Thursday, August 19, 2010

The "SuperSized" Economy; There is no "value added."

We're headed for more bad economic times. It's not a question as if we're asking, "Are we headed for more economic hardships?" It's a fact. We are. And here's why.
We're headed for more bad times because there's no way to "add value" to the economy the way marketers "add value" to soft drinks by replacing sugar with cheaper high fructose corn syrup. The economy is chock full of artificial ingredients and the only way to return to solid ground is to subtract the "value added" components of the economy that got us in self-induced trouble in the first place.

For example, General Mills "added value" to Wheaties in the 80s by replacing "whole wheat" with non-descript "whole grain." As consumer pull-through diminished retailers began delisting the brand. General Mills had hoped no one would notice the change the same way no one noticed when Coke replaced sugar with HFCS - consumers just drank more because Coke could sell larger quantities (20 ounce bottles vesus 12) for fractions of a cent more. Supersizing was a great way to get a larger share of stomach. But it didn't work with Wheaties. General Mills never gave consumers more product for just a little more money. That was Steve Sanger's fault as inextricably linked to companies such as ADM and Cargill as he is. By repositioning the brand as "whole wheat" again Wheaties increased distribution 24% and won Advertising Age Magazine's recognition as "The Year's Best Repositioned Brand.

The bottom line here is that we've already "SuperSized" the economy the same way McDonald's "supersized us. We found out it was unhealthy. Food scientists are just wonderful.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

California Governor's Election - Let's Delist The Candidates

Who do you vote for when there's no one to vote for? The front runner is front runner simply by means of having the largest budget. She has no political experience outside of the CEO and corporate ladder's suite. The other two ... well ... they're the other two candidates. So what would happen if everyone meaning the popular voters simply did not take part in the election? What if we vote for no one? I know voting is a right and a duty. That makes it more than a privledge. But what does one do when their is no choice and your choice is simply the lesser of three evils? Like a delisted brand in a grocery store voters should delist the products by not voting and blindly following the herd on election day. If we keep doing what we've always done we're going to keep getting what we've always got ... and that's not good for Californians. Are we waiting for newspapers to proclaim THE POLITICAL CRISIS the same way American's had to await for someone to tell them they were creating an economic crisis. Let's start thinking for ourselves people. If anything, vote for someone who's not running. Vote for the reluctant candidate. The guy that really doesn't want the office. Shucks, vote for yourself as a write in candidate What would happen if 36,961,664 voted for themselves? Wouldn't THAT send an appropriate message? What was that line in the movie "Network?" "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"