ONE OF THE BUSINESS PHENOMENA that struck me as unusual on my return home after working for decades overseas was – and is – the quantum of what I call gratuitous advertising that is done by decision makers in government agencies and private sector businesses. I use the term gratuitous because these advertisements are generally very prominent (full-page, many in colour and/or a full colour supplement) and tend to be all about promoting personalities and their public image. This special kind of advertising is not about promoting the products or services that these ministries, agencies or private businesses have to offer. Nor are they even subscribing to the other role of advertising, that of informing the public about particular changes or new business developments of these institutions or firms. Their apparent sole aim is to promote the personalities whose pictures are generally prominently displayed in these expensive advertisements.

WHOSE MONEY IS IT ANYWAY?

While I have been noticing the way officials and executives spend taxpayers’ and share-holders’ money on this personality promoting kind of advertisement, the one that prompted me to write this article was done by (I believe) the Bureau of Standards in the newspaper two Sundays ago.

It was a full-page advertise-ment which, given the number of pictures of the executive director who happens to be leaving the institution, looked like an advertisement for someone running for political office.

I want to mention here that this comment is not about the work of the Bureau of Standards, which today is very much on the ball checking each batch of cement that is produced here in Jamaica as well as doing other very useful work, nor is it about the departing executive director whose achievements over the six years of his tenure were generously laid out in the full-page advertisement.

Rather, my concern is about why taxpayers’ (or even sponsorship) money is used to run these advertisements. The money, whatever the source, could be used to further the real work of these agencies.

When one looks at the plethora of these ‘personality advertise-ments’ and special supplements that populate the pages of our newspapers, in colour and/or on days when the advertising rates are at their highest, such as on Sundays, I have to wonder if the officials and executives who make these decisions ever consider whose money they are spending. It is time that many of them are reminded that it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent. Whenever I am involved in spending money in any government entity, I remind my colleagues who must make the joint decision that we are spending poor people’s money – and I usually use taxpayers from Southfield, St. Elizabeth as my starting point – and that these poor people are invariably much less privileged than those of us who make those spending decisions.

Most of Jamaica’s taxpayers are poor people anyway. They live in Black River, Flankers in Montego Bay, all parts of Kingston – in Arnett Gardens, Majestic Gardens, East Kingston, Central Kingston, South and Central and Northern St. Andrew; they work in government ministries and agencies, big publicly traded private enterprise businesses and in many instances in very small partnerships and proprietorships. I believe that when they are committed enough to the country to pay their taxes, those of us who are privileged enough to spend it should not waste it on personality advertisements.

THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS GUILTY AS WELL

The private sector has its own and even more elaborate special personality advertisements that appear in our local newspapers on a regular basis. I see special supplements for staff parties and annual events that I can never justify as to why shareholders’ money should be used so lavishly (and I believe often thoughtlessly) to show off staff members in their finery.

While one can barely justify the reason for some of the parties in the first place – just another thoughtless use of shareholders’ money in some instances – to take the next step of advertising these events in colour at a cost to shareholders is questionable and unpalatable.

It is about time board members take a closer look at these advertising spending practices of executives in their companies.

I am fully aware that many executives, officials and employees love to see their picture in the newspaper. Indeed, many people share that desire. My issue is who should pay to satisfy that desire.

There are rare occasions when a government agency or private sector business should advertise in this manner and those occasions should fall into the normal categories of advertising – and in this case it would be mainly to inform.

Maybe when an executive or an official is appointed, or a significant promotion has been made by the board of directors or management of an entity, these represent occasions which would properly qualify to spend taxpayers’ or shareholders’ money on the public promotion of personalities.

Business leaders or senior government officials may decide that it is in the interest of the company or institution and their customers to identify particular individuals to whom the public should turn for help, advice or special services and these persons may be introduced to the public through a special and appropriate ‘personality advertisement’.

IT IS TAXPAYERS’ AND SHAREHOLDERS’ MONEY

I often get a feeling that many government officials and even executives in private sector companies do not keep in the front of their minds the fact that the money they spend on these kinds of advertisements are from taxpayers or belong to share-holders. In the case of taxpayers’ money, I often shudder at the ease with which those responsible spend this money because it is “from the government”.

The government in this instance is a faceless entity that has this bottomless pit of money that can be spent on gratuitous advertisements that promote favoured personalities. Officials need to be reminded on a regular basis that this money is paid by poor people and other taxpayers who live in Grants Pen and in places like Cherry Gardens and Mona Heights who have to work very hard for their money.

In the case of the spending on gratuitous advertisements by private sector executives, board members and shareholders are called on to be much more vigilant and questioning as to why such large sums of cash are spent on advertisements that do not promote the products and services of their companies. Taxpayers, shareholders and public-minded individuals need constantly to remind government officials and business executives that thoughtless and gratuitous personality advertisements are a waste of money.

this article first appeared in the Gleaner newspaper

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060607/business/business9.html

and was written by.

Aubyn Hill is the CEO of Corporate Strategies Ltd., a restructuring and financial advisory firm. Respond to: writerhill@gmail.com.