Fiorina: Good or Bad for McCain?

So in the last month or so, there’s been a massive pileup going-on of my weekly Businessweek subscription, and this weekend I finally took some time and starting going through them. I came across an article about some of the latest on McCain’s campaign and was surprised to read that former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, whom I knew had recently supported McCain on the campaign trail, was just appointed to serve as McCain’s public spokeswoman and as a people’s advocate for the RNC. Old news for some, new news for me. Either way, interesting choice though I’m not quite sure yet what to make of it.

The PRO’s:
- She is a marketer and a saleswoman; and very good in both roles

- Fiorina knows how to sell a vision and her skills in this area could really help elucidate McCain’s vision for the future, a point of communication that he's struggled with throughout the primaries. Moreso if O'bama takes the democratic nomination - McCain's campaign message will need to be very clear

- She has a 6-year run on her resume as the former CEO of HP which could strike a chord with like-minded business-folk who respond to innovation and thought leadership

- Some believe that while her leadership with HP ended in embarrassment, the growth strategies that she advocated for and pushed through, were largely responsible for the rising margins and profits that came under her successor (Hurd). Even just one year after her "resignation" HP gained a 4% PC market share lead over Dell and brought in higher reveneues than both Dell and IBM that same year

- Her rise to the top of the corporate ladder, going from secretary to CEO, is both extraordinary and inspiring – particularly for young[er]women working. McCain struggles to win-over the twenty-to-thirty something crowd and particularly young, professional women. Fiorina’s story could give his campaign some leverage with that voter segment


The CON’s:
- She was forced out of her 6-year run as CEO of HP, and her exit was not shall we say an “amiable” one. She was at the center of a merger so contentious, the son of HP's founder came out against it in a public boardroom fight.

- Fiorina is a "straight-talk" kind of gal. Combined with McCain's "let's be real" approach- it's reality overload. People want the real deal from their leaders but people also want to be inspired.

- Her offshore outsourcing policies will be sure to draw heavy fire from states in the northeast all the way down to the bible-belt south where skilled labor industries and programming jobs have been hit hardest thanks to offshore outsourcing. Her management practices along with McCain's "real talk" economics won't go over too well in these states. **I was surprised that McCain put Fiorina on the campaign trail with him in Michigan; a move that will surely bite him in the ass later**

- Though she inherited a monster that was on it's way down when she took over in 1999, Businessmen and investors will remember the troubled 6 year span under her leadership and the relief-day when HP stocks jumped 11% on the announcement of her departure.

- She’s been described in numerous public forums not as a leader who leads, but as a leader who looks to burnish her own image. Her position in McCain’s campaign could be seen as a means to get the ball rolling for her own career in politics – taking away from McCain’s spotlight

- The perceived image of Fiorina’s self-serving nature could perpetuate the notion that the RNC is a party of the rich and of the…well, self-serving

I'm leaning towards this being a not-so-smart move in the broad scheme of things but as yet, I'm still undecided. So, is Carly a wise choice for the McMan (or the RNC for that matter)? Can her business acumen win over Romney supporters? Will business-minded voters turn and run the other way?

Questions, questions..

Going "Anti" for Corporate Social Responsibility

Now before anyone starts thinking I’m a hater of “causes”, I’ll just quickly note that I do believe in giving back and I’ve been a long time supporter and volunteer for a number of organizations like ACS, Gilda’s Club, NAC, and others. I’ll preface my point: I understand that the position of CSR is supposed to be a win-win situation for businesses and customers – businesses profit; the brand gains exposure and increases loyalty by building a relationship premised on conscience and cause; customers feel good, and society feels good for buying-in to it. * Hooray for business and the cause * Where I draw the line at corporate social responsibility is when it flies in the face of “transparency of motive” and I walk away feeling “duped”.

It goes back to that question of, why are you really supporting the cause? Some people think, who cares(!) – at least something good is being done. But I care. I care about disingenuous motivations and false pretenses.

What got me started on this whole raging path is something that happened yesterday. I’m walking down the street through town and have a need to buy some basic home supplies and I see two stores – one has a breast cancer ribbon in the front window and the other doesn’t. I opt for the breast-cancer supporter. * clap, clap, clap for the business * I pick out my things, and when it’s my turn to step up to the counter, I ask about a contribution jar or percentage of profit per item that goes to the breast cancer foundation. They tell me, and I quote, “We don’t contribute financially but we do believe in the cause.”

…Heh?

Maybe you think I’m overreacting but I tell you I’ve run into these scenarios many, many times and I am infuriated no less each time. Had I known the ribbon display was merely that - I would have gone to the second store whose prices are slightly cheaper. Clearly, the ribbon in the window was meant to draw me in as a customer - if they really believed in the cause - they'd do what many do and make a contribution to the cause. But what really gets my blood boiling is the "enviornmental cause". Here’s an example..

Charles Schwab had flown me out for an interview last year and I remember they put me up in the Orchard Garden Hotel – a green hotel near Chinatown, in downtown San Francisco. When I asked the recruiter about it, she gave me a very thoughtful, well-prepared schpiel that Schwab cares about the environment, and they’re doing what they can for their part.

Ok, I’ll bite.

Soy instead of ink, energy-regulated rooms, and recyclable bins (one for paper and one for aluminum)…I have no problem with that. The hotel was small, patterned with brown on brown colors but still trendy-looking in a chic “earthy” way, and my room was fairly comfortable. The major downside – it was also an additional 16 blocks from Schwab headquarters. After what felt like a dizzying 7 hours of interviewing, my mind came back to that “green” hotel and I did a quick review.

- They put me on the cheapest flight available (ok, understandable) but it also had me arriving at midnight, the night before my interview, and they had me flying out less than two hours after my interviews were done. That’s pretty harsh timing to save on a little reimbursement money. I was dead, during and after my interviews

- The airline they chose was so cheap they didn’t even have food on board; not even snack boxes just pretzels. And this was a cross-country flight mind you from Philadelphia to San Francisco

- They didn’t take me out to lunch and introduced me to the quick café in the main lobby

- Most of the standard hotel rooms in downtown San Francisco, for places like the Hyatt or the Marriott, average about $285/ night; the price for going with the Orchard was about $100 cheaper

So I’m thinking about this interview process and it suddenly dawned on me; promoting green wasn’t about social responsibility or supporting a cause – it was about cost-reduction. Like the rest of my trip – it was about minimizing expenses to the nth degree (and I mean going to the bare minimums without sacrificing company image). “Let’s go cheap and since it’s green, let’s play it up.” Admittedly, I was a little ticked.

Everyone wants to jump on the band-wagon of supporting "a cause". But from my review, climate change is a crock and for many businesses, so is asserting “earth-friendly” programs for the sake of the environment.

GE made their big splash with the “ecomagination” project, committing $2 billion to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency by 30 percent by the end of 2008 and 2012, respectively.

Seems to me that it makes perfect senses to invest in innovation and new technology for the future, particularly when you're the profit-hounding GE and one of the largest providers of energy-resource for homes and businesses. Investing in alternative technology that is, in the long term, cheaper to produce is called "smart business".

Toyota is promoting their new “green make-over” project intended to increase sustainability of production operations by emphasizing the role of nature in creating production sites.

All I can say is, weak; very weak.

Dell is beefing up their efforts to become “the greenest” technology company around by building-up it’s recycling program and “building earth-friendly PC’s”.

Why don’t companies just say what this is all really about – cost reduction for profitability and growth, or, in many cases - pretending they give a darn to drive loyalty and spend for customers who do give a darn. Was that so hard? Let’s talk about Dell’s “green” efforts – first of all, traditional computer parts are power-sucking nightmares and people are looking for power sustainability in their PC products. To achieve this – you have to look for alternatives; it’s a no-brainer. But to promote this as an earth-friendly project is ludicrous – the packaging box is a recycling nightmare (meaning it can’t even be recycled), not one component of their PC’s is made of re-cycleable material and the mercury contained in laptops can damage the CNS. What’s so “earth-friendly” about it??

Now there’s even the CRRA - Corporate Responsibility Reporting Awards; an international event with a prestigious gala evening, ceremonies, parties, and awards with titles like “Best Corporate Responsibility Fiscal Report” and “Best Carbon Disclosure”.

And guess what SF-based company was on the list of attendees. Yea, really.