Giving Your Addicted Child An Allowance

"Mom, dad, can I have another sixteen billion dollars?"

"Hmmmmm, well honey, what did you do with the thirteen billion we just gave you?"

"Uh, spent it?"

"Spent it? On what?"

"Things...."

Well, you get the idea. GM is addicted to doing business the same old way it has always done business. It hasn't developed new products that consumers are actually looking for. It hasn't opened its eyes to the resource problem we and the rest of the world are having with oil. It hasn't, in the face of failure, shown an ability to get off its addiction to antiquated thinking and given anyone the least bit of assurance that it can, in fact, change.

Aside from the fact that General Motors can't seem to manage its business. It's definately not carrying through on its brand promise for being an innovative, forward thinking company. Instead, it's showing itself as a tired, old company, set in its ways, and groaning about how bad things are. Hmmmmm, would you buy a tired old man on a porch?

Perhaps I'm being overly harsh on this. After all, they did just shed Hummer. Okay, not quite forward thinking, but it's a step. And they did create the Saturn concept. Which while admittedly was innovative in the 80s, their decision to hide it in the closet in the 90s, leads me to think more of a [once again] tired old man too embarassed when his kid dyed her hair green and started listening to Kurt Cobain.

So even if they do survive, what will their brand be remembered for? Have they already tarnished it so badly with their management [or lack thereof]? Or do they have to hire someone under 50 who can truly reinvent the company.

Hmmmmm, wait a minute, isn't that what we're doing with Barack Obama and the United States?

Well, perhaps both brands can be saved after all. It will be an interesting year...

Starbucks - 25 Years In The Making & Gone In An Instant...

So last week, the purveyor of high end coffee drinks, the self-promoted creator of luxury coffee, the name that taught Americans what was acceptable and not acceptable in making a good cup of joe - announced it was launching an instant coffee.

Instant?

As in Maxwell house? As in Folgers? As in Taster's Choice? As in a product known for bad taste, cheap, and lousy?

Why, after spending all those years impressing on people the need to roast the beans just right, to use only spring water, heated to just the right temperature, and served by a practiced professional, would they now say, they can give you the same great taste in an instant, powered coffee? Why would they undermine their brand by aligning it with a bottom of the barrel category?

UBS analyst David Palmer, said of the instant coffee - "It's no big deal," he says. "What's different about soluble coffee is that it's equated with poor quality."

Hmmmmmmm, would a company really undermine its brand and long-term prospects to leverage that brand for some very short-term profits? Apparently so.

What's next? Will Tiffany's start producing cubit zirconium rings? Will Chanel start making $29.95 plastic handbags?

Hmmmmmm, there may be a reason brand leaders are very careful about ensuring their products match their brands.

Let's all watch and see what happens when Starbucks - "Seattle's Best" puts its toe in the worst coffee category. Will it become Seattle's Worst?

This could be more fun than watching Coca Cola try and launch New Coke. We all know how well that turned out....

Kelloggs - Get Real

So dropping Michael Phelps because he happened to smoke marijuana is Kellogg's way of supporting athletes and making a commitment to their growth. I hate to tell you Kelloggs, this isn't 1955, and today's kids don't eat their wheaties while waiting to work at dad's accounting firm. This is the 21st century where star athletes are under unbelievable pressure to perform. Not just in their venue, but 24/7.

Think about Michael Phelps. He's what 23? He's been doing nothing but training every day for the last six years. He won more medals at the olympics than can fit around his neck. He takes a break and makes one mistake by trusting his friends while he parties. And boom! You turn around and drop him as a bad influence on America's youth. Doesn't say much about your commitment to your athletes. It doesn't say much about your standing behind America's principles. Actually, it sounds more like a company that cuts and runs at the tiniest hint of bad news. Why not admonish the snake who took the photos and sold them? That would have been a stronger move, and one that would have bought you a lot more respect.

What do your actions say about your brand? In my humble opinion, it tells me that you're a brand that only stands by your friends as long as the skies are clear and the sun is shining. Let's just hope your product never has a rainy day.

Oh yes, I would be very curious to know how your executives unwind after a bad quarter? Something tells me it's not all apple pie and freshly scrubbed faces...