It’s a media celebrity’s game of give and take: sacrifice your privacy to gain public approbation. In this era of business entertainment, where the stock market is a mass medium, and where cable business news is challenging soaps and talk shows for the eyes and ears of the masses, companies themselves and their management become the objects of obsession.
Last year Canada’s Philip Services Corp forced internet service providers to reveal the identities of individuals behind a ‘campaign of hatred’ on Yahoo Finance, a campaign that included eerie references to the IRO’s children. Then there’s HealthSouth, which is suing message board participants for defamation. One of them clearly crossed the line when he claimed to be sleeping with the CEO’s wife.
Consider another case that stayed out of the news. A Chicago manufacturing company had just moved into new headquarters when the IRO got a voicemail railing against profligacy, including management’s new private gym (in fact a converted broom closet with two exercycles) and the chairman’s personal trainer (actually a part-time aerobics instructor he paid for himself). For a few panicky hours the IR team scrambled to devise an appropriate response – only to discover that the call had come from a disgruntled employee with no shares at all.
Another time, a German company planned a small group meeting with institutional shareholders in Boston. Its US-based IR consultant was tracked down at his hotel by a stranger claiming to be a major shareholder and demanding the location of the meeting. Turned out he was the lead plaintiff in a shareholder lawsuit against the company.
No wonder, then, many IROs are loath to include their names and phone numbers in the annual report, on their web sites or on press releases.
This turned out to be a key concern expressed at last month’s IR on the Internet conference by Access. Visions of the switchboard lit up with calls from angry shareholders predominated. How could they answer every call? And yet many companies do display contact names and numbers prominently; and rather than suffering, they benefit from the first favorable impression an investor gets when looking for information.
Still, opening up corporate headquarters to fulfil the disclosure requirements of investors puts management in a fishbowl. And when the phone rings or an e-mail raises a disquieting claim, there’s often no easy way of knowing who’s at the other end – an important shareholder or a crazed stalker.
