Empty Bladders

The pissing contest between Ottawa Life Magazine (OLM) and the LCBO seems to be (forgive me) petering out. According to OLM’s May issue, the LCBO, regrettably but not surprisingly, has refused to answer questions from OLM about $6 million in management bonuses paid out by the LCBO in 2008, which OLM first raised in its January issue.

Both the LCBO and OLM should climb down off their high horses. The LCBO missed a great chance to show corporate responsibility by answering OLM’s questions. Not doing so certainly leaves the impression that they have something to hide. Mind you, perhaps OLM’s whiny approach and repeated poking of the LCBO in the eye about the bonuses, while demanding a response, has something to do with it.

This time around, OLM has responses on the bonus issue from the Premier’s office (not much comfort for OLM there), and from the Opposition Leader and the NDP Leader. Both Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath take the opportunity to beat up on the government over financial management in general, but are careful not to be drawn too much into OLM’s obsession over the (relatively) small issue of LCBO’s management bonuses. (OLM certainly tries valiantly to make the connection.) Interestingly, neither Hudak nor Horwath supports privatizing the LCBO. And both want the LCBO to do more to promote Ontario VQA wines. Here! Here!

Subscribing to this blog through RSS or email is easy! Just click on the subscribe link to the left ←

Oh, Gee…Now It’s a Pissing Contest!

The March edition of Ottawa Life Magazine (OLM) follows up on its article examining LCBO practices, published in the January edition.  [Read my post about the January article]  In “LCBO Strings Attached”, OLM’s editor details the back-and-forth communication he’s had with the LCBO since publication of the article. An interesting read, it’s hard to figure out who’s on the higher horse: the LCBO or OLM.

The LCBO enjoys a privileged status in the marketplace. That status comes with some countervailing burdens. A government agency like the LCBO should expect a higher level of journalistic scrutiny than, say, a private sector entity. If LCBO management think it’s unfair, that’s naïve. In my view, the LCBO needs to take a more open and cooperative attitude towards the media. The LCBO controls much of what happens in the liquor business in Ontario. But fighting with the media, trying the control the story, even if you think the coverage is unfair or inaccurate, is a losing game for the LCBO. If anything, it promotes the impression that the LCBO really does have problems to hide.

As for OLM, which seems to think that the LCBO has a culture of entitlement, there’s a certain “tone of entitlement” from OLM too. After it was contacted by the LCBO about the January article, OLM asked for an interview with the LCBO’s CEO, which the LCBO turned down. It’s not stated whether OLM asked to interview anyone else from LCBO management, but it leaves the impression that only the CEO would do. In support for its position in criticizing the LCBO, OLM gives over large chunks of space to quote the Leader of the Ontario Conservative Party and the Ontario NDP Leader, who are both (surprise!) critical of the government’s oversight of the LCBO. OLM also publishes the LCBO’s written response to the January article but can’t resist inserting its own rebuttal to each of the LCBO’s points as they are made. (Indeed, OLM’s rebuttals take up more space than the points the LCBO is making.)

I’m no fan of either the LCBO or OLM in this. OLM raised some valid points in its January article. The LCBO should respond, in detail, to those points so that its stakeholders, the Ontario voters, understand the LCBO’s practices, even if some don't agree with all of them. And the OLM should serve its readers better by finding a way to get the LCBO’s side of the story into print. After that, we can make up our own minds about who's right.  C’mon, you two, you owe it to us.

[UPDATE]

Subscribing to this blog through RSS or email is easy! Just click on the subscribe link to the left ←