I recently submitted an article to one of the online publishing sites. It was rejected for broaching their rule of using company names in the content.

I used the spelling “excelerate” versus the correct spelling — accelerate — since I have trademarked the term Performance Excelerator^TM. I always use this spelling. It is part of my brand.

But because the term Performance Excelerator is trademarked in my author signature they rejected this spelling.

The publisher wants to avoid self promotion within their articles and maintain the integrity of the article content and their site. All appropriate objectives that most authors are very happy to follow — including myself.

I wrote and explained it was the spelling I always used and not to do so would be inconsistent with my branding.

I was not promoting my company name (Bill Hogg & Associates), nor was I drawing attention to the specific word for promotional purposes through bolding. It was just spelled differently in line with my trademarked name The Performance Excelerator.

While I hoped they would see the reason why this guideline should be waived in my case, I recognized the reasoning behind their guideline and was willing to forego publishing the article rather than use the correct spelling.

Upon review, they published the article based on this special circumstance.

My Perspective: Even a rule that is in place for all the right reasons may need to be broken given certain circumstances. Having a guideline that is based on an outcome that is widely understood allowed someone in the organization to make a decision based on the specific circumstance.

Are your rules supported by clear guidelines that provide guidance if a unique circumstance arises that isn’t covered by the rules?