Archive for October 15th, 2010

Must Read: Home Depot founder says "Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President"

October 15, 2010

This will the the buzz on the talk shows today.

Ken Langone was one of the 3 founders of Home Depot.

His Punch Line: “If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it’s a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground.”

Highlights are below.  Worth reading the whole piece.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President, Ken Langone, Oct.15, 2010 

Your insistence that your policies are necessary and beneficial to business is utterly at odds with what you and your administration are saying elsewhere. You pick a fight with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accusing it of using foreign money to influence congressional elections, something the chamber adamantly denies.

Your U.S. attorney in New York, Preet Bahrara, compares investment firms to Mexican drug cartels and says he wants the power to wiretap Wall Street when he sees fit.

And you drew guffaws of approving laughter with your car-wreck metaphor, recently telling a crowd that those who differ with your approach are “standing up on the road, sipping a Slurpee” while you are “shoving” and “sweating” to fix the broken-down jalopy of state.

Your short-sighted wavering—between condescending encouragement one day and hostile disparagement the next — creates uncertainty that, as any investor could tell you, causes economic paralysis. That’s because no one can tell what to expect next.

          * * * * *

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it’s a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive.

Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance.

Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

          * * * * * 

Meantime, you seem obsessed with repealing tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires.”

I stand behind no one in my enthusiasm and dedication to improving our society and especially our health care.

[I’m willing to pay higher taxes.] Just make sure that money actually reduces federal spending and isn’t simply shifted elsewhere.

I guarantee you that many millionaires and billionaires will gladly forego government benefits — as my wife and I already do when we forward those checks each month to charity.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575552080488297188.html

Dems losing "guys who spend nights wearing funny hats"

October 15, 2010

A couple of interesting election snippets that caught my eye …

* * * * *

“Forget about Big Business moving away from us,” said one administration official, “we’re losing the Kiwanis Club guys who own a small business and spend their nights wearing those funny hats.

They’re independents and we need them but all the class warfare stuff seems to have pushed them away.”

Daily Beast, Obama Secretly Courts Big Business, by Charlie Gasparino
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-14/how-obama-secretly-courts-big-business/2/

* * * * *

“The Democratic Party has “an inefficiently distributed base of voters.”

It “consists mostly of union workers, upscale urban liberals and minority voters, many of whom are clustered in highly Democratic districts.”

In many other districts, Democratic candidates depend on “independents and soft partisans,” the very voters who have defected from the Obama coalition of 2008.

If Democrats lose control of the House by a small number of seats, this might be condign punishment for a practice they favor and that Republicans have cynically encouraged — racial gerrymandering.

It concentrates African-American voters in majority-minority districts in order to guarantee the election of minority candidates.

George F. Will: An election of historic significance
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=George+F.+Will%3A+An+election+of+historic+significance&articleId=289c83e0-246d-46a2-aaa6-701321cf476f

Dems losing “guys who spend nights wearing funny hats”

October 15, 2010

A couple of interesting election snippets that caught my eye …

* * * * *

“Forget about Big Business moving away from us,” said one administration official, “we’re losing the Kiwanis Club guys who own a small business and spend their nights wearing those funny hats.

They’re independents and we need them but all the class warfare stuff seems to have pushed them away.”

Daily Beast, Obama Secretly Courts Big Business, by Charlie Gasparino
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-14/how-obama-secretly-courts-big-business/2/

* * * * *

“The Democratic Party has “an inefficiently distributed base of voters.”

It “consists mostly of union workers, upscale urban liberals and minority voters, many of whom are clustered in highly Democratic districts.”

In many other districts, Democratic candidates depend on “independents and soft partisans,” the very voters who have defected from the Obama coalition of 2008.

If Democrats lose control of the House by a small number of seats, this might be condign punishment for a practice they favor and that Republicans have cynically encouraged — racial gerrymandering.

It concentrates African-American voters in majority-minority districts in order to guarantee the election of minority candidates.

George F. Will: An election of historic significance
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=George+F.+Will%3A+An+election+of+historic+significance&articleId=289c83e0-246d-46a2-aaa6-701321cf476f

Buy me, I’m the underdog …

October 15, 2010

TakeAway: Americans love to root for the underdog.

New research shows that this tendency is applicable to marketing.

In a difficult economic environment, marketers have been leveraging underdog brand perceptions where feasible to gain consumer favorability.

* * * * *

Excerpted from HBS Working Knowledge, “The Consumer Appeal of Underdog Branding,” by Martha Lagace, September 13, 2010

Picture the Jamaican bobsled team going for the gold at the Winter Olympics.

Or competitors in what seem fundamentally unbalanced battles: the Chicago Cubs versus the New York Yankees, Apple versus Microsoft, and Southwest Airlines versus United.

In the public eye, the weaker party is often more attractive. Why?

The reason might be an increasing willingness on the part of consumers to identify with the underdog. In today’s economically difficult times, it appears, underdog brands are gaining psychological, and real, power in the marketplace. …

“Today, underdog brand biographies are being used by both large and small companies and across categories …. Even large corporations, such as Apple and Google, are careful to retain their underdog roots in their brand biographies.” …

“Through a series of experiments, we show that underdog brand biographies are effective in the marketplace because consumers identify with the disadvantaged position of the underdog and share their passion and determination to succeed when the odds are against them.”

Marketers can use underdog narratives to positively affect consumers’ perceptions of and purchase of brands …

The common themes that link … underdog biographies are

  1. a disadvantaged position in the marketplace versus a “top dog,” a well-endowed competitor with superior resources or market dominance, and
  2. tremendous passion and determination to succeed despite the odds.  

Brand managers need to consider the credibility of the underdog narrative for the firm.

Many brands emphasize their underdog roots, but if they are later acquired by large corporations, it diminishes the credibility of their underdog brand biographies.

Brands such as Ben & Jerry’s and Snapple have been criticized by consumers once they were acquired by large corporations. …

Edit by DG

* * * * *
Full Article
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6351.html

* * * * *