Andrew Cuomo - Showing a Scary Brand Consistency

There was an incredible article that was at once innocent, insightful, and scary. I appeared in the New York Times this weekend [Sunday, June 20, 2010] about Andrew Cuomo. Well, not about him, per se, but about his choice in partners and their ability to cook. It also speaks to the truth behind the Cuomo brand and to what we could expect from him if he assumes office in the future. Now, I know politicians are famouse for their ability to spin facts. But this article adds a new way to uncover the truth - I call it the lasagna factor.

To some, my take on this article may seem a throwback to another era of housewives dutifully putting a hot meal on a table. But to me, nothing speaks about character as honestly as food does. And this one speaks to Mr. Cuomo's character. Now, I don't mind that he chose a "perfect housewife" to round out his reputation for a harsh personality. After all, he was called the dark prince" when he first joined politics on his father's campaign at the young age of 24 for a reason. I do wonder what he must have done to be called the "dark prince" while working for dad's campaign at the tender age of 24. But that is neither here nor there.

The article innocently enough deals with the lasagna recipe his girlfriend, significant other, or whatever he wants us to call her, had included in her cookbook. Simply put, it was disgusting, and something that does not bode well for the food channel [condensed Cambell's tomatoe soup instead of a sauce? cottage chese?]. Now, I can't speak for all people, but I think the levels of disgust that come in the form of 144+ comments [at the time of writing] on his choice of mates and their recipes from around the country are consistent enough to add credence to a Lasagna test for all candidates.

Andrew Cuomo's own mother refers to the recipe in question by noting "that is not how you make a lasagna." It is as if readers from every walk of life can ascertain the true nature of a person by the food they make. And they are disgusted that Sandra Lee's "recipe from a sponsor jar" approach tells us exactly what he is peddling - a badly wrought image that will crumble faster than a highschool cafeteria lasagna.

To me, Sandra's lasagna brings to mind a larger question. If this is they way his significant partner cooks and acts [i.e., badly and as a bought and paid for pitch person], if this demonstrates her belief in the integrity of a family meal, then what does this say about the way he will manage the State of New York?

Perhaps it says nothing at all. Or perhaps it says that if he will compromise on one of the most basic of needs for himself - the food he eats and the company he keeps - what will he do for the State of New York?


In my opinion, something as simple as lasagna speaks to the very essence of who anyone is. It is a family meal that centers on the love of simple food, of real ingredients, and on putting in the time to make it right. Is this who Andrew Cuomo is? Because this recipe speaks of a person who couldn't care less about the food they eat, or the people they dine with. It speaks more to a person willing to sell out his own integrity to build an image he wants to portray, rather than to be himself. It speaks to a person who is trying hard to create a brand for himself that is diametrically opposed to the real him. We saw what this approach led to when Elliot Spitzer became Governor. We also saw what happened when the "green petroleum" company BP failed to live up to their brand.

So for me, the humble dish of lasagna says it all. It says I do not like where Mr. Cuomo is going. And yes, I can say that, after reading Ms. Lee's recipe, all of this can be tied to something as simple as a lasagna recipe and the way a person cooks.

http://alturl.com/tjdx

Just take a look at the recipe yourself. The lasagna tells all!

Jeff Cannon

Think Cannon

http://www.thinkcannon.com/

Is Twitter Weighing Itself Down, or who created the Fail Whale?

This morning I logged into Twitter for what I thought would be a simple post. I came in at 102 words, incorporated a short URL into the message, as well as a few hash marks, and clicked to Tweet. Low and behold, that magic whale came up and told me "Something is technically wrong. Please try again in a moment."

Hmmmmmm, something is wrong? I waited. I clicked again. The same white whale came up. Is something wrong I asked myself? I saved my message, logged out and logged back in. Only to receive the same message. Is something wrong with me? Or is it Twitter? Is the hardware not up to the task Twitter created? Did the people behind this phenomenon underestimate the power of their own PR and media placements? Did they not read their own coverage? Or perhaps they just didn't trust it.

Well, I just could not resist. So I went to the old reliable standby - Google. I Googled "Twitter Whale." There were 8,440,000 results - and none of them good. That's more than Moby Dick gets, and he's been around a long while. I then Googled "Fail Whale" as the Twitter whale is being called by 2,450,000 sites. Hmmmmm, I think they may have started another phenomenon without even trying. I also think they could stand to learn something from the American auto industry. In fact, I think they could learn something from a book on customer experience in order to realize they have a massive problem brewing. Or has it already been over-brewed?

Don't get me wrong. It's great that Twitter was created. It's great that it grew so quickly. In many ways it has become the 21st Century version of the 1-sheet that Winston Churchill created when he told his staff never to approach him with an idea unless they could reduce it into one 8 1/2" by 11" of paper that is known as the 1-sheet so many of us rely on. Twitter forces us to put our ideas into a concise line of text that is less than 140 characters. Not so easy for many people who just love to ramble.

However, those 140 characters of brilliance [Beiber, Kutcher - are you listening?] are not worth much if they require forty-three minutes of re-clicking a "submit" button. That comes out to almost 3.4 minutes per character typed. At $100 per hour [a billing rate for most agencies], that comes out to about $5.67 per letter.

TWITTER - ARE YOU WORTH $5.67 FOR EVERY CHARACTER I TYPE?

I really don't think so. You're making newspapers seem inexpensive!

Really Twitter, I love what you've done for us. But even Kardashian is cheaper than that. And she gives good tweets.





think
thinkcannon
Think Cannon

Chevy - Still screwing up the old fashioned way

Is it really true that Chevrolet just issued a memo telling its employees not to refer to the brand and company as "Chevy?" Is it really true that they decided the best way to upgrade their brand was to have consumers start calling the company by its full name? Haven't they heard that they don't really own their own brand, but their customers do? They are now brand stewards, but they are still not listening to their customers.

The last time I ran into something like this was in my college days when a very drunk, line-backer looking frat boy accosted me in a party for calling his organization a "frat." His logic was that calling his house a frat was like calling our country a, well you get the picture. I did not get the logic back then, and I still do not get the logic now. Hey, but maybe that same guy is now consulting for Chevy. Who knows, stranger things have happened since college...

Anyway, back to the case at hand. In the memo issued by Chevy [oops, Chevrolet], they refer to such momentous brands as "Coke" and "Apple" as a rationale for why they are insisting on using the full brand name. Uh, "Coke" as in Coca Cola? Or Apple as in when was the last time you heard an Apple product refered to as an "Apple" - what was it 1984? Now Appled products are referred to by their product names iPod, iPad, iFad. Oh wait, for a while people were calling one of the greatest consumer electronics product, the largest computer manufacturer as of late a "Mac." Oh, but that's short for what Macintosh?

Perhaps the marketing execs at Chevy [damnit] are watching too much MadMen? Or perhaps they have chosen to overlook the changes in the advertising industry for the past twenty years, but this decision by Chevy [there I go again] is not even retro. It's just bad marketing.

Newsflash Chevy - YOUR CUSTOMERS LIKE CALLING IT A CHEVY. MOST OF THEM DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT CHEVROLET WAS IN THE 50's. So let it go. People have loved the Chevy ever since Don McLean sang about it. What they don't like is the old stodgy idea of Chevrolet, Nuclear bomb shelters in the back yard, the Cold War, and McCarthy [not the former Beatle].

I have posted the memo below. Please, don't drool when your chin hits your keyboard.


--------------------------

Chevrolet Team,

We wanted to write you a quick note requesting your support of our Chevrolet Brand. When you look at the most recognized brands throughout the world, such as Coke or Apple for instance, one of the things they all focus on is the consistency of their branding. Why is this consistency so important? The more consistent a brand becomes, the more prominent and recognizable it is with the consumer. This is a big opportunity for us
moving forward.

As you know, we are investing substantially to improve the consistency of our retail facilities through the EBE process. Aside from the facilities aspect of our branding, there are many other ways in which we can demonstrate this consistency. One way to achieve this is with the use of Chevrolet vs. Chevy. We’d ask that whether you’re talking to a dealer, reviewing dealer advertising or speaking with friends and family, that you communicate our brand as Chevrolet moving forward.

We have a proud heritage behind us and a fantastic future ahead of us … speaking to the success of this brand in one consistent manner will ensure Chevrolet becomes even more prominent and recognizable than it already is.

Thank you for your support of this effort!

Alan and Jim

P.S. We put a plastic “Chevy” can down the hall that will accept a quarter every time someone uses “Chevy” rather than Chevrolet! We’ll use the money for a team building activity.