AIG: Mensch, Schmendrick or Something in Between?

As a PR professional, someone who’s familiar with language, words, wordsmithery, and the subtleties of word meaning, Yiddish is one of the more fascinating tongue twisters. Many languages possess words that are hard to translate into others, but Yiddish earns high marks. Somehow emotion, more than literal translation, is bottled up in those strangely-lettered words.

“Mensch” and “schmendrick” were the two Yiddish terms floating around in my head after reading the latest AIG developments and the insurance giant’s 11^th- hour decision not to sue the federal government.

Dictionary.com defines mensch as: “a decent, upright, mature, and responsible person.” For the purposes of this blog post, we’ll expand that meaning to include companies.

Last week, after mounting concern that AIG would in fact join a lawsuit filed by its former CEO Hank Greenberg over the allegedly “unfair” terms of Uncle Sam’s $182 billion 2008 bailout loan decision, the company’s reverse course – and the motivations behind it – are again getting mixed reviews. 

For a refresher, this was the loan that ultimately saved the company from collapse and what supporters say helped soften the resulting US recession.

The PR industry news source, Bulldog Reporter also raised the question in one of its articles, “Did Insurance Giant Forsake Shareholders To Protect Its Own Reputation?” If so, the article says, it would mark a “PR-affirming” break with the tradition of putting shareholders’ interests ahead of the company.

I, however, don’t think AIG’s decision requires much over thought. A public company’s first duty is toward its shareholders, true, but there are times when a “greater good” must be sought above all. 

Forget shareholders for a moment, if AIG were to throw its support behind the lawsuit, their “Thank You America” advertising campaign would be shot to hell. More than that, the company’s credibility, their “menschyness” (menschy is actually a real word) would be non-existent.

It also shouldn’t require a PR team to advise AIG that biting the hand that fed them would be a PR disaster of bailout proportions. The fuming reactions of millions of Americans should have been enough.

AIG probably doesn’t deserve mensch status for its late-in-the-game wise decision. But nor should it be considered a corporate schmendrick, which dictionary.com defines this Yiddish winner as “a stupid and ineffectual nobody.”

So go on AIG, give yourself a big pat on the back for repaying the money you borrowed, thanking 

America publicly, and ultimately making the right PR decision. 

If you’re still hungry for more on AIG, I suggest reading a rather aggressive post on Gawker, by Hamilton Nolan called It’s All Just a PR Calculation for A.I.G.

Oh, and Happy Monday!

Ecuadoran Asylum or Not, Assange’s – and WikiLeaks’ – Credibility is Shot

In a desperate bid to dodge extradition to Sweden – where he’s wanted for questioning on a sex-crime accusation and which would likely turn him over to the US government – Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder and document dumper extraordinaire has found political asylum in Ecuador.

The WikiLeaks founder, who has been ensconced in the Ecuadoran embassy in London since June 2012, got confirmation today that Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s president, has decided to shelter the beleaguered Assange in his country, believing the latter’s human rights are likely to be violated if English police arrest him.

I absolutely agree with the Miami Herald’s South American Bureau Chief Jim Wyss, Ecuador is a bizarre choice for Assange, (I’ve written about Wikileaks in my MediaPost column back in 2010 and 2011) whose website has  leaked reams and reams of classified government documents, videos and photos. Correa, on the other hand, has a penchant for clampdowns on – and multimillion-dollar lawsuits against - the country’s press.

But in the end it may not really matter, not for Assange or WikiLeaks. At least it won’t matter when the organization is now pulling sophomoric rubbish like faking an article to make it look like a New York Times columnist supports its iffy “mission.”

This summer seems to have been one long string of assorted PR fiascos that, I admit, have been somewhat fun to skewer on this blog. And yet, to the PR professional in me, these calamitous blow-ups still have a nails-on-the-chalkboard effect. I have to cringe.

And cringe I did when I read WikiLeaks’ smug tweeted admission of responsibility for the fake op-ed piece, which has since been taken off the Web, attributed to the New York Times’ Bill Keller. In the bogus column, Keller seems to say that WikiLeaks’ activities should be protected under the First Amendment. Once the article was outed as fake, Keller took to his own Twitter feed to deny any connection with it.

Whoever is tweeting for WikiLeaks actually characterized the hoax as “successful.” Well, I guess if their intention was to blow their own credibility out of the water, then yes, it was very successful indeed. Particularly for an organization which purports to increase transparency and challenge our world’s corrupt power arrangements by exposing their innards, credibility is the very cement holding together the cinderblocks of its purpose.

Without it, the whole house falls apart.

Uncovering the truth is supposed to be WikiLeaks’ entire raison d’ etre. So, when it brags about having fooled the NYT and everyone who pays attention to these issues, it’s cutting off its own nose to spite its face.

After all, what did WikiLeaks really accomplish by pulling that stunt? Did it help itself in any way? No, all it did was tell the world it can create very convincing fake documents.

And that’s just going to make the world think twice about the authenticity of its next document dump. 

Even Decade-Old Lies and “Omissions” Can Wreak Havoc on a Brand.

One would think that in our 24/7 news cycle and oversharing age, companies and celebrities – who depend on public goodwill to remain famous and profitable – would resist the impulse to lie or cover up less-than-flattering information.

Perhaps guess GlaxoSmithKline and “Dr. Drew” Pinsky missed that memo?

Last week it was revealed that Dr. Drew, an addiction specialist and host of Loveline and Celebrity Rehab took more than $250,000 from the British-based pharma giant in the late ‘90s to talk up its antidepressant Wellbutrin on Loveline.

Even as he touted the drug for its effects – or lack thereof – on libido, the good doctor neglected to mention he was being paid to promote the drug.

$250,000 is a rather handsome sum of money, but in failing to disclose his financial link to GlaxoSmithKline, Dr. Drew ended up doing a great deal of damage to his own brand – more than a decade down the line.

As a PR practioner, I’ve said this so many times to my colleagues and will continue to until I’m blue in the face: Dishonesty will always come back to bite you on the behind

The GSK kerfuffle could end up costing Dr. Drew far more than money – just read some of the comments following a recent CBS News report:

“Dr. Drew, too bad you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube once it is out. You are now and will forever be a pharma shill. Unlikely that you will ever be seriously considered an astute medical practitioner.”

That’s what I mean about being bitten in the bottom.  I wouldn’t want to be associated, even tangentially, to what officials are calling “the largest case of healthcare fraud in US history.” No sum of money can make up for such a loss of credibility – in my mind, at least.

I recently wrote a post about the massive PR blunder committed by lobbyist Stephanie Harnett of Mercury Public Affairs on behalf of Wal-Mart: she posed as a reporter to infiltrate a meeting of union members opposed to a planned Wal-Mart in Los Angeles. She was caught, then fired and managed to garner some (more) negative press for Wal-Mart, the exact opposite of what she – and her previous employer – had intended. Not that Wal-Mart is a stranger to awful press, of course.

While these are two distinct scenarios, they both raise the issue of lapses in professional ethics and serve as yet another reminder that dishonest behavior in business, particularly in our always connected age, can backfire disastrously.

So what have we learned from GlaxoSmithKline and “Dr. Drew” Pinsky?

Credibility is our most important asset. If we don’t have that, we don’t have a business. At least not a business worth having.