Who’s Your Candidate for Vice President?

Here’s my vote on the who the VP candidates look like depending on nominations for the top seat.

THE ASSES (giddy-giggle)
If Billary wins:
Bill Richardson: He’s not threatening, “feels” Caucasian but is actually Hispanic – a big benefit for attracting both middle-upper class whites as well as the growing Hispanic voter segment which Hillary will need to win in 2008.

It will NOT be:
Barack O'bama: A woman president AND a black Vice President? Hmm..I’m not sure this country is ready for such diversity in the white house. We talk a big game but in reality, we’re still fairly conservative compared with our European counterparts. Besides, are they even on friendly terms still? Last thing this country needs is the President and Vice President duking it out between the ropes while deciding the fate of the nation between rounds…

John Edwards: Although I think this would be a winning ticket, Edwards isn't likely to give up his very solid shot at the top seat.

If Edwards wins:
Barack O’bama: What does he bring? Polling Diversity. Plain and simple. I don’t think O’bama can bring much else to the table. Sorry folks.

Bill Richardson: I think Bill Richardson, generally speaking, is a solid choice for any of the democratic presidential candidates. He brings diversity and middle-of-the road politics that balances out the extreme of Hillary and the clean-cut preppy look of Edwards.

It will NOT be:
Hillary Clinton: for the same reasons John Edwards won’t be her VP

THE MIGHTY REPUBS
If Guiliani wins (which I think he will):
Mike Huckabee: We all know his chances for winning the big seat are slim[mer] (some prefer non-existent) but he’s a strong candidate for the second seat particularly for Guiliani who’s weighing in a little on the light side when it comes to winning favor from the “right side” (Christian-base et al)

Mitt Romney: Not my favorite by far but he just might pull in the right base that Guiliani is missing. That and he's much better looking than Huckabee. ;-)

Fred Thompson: The least likely of the three. Frankly, I think his campaign is sorely lacking and if it doesn't pick-up soon, he'll go down quickly and quietly.

It will NOT be:
John McCain: They both tend to lose favor with the same crowd so a Guiliani/McCain ticket doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. That said, I don’t think McCain – coming in third at this point – would be willing to cede his nomination as the republican candidate for president.

Since I think strongly that Guiliani will win the Republican nomination, I won't bother posting any other candidate options. Sadly, lack of strong options is our biggest problem.

The Blackberry versus the iPhone

Techies just love to have pow-wow over this one. So which one is better?

Obvious answer: well it depends on what you want to use it for. Some people feel that the not-so-new-anymore iPhone has some serious potential to ruin future sales growth of the blackberry. Nonsense. What we really have is a non-compete situation here because these two products target completely different markets (with some overlap but not enough to impact sales performance of one over the other). The Blackberry, like the iPhone, is still a niche product but unlike the iPhone it’s expanded it’s reach to garner mass-market attention.

The Blackberry is for business professionals on the run; the iPhone is for consumers that want flashy, fun multimedia capability from their phone. The multimedia functions of the blackberry cannot compete with the iPhone but they’re also not selling points for the market either. Folks don’t buy a blackberry for the audio/video features similarly to the way iPhone users don’t buy an iPhone to check/send email and keep their contacts lists up-to-date.

For folks that own a blackberry and have little use for push technology, GPS and calendar/contacts synchronization – the iPhone might very well be a better option. But until the iPhone locks-in these capabilities, you simply can’t compare the two.

And as for me, until the iPhone has basic cut and paste features, you can count me out for sure. I'd die without cut and paste.

Who's Your Presidential Candidate?

Okay - here's another fun little political test (thanks Aunt Pattie). Based on your responses, the results will show how closely your positions line-up with all of the presidential candidates (both democrat and republican) on hot-button platform issues. It's a short test (11 questions); Obvliously not comprehensive but interesting.

Click on the following link for the test:
http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

My results: Mitt Romney was my closest match (a bit of a surprise). I knew of course it would be a republican but I expected him to fall farther down the list. How many times has he changed his position? I consider Romney to be a political "side-winder" so he won't definitely won't get my vote. But the good news: Obama was third to last. *Whew. Can wipe the brow*

You Can't Knock High-Hopes

I got a good chuckle out of this businessweek article covering this years LA auto-show design challenge. The topic - where will auto design and functionality be in the year 2057.

Some of the concept themes (I highlighted the key words I thought were most interesting)

• Fluid designs and materials that can be reconfigured into different
"modes" (i.e., compact and maneuverable when commuting/sleek and aerodynamic so you can zip right through that L.A. traffic)

• Artificial Intelligence to allow vehicles to be operated with little or
no input from the user;

• Advanced fuel systems using multiple energy sources to achieve excellent
economy and power while minimizing or indeed reversing environmental damage;

• "Organic" design that mimics and responds to natural forms;

• Omni-directional drives instead of simple forward/reverse wheels.

These are all great, forward thinking ideas. But I say, let’s be realistic. In the year 1941, Chrysler came out with the Thunderbolt - an “idea car” that was vastly ahead of it’s time in 1941 and only six were made. Interesting from a time-warp perspective is that some of the most advanced aspects of it’s design included a fully retractable hardtop that was electronically operated from pushbuttons on the dashboard, power windows, and retracting headlamps. Flash-forward to present day where countless vehicles still don’t include power windows (fortunately not my car), you pay extra for the automatic convertible top (if it’s even an option for your convertible) and most headlamps don’t retract. Not because this technology doesn't exist obviously but for many mainstream car manufacturers, it's just not cost-effective for the offering. And the avaibility of these features has come about in a manner that I call gradual technological evolution, natural evolution.

In looking at the historical developments of our fine auto-industry over the last 50 years – I really don't think we've come 'that far' when we're talking about what's available in the mainstream. What have we really achieved - Speed? "torque-age"? fuel-efficiency? When you consider the cars that are the most innovative in design and functionality – those that truly create that divide between themselves and the cars of 1950 – you'll also find they are in the top 1% of affordability (think the Bugatti Veryon which, priced in 1999, was sitting with a pretty pricetag of 1.3 million; check out this video - thanks Michael).

If I could predict functionality of mainstream cars in the year 2057 - I could believe the use of A.I. - to a degree (i.e., like cruise control on auto-pilot - built-in movement sensors that detect moving objects in front of you and behind you, relative to distance and direction - to slow down or increase speed. That to me seems like natural technological evolution as evidenced by the last 50 years). That said, cars with an organic design that can mimic and respond to natural forms, change from compact to aerodynamic...? Sounds like technological advancement from some parallel universe - somewhere in the realm of nuclear fission; An idea car for the year 2057 - of which perhaps six will be made.

Cost-effective? Doubtful. Mainstream? Not.

Are You a Liberal??

My sister in-law Valerie sent me a link to an interesting political website last week (http://www.dennisprager.com) and on it was a fun little questionnaire to help "the lost and confused" (or the plain curious) decide whether or not they lean liberal. I took it and well not too surprisingly - confirmed that I am in fact NOT a liberal.

Take the test and see where you line-up (Here's the link to the actual website questionnaire: http://www.dennisprager.com/areyouliberal.html)

Are you a liberal? YES If you believe the following (my responses are italicized):

1. Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.

DISAGREE
Maximum - admissions might be lowered depending on public school funding or lack thereof (i.e., the poorest school districts without proper means of delivering "quality" education might get lowered standards for an allowable percentage of say the top 1 or 2% of students. This might inevitably target people of color but I don't feel that race (like, sex or age) should be a direct criteria. I'm also not opposed to applying addtional entrant criteria (i.e., voluteer work, additional essays) for selection of those 1 or 2% of students

2. Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

DISAGREE
As if our public school systems could afford it. There should be ONE common language. One guess as to which language (and no, it's not Spanish). More than one common language would lead to a disintegration of national unity and further divide the races/racial classes

3. Murderers should never be put to death.

DISAGREE
Ted Bundy's and Charles Manson's of the world - fry em. My tax dollars will be better spent elsewhere

4. During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

DISAGREE
In a simple, naïve world - sure!

5. Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

DISAGREE
Students should have more options, not less

6. It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

DISAGREE
Another detailed blog for future post I'm sure

7. Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

AGREE
I believe that if private schools want to open up their doors for greater diversity, it's their right to do so. If not, sorry!

8. It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

HEH?
I don't understand the question; A jab at us repubs no doubt. People will contribute to the party they stand with. If you're a dem - support the dems! We (republicans) probably don't want you anyway.

9. Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

AGREE
I'm a VERY weak YES. My previous voting record has always been NO on this one (for reasons having nothing to do with religion) but my position is weening. At the moment - yes but depending on my mood - I'm a flip-flopper for sure

10. A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

DISAGREE
Undecided. I do believe that families exist and can exist in all different shapes and sizes. If a child is loved and that child 'feels' loved - who can argue that that's a bad thing? If this is a question of married couples vs. unmarried couples in general - then I believe married couples should have more rights to adopt. If this is a question of married man/women couples vs. married same-sex couples then I'm undecided. I'm still struggling with the same-sex marriage so this - as children are involved - would be a stretch for me

11. The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

DISAGREE
Seriously, who cares?

12. The present high tax rates are good.

DISAGREE
We (me, myself and I) hate taxes.

13. Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.

DISAGREE
I have to research this one further but my gut reaction is to believe that anything ending in 'American Values are bad' - has to be 'not good'

14. The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

AGREE
I have to answer YES to this one simply because I'm not in a position to generalize

15. The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

DISAGREE
Subservient - no; collaborative - yes

16. It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

DISAGREE
An utterly rediculous position. I defer to an earlier comment - students should have more choices, not less

17. No abortions can be labeled immoral.

DISAGREE
I am emphatically pro-choice but I do believe in setting boundaries

18. Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

DISAGREE
Not that it seems to matter these days as more and more cities are instituting smoke-free policies but I believe it should be up to the business-owner. If customers don't want to choose - they can go where their preferences are better suited

19. High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

AGREE
I laugh at the notion that condoms are a prelude to sex. Has anyone noticed the number of teenage pregnancies going UP???

20. Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

DISAGREE
Fine line here; we should tread carefully. Beyond the standard airport-type security measures, I think anyone 'suspect' should be searched but I don't think there's anything wrong with adding extra layers of caution based on historical incidence. However, if the process is deemed completely ineffective then we should look to other alternatives rather than clinging-on to ineffective policies as a 'safety crutch'

21. Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

AGREE
Along with a good dose of lack of education and discipline (from a father or a mother)

22. It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

DISAGREE
Unconstitutional is a stretch

23. No culture is morally superior to any other.

AGREE
Indisputable in my opinion. You can't generalize about other cultures that you know so little or nothing about (particularly if your own - i.e., ours - is rooted in a morally questionable past)

Goodbye Advertising, Hello Social Media!

Or not. Lately, I’ve been getting my self embroiled in conversations with people that prat on and on about how advertising in the new marketing age is dead. The future of marketing is CGM and Social Media. As many already know, I’m a big fan of Social media, web2.0 and new emergent technologies but as for advertising being dead – well I just poo-poo that notion..

A couple of schools of thought that some of my marketing colleagues and I tend to disagree about:

Q: What is advertising.

For them it’s a 1-1 communication; It’s me as a marketer communicating to you as the customer. You don’t communicate back, you just (hopefully) pay attention and then (hopefully again) respond as a new customer.

For me, advertising is about putting your brand/marketing message in front of an audience. It’s about getting their attention; and getting them to respond. Having said that, why would social media ‘not’ fall into the category of advertising? Traditional advertising it’s not but whether you call it community word of mouth, social media, or interactive dialogue – your objective is still the same. You’re getting your message out to your audience in hopes that they’ll “get it”. And I’m not necessarily a believer that advertising in social forums (however good or bad the response is) is a bad thing.

If we’re talking about traditional advertising then it’s true; It’s “in flight”. In a world where consumer control is heading straight for the helm of marketing efforts (be it TIVO, Youtube, or circumventing online click ads), people aren’t going to listen to the things they don’t want to hear. The trick is to make it relevant, make it meaningful. Traditional media will only die if marketers refuse to give up control. What marketers need to do is find a way get traditional advertisements in on the consumer-control action. Think Tide detergent's new 'Crescent Heights' ads that interweave traditional advertisements with online and social media (Thanks James). Be creative. Stop talking "at" them and start talking "with" them (as with the ever popular Secret deoderant 'What's your secret' ad campaigns).

If you can connect and engage with your target audience then bravo. But whatever the ad-road you travel: Good marketing plans are like strong investment portfolios. What does that mean? Diversify, diversify, diversify.

Advertising in the traditional sense, is here to stay. We as marketers need to get off our butts and start looking at how we can utilize traditional advertising in a "non-traditional" way.

Blog or Bust

"What is the value of blogging?"

Should companies in the financial/investment services industries blog on their websites? I’ve had this discussion with folks many times and from where I sit the answer is pretty simple (and applies to any service company regardless of industry). Breaking it down into far simpler terms:

YES, If…
- the intent is to build meaningful and engaging relationships with consumers

NO, If…
- the intent is to increase the bottom line

Businesses that want to extend their brand reach, want to develop stronger customer relationships, and want to achieve a greater depth of customer insight to deliver quality products and services – should have a blog. There is tangible value there – it’s called ‘the customer experience’ and it’s measurable by the interaction you achieve. It's a conversation between people and when providing a valued service, having that interaction builds trust and humanizes your organization. As social networking sites, blogs, consumer review sites and other CGM-centric corners of the web continue to increase, financial companies will have to get on board or they risk slow brand erosion.

But (there is always a but)... if you're going to blog keep it interesting, keep it updated and keep it relevant - to your industry, your brand message, and your audience. Keep it real. Blogs are heavily viral so assuming you keep to the rules eventually you'll attract a vast community to your company. And for a nice little bennie, a well-trafficked blog can also help generate better results on search engines. Now that can't be bad for any organization. ;-)

Marketing in the Virtual World: Yay or Nay?

I had an interesting conversation recently with an executive at a large SF-based financial/investment services firm about marketing outreach in the web2.0 world and in particular, interacting with consumers in the virtual space. Web2.0 marketing has been a big topic over the last year and the subject of virtual-world interaction is increasingly gaining discussion ground in many of the marketing forums I’m involved with.

My question to this executive: how relevant is the virtual space for reaching potential customers and what’s the opportunity? And honestly, I was surprised at how quickly the idea was scoffed.

Her take on emerging technology or new marketing vehicles is: it’s only relevant for a brand like Apple - known for (and rather expected to be) innovative and trendy in their marketing solutions – to jump on the bandwagon of emerging technology but the question other companies need to ask is “how relevant is that space for our company and how does it mesh with our brand”.

Hmmm…interesting position and not without valid points but it seems to me to devalue the potential for connecting with your audience in a new way, not necessarily pushing products or services mind you, but rather interacting in a community-minded way (er, a virtual way) in an environment that they’re comfortable with. What’s so innovative and trendy about that?

The virtual space still has significant growing room to go through and it’s still very unfamiliar territory for many marketers and users (particularly as I’ve found in the financial services arena) but here’s my take: if the objective of today’s marketer is to “connect” and “engage” - emerging technology shouldn’t be relegated to the idea-bucket for only those brands whose message resonates with innovation and “coolness” but rather the question should be asked:

Where is our audience going and how can we build a presence and engage them in these places intelligently and “comfortably”.

Companies like Pontiac, IBM, and even Sears have put their brands out in Second Life and with now nearly half a million Second Lifers logging on weekly and roughly a million logging on each month – such a new possibility only has upward growth. The average age of users is 32, and the median age of users is 36 – for most financial and investment services firms, that’s very relevant.

In a world saturated by direct mail, email and online advertisements, I think it’s necessary for marketers to at minimum consider it’s possibilities. Your marketing approach and marketing message needs to be carefully addressed but ignoring these emerging vehicles seems to me to be sticking your head in the sand by way of enslaving yourself to traditional outreach methods that are already overrun.

Update: I'm not devaluing the use of traditional marketing tactics; Not at all. They're invaluable and their effectiveness is measurable. However, diversification of your marketing plan is essential if you want to keep up with your consumer-base (what they're doing and where they're going) in order to expand your brand reach and remain engaged.