Laughing Collie ([info]collie13) wrote,
@ 2005-11-12 13:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Controlling corporate media
[info]hastka and I have had several interesting discussions regarding corporate media. We've pretty much agreed that insecurity and inadequacy sells product, and that until we start refusing the constant pressure to always be "good consumers" and invariably buybuybuy spendspendspend, we're going to be stuck with that kind of media barrage -- that they do it because it works.

Hastka noted "media needs to be driven by something other than profit." So here's the question for everyone: how do we persuade the corporates and their media to consider things other than "profit first"? Do we penalize them legally, or refuse to buy their stuff, or engage in some sort of "vigilante justice" against their buildings, or what?

For that matter, what things do we want the corporations to consider as important? Should it be the shareholders, the employees, the consumers themselves who come first? Should the community and the environment be most critically important to producers of corporate product, or should it be global/cultural sensitivity, or something else entirely? What do you think?


Collie's Bestiary

(Post a new comment)

Companies and Damage
[info]tamahori
2005-11-12 10:42 pm UTC (link)
I've been having a lot of thoughts about this, it's a common point of debate between my friends and I. Still don't have a good idea yet, though I'm of the opinion that the current public-listed corporations thing may be the worst current approach, though I'm sure a worse one could be come up with if people worked at it.

I think a big thing is that places should have to pay the full cost of what they do, environmental, social, and other. Governments need to keep track of companies that are hurting the local environment (in this case I'm the social-political ramifications :) of that) and shut down ones that do too much damage.

Yes, this does mean that most major companies should probably be taken out and shot by any sane government.

-- Brett

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Companies and Damage
[info]collie13
2005-11-14 02:42 am UTC (link)
I agree: corporations should be responsible for the results of their actions. For those who argue it would drive prices up horribly, I have two questions. First: what price a livable environment that doesn't poison you and your kids? Second: the Japanese have several laws in place that accomplish this goal quite nicely -- so this is a very feasible goal.

While I don't advocate blind copying, I do think we have things we could learn (both good and bad) from studying the Japanese. It's worth noting the president of a Japanese corporation only makes (if I'm remembering my numbers correctly) some 15% or so more than the lowliest employee in their corporation -- as compared to the obscene greed for profits-at-any-cost driving American companies, where that percentage soars to over 60% sometimes.

Also, simple things like insisting on personal responsibility go a long way to creating a more responsible corporation. I thought it was brilliant to require the presidents of all the Japanese airlines to be riding in one of their planes during the changeover from 1999 to 2000, to ensure no software problems. I'll also note Japanese cars are extremely dependable -- because when cars break down on the Japanese highways it is the owner and the car corporation which is fined for faulty mechanics.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ruggels
2005-11-12 11:46 pm UTC (link)
Unless we abandon capitalism, there isn't any good "hard solutions" to this, and I would rather not abandon capitalism. Soft solutions might tend to be based on boycotts, as they tend to be the most effective "protest" in making the companies modifiy specific behaviors. They do work, but only of there is a large number of participants, suffiient to reduce the sales enough to threaten market profitability.

Legal methods also may work, but marketing to insecurity and creating makets based oon it, are technically not illegal and may fall to "free speech" concerns.

There really isn't any way to make a company to consider anything other than profit first, because the whole concept is to make money based on filling a percieved need, through trade. If it did otherwise it would be a non profit, and NGO, or other such agency, and not a company. Currently the Shareholders are considered first, Then the companies survival. There are groups that consider the employees of a high value, but in the end if it's not making a profit, then why should it continue to exist, and the enterprise dissolves one way or another.

Scott

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ruggels
2005-11-13 06:19 am UTC (link)
And as these coincidences happen when reading your posts, and then finding something else. Here's the obit for avery influential Business thinker

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101938.html

A quote-
"There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer,"


Scott

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ruggels
2005-11-13 06:40 am UTC (link)
And another article shows that something of the case may in fact be occuring. There was a fascinating article in This week's "Entertainment Weekly" on the rapid decline of the Radio Industry, of late, with the rise of Satellite, Podcasting, and Streaming taking the listeership away from Radio, and Radio, only now trying to adapt, by reducing the minutes of commercials and exanding their playlists above 200 songs, but it may be too late for CLear Channel.

Also Newspaper Circulation is down, as are Hollywood boxoffice. It's sort of the theme to this blog
http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/11/mainstream_melt.html
WHich is a study of making money in niche markets. THis may be where the "centralized Control of the media" may fragment, and the usual tactics may no longer apply.

Scott

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]collie13
2005-11-14 03:33 am UTC (link)
It sounds very much like you've unquestioningly bought into corporate propaganda, Scott -- hook, line, and sinker. You state:
There really isn't any way to make a company to consider anything other than profit first, because the whole concept is to make money based on filling a percieved [sic] need, through trade. ... There are groups that consider the employees of a high value, but in the end if it's not making a profit, then why should it continue to exist, and the enterprise dissolves one way or another.
Good lord; surely you don't actually believe that's all there is to it? Firstly, making money isn't the purpose of a company -- money is a cultural creation. Trade or barter can provide one with profit without the need for money.

Secondly, you answer your own question -- did you miss that? If a business isn't making a profit, then it's a non-profit, and there are most assuredly valuable non-profits which have been around for over a hundred years.

Thirdly, corporations are simply profit-making entities made up of people. Why should we fear them as much as you seem to? Why should we close our eyes to cruelty or abuse simply because the individual doing so is hidden behind the facade of a corporation? If I kicked you every time I met you, surely you'd rightfully object, or at the very least avoid me? Why would you do any less for a corporation? If I incorporated, would you consider it your duty to simply cower and put up with my abuse? I sure hope not.

I'm also unsure, from the one quote you chose from the obituary article for Peter Drucker which you refer to below, that you understand Drucker's position. You do realize he believed the best run organization in the US was... the Girl Scouts of America, which is run almost entirely by volunteers -- and not any of the 'great' international corporations?

You state "Unless we abandon capitalism, there isn't any good 'hard solutions' to this." While you do not define 'hard solutions,' this is unfortunately still an incorrect statement: humans managed just fine without capitalism for millennia. Drucker himself is quoted in the article, with an obvious slant towards responsibility towards one's employees:
Central to his philosophy was the belief that highly skilled people are an organization's most valuable resource and that a manager's job is to prepare and free people to perform. Good management can bring economic progress and social harmony, he said, adding that "although I believe in the free market, I have serious reservations about capitalism."
Emphasis mine. Note he does not agree with rampant corporate greed allowed to run unchecked across a society. Also from the article:
[H]e predicted a backlash to burgeoning executive pay, saying, "In the next economic downturn, there will be an outbreak of bitterness and contempt for the super-corporate chieftains who pay themselves millions."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of laissez faire capitalism, Scott. Perhaps I am reading you wrong, but you seem worried that protest of corporate abuse might "threaten market profitability" such that we should all simply accept, sheep-like, whatever crumbs the corporations deign to grant us. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously when there's so much data available which shows this is not the case.

I also can find no commentary from you re what a good corporation actually is. In your article we find:
Drucker demanded public and private organizations operate ethically and decried managers who reap bonuses by laying off employees. "This is morally and socially unforgivable, and we will pay a heavy price for it," he said.
If Drucker's not afraid to say it, can't you try to believe it too? Do some research. Jonathan makes a good suggestion below, and I suggest The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy, which clearly demonstrates the corporate drive to maximize shareholder profits at any cost is not only out of step with democratic and free-market principles, but is detrimental to the long-term health of individual companies and the economy as a whole.

Dammit, THINK for yourself, Scott! I know you can do it!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]siege
2005-11-15 08:13 am UTC (link)
Dammit, THINK for yourself, Scott! I know you can do it!

What if he has, and came to his conclusion independently?

It's not the thinking, necessarily; it's the digging for information which people tend to neglect.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]collie13
2005-11-15 06:36 pm UTC (link)
I've known Scott for almost 20 years now (sheesh, time flies!), and he's specifically said to me on more than one occasion that he prefers to just follow what the conservatives tell him to do. It's a long-standing issue of contention between us, unfortunately.

But I agree re the not digging for information part. Research can be work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]paka
2005-11-13 12:05 am UTC (link)
There should be a compromise aimed at allowing companies to market product, while still permitting for artistic expression unfettered by the need to be safe.

Public radio, and those in school venues, is one such avenue; I wish there were a way to get greater funding towards those.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]collie13
2005-11-14 02:21 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Could you explain further what you mean by "a compromise aimed at allowing companies to market product, while still permitting for artistic expression unfettered by the need to be safe," please?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]rantmaster
2005-11-13 05:43 am UTC (link)
Like Scott, I don't think there's any easy answer to this. Especially because of a sustained amount of apathy on most regards, that tend to make most sanctions ineffective. This makes it hard to run effective boycotts. Often, companies make so much money fines don't make a difference (although in some cases, it does get the notice of the higher ups...recent events at the place I work is an excellent example).

It's why I prefer smaller companies for any things I have to do. I buy most of my books from a local bookstore. I buy my food from a small chain that is - for the most part - environmentally, biologically, and animal rights conscious. And like that. I tend to notice greater concern for the customer, then, a better quality of employees and employee compensation..not always, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure anything could correct the power of corporations short of a cultural paradigm shift.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]collie13
2005-11-14 02:25 am UTC (link)
I agree there are no easy answers -- if there were, we'd have surely implemented them by now! I also agree it will take a cultural paradigm shift, which also isn't easy. However, unless we actually try and make it happen, it won't ever occur.

Look at what's happening now concerning same-sex and opposite-sex marriage: we're in the process of creating a cultural paradigm shift. The problem, as I see it, with doing this with corporations is that we don't have one clear issue to focus on, as we do with same-sex marriage. If we could all decide, frex, we need to change the laws so corporations do not have the same legal rights as individuals, then I think we'd take a big step towards social justice, and have a single issue on which to focus people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]rantmaster
2005-11-14 09:51 am UTC (link)
Definitely a good point.

I find myself finding it hard to determine what issue to focus on myself. The best idea that I can come up with is making mandatory some sort of oversight group not actually affiliated with the company (and therefore not paid by it, so his profit does not depend on the company's profit). Just like the cops have IA, companies should have someone poking into the affairs of the company, making sure that profit is not being made at someone else's expense.

Or, does this sound, maybe, too big brotherish?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]caraig
2005-11-13 05:53 am UTC (link)
Just saying 'It's laissez-faire capitalism,' doesn't cut it. I'm all for a company making money, I'm all for them turning a profit. Capitalism is arguably somewhat better than socialism (if inherently unstable and more prone to psychological disorders.) But unfettered capitalism will always go the brutal, direct route of making money for the shareholders/owners. As I said, I have nothing against a company making money. I have something against a company that pillages and steamrolls *people* to make that money. It's possible that any company will cause harm to someone at some point. The best we can do, then, is to minimize that harm. Frankly, I don't believe that's being done.*

I've been called 'utopianist,' but if the idea that a corporation should be responsible and treat employees and customers with respect is 'utopian,' then Western civilization really is on the fast track to collapse. What a horrid thought. Can someone, anyone, truly say that a corp should NOT be responsible and respectful of customers and employees? Are those REALLY inimical to the good functioning of a corporation?

One thing that would need to be done is to make corporations much more responsible for their actions. Abuses of SEC regulations, Superfund, and employment laws have made our nation into a source of such wonderful examples of capitalism as Enron, Exxon, and Wal-Mart. Another thing that must be done is to abolish the legal fiction that a corporation is an entity. This gives an umbrella for inethical conduct without personal consequences. You want to talk 'personal responsibility?' Let's talk personal responsibility... in corporations. Corps needs to stop being sociopathic entities and start being identified as groups of people, people who have responsibilities towards... well, other people.

Ideally -- yes, in 'Utopia' I suppose -- a corporation should respect it's employees, honor the social contract, and seek fair and just compensation for it's services and/or products. This in great part involves not helping to make your customer base more neurotic than they already are. Which is what modern advertising and most news media does. Modern advertising seeks to create needs rather than address them, or simply -- gasp -- inform customers about the product.

Oh, well. It's not like anyone who needs to hear this will actually read this, and many who do read this will dismiss it as liberal/libertarian/utopianist rantings. =/

* - And I know there are people out there who are thinking to themselves, 'Well, who cares what you believe, you're wrong.' These are the people that I am most concerned about. I highly recommend the book Bait and Switch and if you're already sneering at it because you think you know what it's about, I respectfully suggest that this might indeed be a book you need to read.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]yotogi
2005-11-14 12:38 am UTC (link)
There's a Superfund zone down south of the state here. Apparently it's where the Moth Man came from.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caraig
2005-11-14 03:15 am UTC (link)
ISTR that the Love Canal is still a Superfund zone as well. I wonder if it still randomly catches fire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]collie13
2005-11-14 02:32 am UTC (link)
Bravo, Jonathan! Good for you for being unwilling to shrug helplessly and claim that's 'just how it is'!

I agree: a corporation should not have the 'right' to deliberately and indifferently harm individuals. And no, you're not an unreasonable Utopian idealist -- please don't disparage yourself so! All the suggestions you've raised are good ones, and valid points regarding correct corporate (and individual) behavior. I would also recommend Marjorie Kelly's book The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy -- quite eye-opening.

Now... how do we abolish the legal fiction that a corporation is an individual, with all the rights of an individual? ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]caraig
2005-11-14 03:11 am UTC (link)
Now... how do we abolish the legal fiction that a corporation is an individual, with all the rights of an individual? ;)
Two words: "Activist judges." Since it was "Activist judges" who established that legal fiction in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]collie13
2005-11-14 03:46 am UTC (link)
Hmm, good point; I'll have to consider this more. Thank you, Jonathan, for giving me such interesting thoughts.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]graybunny
2005-11-14 06:47 am UTC (link)
This ties in with a paradox that I've been nibbling on for a while: corporations routinely make decisions in ways that none of the individual people would countenance, and yet those decisions are being made by the people.

It's easy to wave the "personal responsibility" flag, but I think that's only part of the answer at best. There are a lot of instances where it's unclear whether any one person can take responsibility for something and have that mean anything. For example, I test software for a living these days. We try hard, but it is literally impossible for us to test every configuration and condition under which it might be run. If you start doing the math, you discover that there are more possible permutations than there are particles in the universe. So: the possibility of failure cannot be ruled out. At the same time, the businesses that use this software are BIG. If it fails, their losses, in just a few hours or days, can easily exceed all the money I will ever earn in my lifetime. Can I meaningfully take responsibility when 1) my ability to control whether the software fails is so limited and probabilistic and 2) if it does, there's no way I can make it up to the victim?

Furthermore, it's not that corporations, or the people within them, aren't responsible, it's that those responsibilities are misdirected. If you look within a corporation, look at what people are actually measured on and rewarded for, there's nobody whose job it is to protect the environment, or obey the spirit of the law instead of the letter, and precious few whose job it is to make the customer happy. People's actual jobs are to keep their supervisors and the next guy in the production chain happy. Don't be perceived as the schedule bottleneck. Get the right numbers to make the department look good. Even in supposedly customer-facing jobs like customer service and tech support, at most places the actual job is to get people off the phone — to the extent that at some places it's better to hang up on a customer than to let the call go on too long.

So you can follow the chain of responsibility up the corporate ladder to the top executives and the board of directors. And who are they supposed to make happy? The stockholders. Now here's where it gets interesting. The stockholders are free to demand profits and rising stock prices, and are even allowed to sue the corporation's management when those things don't happen, but the stockholders are not liable for the measures that the corporation has to take to make them happy.

Basically, it's a system that's designed to fail.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-11-14 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Saying "the media" is more and more an oxymoron. There are many sources of media. With barriers to entry crashing, there are going to be exponentially more sources of media every day.

Barriers to entry include, the cost of creation, distribution, and marketing of media. Each cost is falling through the floor. While in accordance with Sturgeon's Law ("Ninety percent of everything is crap"), most of this media is dreadful, the cream is very much worth checking out. Some examples:

* Creation Costs: Film making buffs now have contests where groups of volunteers using borrowed equipment make 20-40 minute films in a weekend for less than $1000. The best of these equal the quality of the kind of media that you would see on the Independent Film Channel.

* Distribution: Anyone with a cheap computer can make a weblog post or an audio podcast (or even a video cast) and have their material available worldwide.

* Marketing: Voting and referral systems (like the iTunes music store rating podcast popularity, Memorandum or Digg rating news stories and weblog post popularity) can create viral effects and expose little known media to millions of viewers.

Corporate media have huge costs for creating, distribution, and marketing their media. The new King Kong movie will cost well over $100 million to make, distribute, and market. The people who put it together must have a business model that has a chance to pay those expenses and make a profit. No one would put up the $100 million otherwise.

The explosion in non-corporate or semi-corporate media won't have to cover those huge costs. They can be supported as a hobby, by donation, by advertising, by subscription, or by lots of other means. Their media can be driven by lots of motives other than profit.

People on LJ are already a small part of this media revolution.

-George

(Reply to this)


[info]dancing_kiralee
2009-06-04 12:53 pm UTC (link)
Oy Vey, this is complicated

I despise advertizing, and consider it black magic, but...

To assume 'profit' is just bad is simplistic; to some extent, the search for the bottom line is a function of personal autonomy, and there's also a good argument that it's the best way to increase everyone's standard of living.

Yet to assume the seach for 'profit' is just good is equally simplistic; there are disadvantages when the search for 'profit' goes too far.

Therefore, it's much more important to channel the search for 'profit' then to 'punish' it.

There are two ways I can see to do this:

Cultural Bias - that is, a set of social rituals designed to support mission-based for-profit work instead of 'merely' for-profit work; it seems to me that the best place for these rituals is employment. If we refuse to work for companies that display too much avarice, and if the 'we' is a high percentage of the population including people at the highest executive levels, then companies will need to provide a better proof of the value of their mission than 'people like to buy our products.'

Legal Penalties - fiscal conservatives hate regulations that slow down the GNP; but it seems to me that sometimes it's the only way to guarantee quality of life - of course making such a guarantee is expensive... we just pay that price in the slow down of the GNP instead of directly.

I really don't see any other way to deal with this... maybe, don't watch TV?

Kiralee

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…