I mean really. The NYS Republicans talked several NYS Democrats into joining their side. Then the Democrats locked everyone out of the capital. So, becuase one side had a key and the other didn't nobody could do anything for several weeks. Then several Democrats decide they'll become Democrats again. Meanwhile all of this is because of "deals" struck.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!
Doesn't this all kind of sound like 1890's fat politicians bribing, paying kickbacks, and giving out favors? As the Times reported "Under the deal, Senator Malcolm A. Smith of Queens will be president for an undetermined period of time, and Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn will be the leader of the Democratic caucus. Details of the arrangement were explained by Mr. Smith at a news conference."
If we're going to go back to this kind of politics, can't we at least bring back the hookers, alcohol, and graft that made politics fun in the first place.
Branding? It's just all coated with slime. And not the good kind either.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sometimes Shutting Up Is the Best Policy
So what's going on with Dick Cheney? He had his 8 years in the spotlight, outpacing Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, by immeasurable time. But he just wouln't let it lie. Now, there's nothing wrong with standing by your convictions - no matter how misplaced they are. But there is something wrong in believing your own press. Bottom line, there's often a better way to go about getting your agenda through, than just forcing it into the public eye.
Not only is he becoming known as the only politician who is doing more public speaking after he left office than when he was in the office, but his ratings keep dropping every time he speaks. Based on a CNN poll, fifty-five percent of people questioned still have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president.
And what about George Bush - who hasn't said a thing in public since leaving the oval office?
In the same timeframe, “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.” Or so says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
So what's the brand lesson in this? Sometimes it just best to say nothing. Sometimes it is best to build a consensus before going public. Sometimes it is far better to stay away from your the press than pushing an agenda through it. And at absolutely no time, should you stop looking at the polls. Agree or disagree with them, but you only get yourself in trouble by ignoring them.
Not only is he becoming known as the only politician who is doing more public speaking after he left office than when he was in the office, but his ratings keep dropping every time he speaks. Based on a CNN poll, fifty-five percent of people questioned still have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president.
And what about George Bush - who hasn't said a thing in public since leaving the oval office?
In the same timeframe, “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.” Or so says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
So what's the brand lesson in this? Sometimes it just best to say nothing. Sometimes it is best to build a consensus before going public. Sometimes it is far better to stay away from your the press than pushing an agenda through it. And at absolutely no time, should you stop looking at the polls. Agree or disagree with them, but you only get yourself in trouble by ignoring them.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
It's Not The Time For Mauve
Mauve. Can you think of a worse color? It's not a matter of liking the particular hue or tone. It's more a matter of what mauve stands for. Which in my humbel opinion is blah. Not even a capitalized BLAH, but simply blah. It's not a nothing color - which can be profound. Instead, it's a color of mediocrity. It reminds me of a Ford Granada, circa 1977, or a K Car. It reminds me of a patio set in a mid-west suburb. It reminds me of a company or a person who has just given up and decided it's better to do time on Maple Drive than it is to take a stab at doing something.
Mauve. It's not the time for mauve. Not that there is ever a time for mauve. But now, more than ever is the time to make a stand, to step up with midnight black, or fire-engine red, or natural heather even. Now is the time to do something bold. Because if you don't you'll just fade into the pack and remain as much of a standout as the K Car.
If this isn't the time, then there will never be one.
Mauve. It's not the time for mauve. Not that there is ever a time for mauve. But now, more than ever is the time to make a stand, to step up with midnight black, or fire-engine red, or natural heather even. Now is the time to do something bold. Because if you don't you'll just fade into the pack and remain as much of a standout as the K Car.
If this isn't the time, then there will never be one.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Party First, Country Second
I'm confused. Very confused. How can a Rush Limbaugh say he hopes the President fails, in the same breath he speaks about being a patriot? How can he even begin to think it's okay to put the success of his political party above the success of the President of the United States, and of the United States itself?
Without delving into politics too much, it is unconscionable that any pundit, newscaster, or even shock radio/tv host [whether it's Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh] who calls themselves a patriot or true American, can wish that the President fails. "I deal in principles, not polls," wash Rush's response. So I ask, what principles are they, that he holds so dear? Is his principle and brand about "Damn America as a democratic state, and win at all costs?" If so, then his message is right on target.
Without delving into politics too much, it is unconscionable that any pundit, newscaster, or even shock radio/tv host [whether it's Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh] who calls themselves a patriot or true American, can wish that the President fails. "I deal in principles, not polls," wash Rush's response. So I ask, what principles are they, that he holds so dear? Is his principle and brand about "Damn America as a democratic state, and win at all costs?" If so, then his message is right on target.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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...
"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...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
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.
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....
Saturday, February 7, 2009
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
