Putting Trust at Apple’s Core
Trust should be top of mind for any executive trying to navigate the minefields of today’s business environment. The Page Society and Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics report on corporate trust offers great insights into how organizations are wrestling with this issue and what key questions CEOs and CCOs now face about public trust in business. I had the opportunity to take part in this research and believe that now, more than ever, the corporate world must recognize a mindshift is mandatory in how companies attempt to preserve and build long-term relationships with their core constituents – customers, employees, investors and community members.
Given today’s business landscape of skepticism and wariness, trust, transparency, and authenticity are critical sources of competitive advantage. Even organizations like Apple – enjoying high levels of credibility, a “most admired” status, and a strong reputation – cannot afford to lose competitiveness by depleting the trust of their core constituents.
In light of this, it was surprising and disappointing to observe Apple mishandling the issue of CEO Steve Jobs’ health. The timing and tone of Apple’s communications surrounding Jobs’ illness has been nothing short of unacceptable. As I stated in my article today in PR News access to equity markets comes at a cost and, as a publicly traded company, Apple must acknowledge its responsibility and act with a sense of accountability.
This case serves as a great example of what the Page report tells organizations and communicators to be cautious about. As a (former) investor and (current) customer of Apple, (I’m writing this on my MacBook Pro, and have used Apple products since their first introduction in the 1980s), I find the disparity between Apple’s marketing messages (which seem so transparent, responsible, and constituency-focused) and the company’s corporate communications activities (inconsistent, detached, obscure, and inconsiderate) to be remarkable. This stark contrast calls Apple’s broader authenticity into question, even for an Apple loyalist like me.
Perhaps the most troublesome issue, and what I consider to be a very serious problem for Apple going forward, is the company’s inability to adhere to baseline regulatory requirements in disclosing information to its investors, despite the flood of criticism recently unleashed in its direction. I appeared on CNBC last week to discuss this issue with a panel of experts and the global debate has continued, with heavyweights like Warren Buffet, New York Times’ Joe Nocera, and Silicon Alley Insider’s Henry Blodget weighing in and agreeing that proper disclosure did not occur. To me, the chronology of real-life events is very simple to track and explain: Steve Jobs got pancreatic cancer, it spread to his liver, he got a transplant in Tennessee, and supposedly went back to work today. Is it THAT hard to be honest about this chain of events?
Apple missed a significant opportunity to “talk plain” and hold an open and truthful conversation with its constituents. Clearly, had the company kept us properly up to date on the issue, it would have only enhanced our perception of what Fortune has called the most admired company in its annual survey for two years running. (Let’s not divert the discussion now, but we all know that the Fortune poll is just “popularity contest” of sorts — a poll of CCOs, not CEOs, coupled with some financial data and a bit of CSR thrown into the mix.)
Instead, Apple opted for a cagey, opaque approach. The company first said Jobs had a hormonal imbalance, projected his blood pressure on a screen behind him at a speech in gargantuan font to underscore his good health, put him on a leave, said the situation was “more complicated,” then held back information about his transplant. So, maybe the company will win the legal battle of whether or not this information was material because Jobs was on leave, but who cares? What really matters is a single question: can I trust a company, especially one whose reputation is based in large part on its CEO (like Martha Stewart, Sir Richard Branson and Oprah), when it very clearly lies to me, then tries to justify that lie through a slight of hand? This isn’t a question of following the letter of the law, but its spirit—and by doing so, keeping constituents feeling engaged and good about their relationship with an “admirable” company.
Until CEOs and CCOs fully recognize the importance of trust, and their mandate to preserve and enhance it with their constituents (as outlined in the Page Society’s report), the reputation of big business will continue its endless, downward slide. It’s never too late to say you are sorry, and it’s never too late to take a more transparent and trustworthy approach to communicating with key constituents and the world at large. As a feel-good, household brand, trust should be embedded at the center of Apple’s core—in everything it does, and everything it says it does. Without that emphasis on openness and trust, Apple’s sheen will be lost. Innovative products and an addictive brand won’t last forever—a company must be founded on something more lasting and meaningful. I ask Steve Jobs and Apple to set an example by coming clean, apologizing to all constituencies, and embracing the concepts from the Page Society’s Authentic Enterprise and its new Trust Report.
By Professor Paul Argenti, Tuck School of Business
With Jenny Farrelly & Kimberley Tait, Tuck School of Business
Next entry: Looking Toward Chicago…
Previous entry: Trust Is Ephemeral
Comment:
Apple has absolutely no obligation to disclose the health issues of Steve Jobs or any other of their employees. While access to the public markets does and should come with extra accountability, this does not change the simple fact that medical information is, by definition, not material and does not have to be disclosed to shareholders. Unfortunately, owning a MacBook and buying 50 shares of Apple a few years ago does not supersede a patient’s right to privacy in this country, although that is certainly something the Supreme Court might want to take a look at going forward.
I hope the irony is not lost on those reading this article that Apple, in fact, has thrived over the years in being secretive about every one of their products. Anyone that has followed one of Apple’s MacWorld conferences knows the buzz Apple creates for their product launches is unparalleled. One could reasonably argue that in the specific case of Apple, being completely open at all times about everything would actually be a significant negative for the company, as Apple would lose some of the mystique they create for their products.
There is clearly risk in investing in Apple regarding Steve Jobs health but this has been know for quite some time (arguably since 2004, but at least since the 2008 MacWorld conference 18 months ago), and the market has emphatically stated Apple’s opaqueness regarding his health is far less important than the performance of the company, which has been stellar. While CNBC pundits and individuals barred from working in the securities industry focus on whether Steve Jobs has pancreatic cancer or a hormone imbalance, professionals focus on the fact that, even without Steve Jobs, Apple was able to sell over one million new IPhones over the past weekend.
The great thing about the stock market is you can place bets on pretty much any thesis. If you feel so strongly that Apple’s lack of openness is a long term concern for the company, you should put your money where your mouth is and short the stock. I would be more than happy to take the other side of that trade.
By Robert Masiello on June, 29 2009
Member Comment:
I think that the two comments might miss the point a bit that Paul has made. If you look at Apple’s market cap, a huge percentage is comprised of intangible assets, as one would expect, and a large percentage of the intangible is the perceived value of Steve Jobs. One could readily see the perceived value in the stock price of Apple when his health issues were first announced.
Now, being secretive about product and R&D in a volitile market so as to protect competitive advantage is one thing; holding back information that is known to impact the market value of the company is quite another.
The Center for Corporate Reputation Management I head at the LeBow College of Business has defined reputation management as “a systematic approach to management where decision-making is informed by the perceptions of value vis-à-vis peers and competitors that are held by an organization’s stakeholders”.
Clearly Apple cares about its reputation--it fights tooth and nail each day to build its brand and its corporate reputation. It is still a young company. As part of its maturing process, the board and management need to recognize that there are a multitude of stakeholders that need to be considered and they need to understand how they have built and maintained their value in their market. Jobs is a large part of that. Jobs’ health is as much or more of a market valuation issue as the next new product. If Apple were to deny this they would be disengeneous. The numbers are there and they recognize the value of Jobs in their total market cap.
In terms of shorting the stock, many investors did just that on the initial news that Jobs was sick. Apple recognized that but took a course of action that in my opinion, and in agreement with Paul Argenti, was the wrong one.
Yes, people have the right to short stocks like Apple, but this is a bit of a “love it or leave it” perspective that I hope we can move beyond.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on June, 30 2009
Comment:
Elliot-
I understand completely the point yourself and Paul are making. In general, I would agree with you that the board needs to be more open about information that could have a material impact on the price of a stock, but medical information does not need to be disclosed.
Clearly Apple could have done a better job managing this situation (laying out a succession plan, for example), but this was information that Steve Jobs obviously wished to keep private, and he is well within his rights to do so. This is a man, after all, who’s obituary was run over Bloomberg in September of 2007, and over the past two years has received questions at every turn about whether he was dying anytime soon! Imagine for a moment if the Center for Reputation Management was in any way relevant, and you were receiving calls every day about your health, not from people who were legitimately concerned for your well being, but instead worried about their own bottom line. Personally, I think Steve Jobs would be better off disclosing everything once and for all just to get this over with, but I can certainly appreciate that their might be any number of reasons why he would not want to do that, and he is under absolutely no obligation to do so.
As for the points you bring up about Apple’s valuation, I’m not really sure how to respond. Apple trades at 25 times this years earnings (their fiscal year ends in September), and 22 times 2010 earnings. Apple is notorious for sandbagging guidance (they have beaten analysts expectations over the last four quarters by an average of over 20 cents/quarter), so it would be reasonable to assume Apple’s true multiple for 2009 and 2010 are probably even smaller, giving them a PEG ration going forward of about 1. They also have over 25 billion in cash with no long term debt, which equates to roughly 28 dollars a share.
While I certainly agree that losing Steve Jobs would be a negative for the company, the idea that “a huge percentage (of the market cap) is comprised of intangible assets” has no basis in fact. You are right that many people shorted the stock initially when the news came out after hours on January 14th, 2009. What you seemed to forget is that those people also happened to sell the low print of the year in Apple. You also seemed to forget that Apple has since rallied over 80% since then, trouncing the 10% gain in the S&P and 30% gain in the Nasdaq 100. I am interested to know your explanation for why Apple would so thoroughly outperform it’s peers and every major index several times over if so much of the market cap is based on Steve Jobs.
By Robert Masiello on June, 30 2009
Member Comment:
Robert--Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the book and market value of Apple? I would imagine not, and if not, where does the difference come from if not from intangibles (innovation, leadership, culture, organizational efficiencies, brand, etc.)? I do believe that Apple is outperforming its peers based upon its reputation for innovation, which is led by Jobs. There is great uncertaintly amongst employees, customers, investors and others about the future of Apple without Jobs. The same was true for GE with Jack Welch. Much of the value of Jobs was adjusted and taken out upon news of his health issue, but his return or lack of it could have a material effect on the valuation of the company.
Secondly, I don’t think your link to the Center for Corporate Reputation Management is a good one. Health is a private issue, but it is not for a president, governor or other public official whose health impacts the ability of a government to funtion. People have a right to know the health of those who lead their government; that is why a candidate’s medical exam is critical and why the president discloses his.
Now, Jobs is not an elected official, but his health is material, I believe, to the confidence on investors, partners, employees, and others. There is a limit to this invasion of privacy, but I think that Paul’s comment was a good one--they could have avoided all of the speculation by simply saying upfront that Jobs had cancer, it had spread to his liver, he was getting a liver transplant, the future looked good and he would return to work when able. In the meantime, the company was in good hands and there was a good succession plan in place long before Jobs got sick--succesion planning is and critical requirement of management.
The true valuation of companies is not just found in their numbers but in the true perceived value of their contribution to the society at large. Milton Friedman had claimed that the only purpose of business is to serve the shareholder--full-stop. I vehemently disagree with that perspective and believe that the responsibility of management is to balance the financial interests against the needs and interests of a multitude of stakeholders. Financial success is a proxy of doing other things well, particularly enhancing employee and customer satisfaction and trust.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 02 2009
Member Comment:
On balance there is no question that Apple has a responsibility to its stakeholders to be transparent and the health of Steve Jobs is clearly materially significant. Having noted this, there is a contrast between being responsible and transparent to stakeholders and the human toll that extreme health challenges extract on individuals and families. The tough part about pancreatic or any form of cancer is the absolute uncertainty and unpreditability about the phases, treatments and next steps. In reality, there is as much art as science in treating cancer and Jobs himself may be opting for non-conventional forms of treatment that if communicated without context could potentially leave him open for criticism or worse yet seen as setting an example for others desparate for help they may not have access to.
By demanding complete transparency about all aspects of Job’s health progress Apple actually could potentially place its trust with its stakeholders at risk. The unknowns, unpreditability, uncerrtainty and risks associated with options and phases of treatment cannot be communicated or disclosed in simple terms for any stakeholder. Even though Jobs is a highly public figure, it does not make his journey easy to communicate or understand. It is difficult to imagine, for example a series of disclosures that could capture the realities of the choices and life challenges Jobs is facing.
I think we all understand that a periodic and directional update (especially at key milestones) about the state of Jobs health should be expected for a public figure so inextricably linked to the Apple brand. It is important to balance disclosure against the realities of battling cancer. Wall Street is especially interested in making fact based decisions, but I am not convinced they are prepared to deal with the “art” side of the cancer treatment equation nor the cycles which frequently accompany them. Too much information in this circumstance could potentially do as much damage to Apple’s “trust” barometer as too little. Prudent judgement as to content and timing should drive the disclosures with an eye toward the “macro” picture of Jobs health and steering clear of the more “micro” inside view that ought to be reserved for his family and health care providers.
By Matthew P. Gonring on July, 02 2009
Member Comment:
Matt--I totally understand your view on this, but I do not think the issue is really on how micro Apple gets about the treatment for cancer. It is sort of like the debate in South Carolina about the Governor. The issue to me is not his sexual liaisons, but rather the fact that he left the state without leadership for days--that is an abdication of leadership responsibility and for that he should be punished in some way (I’ll leave it to the citizens of South Carolina to make that decision).
What does this have to do with Jobs? The issue is not so much the cancer but the uncertainty that his illness left the leadship of this company, especially given the fact that he is not a normal CEO--he is the founder of the company. Apple is Jobs and Jobs is Apple in many people’s minds.
I don’t think anyone wants to have Apple play doctor, nor would we want to invade Job’s privacy as an individual. The “art” of cancer treatment is often as or more important than the science. The issue is the gap in information left for employees, customers, shareholders and others. When I heard about the liver transplant, my first reaction was: “why the secret?” I was not sure Jobs would ever return to work and I think, as I said previously, that much of his intangible value was likely taken out by those who shorted the stock on notice of his illness. I agree that too much information about Jobs’ health could have been counter-productive, but that also is why communications is not that easy. We are often faced with questions about whether to communicate, how much to communicate, etc.
The issue is not really about health or about a CEO, but a larger issue of whether a company recognizes that it needs to act as transparently as possible to continue to engender trust amongst its various stakeholders. Trust is essential in the market. We do not expect Apple to be transparent in the way it develops its products or in its innovation engine--we recognize that those are competitive competencies that it must protect. We do expect it in shareholder disclosure.
This will not be a major reputational issue for Apple. It is rather mundane to the average person who buys their products. They likely will continue to outperform the market financially because they have outstanding products. But, as the company matures, I hope that they will recognize that they are not just a product development, innovation company, but rather that they have emerged as a leader in the marketplace. This is akin to the debate over H-P and its board issues a few years ago. These were fodder for interesting debates but they did not really impact the reputation or value of H-P because the issues were not really important to those who bought H-P products and services. It is really of importance for organizations like Page and the BRT to discuss because we should be the leaders in these discussions of helping companies like Apple and others to better understand their role in the larger society.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 02 2009
Comment:
As part of the Arthur Page Future Leaders Experience, we actually dealt with Jobs’ health issue, and Apple’s handling of same, as a case study in our first meeting in Chicago a number of months ago. So it is interesting to see some Page members discuss the issue on the Society’s blog, playing back many of the themes we discussed then as part of the FLE.
I appreciate Elliot Schreiber’s most recent post, in which he says that “This will not be a major reputational issue for Apple. It is rather mundane to the average person who buys their products.”
While that may be, it could also be true that this will contribute to why Americans—arguably, consumers in most developed markets—contiue to view with great skepticism the actions of large institutions today. So while Apple and its reputation might not suffer directly, their actions (or inactions) potentially harm all large institutions at a time when they are attempting to engage more transparently, and regain public trust at this critical point in time.
By Craig Rothenberg on July, 06 2009
Comment:
Elliot-
It seems like there are two separate issues with which I disagree with you; that Apple should have fully disclosed Steve Jobs’ health issues, and that a “significant” portion of Apple’s market cap is related to Steve Jobs. Allow me to address each of these issues.
The relevant regulation regarding what needs to be disclosed by publicly traded companies is Reg FD, which was passed in 2000 by the SEC. I invite you to show me the passage in Reg FD where it says that a company needs to disclose the medical information of it’s executives. In case you aren’t able to find it (hint- you won’t), there really is no point in debating this issue anymore.
Could Apple have handled this situation better? I think we both agree they probably could have, although I would point out this is a rather unique situation. But did Apple do anything fundamentally wrong by not disclosing Jobs’ health issues? Absolutely not. Once again, medical information is NOT considered material by the SEC, and does not have to be disclosed. Just because Steve Jobs happens to be a popular, charismatic CEO does not change the fact that he is a private citizen who is under no obligation to disclose medical information.
As for the second point, to be quite honest I’m not sure you understand how investors value a company. You seem to be saying that the market value of a company is best described as book value + intangibles. How exactly does one value something that is not tangible? Do you have any examples of mutual or hedge funds that use this valuation technique?
Using more conventional metrics of P/E, Price/Sales, and PEG, it becomes clear that Apple does not have a “Steve Jobs” premium. Over the past few years, spanning from before Steve Jobs was sick to today, Apple has traded at a very similar value to it’s peers and competitors, most notably Research in Motion. Like Apple, RIMM makes a wildly popular smart phone that has driven tremendous growth on the top and bottom line over the past few years. Currently, RIMM trades at 17X 2010 earnings, vs about 20X 2010 earnings for Apple, with a Price/Sales ratio of 3.2 vs 3.7 for Apple, and a PEG ratio of just under 1 vs just over 1 for Apple. These numbers are very similar, with the difference most likely explained by the fact that Apple tends to beat numbers handily (avg. EPS beat of over 20 cents over the past year) while RIMM can be hit or miss (avg. EPS beat of 2 cents over past year), as well as the fact that the IPhone has been gaining more share than the Blackberry.
Even if you believe Apple trades at a premium valuation, you cannot argue that premium is based solely on Steve Jobs, as a similar company with a no-name CEO trades at a very similar valuation.
By Robert Masiello on July, 07 2009
Member Comment:
Robert, Wow, I am really surprised that you contest a metric of book + intangibles and suggest that intangibles cannot be measured! Cap Gemini Ernst & Young did a study in 2003 (their white paper series) in which they found that between 80-85% of the market value of the Fortune 500 could be attributable to intangibles.
Barron’s just did a study of the reputation of the largest 100 companies in the world in terms of market cap. The top reasons money managers gave for judging a company’s reputation were: quality of the management team, business strategy, business ethics, and financial performance, in that order. The first three are intangibles--they are perceptions. These results mirror a study I did about 4 years ago with 20 investment (sell side) analysts. Their view of investment decisions was: quality of the management team, the history of the team’s performance, the quality of their strategy. Only after they were satisfied with this did they consider the financials.
Finally, Charles Fombrun and Cees Van Riel did a 5-year study of the S&P 500 and found that those with good reputations outperformed those with poor reputations on every financial measure, and these results were unrelated to book value of these companies.
It’s difficult to argue about such things from such different perspectives. You seem to view companies as an accumulation of financial and tangible metrics; I see companies in terms of perceived valuation. There is little competitive advantage to be found these days in tangibles. Intangibles are the promise of future performance not directly related to financials. Reputation is an intangible and Towers Perrin research found that about 90% of financial analysts considered reputation in their valuation of a company.
You are right. Apple did nothing wrong legally by not disclosing Jobs’ health. That is not the debate. Companies have a variety of responsibilities, in my view. They have a responsibility to be profitable; they have a responsibility to conform to legal guidelines. Those are responsibilities of all. However, the truly great companies also see greater responsibilities in terms of business ethics and social engagement.
For those like myself who have had responsibility for investor affairs, we know first-hand that perception of value of intangible assets is as important as the quarterly results the company delivers. Analysts considered the management team, our strategy, our history of innovation, our organizational capabilities, our ability to attract and keep talent, our logistics, our supply chain, etc.
We are coming at this with fundamentally different perspectives. Yours is purely financial. Mine is based on the management of reputation and competitive advantage. We probably should just agree to disagree.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 07 2009
Comment:
Elliot-
There is no money manager on this planet that has used, currently uses, or will ever use the metric of book value plus intangibles to value a company. No reasonable investor under any circumstances would not consider the current and potential profitability and cash flow of a company they are looking to invest in, not to mention sector specific things not addressed by this extremely oversimplified equation (underlying commodity price for Oil/Oil service/Mineral/Mining sectors, for example). Even if one reasonably believes the intangibles of a company make up a significant part of the market cap, that still needs to be put into the context of how those intangibles will eventually lead to cash flow and profits. This “metric” you have come up with is extremely oversimplified and useless.
We are coming at this issue from two different perspectives; mine is one where the financial performance (both past and expected) is an important component in weighing the value of a company, and yours is one where financials don’t seem to matter much at all. Despite the “competitive disadvantage” I am apparently at, I returned over 75% last year after fees. How did you do?
Managing money has a lot less to do with picking stocks and a lot more to do with managing risk. There were a lot of so called great money managers over the past five years that never really understood the risks they were taking on, and have since gone out of business. Good money managers realized at some point over 2007 and 2008 the chance that the weight of bad debts/slow growth/unemployment and were in a position to buy the securities they wanted in September and October, when others were forced to liquidate positions.
By the way, that experience with investors you spoke about is in reference to your time at Nortel, correct? The last I checked that once proud franchise is currently in the middle of a pretty nasty bankruptcy. Far be it from me to tell you what to do, but maybe you should focus a little less on “saving” Apple’s shareholders from at best a gray area disclosure that hasn’t actually affected the stock price and focus a little more on helping the stakeholders of the bankrupt company you worked for not long ago.
By Robert Masiello on July, 10 2009
Comment:
I’m a 25-year veteran of Silicon Valley. To me it’s clear that Apple caves if Steve Jobs dies. The same is clear in the case of Larry Ellison and Oracle. Ellison’s well, but, like Apple, his company does not come with any feasible succession plan. Jobs is Apple, and vice versa.
With that backdrop, it shouldn’t be surprising to see Apple finessing their CEO’s illness. They are truly in a rock-and-hard-place position and no amount of good intentions (genuineness, authenticity, trust, blah, blah) are useful counsel.
It’s easy to tell CEOs and CCOs to be all these things, but let’s admit that they are not the ultimate expression or solution to success. Get used to the idea that Apple, like any company in a corner, will commit acts of deception to get clear of its problem. Get used to the idea that its communication people will (and should) help them do this. Get used to the idea that authenticity and trust are not universally supportable and right all the time.
By Alan Kelly on July, 22 2009
Comment:
I appreciate and applaud the passion voiced in this debate. I found it easy to be swayed by one side and then the other in the throes of their arguments. Without a judicial ruling, I suppose no side will ever be judged to be fully correct, and even with one I doubt the argument will fade.
However, at the end of the day, we get paid to make our own judgements and recommendations, so I will. I have to side with full transparency and therefore that the medical condition should have been more forthrightly disclosed. Transparency in the corporate world cannot be parsed, and I believe in the Page report on this subject. I may be influenced by the current environment and the lack of transparency in business that led to the global economic crisis, but I think that’s ok because it’s real and we need to learn and evolve in all that we do.\
But it’s not just the current crisis that weighs on my mind but also the Enrons and WorldComms that we experienced in recent history. At the heart of those difficulties were ethics and transparency issues.
Before I reached my conclusion, I paused over some of the arguments for allowing Apple to be Apple, a company with mystique and maybe some obfuscation (or innovation, depending on what side you’re on) which overall have served the shareholders well. As we all know, sometimes a company has to select one stakeholder group over others as a primus inter pares, and that was certainly a factor in Apples’s decision-making.
However, I decided the way I did because I believe there is no turning back on the new business paradigm that’s being created in terms of the importance of authenticity, reputation, accountability and ethics. And if ours is a principled profession, which it is, then we have the obligation to advise our clients to live up to these overarching principles.
Last point: it would be great to hear from Apple’s Comms team and/or outside advisors. They deserve to have a say in this discussion.
By harvey greisman on August, 03 2009
Comment:
Harvey is as thoughtful and even-handed as ever. But he fails to answer these questions:
How does the CCO balance the corporation’s need to be transparent with its inherent requirement to be competitive? In other words, how can a company win if all that it knows and all that does is made public?
I expect that Harvey and so many other Pagers will say that, “Well of course a company ‘shouldn’t’ tell all its secrets.” But where does the CCO draw the line on transparency? How far do you go with your presumed “new” paradigm? And at what point do you commit the communication function to earnestly help your company succeed in tough free markets?
For as much as we talk about transparency, ‘this’ is the matter on which I’d like Page members to be transparent and fully authentic.
Alan Kelly
By Alan Kelly on August, 20 2009
Comment:
Sorry for the belated response.
This is a good topic for further dicussion, though I fear a concrete answer is not to be found in terms of when to draw the line between transparency and the disclosure of generally agreed competitive information. Unless there’s a body of law on this subject I suppose it’s still that infamous “judgement call.” Is there judicial writing on the subject?
How do we go about figuring out where to draw the line? Be as transparent as the management committee or legal department allow?
In search of answers, or at least continuing dialogue - - and that’s what makes our profession so much fun.
harvey greisman
By harvey greisman on September, 21 2009
Comment:
An apt observation by Frank Oswald.
To suggest that secrecy and deception are not a part of any company’s core values is naive. No company can operate and compete without a sense that it must keep secret the things that are decisive and differentiated and, from time to time, commit acts of deception to protect such things. Particularly things that are otherwise none of the public’s business.
If secrecy and deception “are” core to Apple it’s a case rebuttal that transparency and authenticity have their limits. After all, what company has a more distinguished brand or better reputation?
Alan Kelly
The Playmaker’s Standard
By Alan Kelly on September, 21 2009
Comment:
Here’s a crazy and contrarian point of view:
What if secrecy and deception are simply among Apple’s core (sorry) values?
That’s certainly been true throughout the company’s history, and it’s made no “secret” of that fact through its actions.
So, should it be a surprise that the company would handle Steve’s condition any differently than a new product launch?
And, if Apple’s investors know the company counts secrecy among its core values, has anyone genuinely been deceived?
That’s a pretty right-field notion, I recognize. (And that doesn’t make Apple’s actions right, relative to disclosure regulations.) But it is a filter worth considering.
By Frank J. Oswald on June, 29 2009