Archive for September, 2008

Taxes: Playing small ball (very small ball)

September 17, 2008

Boiled down to its essence, Senator Obama’s complicated tax plan reduces to the  redistribution of over $100 billion in income each year by taking an average of about $20,000 in additional annual income taxes from about 5 million people, and redistributing the loot to 200 million others — about $500  per person in annual refundable tax credits.

Momentarily tabling the philosophical aspects of the redistribution plan,  I have a practical question: is the pain worth the gain?

* * * * *

A noticeable difference ?

The $500 may give some psychological reassurance that Uncle Sam cares, but will it materially change anybody’s life or lifestyle?

The simple arithmetic: $500 works out to be less than $10 per week, a little over $1 per day, and about 25 cents per hour worked for a  full-time worker.  Hardly a life- or game-changer.

* * * * *

95% get tax relief.  Really ?

Obama says that 95% of voters will get tax relief under his program.

Huh? Right now, 40% of adults have zero tax liability or qualify for a refundable credit (i.e. a negative income tax).  Since these folks aren’t paying income taxes now, they certainly aren’t getting income tax relief.

So, they must be getting payroll tax relief — an offset to their Social Security and Medicare contributions — in effect, making the first $6,500 of wages payroll tax free.  (Note: employers would still have to pay their 7.65% on those wages)

But, about about half of the 40% who don’t pay income taxes have no reportable income.  For these folks, there’s either no tax relief at all and Obama’s claim is overstated.  Or, their refundable tax credit will be even less than the $1 per day.

* * * * *

Or is it 25 cents per day ?

Reports indicate that the majority or recent Economic Stimulus payments were used to pay off consumers’ debts.  That’s legit, but what’s the impact? 

Well, assuming that the money  paid down a high interest credit card balance, paying off $500 would save about $100 per year in interest charges —  adding about 25 cents per day to the spending pot.  Not exactly a game-changer.

* * * * *

Bottom line: Obama’s income redistribution scheme may be well intended.  But, it sure doesn’t seem (to me) like the pain is worth the gain.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

The sky is falling … or is it ?

September 17, 2008

Excerpted from Washington Post: “Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line”,  Donald Luskin, September 14, 2008

* * * * *

In the past two months, the Post alone has written no fewer than nine times, in news stories, columns and op-eds, that key elements of the economy are the worst they’ve been “since the Great Depression.”

That diagnosis has been applied twice to the housing “slump” and once to the housing “crisis,” to the “severe” decline in home prices, to the “spike” in mortgage foreclosures, to the “change” in the mortgage market and the “turmoil” in debt markets, and to the “crisis” or “meltdown” in financial markets.

* * * * *

Overall, the pessimists are up against an insurmountable reality: In the last reported quarter, the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3.3 percent, adjusted for inflation. That’s virtually the same as the 3.4 percent average growth rate since — yes — the Great Depression.

* * * * * 

Why, then, does the public appear to agree with the media? A recent Zogby poll shows that 66 percent of likely voters believe that “the entire world is either now locked in a global economic recession or soon will be.” Actually, that’s a major clue to what started this thought-contagion about everything being the worst it has been “since the Great Depression”: Politics.

* * * * *

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) database, which allows rigorous apples-to-apples comparisons, only goes back to 1979. It shows that today’s delinquency rate is only a little higher than the level seen in 1985.

According to the MBA, 6.4 percent of mortgages are delinquent to some extent, and 2.75 percent are in foreclosure.

Moreover, MBA data show that today’s foreclosures are concentrated in that small fraction of U.S. homes financed by subprime mortgages. Such homes make up only 12 percent of all mortgages, yet account for 52 percent of foreclosures.

* * * * * *

It is flat-out wrong … that “the personal savings rate is now the lowest it’s been since the Great Depression.” The latest rate, for the second quarter of 2008, is 2.6 percent — higher than the 1.9 percent rate that prevailed in the last quarter of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

* * * * *

According to the latest report from the National Association of Realtors, the median price of an existing home is up 8.5 percent from the low of last February.

And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median price of a new home is up 1.3 percent from the low of last December. Home prices may not be at all-time highs — and there are pockets of continuing decline in some urban areas — but overall they’ve clearly stopped going down and have started to recover.

* * * * *

According to the FDIC, there have been a total of 13 bank failures in 2007 and so far into 2008. There were 15 in 1999-2000, the climax of the celebrated era of Clintonian prosperity. And in recession-free 1988-89, there were 1,004 failures — almost an order of magnitude more than today. Since the Great Depression, the average number of bank failures each year has been 94.

* * * * *

From all-time highs last October, the S&P 500 has fallen 20 percent. But that’s nothing by historical standards. Stocks have often fallen more than that over comparable spans of time. Even the present 20-percent loss isn’t what it seems. The damage has been heavily concentrated in the financial sector — banks, investment firms and mortgage companies. If you exclude the financial sector, stocks are off 14.8 percent.

* * * * *

Whatever the political outcome this year, hopefully this will prove to be yet another instance of that iron law of economics and markets: The sentiment of the majority is always wrong at key turning points. And the majority is plenty pessimistic right now. That suggests that we’re on the brink not of recession, but of accelerating prosperity.

Full articel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202415_pf.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Clorox: Certified “Natural”

September 17, 2008

Excerpt from WSJ “Beauty Game: Being Viewed as Natural” September 10, 2008 

Proving that your brand is more authentic than the competition’s is always difficult for marketers.

For the increasingly crowded category of “natural” beauty products, that task is particularly challenging. That’s why Burt’s Bees, owned by Clorox Co., and a handful of other brands that try to minimize their use of synthetic ingredients have developed a certification process by which they can officially claim their right to call their products “natural.”

In August, Burt’s Bees products…began hitting store shelves affixed with a Natural Products Association seal. The sticker promises that at least 95% of ingredients are natural or derived from natural sources, that they have no “potential suspected human health risks” and that development processes haven’t significantly altered the effect of the natural ingredients, among other criteria.

Mike Indursky, Burt’s Bees’ marketing chief, led the brand’s involvement in the certification…Below, he discusses shoppers’ confusion with natural products..

WSJ: Why does Burt’s Bees need its naturalness certified?

Mr. Indursky: …97% of women told us they want some sort of regulation. We felt we had a responsibility to explain to people what natural is, and what natural isn’t, so they can make the most informed choice. We worked with the Natural Products Association and our competitors to develop the criteria.

WSJ: Since the standards are devised by the participating companies rather than a government agency, isn’t there a risk that this seal could be perceived as even more marketing hype?

Mr. Indursky: That would be risky if it weren’t for the National Product Association’s leadership over it, and their use of third-party certifiers. The brands have no inclusion over the certification process.

WSJ: As a marketer, how do you balance your brand’s natural stance with your parent-company’s brand, which is synonymous with bleach?

Mr. Indursky: There’s nothing to balance. Burt’s Bees is doing what it has always done, regardless of Clorox owning us. Clorox has been a fantastic supporter of ours, and our levels of sustainability and natural ingredients have only increased since we’ve been acquired.

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

Savvy consumers are likely to be skeptical of companies that create their own certification programs.  One also has to wonder if consumers recognize the stark differences between brand ideologies within a company such as Clorox.  Unilever has received criticism for the opposing ideologies of two of its brands, Axe deodorant spray and Dove.  Clorox also owns “Green Works,” a line of environmentally friendly cleaning products. Both Burt’s Bees and Green Works offer brand promises of green and natural, while the Clorox namesake represents bleach, chemicals and environmental harm. 

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122099934231816811.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog

Brands – The Power of Authenticity

September 17, 2008

Excerpted from Fast Company, “Who Do You Love”, Dec. 19, 2007

Juan Valdez … the fictional coffee-growing icon … has been featured in ads for decades, helping establish “100% Colombian coffee” as a global brand.

Juan’s appeal: humble but uncompromising, dedicated to the hard work of raising coffee by hand. “Juan Valdez taps into a fundamental human truth … that the things we savor the most are the hardest earned.” People emotionally connect with Juan because he seems authentic, and authenticity is a priceless commodity.

In an increasingly shiny, fabricated world of spun messages and concocted experiences … “Authenticity is the benchmark against which all brands are now judged. ”

Overloaded by sales pitches, consumers are gravitating toward brands that they sense are true and genuine. Hunger for the authentic is all around us. You can see it in the way millions are drawn to mission-driven products like organic foods.

Playing the authenticity game in a sophisticated way has become a requirement for every marketer, because the opposite of real isn’t fake–it’s cynicism. When a brand asserts authenticity in a clumsy way, it quickly breeds distrust or, at the very least, disinterest.

Each brand must build its own primary source code for the authentic. Still, there are some larger lessons (and pitfalls) that anyone charged with overseeing a brand would be wise to consider.

* * * * *

What does it take to be authentic?

It is a brand’s values — the emotional connection it makes — that truly define its realism.

A strong point of view. Authenticity emerges from “people with a deep passion for what they are doing.” So Martha Stewart is perceived to be authentic in large part because her ambitious recipes for Perfect White Cake and Chocolate-Strawberry Heart-Shaped Ice-Cream Sandwiches stand in the face of a world where food is mass-produced and preparation for the average dinner is measured by the number of minutes it takes to microwave the thing.

Serving a larger purpose. Every brand is governed by an ulterior motive: to sell something. But if a brand can convincingly argue that its profit-making is only a by-product of a larger purpose, authenticity sets in. “Just as there are purpose-driven lives … there are purpose-driven brands.” (Think Whole Foods)  “When a brand changes its story to better capture its customers’ dollars, it’s basically a poser … and people sense that right away.”

Integrity. Authenticity comes to a brand that is what it says it is. In other words, “the story that the brand tells through its actions aligns with the story it tells through its communications,” posts about Wal-Mart, the deception elicited a torrent of rebuke.

* * * * *

How do you stay authentic even as you get big?

Ubiquity might not be toxic to authenticity, but it certainly dilutes it. When a brand spreads far beyond its home turf, its branches almost invariably (though not inevitably) weaken.

No business has confronted this challenge more urgently than Starbucks. As chairman Howard Schultz lamented to upper management in a bluntly worded missive on Valentine’s Day, the company’s rapid growth has “led to the watering down of the Starbucks experience,” and the company’s stores “no longer have the soul of the past.” .”

* * * * *

Can you be authentic when you’re trying to be authentic?

Authenticity is necessary, but it cannot be compelled. Coerced by corporate fiat, their “warmth” can wear out its welcome and feel contrived. 

And therein lies an authentic paradox: A brand doesn’t feel real when it overtly tries to make itself real. To the hypertargeted consumer, baldly billboarding a brand’s message smacks of insincerity.

* * * * *

Can you be cool and still be authentic?

“Fortress brands” are deeply rooted in their heritage and values, they are inflexible, unmovable, and ultimately stuck in time. “That’s the problem with a dogmatic, static brand … the competition will outflank it, and the world will pass it by.”

Levi’s, for one, is a brand that appears to have slipped into the fortress category. The king of denim, whose founder stitched and riveted the world’s first pair of jeans in 1873, has lately missed out on the fast-changing trends of an industry that it created.

To maintain its integrity, a brand must remain true to its values. And yet, to be relevant–or cool–a brand must be as dynamic as change itself. An authentic brand reconciles those two conflicting impulses, finding ways to be original within the context of its history.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/115/features-who-do-you-love.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Uh Oh – Higher text message prices …

September 17, 2008

Excerpted from AP:  “Senator examining rising text messaging rates
09.09.08

The Senate Judiciary Committee is asking the nation’s top four wireless carriers to justify the “sharply rising rates” they charge people to send and receive text messages … it is concerned that rising text messaging rates reflect decreasing competition in the wireless business.

(Reportedly) consumers are paying more than 20 cents per message, up from 10 cents in 2005.

All four of the (wireless) companies appear to have adopted identical price increases at nearly the same time. “This conduct is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace”.

* * * * *

European Commission regulators are threatening to impose a cap on roaming fees for text messages sent by Europeans traveling outside of their home nations.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/09/ap5405763.html?partner=alerts

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Models Caught with Cookies

September 17, 2008

Excerpt from BrandWeek “Cookie, Toothbrush Invade Fashion Week” September 8, 2008

You expect to see MAC or Tresemme at Fashion Week, but a Kraft cookie brand?

You won’t see Kraft’s Le Petit Ecolier school boy cookie doing his thing on the runway, but the food giant will offer complimentary samples of the sweet to visitors inside its LU Lounge during Fashion Week…Kraft sees the event, known for its stick-thin models, as the perfect venue to publicize its premium biscuit line.

Kraft isn’t the only brand that has a tenuous link to the industry to glom onto Fashion Week. DHL, American Express and T-Mobile all have sponsorship stakes in this year’s Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week…

Procter & Gamble…is taking both its Tide and Oral-B brands straight to the catwalk…Models wearing clothes washed several times with the new Tide Total Care line walk the runway this morning; and tomorrow, Dash/Smooch presents its latest pajama collection in conjunction with P&G’s new slim, rechargeable Oral-B Pulsonic toothbrush…

The presence of such supermarket-friendly brands makes Fashion Week look increasingly accessible. Critics say that could pose a problem…

Many brands see the event as a way to bask in the glamorous halo of New York’s premiere fashion event. In the case of Tide, P&G is trying to use the brand’s new Total Care line as a crossover from “fabric care to fashion care,” said company rep Kash Shaikh… Oral-B, on the other hand, is going after the consumer who wants a toothbrush that not only delivers whiter teeth, but is aesthetically appealing as well.

Evian was among the first brands outside the rag trade to see Fashion Week’s potential. Evian has been the event’s bottled spring water of record for 10 years straight (1993-2003). After a five-year hiatus…Evian reemerged as the venue’s official H2O sponsor this year. 

Edit by SAC
* * * * *

As if the Kraft cookies weren’t enough, the Oral-B runway placement included models carrying toothbrushes down the catwalk and then pretending to brush their teach as they danced next to backup singers that performed during the show.  An equally odd pairing between McDonalds & the Olympics helped increase McDonald chicken sandwich sales this summer. Maybe models carrying chicken nuggets is the next unlikely pairing we’ll see on the runway.

* * * * * 
Full article:
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/packaged-goods/e3i8f41b4ad7b54e9000311387db21d1441?imw=Y

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog

Economics: The high cost of CAFE …

September 17, 2008

Excerpted from the WSJ: “How to Save Detroit … And $50 Billion”, by Holman Jenkins, September 10, 2008

* * * * *

The Detroit auto makers were all over the two conventions … with  a plea for $50 billion in federal loans. Congress practically owes us this money, Ford, GM and Chrysler argue — because Congress slammed us with new fuel mileage mandates that will cost us $100 billion to meet.

But before rushing to pass the legislation, there’s an easy way to save $50 billion or whatever part of these loans wouldn’t be paid back: Just repeal the fuel economy rules.

It must infuriate the auto makers how readily their critics attribute their problems to their own incompetence. Then how to explain that GM is thriving in Europe, selling small cars that get lots of miles per gallon? Buick is among the biggest selling brands in China. GM is running away with Latin America.

The Big Three’s problem, to be blunt, is North America. They should have pulled out long ago.

* * * * *

Not only did history saddle them with a UAW labor monopoly that their foreign competitors have managed to avoid. Even that might not have been fatal had Congress not enacted its “corporate average fuel economy” rules in the 1970s.

Look at gallons consumed, miles driven, barrels imported or emissions emitted: CAFE has had no significant impact on energy consumption. Its sole practical effect has been to inflict on Detroit the need to produce, with high-cost U.S. labor, millions of small cars designed to lose money.

* * * * *

CAFE has to be the most perverse exercise in product regulation in industrial history. It confronted the Big Three with the choice only of whether to lose a lot of money, by matching Toyota and Honda on quality and features; or somewhat less money, by scrimping on quality and features and discounting, discounting, discounting.

Rationally, they scrimped — and still live under a reputational cloud in the eyes of sedan buyers. Yet notice that their profitable product lines, in which they invest to be truly competitive — such as SUVs, pickups and minivans — hold their own against the Japanese and command real loyalty among U.S. consumers.

* * * * *

It flies in the face of human and business realities to imagine that, generation after generation, Detroit hired idiots while Toyota recruited geniuses — though that’s the usual explanation of Detroit’s troubles.

Had CAFE not existed, there is no reason the Big Three today could not be competitive. As businesses do, they would have allocated capital to products capable of recovering their costs. Investments in fuel efficiency would still have taken place — to the extent consumers valued those investments. That is, if they were profitable.

* * * * *

If Washington found this unsatisfactory, it could have done as the Europeans do and raised fuel taxes to coax the public to make different choices. Politically inexpedient? Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean CAFE is an effective substitute. It isn’t and never was.

* * * * *

Having squandered the domestic auto industry’s capital on millions and millions of cars that lost money, now Congress will squander the taxpayer’s capital. It will lend the auto makers $50 billion to invest in fuel efficiency innovations that, by definition, won’t command from car shoppers a price high enough to cover the cost of making them. Which makes it very unlikely we will get the $50 billion back.

Bottom line: Fifty billion won’t turn CAFE into effective policy. It will do just fine, though, as an indicator of Washington’s willingness to throw good money after bad rather than admit the folly of its own long-running handiwork.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100316976917063.html?mod=todays_columnists

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Median income for intact families at all time high …

September 16, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ: “New Evidence on Taxes and Income”, ARTHUR  LAFFER and STEPHEN MOORE, September 15, 2008

* * * * *

The new Census Bureau data on income and poverty reveal that many of the economic trends in this country are a lot more favorable than America’s detractors seems to think.

In 2007, overall real median family income increased to $50,233, up $600 from 2006. The real median income for intact families — mother and father in the home — rose to $78,000, an all-time high.

* * * * * 

Although incomes fell sharply in the U.S. after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 (and still haven’t fully recovered), these latest statistics reflect a 25-year trend of upward economic mobility.

To be sure, there has been a massive amount of wealth created in America over the last 25 years. But tax rates were cut dramatically across the income spectrum, for rich and poor alike. The results?

When all sources of income are included — wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits — and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005.  This fact alone refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.

* * * * *

Income gains over the last 30 years have been systematically understated due to several factors. These include:

– Fall in people per household. The gains in household income undercount the actual gains per person, because the average number of people living in low-income households has been shrinking. On a per capita basis, the real income gain for low-income households was 44% from 1983 to 2005, about 22% from 1983 to 1992 and about 18% from 1992 to 2002. These are excellent numbers by any measure.

– Earned income tax credit effect. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a government payment to low income people who work. Over time the EITC has multiplied the number of poor households that fill out tax forms each year and are thus counted in government income statistics. That’s because to be eligible to receive the refundable EITC, a tax return must be filed.

– We are now statistically counting more poorer families today than we used to. This is a major reason that median and poor household income gains appear to be a lot smaller than they have been in reality. Official tax return data show that in 1983, 19% of returns had zero tax liability; that percentage has climbed steadily, reaching 33% in 2005. (The Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2008 nearly 40% of filers will have no income tax liability.)

– Income mobility. In the U.S., people who had low incomes in 1983 didn’t necessarily have incomes as low a decade later. People in this country have long moved up over time, and this income mobility continues to be true. While some people do remain in the lowest income group, they are the exception.

* * * * *

What is also striking about the data is that the poor today are, in general, not the same people who were poor even a few years ago.

For example, the new Census data find that only 3% of Americans are “chronically” poor, which the Census Bureau defines as being in poverty for three years or more. Many of the people in the bottom quintile of income earners in any one year are new entrants to the labor force or those who are leaving the labor force.

* * * * *

America is still an opportunity society where talent and hard work can (almost always) overcome one’s position at birth or at any point in time. Perhaps the best piece of news in this regard is the reduction in gaps between earnings of men and women, and between blacks and whites over the last 25 years.

Census Bureau data of real income gains from 1980 to 2005 show the rise in incomes based on gender and race. White males have had the smallest gains in income (up 9%), while black females have had by far the largest increase in income (up 79%). White females were up 74% and black males were up 34%. Income gaps within groups are rising, but the gaps among groups are declining.

* * * * *

The evidence is plain that all groups across the income distribution have made solid gains during the last generation.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

This picture says at least 1,000 words.

September 16, 2008

This one should have been easy to call …

image 

Great analysis from SMH

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Dumb & Dumber … and campaign implications

September 16, 2008

The facts

Approximately 1/3 of people approve of the job that Bush is doing.

Only 1/5 of people think approve of the job that Congress is doing.

* * * * *

Question:
Why has McCain become competitive (or arguable gained a lead) in the presidential race ?

Hypothesis:
Bush’s 33% approval rating is usually mocked as overwhelming evidence of his failure as President

Adopting a “glass 1/3 full” perspective, these folks agree with Bush’s policies but may have considered McCain to be off-the -reservation.  Adding Palin to the ticket recast McCain as back on-the-reservation to this 1/3 voting block.  In other words, McCain recaptured the base.

But, McCain distances himself from Bush, claiming that he’ll maintain the “good” from Bush (e.g. low taxes, security) and  fix the “bad” (e.g. spending like a drunken sailor, cronyism, secrecy).  That appeals to folks who disapprove of Bush but don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

* * * * *

Approximately 1/3 of people approve of the job that Bush is doing. 

image 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_bush_job_approval-904.html#polls

* * * * *

Only 1/5 of people think approve of the job that Congress is doing.

w7oqqv

The last time the yearly average for approval of Congress approached this low a level was in 2006, when the Republicans lost majority control of Congress.

The previous occasion was in 1994, when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats.

In both of these midterm election years, the average congressional approval score was 25%.

However, with an 18% approval rating for Congress in 1992, the Democrats succeeded in holding their majority in Congress. That was a presidential year in which the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, won.

Gallup: “Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive”, September 12, 2008

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress-Suddenly-Looks-Competitive.aspx

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Many Companies All A-"Twitter"

September 16, 2008

Excerpted from Business Week, “How Companies Use Twitter To Bolster Their Brands”, by Rachel Kin, September 6, 2008

* * * * *

A growing number of companies are keeping track of what’s said about their brands on Twitter . . . using Twitter to do everything from burnish brands to provide customer service. The attention to Twitter reflects the power of new social media tools in letting consumers shape public discussion over brands.

* * * * *

Begun in 2006, Twitter is a pioneer of microblogging, a way for users to keep others informed of their current status by way of text messaging, instant messaging, e-mail, or the Web. While Twitter doesn’t release exact numbers, estimates range from 1 million to 3 million users.

It’s not just audience size that draws brands. People who use the site are likely to hold sway over others. A single Twitter message—known informally as a tweet—sent in frustration over a product or a service’s performance can be read by hundreds or thousands of people. Similarly, positive interaction with a representative of the manufacturer or service provider can help change an influencer’s perspective for the better.

* * * * *

In a July 2008 report, Gartner added microblogging to its list of technologies that will transform business over the next two to five years.

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/sep2008/tc2008095_320491.htm

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

Marketing: Perspective’s from PepsiCo’s CEO

September 16, 2008

Excerped from WSJ: “PepsiCo CEO Adapts to Tough Climate”,  September 11, 2008

* * * * *

Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo chairman and chief executive, is steering the snack and beverage giant through its biggest challenges in nearly a decade.

Tough economic times are pummeling beverage sales in the U.S., Pepsi’s biggest market. Grain, vegetable-oil and other commodity prices have climbed. Rival Coca-Cola  is out to grab market share from Pepsi in juices and other noncarbonated drinks. .

* * * * *
Indra Nooyi took the helm of PepsiCo in 2006.   She was a major force behind Pepsi’s decision to spin off its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC restaurants and buy Tropicana, Quaker Oats and other makers of healthy drinks and snacks. Broadening its portfolio has allowed Pepsi to take the lead in the U.S. in the beverages that are growing the fastest: juices, flavored and bottled waters, teas and other drinks.

* * * * *

In an interview, Ms. Nooyi talked about managing in a volatile economic climate while expanding around the globe.

WSJ: Why are beverages being hit harder than snacks by the economic slowdown?

Ms. Nooyi: Beverages are a much more penetrated category … a lot of wastage … people unscrewed their bottle and didn’t finish it all. Now they’re carrying the bottle longer and finishing the beverage.

We haven’t seen this kind of slowdown in convenience-store traffic in 25 years. What you get is the consumer who walks in and picks up a bag of Doritos but can do without the [drink].

* * * * *

WSJ: What can be done to keep beverage sales from slipping further in this economy, and to revive consumer interest in soda?

Ms. Nooyi: You really have to segment your portfolio very, very carefully. You want targeted innovation that grabs the consumer and gives people a reason to buy.

People still love bubbles. We have to give people a reason to come back to cola. We’ve got to romance them.

* * * * *

WSJ: Is PepsiCo international enough?

Ms. Nooyi: Forty percent of our revenue comes from international. Most of our growth is coming from international.  We know that a lot of the growth potential is overseas, and we are going after it aggressively.

* * * * *

WSJ: Do you want to unseat Coke in international beverage sales?

Ms. Nooyi: In the Middle East and parts of Asia, where we are strong, we want to remain very, very strong. Where the market growth is spectacular like China, India, Russia, we are going to keep investing so that when the music stops we have a great shot at being up there as the leader. And then in all the other markets, we want to play the noncarbonated game aggressively.

* * * * *

WSJ: You have talked about tackling obesity. Some people would say it’s insincere or hypocritical for the chairman of a company whose biggest products include Pepsi-Cola, Lay’s and Doritos to do that.

Ms. Nooyi: Why should they think I am being insincere or hypocritical? There is a place for Pepsi, because it tastes great. Potato chips are part of the American diet.

I am extremely proud of our track record. Name me one other company that took out trans fats from all its products without increasing the price of its products — four or five years before anyone else. We’re doing everything possible to shift our portfolio to “better for you” or “good for you” products.

* * * * *

WSJ: Gatorade lost some share last year, and you changed the brand’s management team. How’s it doing now?

Ms. Nooyi: Brands go through ups and downs. Gatorade is an extremely strong brand. I think every five or seven years, you’ve got to change out the approach to the brand, because you need a new boost of energy to think about the next iteration. Brands never die. You only stop reinventing them.

* * * * *

WSJ: How do you keep up with what’s going on in the market and get new ideas for products?

Ms. Nooyi: I do market tours all the time. Every weekend I hop in the car and go somewhere. I listen to kids talk about what they’re consuming, what they’re doing, what they’re not doing.

I read a range of things to keep in touch with cultural and lifestyle trends — the usual business press but also People and Vanity Fair and anything close to the cutting edge of the culture. Even the AARP magazine.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB122109233453421645.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Health Care: The Obama Plan

September 16, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ: ” Why Obama’s Health Plan Is Better”, David Cutler, Sept. 16, 2008 

* * * * *
The big threat to growth in the next decade is not oil or food prices, but the rising cost of health care. The doubling of health insurance premiums since 2000 makes employers choose between cutting benefits and hiring fewer workers.

Rising health costs push total employment costs up and wages and benefits down. The result is lost profits and lost wages, in addition to pointless risk, insecurity and a flood of personal bankruptcies.

Sustained growth thus requires successful health-care reform.

* * * * *

Sen. Obama’s proposal

Learning. One-third of medical costs go for services at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Fifty billion dollars will jump-start the long-overdue information revolution in health care to identify the best providers, treatments and patient management strategies.

Rewarding. Doctors and hospitals today are paid for performing procedures, not for helping patients. Insurers make money by dumping sick patients, not by keeping people healthy. Obama proposes to base Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and doctors on patient outcomes (lower cholesterol readings, made and kept follow-up appointments) in a coordinated effort to focus the entire payment system around better health, not just more care.

Pooling. The Obama plan would give individuals and small firms the option of joining large insurance pools. With large patient pools, a few people incurring high medical costs will not topple the entire system, so insurers would no longer need to waste time, money and resources weeding out the healthy from the sick. 

Preventing. In today’s health-care market, less than one dollar in 25 goes for prevention, even though preventive services — regular screenings and healthy lifestyle information — are among the most cost-effective medical services around. Guaranteeing access to preventive services will improve health and in many cases save money.

Covering. Controlling long-run health-care costs requires removing the hidden expenses of the uninsured. The reforms described above will lower premiums by $2,500 for the typical family, allowing millions previously priced out of the market to afford insurance.In addition, tax credits for those still unable to afford private coverage, and the option to buy in to the federal government’s benefits system, will ensure that all individuals have access to an affordable, portable alternative at a price they can afford.

* * * * *

Given the current inefficiencies in our system, the impact of the Obama plan will be profound. Besides the $2,500 savings in medical costs for the typical family, according to our research annual business-sector costs will fall by about $140 billion.

We know these savings are attainable: other countries have them today. We spend 40% more than other countries such as Canada and Switzeraland on health care — nearly $1 trillion — but our health outcomes are no better.

The lower cost of benefits will allow employers to hire some 90,000 low-wage workers currently without jobs because they are currently priced out of the market. It also would pull one and a half million more workers out of low-wage low-benefit and into high-wage high-benefit jobs. Workers currently locked into jobs because they fear losing their health benefits would be able to move to entrepreneurial jobs, or simply work part time.

* * * * *
Mr. Cutler is professor of economics at Harvard and an adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

* * * *
Full op-ed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152292213639569.html#printMode

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

McCain (and other folks) who don’t use the Internet

September 15, 2008

Excerpted from: “Wondering No More”, Jonah Goldberg, September 12, 2008

* * * * *

As part of its “get tough” makeover, the Obama campaign is mocking John McCain for not using a computer, without caring why he doesn’t use a computer.

From the AP story about the computer illiterate ad:

  • “Our economy wouldn’t survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats,” [Obama spokesman Dan] Pfeiffer said. “It’s extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn’t know how to send an e-mail.”

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “extraordinary.” The reason he doesn’t send email is that he can’t use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country.

From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

  • “McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. “

In a similar vein I guess it’s an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Paterson doesn’t know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it’s like to navigate New York’s highways.

* * * * *

Ken’s POV

Besides the potential problems raised by attacking an infirmity (I’m sure it’s strictly unintentional and “innocent”  like the lipstick riff), there’s a more general marketing strategy question.

Obama is running behind with low-ed, low-income, rural old folks — who, incidentally, are the lightest users of the Internet and email. 

If that is one of Obama’s remedial target market, does it make sense to run a commercial making fun of them ?  Hmmmm

* * * * *

From Pew Research:

image

image

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

So,what exactly is the "Bush Doctrine" ?

September 15, 2008

Excerpted from RealClear Politics: “Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe”, Charles Krauthammer, September 13, 2008

* * * * *

Note: Krauthammer — a conservative commentator —  is credited (even by Wikipedia) as having coined the term  “Bush Doctrine”.  So, he should know …
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

* * * * *

Summary

The “Bush Doctrine” is not a “doctrine at all — there are only 2 presidential doctrines in history — the Monroe & the Truman.  The prevailing  contemporary usage of the term  “Bush Doctrine” is the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world  … not “anticipatory defense”.

* * * * * 

Article

“Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of `anticipatory self-defense.'” — New York Times, Sept. 12

* * * * *

Informed her? Rubbish.

The Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today.

* * * * *

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, he grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

* * * * *

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of The Weekly Standard titled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to Congress nine days later, Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not. It’s the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of Bush foreign policy and the one that most distinctively defines it: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy’s pledge that the United States “shall pay any price, bear any burden … to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson’s 14 points.

* * * * * 

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about Bush’s grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda.

Not the Gibson doctrine of pre-emption.

Not the “with us or against us” no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

* * * * *

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines, which came out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.

* * * * *

Yes, Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted.

In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the phenom who presumes to play on their stage.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/charlie_gibsons_gaffe.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Why the power of word-of-mouth …

September 15, 2008

From the Rasmussen Reports, Sept. 11, 2008

* * * * *

46% of voters say they most trust information about the presidential campaign from family and friends as opposed to 32% who trust the information from news reporters more.

* * * * *

Voters are skeptical of media bias in general.

Only 21% of voters overall say reporters try to offer unbiased coverage.

86% of Republicans, 74% of independents, and 49% of Democrats think reporters try to help the candidate they want to win.

45% of Democrats say most reporters are providing unbiased coverage in the current presidential campaign, but only 20% of unaffiliateds and 9% of Republicans agree.

* * * * *

63% of likely McCain voters believe reporters would hide information harmful to the candidate they favor, 48% of potential Obama voters agree.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://web1.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/
2008_presidential_election/69_say_reporters_try_to_help_the_candidate_they_want_to_win

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Kellogg : Online Marketing ROI Beats Broadcast

September 15, 2008

Excerpted from Advertising Age, “Kellogg: Digital ROI Surpasses That of TV” Sep 4, 2008

The digital divide is narrowing for Kellogg Co..its return on online investment for the Special K brand has surpassed that of broadcast TV over the past 18 months.

Kellogg crossed the $1 billion benchmark on ad spending during 2007, and its outlay is set to increase this year.

“It’s still relatively early in our learning,” Mark Baynes, CMO…said,…”But analysis of the Special K initiative of the last 18 months showed digital media exceeding that of broadcast ROI.”

The marketer described the company’s findings as “obviously very encouraging,” and predicted they would help “drive stronger adoption across the business…For the right opportunity, the [online] space offers fresh ways to commercialize new and existing brands, target specific audiences on needs more cost effectively…”

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

While measuring success of online advertising continues to evolve, Kellogg isn’t the only company looking for higher returns online.  AdAge announced earlier this year that GM plans to move half of its ad spending online and a recent report by eMarketer notes that online advertising’s share of total media will double from 2006 to 2011, reaching $42 billion by 2011.

Chart Source:
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/online-ad-spending-to-reach-42b-by-2011-budget-shift-to-accelerate-2292/emarketer-us-online-advertising-spending-2006-2011jpg/

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057760688302147.html?mod=2_1567_topbox

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Small step forward on off-shore drilling …

September 12, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ: “Outer Continental Shuffle”, September 12, 2008

* * * * *

Background

In  recent letter to Congress on this specific  issue, one large oil company claimed that it had actively explored over 95 percent of their existing federal oil and natural gas leases.

Most the explored leases did not contain economically viable oil and natural gas resources. 

Based on known geological characteristics, the company anticipates a higher success rate and commercial viability from the off-shore acreage that is currently “off limits”. 

 

* * * * *

Article

The Senatorial Gang of 10 compromise … plan would allow drilling offshore of four states — Georgia, Virginia and the Carolinas — and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

It would also allow modern seismic surveillance (which has been banned for 26 years)

* * * * *

Today 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf is off limits for drilling. The Gang of 10 would only reduce that to 75%,

It also allows drilling only outside of 50 miles and only if the states allow it. That arbitrary 50-mile buffer zone is more than three times farther than necessary to be out of sight from shore.

It also walls off many of the most promising and least costly drilling sites, such as the Gulf of Mexico’s Destin Dome, which is some 25 miles offshore of Florida.

* * * * *

The gang proposal does nothing to open up more of Alaska, and nothing to remove the ban on exploring oil shale in states like Colorado and Utah.

* * * *

The gang would also impose about $86 billion in new taxes, in large part on oil and gas companies through higher royalty fees

Naturally, the Members propose to take that $86 billion . . . and ladle it out in subsidies for “clean coal,” electric cars, nuclear energy research, biofuels, cellulosic ethanol and solar and wind power.

The plan would provide …Detroit $7.5 billion to “retool” to make electric or alternative-fuel cars; $7.5 billion for research on battery-operated cars; and another $5 billion for a $7,500 tax credit for Americans who purchase these “green” cars.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB122117598127425809.html

* * * * *

Note: A scientist friend of mine points out that lithium — the core of rechargeable batteries — is  a capacity constrained element.  There’s not enough of it in the world to support the aggressive hybrid plans being bandied about.  And, disposal of spent lithium-based batteries presents a significant an environmental  issue.  Nothing’s easy …

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Oil Economics: Windfall profits (for the gov’t)

September 12, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ: “Drilling for Dollars”, September 12, 2008

Congress … stands to collect a windfall if they drop their ban on offshore oil-and-gas development.

In fact, liberating publicly owned resources could net the Treasury as much as $2.6 trillion in lease payments, royalties and corporate taxes, according to one estimate currently knocking around Capitol Hill. That’s almost a full year of spending even for this spendthrift Congress.

* * * * *

Already, with the ban in place, offshore development is one of the federal government’s greatest sources of nontax revenue, amounting to $7 billion and change in 2007. Energy companies bid competitively to acquire leases upfront, then pay rents. The feds are also entitled to a royalty on the market value of oil and gas when sold. Corporate income taxes on producer profits add to the bank.

The total government take from leases in the Gulf of Mexico ranges from 37% to 51%, depending on the location of the lease. The take is somewhat higher is Alaska.

* * * * *

Opening up a small portion of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would generate over $500  billion in government and state revenue.  (see article)

The $2.6 trillion estimate, is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from exploiting the 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that the Department of the Interior determines are undiscovered but “recoverable” on the Outer Continental Shelf.

We don’t know what’s actually out there because analysis with modern equipment has been forbidden by Congress in many areas for 26 years. 

* * * * *

Since fossil fuels are expected to provide nearly the same share of total energy supply in 2030 as they do today — even with major growth in alternative energy — Washington might as well make a few bucks.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122117603688025815.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Numbers: Raise your hand if you want to redistribute income …

September 12, 2008

Excerpted from Ramussen Reports:  “Most Voters Say Encouraging Economic Growth is Key, but Big Government is Not the Solution”, September 09, 2008

* * * * *

Summary: Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters say encouraging economic growth in America is more important than closing the gap between the rich and poor, and the best way to do that is for the government to move out of the way.

* * * * *

86% of Republicans say encouraging growth is more important while just 41% of Democrats who agree.

60% of unaffiliated voters also believe promoting growth is the top priority.

54% of Democrats say bridging the gap between the upper and lower classes should be the more important goal

* * * * *

74% of adults who make over $100,000 a year  say encouraging growth is more important.

51% of voters who make less than $20,000 a year say bridging the gap between rich and poor is more important.

Note: The 74% doesn’t surprise me.  The even split of low-earners does.  I would have expected that number to be much higher.

* * * * *

51% believe the federal government has too much control over the economy.

54% think the best thing the government can do is step out of the way by reducing regulation and taxes

* * * * *.

Fewer than one-fourth of all voters believe the price of gas will go down no matter who wins the White House … 24% for McCain, 22% for Obama

* * * * *
Full report:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/most_voters_say_encouraging_economic_growth_is_key_but_big_government_is_not_the_solution

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Doh!: Top eight campaign gaffes

September 12, 2008

Excerpted from Politico.com, “Doh!: Top eight gaffes of the campaign”, by Jim VandeHei and Harry Siegel, September 8, 2008

* * * * *

Here is Politico’s list of the top eight gaffes that are virtually certain to haunt John McCain and Barack Obama until Election Day:

1. “Bitter”

At an April 6 fundraiser in San Francisco, “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Not coincidentally, the small towns in places like Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia are where Obama found the least support in his primary bid.

2. Countless houses

McCain wasn’t able to tell Politico in an interview last month …  “I think—I’ll have my staff get to you, I can’t tell you about that. It’s condominiums where—I’ll have them get to you.”

The slip dovetailed perfectly with a just-launched Democratic bid to counter McCain’s ads painting Obama as a lightweight celebrity with an offensive of their own

The Obama campaign had an attack ad depicting the Republican as wealthy and out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

3. “Shout out to my pastor”

Obama praised Rev. Jeremiah Wright — of ““God damn America.” —  fame last July while addressing a conference of black clergy members:

“And then I’ve got to give a special shout out to my pastor. The guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader not just in Chicago but all across the country, so please everybody give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Trinity United Church of Christ.”

The comments seems tailor-made for an attack ad, where they can be juxtaposed with some of Wright’s more inflammatory remarks.

4. Don’t know much about economy

In 2005, McCain told the Wall Street Journal, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

As damaging as print quotes can be, it’s video of similar comments that may prove most damaging with voters.

5. “Likable enough”

Obama’s crack at his then-rival during the Jan. 5 primary debate may come back to haunt him.

Clinton was asked a question about voters preferring Obama to her on a personal level, and as she replied, “I’ll try to go on. He’s very likable, I agree with that. I don’t think I’m that bad—“ he interrupted to crack, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

Hillatry supporters cringed.

6. “100 years”

McCain’s remark at a January 3 town hall that American troops might stay in Iraq for 100 years had been intended to evoke America’s continued peacetime military presence in countries like Germany and South Korea, but the sound bite endures:

Obama quickly added the line “John McCain wants us to keep troops there for 100 years” into his stump speech, and MoveOn.org aired one of the first significant third-party buys of the cycle, “

7. The “Ones”

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who’ve been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine.”

Republicans will spend the next two months painting Obama as an empty celebrity with a messianic complex. Expect this Super Tuesday Obama moment to resurface as part of that effort.

8. Computer Illiterate

Politico asked McCain: “Mac or PC?”

“Neither,” McCain replied. “I am a pc illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get.”

Younger, internet-savvy voters were aghast.

* * * * *

Honorable mention: The wives

Michelle Obama — Pride
“For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Cindy McCain—The only way to travel
“In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.”

* * * * *

Full article (with pictures & videos):
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3CAF8BF0-18FE-70B2-A8381956A653CBD0

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

How Taxes Work . . .

September 12, 2008

A classic that can’t be told too often.

* * * * *
 
This story of ten men going having dinner represents how our tax system in the U.S. works…

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to suggest the amounts that each should pay.

Under the owner’s plan, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $6, the eighth paid $10, the ninth paid $14, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $48 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $11”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got eleven times more than me!”.

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $11 back when I got only $2? The rich get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and berated him for being greedy. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were $48 short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

* * * * *

Thanks to Colin Cushing, MSB MBA alum for reprising this story. 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Econ – Social & Market Norms

September 12, 2008

Excerpted from Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely, HarperCollins Books, 2008

Social norms include the friendly requests that people make to one another … and reciprocity is neither immediate nor required … just because you help your neighbor move his couch doesn’t mean he has to run right over and help you move your’s.  The social actions themselves provide pleasure for both the giver and the receiver.”

Market norms are all about [valuing] benefits and making prompt payments.  When you play in the domain of market norms, you get what you pay for … there’s nothing warm and fuzzy about it.”

“Money is very often the most expensive way to motivate people.”  As soon as money is introduced to a transaction … any existing social contract is violated,  market norms take over,  and you get what you pay for, 

Example: AARP

AARP asked some lawyers if they would offer simple legal services to needy retirees at low prices — something like $30 an hour.  Most lawyers said no. 

Then, AARP asked lawyers if they would offer the same services free of charge to needy retirees.  Overwhelmingly, the lawyers said yes.  A market norm was transformed into a social norm — very successfully.

Example: Late Day Care Pickups

A day care center started fining parents who arrived late to pick up their children.  Counter-intuitively, the number of late pickups increased. 

Why?  Because a social norm — the embarrassment of showing up late to pick up your children — was replaced by a market norm — the amount of the fine.  So, with the social stigma removed, parents could simply decide whether it was worth it to them to pay the fine and show up late. 

Eventually the day care center stop collecting fines, and started publishing the names of late parents.

* * * * *

Bottom line: Don’t underestimate the power of social norms, or overestimate the power of market norms and monetary compensation.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Maybe, just maybe, the answer is $5 million

September 11, 2008

Background: At the Obama-McCain Saddleback debate, the candidates were asked: “What’s rich?” Both gave flip answers.  Obama got a pass, McCain didn’t.  Thinking about it, McCain may have been right.

* * * * * 

Since Saddleback, Senator McCain has been getting repeatedly hammered for his $5 million dollar answer to Rick Warren’s “what’s rich?” question. 

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Senator Obama got a free pass for his parallel laugh line — even though the annual royalties on 25 million books probably exceed $5 million.  Perhaps. the conversion from books to dollars is sufficiently nuanced that folks didn’t notice.

Even liberal columnist Paul Krugman, acknowledges that McCain was just joking when he flipped the $5 million dollar figure at Pastor Rick. 

In a recent  New York Times op-ed titled “Now, that’s rich”,  Krugman concedes the point and puts it into context.  Specifically, he references the book Richistan by Robert Frank of The Wall Street Journal. According to Krugman, Frank “declares … that country is divided into levels, and only the inhabitants of upper Richistan live like aristocrats; the inhabitants of middle Richistan lead ample but not gilded lives; and lower Richistanis live in McMansions, drive around in S.U.V.’s, and are likely to think of themselves as “affluent” rather than rich.”

Perhaps, the stage-pensive Obama should take pause and reflect on Prof. Krugman’s observations.  Senator McCain gave Senator Obama a huge gift.  No, not the new applause line that Obama keeps repeating in his stump speech. It’s bigger than that.  It’s a clue to attracting — or, at least, to avoid alienating — about 5 million voters who, in a close election, may be what the pollsters call “statistically significant”.

* * * * *

Let me explain.

Boiled down to its essence, Senator Obama’s complicated tax plan reduces to taking an average of about $20,000 in additional annual income taxes from about 5 million people, and redistributing the loot to 200 million others — $500 (or more) per person in annual tax credits. 

Some of the 5 million targeted “givers” earn as low as $200,000; some are in  Warren Buffett’s category, earning $40 million or $50 million or more.  Obama’s plan doesn’t differentiate among them. The freshly minted MBA working 80 high stress hours in a high cost, high tax locale (think, New York or San Francisco) – paying off a hundred grand or more in student loans — just gets lumped in with Bill Gates.

Now, what if Senator Obama were to adopt Senator McCain’s perspective and define “rich” as starting at $5 million ?  What would it take to raise a redistributable $100 billion from them ?

Well, according to recently released IRS data, there were about 41,000 tax returns filed in 2006 with adjustable gross income greater than $5 million.  Those returns averaged over $15 million in AGI and $13.5 million in taxable income.  As a group, the over $5 million crowd accounted for almost $600 billion in annual taxable income.

So, if he wanted to, Obama could leave the folks earning $200,000 to $5 million alone, and raise the $100 billion by introducing an uber-high income tax bracket for everybody reporting more than $5 million — upping their effective tax rates to about to about 37% (from their current 20% effective income tax rate).  To get there would require a 50% top bracket marginal income tax rate (up from 35%).  And, since about 75% of the uber-high-earners income comes from capital gains and dividends, which are insulated from the Alternative Minimum Tax calculations  — the capital gains and dividends rate would have to upped to about 30%, and rolled into the AMT.

* * * * *

Before dismissing the notion out-of-hand, consider that a $5 million top bracket fits in a historical context, and has some well-aged precedents.  

Since 1913, the top bracket income threshold has averaged about $650,000 (unadjusted for inflation), ranging from $29,750 in 1988 (Reagan’s last year)  to, yes,  $5 million (from 1932 to 1941).  In order to fund WWII, the top bracket income threshold was cut in 1941 to $200,000 — which, coincidentally, inflates to about $5 million in 2008 dollars. 

Besides generating a $100 billion redistribution pool, a top bracket with a high rate and high income threshold addresses a few of Senator Obama’s other oft-repeated concerns.  On the campaign trail, Obama often showcases Warren Buffett’s lament that his secretary’s 30% tax rate is higher than his 18%.  That gap only narrows a bit under Senator Obama’s current plan (her’s drops to 29%; his goes to 22%).

Under an uber-income rate bracket structure, the Buffett injustice would remedied, and along with it, private equity and hedge fund loopholes would be closed, and the fattest cats would start paying their fair share despite the holes in the AMT.  Sure, these uber-earners will be tempted to search harder for tax shelters — in the U.S. and offshore — but that’s a risk that Obama says he’s willing to take.

* * * * *

If Senator Obama wanted to moderate the risk somewhat, he could scheme between the extremes by creating multiple new brackets.  Maybe a bracket starting at $500,000 with a 40% marginal rate, a 42.5% bracket starting at $1 million, a 45% bracket starting at $2.5 million, a 47.5% bracket starting at $5 million, and a 50% bracket starting at $10 million.  By my math, this multiple bracket structure would give Senator Obama his $100 billion, too. The point: there are many ways to skin the (fat) cats.

Comedians say that, at their core, many jokes have a ring of truth.  Senator McCain’s $5 million jest may have provided Senator Obama with an out-of-the box idea for rebalancing incomes: deep-drilling the super-rich. The introduction of an uber-income bracket would make Obama’s tax plan more palatable to about 3% of the voting population. And, Mr. Buffett would get his wish come true. In military parlance, I think that’s called friendly-fire.  

* * * * * 

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Health Care: Wanted – Primary Care Physicians …

September 11, 2008

Excerpted from AP: “Fewer US med students choosing primary care”, Sep 9, 2008

* * * * *

Note:

One of my hot buttons is the way that politicos confuse “health insurance” with “health care”.  It’s relatively easy to throw money at problems.  It’s harder to fix fundamental problems.  This article highlights a fundamental problem. 

* * * * *

The coordinated care provided by primary care doctors can keep costs down by preventing harmful drug interactions, unneeded medical procedures and fragmented specialty care, Goodman said.

Only 2 percent of graduating medical students say they plan to work in primary care internal medicine, raising worries about a looming shortage of the first-stop doctors.The results of a new survey being published Wednesday suggest more medical students, many of them saddled with debt, are opting for more lucrative specialties.

In a similar survey in 1990, the figure was 9 percent.

Paperwork, the demands of the chronically sick and the need to bring work home are among the factors pushing young doctors away from careers in primary care, the survey found.

* * * * *

“I didn’t want to fight the insurance companies”

“Medicare’s fee schedule pays less for office visits than for simple procedures”

Primary care doctors  … “speed to see enough patients to make a reasonable living,” 

* * * * *

It’s hard work taking care of the chronically ill, the elderly and people with complex diseases — “especially when you’re doing it with time pressures and inadequate resources.”

* * * * *

The salary gap may be another reason.

Family medicine had the lowest average salary last year, $186,000, and the lowest share of residency slots filled by U.S. students, 42 percent.

Orthopedic surgery paid $436,000, and 94 percent of residency slots were filled by U.S students.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, medical school is getting more expensive. The average graduate last year had $140,000 in student debt.

* * * * *

A separate study in JAMA suggests graduates from international medical schools are filling the primary care gap.

About 2,600 fewer U.S. doctors were training in primary care specialties — including pediatrics, family medicine and internal medicine — in 2007 compared with 2002.

In the same span, the number of foreign graduates pursuing those careers rose by nearly 3,300.

“Primary care is holding steady but only because of international medical school graduates … and holding steady in numbers is probably not sufficient when the population is growing and aging.”

* * * * *

And as American students lose interest, teaching hospitals will probably become less interested in offering primary care programs.

JAMA called on Congress to create a permanent regulatory commission to encourage training for needed specialties.

U.S. teaching hospitals now receive $10 billion a year from the government to train doctors.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_he_me/med_fewer_docs&printer=1;_ylt=AnGPB0GDsuNJ96p_SpCK0D5a24cA

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Campaign Economics – Never leave $84 million on the table …

September 11, 2008

Excerpted from Newsweek, “Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?” Andrew Romano, September 09, 2008

* * * * *

On Sept. 16, Obama will start his evening at a 46,000 square-foot mansion in Beverly Hills, then proceed to the posh Beverly Wilshire hotel. Needless to say, Obama won’t be prospecting for votes  … He’ll be mining for money.

When Obama opted out of public financing- – nlike McCain, who gladly accepted an $84.1 million check from the American taxpayers  — he predicted that his efficient Web-based small-donor money machine would rake in “around or above $300 million” 

The real surprise of this year’s cash chase is that it’s much more competitive than anyone expected.

Take July, for example. While Obama netted a massive $51 million–again clobbering McCain, who racked up $27 million.

The important statistic to look at is the combined amount of cash-on-hand for each candidate and his party. The totals were nearly identical: the Republicans finished the month with $96 million in the bank ($75 million for the RNC, $21 million for McCain) versus $94.3 million for the Democrats ($25.8 million for the DNC, $65.8 million for Obama). In other words, Obama & McCain-were tied.

August didn’t look any rosier for Obama.  The New York Times reported that “the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party,” collecting “in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected” and pushing donors to give more with letters characterizing their recent efforts as “extremely anemic.”

“After a year of telling donors not to contribute to 527 groups, of encouraging strategists not to form them and of suggesting that outside messaging efforts would not be welcome in Obama’s Democratic Party, Obama’s strategists” are now “hoping that Democratic allies”–i.e., 527 groups–“will come to Obama’s aid.”

In terms of cold, hard cash … Obama started September with around $90-$100 million in the bank. The McCain campaign … finished the month with more than $100 million on-hand money that it has now turned over to the RNC. Combined with McCain’s fresh infusion of $84 million in public funds and the $100 million RNC fundraisers expect to raise in September and October, that would leave the GOP with about $300 million at its disposal.

To keep up, Obama and Democrats have to rake in about $100 million a month from now until November 4. That’s $25 million more than their best combined monthly total to date.

In truth, the problem isn’t that Obama doesn’t have enough dinero. He has–and will continue to have–tons, most of which he can invest at his own discretion (unlike McCain, who’s only allowed to direct a small portion of the RNC’s disbursements). Given that Obama is bent on expanding the map — and using its own resources to do it — that’s an important distinction.

The problem is that — compared to his publicly-financed Republican rival — Obama may not have enough money to justify the costs of opting out. While McCain spends the two-month sprint to the finish wooing voters in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania without stopping to replenish his coffers, Obama will have to work harder than ever to keep the cash flow coming. That means more fundraisers … in Beverly Hills or in New Jersey with Bon Jovi … and less time on the trail.

No doubt that … Obama would rather be in Ohio than Beverly Hills, listening to a working mom talk about her economic struggles instead of listening to Barbara Streisand sing. No doubt his political strategists — keenly aware of how the rest of American will interpret Streisand + mansions + Hollywood — would agree. But it isn’t quite working out that way.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Segmentation: Unlocking Superior Profitability

September 11, 2008

Excerpted from The Boston Consulting Group, “Consumer Segmentation: A Call To Action”, by Mary Egan and Jean-Manuel Izaret, July, 2008.

* * * * *

Segmentation should be based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.

Qualitative research allows a company to explore its category from the consumer’s perspective and learn how consumers think about, shop for, and use its products. The identified behavioral and attitudinal factors the qualitative phase must be supported with a rich set of quantitative data .

*  * * * *

Segmentation should be designed to yield specific business actions that will result in measurable performance.

The segmentation scheme that will have the greatest financial impact can be identified by focusing on three areas: 

1. Category involvement

2. Segment profitability

3. Opportunities for action

* * * * *

Category Involvement:

Assesses the degree to which consumers consider a product category important given their needs, emotional makeup, values, and interests.

  • Most consumers can identify at least a couple of categories for which they have a special affinity. Such shoppers may make up as little as 20% of the consumers in a category but may be responsible for as much as 70-80% of its sales.
  • Sociodemographic segmentations (age, race, income) are mostly inadequate at predicting consumer spending. They may make it easy to identify and track consumers, but they don’t necessarily lead to effective actions.
  • Occasion based segmentation may prove more effective than one that looks at consumer alone.

Implications: Segmentation surveys should focus on category-specific attitudes and avoid general questions not relevant to the category.

The explanatory power of the segmentation comes from the link established between category-specific attitudes and the particular kinds of behavior they produce.

* * * * *

Segment Profitability:

Quantifies profit pools by segment and prioritizes them by looking at the proportion of consumer spending by channel, the frequency of splurging or trading up in the category, and the proportion of buying at full price versus taking advantage of discounts, sales, or promotions.

Even in an uncertain economy, there remains in almost every category a segment of highly involved and highly profitable consumers whose emotional attachment to the category largely insulates it from economizing decisions that consumers make elsewhere to cut back.

* * * * *

Opportunities For Action:

Business actions a company intends to take as a result of the segmentation effort.

Possible levers to improve value creation: pricing and promotional strategies, consumer marketing messages and channels, new products and sub-brands, customer retention strategies, new retail concepts.

Begin with a clear hypothesis about which actions will achieve the company’s objectives and make sure that those actions are addressed in the research design and analysis.

* * * * *

At the very minimum, a segmentation should answer the following questions:

  • – Which consumer segments represent the largest profit pools in our category?
  • – What is our share of wallet across segments today?
  • – How should we prioritize the various growth opportunities within and across segments?
  • – What messages and offerings will command the attention of these consumers?
  • – How can we position our brands for growth against competitors and one another?
  • – What changes should we make in order to increase share among targeted segments?

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.bcg.com/impact_expertise/publications/files/Consumer_Segmentation_July_2008.pdf

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Brand Power: The label changes the taste ???

September 11, 2008

Excerpted from “Innovation & Branding”, by Morgan Johnson, SCI Innovation Conference, May 2005

* * * * *

In blind taste tests, beer drinkers perceive little difference among all but exceptional brands. 

image

* * * * *

But, when folks know which brand they’re drinking, taste perceptions diverge markedly.  Hmmm.

image

* * * * *
Source:
http://www.soci.org.uk/SCI/groups/bsg/2005/reports/pdf/MorganJohnson.pdf
* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog
* * * * *

Econ – Ownership & the Endowment Effect

September 11, 2008

Excerpted from Predictably Irrational,  Dan Ariely, HarperCollins Books, 2008

“Ownership changes perspective … . once we own something — we fall on with it — and we value it more than other people do.”.

[In technical terms, It’s called the “endowment effect” … owned items accrue “emotional equity”]

Examples:

Social price premium“: Fans holding hot tickets to a big game often require multiples of what buyers are willing to pay to part with the tickets. In effect, owners are pricing in the social value of ownership/ 

IKEA effect“: The more “sweat equity” someone puts into something, the more ownership they feel for it. 

Virtual ownership“: Online auctions make people begin to feel ownership before it’s consummated.  The bidding process itself creates some sense of virtual ownership … so that bidders tend to overbid to avoid “losing” the item. 

Trial periods: Companies comfortably offer 30 day money back guarantees knowing that most people will quickly develop a sense of ownership and attachment … and be reluctant to return items. 

Stubbornness: People who hold deep convictions – from  politics to sports teams — suffer from ownership blindness.  They began to overvalue their ideas, and tend to be rigid and unyielding.

* * * * *

Bottom line: Always try to do transactions — especially big ones — is if you were a non-owner.  Stay dispassionate.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Oil: Those 68 million acres of "idle leases" …

September 10, 2008

The issue

Some in Congress have recently argued that oil companies are not doing enough to develop the 68 million acres of leases they already have. 

Oil companies respond that the the current leases represent a very small part of the total Federal land bank, that there is or has been substantial activity on virtually all of the leased acreage, and that a small percentage of the leased acres have economical commercial quantities of oil or natural gas.

* * * * *

Exploration status

In  recent letter to Congress on this specific  issue, one large oil company claimed that it had actively explored over 95 percent of their existing federal oil and natural gas leases.

Most the explored leases did not contain economically viable oil and natural gas resources. 

Based on known geological characteristics, the company anticipates a higher success rate and commercial viability from the off-shore acreage that is currently “off limits”. 

* * * * *

The economics

Oil and gas companies have a very strong financial incentive to develop their leases and ramp-up production as quickly as possible.

To obtain federal leases, oil companies bid on tracts that are made available. Winning bidders make significant payments to the federal government to acquire the leases and then pay annual rentals to “maintain” them. 

Millions of dollars in exploration costs are incurred in the hope of finding commercial quantities of oil and natural gas.

The Dept of the Interior indicates that success rates are approximately 10% for new on-shore areas, 20% in deepwater offshore areas, and 33% in shallow water offshore areas.

If the companies do discover and produce commercial quantities of oil and gas, they must pay royalties and other tax payments on production.  Currently, revenues from federal oil & natural gas leases provide the second largest revenue stream for the Federal government — second only to IRS receipts.

In addition, under current federal law, an energy company with an oil and natural gas lease must “use it or lose it.”  If energy is not produced within the lease term (generally ten years), the lease reverts back to the federal government and the company forfeits all the money it has invested in it (which, for large tracts, can be hundreds of millions of dollars).

* * * *  *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Ethics: Moral Reminders & the “Cash Effect”

September 10, 2008


Excerpted from: Predictably Irrational,  Dan Ariely, HarperCollins Books, 2008

 

“There are two types of dishonesty.  One is the type of dishonesty that evokes the image of her crooks knocking off a gas station.

 

Then there’s a second type of dishonesty.  This is a kind committed by people who generally consider themselves honest — the men and women who have borrowed a pen from a conference site, take an extra set of soda from the soft drink dispenser, exaggerated the cost of their television on their property loss report, or falsely reported a meal with and Enid is a business expense.

 

In multiple experiments, when students were given leeway to cheat, they did — but only a little.  [Apparently there is some upper limit to what students consider to be an acceptable level of cheating.]  Even in situations where the students had virtually no chance of getting caught, they did cheat, but they didn’t become wildly dishonest.

When students are given a moral reminder before taking an exam — say, being asked to sign an honor pledge — cheating was practically eliminated altogether — even if the school didn’t really have an honor code.” 

 

The principal: if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted, and we’re much more likely to be honest.  So, oaths and rules must be recalled at, or just before, the moment of temptation.

 

                                                * * * * *

 

“Hard cash tends to make people more honest.  Many people feel comfortable taking a pen from work, but few would reach into the petty cash drawer and grab a couple dollars.” 

The principal: The further a person is removed from cash money, the more yielding they are to temptation.  Think: expense reports, insurance claims, credit card expenditures.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

More proof … the power of "free"

September 10, 2008

Excerpted from Warrillow & Co., “Nothing good in life is free? 65% of small business owners disagree”

In 2002,  small business owners were significantly more interested in discounts for new products, with rewards and free trials competing for distant second and third positions. In a growing economy, like that of 2002, the free trial wasn’t worth the effort for most small business owners. Trial campaigns in strong economic conditions generate reasonable uptake, but generally result in poor conversion to the fee product or service and a lower quality customer over the lifetime of the account.

A 2008 survey … yielded the exact opposite set of preferences from small business owners:

Free trials are now preferred by far over discounts, with rewards dropping to the last position. In the current economy, … free offers are much more broadly applicable and appealing to the average business owner.

* * * * *
Three recommendations to most effectively utilize free trial offers:

  1. Prove your superior service: Free trials get you in the door … high quality service remains the key factor in customers. Sell your company as a whole, in addition to … specific products.
  2. Provide an in-trial assessment: All too often, engagement with the customer during the trial period focuses exclusively on upgrading to a fee product. Create proactive and customized usage analysis … prior to the end of the trial that gives a reasonably unbiased assessment of the product fit for the customer … and recommendations for getting more out of the remaining trial time.
  3. Don’t abandon targeting: Creating a free version doesn’t automatically make your product or service more applicable to business owners outside your target market. Steer clear of blanket offers and focus your efforts on the customers for whom your products have the best fit.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.warrillow.com/weeklyNews.aspx

Thanks to Straz (FOK) for the head’s-up

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Brand Power- Cole vs. Pepsi

September 10, 2008

Excerpted from “Innovation & Branding”, by Morgan Johnson, SCI Innovation Conference, May 2005

* * * * *

TakeAway Point:

In blind taste tests, Pepsi usually edges out Coke. But, when folks know which brand they’re tasting, Coke wins convincingly.

Logical inference: it’s the power of the brand.

* * * * *

image 

Source:
http://www.soci.org.uk/SCI/groups/bsg/2005/reports/pdf/MorganJohnson.pdf

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Campbell’s V8 Dives into Soup

September 9, 2008

Excerpt from Marketing Daily “Campbell’s Launches Latest V8 Extension: Soups” September 8, 2008

The odds that consumers will berate themselves because they “could’ve had a V8” have just gotten slimmer.

Campbell Soup Company, which has expanded V8-branded juices to more than 20 varieties in recent years, is now extending the brand to a product category it knows pretty well: soup…

The product launch will be supported with print and TV spots, both slated to begin mid-September. The tagline is simplicity itself: “Introducing New V8 soups from Campbell’s.”

If successful, the soup line will be another example of Campbell’s mastery of using V8’s clearly defined brand mission–“To help more people get more vegetables, every day”–as the platform for a growing number of products bearing the familiar, trusted, 75-year-old V8 name…

The appeal of the much-pursued “master” or “mega” brand concept is clear: Extending an established brand’s power to more categories and consumers to realize greater sales volume, efficiencies and margins. However, many brands have failed to realize volume and share-of-market goals with extensions.

…Some brands, including V8, have the substantial advantage of being able to offer and market/advertise the same common, core benefit (the benefits of vegetable nutrition) across products…But in other cases–as with the drug category and Tylenol–while the brand personality/trust factor has real value, it’s the specific benefit being sought through a specific drug (long-lasting pain relief for arthritis versus quick pain relief for common headaches) that must be the main focus of each new product’s positioning and marketing strategy under the same brand.

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=89983

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog

Idea – Power of Free (from Predictably Irrational)

September 9, 2008

Excerpted from: Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, HarperCollins Books, 2008

“Free has a certain gravitational pull – everybody likes something for nothing. Free gives such an emotional charge that people perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is.” 

Examples

Opting for a “stripped down”  free checking account  over one with a nominal charge account and a plethera of services; 

Buying 2 of something to get a third one free (even if you don’t need the 2nd or the 3rd ones) ; 

Taking a “no closing costs” mortgage with a higher interest rate; 

Hitting the buffet table for seconds, and thirds, and … 

Snatching up free pens, calendars, koozies … to throw them out when you get home

 
Why?

“Most transactions have an upside and a downside –  when something is free. people forget about the downside.  … humans are intrinsically afraid of loss.  The real lure of free is tied to this fear.  There is no visible possibility of loss when somebody chooses something that’s free.  Of course, that’s not true”  … [since “free” may require a commitment of time, headaches, or disposal fees]. 

 

Example: Amazon Free Shipping

In the US, Amazon has had great success offering free shipping on orders greater than $25.  Many customers started upsizing their orders (e.g ordering an additional book) just to take advantage of the free shipping offer.

In France, Amazon introduced a comparable program with a token charge for shipping (about 25 cents).  While there was a small uptick in sales, it paled in comparison to the sales increase associated with the totally free shipping program.

In other words, whereas shipping for a quarter – a savings of a couple of bucks – was largely ignored by customers, free shipping generated an enthusiastic response.

“The difference between two cents and one cent is small. 
 The difference between one cent and zero is huge.”  

                                

                                       * * * * * 

Observations

1. The aura of “free” creates a market inefficiency – breaking  buyers’ stream of rationality 

2. Amazon’s free shipping is a compelling real life example. 

3. Lesson: If you’re going to give something away – give it away –  don’t nickel-and-dime into “no man’s land”

 
BTW: Based on my experience, Amzon’s free shipping is often just as fast as it’s regular shipping.  Sure, the items are :”flying standby”, but there is usually space on the truck.

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

Product Innovation: Establishing & maintaining dominance …

September 9, 2008

Excerpted from Strategy & Business, “The Unique Advantage”, by Alexander Kandybin and Surbhee Grover, Aug. 26, 2008

Successful consumer packaged goods (CPG) innovators, those whose new products establish and maintain dominance in the marketplace, tend to focus on seven areas. None of them represents a “silver bullet” on its own, and many of them are common sense, but together they make innovation more difficult to copy and lead to greater returns and higher growth.

1. Technology and patents. New technologies … providie companies with a way to meet new consumer needs, including those that consumers don’t yet know they have.  Patents can sustain a meaningful advantage in the marketplace. 

2. Claims. Claims add substantial value when they are tied exclusively to a product and can be held for a significant period of time.

3. Ingredient synonymy. Arm & Hammer, Planters, and POM Wonderful, respectively, have each carved out an enviable position by becoming virtual synonyms for their category. Such domination affords pricing power for products that are essentially commodities.

4. Unique brand characteristics. Strong brands can build an identity in consumers’ minds that transcends products.

5. Product experience. Successful products have an emotional component that builds a bridge to consumers, becoming part of their lives.

6. Packaging.  Packaging innovation can leverage technology, emphasize unique brand characteristics, enhance the product experience, and in fact prove very difficult to duplicate.

7. Effective vertical integration. [Keeping things “in house” can protect proprietary technologies and “secret sauces” ]

Edit by DAF

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/08306?pg=all&tid=230

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * ** * * * *

Losing Altitude – Airlines down $5.2 Billion

September 9, 2008

Excerpted from Wired Blog Network “Airlines to Lose $5.2 Billion Worldwide This Year” September 8, 2008

Things keep going from bad to worse for the global airline industry, which has taken such a beating from rising fuel prices that it expects to lose a staggering $5.2 billion dollars this year — with U.S. carriers accounting for almost all of the red ink.

That bit of cheery news comes from the International Air Transit Association, which says “a toxic combination” of sky-high fuel prices and plummeting demand “continues to poison the industry’s profitability.” More than 25 airlines have gone under this year…It’s a stunning turnaround for an industry that saw a $5.6 billion profit in 2007.

The industry attributes its free-fall to the price of oil…fuel bills have jumped $50 billion this year to an estimated $186 billion. Jet fuel now accounts for 36 percent of the industry’s costs, up from 13 percent just six years ago…

The recent drop in fuel prices have brought a measure of relief to the beleaguered industry, but it might be a double-edged sword…

U.S. carriers took the biggest hit, accounting for $5 billion of the projected losses…Don’t expect next year to be any better. Fuel could account for 40 percent of the airlines’ costs next year, and the IATA predicts the industry will lose $4.1 billion in 2009. 

Edit by SAC

* * * * *

Full article:
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/airline-haters.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog

Health Insurance – Those %#@& Health Insurance Companies !

September 9, 2008

In the book Crunch, liberal economist Jared Bernstein criticizes health insurance companies, asserts that:

  • “Other countries with advanced economies save a lot by taking the insurers out of the picture. They employ either single-payer or heavily regulated systems, in which either the government is the exclusive insurer or private insurers must provide specified, the subsidized coverage to all … costs are held down by taking advantage of the huge risk pool — the healthy majority subsidizes the sick minority … and, insurer’s profits are weeded out of the system.”
  • “Private insurers have an incentive to prevent people from getting all the care they think they need.  Insurers are in the for-profit sector, so they spend time and resources trying to avoid making payouts. “

These are oft repeated refrains from folks who advocate government administered universal heath insurance.

* * * * *

I think this argument displays a remarkably shallow understanding of what health insurance companies do, how much money they make, and how they make it.  And. it places a remarkably high level of confidence in government administered programs (think, the FDA chasing down salmonella sources). 

* * * * *

First, what is the financial upside if all health insurance companies’ profits are eliminated and put in the national bank as economic cost savings.

Well, for openers, the health insurance companies — don’t make all that much money.  Consider the 2007 financial results for the two biggest “pure” health insurance companies: United Health Care and Wellpoint.

image

Note that pre-tax profits are about 9% of revenues [12,555 divided by135,553].  About 1/3 of the pre-tax already goes to the government in taxes; about 2/3’s (6% of revenues) drops through to the bottom line.

Currently, U.S. health care expenditures are about $2,1 trillion (just over $7,000 per person).  Of that, roughly half is “sourced” from the government via Medicare and Medicaid.  Of the half that is private pay, about 2/3’s ($725 billion ) goes through health insurance companies — the other 1/3 is out of patient’s pockets or “other” (e.g. charitable gifts to medical centers). 

 image

So, what’s the financial upside if all health care insurers were “disintermediated” and their profits were banked as economic cost savings to the system ?

Well, assuming that the rest of the healthcare insurance companies have profitability profiles comparable to United and Wellpoint — there’s a pre-tax profit of 9% that applies to $725 billion in revenues — or roughly $65 billion dollars.

But wait, the government is already getting about 1/3 of that in taxes.

So, the net gain is at most $40 to $45 billion, or about 2% of the $2.1 trillion in total healthcare spending.  Why “at most” ? 

Simple, because it assumes that the government will be able to administer the programs as efficiently as the private companies.  Call me cynical, but I doubt it.

* * * * *

On the second point, that  health insurance companies reject claims and refuse to authorize treatment as a means of boosting their.bottom lines.

Well, that’s at most partially true, and catches the government administration folks in a circular argument.

First, about 1/3 of health  insurance companies’ transactions volume is administrative processing done in support of companies (usually big ones) that choose to self-insure.  That is, the self-insuring companies  take all of the risk, and only pay the insurance companies a fee (that includes profit, of course) for negotiating with health care suppliers and processing transactions  — in conformance with terms, conditions, and rules dictated by the companies.  There are agreed to standards that are enforced.

The other 2/3’s of their transaction volume is strictly premium based.  If more treatments are authorized, costs go up and premiums go up to cover them.   If treatments are denied,  costs go down, and the competitive market pushes premiums down,It’s that simple.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Books – Predictably Irrational

September 8, 2008


Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
by 
Dan Ariely, HarperCollins Books, 2008

 

Basic Premise:

“Standard economics assumes that people are rational — that they have all the pertinent information about their decisions, that they can calculate the value of the different options they face, and that they are cognitively unhindered in weighing the ramifications of each potential choice”.  That is, that people are capable of making the right decisions for themselves. But, Ariey — and other behavioral economists — observe that “people are really far less rational than standard economic theory assumes.  Moreover, their irrational behaviors are neither random nor senseless. They are systematic, and often repeated, so they are predictable”. For example:

  1. People tend to overvalue stuff that they own … it’s called the “endowment effect”.
  2. Ownership can be real & full, or virtual & partial (e.g. bidding for items on eBay)
  3. The sense of ownership is enhaced by “sweat equity” … the IKEA effect.
  4. Most people will opt for a mid-priced version of a product (over the high or low priced version) … it’s called “aversion to extremes”.
  5. A higher priced pill is perceived to relieve pain more than a lower priced pill … even when they’re the same pills — real or placebos.
  6. People can’t resist the power of free offers … even when they’re not really free.
  7. Many people will travel 15 minutes to save $10 on a $25 item (say, a DVD), but won’t travel 15 minutes to save the same $10 on a higher priced item (say, a car) … even though the time and savings are the same … it’s called the “relativity effect”.
  8. Many people will do jobs (“favors”) for their friends for free — as long as the task is unrelated to their “day job”.
  9. Many people who do favors for others are insulted if they are offered monetarycompensation, but willingly take small gifts for their efforts.
  10. Most people wouldn’t consider taking a few bucks from the petty cash drawer, but many people think it’s ok to jack a pen from their office.
  11. In experiments, most “tempted students cheated on tests … but there was an upper limit — they only cheated “a little bit”.
  12. Students who sign honor pledges on exams are far less likely to cheat … even if their school doesn’t have an honor code 

* * * * * 

The book is a quick, easy read, and the author has a cool web site:
www.predictablyirrational.com

 

I’ll cite a few of the book’s more interesting examples in subsequent posts.

 

* * * * * 

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

 

 

Product Innovation: The perils of playing “small ball”

September 8, 2008

Excerpted from Strategy & Business, “The Unique Advantage”, by Alexander Kandybin and Surbhee Grover, Aug. 26, 2008

In mature, slow-growth industries such as food and consumer products … Companies often spend relatively little on R&D, and … their innovation results are marginal.

Much of the problem can be traced to conventional wisdom (that) the secret to growth … is to develop new products based on consumer needs, which are discovered through consumer research and focus groups. And  if a new idea is not great … marketing and advertising can always … turn a so-so concept into a hit.  And the first to market … will capture most of the profits.

This kind of thinking leads to … a long list of line extensions — new flavors of an established soda brand, say — rather than the kind of game-changing innovations that can make a real difference to the bottom line.

New products that stand alone longest in the marketplace, without serious competition, bring in the highest returns.

Meeting consumer needs is a necessary but no longer sufficient condition of sustainable innovation.  Rather than thinking about new products as a way to get customers excited for a little while, companies need to think about their innovation strategy as a way to build a high, hard wall between those customers and their strongest competitors … hifting some investment away from marketing and advertising toward the development of … game-changing new products … that are difficult to copy.  

Higher R&D spending does not guarantee success … (but) a minimum innovation investment is required for breakthrough thinking. Without it, companies tend to fill the pipeline with the “base hits” of line extension … falling into a self-created loop of low investment, low returns, and steady but slow growth … that provides the illusion that the company is succeeding

So, the tendency is for companies to focus on relatively small, often superficial line extensions that can be churned out quickly … but require inflated advertising budgets that reflect a defensive mind-set .. (and divert resources from)  breakthrough innovation … locking companies into a pattern of high marketing spending and a need for endless small launches.

* * * * *

Mature companies also need a strategy for when difficult to copy ideas are in short supply. Here, we suggest defying conventional wisdom about being first to market. If a product can be copied, it’s often more profitable to be the copier.

* * * * *

There will always be a place for line extensions backed with big campaigns and for being first to market. It is possible to gain additional benefits by building scale, amplifying the effects of hard-to-copy innovations by spreading them across multiple products.

* * * * *

It’s even possible to gain scale of a kind with a highly nimble, prolific innovation organization. Launching a steady stream of good ideas, as P&G has done in home products in recent years, can give a brand a reputation for fresh thinking that transcends the individual ideas and translates into market share gains. 

Edit by DAF

* * * * * 

Full article:
http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/08306?pg=all&tid=230

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link => 
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Sorry, Pal, but You’re Rich

September 8, 2008

Excerpted from Slate, “The deluded business pundits and Obama critics think $250,000 is a middle-class salary”. by Daniel Gross, Aug. 27, 2008

* * * * *

Barack Obama’s tax plan …  promises to improve the nation’s fiscal standing by scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $250,000. Since then, the business pundit class has been griping that people who make $250,000 a year aren’t really wealthy, especially if they live in and around New York; San Francisco; or Washington, D.C.

CNBC’s unscientific online poll found that (surprise!) only 35 percent of respondents believed an income of $250,000 qualified a household for elite rich status.

I have bad news for the over-$250,000 crowd.  I regret to inform you that you are indeed rich.

Income data can surely tell us something. And they tell us that $250,000 puts you in pretty fancy company.

The Census Bureau earlier this week reported that the median household income was $50,223 in 2007 …. So a household that earned $250,000 made five times the median. Only2.245 million U.S. households, the top 1.9 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2007. (About 20 percent of households make more than $100,000.)

In dealing with aggregate nationwide numbers, we should of course take account of the significant differences in the cost of living from state to state. But even in wealthy states, $250,000 ain’t bad—it’s nearly four times the median income in wealthy states like Maryland and Connecticut.

But people in Georgetown mansions don’t necessarily compare themselves to fellow Washingtonians in Anacostia. Relative income really works at the neighborhood level. As we know from the work of Cornell economist Robert Frank, people rate their well-being not so much based on how much they make and consume, but on how much they make and consume compared to their neighbors.

It is certainly true that in a few ZIP codes and neighborhoods, brandishing a $250,000 salary is like bringing a knife to a gunfight … But the number of places where $250,000 stretches you is small indeed.  Even in the most exclusive communities where the wealthy congregate, $250,000 is still pretty good coin.

So, don’t tell me you’re not rich.

* * * * *

Full Article URL:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198806/

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

When customers talk smack online …

September 5, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “How to Handle ‘IHateYourCompany.com’,” Sep 5, 2008

In recent years, disgruntled consumers have launched hundreds of Web sites to air their grievances — from starbucked.com and ihatestarbucks.com to boycottwalmart.org and againstthewal.com.

…The Internet has become a mecca for disgruntled consumers, creating new challenges for companies accustomed to controlling their message tightly. While companies can’t pull down a negative YouTube video or erase a critical Twitter post, they have more power when it comes to domain names.

That doesn’t mean, however, that they should snap up every domain with a vaguely negative-sounding name and then let them gather dust, according to Internet-strategy consultants. Rather, companies should register or buy just the sites that get the most traffic…

Once they are in control of these domains, companies … (can) use them as a vehicle to solicit feedback from customers. Otherwise, angry customers will …  simply find another site on which to complain about the company…

While some of the gripe sites that remain in the hands of critics have fizzled, others have grown bigger. Take BankofAmericaSucks.com, which was started by (a) former Bank of America customer … after a dispute with the bank over a car loan. It now is home to thousands of postings, and it calls itself the “Official Bank of America consumer opinion site.”

Consumers continue to post complaints on the site…The site is mentioned in numerous blogs and newspaper articles, and appears among the top 15 results on a Google search for “Bank of America.”

Edit by SAC

 * * * * *

Note: In 2005, Forbes created a list of  the 9 angriest corporate hate sites. These sites targeted: KB Homes, PayPal, Allstate Insurance, Microsoft, American Express, Wal-Mart, Verizon, United Airlines and UPS.  While an updated list has not been published it is clear that consumers continue to organize complaints and fuel their hate online. 

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057760688302147.html?mod=2_1567_topbox

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Marketing: Japanese Super Brands

September 5, 2008

Excerpted from Brand Channel, “More Than a Name: Japanese Super-brands Diversify”, by Barry Silverstein, August 22, 2008

After World War II, Japan reinvented itself and developed into a global economic powerhouse.

Some believe a primary reason for this growth was the Japanese keiretsu system. Essentially, keiretsu were major families of affiliated corporations that had ties to a key bank, which both controlled and provided security to the companies. As a result, companies were “protected” financially, similar to the way Japanese companies protected their employees.

The keiretsu system spawned powerful conglomerates that for a time were insulated from economic woes. But  … “The [keiretsu] system is, in large part, to blame for Japan’s bubble economy of the 1980s that ultimately burst.”

Nonetheless, the keiretsu system was the basis for giant corporations that diversified to an extreme degree. Keiretsu could be vertical, such as Honda and Toyota, or horizontal, such as Mitsubishi and Fuyo (which spawned Canon, Hitachi, Nissan, and Yamaha, among others).

* * * * *

Mitsubishi is an excellent example. Mitsubishi started in 1870 as a shipping company. Today, this global giant has hundreds of companies under its loose umbrella, some of which do not carry the Mitsubishi brand name.

To bring some commonality to Mitsubishi companies, a corporate mark was created. It depicts three connected red diamond shapes. The word “Mitsubishi” is a combination of the Japanese words mitsu (three) and hishi (water chestnut). Hishi is traditionally used to denote a rhombus or diamond shape.

Companies with Mitsubishi in their names include Mitsubishi Chemical Corp., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Mitsubishi companies without Mitsubishi in the name include Kirin Holdings Company, Ltd., Nikon Corp., and Nippon Oil Corp.

* * * * *

Suppose two consumers have very different experiences with Mitsubishi-branded products.

For example, one consumer purchases a Mitsubishi automobile and has a good experience. Another consumer purchases a Mitsubishi television and has a bad experience. Will the first consumer look favorably upon and consider purchasing a television carrying the Mitsubishi brand name? If the second consumer decides to buy a car, will he or she be negatively predisposed toward a Mitsubishi-branded vehicle?

Emotionally, each consumer might transfer the positive or negative experience with the Mitsubishi brand from one product to another. These feelings about the brand could transcend product category.

Rationally, however, if a Mitsubishi-branded product is highly rated in a product category, it deserves consideration. If the consumer had a negative experience with the brand in one category, and wants to make an objective purchase in another product category, this creates a potential dilemma.

* * * * * 

Brand influence in the above example assumes the same consumer is the purchaser of both a car and a television. But what happens when the Japanese super-brand manufactures products with the same brand name in two entirely different and highly specialized categories?

Take Yamaha, for instance. On the one hand, this Japanese super-brand is renowned for musical instruments such as keyboards and drums. On the other hand, Yamaha is just as well known as a brand of motorcycles. Both corporate entities use the Yamaha name and mark.

Only if a musician playing a Yamaha instrument also rides a Yamaha motorcycle will the identical consumer come into contact with the same brand name in these specialized categories.

Nonetheless, the consumer’s experience with the brand in either category could influence overall brand perception. With a positive perception, the consumer thought process might be: “I bought a Yamaha keyboard and it was great… I bet their motorcycles are good, too.”

* * * * *

Bad product experiences not withstanding, brand diversification has another important benefit: Brand recognition can extend a consumer’s receptivity to other products in allied categories.

For example, a satisfied owner of a Honda automobile may seek out other Honda products. That consumer might become a buyer of a Honda motorcycle, a Honda snowblower, a Honda lawn mower, or a Honda outboard motor for a boat. The perceived quality of the Honda vehicle can lead to a satisfied consumer making other related Honda purchases.

While Japanese super-brands are not always regarded as great brand marketers, it is the quality of their products that creates the perception of great brands.

To the credit of the Japanese super-brands, they have almost uniformly built a reputation for quality, regardless of business category. This is one of the attributes that led to Japanese automakers dominating that industry.

* * * * *

Other Asian super-brands have followed the diversification strategy with success. The Korean companies Samsung and LG are good examples.

In some cases, diversifying a single brand name can have a diluting effect and may turn out to be a bad strategy. “Sony’s diversification not only drains the brand’s resources to a great extent but also diverts the brand focus from the core of the brand.”

For the most part, however, Japanese super-brands derive considerable benefit from diversification. In a world of ever-increasing options, a product with a Japanese brand name is often regarded as the best choice.

* * * *

Barry Silverstein is a 25-year advertising and marketing veteran and co-author of The Breakaway Brand (McGraw Hill, 2005).

Full article:
http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=437

* * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Federal Spending – Like a bunch of drunken sailors …

September 5, 2008

So much for fiscal responsibility … ouch !

Charts from the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.html

* * * * *

image

image

image  

 image http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Health Insurance – Is the glass 15% empty or 85% full ?

September 4, 2008

I think that practically everybody agrees all citizens should have access to adequate heath care and that the current system has some major problems re: cost, service-delivery, and insurance coverage.

Universal heath care was the centerpiece of the Clinton – Obama – Edwards campaign platforms during the Democratic primaries, and though the issue seems to have been moved to the back burner in the general election campaigns — in part, having been displaced on the front burner by $4 per gallon gasoline prices — it is embedded in the Democratic platform.

* * * * *

For starters, I get irked that politicos have such a hard time distinguishing between health care (e.g. seeing a doctor, getting into a hospital, getting a prescription filled) and health insurance (i.e. being part of a “risk pool” with healthy folks subsidizing unhealthy ones — and, maybe, having the insurance premiums partially paid by employers or somebody else),

The health insurance part is probably the easier to fix since it just means throwing money at the problem — usually, somebody’s else’s money that gathered up by raising taxes.

The heated debate usually centers on the 45 million uninsured folks in the U.S.  (see yesterday’s post for the official Commerce Dept. data).

Putting that number in context: as of today, the U.S. population is just under 305 million … adding in about 20 million illegal immigrants and the number is 325 million.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

So, the 45 million represent about 15% of the population of folks  living in the U.S..

That means that roughly 85% of the population does have health insurance of one sort or another — usually through employers or the government (Medicare and Medicaid).

It has become  a national pastime to gripe about health insurance premiums going up, co-pays and deductibles going up, coverage being pared back (i.e. the list of participating docs and services covered), and claims processes being confusing and high-hassle.  But, it’s my sense that — adjusting for the naturally stressful nature of the “product” — most people are relatively satisfied with their insurance programs.  Sure, everybody would like to pay less, get more, and get it easier — but on balance, the plans do what they’re supposed to do.

Now, as to the other 15% — the uninsureds.   I’ve seen many estimates that break the 45 million roughly into thirds: 1/3 are illegal immigrants; 1/3 are folks who have access to plans but choose to, in effect, self-insure — they’re typically healthy young-adults, many of whom make over $50,000 per year; and 1/3 “structurally uninsured” — split about equally between poor people with no prospects for private insurance and folks who are simply between jobs.

Call me callous, but I don’t think the first two groups — the illegal immigrants and the voluntarily self-insured — should be considered. 

So, the number goes from 47 million to about the 15 million, or 5% of the population.

Pardon me, but what is all of the fuss about?

Why not just add a Part E to Medicare to cover these folks and move on?  Doesn’t strike me that we should completely upset a system that’s basically working for about 90% of the population …

I must be missing something

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Succeeding at the Bottom of the Pyramid …

September 4, 2008

Excerpted from Knowledge at INSEAD, “Strong partnership key to success in bottom of the pyramid innovation”, by Grace Segran, August 26, 2008

For those at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ (BoP), the four billion people or so living on less than two dollars a day, life is hard. Although collectively they have considerable combined purchasing power, they have up to now been traditionally overlooked by businesses.

However, major multinational corporations (MNCs) are now seeing opportunities in developing products for the BoP markets, while making a difference to the lives of the poor people.

“For this concept to work, there needs to be strong collaboration between firms, governments, NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and social entrepreneurs.”

* * * * *

There is often a disconnect between multinationals and those at the bottom of the pyramid

The operations of firms – especially the MNCs – have become rather disconnected or disembedded from local economies.

NGOs tend to know more about the characteristics of local poverty and what is best for the poor people in a specific area, whereas large companies generally have a limited understanding of the situation on the ground.

If BoP products – that is, products specifically developed to address the needs of the low-income segments – do not take into account the local specificities of poverty, they may be useless for the people in a certain district or the project may even have a negative impact on their lives.

* * * * *

Mainstreaming low-income projects and bringing them to a larger scale is one of the main challenges facing companies today.

Unilever’s ‘shakti’ project considered a leading BoP example .  Unilever, developed a range of products for low-income households in remote areas of India. It packaged common household products like shampoo and soap in sachets and sold them door-to-door, helped by so-called ‘shakti ladies’ who make a living from this activity. The ‘shakti’ range now constitutes a significant part of Unilever’s Indian revenues – reportedly nearly 15 per cent.

* * * * *

Bringing such projects to scale is a challenge for several reasons.

First, firms lack the internal capabilities to develop these projects as they require both strong entrepreneurial skills, as well as the ability to understand and address social issues such as access to water, energy, and housing.

Often the firm’s expectations for immediate profit goes against the development of successful BoP projects, the core of which aim to create mutual value for both the firm and the poor. [Economies of sca;e are slow to be realized — if they ever are.]

It requires a substantial amount of effort to transform a small pilot project into a large, mainstream activity. Among their portfolio of business development projects, companies often opt for more profitable projects that can deliver in the short term.

Since BoP projects have strong local links, firms may face difficulties in trying to replicate a successful business model in another geographical area of the same country or to export it to a different country.

“These projects should be local answers to local problems.”

Another challenge is for low-income projects is to demonstrate a significant impact on the lives of the poor. Does it really improve their living conditions? Are the poor getting a fair deal, while their bargaining power in their dealings with firms is rather limited?

* * * * *

Full article:
http://knowledge.insead.edu/PartnershipBottomPyramidInnovation080803.cfm

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Heath Care – Some basic facts …

September 3, 2008

In 2006, health care expenditures were  $2.1 trillion (with a “T) … which is about $7,000 per person … up from about $4,500 per person in 2000.

image

* * * * *

Slightly under half (46.1% to be precise) was paid out of public funds — by the Federal or local governments  … 53.9% was “private” pay, either by individuals, health insurance companies, or “other private funds” (e.g. hospital write-offs).

About 1/8th of the $2.1 trillion was paid “out of pocket” by patients (think co-payments and deductibles). Note the downward historical trend.

image
Graphic © 2007 Samuel L. Baker, University of South Carolina

* * * * * 

image 
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Honda – Finally, fuel efficiency is paying strategic dividends …

September 3, 2008

Excerpted from NY Times, “Honda Stays True to Efficient Driving”, by Bill Vlasic, August 26, 2008

* * * * *

During the glory days of big pickups and sport utility vehicles, one automaker steadfastly refused to join the party.

Despite the huge profits that its competitors were minting by making larger vehicles, Honda Motor never veered from its mission of building fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars like its Accord sedan, even when the sentiment was “there’s no return on that.”

But in today’s fuel-conscious automotive market, Honda is reaping the rewards for its commitment.

No major automaker in America is doing better than Honda … While competitors are scrambling to shift their product lineups to build more small vehicles and slash their bloated inventories of trucks, Honda can barely keep up with demand, particularly in the subcompact category.

Sales of its tiny Fit have soared … and Honda accelerated the introduction of the 2009 model, which will go on sale Tuesday.

The Fit’s four-cylinder engine gets 34 miles per gallon in highway driving .

Honda’s focus on fuel efficiency is paying off on the bottom line as well … By comparison, G.M. and Ford have lost billions this year as the market has moved away from the big vehicles that once generated the bulk of their profits. Detroit is moving radically to downsize its vehicle lineups.  Even Honda’s larger Japanese rival, Toyota, is hustling to adjust to the rapidly changing United States market.

Honda’s newest factory, in southern Indiana, is set to begin production of Civic compact cars this fall.

* * * * *

Honda’s focus on fuel efficiency and the environmental impact of its vehicles dates back to the Clean Air legislation of the 1960s and 1970s.  Honda adopted an internal motto — “Blue skies for our children” — as a guideline for future vehicle development.

Honda has posted the highest corporate average fuel economy of any automaker for its overall fleet of vehicles over the last 15 years.

Honda has never aspired to build a full line of trucks and S.U.V.’s.  “Even when the large S.U.V.’s and trucks were big sellers, they did not fit with our philosophy.”

* * * * *

When the new plant goes into production in Indiana, Honda’s North American production capacity will increase to 1.4 million vehicles a year to meet the growing demand for its small cars.

* * * * *

Even with the success of its smallest cars, Honda executives concede that the company has some catching up to do with Toyota in hybrid vehicles.

While Honda offers a hybrid version of the Civic, Toyota’s Prius model is the runaway leader in the category.

But Honda recently announced plans to introduce a five-door, hybrid-only model in North America next year to compete with the Prius. Honda is expected to price the vehicle lower than the Prius to attract younger buyers.

Honda is also planning a two-door, sporty hybrid and a hybrid version of the Fit.

* * * * *

At its headquarters here in Torrance, the vehicle that draws the most attention these days is the company’s hydrogen-powered, fuel-cell vehicle dubbed the FCX Clarity …  it represents the next step for a company committed to clean technology.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/business/26honda.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=business&pagewanted=print

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Marketing: Vote for McCain to be your next…potato?

September 3, 2008

Excerpted from Promo Magazine, “McCain Foods Ties Campaign to Presidential Election,” Aug 27, 2008

McCain Foods USA is out with a new marketing ploy that plays off the upcoming presidential election to ramp up product sales.

The campaign…positions McCain Foods’ potatoes as a candidate consumers should consider. The company has high hopes shoppers will connect its name with that of Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain of Arizona as part of its political parody…

On the campaign website (www.mccainpotatoes.com), visitors can ask the “spokespotato” candidate questions and receive immediate responses,…take online polls, find product information and sign up for e-mail updates.

The site…also lets people read humorous responses from McCain Foods on key issues, such as the economy and the environment. For the economy, it says, “When you buy more McCain Potatoes, it creates more jobs. For us. What did you expect? Another stimulus check?”

McCain Foods isn’t the first company to make a marketing ploy off politics. Denny’s Restaurants launch a campaign this year that gets people to “Vote 4 Real” for its breakfast food over fast food competitors.

 

Picture 1

 

* * * * *

Full Article: http://promomagazine.com/interactivemarketing/news/mccain_foods_marketing_campaign_0827/

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Census Details: Number of health uninsureds drops in 2007 …

September 2, 2008

Based on Census data released by the Department of Commerce
August 27, 2008:

* * * * *

At the DNC last week, it was being said that the number of uninsureds had increased by 3 million.

Not true, according to data recently released by the Commerce Dept.

* * * * *

The number of insured people increased by 2.3 million — to almost 300 million total insureds.

The number of uninsureds dropped by about 1.3 million — to 45.657 million.

Of the 45.657 million uninsureds:

  • Almost 10 millions are classified as “not a citizen”;
  • Over 9 million earn more than $75,000 annually;
  • Over 15 million earn more than $50,000 annually;
  • Almost 10 million are classified as “did not work”

Note: categories are not mutually exclusive, so there is some double-counting.

* * * *

image 
image

* * * * *

image

* * * * *

image

* * * * *

Published in  “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007”, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration

Full report:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *