I've yet to watch the 'United States of Tara' but gather that, like such predecessors as 'The three faces of Eve' and 'Sybil', the TV show's lead character suffers from multiple personality disorder.

According to a recently published report, it seems the doughnut-dispensing king of kings, Krispy Kreme, may be experiencing its own personality disorder.

Long known for its calorie-laden, artery-hardening breakfast fare, double K is now adding oatmeal, yogurt and fruit juice to its menu. Say what? They're also opting for specialty coffees, espressos and lattes. Really? A latte and doughnut? Talk about oil and water. That's positively schizophrenic.

KK is obviously following the clowns at McDonald's, who've tried to re-position themselves as something other than the primary cause of America's obesity problems.

While not nearly as prolific or visible as the Mickey D's, Krispy Kreme has nonetheless played a nice, supporting role in fattening us up for the kill. In fact, those warm, sugary doughnuts are the dietary equivalent of an edible IED that will blow apart one's arteries faster than a Seal6 team can put a bullet in a terrorist's skull.

I think it's disingenuous, if not deceitful, to sell fast food junk at one end of the counter and healthy, nutritious alternatives on the other. It's also a real image and reputation challenge. I just can't envision Biff and Margot zipping their Jaguar past a Starbucks to, instead, drop in on a KK before heading to their tennis and pilates classes, respectively. It just doesn't compute.

Krispy Kreme has a winning, if tremendously unhealthy, formula. Why mess with success? Brands get into trouble when they begin confusing end users.

That said, I would enjoy seeing KK tackle its multiple personality disorder with a clever tagline. Maybe something along the lines of: 'We're healthy! No, we're not! Yes, we are! Stop saying that! I say we're healthy. And, I say doughnuts are unhealthy. Guys, guys: You two MUST stop arguing all the time. Hey, who asked for third party advice? So, like I was saying, we're unhealthy! No, we're not….'

A study commissioned by the PRSA revealed that only 16 percent of our nation's top MBA programs offer ANY sort of public relations course at all. The finding is both absurd and perfectly understandable.

It's absurd since the movers and shakers who create B-school curricula have yet to grasp the instantaneous impact a negative image and reputation can have on an organization. Have they been asleep at the wheel as leaders and their organizations have flamed out on nightly newscasts for the past 15 years or so? To bring them up to speed, I'd start my lecture with a case study of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky tale, mix in some Dennis Kozlowski and Jeff Skilling anecdotes and finish with a flourish that includes a cocktail of Tony Hayward, the Governator and Anthony Weiner.

On the other hand, I completely understand why MBA programs WOULD overlook PR. Like everyone else, B-school types see PR as little more than celebrity party planning managed by gum-chewing, language-mangling morons, 'Um, like, I'm so hoping Jay-Z shows up at, like, our Lotus party tonight.'

Until, and unless, the various PR trade organizations band together to present a correct, and cohesive, portrait of PR's vital role in the success of any CEO or organization, MBA programs will continue to dismiss it as a soft skill unworthy of their attention. Oh, and until and unless, undergraduate PR academics FORCE their students to take an economics elective or two, executives will continue to believe we don't understand the business of their business.

The PRSA study paints a bleak picture of the future and should serve as a clarion call to all of us in positions of power to do something about it now (i.e. The Arthur W. Page Society has a special committee whose charge is to interact with B-schools. What's their plan of action in light of this disturbing report? The Council of PR Firms provides superb workshops that are often led by B-school professors. But, what's their strategy for inserting PR into an MBA student's coursework?).

Meanwhile, PR trade publications are positively glowing in their profiles of chief communications officers who've earned a seat at the table and are making decisions that have real, bottom-line impact. But, like our nation's politicians, I think the trade media are losing sight of the future by focusing on the here and now.

If we don't act to change the 16 percent factor now, I'm less than sanguine about PR's EVER gaining a permanent seat at the table.

So, who's up for creating a cross-organizational initiative to educate the educators? Someone needs to pay attention to PR's fate 25 years down the road. And, that someone should be you (and me).

The Department of Health and Human Services just released their final selection of nine new graphic warning labels for the top half of cigarette packages.  

The images are fairly stark, and include photos of horribly damaged teeth and lungs and a man exhaling smoke through a tracheotomy opening in his neck. That can't be very pleasurable (nor, can it be much of a turn-on for his significant other).

Naturally, the four leading tobacco companies are up in arms, saying the new images will '…unfairly hurt their property and free-speech rights by obscuring their brand names in retail displays, demonizing the companies and stigmatizing smokers.' Yeah, back off! I'll bet good ol' Sarah Palin would agree, and cite this as yet another example of 'big government' trying to live our lives for us.

Who cares if smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death, killing 443,000 Americans a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? And, so what if each and every day an estimated 4,000 youths try their first cigarette and 1,000 a day become regular smokers? Smoking's a sure-fire way to simultaneously limit overpopulation while preserving what's left of our nation's Social Security funds.

Besides, smokers say the new graphics won't change their minds. One 46-year-old pawnbroker shrugged when shown the new images and said, '(They're) telling me things we already know. I'll still be smoking.' Good for you, sir. See you at Forest Lawn in the not-too-distant future.

Another 28-year-old female smoker said, 'There are lots of other high risks out there, you know. Obesity is huge.' Ha. Nice pun. You go girl. Puff on.

Nearly 20 percent of all Americans smoke cigarettes, a figure that's held steady for the past seven years. I'd liken this group to America's permanent underclass, a number I've seen estimated at 30 million. Like the permanently poor, America's smokers simply can't, or won't, do anything to change their lives.

The real villains aren't the cigarette companies. The bad guys are the advertising and PR firms who willingly take the cigarette companies' hefty fees and keep on promoting what amounts to a world-class killing machine. If I were running the 4As or The Council of PR Firms, I'd insist that any member firm representing a cigarette maker have an asterisk next to its name. The asterisk would read: 'Playing our part in killing half a billion Americans annually.'

As for the visuals on the cigarette packs, why not go all the way? Slap on tombstones and cadavers. And, why not offer a limited edition of, say, Camel cigarettes that are personally signed by the Grim Reaper himself? Now, there's a keepsake any smoker would proudly frame and display over the mantel.

In yesterday’s blog, I sang the praises of the greatest advertising man of his day, David Ogilvy. Unlike his peers, Mr. Ogilvy began his career as a salesman. And, he never lost sight of the fact that advertising exists for one, and only one, reason: to sell a client’s products and services. Were he alive today, I’d like to think Ogilvy would rail at the countless print and broadcast ads that do anything but sell.

Here’s a classic case-in-point. Do me a favor and double click on this TV spot and try to watch all 90 seconds.

In my opinion, the ad fails on all four counts of the Harvard Business Review’s classic criteria for the customer decision journey. They include:

1.)  Consideration. Within a nanosecond or two, the average viewer will either fast forward or channel surf to avoid seeing the remainder of the TV spot. Why? Because it looks like a trailer for yet another slasher/thriller/bloodlust teen flick.

2.)  Evaluation. One doesn’t even see the actual Dirt Devil product until the final seconds. How does one consider the effectiveness of the product? By its ability to suck the Linda Blair-type character up to the ceiling of the floor below? That ploy might be considered clever. But, clever doesn’t sell. Credibility does.

3.)  Evaluate. How can one possibly evaluate the Dirt Devil with its competitors when the ‘product claim’ is so utterly outrageous? Give me an infomercial that shows a vacuum cleaner picking up real-world dust and debris, and I’ll consider it for my next purchase.

4.)  Buy. Enjoy. Advocate. This one’s a non-starter. Will the TV spot inspire you to buy a Dirt Devil when you next visit a home appliance store? Not likely, unless you’re also in need of ridding your home of a poltergeist. Since the ad fails miserably, you’d neither buy, enjoy nor advocate on the appliance’s behalf.

Let me tell you why there are so many terrible print and broadcast advertisements today. It’s because most creative directors have lost sight of David Ogilvy’s original vision. Advertising is supposed to sell. Instead, creative directors see themselves as the next Steven Spielberg and are much more focused on winning a Gold Lion at the Cannes Advertising Festival (which is happening as we speak) than in meeting the customer decision criteria. Spots like this win awards. And, they inflate the egos and elevate the salaries of the award-winning creative directors. But, they DO NOT sell product.

That’s why PR is winning the war for the consumer’s mindshare. We’d never insult the intelligence of a buyer with an ersatz riff on ‘the Exorcist’. Instead, we’d go to where consumers are discussing home appliances (be it online, offline, or both). We’d listen to their pain points as well as their wants and needs. We’d determine how best to engage in those conversations. And, then, and only then, would we posit value-added advice from the makers of Dirt Devil. Our intent would be to achieve all four of the Harvard Business Review’s criteria, but to do so in a thoughtful, respectful and credible way.

As Ogilvy once famously said, ‘The consumer is not a moron. She’s your wife. Don’t insult her.’ The Dirt Devil commercial is an insult to the intelligence of every home appliance buyer, whether they be male, female or somewhere in-between.

The public relations industry has founding fathers (i.e. Bernays, Page and Lee). And, lord knows, we've had builders (i.e. Hill, Golin, Byoir and, of course, Burson). But, we've never had a true leader or statesman along the lines of advertising's legendary David Ogilvy.

Adweek recently honored the iconic adman, who would have turned 100 this past week. In addition to being a prolific writer (his 'confessions of an advertising man' remains a must read for ANY marcom wanna-be), Ogilvy rose from rags to riches and changed advertising in a profound and fundamental way.

As Michael Wolff's profile states, Ogilvy arrived on the advertising scene just after World War II. But, saying he arrived is like saying a tornado visited Kansas. Ogilvy roared into Manhattan with an entirely new POV, a brand new set of rules and an idea of what an adman should be (name any PR executive who has accomplished even one of the three). In fact, Wolff likened Ogilvy to being the Steve Jobs of advertising.

Some of Ogilvy's seminal thoughts included:

 - 'The consumer is not a moron. She is your wife. Don't insult her intelligence.' (Note: The same holds true today, but for my gender. Just about every ad and commercial on TV insults the intelligence of men).

 - 'Bad advertising can unsell a product.' (Note: The folks at Comcast should take that piece of advice to heart before launching the next 'Comcastic' campaign).

– 'You cannot bore people into buying your product, you can only interest them in buying it.' (Note: the late Mr. Ogilvy would turn over in his grave if he read the headline of just about any press release announcing a new software product).

– 'Talent, I believe, is most likely to be found among nonconformists, dissenters and rebels.' (Note: All three are an endangered species at holding company PR firms).

Ogilvy was also famous for calling the CEO of the holding company that eventually purchased his firm, '…an odious little shit.' Ah, such honesty.

The public relations industry finds itself in an enviable position today as social media continues to unwind traditional communications channels. As Ogilvy's advertising successors find their massive campaigns being slashed and burned PR, with its innate ability to 'understand the conversation', is in the perfect position to scoop up the billings.

But, make no mistake. We don't have anyone remotely close to a David Ogilvy to put it all in context and provide that rare mix of vision, rules and advocacy. I think there are two reasons why:

– CEOs of holding company PR firms are justifiably afraid to say anything that would undermine other marketing services within the conglomerate.

– CEOs of the large independent firms are too busy selling new business to step back and reflect on the larger meaning of it all.

Advertising was blessed to have had a David Ogilvy. He was in the right spot at the right time and elevated his profession to an art form. PR is at a similar crossroads. We have a rare opportunity to leapfrog the other professions and firmly establish ourselves as the 'go-to' medium in the second decade of the 21st century. All we're lacking is a gutsy, gifted visionary with a bully pulpit.

Maybe The Council of PR Firms should take a page out of the advertising playbook and place a help wanted ad. Here's my suggested copy.

'Wanted: A gifted leader with superb oral and written skills, an intrinsic understanding of the consumer mindset and a willingness to ruffle feathers as she/he elevates the PR profession in the process. Salary and perks negotiable.'