Rob Frankel - Branding Expert

Conservatives Love Gay Marriage

2008-06-17T09:31:00.000-07:00

There's probably nothing wholly original in this piece, but sometimes, circumstances just get so out of whack that someone has to blow a school yard whistle and bring everything to a screeching halt. Sometimes, you just have to stop everything it its tracks in order to re-calibrate reality. And this week's legalization of gay marriage in California seemed like one such occasion.

In case you've been out of the solar system, it is -- for the short term, at least -- now totally and completely legal for gays and lesbians to legally marry. That's right, the ceremony that has been idealized for generations has now undergone a somewhat radical change in that it is no longer the exclusive province of one man and one woman.

Well, that's not entirely true. If you go back in history, you'll find all sorts of marriages between men, my favorite being among Roman emperors who seemed to possess a pronounced inclination toward (and actually married) well-oiled musclemen. But I digress.

Today, the most noticeable effect of gay marriage isn't between gays and lesbians who marry each other; it's among the people who disapprove of gays and lesbians marrying each other. Typically, these are bible-thumping folks who devote their days to disrupting the lives of others in the name of Jesus, God, Allah or whatever name by which they refer to The Invisible Giant. Most of these people call themselves "conservatives", but in truth, they are the farthest thing from it.

If you're really a Conservative, you espouse the basic theory fundamental to all Conservative theory, that being pretty much the following:

The government is here to defend my civil and physical freedom.

See, the whole point of Conservative philosophy is to not get involved in other people's affairs because you don't want anyone meddling in yours. Even if you're the most religious guy in the world, completely secure in the knowledge that your neighbor is going to eternally burn in hell for whatever people burn in hell for, Conservative theory states you have no business, obligation or standing in your neighbor's decision.

If you're a true Conservative, you believe that as long as nobody hurts anyone else, everyone should be free to do what they can in order to better their own lives. That means you can't tell anyone what to eat, whom to date or how to hold their fork at dinner. It's their individual choice. And what could be more American than that?

In stark contrast to Conservatism is Liberalism, which believes that government owes its citizens far more than defense of civil and physical freedoms. Liberals believe in social responsibility and helping those less fortunate, because in the real world, everyone is not created equal. Some people are born with birth defects; others into a racial or economic class from which there is no escape. Liberals believe there's nothing wrong in assisting reality in order to level the playing field and give everyone a shot at a better life.

Of course, there's a trade off with Liberalism: In order to get stuff, you have to give up stuff, most notably, your personal freedom. Which brings me to the weirdest question of all:

If gay marriage conforms to the Conservative ideals of government protecting individual freedoms, why would so-called Conservatives be against it? If anything, Conservatives should be its most ardent defenders, beating back the prying eyes and ears of a government whose founding articles are based on individual freedoms. If anything, the opponents of gay marriage should be Liberals, whose philosophical platform actually endorses a government's right to intervene amongst individuals' affairs.

Personally, I don't care who you marry or how or why. Just make sure you don't leave your trash on my lawn, eh?

Fedex dumps Kinkos for good

2008-06-02T19:10:00.000-07:00

Wherever I go, whenever I speak to groups, invariably the question comes up: "So Rob, which brands do you think are doing a good job?" In my book, The Revenge of Brand X, I have a list of brands that I happen to think are doing a swell job of branding, but the one you'll find close to the top of the list every time is Federal Express, or as they're now known, FEDEX.

I like FEDEX for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they subscribe to my tenets of branding without even knowing who I am. That's neat. I like how even from the beginning, FEDEX branded themselves from the outside in. While all their competitors were puffing about their airplanes and trucks, FEDEX focused on the one reason why overnight delivery was invented:

They covered your ass.

It's true. While everyone else was primping for profit, FEDEX was making sure your career was safe and secure by working on your behalf, getting the package where it had to be, "absolutely, positively overnight." Sure, they've changed their taglines over the years, but the brand strategy has always remained the same. FEDEX even introduced their innovations smartly: Yes, their pre-printed shipping labels cut down shippers' costs, but they also increased FEDEX's efficiencies but cutting down the amount of time it took sorters and drivers to read your handwriting. Their shipping boxes were free, too, but that's how it looks to you because FEDEX wanted you to see the benefit. The real story is that standardized packaging allowed FEDEX to make much more efficient use of their shipping containers.

Get the idea? These guys are smart. And when they acquired Kinko's, they were just as smart.

Recognizing that small and micro-businesses were a nascent, high-growth sector, they cleverly snapped up Kinko's copy and office centers in order to expand their client base. They did it smart and they did it fast (beating United Parcel Service to the bunch, leaving UPS to acquire an anemic also-ran in the form of Mailboxes Etc.).

This week FEDEX made another smart decision: They decided to drop the Kinko name from their operation. And even though it's going to cost them something like $869+ million, they did it for a very good reason: Kinko's brand sucks.

Hey, Kinko's has all the assets for which it was purchased. Unfortunately for FEDEX, all that fixed capital came handcuffed to the developmentally disabled legion of humans known as Kinko's employees. And before you get all politically correct on me, think about your own experiences at Kinko's.

No, let me rephrase that: Think about all those infuriating, exercises in frustration at Kinko's.

Whether it was waiting in line too long, printing a job on the wrong paper, not knowing the simplest answers without checking with the manager, Kinko's -- a great business success story despite its people -- has a brand more aligned with incompetence than the brand strategy borne or FEDEX. If FEDEX were more like Kinko's, their tagline would have been, "Package? You had a package?"

I'm sure that Wall Street pundits will pummel the decision for the short term, but from where I sit, the FEDEX decision train just keeps on rolling. And the sooner is rolls over Kinko's the better.

Political Brands: John McCain

2008-05-27T14:07:00.000-07:00

Although it doesn't really seem over, the media pundits have proclaimed that it's all over but the Monday morning quarterbacking. They would have you believe that come November, 2008, the two finalists challengers for America's Presidential Idol contest are John McCain and Barack Obama. I've written enough about Obama, except for two minor items that I feel are worth mentioning at this point:

1. His wife is utterly obnoxious.

2. His political agenda seems to be nothing more than the same old stuff we heard from middle of the road Democrats circa 1970.

The good news about this election is that it will energize an entire electorate, whereas previously only half the electorate bothered to vote. This is because unlike the last two elections, this time, the entire country will be casting their votes for "anyone but Bush." Yes, Virginia, it's true that even most Republicans are disgusted and looking forward to the day that Bush, Cheney and their entourage have completed pillaging the country's moral and financial riches.

But that's another story.

What intrigues me at this point is the political branding of John McCain and the huge, spear-laden tiger trap he has set out for Senator Obama. In case you hadn't noticed, McCain is keeping very quiet on his association with the previous administration. It is only now, as the finalization of the Democratic nominee nears, that he is beginning to tip his hand in our direction.

And he's holding a bunch of, um, really good cards. Here's the deal:

McCain is no dope, but the people analyzing him sure are. They're so focused on what they think he's going to do that they're totally ignoring what options the man has before him. Sure, his people will trot out the prisoner of war stuff. They'll trumpet the patriotic montages. And they'll tell the softer side, too, including the fact that McCain and his gazillionaire wife adopted an abandoned baby as their own. That's pretty good material. The stuff of which public relations guys can only dream.

But it gets better.

The heat on Obama increases in direct proportion to his proximity to the nomination. As he nears his coronation, he's increasing his direct attacks on McCain, nibbling at the bait -- he knows his best shot is handcuffing McCain to eight years of the Bush administration. He also knows the time is getting near when he's going to have to lay out his eventual agenda with specifics instead of slogans. What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that he's feeding John McCain's agenda the political equivalent of human growth hormones.

The clearer Obama's proposals become, the more they're going to appear to be the same old Democrat policies from the 1960's and 1970's. And if you're reading this and thinking, "Oh, he means Obama is going to be perceived as a liberal", you're half right. Because the real perception is on the other end of the stick: With Obama being cast as a middle-to-left leaning liberal, McCain is now free from pursuing and pandering to the far Christian right. I mean, where else is the conservative right wing going to go? Libertarian? I don't think so.

So with the infamous Christian right wingers in the bag, all that's left for McCain to do is convince disenchanted Republicans and Reagan Democrats of his disassociation from the Bush administration. And if you're a fan of facts over fiction, you'll find that's exactly how McCain's resumé reads. In fact, anyone seriously examining McCain's record would likely surmise that if there ever were to be a "third term for Bush", McCain would probably be out in front with Joe Lieberman opposing it.

The media previously publicized the death of McCain's campaign once before. No doubt, they'll do it again. But like I said, you'd have to be a fan of fact over fiction to see this one play out. That's fine. There aren't many good movies out now anyway.

Wrapping up Ted Kennedy

2008-05-20T14:38:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure why it happens, but for some reason, the only news we
hear about the Kennedys is bad. You can read all the books you want;
every single tome is less a biography than a series of unfortunate
events, featuring plane crashes, premature deaths and social diseases
that stretch way back into the early twentieth century. Now we hear
the tragic news of Senator Ted Kennedy's inoperable brain cancer,
sending shivers down our spines and text messages through the gossip
mill.

It's a horrible fate to imagine. Even more horrible is the manner in
which the media and politicos are going to package it.

The first wave of messages will be hardly surprising, driven mainly
by morbid curiosity. What kind of tumor? Is it malignant? Followed
by the ever-present, "How long do you think he really has?"
We'll get the usual, "he's a fighter" and "if anyone can beat this,
Ted Kennedy can." We'll watch the interviews with his lifelong
friends. Given the media mentality of what now passes for American
politics, however, there's sure to be a second and third wave of
messaging that sinks way lower, deep beyond the previous limits of
bad taste.

This being an election year, I suspect that anyone with an agenda
will be soon be invoking the Kennedy name in discussions more often
than Jesus Christ in church. The Kennedy brand, at once as romantic
as it is tragic, will descend upon the Democrats at the convocation
of their national convention. In a twisted attempt to package this
year's nominee as the torch-bearer of the Kennedy legacy, Ted
Kennedy, viewed as "the last of the real Kennedys", will have his
final movie moment, waving to the crowd during a tearful, emotional
fifteen minute standing ovation after delivering his last keynote
address, nominating whichever Democrat that has managed to steal
enough votes.

Democratic strategists, like the infamous Howard Dean, will be
packaging Ted Kennedy as the New Age Gipper, with plenty of upshot
camera angles and slow-motion dolly moves that will be cut into the
eventual documentary film. It will be a glowing, Kennedy moment.

"Win this last one for me."

While the Kennedys have always enjoyed media popularity, reporters
are already writing Ted Kennedy's obituary. They're using words like
"patriarch" and "icon," which when you think about it, is true: Ted
Kennedy is an icon for a entire generation as the first public figure
to abdicate all responsibility for his personal behavior and without
any sort of public accountability. But that, as they say, is water
under the bridge.

As far as the Kennedys are concerned, their myths have always been
larger than life, and so in keeping with that tradition, I have
little doubt that party movers will manipulate Ted's final time with
masterful self-interest. I suspect that in the coming days, we'll
all hear and see the same talking heads bobbing and chattering and
speculating about "who dares to assume so great a mantle" as left by
Ted Kennedy, while anointing their candidate of choice in hopes of
spurring a generation of nostalgic baby boomers into the voting
booths.

It's a genuinely sad time for the Kennedy family. It's potentially
even sadder for America if the Democrats commercialize his ill
fortune for their own selfish gain.

H.L. Mencken said it best: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating
the taste of the American public." You just watch what happens with
the merchandising of Ted Kennedy.

And pray that I'm wrong.

Let's Play the Race Card

2008-05-08T04:20:00.000-07:00

One of the most interesting aspects of branding is the manner in which most people approach it. Because they focus so much on what they like to sell, they tend to forget about the reasons their customers actually buy. I often point this out to clients with the example of selling Porsche automobiles. Ask Porsche why men buy their cars, and they'll tell you it's because those men appreciate a finer automotive machine. Ask those men, however, and you'll find the answer to be somewhat different:

They find that with a Porsche, they can get hotter chicks.

Nothing really new there, except for the realization that things don't always happen for the reasons we think they do. In fact, one of the most common misconceptions players face in the competitive arena is the assumption of a level playing field. Nowhere could this be truer than in the mega-hypocritical, politically correct stadium known as the American presidential election, where the Los Angeles Times recently reported on the battle between Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama.

In its article predicting the demise of Hillary Clinton, the Times reported the following:

Other Democratic officials said Wednesday that they feared the political damage to the party if Clinton were to succeed in using the party apparatus to take the nomination from Obama, who has energized black voters and many other Democrats.

Seems innocuous enough, eh? Really? Try reading the same lines with the details reversed and see if it plays the same way for you:

Other Democratic officials said Wednesday that they feared the political damage to the party if Obama were to succeed [against] using the party apparatus to take the nomination from Clinton, who has energized white voters and many other Democrats.

Same story, but written from the politically incorrect point of view. Just imagine if any candidate, Democrat or Republican, were to be lionized for their efforts in galvanizing the white vote in America. As we say in my own home, "Boy, would there be yelling."

Think I'm being too clinical here? Well, you may want to ask yourself why it's perfectly okay to bash the "Christian right", while everyone cries foul for referring to Obama by his full name -- Barak Hussein Obama. Nobody has a problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Or Richard Milhous Nixon. Or even Lee Harvey Oswald. Call the Senator from Illinois by his full name and the next thing you'll be calling is the riot police.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any particular agenda here. I'm all for changing what America has become and I think that change could happen with just about any candidate. The only question would be what kind of change you'd be looking at, which is what free and fair elections are all about.

I'm currently writing this from the truly democratic country of Denmark, a country that prides itself on its ethics and freedoms, including the freedom to freely -- and fairly -- disagree. There's surprisingly little yelling here, although there's plenty of debate. There's no political correctness here because the Danes understand the value of truth.

Just like America used to.

Presidential Snake Oil

2008-04-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

If you're anywhere near a television these days, it's just about impossible to avoid some flack's political promotion for his or her presidential candidate, hawking their modern day snake oil as the panacea to the world's problems. Beyond the sheer opportunism, it's almost embarrassing to see how readily the public consumes the same boasts, promises and revelations spewed forth by politicians. But even more ridiculous is the public's acceptance of those boasts, promises and revelations as being entirely new.

Think your candidate is promising you new solutions to old problems? Maybe you should think again:

Would you like to see a Constitutional Amendment outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy or medical condition? Yeah? Well, surprise! It's been law in the United States since 1964, known officially as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

How about a Federal law that protects job applicants and employees who are over 40 from employment discrimination based on age? You like that? Here's the news on that one: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act has been in effect longer than its youngest beneficiaries have been alive. That's right, the ADEA has been on the books since 1967. Not a whole lot new there, either.

If you're in a wheelchair, blind or otherwise disabled, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been in force since 1990, which is just about the time all those good parking spaces vanished.

Think women deserve equal pay for equal work? Apparently, so has the Federal government -- since 1963. Your basic politician wouldn't tell you this, but the Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender for similar work performed under similar conditions. Which means Gloria Steinem was still a Playboy bunny when this legislation was hammered down and finalized in every state of the union.

Here's one that should open your eyes: Think all those illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs? What do you suppose is the solution to illegal immigration? If you're the United States Congress, it's the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which makes it unlawful for any employer to hire any person who is not legally authorized to work in the United States. It actually requires employers to verify and prove their employees' legal status, but forbids discrimination based on national origin or lack of citizenship. And this was law of the land years before the first fear-based "terrorist threats to America" became the driving force behind everything we do and say today.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? The youngest of these pressing political solutions has been proposed, accepted and ratified by every state in the union for over 20 years, yet for some reason, political candidates seem to think they need to bring something new to the party. Here's a really novel idea:

How about saving everyone a lot of time and money and just enforcing the laws that are already in place? Duh.

There is a reason, of course, and this is it: The American public has no idea these issues have already been addressed. Most can't recall their civil rights, even when prompted. And a survey conducted in the late 1990's found that when read to them, most respondents felt the Bill of Rights was too radical to be adopted into the United States Constitution.

In a word, clueless.

In politics, as it does in branding, the first step in developing a solution is understanding the problem. Maybe if people really want solutions that work, they shouldn't be looking for them in the empty, hack stunts and slogans of politicians. Perhaps they should be looking more closely at the people who vote for them.

Jimmy Carter, Still Stupid

2008-04-13T11:10:00.000-07:00

There are a lot -- and I mean a lot -- of people who currently believe that George W. Bush is among the stupidest presidents ever unleashed on the American people. He's not . Bush may not be Einstein, but he's not even close to being the stupidest. The press has always had it out for him, the same way they bent their biases against Richard Nixon.

Let's face it, Bush is an easy target. He's easy to mimic and well, his resumé doesn't exactly reflect a lifetime of victories.

History, however, has a different way of looking at things. It takes its time. Mulls things over. It factors in the value of hindsight and summarizes effects as viewed in terms of the greater good. Nixon was perceived as Evil Incarnate by just about everyone in the world in 1972. Pummeled in the press for his domestic "enemies list", inflation and of course, Watergate, he rated at the bottom of every presidential poll taken at the time.

Not so today.

Read any current history book of your choosing and you'll find fading references to Watergate. Nixon is far more widely recalled for ending the war in Vietnam and opening China to the western world. In fact, much of what you buy at WalMart today is due to Nixon's far-sighted recognition of China's potential. Without Nixon's invitation to join the western world's economy, Ronald Reagan never would have been able to ask Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", which reunited Germany after almost 50 years of Communist divisions.

In 20 years, I imagine that Bush's image will mellow, as well. Probably something along the lines of "being the first to actively engage the threat of radical islamic terror when previous presidents would not."

Where history is concerned, it's the long view that counts, it seems, with one exception: Jimmy Carter.

Sorry, the title for Stupidest American President is already taken.

Here's a guy whose list of screw-ups begins with his election in 1976 and spirals downward to this day. For those of you who don't recall -- or weren't alive -- when Carter was elected, it was a strange time, reminiscent of Andrew Jackson's "people's inauguration." A time after Nixon and Ford, when populist fervor overtook party politics, restoring a corrupt White House to a humble peanut farmer from Georgia. At the time, it seemed like a good idea.

And then reality hit. He wasn't a humble peanut farmer; he was stupid peanut farmer.

In what could only be described as a scene from The Beverly Hillbillies, Carter proceeded to embarrass and degrade the USA from every conceivable angle. Under his short stint as president, Jimmy Carter managed the following:

• Drove domestic interest rates up over 20%, effectively destroying the national economy for a number of years.
• Undermined the brand image of the United States, by demonstrating inconsistent hand-wringing instead of decisive actions, which allowed second and third world nations to challenge -- and wrest -- American moral and economic influence the world over.
• Allowed American hostages to languish in Iran for 444 days
• Tolerated his drunken brother's behavior, which included, among other escapades, public news conferences calling for an American abandonment of Israel because "there's more Arabs than there is Jews [sic]"

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. The man may have earned a degree in nuclear engineering, but don't forget that the first astronaut was a monkey.

Even if you spot Carter the Camp David Accord, his record of historical accomplishments isn't exactly stellar. Sure, the man can swing a hammer for humanity, but there's a reason for that: he's good at it. It's where he belongs. In a nice, quiet field, knocking nails into walls where he can't hurt anyone and hopefully, has gotten over being America's single biggest mistake. Were you to doubt that last statement, consider the fact that Carter, after publishing his last book in which he comes closest to admitting his own anti-semitic views, now seems intent on "visiting with leaders of Hamas" on his next trip to the middle east.

That's nice. Your tax dollars going toward the protection of a clearly senile man, on his way to display even more of his inimitable buffoonery to a terrorist organization whose sworn mission is the total destruction of Israel, the only stalwart ally of the United States in the middle east. This, from a guy who really thinks he is Jesus Christ and probably has robes in his closet to prove it. A guy whose Alzheimer fog has him touting himself as the better side of the American people.

Um, not exactly the kind of guy I want representing me, any time, anywhere -- for any reason.

You think Bush is bad? Sorry to disappoint you. When it comes to undermining the brand that is America, Carter is the winner, hands down. He's as stupid today as he was back in the 1970's and no doubt history will remember him as such.

Branding Torches China

2008-04-08T09:44:00.000-07:00

Man, I love the free market system. It's so much more fun and exciting than, say, a centrally-planned economy, where everything is predictably boring. When the central government runs the show, everything is slower, duller, lower-quality and subject to committee-driven criteria. Sometimes I think that's why the Soviet Union collapsed. Not because of a political yearning of their citizens to be free, but more because they were increasingly bored with buying soap flakes in the same gray boxes.

One of the last, large centrally-planned economies left on the planet today is China. And despite what you may read in the papers, including political oppression and downright domination, there's an aspect to China that's profoundly fascinating. Here you have perhaps the most hard-knuckled government clamping down on its population for the better part of a century, primping and swooning at Western civilization's temptations dangling in front of their eyes. For every student of Mao's Little Red Book ("avoid wearing underwear that's too tight") there are thousands of Asian teens writhing and squirming, aching to taste one more lick of Britney Spears.

Kind of reminds me of all those devout muslim terrorists who visit strip joints and order adult videos the night before they board airplanes in their efforts to strike a blow to American decadence. Weird.

What I find most interesting, however, is the panic with which Chinese economic force is met here in America. For years, we've been hearing about forced Chinese labor driving down the price of imports far below any level possible for American manufacturers to meet or beat. Were you to believe what you hear, you'd think that it's all but over for the American economy, dislodged from its global pre-eminence by Chinese under-bidding.

But you'd be wrong. And here's why:

As I'm fond of saying, "Life is a branding problem." And even when you ignore your brand, it doesn't mean you aren't branded; it means you're letting everyone else define who and what you are, which means that there's no way on God's green earth you'd ever be able to meet or exceed every one of their expectations. The end result is that nobody, anywhere, would agree on anything about your brand, other than their common disappointment in it.

Enter China. No brand strategy, which means (like corporate and personal clients), they are hanging out there, left to be judged by media reports of their words and deeds -- most of it not really good. Go ahead: scour the internet for the good news on China, and you'll see for yourself that not a whole lot comes up, especially when compared to all the bad news on China. Recognized as the leader in lead-based children's toys, China is also gaining ground on the state of Florida as the most corrupt economy in the world. Chinese food products, for both man and beast, is delivered fresh and fully-laden with poisons that cause real injury and deaths. Chinese soldiers put down any sort of free expression regarding Tibet and have even been accused of manufacturing false evidence to frame the Dalai Lama, a guy in a robe that -- last I heard -- doesn't carry a gun.

In short, left to the rest of the world to define, China is in a heap of bad yogurt, heading for an Olympics in which the main events would seem to be protest and boycott. Not exactly the kind of "Guys-I-Want-To-Hang-With" kind of brand. In fact, this is the kind of stuff -- the qualitative, human aspect of brand -- that motivates people to bypass a cheaper fellow's goods in favor of the folks with whom they feel good about doing business.

You know, the guys who don't imprison their laborers for posting letters of disagreement on the internet.

In light of China's brand neglect and inability to articulate who and what they are, you can expect to see more Americans arrive at their own conclusions, choosing to buy American, even if the price is a bit higher.

Dwight D. Eisenhower once remarked how, "you cannot legislate the hearts and minds of men." He was right. The Chinese threat will not be undone by tariffs, tirades or trade policies. It won't be undone by us at all. It will be undone by the Chinese themselves, as their centrally-planned consciousness collides with a free-thinking society capable of making up its own mind -- and speaking it with their wallets.

Yahoo Had It Coming

2008-04-07T09:03:00.000-07:00

For anyone who subscribes to my weekly FrankelTips column, you knew this was coming. The demise of Yahoo was never in question. It was just a matter of time until someone, somewhere, figured out that were the company in even worse shape, it would have simply collapsed years ago. Now, ever the predator, Microsoft sniffs the blood. Like a hyena, Steve Ballmer is circling its wounded prey, watching and waiting for its simpering victim to buckle and surrender.

Unfortunately, the death of Yahoo is not going to be quite as quick or painless as one would hope. Nor does Yahoo deserve it. Years of brand neglect, reckless management and just plain stupidity have finally caught up with the company who owned, then fumbled and lost dominance in the internet space.

On paper, the deal makes sense: Even at Yahoo's current stock price -- inflated nearly 35% by the prospect of a Microsoft takeover -- Yahoo is hardly underpriced. Its market cap is roughly $37 billion, although when the drugs wear off, it's actually closer to $20 billion (if that). If you're into stock analysis, you might also be interested to know that Yahoo's price to earnings ratio is astronomical, causing nosebleeds at something around 59. The company has never paid a dividend. It has never had sane management. And now, Yang, Bostock and company are whining about how Microsoft's offer is too low.

Please.

If anything, Microsoft's offer is too high. The mere fact that previous to Microsoft's offer of $31 a share Yahoo stock was languishing in the high teens should be enough to tell you that this company was going nowhere fast. One look at the history books should be enough to show you that Yahoo once owned the search market. If you really want to know why Yahoo will quickly succumb to Microsoft, consider the old Machiavellian adage:

The quickest ascension to power is through a vacuum.

The truth is that Yahoo got there first, and like most first-in-the-space players, enjoyed considerable success. It got big fast because there really weren't any other serious competitors. But like other successes whose good fortune is more a result of good timing than good thinking, Yahoo's managers began to believe their own press. As I've written previously in this blog, they hired a show business guy who knew nothing about the web as their top gun. His ineptitude set Yahoo on its precarious, downhill course and the company never recovered.

Actually, Yahoo never had a chance because they never had a brand. Sure, they had an identity, but nobody -- not management, not employees, not developers nor users -- could ever tell anyone else precisely why they chose Yahoo as "the only solution to their problem." Sure, they recognized the now-famous yodel on the radio, but what of it? Who cares?

As it turns out, nobody cares, which is why nobody is weeping to see Yahoo slowly getting sucked up by Microsoft, itself among the least well-received brands on the market. But the news isn't bad for Yahoo. It's probably the best thing they could hope for.

In the first place, as the Dark Force consumes Yahoo, you can bet that it will do what software engineers do best: restore discipline to clearly-focused deliverables. Yahoo could do well with a healthy shot of discipline. After wandering aimlessly about, never knowing who or what it was supposed to be, a good trip to the strategic wood shed could help it restore both functionality and purpose.

Second, Microsoft would have to be pretty stupid to completely abandon the Yahoo identity. Although there's no value beyond its identity, there is brand awareness, which means that if (and this is a real big "if", considering that Microsoft has no brand value, either) Microsoft can define why Yahoo is worth using, they might be able to quietly avoid questions as to why MSN is such a terrific failure in the hearts and minds of the public.

Hey, if you can't make it, buy it.

Finally, Microsoft has always been financially successful. There really isn't much more to this story than the old-fashioned "buy low, sell high" strategy. With all the hype about hostile takeovers and Microsoft buying Yahoo, nobody ever said that Microsoft had to buy and keep Yahoo. At these bargain basement values, they could turn the old "pump and dump" trick and spin off Yahoo in a few years at a healthy profit.

Personally, this whole affair reminds me of a classic Hollywood thriller. No, not Wall Street. More like Dumb and Dumber.

America Online or Flatline?

2008-03-12T10:27:00.000-07:00

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. One minute, you're thinking that your hero can do no wrong. The next minute, you find your hero has feet of clay after all. Sadly, you watch as a former stalwart crumbles due to its own weaknesses.

What -- you thought I was talking about Eliot Spitzer? Nah. That's your basic, run of the mill, politician's sex scandal.

The story I'm talking about is America Online, or AOL. That's the real tragedy that's hurting more people than Spitzer's sex drive ever will. According to the New York Times, the once high-flying leader of the internet is now stumbling around on the floor like a drunken sailor looking for pocket change. What was once the belle of the ball is now the old, dried up hooker that nobody wants to admit to sleeping with.

For those of you with short memories, let me remind you that as recently as 2000, AOL stock was selling for close to $100 a share. Then it split. Then the dot bomb era hit and since 2003, the stock never really managed to keep its head up over the $20 level. In fact, it's not even really listed any more. You have to track it via Time Warner (TWX). Of course, it would have been easy for everyone at AOL to blame the dot com implosion for AOL's price drop.

But they are wrong. Plenty of dot com companies weathered the online meltdown and clawed their way back to respectable values. Amazon.com, for example. Not my favorite company in the world, but after the market took it to the woodshed, they climbed back on to the horse to regain an appreciable amount of their former value.

Not so with AOL. AOL has always been a company with no brand. No purpose. No direction. No plan. There's no leadership -- never has been. In fact, urban legend has it that management installed a revolving door on the executive suite to save everyone time.

According to the New York Times "On Tuesday, Jeffrey L. Bewkes, the chief executive of Time Warner, AOL’s parent company, acknowledged weakness in the business and said he was open to combining AOL with another company — " 'whatever configuration makes it the strongest and the most valuable.' ”

Now there's something you don't see everyday: The CEO of a company publicly throwing up his hands and claiming the equivalent of, "Ya got me -- I haven't got a clue what to do with this thing -- maybe someone reading this article will have some ideas!"

The truth be told, Bewkes is just one in a long line of AOL victims who simply don't get it. After running through a succession of executive blowhards and posers, AOL is even worse off now than when it booted out Steve Case a while back. While the company has always had high awareness, it has never had a real brand -- one of the reasons why even AOL employees could never agree on what the company is or should be. Once more, according to the New York Times, "Several recently departed executives contacted this week described the climate at AOL as acrimonious. They said there had been confrontational meetings of employees as well as screaming matches in offices, as senior executives worried about making their aggressive quarterly ad sales goals."

Ouch.

To top things off, AOL's much-heralded-but-hardly-effective tactic of shifting emphasis to advertising sales has, in a word, blown up in its face. Following their tradition of shooting first and aiming later, the company has tried and failed to buy their way out of their problems by purchasing and absorbing several online advertising companies. Nice try. All that ended up accomplishing was more in-fighting among the "absorbed" executives, each playing "king of the hill" until the last man standing was a woman -- Lynda Clarizio -- whose portrayal in the media is alternately described in animalistic terms: one minute she's a mother hen, the next, a barracuda.

Where does all this leave the once flying high and mighty? Just about where you'd expect: Spiraling downward toward an inevitable crash into obscurity.

And no, I'm not talking about Eliot Spitzer.

Obama Chooses Orwell

2008-03-03T08:31:00.000-08:00

No matter which way it's decided, the presidential election of 2008 is bound to go down in history as one of the most exciting and well, different national events of our time. Sure, I could re-hash the usual media tripe, gushing like a schoolgirl over the effects of the internet and the electricity which seems to have shocked previously apathetic voters into political action.

But that's nothing new.

Actually, this election isn't so much different as it is scary. Not scary in the traditional manner, mind you. This one has a creepiness all its own. Throughout the past, for example, politicians scared the populace with what they've said. This election grips me for what is not being said. It should scare you, too. And here's why:

In 1949, George Orwell rattled the post-war world with his seminal Nineteen Eighty-Four, a thinly disguised treatise about the Soviet communist threat to the free world. Back in the days when reading was valued as more than just a brief glance at People magazine while sitting on the toilet, Orwell's book was a staple for young minds, introducing them to the concept of critical thinking -- and the lack thereof. One of Orwell's literary devices deployed throughout his stern, thought-controlled vision of the future was the concept of Doublespeak, in which the authoritarian Big Brother constrained and confused the weaker minds of the working class with epithets like these:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

By gradually decreasing the mass's vocabulary with Doublespeak, the public's ability to articulate their thoughts and dissent eventually dissipates, until even those with contrarian ideologies have no means to express them. Which brings us back to the election we now face.

I note with particular horror the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, whose president efforts are comprised entirely of Orwellian Doublespeak. Look closely at his placards and you'll find a hauntingly similar theme that Orwell described in his 1949 novel. There are no specifics. No articulations of thought. Just brief, mono-syllabic words that express, well, whatever you'd like them to express. Hope. Change. Yes we can.

Hope for what? Change to what? Yes we can do what?

If you scrounge around long enough, you'll find a bit or two of real information there. You can, for instance, point to Obama's much-heralded vote against the Iraq war. Nice soundbyte, except that anyone can trumpet their hindsight. What I want to know is his answers -- specific answers -- about questions of the future?

You would think that with all this Obama-mania, at least some of his followers (if not himself) would be able to articulate his positions on the issues of the day. Yet in my experiences, voter after voter is unable to describe or defend any of Obama's positions on just about any topic. What they can do is parrot what they've "heard on TV."

And that, perhaps, is the most frightening aspect of all.

The Homeland Security Hoax

2008-02-08T10:03:00.000-08:00

I spend a lot of time analyzing, articulating and -- well, let's face it -- just plain bitching about brands, branding and brand strategy, the general lack of which forms the basis of all the miscommunication in the known universe. Okay, that may be overstating it a tad, but to a great extent, I find the reason why so many people don't understand what other people are saying is due to the fact that the people initiating the speech aren't really saying anything to begin with.

Sure, there are taglines and slogans and catch phrases designed to sound as if something important is there. But more often than not, once you peel away the verbiage, there's absolutely no content of any real value. Barack Obama can chant all about change as much as he wants, but I have yet to meet an Obama supporter that can articulate even one aspect of those changes Obama claims the nation so dearly craves.

And it's not just him. In fact, it's not just politicians. In my book The Revenge of Brand X, there's a section I call Saying Something, Meaning Nothing that explains all of this. I don't have to bore you with it here. What I would prefer to bore you with is the tactic I use to pierce the puffery to which the American public at large is exposed on a daily basis.

The tactic is as simple as it is old: Never judge people -- or their brands -- by what they say as by what they actually do.

Now that two centuries of good old American optimism has been undermined by our Culture of Fear, it seems that no matter where you look, there must be some kind threat. Indeed, I've been witness to the profound shift in marketing from Be the first on your block to Don't let this happen to you. Fear is a great motivator, but it's even better at debilitating and freezing people in their tracks, lest they make the wrong move which leads to their demise.

The move from "can do" to "better not" has crippled our notion of risk, with fewer people thinking they can realize their dreams and more people thinking of how they can be sued if they try. And nowhere is this more telling than with our very own Department of Homeland Security.

If you're as big a fan of the truth as I am, the first thing you have to question are the inconsistencies of a brand's claim. The Department of Homeland Security would have you believe that there's a terrorist hiding under every American's bed. The truth, at least according to a well-known Israeli terrorism expert, is that there are fewer than 10,000 active terrorists on the planet. To put that into perspective, there are over 6 billion human beings here. Which means the chances of you -- or anyone else -- bumping into one of these terrorists is less than your chance of getting zapped by lightning over ten times on the same day. Way less.

But maybe you're not one who fancies the statistical argument. Maybe you're more skeptical of numbers that can be manipulated to prove an argument. Alrighty, then, let's take it down a notch. Let's take the threat all the way down to where you and I and every other ordinary citizen can feel it: Let's go to the United States Post Office.

Assume, for the moment, you want to ship a paperback book weighing two pounds (32 ounces) to someone across the country. If you're like most people, you would wrap up the book, slap on the appropriate postage and drop the package in the mailbox. The only thing is that within a day, the package wouldn't arrive at your friend's mailbox, it would arrive in yours, because owing to the Department of Homeland Security's edict, any package weighing over 13 ounces must be hand-delivered to a United States Post Office and handed to a mail carrier. You can't just drop it in a mailbox. The reasoning is that any package over that weight could be "suspicious."

Okay. I can accept that someone, somewhere on the government payroll abstracted the numeric equivalent of a mail bomb to be anything over 13 ounces. But here's what I have trouble with:

If anything over 13 ounces is considered a viable terrorist threat by the Department of Homeland Security, why is it that Federal Express, DHL, UPS and just about every other overnight delivery service has no such requirement? Every one of these companies is just as American as the United States Postal Service. Just as big a target. But Federal Express, DHL and UPS don't have the one thing the United States Postal Service has: subordination to a bloated government agency of questionable authority.

With any of those other services, I just drop my package in their drop boxes. No bomb threats. No extra hassles. No superfluous fanning of unwarranted anxieties.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the United States government protects me around the clock. I'm glad they keep AWAC planes and electronic surveillance and lord knows what else up and running on a 24/7 basis. That's their job. That's why I pay my taxes.

What I don't need is their play-acting and promoting a culture of fear that's designed to spur a security industry that has no real problem to solve and doesn't even begin to solve the true threat at hand: the elimination of the perpetrators of that culture.

If you want to look at a brand's credibility, don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. And pay attention to that man behind the curtain.

Obama's Fatal Endorsements

2008-01-28T10:58:00.000-08:00

One of the most often misquoted phrases in American culture originates with H. L. Mencken, who once observed that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." What many think Mencken said was that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

To look at how the presidential election of 2008 is shaping up, the misquote is a far more accurate observation.

I may be just a branding guy, but a big part of branding -- even political brands -- is the strategic element that drives the executions of the campaigns. And while everyone in the media is crowing about Barack Obama, you may want to take a more intelligent look at what's really going on...and why the victory cries are just a tad premature:

A significant part of brand value is derived from endorsements. In other words, you can tout yourself all you want, but when it comes to credibility, there's nothing quite like third party endorsements. When actual users of your product stand up and cheer for your brand, you've literally achieved branding nirvana. After all, that's the whole point of branding: to turn users into evangelists; customers into a sales force.

It works as well for votes as it does for soap, believe me.

Of course, the one thing that everyone seems to forget is that the endorsements aren't nearly as important as the people doing the endorsing. Sure, it's really great when the unwashed masses can make the connection between the guy using your brand and your brand itself. The right brand in the right place can really move the needle. But what about those times when the right brand ends up in the wrong places?

What happens when the wrong guys rally around your brand? I can tell you this much: it's not pretty.

You wouldn't want O.J. Simpson endorsing your kitchen knives. Or Michael Jackson on your package of baby wipes. Years ago, Anita Bryant -- former Miss America and personal representative of Jesus Christ -- nearly brought down the Florida Orange growers with her vicious anti-gay remarks. And someone, somewhere, thought she was just what the growers needed to sell more juice. Clearly, it was someone who felt homosexuals lacked heterosexuals' daily need for vitamin C.

You get the idea. The wrong guy's endorsements can kill a brand just as quickly as the right guy's can launch it. Which brings us to the latest endorsements of Barack Obama.

A short time ago, the press was all abuzz with the story of how Senator John Kerry -- that's right, the ex-presidential candidate tagged as the sorriest loser of 2004 -- gave his ringing endorsement to Obama. Wow. A former losing candidate, likely to be foot-noted by historians as the flip-flopping dunce who bungled a 15 point lead in the polls just months before the national election, losing to an even-less qualified candidate.

Yeah, THAT'S the guy whose endorsement is going to stampede voters into the booths. Sure.

Today, we hear that yet another perennial blowhard is backing Obama in his bid for national leadership: Senator Ted Kennedy. Someone, anyone, please tell me what value a bloated, outdated, never-was like Ted Kennedy can bring to Barack Obama? It's been over 40 years since the golden days of Camelot. And to quote the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen, "Senator, I knew John Kennedy...and you're no John Kennedy."

What, if any value, does Ted Kennedy bring to Barack Obama? A worn out faded dream of potential, never-realized optimism? A visual image of failed alcoholism and privilege afforded by inherited wealth? I don't think so.

If you really want to know the value of an endorsement, try looking at it the other way around: Two over-the-hill, aging and irrelevant politicians rubbing up against the media's newest sensation. Just as some older men buy red Corvettes and young trophy wives, Kennedy and Kerry make fools of themselves by donning Obama T-shirts, hawking the baseball caps and hoping, praying that network television will grant them one last hurrah as the old Glory Boys they once hoped they could be.

Not really the kind of ringing endorsement the media would have you believe it to be.

Sad, really. For everyone except, perhaps, the Clintons.

The McCain/Lieberman ticket

2008-01-13T09:36:00.000-08:00

I'm a branding guy. I see everything in life as a branding problem, driven by strategic reasoning -- and more often than not -- the human factors that data-driven pollsters and pundits choose to ignore. A while back, for example, CNBC asked why domestic WalMart stores were under-performing when the economy was doing so well.

Expert after expert brought in their charts, numbers and data -- all with no real explanation. When the moderator turned to me (the video clip is at my website), I simply offered up the human side of the story:

"To shop at WalMart is to be reminded that you're poor. And people don't like that. So the minute their economic picture improves, they shop elsewhere. One reason is because they can, but the more important reason is because it certifies their own progress. They are no longer forced to shop at a place that reinforces their sense of failure."

The moderator sat stunned for a few seconds, until my analyst friend Richard Hastings piped up, "You know, I think Rob may be right."

A while back in this blog, I used the same type of analysis to make the case for a 2008 Al Gore presidential bid. This time out, I want to propose why the only Republican ticket with serious possibility of winning could be John McCain and Joe Leiberman.

It doesn't take much for any plugged-in person to deduce that the race for the presidency is a wide open brawl. Yes, there are leaders and poll grabbers, but as the race drags on, there are very few consistent indicators. Of those, the most consistent political marker is "change". Change is the engine that has propelled Obama into contention. It's worked for him, as noted by the day after the Iowa caucuses, where everyone from Hillary Clinton to -- of all people -- Mitt Romney latched on to the phrase in their "on to New Hampshire" rhetoric.

Change sounds really good. But all it takes is a short trip down memory lane to recall how the very same strategy vaulted -- and then destroyed -- the presidential candidacy of one Senator Gary Hart back in 1988. Back then, Hart was touring the country, picking up support with his "we need New Ideas" pitch. Like Obama, however, nobody ever got to hear any specifics on Hart's New Ideas. It took one nationally televised debate for Walter Mondale to pull the rug out from under Hart's campaign by asking, "Gary, like they say in those TV commercials, 'Where's the beef?'"

Hart was stranded like a deer in the headlights. A short while later, he was caught with Donna Rice, a sexy blonde who wasn't his wife, on a friend's boat. History promptly buried Hart, along with his presidential ambitions.

I bring up that story because there's only one declared presidential candidate who preaches change and has a long history of challenging the administration -- even when that administration was dominated by his own party. And that's John McCain. In other words, while Obama, Clinton and the rest are whining about change, McCain -- rightly or wrongly -- is the only guy who actually has put his money where his mouth is.

That makes McCain more than a hype-master for change. That makes him an agent of change, which is exactly the brand message the public is looking for.

If McCain is known for being a maverick, there's only one guy who's more renown for "reaching across the aisle" of the Senate during his long career, and that's Joe Lieberman, the senator from Connecticut. Lieberman is the guy known best as a conservative Democrat, who ran and won his last term as -- and this is important -- an independent candidate. In late 2007, Joe Lieberman came out publicly to endorse John McCain, a Republican, for president. Which means the country potentially has what it's been asking for:

A potential President/Vice-President ticket composed with two experienced people who have track records of change.

McCain has always been the Republicans' choice for those who were never crazy about George Bush. Lieberman had enough appeal to win the Vice Presidential candidacy with Al Gore in 2004. Both guys are known for their ability to think independently and work cooperatively, despite party affiliations. And both have track records to prove everything they say that they've done or tried to do.

The country has never, at least in my recollection, ever elected a "split ticket" presidency, and if that ain't what real change is, pal, I don't know how else to sell it to you.

Is the public ready for that kind of change? Well, from everything I can tell, they're not ready for a woman leader and, judging by New Hampshire, they might tell pollsters they're ready for a black president, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they don't seem to vote that way.

Praying for Oscar's Death

2008-01-09T09:51:00.000-08:00

As I clack out this article, the Writers Guild of America stands resolute in their strike against the motion picture and entertainment establishment, pacing the picket lines in their fight to achieve a greater financial stake in future payments for their efforts.

It's a good strike, having already cancelled more than a few events, crippling the 2008 Golden Globes Awards show and threatening the viability of this year's Academy Awards show.

Good for them. I hope they win. In fact, I hope they stay on strike forever.

I, for one, have had enough of our national obsession with celebrity and all the mental mind candy that rots the brains of Americans on a daily basis. Is it really important to devote air time to the physical and emotional collapse of Britney Spears? Do we really need to pre-empt regular programming to watch state troopers escort Paris Hilton to jail? And does George Clooney's selection -- yet again -- as Sexiest Man Alive really merit the front pages of our national magazines?

How many more dramatically-scored, thunderously-narrated television ads trumpeting the latest "tour de force" of some ridiculously bad re-make do we have to endure before the country wakes up and smells the coffee?

In the Age of the Soundbyte, truly important issues that affect the future of our world are sandwiched between airhead entertainment programs, stuffed into five-second statements that put the war in Iraq on equal footing with the latest box office earnings of whatever movie premiered this week. I mean, outside of a few hundred self-involved people in Hollywood, who really cares how much a movie grosses in its first week? I doubt that factory workers on the line in Akron, Ohio, spend their lunch break debating the marketing futures of movie studios. They're too busy devoting their time to real issues. Like putting food on the table, paying their medical bills and wondering if their sons and daughters are coming home safely from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maybe it's just the sadist in me, but I get a chuckle knowing that Hollywood celebrities are paralyzed without a staff of writers stuffing lines into their otherwise empty heads. To paraphrase Billy Wilder's script from Sunset Boulevard, "Movie audiences don't know about screenwriters. They think the actors just make the lines up as they go." Well, now they sure don't. Now they'll get to see just how dopey these talking heads are.

Or maybe they won't.

After all, they elected one as governor of California.

Presidential Idiocracy

2008-01-06T13:46:00.000-08:00

There are those who say art imitates life. And there are those who insist that life imitates art. Over the years, I've found that the truth lies somewhere in between: What may start out as art actually can integrate into reality. People see things in art that they only previously imagined. But seeing them in art, particularly in pictures that move and talk, adds a dimension that bridges fiction into the possibility of becoming non-fiction. This is, according to industry pundits, the force behind "product placement" in the movies.

Whether it's James Bond drinking Smirnoff vodka or E.T. scarfing down Reese's Pieces, there's no question that most people fall into the "monkey see, monkey do" syndrome. If a product is perceived properly, it's amazing how it will affect people perceive it. Stranger still is the phenomenon where people will alter their behavior once they've watched how other people behave onscreen.

Such is the case with a film entitled Idiocracy. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a rental or, at the very least, an illegal download. The first three minutes alone (below) tells you everything you need to know, but if it's raining and there are no more errands to run, it's worth the extra 90 minutes to chuckle over the future de-evolution of mankind:

Essentially, the film concerns itself with a man of average intelligence who is frozen in an experiment that goes terrifically wrong. Instead of hibernating only one year, he wakes up after five hundred years, to discover a world dumbed down to its lowest possible depths -- and vaulting him to prominence as the smartest man in the land.

The strange thing about Idiocracy is that while billed as a comedy, its implications are staggeringly horrifying. The smart people, having limited their numbers to control population, have been bred out of existence, largely outnumbered by trailer trash bumpkins who multiply like rabbits, completely unconcerned about their environments or their futures.

When you watch the movie, you find yourself both disturbed and amused, recognizing that, in fact, art does imitate life -- and sometimes that reflection is sobering. Of course, the film takes its notion to the extreme, but the extreme, in this case, isn't so far off. A world in which nobody questions anything, accepts everything they're told, and is motivated only by its most primal, prurient needs. It's a hell, damned to eternal mediocrity.

In fact, very similar to the world in which we live today.

Think about it. Just about every TV show, music track and product pitch revolves around some kind of sexual message. Our drugs, clothes and health are designed, manufactured and marketed in a fashion that appeals only to man's most basic urges. Nothing is immune from the Dumbing Down or America. Including our presidential elections.

Mike Huckabee plunks his bass guitar. Bill Clinton blows his saxophone. Hillary Clinton stumbles through Soprano parodies. Barack Obama hosts Saturdary Night Live and bump butts with -- of all people -- Ellen DeGeneres, the mentally unbalanced comic whose idea of national tragedy is her inept breach of contract over an adopted dog.

In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't promote his candidacy for the presidency of the United States by mistaking the electoral process with a talent show. In the 1980's, Ronald Reagan didn't dismantle the threat of communism by chatting up Jon Stewart. These were the last leaders of a thinking generation, whose candidates were more concerned about policy than popularity. And yet, here we are, faced with presidential hopefuls who hope to lead the most powerful nation in history by pandering to the lowest levels they can.

While America's brand value hasn't plummeted this low since the dark days of Jimmy Carter, this year's crop of presidential candidates doesn't bode for better times. Instead of a strong hand delivering us from governmental confusion, we sit and endure a bunch of third rate showmen bent on getting a great big hand from an audience.

The movie is called Idiocracy. Look for it in the non-fiction section.

Political Brands: Mitt Romney

2007-12-12T14:10:00.000-08:00

I don't know if you've read it, but in The Revenge of Brand X, there's a section I call "Saying Something, Meaning Nothing." It essentially outlines the phenomenon where, due mainly to the over-lawyering of the country, American society seems less intent on saying what they mean than not offending anyone when saying it. In the old days, they used to call this kind of thing "doublespeak."

Today, we pretty much call it bullshit.

When you think about the taglines offered up by advertising agencies to their clients, you begin to get the idea: Toyota uses a phrase like "Moving Forward." As opposed to what, moving sideways? Nike says, "Just do it." Just do what? To whom? Does anyone ever think to ask what phrases and communications like this are actually supposed to mean?

It might be fine and dandy to sell candy bars and airlines and automobiles like this, but what about candidates for the presidency of the United States of America? Clearly, the political spinmeisters have no problem with this at all, as evidenced by the slick, empty packaging of Mitt Romney, the quintessential just-add-water-and-mix presidential politician.

In this media-driven age, Romney is a hype-meister's dream: Good looking, lights well for the camera and unlike John Edwards, keeps his hair styled and colored to the exact degree required to remain understated. Romney also lives the American dream, which is to say he's both good looking and rich. This makes Mitt appealing to American women, especially Republican women. The fact that he's white is probably what appeals to most Republican men. The fact that he's good-looking, populated by sons and reminiscent of the Kennedys probably tugs the heartstrings of conservative-leaning Democrats.

Truth is, Mitt Romney is a media man's dream before he ever opens his mouth. Backed by the Bush political machine, he could conceivably wrap up the Republican nomination without having to ever utter one word. The problem, however, is that TV broadcasts more that pictures. And when it comes to hearing from Romney, all the American really gets to hear is this Christmas card kind of ad:

If you need to run that clip again, feel free to do so. See if you can find any words that ring of any value to anyone in the country. There's not a sentence in the entire spot that does anything other than add a soundtrack to the Mitt Romney mirage. I suppose this kind of feel good stuff could sell cans of soft drinks, but how does anyone with Romney-sized resources miss the target by this huge a margin?

Worse than saying the wrong things, Romney chooses to not say anything, which leaves him susceptible to the likes of Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, two populist paupers who have learned that Big Money Bullshit no longer passes muster with the American public. You may not like what either of them have to say, but at least you get to hear them say it.

No wonder that, despite his many millions, Romney is limping into Iowa this week, lagging by double digits behind Huckabee. Not that it matters much. Power brokers don't make their decisions based on public approval. They go where the money is. If they want Romney in, he'll get in. So why even bother with Romney's brand -- or lack thereof?

Because if Romney does get the nomination, and if he should get elected President, those very same power brokers are going to have to sell him to an American public. The very same public who bought into -- and got burned by -- the last one they sold them.

Political Brands: Fred Thompson

2007-11-23T17:07:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's me and the fact that I am, despite all my protests, getting old. Then again, maybe it's the dumbing down of America that's getting to me. Maybe it's both. But when I see the sorry lot of candidates running to become the leader of the free world, a shiver runs down my spine.

None of the candidates - Republican, Democrat or any life form in between - seems to have the brains of a bat when it comes to leadership. All of them seem to dismiss the notion that a leader is someone who leads, not panders. That's because my generation was the last to experience what following real leaders was like.

And believe me, it was a lot different than it is now.

People older than myself lament the loss of leadership by reciting a roll call of personalities from the Second World War. They'll talk about Roosevelt, DeGaulle, Chuchill -- and to some extent, Hitler and Mussolini. Sure, the latter two weren't exactly movie idol favorites, but each managed (mainly through sheer force) to drive their countries in new directions. It's just that the Axis powers were driven in the wrong direction.

In more recent American history, you hear the name Kennedy (John, not Robert or Teddy) bandied about as one of the last great leaders and no matter what your politics, you'd have to admit he was. JFK took bold moves, issued strong challenges and moved the country forward -- even while women were running naked through the White House.

The last great American leader, however, was Ronald Reagan. Forget his politics, for now. Focus on the last persona old enough to play the role of father to a massive, aging baby boomer population. You can say what you like about Ronald Reagan, but you can't take away his ability to inspire comfort, calm and assuredness to millions of Americans and foreigners alike.

If you don't remember his election, let me remind you that when Reagan took office, Jimmy Carter had driven interest rates up sky high (over 20%) and driven America's international image into the ground. By the time Reagan was into his second term, all of Carter's damage had been undone and then some: Soviet communism disintegrated without one shot being fired -- and this from the president whose detractors considered the most likely to push the button.

Not bad results for a clearly defined brand strategy.

Reagan's brand strategy -- like all good leaders -- was communicated effectively. And that's a big part of what great leaders do. John Kennedy made his visions clear, resulting in the country (and the world) following. Reagan tapped into the concerns of Americans, communicated them effectively and the world followed him, too.

Which brings us to Fred Thompson, a man -- like Reagan -- presumably with little in the way of traditional Presidential qualifications but whose communication qualities appear unrivaled. Take this 30 second piece for example:

Remind you of anyone? The toe-in-the-dirt, aw-shucks-folks-it's-so-simple approach designed to address American aspirations, hopes and dreams? There's a reason why Fred Thompson strikes such a major chord with so many Americans. And while his brand is never really articulated, it's his intuitive anti-branding that makes him so effective. Public relations people and competitive campaign advisors will snivel that Thompson's recurring role on Law and Order form the basis of his campaign power. Sure, it helps. But that's not what's going on here.

Thompson's ability to reach through the tube and not be like every other blowhard is what touches people. He never yells. He has no pretty boy looks. He just eases back and lets the voters discover his authority instead of hammering it into them, the same way DeForest Kelley did as Star Trek's Dr. McCoy when he protested on some distant planet in the future, "I may be just an old country doctor......" What Thompson projects is calm, credible, authoritative wisdom -- a quality totally lacking in his competitors. And he does it pretty well.

The question now is whether the actor has any idea that the role for which he's auditioning has real life consequences.

Starbucks Down the Drain

2007-11-16T09:52:00.000-08:00

One of the best parts about being an iconoclast is enjoying the naysayers who dump on remarks that are grounded in truth. I can't help it. I enjoy watching lemmings in denial jumping on the popular media bandwagon, only to tumble when the wheels fall off.

Such is the case with our friends at Starbucks, whose fortunes of late have been anything but fortunate. In case you're just tuning in, "everyone's favorite cup of coffee" has been dumping its value down the drain. In the twelve months previous to this writing, the stock that everyone continues to pronounce as "one of the best brands in America" has lost close to half its value.

Hmm. Why could that be?

Clearly, Starbucks' ever-rising prices over the last decade couldn't be nickel-and-diming its income statement to death. After all, if you're willing to pay three or four bucks for a latté -- or if you're cheap like me, a buck and change for a tall drip -- another quarter isn't going to change your behavior. Starbucks has been charging premium prices for its brew since well into the last century. We're used to it. We don't mind it.

Of course, if you were paying attention back then, there were telltale signs that Starbucks' high-flying days were numbered. Not because they couldn't purchase enough premium beans. And not because they couldn't hire enough young, overly-caffeinated baristas to process your order.

It was because Starbucks has no genuine brand. Never did.

Ah, I can already hear the whining of marketing and advertising people objecting to that last sentence. Here I am, blastpheming what posers and pundits have worshipped as a "great example of branding," when in fact I warned Starbucks publicly years ago that their lack of brand would eventually do them in. Nobody listened then. And nobody will listen now. But the truth will always out.

Here's the deal on Starbucks and its brand:

What everyone likes to call branding is, especially in Starbucks' case, nothing more than identity. When it comes to knowing who Starbucks is, there's no problem. But that's not a brand's - a real brand's - true function. That's advertising's function. Advertising is the means for raising a brand's awareness. But no amount of marketing or advertising or public relations can sustain a brand's growth if they raise awareness without making people understand why the brand is "the only solution" to their problem.

To this day, there is not one person who can accurately and consistently articulate why Starbucks is preferable to other competing brands. Not the average yutz in the street . Not the Vice President of their ad agency. Not even the CEO of Starbucks himself. And you can bet that if they can't articulate why Starbucks is "the only solution," nobody else in this great land of ours can, either.

And if millions of caffeine addicts can't articulate it, do you think the financial geniuses of Wall Street can? Of course not. They just look at the numbers and panic.

Which means that no matter how fast Starbucks dances, the Titanic will keep sinking. Sure, they'll try all kinds of cross-merchandising with all kinds of products they hope and pray will add to their coffers. But until they've defined why Starbucks is the only solution to their prospects' problems, Starbucks will keep playing hit-and-miss. There are only so many unemployed writers that can occupy floorspace with their laptops before a store's per-square-foot revenue sinks like a proverbial stone. And single women reading novels in hopes of getting a date don't do much for improving the bottom line, either.

When you put it all together, the picture isn't all that rosy for Starbucks. McDonald's will be coming out with high-priced coffee soon enough. Dunkin Donuts is already massing its troops along the border. And both of those brands have more to offer than the only thing Starbucks ever did -- a good cup of coffee.

Where there's no brand articulation, there is no strategy. And where there's no strategy, there's little chance of growth. Which means that while Starbucks may continue to brew a hot cup of coffee, their future is more than likely leave its investors steaming.

Redcoats and Terrorism

2007-09-23T13:03:00.000-07:00

There are all kinds of ways to learn things in life. Some people are good at memorizing facts. They look at a list, commit its contents to memory, show up for the test and ace the exam. The minute they walk out of the room, of course, every bit of memorized data detaches from their brains like leaves from a tree during an autumnal gust of wind. With those bits of data goes every bit of knowledge, because the main goal of the discipline -- to pass the exam -- has been achieved. They keep their little cheat sheets, though, just in case they ever have to memorize those facts again.

I've never been a memory learner. I've always been an observer of patterns. I look at situations and try to discern the commonalities they share. Once I see a pattern, I apply it to other situations to see how well the model holds up. It's an alternative way of learning, but it happens to be the way my brain works. I find that the more I understand why something happens, the easier it is for me to remember what happened. And because I've extracted the patterns leading up to, and through, each situation, I tend to string events together, making sense of the universe as best I can.

People who don't know me tend to dismiss my commentaries as somewhat cavalier, but I assure you they're not. I watch and listen. I observe things that some people find insignificant, but hold real value in stitching together patterns that, more often than not, reveal fascinating insights into everything from minor family events to major world political crises.

Take terrorism, for example. Everyone has been watching as the United States has deployed hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of billions of dollars into what we've allowed to be called The War on Terrorism, mainly the active military efforts to combat the forces of radical islam. We've been at this anti-terror thing for quite a while now, most noticeably in Afghanistan and Iraq, if you believe what you read in the papers. We've watched thousands of young Americans die and ten times that number return home wounded for life. Through it all, from the comfort of my armchair, I can't help but wonder:

Have we been all wrong in the way we're fighting the war on terror?

The way I see it, we've been led into these conflicts by memory learners. People who read a list of prerequisites, check off as many as apply to their situation and, having checked off the required number, launch into action. Don't get me wrong, I'm not selling the Joint Chiefs of Staff short here. I'm just Joe Average, with barely enough information on the Pentagon's decision-making process to even make an argument.

But what if the Pentagon -- which like every other governmental institution is driven by policy, rules and consensus -- are really memory learners? What if they really do react on a "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" basis? If that were the case, their reactions would likely follow the "we've been attacked, so we have to return fire" track. They'd do exactly what they've been doing: deploying formally-militarized units and supplies into the theater of war identified as the enemy camp.

And this is what concerns me. As a pattern learner, I've never thought the war on terrorism should be fought that way. When I look at the war on terror, I see the patterns that date back to the defeat of British redcoat soldiers. Whether in Africa or North America, the British faced armies of rag-tag, local militia (Americans and Zulus) who wore no uniforms. They blended into their environments and attacked the British in guerilla actions -- much the way radical muslims attack our own troops. The British further enhanced their own misfortunes by choosing bright red uniforms, making them easy targets for any sniper hiding in the woods or among the bush. The Brits marched in formation, signaling their approach with drums and bagpipes, tipping off their adversaries whose most successful tactic was the ambush.

See any similarities yet? See the patterns beginning to emerge?

I can't help but wonder why the Coalition Forces are sending in uniformed, organized military units to fight a stealthy enemy that knows no uniform or central command structure. Have we learned nothing from the past? Can nobody else see the patterns here? From the outset, I have never heard anyone in any position of authority put forth the argument as to how and why conventional military tactics simply don't apply to the war on terrorism. Is hubris so powerful a character flaw that we would have it risk our defeat?

I have no inside information. I have no White House connections. In fact, all I have is the hope that someone, somewhere deep inside the government has recognized the patterns evident here, creating counter terrorism units that move in stealth, applying the same tactics to counter terrorists as the terrorists use to attack the rest of the world. I hope they realize that every uniform worn by an American soldier is a 21st century red coat. A misapplied tactic woefully out of its place and time.

People ask me, "Are you for or against the war in Iraq?" Honestly, the only answer I can give them -- if they take the time to listen -- is that I've never supported doing anything stupid. I do believe that the threat terrorism has to be met and eliminated. I just don't see sending hundreds of thousands of easily identified targets as the smart move.

Red coats haven't been effective since the eighteenth century.

The Demise of Social Networking

2007-09-04T10:28:00.000-07:00

If you've been around the internet as long as I have (I didn't invent the internet, but I watched it being born), you get a sense of how it works. I'm not talking about the technology. That's kid stuff. I'm talking about the people who use, abuse and sell the technology.

Anyone who witnessed the internet meltdown of Web 1.0 remembers all kinds of statistics and theories that were supposed to propel the "new economy" through the fiber optic pipelines. Most of them were, in a word, ridiculous. Concepts like "lifetime value of a customer" inflated worthless companies' valuations beyond the stratosphere. Today, all but a few early-selling believers in those myths and legends (Mark Cuban, are you listening?) lost more than they ever hoped to gain.

As we wade into the muck known (typically) as Web 2.0, we are once again asked to believe in a new set of scams and paradigms. This time, it's Social Networking. And while social networking isn't nearly as fallible as say, "personalized start pages", these are the things of which Internet Bubbles are made.

Let me clarify:

The thing that makes Social Networking such a dangerous concept is the fact that its basis is fundamentally sound. The truth is, and always has been, that the web is a communal medium, given to aggregating humans around a central source. Anyone, from anywhere, can meet anyone else from anywhere else, establishing bonds that range from discussions of nuclear disarmament to the best motels for a kinky hook-up.

So far, so good.

But the problems with Social Networking far exceed their benefits. In the first place, simply gathering a bunch of dopes into one place with no specific purpose has the same effect as advertising a Giant Tractor Pull with no Giant Tractors. Sure, you'll probably meet up with some beer-swilling fans chugging the same tall cans of Miller, but after that, what value is left?

Second, with no structure, how long do you think people can tolerate each other? After you've finished that last can of Miller, what's left to talk about? I mean, there's only so much small talk one can manage during the course of the day. Which means the entire category is subject to the same fast fade every novelty item experiences: A small introduction, followed by a huge grassroots acceptance, fabulous usage, drop-off in interest and eventual extinction. For those of you old enough to remember them, Social Networks are the Digital Pet Rock.

Third, there are now so many Social Networks out there that nobody has the time to deal with them all. Especially since none of them have any stated purpose, the main topic of conversations among Social Networkers is no longer which music is hot. It's which networks to axe. These things are major time sucks.

Fourth, the dirty little secret about Social Networks is that all but one (yes, it's my own i-legions.com that's been profitable since 1998) have no sustainable revenue model. They rely too heavily on third party advertising. But what advertiser is going to pay for a network that's here today, gone tomorrow? Especially when even the hottest Social Networks of the day can't produce effective results? In case you haven't heard, all but one Social Network continues to produce results considerably lower than your basic direct mail rates -- and their sell-through rates are even lower.

Does this spell the demise of Social Networks like MySpace, Facebook and all the others that come online in droves? Yup. Not because people aren't using them. But because all but one are fundamentally flawed.

Think Rupert Murdoch can't blunder by paying $800 million for MySpace? Think Google is genius for paying $1.6 billion for YouTube? Think back to Web 1.0, when Netscape owned 90% of the browser market and Qualcomm stock was nearing $1000 a share.

That popping sound you hear ain't just in your ears.

Lucky Sub-prime Meltdowns

2007-08-23T15:52:00.000-07:00

Life is full of bumps and bruises. You can work real hard and nothing will happen. Or you can not work at all, be born with incredibly great looks -- and still, nothing will happen. And then there are those few, chosen people who haven't looks or talent, but succeed beyond anyone's wildest expectations. Those are the folks that have the one thing for which none of us are ever prepared:

Luck.

Everyone associates luck with success. I view it from a somewhat different perspective: Luck is just the flip side of the Randomness Coin. On one side, you have fame and fortune. On the other, you have meteorites plummeting from the sky, instantaneously immolating buses filled with school children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's the same randomness. One is good, the other is evil.

When it comes to luck, I suppose I've had my share. But truth be told, I've never had the really great, change-your-life kind of luck. I've never won the lottery or been discovered on YouTube. Or been rescued by a government program the way politicians are now talking about with regard to the sub-prime loan meltdowns.

In case you haven't taken a good, hard look at the sub-prime meltdown situation, it goes something like this: The media's version tells you that lots of hardworking people were duped into home loans that went bad on them. The loans went bad because they either were "interest only" (which means you don't really buy the house at all, you just pay interest on it) or negative amortization loans (which means every time you pay the "low monthly payment" you actually increase the amount you owe on the house) or something just as bad. The media likes to portray these homeowners as innocent victims.

But they're not. They're suckers. Lucky suckers. Here's why:

If you've ever purchased a home, you know that everything having to do with anything even remotely connected to the purchase is put in writing, shoved in front of you to read and sign. Every regulatory, government and industry agency makes sure of that. And while the fonts are small enough to require reading glasses, every term and condition is outlined for the average eighth-grade-reading-level American to peruse and digest.

You and I both know that even though they can read and understand all those terms and conditions, the fact is that few of those lucky sucker ever actually read and and understand all those terms and conditions. They usually rely on the agent to scratch an "X" next to the places requiring initials and signatures. The papers get signed and the next sounds you hear are the jinglings of the front door keys.

What everyone explained to these homeowners, what every loan agreement disclaimed to them, was the less-than-traditional situation in which these people were signing on the dotted line. What buyers were told, but often chose not to hear, was that "interest only" loans and "negative amortization" loans were founded on the precarious hope of their property's value appreciating by at least 25%, as it may have in previous years. That's when the greed factor kicked in, with hundreds of thousands of paycheck-to-paycheck citizens decided to spin the wheel for the big money, betting on red that the real estate market would keep on rising. The plan was to ride the inflation, then refinance the current loan with a more traditional 30 year fixed -- and maybe even take out some cash.

At last, the Little Guy could rip the system the way he'd always heard the big boys do it.

Of course, that didn't happen. The property values didn't rise. They sank, and along with them went the hopes and greedy dreams of the homeowners. Many of them lost their homes and their jobs. Once again, the lottery didn't turn up their numbers. They were, to be totally honest, victims of their own foolishness. And yet, they remain lucky, as politicians begin clamoring for rescue programs to aid the "victims" of the sub-prime meltdown. Yes, your tax dollars could soon be at work bailing out the media victims of their own poor judgement, in much the same way that the Federal government bailed out Chrysler some years back.

See, that's what I mean. I never get that kind of luck. We recently lost a fair amount of money in a real estate deal. Turns out the general contractor was a felon, and a good one. Lots of people lost lots of money. We went into the deal with our eyes as wide open as they possibly could be. When we heard the contractor was in jail, we knew we'd lost it all. But not one politician came forward with a "rescue plan" for us. No tax dollars going to work for me. I don't have that kind of luck.

Of course, what we lost amounted to something in the thousands. Others lost hundreds of thousands and even millions. Now that I think about it, maybe there's some luck in that, eh?