Andy Boyer

Got it. What's Next?

Category: Politics (Page 5 of 7)

The Story of An Underperforming Campaign

May 16, 2008 /

(And now we get back to this being a marketing and business blog…) 

This article from the New Republic chronicles mistakes the Clinton campiagn made over the last 15-16 months.  Note: I’m not saying that her campaign is over, but I think if you start as the overwhelming front runner, and then become a candidate struggling for survival, it’s fair to say your candidacy has underperformed.

While the article is interesting on a political level, it’s also a perfect example of simple business mistakes that can make you lose consumer confidence and fall behind in the marketplace.  A couple of themes that transfer include the following: failure to recognize competitive threats, total lack of long-term focus, not taking care of the people who can give you free publicity, what happens when you choose the wrong message, and how the public turns on you if they think you are dishonest.

Check out the article here. 

“My Next Request, All Oklahomans Born in 2009 are to be Named Clay”

April 21, 2008 /

No matter how scummy Clay Bennett has been to Seattle, there was a tiny sliver of me that thought, "He’s just an Oklahoma guy who wants to bring the NBA to his hometown.  At least he’s a liar who has a constituency in mind."

Well check out this article from NewsOk.com.  Apparently, Bennett is now holding Oklahoma hostage as well, demanding tax refunds on payroll taxes, or he isn’t bringing the team. 

" Lobbyists schmoozed lawmakers at the state Capitol and some received telephone calls and e-mails from Sonics owner Clay Bennett and other representatives of the ownership team a day before the state House is scheduled to consider final passage of legislation that will give the team a rebate on a portion of payroll taxes it will pay if it relocates.

Rep. Charlie Joyner, R-Midwest City, who also voted against the bill, said he received an e-mail from Bennett that said the team might not come to Oklahoma City unless the House passes the tax incentive. "I just don’t think this thing has been handled right. That’s kind of holding legislators hostage," Joyner said."

Read the whole article.  Amazing nerve. 

If We Bought Cars the Way We Choose a Presidential Candidate

April 21, 2008 /

(Before anyone gets upset, most of this is tongue in cheek…)

So, the latest ABC debate was such a debacle, for just a second, I want to think about what would happen if we tried to decide which car to buy in the same way we think about who to vote for.

Let’s say the most important 3 issues in a car are cost, safety and style.  And let’s say the 3 most important issues in leading the country are the economy, national security and education. (You can argue this later, just go with it for now.)

Now let’s say I’m choosing between 3 particular cars.  And I know what the most important issues are.  But maybe I don’t really understand numbers so well.  And safety reports are really confusing.  The point is that I KNOW what the key issues should be.  But since I’m doing this the same way I pick a candidate, I’ll ignore them.  So what might I think and ask about?

  • Well, I will probably want to ask how much money each company is making.  I mean, I can’t support a company that is more successful financially than the others.
  • Next, I need to ask where the people who built my car go to church.  Who knows what kind of propaganda the employees might plant.
  • Which Hollywood stars think my car is the right choice?  They have nothing in common wth me, but if they would buy it, I should too.
  • Plus, I have to thnk about a bunch of minor details that really don’t affect the core issues of the car.  I need to look at what material the seats are made of, how big the steering wheel is, whether or not the parts were manufactured in the U.S. and how big the gas tank is.

So maybe this is gratuitous.  But think about these ridiculous arguments.  Is Obama’s preacher a crazy nut job?  Is McCain’s wife a gajillionaire?  Is Clinton more of a liar than every other politician? Who cares how we deal with China and Russia, will my gay friends be able to get married?  And border security is not nearly as interesting as whether Obama *really* thinks unemployed people who lost their homes are bitter.

The point is, why aren’t we focusing on making candidates come up with extremely well-thought out plans for Healtcare, Iraq, schools and  staving off the recession?  Who cares about the stupid stuff? 

“Stuff White People Like” Gets Unfair Criticism

March 20, 2008 /

A few weeks ago, a friend pointed me to a blog called "Stuff White People Like." If you have a sense of humor and can understand wit and sarcasm, you’ll find the site hilarious.  White people making fun of all the stupid things white people do.  Instant classic.

It’s also obvious that it’s just a site where a few guys like you and I started writing a few gags for friends and family, and it kind of went viral.  The site is still hosted on the WordPress.com domain, meaning they don’t even make any ad revenue on it.  It’s just people writing because they like to write, like most of the other 40 million blogs out there.

Well maybe they are a victim of their own success.  Or maybe the whole race issue has really gotten out of control.  But a Houston Chronicle article says, "Race-related Blog Causes Controversy." The article gos as far as to say, "It’s the latest in a string of racially charged blogs that act as a virtual shrink’s sofa for those tackling the tricky topics of race and class.’

Good god.  Are you kidding me?  When did white people making fun of white people become "racially charged."  The article’s author, Corilyn Shropshire, is really stretching when she makes claims that the site is anything more than what normal, well-adjusted people would find funny.

Check it out and tell me if you disagree. 

Pity the Poor Guy Running the Wyoming Caucuses

March 5, 2008 /

Think about this.  As long as Wyoming has been a state, it hasn’t mattered one iota what happened in their caucus.  Heck, a caucus was simply a reason to get together in March and have a few beers and celebrate the coming spring. 

It’s not a knock against them, it’s just nature.  Being Wyoming, they couldn’t risk having a caucus in the middle of a January blizzard.  And since barely anyone lives there, no candidates were coming to visit anyway.  So they put some guy named "Joe" or "Steve" or "Sam" or something in charge of making sure ballots got printed.  And Joe or Steve or Sam had to call a bunch of buddies, or just the same people from 4 years ago, and find a few houses willing to throw a few caucuses.

But not this year.  All of a sudden, Wyoming’s 12 little delegates matter.  And now you have a whole bunch of guys named Jack or Jim or something calling Joe saying, "Uh, I only have room in my living room for 12 people.  On the latest evite, it says 237 people are coming…"

As my friend described it, it’s like being the kid in school who forgot about his science project, grabbed 5 leaves from outside and taped them to construction paper, only to find out everyone has to present in front of a live televised audience, and Hannah Montana and LeBron James are the judges. 

Look at Texas, where the Democratic Party had weeks to see that there would be a huge turnout.  Yet you have the biggest mess ever imagined, a caucus that people compared to a rodeo.  You think those guys are the only ones who are going to be stuck with their pants caught in their lassos?

I mean, pretend you volunteered up to run your kid’s Little League tournament, and then 6 months later you find out the other teams will be from Iraq, Dubai, Pakistan, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and the US teams will be coached by Brad Pitt, Bono, Rosie O’Donnel, David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.  It’s not your fault.  You aren’t prepared for this.  It just is what it is.

So pity the poor guy running the Wyoming Caucus.   And make sure you tune in.

 

Is Obama Starting Primary Speeches Early?

February 26, 2008 /

I have a feeling political marketing is going to dominate AndyBoyer.com for the next few months.  There are a lot of interesting comparisons between business and political marketing.  So please allow me to indulge myself by discussing an issue that I don’t know if anyone else has even noticed.    

Have you ever asked yourself, on a primary night, how are all the candidates able to be seen live on Cable News Networks? Wouldn’t they all want to go on about 30 minutes before the late news, in order to get their sound bites on, but also have East Coast and West Coast Audiences watch live.  Plus, the networks need to know when they are going on, so they know when to run their commercials.

So, how do they decide?  How does all this get communicated? Are there simply gentleman’s rules that everyone follows?  Maybe the winners get the choice time slots? But how do you choose if you split the primaries up for grabs that night?

So for the sake of the rest of this article, let’s assume that every night the Communications Directors talk to each other and decide what time each candidate will go live.  And then they communicate the time and order to the networks.   

Here’s  the odd thing I’ve noticed, and I don;t know where to place the blame.  The last few weeks, Senator Obama has taken the last slot, usually starting a little before 10:40 ET.  But he is the ONLY candidate I have seen that does not wait for the candidate before him to finish.  Just as the candidate rolls toward his conclusion, Obama comes on his stage across town.  Then the news networks switch over to Obama, and we miss the conclusion.

So who’s fault is this?  Are the other candidates running long to try to derail Obama?  Or is Obama coming on stage early to derail other candidates?  Or is this just a silly coincidence? Keep a watch next week and let me know what you think. 

Is This Ethical Online Political Advertising?

February 20, 2008 /

(Disclosure: I have not publicly supported Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  This question comes from an unbiased political point of view.)

A new web site launched today and was mentioned by CNN.com.  The site is called DelegateHub.com. Now, at first glance this site appears to be a neutral, non-partisan site in which questions about the delegate process can be answered.  But if you look at the writing,it is a blatant attempt at the Clinton Campaign to twist your perception of the delegate process.  The site claims to provide "Facts" not "Myths" about the delegate process.  Here are some "facts" it mentions.

1)  The first fact is fairly tame and may lead you to believe the whole article is unbiased.  "Fact: The Democratic Party chooses its delegates in three ways: 1) through primaries where millions vote; 2) through caucuses where thousands vote; and 3) it gives a role to elected leaders and other party activists in the process."   However, read it carefully and you’ll see specific language was included to strip the caucus process of some of its legitimacy.  "Millions vote in primaries, thousands vote in caucuses." Nowhere does it mention that Obama basically sweeps caucuses.  That line is designed to show you that Caucus delegates are unrepresentative of the election process. 

2) "FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates."  There are 4,049 total delgates, of which about 3,200 come from state primaries and caucuses.  Obama has 1158 of the 2174 (Clinton has 1016).  So technically, Obama could mathematically sweep 867 out of the remaining 1100 or so.  So, this is unlikey, but not a true fact.  Another werid part of this statement is the claim, "These delegates represent nearly half of the 2,208 delegate votes needed for the nomination." CNN says you need 2,025, not 2,208.  And 2,025 seems to be the right math.

3) FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.  This seemes accurate, bu tmeans, "They don’t have to, and shouldn’t, listen to their constituents."

4) FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy. Now, this is no more a fact than me saying I think it’s going to rain today.  This is like when you are playing kickball and a car drives up, so you yell "Time Out."  But the kicker doesnt hear you and pops it in the air and you catch it.  Then you claim the time out didn’t really count.  This is even more shady.  All the candidates adhered to the Democrats’ wacky decision to punish Florida and Michigan and not seat their delegates.  Now that Clinton "won" those states (no one else was even on the Michigan ballot) her campaign wants to take away the punishment.  Just plain slimy if you ask me. A revote could be fair, but simply counting votes based on a race only one person participated in seems wrong.

5) "The race is currently a virtual tie, with the campaigns now separated by a small handful of delegates, barely 1% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention."  Obama today leads  1319 – 1250, a margin of 69 delegates.  True, 40 delegates make up 1% of all delegates.  That is one way to look at the numbers.  Another way to look at the numbers is that Obama has 51.3% of votes between them compared to Clinton’s 48.7%, which is a 2.6% spread.  And another way to look at the numbers is to only count the "Pledged" delegates  – the ones from the primaries and caucses (aka the non-Super Delegates.)  In that race, Obama has 53.3% and Clinton has 46.7%, a spead of 6.6%.

Why do I care? Because this kind of marketing seems non-genuine.  It feels a lot like a web page Mortgage companies put up in order to generate leads.  Or maybeit reminds me of web sites that sell "How to Get Rich" books.  So I’m curious if I’m over-sensitive, or if this carefully spun web site makes anyone else just a little uncomfortable.  

Where is news on the Google China Tax Evasion story?

November 25, 2007 /

So, here’s something that’s news because there’s no news about it.

On November 19, TechCrunch reported that Google was being investigated by the Chinese government for a number of tax issues, all of which were too difficult for me to understand or techCrunch to analyze or give perspective on.  My initial thought was that this was simply a follow up shot across Google’s bow.

If you remember a few months back, all the U.S. search engines in China had their traffic redirected to sina.com, in what many said was a response to President Bush meeting with the Dali Lama.  So now after a "tip" from someone, the Chinese government is going to fine and/or punish Google for some allegedly shaky financial bookkeeping.

Now if you ask me, when a company has more money than it knows what to do with, cheating a few bucks in taxes in a country it desperately wants to do business in would be downright foolish.  I simply can’t believe Google would purposely do anything improper in dealing with Byzantine Chinese tax laws when they desperately want to do business in this market.  It simply makes no sense for Google to try to cheat the Chinese government out of less than what one of their GM’s is worth in stock options.

But the bigger question for me is, why is TechCrunch the most respected news outlet covering this?  On a search on the terms – Google Tax China – there’s no WSJ, New York Times or even anything from the Bay Area papers.  Why isn’t anyone writing about the Chinese accusing Google of tax improprieties?   Is it part of some U.S. mandate that "We will not question the Chinese government?" 

 

U.S. Search Engines Have New Pot Hole in Dance With China

October 18, 2007 /

When you have a few billion potential customers living inside your country, and a totalitarian monopoly on who gets to sell to them, you wield quite a bit of power on the global business climate.

Such is the case this week as the government of China is now redirecting searches from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft search engines, and sending them to the China based Baidu.com.

The fact that this action comes about 3 minutes after the Dali Lama received a Congressional Medal of Honor is at best, "sketchy."   

This kind of activity puts American companies in a tough spot.  From everything I know, supporting the Dali Lama is the *right* thing to do.  China is effectively pushing American companies to try to convince the U.S. government to change their chance.  This will not be the last time a U.S. firm is going to have decide on whether they are beholden to shareholder value or global ethics.  Redirecting IP packets is simply the easiest thing China could do.  It will be interesting to see what comes next.   

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Andy Boyer

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑