THE CASCADING DECLINE AT THE BBC

Posted in BBC, Corporate Crisis Management, Covering for the organization, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Response, Crisis Mitigation, fix the problem, Protecting the organization at any cost?, the effect of ignoring a problem on November 14th, 2012 by mnayor

Covering for the organization rarely works. Neither does the belief that an organization is so strong and respected that it exits on a level all its own.PennStateofficials found that out recently and now the BBC is suffering from the same ill-advised mentality. Whistle-blowing is a separate but related topic but the concerted effort of many in positions of power at an organization to hide something or sweep it under the rug deserves special attention.

 

For many years a popular, long-time host at BBC, Jimmy Savile, was suspected of sexually abusing young people, sometimes even at the premises of the BBC. The Company recently came under blistering attack when it was learned that an investigation of Savile had been cancelled by the editor of BBC’s Newsnight program last year. Newsnight is an important current affairs program of the BBC. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s Director General until last month (and who is destined to join the New York Times shortly) claims to have had no knowledge of the accusations against Savile although there were many opportunities to delve into the matter if he chose to do so.

 

Within the last week and in a matter of weeks since Thompson’s departure, his successor, George Entwistle, resigned because of another flap, again involving Newsnight, which wrongly implicated a Conservative Party politician in a pedophile scandal inWales. And just yesterday the BBC’s Director of News, Helen Boaden and her deputy, Stephen Mitchell announced that they have “stepped aside”.

 

The upshot is that there is turmoil at the BBC. There is a lack of control and the Chairman of the BBC Trust has acknowledged that the organization is in a ghastly mess and in need of a thorough overhaul.

 

How does any organization get itself into this type of crisis and what types of crisis management are called for? First, hubris plays a significant role. When an organization attains a stratospheric reputation such as that of the BBC, those who personify it not only begin to believe in its infallibility but also in their own. Heightened reputations beget dizzying overconfidence. Secondly, there is a tendency of employees, whether they be worker bees or top management to put their employer above all else. Not many people want to be held responsible for the decline or unraveling of an organization. Most want to be team players, no matter what they know and no matter what they really think about their place of work.

 

Crisis management calls for continual checks and balances. An organization cannot continue to coast, as many do, on old and outdated reputations. It is incumbent on top management, and lower levels in turn, to clarify lines of responsibility and authority, to define the values of the organization, to impose clear lines of accountability and to review regularly issues that arise. Often, top management wishes to be insulated from bad decisions already made, and hard decisions that need to be made, even with the knowledge that, more often than not, the buck stops with them and they may be the sacrificial lambs regardless.

Crisis management does not just mean planning to avoid a crisis if possible. Nor does it just mean managing a crisis once it hits. It also means taking steps to mitigate a crisis in the works. A CEO and his/her lieutenants are charged with monitoring the ship as a captain of a vessel or plane would. Rectifying what is wrong is a vital part of the job. Time does not absorb and dissolve a bad decision. It only heightens the culpability of the parties who either made no attempt to rectify it or tried to white-wash it. This is a hard lesson for people such as the former President of Penn State and the late Joe Paterno. It is a hard lesson for the former and current management of the BBC.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

HURRICANE SANDY AND THE MARATHON

Posted in Crisis Communication Failures, Crisis Management Strategy, Crisis Management Success Stories, dealing with a natural disaster, DECISIONS IN A VACUUM, Doing the right thing, Hurricane Sandy, negative publicity, New York City Marathon, Poor crisis management on November 12th, 2012 by mnayor

One of the most evident communications failures in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy involved the ING New York City Marathon. Unquestionably the success of the Marathon paled in comparison to the misery heaped on New York (and New Jersey and Connecticut) residents who should of course have received and should continue to receive immediate and effective relief.

 

However, I cannot understand why the Marathon could not have been transformed into a major vehicle for focusing attention on and creating relief efforts for the residents of Staten Island, and The Rockaways, the areas ofNew Yorkthe most severely damaged.  I believe that the event could have been salvaged and made into something extraordinarily constructive instead of seemingly distractive and frivolous.

 

During the week of the storm Mayor Bloomberg kept announcing that theMarathonwould go on. He justified the decision by saying it would be good for New Yorkers. It  would bring the City together and lift everyone’s spirits. He also stated that no resources would be diverted from the relief effort. This comment, although true, was weak in light of the dozens of generators seen being transported toCentral Park  for the traditional pasta dinner, and the numerous port-a-potties being installed near the starting line. Granted these resources were private but it all seemed so selfish. This was crisis management and crisis communication at its worst.

 

What might have happened if the following had occurred? Mayor Bloomberg and Mary Wittenberg, president and CEO of the New York Road Runners (NYRR) jointly announced that theMarathonwas being renamed the Sandy Relief Marathon. The prize money was being donated immediately to the relief effort. The pasta dinner was cancelled and all generators and other private resources were being transferred to stricken areas. All port-a-potties were available immediately to the public. A telethon was being established for call-in donations during the race. All runners were being encouraged to donate their time in the coming days to support efforts. And so on.

 

The perception and the reality of theMarathonwould have been transformed into a humanitarian effort. That’s the way it should have been, instead of being billed as a cheer-leading, feel-good effort. Good crisis management in the Mayor’s Office and the NYRR was lacking. They had the time to make it happen but not the imagination or creativity. The resulting cancellation on the Friday before the event was a fiasco. An embarrassment for both the Mayor and the NYRR. The financial loss to the City is in the untold millions. The damage to the reputation to the event and the Road Runners organization remains to be seen. Certainly the thousands who travelled from abroad to participate now have a bitter taste in their mouths. The most common reaction was – We understand cancelling the event but why wait until Friday. If you had cancelled earlier in the week we could have saved the trip and our airfare.

 

We can only hope that nothing befalls the tri-state area again likeSandy, but if it does more intelligent and creative minds should grapple with a situation like theMarathonand utilize the notoriety of such an event to good and productive use. Obviously it is easier in hindsight to come up with ideas, but doing what’s right, sacrificing certain elements of an event and willingly taking two steps back in order to take one step forward would have burnished the image of the Marathon instead of tarnishing it. Trying to salvage an event in its entirety was and is perceived as putting yourself first. Placing the needs of those devastated bySandyfirst, and sacrificing some of theMarathon’s bells and whistles might have just garnered a lot more respect and kept a version of the race intact. Now NYRR has to renegotiate with product sponsors, ESPN and local affiliate WABC, and the participants themselves. It difficult to envision it coming out a true winner.

Tags: , , , , , ,

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE JPMORGAN DEBACLE

Posted in analyze the problem, Business Crisis Management, Corporate Crisis Management, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Planning, Crisis Management Response, don't white wash the crisis, fix the problem, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase, problem employees, Taking Responsibility for actions of an organization or its employees, Throw an employee under the bus on May 23rd, 2012 by mnayor

The JPMorgan $2 billion debacle stunned me as it did everyone else. It was like catching the self-righteous little kid with the smoking slingshot in his hand.

Well, not quite. I got to thinking. Yes, it’s true that Jamie Dimon has this holier than thou attitude and perhaps it’s nice to see him knocked down a peg or two. But many crises are without question caused by those employees who you think you know – but don’t. Or caused by the hierarchy or the controls you’ve established but which really don’t work. You look out over your domain and deem it good, but there is always someone or some circumstance or some poor decision that puts you and your company in the hot spot.

 Yes, the buck stops here and the CEO should always take the rap (instead of throwing someone or a few  people under the bus and taking the $23 million), but that doesn’t mean the CEO can really plug every hole that springs a leak. It would require too many thumbs. Dimon was frank and honest, but he did forget to say it was on his watch and he accepted full responsibility. You can’t have everything. But, what do you do when your trusted employee or employees do something dumb, or worse.

 Several months ago I wrote about Charlie Sheen. I also wrote about Christian Dior’s John Galliano. For those who don’t recognize the names, suffice it to say that both of these guys gave their employers and themselves black eyes and heartburn. CBS and C.D. each acted fairly quickly and dumped its famous and talented employee, regardless of his value. They restructured. They went on and in a matter of a couple of weeks after their decisions, the crisis each faced disappeared.

 Crisis management calls for decisive action. That doesn’t mean just dumping a perpetrator. It means analyzing a situation to see if the organization continues to be vulnerable. It means identifying the basic problem and rectifying it. Do potential employees have to be tested? Drugs? Psychological testing? Do they have to be supervised more closely? Should they be cleared to give public statements? Do employment contracts have to be tightened up? Do the work environments have to be more closely supervised? Do supervisors have to have greater responsibility for the conduct of their departments? Do department managers and regional vice presidents have to be more hands on? Should they be required to know all the employees under them? Should the work environments be evaluated for potential risk? Are there checks and balances? Are there activities being conducted that are beyond the scope or the purposes of the business  or the established guidelines or policies of the company?

Crisis management should lead to problem solving not problem white-washing. JPMorgan Chase has to look well within itself to answer these types of questions. So does the rest of the banking industry. The crucial question that needs to be answered is whether the reins on the biggest banks should be tightened: re-institute Glass-Steagall? Put real teeth into the Volcker Rule? Something has got to give and the big boys should act like big boys. The financial fate of the nation depends on it and the right to massive profits is not justification  for behavior that jeopardizes the well being of the country.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

J&J: IT’S ABOUT TIME OR MORE OF THE SAME

Posted in a ggod reputation guarantees long term profits, Business Crises We Create, cheating the public, Corporate Crisis Management, corporate integrity, Crisis Management, Crisis Management Response, Doing the right thing, Ethics and Crisis Management, Hurting customers, J&J, Johnson & Johnson, Respect your customers, Taking Responsibility for actions of an organization or its employees, when the bottom line is more important than your customers, William Weldon on February 22nd, 2012 by mnayor

 In October of 2010 I highlighted many of the difficulties Johnson & Johnson had been going through since the early part of the decade, from tens of millions of dollars to settle claims against its product Ortho Evra, to product recalls including children’s Tylenol and contact lenses. Other telling issues involved a wrongful termination suit by a whistle blower and a resignation by a senior executive whose conscience would not allow him to remain at J&J knowing what he knew about Ortho Evra.

My conclusion was simply that J&J’s management had veered way off course and had sullied the reputation of one ofAmerica’s greatest corporations, one that was known and respected for its integrity and honesty. I ended with an expression of hope that the lessons learned would set management on the right course once again.

 This was not to be. Just this past week the press reported that J&J took a year to recall a version of its artificial hip after the FDA refused in 2009 to approve it because of its high rate of failures. The device was recalled in 2010, and J&J maintained until that time that the device was safe and its own studies refuted the allegations of professionals. J&J continued to market the hip in Europe and other overseas countries until the recall and sold another version of its hip that didn’t need safety approval in theU.S., even though the hip socket cup, which the FDA found to be flawed, was the same in both products.

 It is interesting to track the timeline of most of J&J’s recent woes to the timeline of William C. Weldon’s tenure as chief executive. Whether directly attributable to Weldon’s misfeasance or malfeasance is not the issue. The torrent of missteps, mistakes,  dishonesty, deception and manipulation has occurred on his watch. The least that can be said without pointing a finger directly at him is that he failed miserably to instill a sense of integrity within the company, a sense of integrity that transcends the needs of the short-term bottom line. So many executives foolishly sit at their desks with blinders on. Weldon and his followers allowed a culture to fester within their walls that calls for the good of the company to transcend the good of the public.

 No executive worth his title would allow the disintegration that has taken place at J&J. Thankfully, William Weldon will step down in April of this year although he will remain as chairman. Alex Gorsky will be the new CEO. Has the Board done the Company, its shareholders and the public a major disservice? Gorsky is cut from the same cloth as Weldon. They both cut their teeth in sales and both are sensitive to the bottom line and enhancing it above all else.  Hopefully Gorsky will recognize the need to build trust, and instill honor from which J&J can once again earn the widespread respect of the public. Build it and they will come. With that will come the financial success that Weldon’s crew tried to obtain on the cheap. If Gorsky has not learned from past mistakes, expect more of the same from J&J. We will all be witness to the transformation of a great American company into just another self-serving medical conglomerate that feeds off the public.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NICKEL DIMED AND FIGHTING BACK

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Bank of America, Banking Industry, Business Crises of our own making, Business Crisis Management, Crisis Management Consulting, Crisis Management Response, DECISIONS IN A VACUUM, Excessive consumer fees, negative publicity on November 6th, 2011 by mnayor

The first time I noticed the flagrant imposition of an additional fee for a business service was when ordering Broadway tickets on line. It was a six dollar “service fee” per ticket. I paid the fee but was puzzled. I was paying the company for a service which they were in business to provide. Strange. Do architects charge an extra fee for putting their plans on paper?

Since then of course things have gotten much worse for American consumers. Airlines seem to charge for everything except the air you breathe, and probably don’t, in order to avoid a debate on how inferior that air is. Everywhere you turn there are extra fees for services and “things” that were once free. Understandably businesses and industries are trying to maintain their financial positions. Many want to bring back the good times when they were flush. Because of the weak economy, and the higher cost of resources, they must extract more from the customers who keep them in business in the first place. Obviously, much analysis has gone into the “cost” (interpreted to mean loss of customers and bad press) of implementing new fees. It is clear that most businesses are willing to sacrifice a certain percentage of customers who will bolt in anger, if the economics work.

But it appears as if we are entering into a new phase of business/customer relations. Customers are fighting back, asserting essentially that business has to have skin in the game too. In bad times business cannot expect to maintain the same level of profits or to ride on the backs of consumers in order to do so. Case in point: Bank of America’s announcement in September that it was going to impose a $5.00/month fee for debit card use. A debit card fee is a charge for you to access your own money for commercial or other financial transactions. It is the same money you have deposited with a bank and the same money it needs to conduct its lending business.

Some analysis definitely went into the Bank’s decision. New regulations have reduced the payments merchants pay the Bank for processing debit card payments and BofA didn’t want to just absorb the loss of income. Fair to say that many other banks also entertained the idea of customer debit fees. Some have implemented them. But, after witnessing the backlash from BofA customers, many backed off. BofA itself announced at the end of October that it would allow customers to avoid the fee if they maintain a minimum balance, or arrange for direct deposit of paychecks or use BofA issued credit cards. But just a couple of days later, it fully capitulated to the pressure and scraped the plan in its entirety.

Unlike Netflix which lost 800,000 customers after announcing a 60% price increase a couple of months ago, BofA will likely weather the storm without a major loss. Why? First, it announced its new fee well in advance and wasn’t the only bank contemplating debit fees, so it didn’t look like the only bad guy. Secondly, many of its customers are locked in to BofA with automatic bill paying, multiple accounts and complicated relationships. Unraveling a bank relationship can be complicated. Finally, BofA certainly calculated the loss of customers it would have to endure if it implemented the plan and decided it was worth it. Now that it has jettisoned the fee, many fewer people will transfer their banking relationship. But unquestionably, some damage has been done. There is a strong movement currently underway in the country to pursuade the public to withdraw from national banks and transfer business to community and regional banks and local credit unions.

People are no longer rolling over. They are fighting back, and businesses should realize that weathering an economic storm (or a regulatory reversal) is something to which all segments of society are subject. One segment is not entitled to be made whole at the expense of another. Profits made in good times cannot always be sustained – especially if they can only be sustained on the backs of others who are suffering just as much. Businesses and industries should be rewarded for innovation and creativity, for new and better goods and services, not for figuring ways of squeezing the hand that feeds them. The moral of the story is quite simple: a business can create its own crisis by being too greedy. Before making a dramatic decision that could adversely effect one or more of your stakeholders analyze both the short-term and the long-term costs. Many of your investors may also be your customers. Aiming for profit maximization may not necessarilly please everyone, especially if bonus maximization is the underlyiong motivation and result.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

SONY’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CYBER ATTACKS

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Crises Communication, Crisis Communication Implementation, Crisis Communication Response, Cyber Attacks, negative publicity, Responsibility for date losses, Sony on May 22nd, 2011 by mnayor

Sony has been raked over the coals these last few weeks. Has there been just cause? And has Sony exercised good crisis management and crisis communication skills?

Between April 17 and April 19th the Sony PlayStation Network and the Company’s Qriocity service which streams video to Sony televisions and Blu-ray devices were hacked and knocked offline. Besides knocking out service, unauthorized persons obtained access to personal information including credit card numbers. An estimated 77 million PlayStation users and 12 million of their credit cards were affected, plus 24 million Sony Online Entertainment customers and over 10,000 of their cards. The services have just recently come back on line (Japan itself is an exception because the government is not yet sure they is secure) as of approximately May 14th.

There are two main issues that have gotten the public very agitated. First, did the Company handle its communications well? It took almost a week to publicly acknowledge the attacks and advise its customers that credit card information could have been compromised. This length of delay surely provided hackers with a large window of opportunity to utilize the information it had mined to the obvious detriment of millions of customers.

One of the basic tenants of crisis communication is to act quickly and have as much control of the dialogue as possible. The basic problem was evident, even if a great deal of operational research had to be done to identify the extent of the damage. The first goal should have been to minimize the vulnerability of its customers through immediate notification. By delaying, Sony allowed speculation to build up and therefore it positioned itself defensively, instead of taking vigorous proactive steps.

The other communications gaff came directly from Sony’s CEO, Howard Stringer. In a discussion with reporters on May 17th, he defended the actions of Sony when asked why it took almost a week to notify customers. He observed that the Company reported quickly, noted that many companies don’t report these breaches at all or only after a month, and then said “you’re telling me my week wasn’t fast enough”. This sounds a bit defensive and imperious for a CEO. Most customers would probably disagree with him, especially those whose credit cards could have used by the hackers, or those whose personal information may now be used for identity theft purposes.

The second main issue is operational. Sony must quickly tighten its security and provide safe and secure networks for its customers. The U.S. Congress and the New York Attorney general almost immediately jumped on the bandwagon to “investigate” this technological lapse, but hopefully these actions will not drain efforts away from identifying vulnerabilities and making data protection paramount. Customers need to be confident of Sony’s ability to protect them. Otherwise, it will lose out big time to Microsoft and Nintendo. That should be motivation enough to make Sony create one of the most secure networks available out there in cyberspace.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

PREEMPTION: THE TWO EDGED SWORD IN CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Posted in Business Crises of our own making, Business Crises We Create, Crisis Communication Strategy, Crisis Litigation, Crisis Management, Crisis Mitigation, Liability Communications, Litigation Communications on November 3rd, 2010 by mnayor

 Crisis management and product liability are inextricably linked. Whenever a product fails and causes injury or damage to buyers, a crisis can erupt. The liability of manufacturers and vendors have tightened dramatically over the last hundred years, from the theory of caveat emptor or let the buyer beware, to today, in some cases, strict liability. State laws on matters of health (including the environment) and safety have provided consumers with greater and greater protections over the years.

Businesses of all kinds must be more diligent than ever. Even if negligence and/or misrepresentation are not at issue, a company can still find itself in a great deal of trouble. Accusations concerning causation, erroneous manufacturers’ claims, and customer-product incompatibility can raise the specter of liability and place a company at risk.

Not all products are 100% safe for all people at all times. Thus the concept of warning labels has taken on greater importance, especially in those situations where use may be abused, inappropriate or be accompanied by additional risks. We see this more and more in such industries as pharmaceuticals, foods, toys, automobiles and cosmetics. In today’s world some warnings may not be deemed sufficient because they are either not perceived as strong enough or not evident enough on packaging.

In recent years some companies and even whole industries have looked to preemption as a form of product liability protection from individual and class action suits. Federal preemption is the trumping of federal law over state law when that is the express or implied intention of Congress. Most product liability law is state law through a state’s police powers, and ultimately its state statutes, its common law and court decisions. Oftentimes, federal laws are not as tough as state laws and therefore afford more protection to business. Federal legislation, and even federal regulations, sometimes takes precedence. In fact several agencies of the federal government such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The Federal Trade Commission and its Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have declared that some of their specific regulations preempt state law and bar or limit consumer redress. 

Federal court decisions have been mixed. In one recent Supreme Court decision the Court ruled that a medical device manufacturer could not be sued by a consumer because the manufacturer had won FDA approval. But in another, the Court held that a patient was not barred from suing a pharmaceutical company for damages just because the product displayed an FDA-approved label.

Preemption may create a dilemma for a company. Certainly, successful preemption can provide the type of protection that can avoid financial calamity. On the other hand, combative and bellicose pursuit of a safe harbor can have an extremely negative effect on a company’s reputation. It is quite easy to appear as consumer-be-damned if preemption coverage is not handled discretely. Reputation management is equally as important, and a company must strike a balance between finding that safe harbor and doing the right thing, between securing financial escape and retaining and developing public support, respect and even admiration.

Tags: , , , , , ,

FACING A BUSINESS CRISIS OR A COST OF DOING BUSINESS

Posted in Anticipating A Crisis, Business Crises of our own making, Business Crises We Create, Crisis Management Consulting on November 2nd, 2010 by mnayor

A Company admits that it erroneously charged millions of customers for services they never ordered or used. The Company plans to credit current customers and refund former customers to the tune of anywhere from $30 million to $90 million in total. Most companies would consider this a crisis, especially since the regulatory commission with jurisdiction over it says it hasn’t finished with these guys.

Well, not so fast. The Company had been notified at least two years ago that they were overcharging, and did nothing about it. After all, customer service is expensive. Why dig into this messy situation if by ignoring it, customers might give up and go away. The loss to an individual consumer may be a pittance, but the possible refunds may be huge, thereby justifying the gamble that the situation won’t come to light. Even if the Company is caught, things like this happen all the time. The adverse publicity, if there is any, will blow over, and this is a business risk the Company is willing to take.

The Company in this case is Verizon. The Federal Communications Commission continues its investigation and may start a formal proceeding. But Verizon may have already calculated this into the bottom line cost. More and more U.S. companies are consciously deciding to take on bigger and bigger risks. Stated another way, more and more companies are deciding to be dishonest, whether by design or by simply ignoring facts. Some start out to cheat – inferior raw materials, child labor, the list is endless. Others don’t set out to be dishonest but decide not to correct mistakes because of the expense. In today’s environment most companies feel they can weather the storm.

It was recently reported that GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (GSK) agreed to pay $750 million to settle charges that between 2001 and 2005 they distributed adulterated drugs made at its now-closed manufacturing facility in Cidra, Puerto Rico. Authorities said a corporate whistleblower had filed a lawsuit against GSK under provisions of the U.S. False Claims Act. A GSK spokesperson stated that “We regret that we operated the Cidra facility in a manner that was inconsistent with current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements and with GSK’s commitment to manufacturing quality.  GSK worked hard to resolve fully the manufacturing issues at the Cidra facility prior to its closure in 2009 and we are committed to continuous improvement in our manufacturing processes…”   The GSK Puerto Rico subsidiary, SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc., will plead guilty to a crime and pay a $150 million fine, including forfeiting assets of $10 million. Under a separate agreement, GSK will pay $600 million to settle federal government and related state claims under the False Claims Act. The guilty plea and sentence is not final until accepted by the U.S. District Court in Boston.

In other lawsuits pharma companies have been accused of paying money to doctors to prescribe their brand-name medications and, in some cases, telling physicians to push “off-label” uses of the drugs which is prohibited by federal law. In the last few years pharma companies have paid up to $7 billion in settlements, criminal and civil fines, and have pled guilty to misdemeanor and sometimes felony charges.

While making these admissions, many continue to assert that they use the highest ethical standards in conducting their businesses, or they are in full compliance with FDA requirements and regulations, or that they continue to operate in the best interest of the public.

It is difficult not to read or hear news almost daily about companies getting caught doing something indifferent to the public interest or unethical in one way or another. The stories no longer appear to be the exception but rather are beginning to constitute business as usual and most people really don’t care unless they are directly involved. Have we come to the point that American business is expected to be dishonest? Is bad behavior so common that a case like these don’t even get a second glance?  Are responsible decisions being replaced by risk analysis? And is crisis management being relied on to merely cover one’s tracks?

Is it possible to revert to the good old days when companies tried to do what was right most of the time, and crisis management was a tool relied on to protect and respond to the public interest, as well as enhance and protect reputations.

Portions of this article were published in Bernstein Crisis Management: http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/nl/crisis-manager-101101.html

Tags: , , , , , ,
Blog WebMastered by All in One Webmaster.