Rob Frankel - Branding Expert

Sarah Palin is the new Billy Mays

2009-07-10T09:17:00.000-07:00

The summer of 2009 is likely to be remembered as the Season of Celebrity Death. Even discounting the pervasiveness of new media, I can't recall a time in which so many died so quickly in so short a span of time. I need not list all the celebrities who went on to meet their maker. You already know who they are.

The most notable and over-exposed passing had to have been Michael Jackson, a sad and pathetic caricature whose talent was the only real thing we ever knew. The least announced and mourned was the death of Sarah Palin's career. While Jackson's demise was prolonged to include everything from an American Idol-style tribute show to a fairly tasteless promotion of his father's new record label, far less attention was devoted to the mystery that is Sarah Palin, specifically, why is she quitting -- and where does she go next?

I'm sure all the media talking heads will speculate as to the plans of the not-even-one-full-term governor of Alaska. In her rambling, somewhat incoherent resignation announcement, Palin herself gave no clue as to her plans. The news media "analysts" claim she has a shot at launching her own talk show, in the same manner as Governor Mike Huckabee has done on FOX. Others have put their money on speaking tours, insisting she has the ability to draw huge crowds and substantial speaking fees. Amazingly, there are still a few Republican hold-outs -- true Olympians of denial -- who continue to rearrange the deck chairs on Palin's Titanic and insist she will run for President in 2012.

The answer, at least in my opinion, is the proverbial "E. None of the above."

Palin has squandered what little political capital she ever had in a brilliant two step process. First, she tanked the McCain presidential campaign by violating Benjamin Franklin's sage advice, "Better to keep silent and be though a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." In that race, Palin demonstrated how Americans can be charmed by charisma but not fooled by lack of intellect. From the very first pre-written lipstick joke, it was clear that Palin's talents were not the stuff of great statemanship.

Second, Americans will forgive just about anything: sex scandals, tax problems, you name it. What they won't forgive is a quitter, especially one who rants about not being a quitter while she's resigning from less than a full term in office. This is America. When the going gets tough, the tough get going -- but not out the back door. As far as Palin is concerned, the only thing she can run for is the midtown bus.

What, then, is left for Sarah to do? Those who hope to see her on the lecture circuit will be profoundly disappointed as she proves to be the political equivalent of Octo-Mom, likely with the same career half-life. People with short attention spans can only stand to hear the same one-note sonata springing from her lipstick hockey mom mouth for a certain amount of time.

And this is why the world needs more brand strategists. See, Palin has talents and attributes. They're just misplaced. She's engaging, fun -- and perfectly shallow. In the right circumstances, she actually could be a mega-star. It's just that politics is the way wrong theater. The right place, however, has been providentially carved out for her and laid at her feet:

Sarah Palin should be the next Billy Mays.

You think I'm kidding? I've been taunted for less, you know. But if you add it all up, it makes perfect sense. Sarah Palin could never sell Americans on health care or tax reform, but I guarantee you she could move boatloads of Pocket Fisherman or Mighty Putty. She's likeable enough to be a guest on a talk show, but doesn't have the chops to last longer as a host of a talk show. Regrettable as it is, the death of Billy Mays leaves a vacuum to be filled: a likeable, fun, get-in-and-out-in-60-seconds pitchman whose primary connection is with the primary telejunk-purchasers that are the heart and soul of QVC and HSN: housewives and working moms.

There's lots of doubt in my mind about Palin's ability to sell foreign policy, but none whatsoever about her ability to sell wrinkle remover and gun polish. In fact, there's nothing in the combined QVC and HSN inventory that Palin couldn't charm out of the wallets of an unsuspecting American public.

Where I come from, you leverage your strengths and mitigate the weaknesses. Sarah, if you're listening, there's a truckload of vegetable slicers with your name on it.

Beheading General Motors

2009-06-04T14:28:00.000-07:00

Now that the other shoe has dropped, the world continues to speculate about the prospects of General Motors, the recently crashed-and-severely-burned mega-enterprise that was once considered "too big to fail." Pundits on the right claim the government has no business being in business. Liberals on the left cry that the government isn't doing enough. Unfortunately, both sides are way off course, not even close to where the real problems are.

The problem with General Motors isn't down on the factory floor. It's not even in their operations or dealerships or research & development. In fact, those guys are doing pretty well. The real problem with GM is right up there, on the top floor of their executive offices, where the empty suits are destined to repeat the very same mistakes that got them into this mess.

Think I'm kidding? Watch this:

More of the same old, tired promises we've always heard from the American car industry. More hot air from the tailpipes of the Deutsch Agency, GM's tried-and-failed advertising vendor who believed tagging Saturn as "a different kid of car company" actually meant something. Of course it didn't. Saturn has failed, too. But failure never seemed to matter to the brass at GM. In fact, reality never seemed to matter to the brass at GM. If it did, they'd be doing things a whole lot differently than in the past.

The first thing they'd do is shut the hell up. Brands rely on trust, clarity and credibility. If your brand promises something, you've got to deliver on it. If you don't deliver on those promises, your brand's credibility is crushed like a '62 Corvair in the wrecking yard. General Motors has been failing on the bulk of its promises for decades now. The last thing anyone wants to hear are more "feel-good" messages from guys with a bad delivery track record.

If GM were smart, they'd just go quiet. Stop all the talking and let the public wonder what they really are up to. In fact, if they could just shut the bullshit valve for a month or two, people would start wondering what the hell really is going on over at GM. They'd stop rejecting GM precisely because the bullshit stream had stopped flowing.

If we could just get GM to shut the hell up, all that quiet could generate industry buzz about the delivery of goods GM has teased us about. The folks over at Apple are masters of this, publicizing nothing other than an appearance at some consumer electronics event where they "plan to make a big announcement." For months prior to the event, nerds and geeks keep the internet buzzing with speculation and theory -- and they do that for free.

Then GM should just deliver the Volt. No amount of masturbatory media can compare to simply delivering the goods. Just rolling out the proof of what they've promised would turn people into believers.

Why isn't GM doing that? Why not stay silent and maybe drive a prototype Volt down Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, allowing just enough time for some yutz to capture it on his cell phone and post it to the web?

I'll tell you why: Because the boys in the penthouse, despite having the heads handed to them on Capitol Hill, still have those heads firmly buried in the corporate sand. What the government -- and just about everyone else -- doesn't realize is that General Motors doesn't understanding branding at all. Want more proof?

In the 1960's, the Pontiac brand was roughly 92% testosterone. If the brand were any more masculine, the cars would have had hair on them. Across America, young, virile men roared down the highway in GTO's, Firebirds, Bonnevilles and Trans-Ams. Rock bands composed odes to their Pontiacs. Top 40 hits like Little GTO were played at parties and dances at every high school, college and beach. Ever watch Burt Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit? Yup. That's a sleek, shiny black Pontiac TransAm, baby, built to kick the ass of any southern sheriff stupid enough to chase it.

Of course, that's the TransAm from the 1970's.

By the 1980's, the geniuses in GM's penthouse decided that the Pontiac brand was too strong to die, and began replacing their macho machines with smaller, foreign gas-powered roller skates that never had a chance of delivering on the brand's original promise. All over the country, people were disappointed to be getting Perez Hilton when they'd been expecting Burt Reynolds.

Yuck.

I really hope General Motors succeeds. I'm convinced that the country does, too. But it's not going to happen by firing workers -- unless the workers you're talking about are the boys up in the penthouse.

The Recession is Good for You

2009-05-14T09:14:00.000-07:00

I've never been the odds-on favorite to win any popularity contests, and I doubt this particular epistle is going to win me any more. Of course, my beat is branding. It's what I do. But I don't do it in a vacuum. In order for branding to work, it has to resonate with the people to whom the brand is aimed. I need to tap into the collective consciousness. Really dig into peoples' hearts and minds, because that's where the hot buttons are. I spend just as much time delving into human nature as I do the brand strategies with which they engage. In that vein, I humbly submit the following:

The recession is good for you.

Strange as it may seem, and likely counter to the prevailing wisdom, the hardships imposed by the worldwide recession are a boon to most Americans and citizens of the western world. That's not to say I'm in favor of people losing their homes. Nor am I going to rehash the sermons on fiscal responsibility. No, the recession is good for you for reasons that nobody else seems to care about -- but are vitally important.

Clearly the most damaging factor of an economic downturn is the shortage of cash. People simply can't afford as much as they once could. That much is obvious. What may not be so obvious is whether not buying as much as they could have is such a bad thing. And before you reject that notion completely, think about these:

True story: A kid shows up with a minor skin growth. Probably a common viral wart. Before the recession, the solution is a trip to the doctor ($85) and likely medicine ($50) and probably at least one more follow-up visit to the doctor ($50), for a total of $185 out of pocket. But during a recession, the solution is taking a look, walking to the drug store and picking up a bottle of salicylic acid (essentially liquid aspirin, $5) and a box of BandAids ($3) for a total of $8 out of pocket.

The difference goes far beyond the $177 savings. And that's why the recession is good for you.

The recession is good for you because it pries you away from an over-dependence on a service economy for which there is no real need. Besides saving a boatload of bucks, you get to discover the joy of solving problems yourself. A boost to your self-worth that's continually undermined when you pay someone else to constantly solve your own issues.

Think it's a minor problem? Think again:

A major by-product of our fattened economy has been the removal of individual responsibility. Instead of doing research to apply for college financial aid, you can now pay a service to ferret out the information. Instead of planting your own garden and literally enjoying the fruits of your own labor, you can pay a landscaper. Instead of using your own common sense to burn away a wart, you can visit a doctor who -- more often than not -- can't come up with a better solution than your own.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with relying on paid professionals; I have a big problem with over-relying on paid professionals. Everywhere I look, I see more unnecessary services being foisted on the public, relentlessly pounding their self-images into submission by declaring their own judgement isn't good enough. Over the last few decades, I've watched as an entire nation has allowed itself to be transformed from a once-proud monument to self-sufficiency into a national nursery of whiners who feel the only way out of their problems is to pay someone else to do it.

But a recession can change all that. It actually can force you to take matters into your own hands. And once you succeed at that, you're hooked. It only takes one time to grind your own beans before you decide Starbucks isn't worth it. Discovering how to shut off the water to swap out a faucet not only saves you hundreds, it makes you feel pretty darn good about yourself.

Somewhere along the line, there's a Sunday school lesson about a guy who believes that if you feed a man a fish, he'll be hungry again tomorrow; but if you teach a man to fish, he'll never go hungry again. Grab yourself a fishing pole. The recession is good for you.

Why Personal Branding...isn't

2009-04-07T15:05:00.000-07:00

One of the things I love about Twitter is that it lets you jump in and out of its members' collective consciousness. At any time of the day or night, you can witness or participate in a limitless number of conversations on any number of topics. There are moms who blog, academics who teach, hacks who pitch and probably millions more.

It being the global conversation pit, Twitter is open and online 24/7, welcoming anyone's input without fear or censorship or distortion. It really is the ultimate in free expression, which makes it so interesting. On Twitter, you are who you are, unplugged and unfiltered. I think that's really cool.

Lately, though, I noticed something disturbing.

I'm a branding guy. I spend a lot of time debunking myths and realigning expectations of what branding is and what branding is not. It being the buzzword of the new millennium, the word branding has become subverted by just about anyone associated with design, advertising, public relations, identity and just about anything else that will get a vendor's foot in the door. I've actually seen printers try to pass themselves off as having "branding capabilities."

Okay, I can deal with all that. After all, when the design, advertising, public relations, identity guys -- and printers -- are finished and haven't improved the client's business, my phone still rings. In fact, the only issue that irritates me about the co-opting of the word branding is the phrase personal branding. But not for the reasons you may think.

If you're a student of history and know anything about marketing, you also know that somewhere along the line -- generally around the 1960's, when mass media firmly sank its teeth into the insecurities of the public -- advertising radically changed. Prior to that time, ads mainly leveraged consumers wants and needs. They needed it. Advertisers sold it to them.

About the time color television appeared, the main thrust of advertising changed from we have what you want to you're not good enough unless you buy what we're selling. In a heartbeat, the media presented men, women, boys and girls with images of perfection to which no consumer could possibly live up. Cosmetics, clothing, cars, wine, food -- you name it, and unless you owned it, you couldn't be as good as the guy next door because he was buying even more of it.

It's been three or four decades since that time. Enough for several generations to grow up thinking they just aren't good enough being themselves. And if you look closely, that's where you'll find the origins of "personal branding."

The grave of personal branding's great grandaddy is located near the drug culture of the 1960's, when Dr. Timothy Leary challenged kids to "turn on, tune in, drop out." Leary wasn't actually advocating dropping out of society, by the way. He was advocating more people reject society's dictates and look within themselves to define who and what they were without some media-driven commercial lens distorting their view. In the 1970's and 1980's, people were taking fewer drugs, but buying lots more books. How To Be Your Own Best Friend; I'm Okay, You're Okay and a host of "self-help" titles fed a hungry public answers to the one question that had been hammered into them (and by now, their parents) since birth: "Why am I not good enough?" The books, for the most part, did little more than give their readers permission to be themselves. Millions of titles -- all variations on the same theme -- continue to sell.

With the new millennium, the spin is now called personal branding, but there's really nothing "branding" about it. If you believe as I do, that branding is about getting people to perceive you as the only solution to their problem, you might also consider the fact that of the six billion humans on the planet, no two of them are identical. In other words, there's no need for "personal branding," because every person is already unique.

Your looks are unique. Your opinions and talents and abilities are unique. And given the chance, your character is unique. It's just that things like character development and critical thinking have gone by the way side, in favor of more expedient solutions that Tweet round the globe in a nanosecond.

Here's a newsflash: You can't download character with a mouse click. You can't buy personality with a credit card. It takes time and introspection -- both of which are free.

Hey, if you believe in personal branding for people, pets or interstellar alien life forms, knock yourself out. It's not my purpose to discredit your views. What I'm on about is the tragic circumstance in which generations of people live and grow with such low self-esteem as to feel the need to adopt a personal branding program to define and project their own self-worth. People seem to have forgotten that great men and women all began as ordinary men and women, just like you and me, who were raised to be the best person they could be, believing in their own value regardless of anyone else's assessment.

Heck, George Washington didn't need a personal brand and he managed to do pretty well. I'm betting your father, great-grandmother or uncle Phil did, too. Yet Twitter is abuzz with lots of people who seem to feel the need for their own "personal brand".

Doesn't anyone just look in the mirror any more?

Tears in Starbucks Coffee

2009-03-19T15:16:00.000-07:00

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while may recall that in 2007, I tried to warn Starbucks of why their company was tanking. At that time, nobody wanted to hear it. They were all convinced that Starbucks was one of the country's best brands.

Wrong.

Despite the stock's swan dive well before anyone had even sniffed any kind of recession, all the telltale signs were there. Sure, everyone knew Starbucks. The problem was that nobody knew why they should evangelize Starbucks. Today, they still don't. And likely never will.

In a desperate attempt to right his listing ship, Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, has been trying all kinds of really, well, strange tricks. Earlier, he introduced the concept of Via, an instant coffee product sold in bags. Via pretty much got a frigid reception, especially from Starbucks' most loyal users, who avoid instant coffees like the plague. Old Starbucks fans became confused -- and by all indications, felt somewhat betrayed -- by their caffeinated ideal's capitulation to mass market tactics. Starbucks sold out, losing the loyalty of its users who by now are questioning whether Starbucks stands for anything at this point.

It's a good question, considering that Schultz himself recently admitted in the Los Angeles Times that "we've allowed other people to define us."

Yes, Howard, you have. And good for you for recognizing that. What's not good is that nowhere do we see signs of you rectifying the problem. As I've been telling you for the last decade, they don't know if you don't tell them. And nobody -- including Starbucks management -- can tell you why the brand should be perceived as the only solution.

So, what's going to happen with Starbucks? If history is any indication, Schultz will probably hire some hack "brand identity" or advertising agency to apply some oblique, short-term media-driven solution. We still won't know why we should insist on, or pay premium for Starbucks. The company will continue to slide and everyone will keep wondering what went wrong.

Except for McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts, of course.

Landor Dumbs Down SciFi

2009-03-16T08:46:00.000-07:00

In the never-ending battle between giant, over-priced hack "branding" agencies, Landor took a vicious swipe at the Arnell agency's latest Tropicana fiasco by "re-branding" cable television's Sci-Fi Channel with a hopelessly stupid and - you should pardon the pun - incredibly alienating new moniker: SyFy.

Wow. It's hard to tell where to begin to describe just how clueless this effort is. But what the heck. I'll give it a shot.

Clearly, the entire project was commissioned, planned and executed by teams who had no idea of what appeals to science fiction fans - or how to drive a corporate brand into the hearts and minds of its target audience. According to the New York Times:

“We couldn't own Sci Fi; it’s a genre,” said Bonnie Hammer, the former president of Sci Fi who became the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment and Universal Cable Productions. “But we can own Syfy.”

Here's a newsflash: Who would want to own SyFy? You want it? It's yours, lady. Take it. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, wants a dumbed-down, stupid play on a phrase-of-the-week that's doomed to irrelevance when the term "wi-fi" expires. And that includes current SciFi viewers who are vocally expressing their displeasure at this latest exercise in fan condescension. Fans - or should I say ex-fans of the channel are rightly angry at the brand for surrendering the very "geek" qualities that originally attracted them to their favorite mode of entertainment.

Another benefit of the new name is that it is not “throwing the baby away with the bath water,” she added, because it is similar enough to the Sci Fi brand to convey continuity to “the fan-boys and -girls who love the genre.”

Ms. Hammer and her successor as Sci Fi president, Dave Howe, said they had sat through many meetings over the years at which a name change was debated. The principal reason the idea kept coming up, Mr. Howe said, was a belief “the Sci Fi name is limiting.”

Did you read that last paragraph? They actually had many meetings over the years to come up with this? What's next, a musical Hannah Montana version of Close Encounters?

Take a look at some of the other logos that appealed to SciFi viewers over the years and you'll find that all of them are driven by core attributes of the science fiction aficionado: intelligence, curiosity, imagination and more than a touch of prideful geekdom. See, what Hammer doesn't get is that sci-fi fans actually dig being geeky. They get as much of a rush from being geeky as she might from, say, a new Prada purse.

Landor, the hack agency that created the name and logo, has once again proven its ineptitude, by charging big bucks for a logo that was probably the result of a junior designer spending an hour or two rendering a 3D line of text in Carrara Pro, completely draining the mark of any values to which sci-fi fans could relate. What you've got there, friends, is a soccer mom's version of what the people at Landor think science fiction ought to be.

If science fiction logos were cars, this one would be a mini-van. Yuck.

To be fair, this isn't all Landor's fault. Much of the blame should be placed at the feet of SciFi's corporate managers, who obviously have no concept of what branding is or does. The big clue is that the spokesmen for corporate are all based out of the channels sales department. Which, I suppose, is fitting. After all, they're the ones who are going to be feeling the pinch the hardest.

Obama's Logo Failure

2009-03-08T13:18:00.000-07:00

One of the topics I get into with clients and audiences is the list of elements that go into a solid brand. Invariably, they list the wrong things: Awareness. Identity. And the most dreaded of all, the logo. Don't get me wrong, logos are a big part of brand identity. But they're hardly the main component of a brand.

For a brand to be really effective, it has to engender trust and credibility. That means people have to do more than just know who you are. They have to know why they should care about who you are. That means your brand has to do more than just announce itself. It has to set the public's expectations about what they're getting and what you're offering. Once you have all that stuff down, you can begin to craft your brand strategy.

And once you have your brand strategy, then you can get started on a logo.

The misunderstanding of logos was continued recently, with the Obama administration's unveiling of its graphic emblem representing its recovery efforts. The mark is, to put it plainly, an absolute failure, for a few reasons:

First, just as with any failed brand strategy, the emblem merely describes the entity, instead of depicting how it's the only solution to the prospect's problem. This is bad. Really bad. If all your logo does is communicate what you are, you're permitting everyone who views it to set their own expectations of you. That's hugely dangerous, because in a heartbeat, everyone viewing the logo applies it to their own, personal agenda. With 300 million people looking at one emblem, you can see how that might cause more than a little disappointment.

Second, the logo depicts the wrong information. Sure, it shows symbols of economic sectors, but so what? It leaves out more than it includes. More to the point, it's actually a graphical list of problems instead of solutions. I don't care how well you draw, that's the wrong message to send to a nation that voted for sea change.

Third, because of the first two points, the mark comes across as just another government office here to serve you. It simply doesn't inspire anyone to get up off his couch and be part of the solution. Recall the only phrase anyone remembers from John F. Kennedy's administration: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." JFK had it right: get people involved. This mark - and the strategy behind it - is far more comfortable on the side of a government service vehicle than on the front of a banner at a public rally.

Look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt's programs if you want a taste of inspiration. Every one of his programs were just as "socialistic" as they come, but they inspired a country to get back to work.

Of course, what you're really seeing here is the same lack of true brand understanding in Obama's administration as you do say, at General Motors. Before Obama's election, hack, frauds and pundits were bandying bits about "brand Obama" as if there really was something to it. Surprise: There never was. "Brand Obama" was actually a half-baked message of change. The big question was always "Change to what?" And that question was never answered.

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for changing course from where America was headed. And I kind of like the new captain of the ship. What concerns me is that even if everyone gets on board with this new logo, we're setting sail without a map.

The Bernie Madoff of Brands

2009-03-03T23:35:00.000-08:00

A day doesn't go by when someone, somewhere corrupts the notion of branding. I should know. I live the stuff. I have to deal with designers who really think that selecting a new font constitutes re-branding. I have to endure warmed-over ad agency rejects who peddle new campaigns to clients under the guise of increasing brand awareness.

Charlatans though they may be, none can quite match the sheer larceny that passes for branding as created and perpetrated on the public by Peter Arnell.

In this day of Bernie Madoff, AIG, GM, Chrysler and a host of failing banks, I suppose the average man on the street doesn't care much about Peter Arnell or even know who he is. But I'm a branding guy. I care. Because he's the man that's crippling the branding industry much in the way Madoff has scorched Wall Street.

Let me begin by saying I don't know Arnell personally. He might be a great guy. But there are those who think Robert Nardelli is a sweetheart despite nearly tanking Home Depot as its CEO. What I do know about Arnell is that he's a soft-spoken guy who runs a multi-million dollar design firm that passes itself off as a branding agency. You may know some of his clients. And if you don't, allow me to introduce you to a few:

Pepsi is one of Arnell's clients for whom he designed a new logo. That the logo communicates no brand strategy would be criminal enough, if it weren't for the million dollar fees the agency charged to Pepsi for such a weak mark. Add to that the agency's now much-ridiculed, over-indulgent and just plain stupid supporting document (download the PDF for yourself) and you've got the makings of a modern day pirate.

Of course, everyone is entitled to one misstep. But Arnell didn't stop there. In a stunning display of mediocrity, his company re-branded -- in fact, re-packaged Tropicana's orange juice package and did such a horrible job that not only did the public mistake it for the local store's generic juice, the client reversed itself and pulled the design after spending millions on design fees, production and distribution.

Can you imagine what a million dollar designer would have to say for himself after this kind of thing? No? Well, you don't have to. Here's Arnell himself, attempting to explain what he was trying to do with his Tropicana design:

Okay, you tell me. Does any of that makes sense? Squeezing the cap relating to the emotional value of a mother hugging her kids? I'm not sure what he was smoking at the time, but it's a fair bet he must have passed plenty of it around for the chiefs of Tropicana to buy into it.

Arnell isn't alone. The masterminds behind Gatorade's recent switch to calling itself G are just as guilty. After years of running indecipherable television spots, I suppose the agency couldn't keep itself from following suit with the packaging. Either that, or none of the designers felt the market was literate enough to actually read the entire brand name on the label. Oh, to be a fly on the wall the day the account execs pitched the boys at Gatorade:

"Think of it, fellas -- we'll own the letter G!"

Almost as inspiring as when United Parcel Service embarked on their legendary quest to own the color brown. And in case you were wondering, yes, that, too, earned a million dollar payday.

You think insurance companies taking billion dollar bailouts is bad? Can't fathom how big time banks go belly up? Still not certain why American auto companies burn cash like kindling?

It's not hard to figure out. There's no accountability. The high-flying few have ruined it for the rest of us. There are bankers out there who are the backbone of their communities. But we'll never see them, because their shining points of lights barely twinkle in the shadows of mediocre monoliths.

Mediocrity, it seems, is now the law of the land. Sadly, it's as true in the branding world as anyplace else.

Meg Whitman's Losing Bid

2009-02-16T14:32:00.000-08:00

Living as I do in California, I'm acutely aware of what the world thinks of Californians. I know that the other 49 states snicker and gossip about the disproportionate amount of attention the media showers on the Golden State. Like jealous siblings, other states begrudge us our successes and rejoice in our failures.

Being the honest guy that I am, I can't say that I really blame them. The taxes are mostly high. The breasts are mostly silicone. And the politicians are mostly, well, strange. Where else but California would voters seat a rich movie actor with no political acumen as governor? When he rode into office on the wave of discontent that flushed out former governor Gray Davis, Arnold Schwartzenegger flexed for the cameras, boasting about how he was going to kick some ass in Sacramento.

Now, saddled with a $42 billion budget gap and the state flat on its financial back, fans aren't so sure they made the right choice. Which happens to be terrific timing, considering that the first announced Republican contender for Schwartzenegger's job went public recently. And Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBay, says she's ready to rock.

I personally have no axe to grind with Whitman. I have real issues with her handlers, however, who seem to be hopelessly out of touch with the voting public.

In the first place, Whitman is a billionaire CEO. Read the paper lately? Have you found any good press about billionaire CEO's in say, the last three years? Corporations are dropping like flies while CEO's earn the wrath of just about everyone for million dollar bonuses -- and this is how they merchandise her?

Strike one.

Another issue dooming Whitman's brand is her stand on gay marriage. Kinda against it, but kinda for it: she likes civil unions, opposes gay marriages, but thinks the gay marriages that have been performed deserve to stay valid. Right. Got it. Her favorite color is plaid, on an issue that could be the most volatile of the coming election. An issue that Democrat Jerry Brown has made no bones about taking to center stage.

Strike two.

Did I mention how vain Californians are? Have you noticed that our governor got elected because he was a movie star? Maybe capped teeth, styled hair and a cinched waistline don't mean anything to you, but on the west coast, they're absolutely essential to getting a choice table at a restaurant -- you think claiming the governor's title is any different? Hey, if Hillary Clinton could undergo a makeover, you'd think that Meg's handlers would package her up a tad more professionally. Think I'm kidding?

Ever watch the Kennedy Nixon debates from the 1960's? Uh huh. Don't tell me that looks don't count.

Strike three. You're out.

Yeah, sure, there's the subject of gender. Meg is female, but that's no big deal. Both California senators are female, so that's no saving grace when she's facing all those other negatives without the campaign having even started.

Like I said, I have no idea if Whitman would make a good governor. I do have a suspicion that judging from her current brand image, she's not really good at selecting handlers. But then, she's Meg Whitman from EBay. Maybe she's using the lowest bidders.

Ginsburg Launches Obama Era

2009-02-06T08:37:00.000-08:00

I'm fond of telling people that "life is a branding problem." Branding changes history. Let's face it, whether you're a lord of the Dark Ages converting legions of serfs to Christianity or Procter & Gamble converting legions of housewives to laundry detergent, you're still telling everyone to use your product and wear your logo. History, to a large degree, is determined by brand association and conversion.

Armies wear insignias. Automobiles wear hood ornaments. But you'd be wrong to assume that brand association occurs merely in the visual world. Brands flourish in the conceptual world, too. And a large component of a brand's viability is timing. Such is the case of the new era of "brand Obama," which many mistakenly believe occurred in November of 2008.

While it's true that Barack Obama's somewhat vague theories of change were enthusiastically embraced by the American voting public in November, 2008, the truth is that nothing of substance really occurred that day. Symbolic as it was, the next day was business as usual in the Bush administration. The excitement throughout the country was palpable, though, and lingered until the next theoretical target date: Inauguration Day.

On January 20, 2009, Obama was sworn in as President of the United States. Millions of onlookers braved the fierce frigidity of Washington, D.C. to witness the spectacle. Millions more tearfully viewed it on television. It was a great moment for the country. A great moment in history. But that's all it really was. A great moment, perhaps, but not the true beginning of the Obama era.

I can't help it. I'm a branding guy, but I'm a results-driven branding guy.

From where I sit, the true beginning of the Obama legacy actually begins on February, 5, 2009, the day Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced she'd been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Although Justice Ginsburg has survived a previous bout with cancer, and this occurrence was diagnosed early, her prospects at this point are -- at the very least -- going to make it difficult for her to fulfill her obligations. As anyone who knows a cancer patient can tell you, the treatments often drain the patient of energy and drive. It often sidelines them from work.

Which, from a branding perspective, means Obama got elected just in time.

Brand Obama's first great opportunity for real change will not come in the form of a stimulus package. Or a social program. Or a deal that rebuilds the country's roads and bridges. Obama's legacy of change will stem from the very real, inevitable, history-altering occasion on which he appoints Justice Ginsburg's replacement. Too many voters forget that prior to November, 2008, the Supreme Court was teetering dangerously toward a one-sided viewpoint on just about every issue brought for its consideration. Had John McCain been elected, the ensuing replacement justices would have tipped the balance of a branch of government -- designed to be impartial -- into a far-right dominance that would have lasted at least one generation and possibly longer.

So while everyone else seems to be missing the boat and silk-screening images of the President onto everything that soaks up ink, the true effect of "brand Obama" begins on February 5, 2009. The day America woke up -- hopefully -- to realize just how close it came to seeing its brand of justice go over the cliff.

Expectations of Obama

2009-01-19T13:28:00.000-08:00

The new day everyone has been expecting has finally arrived. Personally, I suspect that even the most ardent Bush/Cheney supporters were, for the most part, ready to see them go. Enough was enough. But now we've got a new guy in the driver's seat. And there's a big branding lesson to be learned.

More than anything else, branding is about setting expectations. Contrary to what most gurus and pundits tell you, you never let the consumer set the expectations of your brand. You set them. That way, you can control what you can and cannot deliver. You control what you can and cannot promise. When you control expectations of your brand, people can't make up their own expectations of you. As a result, more people end up having their expectations of your brand fulfilled.

Of course, when you fail to articulate those expectations, things can go sideways.

Take race, for example. Many people felt that Obama's being half-black would prevent him from winning the presidency. As it turns out, it had no effect and that's a good thing. What's not a good thing is the public's misinterpreting Obama's political victory as the eradication of racism.

If anything, the racial victory here might signal the end of politically correct tokenism, which has plagued this country since the mid-twentieth century. The oddly placed black guy at the all-white country club and the carefully-cast wheelchair-bound athlete in the lifestyle montage are, hopefully, a thing of the past now that an American of African heritage has become the leader of the most powerful, freedom-loving nation on the planet.

Maybe now we can get by all the apologies and start working as the proverbial team. But I'm concerned that expectations have gone awry, there, too.

While Obama's message of inclusion has been generally well-received, the bad news is that it's been largely misread by the public as there's something in it for me, as opposed to none of you is going to escape the pain. And when people's individual expectations of inclusion don't match Obama's, boy are you going to hear about it.

Look, I'm a consultant. I know as well as anyone that when you're hired to fix a situation, the chances of success are pretty good, because there's nowhere else to go but up. But how well you eventually do depends on how good you are, along with how well you've set your clients' expectations so that they can tell how well you've done. Obama and Biden have a huge mess to clean up. I just hope America's expectations are in line with theirs.

Right now, everyone's feeling pretty good. The question is how well everyone feels after they wake up the morning after the Inaugural Ball.

Great Moments in History

2009-01-10T09:03:00.000-08:00

Israel Finally Spins it Right

2009-01-04T09:26:00.000-08:00

Years ago, when someone asked me what would be my dream client for branding, I responded in an instant: "Lebanon." I'd get this quizzical look, followed by the response, "Really? What do they make?" I was, of course, talking about the country of Lebanon, which was -- and still is -- perfectly positioned for re-branding. The last three generations only know cities like Beirut as bombed-out, war-torn spoils infested with terrorists. But there was a time when Beirut was the jewel of the Mediterranean.

Lots of potential there. Unfortunately, lots of radical militants, too, so the assignment still hasn't arrived in my In Box.

I bring this up because since that conversation, the whole Middle East situation has become increasingly influenced by media spin. Sure, there's always been war propaganda, but most of the previous stuff was limited to direct disinformation: leaflet bombings and radio broadcasts aimed mostly at demoralizing enemy combatants. Today, it's a whole different story. Thanks to technology, enemies no longer need focus on soldiers on the battlefield, or even the innocent citizens through whose neighborhoods those soldiers patrol. They simply create and post their cases to the internet for everyone to see.

Without question, the masters of internet spin have been radical muslim and Palestinian militants. Forget your politics. I don't care which side of the conflict you support. The fact is that a tiny, almost microscopic faction has succeeded in tweaking the planet's nose and spinning its case so successfully as to dominate world attention for their cause.

That's good news for the power of the internet. Bad news if you don't know how to spin it for yourself.

The genius of radical muslim and Palestinian militants has not been limited to their use of the internet alone. It begins with an amazing use of tools like Photoshop and video editing tools, giving them the ability to control the tone, message and apparent legitimacy of their data -- sometimes altering the data to accommodate their own viewpoints. Beyond that, they are fast with their tools. They flood the air waves and web sites with instantly downloadable clips that are easy for people to pass along -- never bothering to check the veracity of what they download.

That's pretty slick. And effective. Because the combination of tools and tactics gives the radical muslim and Palestinian militant movements that critical air of transparency that unknowing and unsophisticated folks accept as truth. And before you jump all over me for appearing biased, let me just say that I know everyone does it. I'm just lauding the guys who do it best.

Well, let me take some of that back. Everyone doesn't do it. Take Israel, for example. For decades, the Israelis have won the ground and air battles, but lost the propaganda wars because they continued to shroud their tactics in secrecy, opening up only when pressed hard to do so by the public. This tactic has kept Israel on the defensive for years, playing a defensive strategy in the media and world courts.

No more. Israel has finally wised up. With the retaliatory responses in Gaza, Israel has pro-actively made its case to the world on the web and everywhere else. And it's working. With hours of its actions, the Israel Defense Forces post videos of raids on YouTube, pre-empting any Palestinian rumors, myths or charges before they can be broadcast. The Israeli Defense Ministry has even gone so far as to create its own Twitter accounts, in order to respond to anyone, anywhere, any time.

Sort of like knocking out your boxing opponent during the referee's instructions.

Look, I'm just a branding consultant. And Consultant's Hell is defined as "supplying answers to clients who never implement them." Someone has given Israel the answers and Israel has finally listened.

Anyone have Lebanon's phone number?

Saturn Orbits the Drain

2008-12-04T13:14:00.000-08:00

What can you say about the state of the American automotive industry other than it being a gargantuan exercise in denial? As far back as the 1970's, when the arab oil embargo ignited the country's interest in fuel efficiency, American car manufacturers have done everything they can to ignore reality, preferring instead to play golf while their markets deteriorated.

Now, sadly, body parts of all three car makers lie strewn about the economy. Oldsmobile is gone. Plymouth is poof. And all of American Motors brands, save Jeep, were buried long ago. Apparently, the next major brand with its head on the block is Saturn, which is too bad, because General Motors had long been touting it as "a different kind of car...a different kind of car company."

As it turns out, Saturn was anything but a different kind of anything, subject to the same kinds of denial and bloat that are bringing the Not So Big Three down to their knees. And that's really too bad, considering that Saturn could have been -- should have been -- the hallmark of a new era for GM. The country had been waiting for a new kind of American car since 1973 -- longer than most of you reading this have been alive. Even at that time, the Japanese knew what was up. Prior to 1973, Datsun (now Nissan), Toyota, Mazda, Subaru and others were barely a blip on the automotive radar.

Now, they own the radar.

I might add that the Japanese didn't succeed primarily because they made better machines. Look back and you'll find plenty of Mazdas that averaged 10 miles per gallon and Toyotas whose transmissions dropped out. No, the real reason why Japan succeeded is that American automobiles failed, becoming progressively worse in quality and responsiveness to the public's wants and needs.

In other words, more whistling past the junkyard.

Saturn was supposed to change all that. But it didn't, mainly because GM treated its "new" concept with its "business as usual" attitude. In case you're wondering how such highly paid incompetents could mismanage billions of dollars over decades, you have to look long and hard at the one thing they don't like to look at: reality.

The reality of the situation is that the chief executives of these companies are no smarter than you or me. In fact, they're not terribly bright at all. Oh, they look smart in their expensive suits and such. But believe me, there's not a lot of horsepower in those engines. Secluded in their old white boy networks, they reinforce each others' psychoses, assuring each other that there simply has to be more fat in the land on which they can live. Don't believe me? Then ask yourself how anyone in his right mind could hire Robert Nardelli as CEO of Chrysler.

Nardelli, as I've written here previously, is the clown prince of mismanagement, gaining just about all of his employment through the old boy favor network. Never one to leave a company better than he found it, it was Nardelli who nearly drove a once hugely-profitable Home Depot into the ground -- and then left with a $210 million severance package.

Just how dumb are these managers? Well, the firm that privatized Chrylser (itself a dubious decision) brought Nardelli aboard to "turn Chrysler around." Amazing. That's like hiring Osama bin Laden to conduct Yom Kippur services. Chrysler got what it paid for, though. And there's Nardelli, sitting in a crater across from Congressional bean counters, begging for money.

So Saturn, the brand that should have -- and could have -- gotten the American auto market back on the road, will likely get its plug pulled, while the guys whose plugs should have been pulled will live to see another day. Probably at another American company who can't get enough of that good old American Old Boy Ineptitude.

Recession Ends -- or Maybe Not

2008-12-02T08:03:00.000-08:00

As America leads the way into the economic dumper, a host of whiners continue to cry out into the night, bemoaning the fact that things just aren't what they used to be. No, things definitely are not what they used to be -- and for good reason. Old white men, as we have seen, no longer enjoy a stranglehold on positions of status and leadership. The game's open to just about everyone now and while that may upset traditionalists, those same traditionalists just have to accept that if old, white men were still capable of genuine leadership, the 44th president of the United States would be John McCain.

In much the same vein, I hear lots of folks complaining about the demise of the newspaper as a media source of information. "The internet has taken over!" they wail, as publications like The Los Angeles Times continue to wither away on newsstands. Once great and proud, the Times barely resembles its former self. Thin, gaunt, with fewer pages and even fewer real news stories, the Times increasingly reminds one of a sickly patient who refuses to eat regardless of how much food is placed in front of him.

The Los Angeles Times, and papers like it, are in fact dying. And for good reason: It's not the internet at all. They simply suck at delivering the news.

The stewards of the Times, much like the drunken captain of the Exxon Valdiz have been so depressed, so unfocused and so reckless in their management of the Times that they've actually forgotten what a newspaper is supposed to do: Deliver independent perspective and impartial reporting of news events. Instead, like so many other devolved institutions, the Times no longer reports as much as it regurgitates information.

And most of its expectorant isn't news at all, as evidenced by the headline dated December 2, 2008:

"Recession Could Last Until 2010." How's that for a non-news story? Look closely and you'll find absolutely nothing factual -- or even close to factual -- in that headline. The recession could last until 2010? Okay, does that mean the recession might not last until 2010? Or that it could end next Tuesday, say about two thirty-ish?

I supposed I could accept this kind of inanity if it were produced by sixth grade elementary students, except for the fact that even sixth grade elementary students have the same resources from which they draw their news as does the Times: the internet. The Times has lost focus on its own brand; what it once was and no longer can sustain. It's a classic example of Caretaker Management Syndrome, where the descendants of the founder know only his fortune without ever knowing how he created it.

That's the reason why newspapers across the land are failing, by the way. It's a branding thing. We all still expect the curmudgeonly, sardonic, skeptical newspaperman to tilt his hat back on his head and clack out his scoop with a cigarette dangling from his lip. We want to believe he's out there, fighting for the common man, driven to expose the truth to a freedom-loving society.

Well, that was then. This is now. And these days, all you get for your home delivery is rehashed, groundless speculations that serve no purpose other than to sensationalize rumors and panic the public. And even then, they never do their own digging or support their stories with hard, cold facts. Everything is hedged, either for fear of attracting a too-hungry lawyer or in-house accountant.

No wonder so many people have stopped subscribing. If they can get the same garbage over cable television or the internet, they can get it all for free, in vibrant living color -- and if they're really lucky, from a really stacked blonde in a tight angora sweater.

McCain as Obama's Defense Secretary

2008-11-15T20:05:00.000-08:00

I've been on this planet a long time now. Long enough to notice how rarely the stars all line up in perfect harmony, converging to produce a fate that more romantic writers term "destiny." Such is the case with America's 44th president, Barak Obama. I doubt that anyone, anywhere could have more gracefully surfed the ups and downs of current events and landed in the Oval Office without getting his feet wet. The election of 2008 was, in common parlance, the perfect political storm.

I could cite all kinds of reasons why and how Obama managed to ace each challenge of the campaign. In the end, however, it all boiled down to one simple strategy: I'm not Bush. The I'm Not Bush strategy fared well on two platforms: First, it provided the foundation for Obama's message of change. Second, it allowed him to point to John McCain, who as a Republican, found it much more difficult to scrape George W. Bush from the bottom of his shoe.

The McCain/Palin ticket was so weighed down by its association with the Bush administration, that all Senator Joe Biden had to do in the Vice Presidential debate was stand there and be a class act. Which was tough, considering how tempting it must have been to cut Sarah Pailin off at the knees. But like Obama, Biden knew he needed to do nothing more than stand there while Palin self-destructed.

While media pundits belabor the Herculean economic tasks set before Obama, none of them seem to be aware of the president-elect's penchant for living under a lucky star. With a nation in turmoil and an economy tanking, the media has chosen to play down Obama's secondary message to the American public, that being unification. They shouldn't. Because unification is, I suspect, going to be the big brand strategy of the Obama administration. Remember how he opined that we were not red states, not blue states, but the United States? Well, folks, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Rumors may be flying about Hillary Clinton as Obama's Secretary of State, but I suspect there are even bigger, more media-stunning events in the offing. And one of the biggest I can think of would be Obama naming John McCain as his Secretary of Defense. Sound obtuse? Do the math and see if it adds up for you.

In the first place, nothing unifies a group more than the victor choosing to embrace his opponent rather than vanquish him. Obama, who's viewed as a class act by the general populace, would gain grandly by offering his former rival a seat at the Round Table. You want a guy to put his money where his mouth is? This would be the move.

Secondly, throughout the campaign, Obama's position was that McCain was a good soldier, but that a president needed to be more than that. Fine. Now he has a good soldier acting as the soldier in charge of all the other soldiers. Nice.

Third, for all those folks who thought Obama would be soft on military issues, placing McCain at the top of Defense immediately assures the military sector that they've got a friend in the Obama administration. Everyone from those uniformed boys and girls on foreign front lines to contractors cranking out bombers and missiles will breathe a sigh of relief knowing that one of their own is running the show.

Fourth, what better way to show the rest of the world that Americans are united in their purpose and passions, than to create a team that really can rise above partisanship for the greater good of its country? Do you see any Shiites and Sunnis breaking bread and forming any kind of working team in Iraq or anywhere else? Me neither. If McCain were to join Obama's cabinet as Secretary of Defense, the world would learn in one quick lesson that Americans fight it out, then stick together. A lesson that governments throughout the world need to hear after eight years of Bush/Cheney-inspired factionalism.

Finally, appointing McCain as Secretary of Defense would achieve one more goal that Obama has enjoyed throughout his campaign: A spectacular event like this -- naming a formal rival to a cabinet post -- has never been done before as far as I know. The media value alone is worth it.

Is there a downside to offering McCain the Defense post? Only one I can think of: It may prompt Sarah Palin to nag for a post of her own. Commissioner of Moose Hunting would be nice.

Obama as the new Reagan

2008-11-05T07:48:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is finally over, you've got yourself one happy branding guy. Maybe now we can get back to real business, turning our attention to making our lives better, as opposed to burning away productive time on idle chatter. Among the last issues to be reconciled is what impact Obama's election will have on the image of the United States of America.

It's a good question. And here's my take on it:

The news is all good for Obama, because it's the perception of the United States that requires the most repair. Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with Bush/Cheney policies, the election of Obama proves to the rest of the world that the people of the United States are no longer supporters of Bush policies and that to a large extent, American citizens have been misrepresented by Bush and Cheney for many years (a feat made possible only by the dearth of able, alternative Democrats).

In other words, while American strength remains, the Culture of Fear is, for the most part, over.

One of the main reasons why Obama won -- and the Republicans lost -- so decisively is that Bush and Cheney (like so many corporate brand managers) allowed the brand of Reagan Republicanism to wither and die. In 1980, Republicanism was the voice of optimism, largely based on the failures of Jimmy Carter's disastrous administration. That optimism, like Obama's, was real and resonant. It was so powerful, in fact, that Reagan himself penned his own epitaph, which is engraved on his gravestone at the Reagan Museum:

"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."

Not exactly what the nation equates with Republicans, is it? Well, the sentiment that propelled Ronald Reagan is exactly the same as those that helped Obama connect with the masses. A new start. A breath of fresh air. A respite from crippling fear and ominous threats.

This is the new brand strategy that Obama can bring to the world. As such, this new perception of the United States should provide all countries a new opportunity, a clean slate if you will, to approach the USA's newer, more genial mind set. Even long-standing enemies of America will no longer have the "racist white imperialist" propaganda at their disposal.

Of course, that doesn't mean the man won't be tested -- and sooner than you think.

I'm betting that Obama's first test with the international community will likely be his reaction to a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities. World leaders, including heads of many arab states, who are sitting idly by and waiting for someone to do something about Iran's growing nuclear capabilities, will look to Obama for his endorsement or condemnation of the action.

Should this occur, Obama should endorse the action as a stabilization move in that region, a move which arab countries would likely favor. Should this scenario unfold in this manner, it will go a long way toward stabilizing the middle east. Both Israel and its arab neighbors will understand that Obama is more like Reagan in another, more important way:

He believes in peace through strength.

Windows 7, Microsoft 0

2008-10-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

The newspapers are filled with the story. The airwaves are saturated with the drama. Everywhere you look, the story of the century is about to drop on us. You know, the story? THE STORY? No, not that little presidential election thing. Not the global recession. I'm talking about the real scoop of the century:

Microsoft's unveiling of Windows 7. Yawn.

Just how deep into denial does one have to be to even begin hinting at a major product launch at a time when everyone's mind is on survival and nobody's future is certain? About as deep as our friends from Redmond, who believe that Windows 7 is akin to the Second Coming, or more appropriately, its Seventh Coming.

What makes this story so interesting is that Microsoft is a brand that's never really been a brand. Sure, it's a very successful company, but as I've written previously, there's no brand there. Even Microsoft fans can't agree on why Microsoft is their brand of choice, unless you corner them in a dark alley, where they'll admit they use the stuff because everyone else does. That's not brand loyalty. That's brand coercion.

More proof that Microsoft is an identity with no concept of brand was revealed as the behemoth introduced its successor to Vista, ignobly christened Windows 7 . What's wrong with that name, you may ask? Plenty, unless you're a company that's grown so large and so imposing as to believe it can function autonomously, totally without regard for the rest of the world's opinion.

In the first place, the nomenclature deviates wildly from its predecessor's, namely, the ill-fated Vista. Microsoft, never one to publicly admit its gaffes, still hasn't copped to the less-than-ecstatic market embrace of Vista. What it has done is decide to name the new product with absolutely no reference to Vista, a passively aggressive nod to the notion that Vista's performance was something less than stellar. When you're really happy with a branded product, you launch line extensions the same way a proud papa names his sons: There's Dad, Dad Junior, Dad the Third, and so forth. Hey, if it can work for the Kings of England, it can work for software.

But the dopiness doesn't stop there. While good product names are always born from good branding strategies, the converse is also true: Horrible names hail from non-existent brand strategies. Such is the case with Windows 7. If you doubt that, try asking anyone -- including Microsoft users -- if they recall Windows 6. Or Windows 5. You're likely to get that puzzled dog expression, because nobody recalls them. But Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, rationalizes the name by gazing deeply into its own navel and pulling out the fact that the system is indeed the seventh incarnation of the Windows platform.

Anyone care? I doubt it. More to the point, does the name carry any significant importance to anyone, about anything, other than the Microsoft honchos?

If you really want to know how Windows 7 got its name, I can venture a pretty good guess: There they were, standing in front of a focus group -- probably many focus groups -- asking the participants questions like, "What kind of feelings do you have about Windows? About Vista?" And then they asked the question they hated themselves for asking:

"Who does a good job of naming their software?"

You can guess whose name came out on top: Apple. With their System 6, System 7, System 8, System 9 -- and in a sensible progression that conveyed the dramatic shift of platforms -- OS X. Once again, Microsoft, arguably one of the world's largest and most successful companies found itself playing catch-up to a competitor who can barely claim a 7% share of market.

Makes you really look forward to Windows 8, doesn't it?

Bush's Socialism Shortens the Recession

2008-10-24T10:59:00.000-07:00

I know I'm just a branding guy, but you have to remember that a big part of branding is about the linkage between how the brand is perceived and what the brand delivers . I constantly tell my clients that "Brand is not product. Brand is brand. Products are proof of what the brand promises.

Which leaves me somewhat confused regarding everyone's misperception of what Socialism actually is and is not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer that the business of America is business. As far as I'm concerned, if General Motors and Bank of America go down, you might as well use your dollar bills for kindling after the power goes out. The American economy is way too important to the entire planet to be allowed to falter and die. The global economy is, to the chagrin of some, far more global than anyone really cared to admit. It being the most coveted market in the world, if the United States goes down, it takes the fortunes of every off-shore enterprise with it. Flushed along with your domestic job are thousands of foreign dependents, knocking out the foundations of other countries' economies, the strongest of which barely hold their own even in good times.

So it makes sense to me to help things along. Just as a father instills character in his kids by providing matching funds for their cars instead of simply buying them, I see no real issue with bolstering support for a national economy that drives the international economy. I especially have no problem when (as has happened in the past) the government program turns a modest profit for its taxpayers. What could be more capitalistic than that?

Yet there are Conservatives out there who object to the program as Socialism. In one sweeping move, they decry any means of injecting a speedball into our national economic arteries as socialistic. Curiously, the Socialism to which they object carries over to tax increases, but doesn't attach itself as easily to tax cuts. Aren't both products of government intervention? Even if you subscribe to this latest definition of Socialism, shouldn't it apply equally across the board?

More to the point, if Conservatives insist on calling the bailouts Socialism, aren't they labelling George W. Bush, arguably the most conservative president in American history, a Socialist?

I can't answer that one just yet, but one thing I can tell you is that this "recession" isn't going to last nearly as long as anyone in the media thinks. Despite the volatility of the stock market, there's still plenty of money out there. And it's the smart money guys that are going to make sure this recession doesn't last long. You want to know why? Because it's way too huge a profit opportunity, that's why. Here's the proof:

You may have read about all the vanishing wealth from this economic turbulence. Really? According to Reuters, October 24, 2008, it hasn't vanished at all. It's simply been diverted from commodities like oil into real estate:

Sales of previously owned U.S. homes rose 5.5 percent last month, the biggest gain since July 2003, and the inventory of unsold homes fell, a hopeful sign for a housing market mired in a long slump...The National Association of Realtors said on Friday that sales of existing homes rose to a 5.18 million-unit annual rate from the 4.91 million unit pace set in August. Economists had expected sales to rise to only a 4.93 million unit rate.

Still think I'm nuts? Check back several blogs ago, when I went on the record to state that gas prices at the pump would start falling just as soon as the market manipulators grabbed their profits from that little panic. Never before have oil prices jumped as high and then fallen as fast as they did in 2008 -- totally according to plan:

Hmmm. Where can we put all that money, do you suppose? Why, in foreclosed real estate , of course! It's next on the buy-low-sell-high circuit. And as soon as all that capital quietly snaps up all those foreclosures, guess what's next? Institutional stocks. Banks. Industrials. All those companies that the smart money boys need to rehab and finance those foreclosures they just bought.

Housing prices recover. Companies start hiring again. The consumer economy breathes new life. And Joe SixPack gets his home equity back, enabling him buy that 60 inch plasma television which, after five years, will be paid off at twice the price it should have cost.

And who do we have to thank for this quicker recovery? America's first Socialist president, George W. Bush.

I mean, it was his idea, right?

Obama/Biden Taps Glinda

2008-10-08T13:10:00.000-07:00

In October, 2008, there are really only two issues that anyone is interested in discussing. One is the global economy (or lack thereof) and the other is the campaign for the presidency of the United States of America. I'm no economist, but I've lived through enough up markets and down markets to know that civilization as we know it simply can't exist without a global economy. I also know that as long as greed ranks within the top three human vices, no economy can stay bearish forever.

Besides, the media likes to harp on "the worst economy since the Great Depression." What more could I possibly add to hype like that? Especially when half of the talking heads were five years old during the 1987 market correction?

Of course, what those talking heads are experienced in, all they've ever known, is what the rest of us like to call the Culture of Fear. This is why they continue to "report" every news story as if it were the next Black Death. They simply don't know any better. I've written quite a bit in this blog about the Culture of Fear. For those of you who aren't familiar with its effect, it's the reason why people switched from marketing their goods with "Be the first on your block" to "Don't let is happen to you!"

Living in fear is an awful thing. You're afraid of eating the wrong thing. Saying the wrong thing. Doing the wrong thing. In a fearful environment, terrorists are always just around the corner. The other driver is never careful. And politicians aren't who or what they seem to be.

This is why negative campaigning has, until recently, been so effective in politics. It's a whole lot easier to cast suspicion on the other guy than it is to work hard on being a better alternative to that guy. I suppose negative tactics work to an extent. After all, nose-diving jetliners into American real estate is enough to add credibility to just about any perceived threat. But decades of xenophobic fear-mongering does take its toll. Which is the secret to Barack Obama's latest brand surge.

If you look carefully, Obama and Biden have chosen their tactics quite judiciously. The closest they ever get to disparaging McCain and Palin is by associating them with Bush and Cheney. And even then, they don't bring out the warning lights. They simply let the truth speak for itself: "If you actually like where Bush and Cheney have brought you, they maintain, you're going to love McCain and Palin." Other than that, neither Obama nor Biden have done anything to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, they've striven to do just the opposite.

Just as Glinda the Good Witch reassures the Munchkins in The Wizard of Oz, Obama and Biden have replaced the fear factor with reassurance, positioning themselves as the messengers of good news:

Come out, come out, wherever you are,
and meet the young lady, who fell from a star.
She fell from the sky, she fell very far
and Kansas, she says, is the name of the star.
She brings you good news.
Or haven't you heard?
When she fell out of Kansas
A miracle occurred.

Okay, so Glinda was off by one state. But by enlisting the perspective of Glinda, Obama and Biden become the harbingers of the best news possible: At last, we have someone in control who can solve our problems. The accusations and finger-pointing to which the American public has become numb is being displaced by two guys who are actually offering up answers and suggesting positive solutions. It almost doesn't matter if their solutions don't work. The fact that they're not fear-based is new, fresh and something for which the voting public has been aching.

And, unfortunately, something of which neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin seem to be aware.

Palin's Perception of Pain

2008-10-04T17:17:00.000-07:00

There's no question that the only Vice Presidential debate of 2008 was a ratings bonanza. The latest media audits report that well over 70 million people watched the 90 minute match-up between Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden. I'm not going to bore anyone with who won or lost. The last thing America needs is one more analysis of an event that clearly needed none. As far as I'm concerned you can justify your vote whichever way you wish. After all that's what everyone else is doing.

And that's the part of this election that bugs me the most. Immediately after the debate, notoriously conservative FOX News was polling its own in-house studio audience as to who won the debate and, not surprisingly, found for the Alaskan governor. Not long after that, left-leaning MSNBC had poll figures indicating that among undecided voters, the senator from Delaware was winning by a two-to-one margin.

The winner, it would seem, was determined by the political agenda being driven by any given medium reporting it.

In this, perhaps the first not-only-white-men-get-to-play election, a curious development has occurred, where even the appearance of respect for the office has been displaced by a supreme lack of appropriate behavior by the people running. Believe me, I'm thrilled that the election of 2004 was the last of the all-white-men-only contests. What doesn't sit well with me is the degeneration of the contest into a fad-frenzied spinfest, centered totally around people and personalities, instead of on the offices for which they're campaigning.

Can any student of history imagine Lyndon Johnson winking and mugging at his audience? John Kennedy dodging questions from a moderator? Abraham Lincoln preserving the union with a "shout out" to his third grade elementary school? At what point do we reconcile a candidate's inappropriate behavior with his or her qualifications to hold office?

It's not terribly difficult to pick away at both candidates for their political views. But I'm not a political analyst. I'm a branding guy. And as anyone who knows me can tell you, I'm all about the perception that people, products -- and yes, politicians -- send out to their consuming public. A big part of that perception has to do with consistency and credibility. In other words, what you say has to jibe with the way you say it.

When you're second to the leader of the free world, people need to hear straight answers to the questions that are put to you, not those for which your media trainer has coached you. When your finger is one heartbeat away from the button, people need to know that you've got something more than a wink and wisecrack driving your decisions.

When you're staring down Iranians, Russians and North Koreans, light-hearted references to Joe Sixpack don't quite cut it.

Personally, I think it's great that the election of 2008 broke the white/male barrier into a million little pieces. And I'm glad that a conservative Senator like John McCain considered a woman to be his running mate. Too bad McCain chose the wrong woman without considering her public perception.

It will likely prove to be the deciding factor in race...the losing one, of course.

Obama/McCain's Anti-Bradley Effect

2008-09-23T09:53:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the race card in the current American presidential elections. There are those who contend that America is ready for a black president. There are those who insist that America needs change, but not that much of a change. And there are those who believe that John McCain is about as much change as any nation can reasonably handle.

If you're a fan of change, this election is for you. But if you're a student of history, you may be interested in a seemingly minor phenomenon with potentially huge consequences. The media has termed it The Bradley Effect, in reference to the mayoral elections in Los Angeles, California of the 1960's. At that time, a decidedly pro-white incumbent mayor by the name of Sam Yorty was running for his political life against a black ex-cop named Tom Bradley. Mind you, this was barely a few years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Think Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, hippies, peace signs, protest songs, marches on Selma and that sort of thing.

Going into the election, all the polls had Bradley winning hands down. When the smoke cleared, however, it was Yorty who emerged victorious, holding on to his seat for another four years. Clearly, what voters on their way into the booths told pollsters they were going to do differed drastically from what they actually did in the voting booth. Lots of people said they'd be voting for Bradley, but once behind the curtain, couldn't bring themselves to vote for the black guy. That was decades ago. Or was it? In early 2008, pollsters had Barack Obama sweeping the New Hampshire primary election. But by the next morning, Hillary Clinton had sewn it up.

Now, however, there may be a new wrinkle to the old Bradley Effect and it goes like this:

What if all those McCain supporters secretly can't stomach what's happened to the Republican party? The free market, conservative party, supposedly opposed to socialism, that's engineering the biggest Federal bail-out of all time? The party responsible for the war in Iraq? The credit meltdown? High unemployment? The sinking dollar? What if all those Republicans, thoroughly disenchanted with Bush and Cheney, decide to get into that voting booth and stick it to the party that let them down -- by voting for Obama?

It's a lot more possible than you might think. Just ask the angry supporters of Bob Barr and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. There may be millions of poor Democrats that are mobilized to vote, but you can bet your ever-sinking dollar that pissed off Republicans have much higher percentages of voter turnout. And these are exactly the people who tell pollsters one thing while doing exactly the opposite in private.

Other reasons why the Anti-Bradley Effect could work: The Sarah Palin stunt is, for the most part, over. After the theatrics and media events, there's simply no way she can hold her own against the likes of a Joe Biden. In the public eye, Palin is an easy target for parody -- truly a second generation Dan Quayle -- and things aren't getting better for her. Between public gaffes ("in a Palin-McCain administration....") and the strict management of her few, unscripted public appearances, all indications are that Republicans aren't exactly lining up behind her in legion force.

Hillary supporters lining up for McCain? You're dreaming, pal. That scenario may have been a nice wish, but wasn't even close to reality after Obama took the nomination. And with Palin as McCain's idea of a capable running mate, that dream is fast becoming a nightmare.

Finally, let's play the race card. The question nobody wants to ask is exactly the question that everyone should be asking. Because despite the conventional wisdom, the truth is that non-whites have no problem voting for a non-white candidate; and if you piss enough of them off, white people will vote for a non-white candidate, too.

You want to learn something from the polls? Try not trusting them. It seems to work.

Banking as Child's Play

2008-09-18T09:01:00.000-07:00

As America wades its way through the financial muck, you can be sure that media pundits will be doing everything they can to point fingers and assess blame for what is widely perceived to be the meltdown of the richest country on the planet. Rumors of the meltdown, by the way, are greatly exaggerated distortions of the truth. They're not even close to the truth. Because the real problems facing the financial markets have little to do with finance. The real problems go much, much deeper.

If you're a loyal reader of this blog, you may recall a recent post of a similar nature, in which I pointed out how the price of gasoline had absolutely no relation to the supply and demand of oil. I'm happy to report that within a few short weeks of that post, the price of a gallon of gasoline in America dropped from almost five dollars a gallon to roughly three dollars and change -- presumably with less gasoline on hand. Duh. Clearly, there are other effects in play here. And just as with the price of oil, the current financial "crisis" is due to the very same problem:

Our country is being run by children.

Make no mistake, these kids are all in their fifties and sixties, but that just means they're bigger kids with grayer hair and more wrinkles than your garden variety little leaguer. If you take a long, hard look around, you'll see what I mean. Try finding a reporter who asks pointed, important questions along the lines of Edward R. Murrow when he took on red-baiting Senator Joe McCarthy. In fact, try finding any reporter that asks any kind of piercing, intelligent questions that haven't been vetted by his teleprompter. These aren't reporters. These are kids playing on television.

But that's not the worst of it. They say that thirty is the new twenty. Boy, have they got it wrong. It's closer to the truth to say that forty is the new twelve, with supposed adults acting like children: Pursuing their own selfish goals without giving any thought to the public good. You want to know why there are no good, worthy leaders? Because leaders understand the concept of greater vision. They're able to take the long view for everyone's benefit, rather than immediate self-gratification.

Want to really get freaked out? Ask anyone today why they'd run for public office and more often than not, the answer you'll get is "it's a great way to make business connections." Mind you, given the meager pay of most public servants, I have no problem with serving time and then reaping private benefits. I have a problem with serving public time to get the private benefits.

The kids are invading every nook and cranny of our lives. And the scary part is that as real adults die off, these old kids are moving into positions of real responsibility. They're piloting your airplanes, judging your court cases and as all of America is painfully finding out, destroying your banking system. Pity poor Hank Greenberg, the man who spent forty years building AIG, watching his billion dollar net worth evaporate over the course of a few weeks. When Hank left AIG, his fortune was intact. But once he left -- under a murky cloud of circumstances, it's true -- the kids stayed at home with no babysitter to watch them. And they did what kids do best: act irresponsibly.

Well, America, you don't demand accountability, you don't get accountability. What you get is lots of kids, caught with their pants down, pointing blame at one another. Real adults don't do that. In fact, real adults have enough wisdom, foresight and discipline to understand their responsibility to current and future generations.

I've been saying it for years, but nobody has been listening. So now, instead of listening, everyone can feel the pain. Grow up, America. Realize that you can't fight terrorism with loud, fast jets. Understand that oil prices rise because they're driven by market makers. Wake up and smell the coffee -- if your parents will let you drink it.

Palin Pandering Pops McCain Bubble

2008-08-29T08:59:00.000-07:00

While I realize that it's not the panacea to the world's problems, as our society becomes increasingly saturated by media, it really is true. Life is a branding problem. And nowhere can you find better proof of that than in the American presidential elections. In the latter part of the twentieth century, strong presidents (Reagan) developed strong, clear brand strategies that connected with the American public. In the first elections of the twenty first century, it was the lack of brand strategy that confused the American public.

The election of 2008 is subject to the same effects. In this case, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has a clear brand message. But with the revelation that John McCain has chosen Alaska governor Sarah Pain as his vice presidential running mate, it would seem evident that the race is now over.

Your new president is Mr. Obama. And here's why:

While neither candidate has a clearly stated brand message, only one candidate has a strong brand message. That would be Mr. Obama. For as I've written here, while there isn't an Obama fan within a hundred miles that can articulate any of Obama's policies, Obama has succeeded in motivating an uneducated -- and seemingly undemanding -- public into action. In branding terms, Obama is the Nike of politics: "Just do it" sounds as if it means something, but when you think about it, nobody has any idea what it means. So it is with Obama. But there's a big difference in the political branding space:

Where Obama surpasses McCain is that Obama's marketing efforts are pro-active, while McCain's efforts are decidedly reactive. And for smoking gun evidence, you need look no further than McCain's surprise choice of Palin as his running mate.

You can say what you want about Obama's vague chants of change, but McCain's choice of Palin is clearly the result of pollsters' panderings to the public, hoping to attract the Hillary Clinton supporters who -- in McCain's dreams -- would rather vote for a Republican woman than a Democrat man.

Okay, a Democrat black man. There. I said it.

But McCain's advisors are wrong here. Big time. In the first place, Palin is no Hillary. In the second, if you had any doubts about Obama's experience, you ain't seen nothing yet. Palin, at 44, has little experience outside her home state. Third, Palin is a confirmed pro life/anti-abortionist. Need I go on? To paraphrase the Florida Senator, "She's no Joe Biden." She's more like a Dan Quayle. In a debate, that will become a public disaster.

What McCain's team has completely missed is the fact that the American public is probably more than a little tired of the right-leaning agenda of the past two administrations. While remaining non-specific, Obama has succeeded in pulling back the curtain on the Bush administration, exposing it as a cavalcade of failures. The current economic slump doesn't hurt him, either.

In the end, McCain's foolish attempt to pander is what kills all brands. It reflects an inability to lead, an abdication of authority by playing to the crowd instead of inspiring the crowd. As Abraham Lincoln so aptly said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time." It's just that this ain't one of those times.

Microsoft launches Seinfeld Bomb

2008-08-21T17:04:00.000-07:00

There are times when life is unfair. And then there are times when life is juicy and rewarding. The unfair times are when seemingly stupid hot chicks make tons of money for nothing other than looking hot and being stupid.

But then there are the rewarding times. Like when a huge, rich corporation thinks it can buy its way into the hearts and minds of the public, simply because it happens to be huge and rich. Such is the case of Microsoft having announced its paying once-hip-now-just-wealthy-through-television-syndication comedian Jerry Seinfeld something like $10 million to pitch its bloatware.

Talk about the other guy blinking. Clearly Microsoft is more than a little irked at Apple's ability to claw its way back into the market. Where the Gates gang once boasted of Apple's continually dwindling market share, it now seems that Jobs and company have managed to steadily increase their share of market. In fact, some reports have Apple's MacBook laptops as the first choice of students throughout the United States.

Whether Apple's success is due to their iPod, MacBooks, AirPorts, iTunes or any one of their other revolutionary and elegant technological solutions is up for debate. One thing for sure: Apple's smarmy "Mac versus PC" television spots have connected with its audience -- and seemingly, with Microsoft's lower jaw. Years of ribbing have finally baited Microsoft into an "I'm hipper than you" war, with someone, somewhere, so totally clueless as to think that Jerry Seinfeld is the right man for the job.

Jerry Seinfeld? Excuse me, but aren't we just a few decades late on that call?

This is the exact reason I counsel clients to avoid celebrities like the plague. Forget the fact that a perennial prop on the Seinfeld show was a Macintosh (it was always on the desk against the wall of his apartment) or that hardcore fans can list the episodes which featured Apple's 20th Anniversay Mac. We're talking about a formerly single guy whose wit and charm has been largely replaced by jowls and cigars. The man has been a veritable ghost since the last, desperate season of his sitcom. But Microsoft thinks he can turn things around and make its brand hip, cool and relevant.

Let me go out on a limb here and make a prediction: This campaign is not going to make Microsoft relevant. This campaign is going to be the biggest bomb since Hiroshima.

Think I'm kidding? Okay, which does your kid prefer, an iPod or a Microsoft Zune? Uh huh. That's what I thought.

The fact is that no cheap campaign is going to change Mircosoft's brand image, because Microsoft has no brand strategy -- and never has. But Microsoft does have money. And influence. And the one thing that goes with both of those: A keen sense of denial.