This story is unusually gruesome for one that is covered here on the Purchasing Certification Blog. But I can\u2019t help but see the procurement tie-in, no matter how indirect.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t miss updates on Procurement & Supply Chain, Subscribe here!<\/p>\n
Ryan Jenkins, a contestant on VH1\u2019s reality show \u201cMegan Wants a Millionairre,\u201d had apparently killed his wife, removed her fingers and teeth to impede identification, ran from authorities across both the USA and Canada, and was eventually found in a motel room after his own suicide. Yeah. Not a story you\u2019d expect to see here.<\/p>\n
What gets me is the old point-the-finger-at-the-supplier drama that unfolded. The media obviously pounced on VH1 with a \u201chow could you let someone like this on your show?\u201d investigation.<\/p>\n
VH1\u2019s response? They blamed their supplier.<\/p>\n
VH1 told the Washington Post \u201cRyan Jenkins was a contestant on \u2018Megan Wants a Millionaire\u2019 \u2014 an outside production, produced and owned by 51 Minds, that is licensed to VH1.\u201d According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, VH1 claims that \u201call outside production companies are responsible for the screening\/vetting process of contestants for reality TV shows.\u201d<\/p>\n
So VH1 essentially washes its hands of any association with a perpetrator of such a crime. Convenient, huh?<\/p>\n
51 Minds then, to help absolve their customer while also pointing the finger at their <\/em>supplier, issues a statement saying: \u201cThe company did have in place what it thought was a thorough vetting process that involved complete background checks by an outside company<\/strong> (emphasis added) for all contestants on its shows\u2026Clearly, the process did not work properly in this case. 51 Minds is investigating what went wrong and taking steps to ensure that this sort of lapse never occurs again.\u201d<\/p>\n But isn\u2019t it a company\u2019s job to make sure that it suppliers perform properly? Shouldn\u2019t choosing and maintaining a relationship with a supplier have some type of responsibility attached to it?<\/p>\n Perhaps CEO\u2019s have a hidden, strategic reason to support outsourcing. They might be thinking \u201cIf something goes wrong, we won\u2019t have to take the blame.\u201d<\/p>\n If so, that\u2019s sad. There\u2019s no excuse to not know what failures are bound to happen within your supply base.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This story is unusually gruesome for one that is covered […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":4137,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2744","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-procurement"],"yoast_head":"\n