I just got to this via a Netflix disc. I don't have HBO, or whatever pay-per-view channel first offered this. It's a modern Washington melodrama. Every one is well dressed, well coiffed, well educated, well heeled, and treacherous. It opens with the new administration stiffing senior congress man Frank What's-his-last-name. Frank goes on to stick it to the administration with a damaging leak to the Washington Post, oops Herald. Most everyone comes across as nasty. Frank, the view point character, seems to be OK but you can see a broad streak of meanness just waiting to jump out and zap someone.
What's worse, we see stuff on TV news every night, just as raw.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Marketing for Dummies
Marketing is the art of getting customers to buy your product, rather than your competitors product. Marketers often put on airs and consider themselves above mere salesmen in company hierarchies. Which is sorta dumb, you need a lot of face-to-face time with real customers before you know enough to market anything.
One little known secret to marketing is naming the product. The product needs a name to distinguish it from the competitor's product, to allow customers to inquire about your product, place an order for your product, recognize your product in advertising, or even to leave a favorable comment on a website about your product.
For example Detroit used to give names to their cars, Roadmaster, El Dorado, Impala, Fury, and De Ville. Now they make do with DTS, CTS, 6000LE. None is memorable, or easy to remember.
Also, a product wants one single name. Selling the same product under two different names is counterproductive. For instance Chrysler sold the very same mini van under the Plymouth, Dodge and Chrysler names. Everybody knew it was the same minivan, Chrysler didn't even bother to change the grille. But it dilutes the advertising, and lowers the name recognition. If I run three ads for ONE product name, customers are more likely to remember that name than if I run three ads for three different names.
Likewise, once you have a decent product name, with some recognition out in the market, DON'T change the name. Datsun had established itself as a decent car over the span of 15 years, and a reasonably successful racing program. Then corporate decided to change the name to Nissan, which nobody remembers to this day. Suits at Ford decided to use "500" for the name of their bread-and-butter passenger car, instead of the long established and well liked name "Torino". It required intervention by Allan Mulally, new Ford CEO brought in from Boeing, to put the Torino name back on the car.
One little known secret to marketing is naming the product. The product needs a name to distinguish it from the competitor's product, to allow customers to inquire about your product, place an order for your product, recognize your product in advertising, or even to leave a favorable comment on a website about your product.
For example Detroit used to give names to their cars, Roadmaster, El Dorado, Impala, Fury, and De Ville. Now they make do with DTS, CTS, 6000LE. None is memorable, or easy to remember.
Also, a product wants one single name. Selling the same product under two different names is counterproductive. For instance Chrysler sold the very same mini van under the Plymouth, Dodge and Chrysler names. Everybody knew it was the same minivan, Chrysler didn't even bother to change the grille. But it dilutes the advertising, and lowers the name recognition. If I run three ads for ONE product name, customers are more likely to remember that name than if I run three ads for three different names.
Likewise, once you have a decent product name, with some recognition out in the market, DON'T change the name. Datsun had established itself as a decent car over the span of 15 years, and a reasonably successful racing program. Then corporate decided to change the name to Nissan, which nobody remembers to this day. Suits at Ford decided to use "500" for the name of their bread-and-butter passenger car, instead of the long established and well liked name "Torino". It required intervention by Allan Mulally, new Ford CEO brought in from Boeing, to put the Torino name back on the car.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Baltimore. Lotta angry people there
Granted, Freddie Gray's death while in police custody was the trigger event, but I think there must be a lot of anger stoked up over many years to cause Monday's riot.
Judging from TV, Baltimore has plenty of blacks in important positions with the city, starting with the mayor. Ain't like Ferguson where all the city officials were white.
Then there was that video clip of a mom dragging her teen age boy out of the riot and chastising him. If there had been more citizens like that, moms, fathers, neighbors, shop keepers, that riot would not have happened. Either the rioters scared off the decent citizens, or the decent citizens were angry too, and didn't really mind a bit of rioting and the MSM coverage a riot brings.
I think a nice big Baltimore auto assembly plant, with plenty of unskilled job openings would go a long way toward preventing riots. Being out of work, with no prospects of ever getting a job, makes people angry. Having a job makes people stay out of trouble lest they loose that job.
I wonder what kind of job the Baltimore public schools are doing.
Judging from TV, Baltimore has plenty of blacks in important positions with the city, starting with the mayor. Ain't like Ferguson where all the city officials were white.
Then there was that video clip of a mom dragging her teen age boy out of the riot and chastising him. If there had been more citizens like that, moms, fathers, neighbors, shop keepers, that riot would not have happened. Either the rioters scared off the decent citizens, or the decent citizens were angry too, and didn't really mind a bit of rioting and the MSM coverage a riot brings.
I think a nice big Baltimore auto assembly plant, with plenty of unskilled job openings would go a long way toward preventing riots. Being out of work, with no prospects of ever getting a job, makes people angry. Having a job makes people stay out of trouble lest they loose that job.
I wonder what kind of job the Baltimore public schools are doing.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
TPP Trans Pacific Pact?
Obama is negotiating some kinda deal with all the countries of East Asia EXCEPT China. We think the deal might have some tariff reduction in it. It would be nice to know how much, on what (everything? just left handed smoke shifters? Agricultural goods? who knows?) We hear talk that it will include global warming stuff, pay and benefits to workers, safety standards, all sorts of lefty greeny union stuff. Obama is on TV saying it will be good for us.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but since we don't have a clue as to what is in it or might be in it, who knows?
After a lotta wheeling and dealing with the other countries, they might reach a deal. At that point, it's a treaty IF the Senate votes it thru. What the Senate wants to do is amend the deal, changing it unilaterally, and then adopt it. Trouble is, the other counties will back off, because the deal changes will doubtless be bad for them. To prevent Senatorial meddling that breaks the deal, the notion of "fast track authority" was created. Congress passes a special law that forbids amendments and requires a straight up and down vote on the treaty, no funny business. As a rule, without "fast track" a treaty isn't going anywhere.
The US is the biggest market in the world, the biggest economy in the world, and very competitive. Usually trade deals help us by increasing our exports. Other countries do trade deals with us 'cause they want access to the enormous US market. We do trade deals with them 'cause we want to sell our exports there.
On the other hand, Obama is the worst negotiator in the world. Look at how the ayatollahs have jerked him around. He might be able to screw up a trade deal to the point that it looses money for America.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but since we don't have a clue as to what is in it or might be in it, who knows?
After a lotta wheeling and dealing with the other countries, they might reach a deal. At that point, it's a treaty IF the Senate votes it thru. What the Senate wants to do is amend the deal, changing it unilaterally, and then adopt it. Trouble is, the other counties will back off, because the deal changes will doubtless be bad for them. To prevent Senatorial meddling that breaks the deal, the notion of "fast track authority" was created. Congress passes a special law that forbids amendments and requires a straight up and down vote on the treaty, no funny business. As a rule, without "fast track" a treaty isn't going anywhere.
The US is the biggest market in the world, the biggest economy in the world, and very competitive. Usually trade deals help us by increasing our exports. Other countries do trade deals with us 'cause they want access to the enormous US market. We do trade deals with them 'cause we want to sell our exports there.
On the other hand, Obama is the worst negotiator in the world. Look at how the ayatollahs have jerked him around. He might be able to screw up a trade deal to the point that it looses money for America.
The Churchill Factor by Boris Johnson
A new book, which explores the impact upon history of Winston Churchill. Nicely written, by a Brit, who isn't afraid to use Britishisms (prang, hop it) in his writing. Without Churchill the Brits probably would have caved to Hitler in 1940. The British establishment, the aristocracy, the press, the professoriat, the business men, Parliament, the general staff, everyone who counted in England, was convinced that the Germans had overwhelming strength. They had gobbled up Norway, kicked the Allied intervention force out of Narvik, crushed France completely, occupied all the low countries, and driven the BEF into the sea at Dunkirk. Germany had twice the population of England, and a bigger industrial base. And England was still licking the wounds of the first world war. Nobody in England wanted to go thru that again, ever.
Hitler offered a deal that summer, broadcast it over German radio. It ran roughly like this. "I will let you Brits keep your Fleet and your Empire, in return you let me keep control of the continent." Had Britain accepted, the war in the west would have ended right there. The Americans were still paralyzed by isolationism, when (and if) Pearl Harbor happened, they would have gone off into the Pacific and ignored Europe. Hitler would have doubtless attacked the Russians, and without the Brits harrying his rear, the Germans might have crushed Stalin's regime that first summer. As it was, they nearly did it. Guderian's panzers got close enough to Moscow to capture a few stations on the trolley line to Moscow. Just a little bit more, and Moscow would have fallen to the Wehrmacht.
Johnson describes the key meeting between Churchill, newly elected as Prime Minister, and his war cabinet, the top five guys in the British government. Churchill was for fighting on. Everyone else was against the idea. Finally Churchill adjourned the meeting until 7 PM, and called a larger meeting of the entire cabinet, some 25-30 people. Churchill made the case for continued resistance to the larger group. Somehow, his words caught fire with his audience, the full cabinet applauded. When the five man war cabinet reconvened at 7 that evening, they proceeded to plan for war. And the Brit rank-and-file was made of tougher stuff than their establishment, they backed Churchill all the way.
I think Boris Johnson's analysis is just about right. If the Brits had caved to Hitler in 1940, the Nazi's would probably still be there, running all of Europe.
Hitler offered a deal that summer, broadcast it over German radio. It ran roughly like this. "I will let you Brits keep your Fleet and your Empire, in return you let me keep control of the continent." Had Britain accepted, the war in the west would have ended right there. The Americans were still paralyzed by isolationism, when (and if) Pearl Harbor happened, they would have gone off into the Pacific and ignored Europe. Hitler would have doubtless attacked the Russians, and without the Brits harrying his rear, the Germans might have crushed Stalin's regime that first summer. As it was, they nearly did it. Guderian's panzers got close enough to Moscow to capture a few stations on the trolley line to Moscow. Just a little bit more, and Moscow would have fallen to the Wehrmacht.
Johnson describes the key meeting between Churchill, newly elected as Prime Minister, and his war cabinet, the top five guys in the British government. Churchill was for fighting on. Everyone else was against the idea. Finally Churchill adjourned the meeting until 7 PM, and called a larger meeting of the entire cabinet, some 25-30 people. Churchill made the case for continued resistance to the larger group. Somehow, his words caught fire with his audience, the full cabinet applauded. When the five man war cabinet reconvened at 7 that evening, they proceeded to plan for war. And the Brit rank-and-file was made of tougher stuff than their establishment, they backed Churchill all the way.
I think Boris Johnson's analysis is just about right. If the Brits had caved to Hitler in 1940, the Nazi's would probably still be there, running all of Europe.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Hard Winter
How do I know? Simple, I have dug down so far in the old newspaper basket that I am starting the fire with old newspapers from two years ago. And my wood pile is pretty much gone.
Europe is further down the drain
Than the US is. This week's Economist showed a couple of telling charts. Chart 1 shows the European tax load for each employee. The Euro average is 30%. Each employee hired, hikes the employer's taxes by 30% of the new hire's wages. In short, new employees cost 30% more in taxes that what the company has to pay them. Pricey.
In the US the tax load is only 20%.
And we have a graph of "protection against layoffs", on an arbitrary scale. Europe has an average of 2.5, with Portugal leading the pack at 3. The US is only 0.25. The Brits are doing better than the European average at 1.0. Granted it's nice for workers to be protected against layoffs. But it slows the overall economy if companies know they cannot layoff workers when business gets bad. To avoid being stuck with well paid workers with full benefits, companies simply do not hire. Which accounts for Europe's horrible unemployment rate. Supporting data for the notion of American exceptionalism. America's economy is far better than the EU economy because of less tax load on employment and more labor mobility, companies are willing to hire and grow because they know they won't be stuck with unneeded workers in a business slowdown.
The Europeans have much cushier social welfare, but the cost is massive unemployment. Which would you rather have, a job, or cushy government benefits and unemployment for 10% of the workforce?
In the US the tax load is only 20%.
And we have a graph of "protection against layoffs", on an arbitrary scale. Europe has an average of 2.5, with Portugal leading the pack at 3. The US is only 0.25. The Brits are doing better than the European average at 1.0. Granted it's nice for workers to be protected against layoffs. But it slows the overall economy if companies know they cannot layoff workers when business gets bad. To avoid being stuck with well paid workers with full benefits, companies simply do not hire. Which accounts for Europe's horrible unemployment rate. Supporting data for the notion of American exceptionalism. America's economy is far better than the EU economy because of less tax load on employment and more labor mobility, companies are willing to hire and grow because they know they won't be stuck with unneeded workers in a business slowdown.
The Europeans have much cushier social welfare, but the cost is massive unemployment. Which would you rather have, a job, or cushy government benefits and unemployment for 10% of the workforce?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)