EXCALIBUR

Saint Mole
The distressing recent events involving the BBC and the government prompted me to think whether such events could happen in the world of marketing. Most of us remember how Ratner brought down his own empire by giving an informal but accurate assessment of his low quality but value for money products. So, what should marketers do if they believe that it is in the public (i.e. customer) interest to tell them something that the company does not want to tell them. The Enron and other financial scandals were extreme examples, but here's a more controversial one. A consumer services provider introduced a grade of service that was lower quality than its other services, but graced it with an upmarket name to fool customers into thinking that they would receive a higher level of service. The change in level of service was very slight, and possibly not noticed by most customers. But what did it say about the ethics of the company? In fact, nobody spoke, but I believe they should have done.

I was once in a similar position, working for a company that had a strong position in its domestic market, but facing tough competition overseas. So it reserved product of suspect quality for the home market, adding to it a grading that hinted at superior quality. Customers were not stupid. They began to buy from competitors. However, the amounts were small, and the profit still being made from domestic customers was great. I went over the head of the marketing director to the managing director, to argue for the abandonment of this practice. The managing director agreed. All substandard products was scrapped and recycled, allowing the company to focus its efforts and inventory on its best products. The domestic sales people were at first very angry with me, as it left them short of product. Only later did they come round to my view. Meanwhile, our high quality export products were under-priced, so we were getting massive orders that we could not fulfil, because we lacked the funds to invest in building inventory. Again I went over the head of the marketing director (who fought me tooth and nail), to ask for a big price increase combined with much better service levels from stock. The company was soon making much more profit in a more focused way.

This example is one where the ethical situation is a little clearer. But there are many situations where the water is muddy. What should the would-be mole do? The first thing is to try to avoid being a mole - to argue the case inside the company. To do this, you need to be sure of your facts. In the above example, I did lots of research to check that what I thought was happening really was. I asked customers carefully, our own staff more openly. I checked what our technologists thought of our competitors' prices and qualities. But still I took a risk.

This brings me to the second rule - make sure you talk to a senior manager within whose responsibility the issue lies, but who is senior enough to be able to develop a perspective on the issue. In theory, one ought to be able to take the issue straight to one's line manager, but in some cases the risk this poses to one's career is greater - particularly if that manager has a strong, personal vested interest in continuing what you think is wrong. This may be as simple as their having their ego invested in following a particular policy, or as complex and dirty as their having a financial interest which conflicts with that of the company and/or that of customers.

The third rule is, check your legal position. Your employment contract might forbid you to talk to the media (or indeed anyone outside the company) about matters inside the company without clearing them first with legal and/or public relations. This is a bit unrealistic. People talk to customers all the time, explaining for example why the company can't do what the customer wants. A good ethical rule helps (though it won't deal with the legal risk). If you feel that a practice is damaging both the company and customers, then consider how you can air the point in the least damaging way. It's still dangerous, and resigning doesn't help, because you will almost still certainly be bound by confidentiality clauses in your employment contract.

The fourth rule is a selfish one - consider whether you can afford it. If you have children at school and a big mortgage and are the main breadwinner and have no significant free financial assets, you are tied.

My choice therefore would be to avoid being a mole and to fight internally (I enjoy a good fight!), but to prepare the escape route. The best way to punish a company for bad behaviour is to leave and join a competitor, and use your general knowledge about the failings of your former employer (not the specific data) to fight your previous employer and take business off them. Or join one of your employers' suppliers (how about their bank) and probe their finances.