Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Happens When Mavericks Act, Well, Like Mavericks

The news is filled with breaks between Sarah Palin and John McCain. McCain's camp is calling Palin a "Diva." Palin's camp is blaming McCain for botching her coming out party. Both are probably right - although it probably is sexist to call her a diva - even though there were "diva" wars several years ago between celebs wanting to be known as the "only true diva," - but that's another blog entry all together.

Back to the question at heart - which is I'm not sure what the problem is. The RNC decided early on that they would brand McCain as a "Maverick." They then decided to bring in Sarah Palin as "Another Maverick." It's not a bad brand to assign. In fact, it ranks rather well in people's minds. Ms. Palin augmented Mr. McCain's maverick brand and as polls showed, gave a real shot to the campaign. The problem wasn't in the concept of the maverick brand, it was in how to keep the brand alive, without it turning into a flat, two dimensional moniker?

As it turns out, it's not an easy tightrope to walk. Just look at a brand like Sketchers. It was a great, counter-culture brand when it first launched. It was a maverick brand. However, once it became popular, the brand realized it had to give up some of its counter culture status in order to make more money. After all, how counter-culture can you be when you're sold in Kmart?

So it made a decision - stay true to its brand, or take a brand shift and make more money. Some brands stay true to themselves and never grow [just walk into any skateboarding store]. Others manage to stay true to the brand and grow to a certain extent [Clif Bars has done an amazing job at keeping a maverick brand alive, while growing well]. Still others, try to keep walking that line, only to realize to late that their market likes the idea of a maverick, but has trouble when that maverick keeps acting, well, like a maverick.

Bottom line, the concept of being a maverick is great on paper. But how do you keep a maverick in line so that they give a consistent message day in and day out? Even more important - how do you keep a maverick on message?

Once you do, they're no longer a maverick.

Again, great on paper - impossible to maintain over the long term...


Friday, October 3, 2008

When The U.S. Government Gives Kickbacks...

Well, I you were ever wondering how Washington really works, this $700 Billion bailout bill is an education in what really goes on to turn a bill into a law.

We start with an innocuous bill that taxpayers will fund to the tune of $700 Billion to pay to keep our economy shored up. It seems to me very simple. However, in order to get the money meant to bail out the Wall Street Wizards to the Wall Street Wizards, our elected officials had to be incentivized to vote for it. Some could call it a bribe, some could call it a kickback, but I think the official term is money being "earmarked" to a specific cause. Hence the reason for all the extras being added to what one would assume is a very simple, straightforward bill.

Imagine if you will a conversation like this:

Senator #1 – “Senator – will you vote for this bill meant to help keep America's financial system afloat and keep us out of another great depression?”
Senator #2 – “I don’t think so.”
Senator #1 – “What if we added on a little something for your home constituents?”
Senator #2 – “Well I’m liking it more and more now. What exactly are we talking about?”
Senator #1 – “Hmmmmmmm, well, would that wooden arrow manufacturer who helped pay for your campaign last year like some money?”
Senator #2 – “Where do I sign Senator?”

Lo and behold, the bill gets passed. How else do you explain what has been added to the bailout bill:



- $2 million tax benefit for makers of wooden arrows for children

- $100 million tax break to benefit auto racetrack owners

- $192 million in rebates on excise taxes for the Puerto Rican/Virgin Islands rum industry

- $148 million in tax relief for U.S. wool fabric producers

- $49 million tax benefit for plaintiffs who sued over the 1989 tanker Exxon Valdez spill.

All of which you are paying for.

It’s a little different than how School House Rock explained it when I was a kid, but welcome to Washington…