We, as an industry, should certainly be proud of the number of good and worthy causes available to us to support, several of which are noteworthy 'not for profits' operating primarily from within and with the support of our sector. And more recently, industry efforts at self-policing have begin to step up, largely directed by industry trade association led or supported activities targeted at misleading advertising or product quality.

I commend, in general terms, these initiatives.

Maybe it's just that I'm more impatient than most, or maybe still too much of an idealist, but I personally want to see more - and sooner. I want to see more actions against those abusing consumer and business partner trust and I want to see these actions 'in the public eye'.

On the flip side, with all of these activities available to support, companies must choose carefully where a finite amount of dollars will go. Lest we stretch all programs unbelievably thin, we must evaluate the absolute value of each and every program against two fundamental criteria - overall benefit and corporate benefit, (hopefully the two are aligned) and make appropriate decisions. In a couple cases, though, there is program overlap, in mission if not in project specifics, that give cause for a close examination of where these finite dollars are allocated. While a consumer ad campaign is different from a consumer PR campaign, not too long ago, the organization currently executing the ad campaign commenced a PR campaign as its first initiative - with negligible results, and some would say, a squandering of scarce resources. Perhaps better design and vision will lead to better results, and maybe current times are more conducive to such a campaign than they were four or five years ago and so the current PR campaign has merit and potential.

One must hope that there is limited redundancy in all these efforts spending collectively millions of industry dollars. Frankly, I see overlap potential, and perhaps more importantly, I see the potential for dollars to be placed which don't benefit the infrastructure or the core of industry's future.

I firmly believe in self-policing activities with teeth. I firmly believe there are companies operating (and advertising) that shouldn't be allowed to, and I'm pleased that NPIcenter, wthinin its larger New Hope Natural Media environment, operates under the New Hope advertising standards program.

Other self-policing initiatives currently underway or being contemplated, have merit, and hopefully will have the required teeth. It would be a terrible shame if multi-million dollar PR or advertising programs came undone due to flawed industry infrastructure. Infrastructure, in our case, relies on quality, compliance and the efficacy of our products. While self-policing programs can arguably take care of the first two elements, who takes care of the third?

As has been said recently on more than a few occasions, where's the science?