Archive for October 23rd, 2012

Debate: Day after thoughts …

October 23, 2012

The broad stroke: B-O-R-I-N-G.  Yeah, Obama landed more punches … but he didn’t knock Romney out, didn’t knock him to the canvas, didn’t even give him wobbly knees … won’t stop Romney’s momentum.

My analogy: It was like a basketball game … Romney was sitting on a lead, taking the air out of the ball … Obama was scrambling trying to cause turnovers … whenever Obama fouled, Romney made the free throws … so, Obama won the 4th quarter (i.e. the last debate) … but not the game (the debate series)

Random thoughts:

  1. Wonder what the ratings will be … I was flipping between the debate and Bears-Lions … how many folks were like me?  Or worse, simply switched on MNF or the NLCS game 7 …  I’m into this stuff and I lost interest.
  2. General theme: Middle East is an insolvable mess ..  well-intended support for democracy (i.e. anti-dictators) has backfired … now, an entire region is controlled by out-of-control gangs with weak governments that are either in cahoots or ineffective … if it weren’t for the oil, most people wouldn’t care.
  3. Candi Crowley’s attempt to help Obama backfired … Romney didn’t have to relitigate Libya since it has been on the news for the past week … and since the press is stuck following up on the story … the Libya mess helped Romney by weakening Obama’s foreign policy advantage … now, back to the economy.
  4. I’m struck by how Obama heaped the Libya mess on himself … classic unforced errors – trying to be “too cute by half” … he didn’t have to start saying “al Qaeda is extinguished”, or on the run or whatever … folks would have bought “weakened but still a threat” … and honesty would have worked with Benghazi “Tried to keep Marines out of Libya, thought security was adequate … obviously, it wasn’t … caused a serious tragedy … redouble efforts to make sure it doesn’t happen again” … folks would have bought that, too … anybody with a pulse (don’t even need a brain) knows the area is a mess with a bunch of crazies running around … Instead, Libya became an issue and made Obama look like he was lying – even if he wasn’t.
  5. For me, most interesting was switching back from the Bears game … sometimes with the mute button on … Romney looked fatigued but Presidential … Obama looked ruffled – eyes darting, grimaces, goofy smile … I bet that’s an impression many folks drew.
  6. Based on CNN instpolls, Romney emerged as likeable as Obama (48 to 47) … and, “accepting as commander-in-chief” (60%) … soccer moms didn’t see a war mongering son-of-George Bush.
  7. Obama’s best line (“horses and bayonets”) will, in fact backfire … folks in ship-building areas (Norfolk & Portsmouth Virginia) probably want to keep their jobs alive for awhile … remember, VA is a swing state.
  8. Surprised that Obama kept teeing up economic issues … gave Romney legitimacy to repeat his powerful riff on the economy … didn’t Obama think that Romney would be ready re: the auto bailouts?
  9. Strongest Mitt line might have legs: “Attacking me isn’t an agenda for the future” … gets Obama for not having a plan and plays to the women who reportedly don’t like the negative stuff.
  10. Is “keep on truckin’” something you want to hear a President say in a national debate?

Civility has taken a hit … and debates will never be the same … from now on, they will be cage matches with the crowd screaming for blood.   When channel surfing the other nite, I stopped for a few minutes on C-Span’s replay of the Elder Bush- Dukakis debate … issues were about the same, policy differences were about the same, but demeanor of both guys was, uh, civil and presidential.  Will never happen again.

* * * * *
Great analyst quotesfrom the UK Telegraph

The President wheeled out what must have seemed like a great, pre-planned zinger: “I think Governor Romney maybe hasn’t spent enough time looking at how our military works …  Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military’s changed.”

The audience laughed, Obama laughed, It was funny.

But, Twitter immediately lit up with examples of how the US Army does still use horses and bayonets (horses were used during the invasion of Afghanistan).

Romney sucked up Obama’s abuse and retained a rigid poker face all night.

He looked like a Commander in Chief; Obama looked like a lawyer.

Who would you rather vote for?

Romney tried his darnedest to bring everything back to the economy and Obama seemed to say in every answer, “So what we need to do in the Middle East is talk more about how rubbish my opponent is.”

It’s almost lucky that Obama isn’t running unopposed in this election because then he’d have nothing to run on at all.

The real difference was in style. In his closing statement – after Obama was done making the Ace of Spades disappear – Romney channelled Reagan by looking straight into the camera and asserting his faith in America.

It was empty, sugary stuff that will make liberals sick. But it was infinitely preferable to Obama’s constant, nasty attacks. Sometimes in life, the nice guys do win.

>> Latest Posts

What did Mitt say about the auto bailout? … “Check the record”

October 23, 2012

In the last debate , Obama challenged folks to “check the record” re: what Romney said about the auto bailouts.

Ok, we did … and it’s very interesting.

Obama was talking about a 2008 op-ed in the NY Times.

image

Yeah, the op-ed was titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”.

That’s inflammatory since most folks think that “bankrupt” and “go out of business” are synonymous.

They’re not.

Bankruptcy is a process for stabilizing a failing company … not necessarily – and not usually – a liquidation (think practically every airline).

Romney was arguing that GM should go through the process and follow the in-place bankruptcy laws … rather than having the Feds dictate the terms for winners & losers.

What Romney opposed was dishing bailout checks … and letting taxpayers pick up the tab.

Specifically, he said “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check. “

His plan had a couple of basic components:

  1. New labor agreements to neutralize the $2,000 per car cost disadvantage
  2. New management from best of breed non-automotive industries (think Alan Mulally – the turnaround guy that Ford got from Boeing)
  3. A new labor-management relationship … “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
  4. A strong dealer network … “When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. “
  5. $20 billion in gov’t funded research … “done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.”
  6. “The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers. “
  7. “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”

In short, “a managed bankruptcy … not a bailout check.”

No mention of letting the industry die.

Obama better hope that nobody in Ohio or Michigan takes his advice and checks the record.

* * * * *

While we’re at it … yes, there were winners – mostly members of the UAW.

And there were losers like:

  • GM bondholders (think retirees and widows) whose secured loans were subordinated to the UAW
  • The 20,000 non-union Delphi salaried retirees, who lost their pensions and benefits programs as they were headed into retirement
  • The profitable GM dealerships that were closed because they spoke out against the Fed’s bailout process (I personally know the principles of one such dealership in Baltimore).
  • US taxpayers who are still holding the bag for the $25 billion bailout Source

Again, Obama better hope that nobody in Ohio or Michigan takes his advice and checks the record.

>> Latest Posts

Charge your cell phone … then charge your burger on it.

October 23, 2012

Punch line: Not many consumers are currently using mobile phones to make purchases, but that’s about to change.

As more companies start to offer and advertise mobile payment options, consumers will start to spend more using their mobile phones.

* * * * *
Excerpted from Adage’s, “Mobile Payments Still Tiny, Set to Explode in Next Four Years”

A few people have traded in their wallets for their phones to make small purchases like coffee and movie tickets, but we’re about to see explosive growth in the market as more consumers use smartphones to pay for things like groceries and gas.

Research firms estimate that the total transaction value for mobile payments in the U.S. will be $640 million this year, but that will grow to more than $62 billion in 2016 as a bigger segment of the population uses their phones to buy medium-ticket items, including fast-food restaurants.

us-proximity-mobile-payment-transaction-value

The average user of mobile payments will spend $62 a year with their phones in 2012, but that grows to $1,294 in 2016.

The steep growth curve assumes merchants continue to adopt mobile payments and that using phones for purchases demonstrates enough value to consumers to replace credit cards and cash.

The mobile payments market today includes startups like Square, LevelUp and The Protean Echo; services backed by credit card companies like Visa and American Express ; a consortium of big merchants like Target and 7-11 and CVS; tech companies like PayPal, Google Wallet and Apple’s Passbook; not to mention Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile which have their own consortium, ISIS.

While the array of platforms and technologies creates confusion for consumers, it will also raise awareness broadly, as payment options become more ubiquitous and various players spend on marketing to gain users.

Edit by BJP

>> Latest Posts

McDonald’s reverts to dollar menu to build loyalty … say, what?

October 23, 2012

According to the WSJ

image

McDonald’s  reported a 3.5% decline in third-quarter earnings as sales slowed more dramatically than expected because of a sluggish economy and a disappointing marketing campaign.

McDonald’s … conceded that it needs to be more aggressive in advertising low prices.

In a weaker economy, customers may not go out to eat as frequently and tend to stop getting extras like drinks and desserts and premium items like Angus burgers, which all offer higher profits.

McDonald’s move earlier this year to shift its marketing focus in the U.S. to the higher-priced and more profitable “Extra Value Menu” from the successful “Dollar Menu” didn’t “resonate as strongly” with consumers.

“We’re going back to talk of the Dollar Menu.”

The company hopes that focusing attention to its lower prices will attract more customers and gain their loyalty.

This way, when the economy starts to improve, McDonald’s will have a larger consumer base and more ability to raise prices.

OK, I understand that low prices move burgers.

In fact, I think the McDouble for a buck is the best food value on the planet.

But, face it Mickey, low prices appeal to price-sensitive customers … not loyalists.

Trust me, when you try to jack the prices up, their (and my) “loyalty” will shift quickly to the new “value” burger joint.

Just ask Subway.

I’m sure they’ve been wondering “where’s Ken?” since they shifted from $5 Foot Longs to … a couple at $5, some at $5.50, some at $6.50, etc.

Let me repeat: you don’t build loyalty with bargain basement pricing … you just move a ton of burgers at low prices.

>> Latest Posts