

My angle on this is to ask where GSK's corporate governance was in all this mess? Its annual report and accounts contains a report on its corporate governance that would seem to be a model of good practice and compliance; and yet what is described above is a gross failure of governance. The answer is that it is not regulations, rules and systems that matter but behaviours. It is not sufficient to have committees and organisation charts if there is a culture of cover-up's going uninvestigated and unpunished and if there are no effective internal processes to investigate and support reports from whistleblowers. It is up to the Board of Directors to supervise such arrangements and make sure they actually work.  I think a settlement for $750m represents a significant business risk and therefore ask why the reasons behind it are not included in the, superficially impressive, list of business risks that form part of that report and accounts? The directors report should not be a box ticking exercise but a genuine effort to explain and communicate. Shareholders would like to know what has been done to try to ensure that such a massive failure is unlikely to recur.

Everyman Cinemas

I am going to keep with my cinema theme a little longer - after all the London Film Festival is still on. But this is a beef about the membership deal at Everyman Cinemas. Don't get me wrong, I think the Everyman Cinema chain in north London, and some surrounding areas is great. They provide comfy armchairs and settees at their plush and quirky venues, which are generally small cinemas showing a mixture of mainstream and slightly more art-house films. They also sell food and drink and, at their Hampstead cinema serve it to your seat - what luxury. No really, it all adds to the 'going out' experience. They also have a membership scheme which, in return for an annual fee, offers discounts, free tickets and undefined special offers. In its first year this was great: lots of free tickets and we went lots. I am pretty sure that extra income from our glasses of wine and bowls of nuts provides compensation for lower direct revenue. The problem arose on renewal. Up went the price and the offers evaporated. A mistake you think, an administrative error? But no response to our emails of protest either. If you live in north London, beware!

Bogus calls from Windows Support

I have had two calls today from people purporting to be from 'Windows Support' telling me that my computer has been sending 'error messages' and is downloading a lot of 'malicous code' and 'spam'. I have not had the patience to string them along to find out what they are trying to do. My guess is that they would try to get me to open a link, log in to my computer and download some malicous code such as a keylogger to detect passwords or bank detauils!

Microsoft do not make unsolicited calls - see their website. In my case I happen to know that I have not bothered to register with Microsoft and so they could not have my phone number.

Do not cooperate with these people! If you have then disconnect from the internet and seek professional help to clean your computer. Run an anti-virus scan. Alert your bank or credit card companies and change passwords and pin numbers if they have had access to your computer.

The London Film Festival

The London Film Festival is marvellous. It showcases lots of interesting films, many foreign films that you wouldn't otherwise get a chance to see. But should it be renamed The Insiders Film Festival? Even if you can get on-line to them just after booking opens most of the best films are already sold out - which means that the tickets were pre-sold to insiders. The festival seems to receive a public subsidy, so how about making a fairer share of tickets available to the public?

I've just seen 'Africa United' at the festival, a sweet and well made advernture story about a bunch of African kids journeying through Africa, and their dreams, to get to the World Cup in South Africa. It addresses serious issues like child soldiers, incompetent officialdom, bribery, sex slavery and does do so in a context that is generally uplifting so that the continent is not made to seem like one huge rolling disaster. The film is worth seeing but too many big issues dealt with in passing to make a serious impact. Despite all the hype at the showing, and that I suspect is about to explode upon us, it is primarily a film for kids. Lots of not terribly plausible plot with the children somehow avoiding death and some mawkish sentimentality. Which does not have to be a bad thing if handled well. Comparison was made with Slumdog Millionaire but that, despite negotiating some of the same problems and issues, is a far more assured film.

Whilst on films, saw The Social Network last weekend. Its good reviews really are justified: a brilliant film about the founding of Facebook - amazingly just seven years ago. What distinguishes the film is that it is about people and relationships and it paints those people as complex and not as one dimensional. So whilst the precise way Mark Zuckerberg, for example, founder of Facebook, is portrayed will inevitably colour your judgement, nonetheless the film-makers try to show a person in a situation, leaving that judgement up to the viewer rather than trying to force you to a particular response.