Archive for May 19th, 2009

Anybody concerned about the national debt ?

May 19, 2009

Ken’s Take: Next to the government just flat out wasting money, my worry is the burgeoning debt.  Some debt – ok.  But, staggering levels not ok.

When I ask students why they’re unfazed, they admit that the sums are so large that “it’s more like Monopoly money” or”payback is so far off that’s it’s not worth worrying about”.

Somebody is eventually going to have to pay the piper …

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “Why No Focus On Huge Ongoing Debt?”,
May 15, 2009

Since 1961 the federal budget has run deficits in all but five years. But the resulting government debt has consistently remained below 50% of GDP; that’s the equivalent of a household with $100,000 of income having a $50,000 debt. Adverse economic effects, if any, were modest.

From 2010 to 2019, Team Obama projects deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that’s atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009.

By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70%, up from 41% in 2008.

The CBO, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82%.

By CBO’s estimates, interest on the debt as a share of federal spending will double between 2008 and 2019, from 8% of the total to 16%.

One reason Obama is so popular is that he has promised almost everyone lower taxes and higher spending. The president doesn’t want to confront Americans with choices between lower spending and higher taxes — or, given the existing deficits, perhaps less spending and more taxes.

Closing future deficits with either tax increases or spending cuts would require gigantic changes.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=327285979616580

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

Gov’t healthcare bureaucrats say: "Stick in up your %#@" … literally

May 19, 2009

Excerpted from WSJ, ” How Washington Rations ObamaCare: a case study in ‘cost-control”, May 19, 2009

Here’s a preview of how health care will be rationed under a nationalized plan with a federal health board making Solomonic decisions based on “comparative effectiveness research”:

Medicare’s central planners decided to deny payment for a new version of one of life’s most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy.

At issue are “virtual colonoscopies,” or CT scans of the abdomen.

Colon cancer is the second leading cause of U.S. cancer death but one of the most preventable. Found early, the cure rate is 93%, but only 8% at later stages.

Virtual colonoscopies are likely to boost screenings because they are quicker, more comfortable and significantly cheaper than the standard “optical” procedure, which involves anesthesia and threading an endoscope through the lower intestine.

Virtual colonoscopies are endorsed by the American Cancer Society and covered by a growing number of private insurers including Cigna and UnitedHealthcare.

The problem for Medicare is that if cancerous lesions are found using a scan, then patients must follow up with a traditional colonoscopy anyway. Costs would be lower if everyone simply took the invasive route, where doctors can remove polyps on the spot.

As Medicare noted in its ruling, “If there is a relatively high referral rate [for traditional colonoscopy], the utility of an intermediate test such as CT colonography is limited.” In other words, duplication would be too pricey.

One problem is that what “works best” isn’t the same for everyone and invasive procedures are often avoided —  slowing early detection.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html

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

Shocker: Folks against hiking gas taxes to push fuel efficient cars

May 19, 2009

Ken’s Take: Virtually all economists agree that the way to shift people to hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles is to impose a large gas tax — say, $2 per gallon.  That’s what the UK does now. 

I’d agree with the economists, except that I know the Feds would just waste the money. 

Predictabilty, most people — make that ‘almost all’ — think that hiking gas taxes is a very bad idea.  In other words, it’s political suicide.

* * * * * 

According to Rasmussen:

Only 22% of Americans are willing to spend more to buy an energy-efficient hybrid car to help the environment. Even last October, after record high prices at the pump, just 37% said they were more likely to buy a hybrid car than they were a year earlier.

* * * * *

Given last year’s record-high gasoline prices and the still-fluctuating price at the pump, most Americans aren’t interested in the government tacking on any more, even in the name of fuel efficiency.

Just 10% of adults think the federal government should increase the tax on gasoline by a large amount as a way of encouraging people to buy more fuel-efficient cars … 81% oppose a large tax hike for that purpose, and 8% don’t know.

Americans also took a dim view of another car-focused tax when it was proposed earlier this year. Seventy-three percent (73%) rejected the idea of taxing drivers based on how many miles they drive to help fund the building and repair of roads and bridges. Only 18% supported a mileage tax.

In April of last year, 60% of Americans favored suspending the federal gas tax completely for the summer to offset soaring gas prices.

Full article:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/gas_oil/81_oppose_gas_tax_hike_to_encourage_sales_of_more_efficient_cars

* * * * *

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

From marketing ROI to AMP: the free ride is over …

May 19, 2009

Excerpted from Brandchannel, “Achieving Accountable Marketing: Six Critical Value Levers Must Be Pulled” by Michael Dunn, April 13, 2009

* * * * *

Senior management continues to push marketers to demonstrate a strong return on investment, demanding more accountability and evidence that marketing investment is driving business growth.

It requires marketers to demonstrate disciplined planning, rigorous tracking and evaluation and, above all, continuous improvement in performance. They must also show cause and effect, quickly diagnose the root causes of any spending performance issues and make timely, fact-driven decisions to improve returns.

Call it accountable marketing performance (AMP), a goal that requires six “value levers” to be pulled effectively.

1. Strategy
This critical lever sets up a series of choices that inform most of the subsequent activities across the other levers. It encompasses a series of decisions about strategic marketing choices:

  • With which set or sets of customers does your company have the best business opportunities?
  • What are the most achievable behavioral responses from these target groups?
  • What unique benefits, attributes and ideas are most likely to elicit the desired behavioral response?
  • What specific brand or business challenges are standing in the way?

Getting smart and shared answers to these questions requires a fact-based foundation involving customer segmentation and targeting, customer-driven analysis, pathway modeling, brand equity modeling and purchase funnel analysis. When combined with equally valid qualitative insights and intuitive thinking, you create a strategic value proposition that is worth its weight in gold.

2. Content
The strategic foundation must be translated into compelling, engaging and medium-appropriate messaging ideas. The best content platforms originate from a magical combination of strategic insight and creative expression and connect in authentic yet emotionally compelling ways.

Most companies rely heavily on external agency partners at this lever. But it’s the best collaborative partnerships that inspire great work, and great content ideas can come from anywhere—agencies, similarly briefed internal teams pursuing independent and somewhat competitive paths, or single contributors who find inspiration on a walk or in the shower. Whatever the source, smart companies validate multiple messaging ideas with robust testing before deploying them across a full-scale creative campaign.

3. Marketing Vehicles
Effective vehicle choices should enable your messages to reach and connect with audiences in a timely, relevant, cost-effective and multi-platform way. But you must understand where your audiences interact with media or media-enabled experiences as well as their openness to receiving messages in that setting. You must understand the optimal strategic applications of each vehicle, their trade-offs and the underlying economics.

The wrong choices can endanger accountable marketing. You risk failure by mismatching vehicles with marketing objectives or audiences, or by having inadequate coverage across the mix. It’s equally dangerous to fail to weigh the underlying economics and potential revenue response dynamics. Finally, balance between new and traditional media is a must.

4. Investment Levels
This value lever should diagnose whether the overall marketing investment amount is too high or too low vis-à-vis the intrinsic financial return characteristics of the proposed marketing activities in relation to strategic marketing objectives. It also helps determine whether the amount invested in particular vehicles, programs or activities is too high, too low or just appropriate relative to intrinsic return characteristics and those of alternative investment options.

But it’s complicated. Marketing program returns are not static. Changes in brand maturity levels or competitive intensity can impact program-level returns. Changing media habits and changing cost dynamics of various vehicles can affect their returns. Nor are returns always linear. Despite such challenges, there’s considerable upside potential to this lever.

5. In-Market Execution
Great content still needs a great delivery mechanism; execution diligence ensures that your marketing content and your delivery mechanisms work together harmoniously.

Many tactical decisions underpin a successful and cost-effective campaign. Planning requires choices about reach and frequency, geographic coverage, and scheduling in light of insights around seasonality, purchase frequency and key decision points in the purchase cycle across all types of programs. Be warned: if poor in-market execution prevails, your failures may well be amplified in an embarrassingly public way through Web-based channels.

6. Fixed Cost Management
This lever aims for improved cost efficiency and effectiveness through both cost cutting and cost containment. Your fixed cost base depends on your mix of marketing programs and can account for 20 percent to 60 percent of the overall marketing budget. And savings can be redeployed into programs that may improve overall effectiveness.

This value lever requires applying a purchasing or procurement manager mindset. One way to start is by understanding the ratio of “working” to “non-working” spend on the fixed costs of marketing program production. If this ratio is off, try selectively applying strategic sourcing principles to pay a little less for what you buy, redefine some core programs so they can be executed more cost-effectively or re-engineer overall processes to reduce costs without compromising quality.

Accountable marketing performance is an achievable goal. By focusing on and unlocking the power of the six critical value levers, the marketing organization will prove its value to the business as a whole as the creative yet rational source of future growth.

Edit by NRV

Full article:
http://www.brandchannel.com/brand_speak.asp?bs_id=216

* * * * *

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