Judgment is that strange word that needs a “poor” or a “good” in front of it to make sense and really be descriptive of the word. Still, either can be subjective. What some consider poor judgment might be seen differently by others and vice versa.

But along comes a judgment call that creates such a tempest as in Go Daddy’s CEO Bob Parsons’ most recent elephant killing expedition in Africa, that the word “poor” in front of that particular judgment call does not apply, for Parson’s “poor” judgment in this case has been brought to another level.

As if killing an elephant “for the good of the hungry villagers,” according to Parsons was not enough, he had to produce a graphic video and then later rant in the face of fierce criticism about “how right he was to do the hunting and killing” and that most critics know in “their hearts that he was right to do it” — for the ‘cause’.

So how exactly did Parsons and his team expect this to go down? Did they not consider the consequences of an arrogant middle-aged American stepping in to help villagers, not with funds, nor education, nor farming tools and skills, but by actually doing the killing? Worse, apparently, it’s not the first such expedition, for according to Parsons he goes each year to Zimbabwe to hunt problem elephants. But this year, it was videoed — and to what purpose exactly?

If some advisor in Parsons’ team concocted this idea as a publicity gimmick, they need to be looking for another job. If Parsons himself wanted this, then he needs to surround himself with reputation managers who can see poor judgment in the making and have the wherewithal to dissuade and persuade him from taking such actions. If Parsons just likes to hunt, a good advice would be to do it very, very privately indeed and forget about attaching some “good cause” to his actions.

Or, as his Entrepreneur interview which took place before the “hunt” clearly shows, if he revels in courting controversy, let him also recognize that as a CEO of a billion dollar company, he cannot take on the persona of a renegade who defies responsibilities to his stakeholders as well as public opinion.

Parsons should have taken note of his own quote in that interview when he said, “You need to know exactly where you stand in a business at all times. Measure everything, because everything that is measured and watched, improves.”

Too late for PR crises experts to work their magic on this one…

There is that old “no-brainer”… Judgment calls come before actions taken — with considerations given to potential consequences from all angles.

Hello!

If you have ever sat through a tedious afternoon in a time-share sales presentation, just so that you could take advantage of the offer that came with it — a free weekend stay in Vegas or Reno, you will get the concept that is about to be launched by FreeAllMusic. This recycled version is about watching a 15-30 second video advertisement to get a free downloadable song of your choice.

That’s it! Spend 15 seconds to save 99¢ for a song download.  Doesn’t sound like much of a deal at first glance.

Still, when you consider that the company is testing offers of 15 to 20 free downloads per month, five per user session, it probably adds up to a compiled album of your choice — for free. Moreover, the site, which began as a test version a week ago and plans to open to the public within January, will allow the downloaded songs to be copied and shared, unencumbered by digital rights management restrictions.

Sounds great, that is, until Richard Nailling, chief executive of FreeAllMusic, got caught in print with negative messaging, saying that the service hopes to draw “casual pirates who, for whatever reason, are not paying for music,” and added, “we have made this process easier than stealing.”

Really? Look pirating, stealing or free sharing of songs, has been around for a long time and this site is not about to police that, curtail it or grab pirates’ attention.  The thrill of pirating has always been about bucking the law.

Here’s what I would recommend for the CEO to focus on, in his pre-launch quotes:

Speak about the win-win situation in which advertisers can’t get ‘TiVoed’ out; users get the songs they want; and record labels get paid for the free songs by advertisers.  Speak about the two major labels that have already signed up and the six advertisers who are on board for the site’s debut this month, including Coca-Cola, Warner Bros, Zappos.com, etc.

Comment on the empowerment of the user as an “influencer,” for the new site will encourage them to post the details on their Facebook profiles and Twitter streams. And articulate to advertisers how this will extend virally into social networks like Facebook, for friends who opt to download the same song, must first also watch the same ad.

And then consider the odd side effect.  Actually watching an ad, can open up a whole new vista for the TiVo generation, which has never known the entertainment value of some of the TV commercials that had a profound effect on our culture in the 40′s through the 70′s and beyond — ads that to this day remain icons.

The 15-second forced viewing, may force advertisers, to rekindle creativity, to tell a story that engages viewers and binds them with the brand.  Advertisers just got lucky — and all for the love of music.

No need to help pirates go straight.  Just a need to get good messaging out.

Rival sniping commentators, Keith Olbermann (Countdown on MSNBC) and Bill O’Reilly (The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel), are at it again, flinging insults across the airwaves. The long-running name-calling saga, silenced last Spring by parent companies MSNBC’s General Electric and the FOX’s News Corporation with a handshake agreement for a cease fire, sparked again last Monday night and erupted into a raging fire.

A pretty mad Olbermann, insulted his rival, Bill O’Reilly and the News Corporation’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, by calling O’Reilly a “racist clown” in reference to an O’Reilly statement made two years ago about a black-owned restaurant and brought up again by O’Reilly himself, (but this time much tempered and changed), following the arrest of Harvard’s Professor Gates. Olbermann, fired the first shot, and called O’Reilly on the re-worded statements and repeated, on air, his inappropriately racists remarks of two years ago. Not surprisingly, O’Reilly shot back, claiming that G.E., through MSNBC, was “promoting the election of Barack Obama, and then seeking to profit from his policies,” — which brought the “parents” back out scrambling to salvage the old cease-fire and mend fences.

Their reasons for concern are self-serving. Apparently Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Immelt are concerned about any perceived damage to their corporate reputations, when in fact it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the freedom of the press.

So the old question begs as to who sets the boundaries in reporting – “parents” who pay the bills, or journalists? Whose interests do the journalists serve first, their parent’s or that of the public at large?

I commend Olbermann for throwing caution to the wind by going against his “parent,” in using his own judgment as to what should, or should not, be said on his program — and when and how. It gives me renewed hope that “parental” pacts cannot, and should not, infringe on journalism and that unbridled journalism will prevail.

I say let commentators keep commentating. No more corporate agendas, please. No more corporate handshakes. Let the judgment of a journalist dictate as to where the boundaries lie, as long as it stays within accepted broadcast legal parameters.

I noted in an article in the International Herald Tribune of April 13, that frugality has once again become popular, turning it into something of a ‘sport’ rather than a sacrifice, as we figure out how clever we can be to do more, with less.  Who would have thought?

Moreover, I marveled at the turnaround for savings, which have spiked up to 5%, since the low of 1% last November.  This is atypical for the American psyche, as seen in recent history.  According to Martha Olney, economic professor at the University of California, Berkeley, “This is huge.  In recessions, consumers usually save less money.  Not this time. It implies a re-emergence of thrift as a value.”

Frugality has had many cycles.  In the days of our grandparents, to be frugal was virtuous, in other words, “the right thing to do.”  Showing excess was thought to be bad taste.  Well, we all know where that went.  Excess, or its synonym, self-indulgence, became a raison d’être, a ‘must have’ if you will in recent decades — and finally spun out of control, bringing the global financial world to its knees.

Frugality has become a hot topic.  Web sites are sprouting up daily such as Allthingsfrugal.com where you can click on Frugal Food, Frugal Parenting, Frugal Beauty and even Frugal Inspirational, whatever that is.  Then there is Strecher.com and, in particular, Meetup.com that started a member group called “Tightwads United.”

Given that frugality has taken on the feel of a ‘sport’, it is my sense that these sites have not just sprouted up for the ever-growing jobless ranks, but more as a challenge to those who wish to test themselves as to cleverness, in the face of need.

In riding the frugality wave, it is clear that it will take ingenuity, originality, inventiveness and creativity to turn the tide for individuals as well as companies and organizations.  It’s all about judgment as to what to do with what is available, how to be resourceful with pared down means and how to re-purpose tools that help one stay above water in a changing landscape.