Wise Ideas

A Bunch of Twits

My 8-year old daughter has yet to develop that internal filter between the brain and the mouth, the one that should be preventing her from saying out loud anything that pops into her head.

And while some people say they think she's adorable and outspoken -- she's starting to cross the line into annoying and inappropriate.  It's only a matter of time before her mouth starts getting her in serious trouble, which is why we've been spending so much time explaining to her why it's wise to always think BEFORE you speak.

Apparently, this is a lesson politicians, TV talking heads, and people with waaaay too much time on their hands have forgotten -- because they are "saying" what they are "thinking" all the time now, using Twitter.

This week we got to "hear" John McCain's thoughts (or "Tweets" if you use the lingo) about the earmarks in the Omnibus spending bill:  "2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy.”  We also get to learn about David Gregory's every move prior to Sunday's Meet the Press:  "646 am. Just got to NBC. Almost showtime."

And these are just two examples of the hundreds and even thousands of talking heads that have turned Twitter from a niche techie past-time into a mainstream media must-do.  Don't we hear from these people enough already?!  TV-types, and those who seek out TV-types like politicians, seem to be particularly caught up in this narcissistic new form of "reporting." 

But print journalists, like The WaPost's Howard Kurtz, are calling it like it is.  "With that kind of pipeline, who needs television?" Kurtz gleefully asks.

The NYTimes TV Watch writer Alessandra Stanley was a little more verbose, and sarcastic.  "Left alone in a cage with a mountain of cocaine, a lab rat will gorge itself to death. Caught up in a housing bubble, bankers will keep selling mortgage-backed securities — and amassing bonuses — until credit markets seize, companies collapse, and millions of investors lose their jobs and homes," Stanley writes. "And news anchors and television personalities who have their own shows, Web sites, blogs and pages on Facebook.com and MySpace.com will send Twitter messages until the last follower falls into a coma."

Of course, the Twitter community was incensed by this slap in the face....and couldn't stop tweeting about it.  All this gave great joy to Jon Stewart, who let Samantha Bee make a twit of herself this week on The Daily Show.

The good news is that if you don't want to "listen" to these Twitterers, you don't have to...you need to be a Twitterer youself, or log onto a users Twitter page to read all these mostly-meaningless posts (although marketing managers have learned the power of Twitter, thanks to the so-called Motrin Moms). However, that sets up a Twit vs non-Twit world...more divisiveness we don't really need at this point. 

There's no telling at this point if Twitter is a passing fad, or here to stay.  But like my daughter and her unedited mouth - its just a matter of time before someone's Twittering gets them into hot water.  Because although it may seem like an incredibly instant form of journalism, if there's no editing between brain and thumbs -- someone's bound to Tweet something they shouldn't have. 

And that will be news. 

Right To Bear Arms

I'm getting quite a chuckle out of the discussion on numerous "respected" blogs about the buff-ness of Michelle Obama's "rippled and gleaming" arms (that's a quote from "The Caucus," The NYTimes's political blog). 

The WaPost's Fashion guru Robin Givhan described them as “Post-Title IX arms."  And Kate Holmquist of The Irish Times writes that Mrs. Obama's arms say 'I'm too serious a woman to show off my legs or my breasts,” which prompted NPR's Peter Sagal to jokingly note on this weekend's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me that not only are the First Lady's arm buff, but they can actually talk now.

The Michelle Arm Watch was already on high-alert following her husband's speech before the Joint Session of Congress, where she wore a sleeveless dress.  "“Oh my god,” Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine, emailed The Caucus blog.  "The First Lady has bare arms in Congress, in February, at night!”  (Doesn't she ever get cold?).

Then two days later, the White House released The First Lady's official portrait -- which is stunningly beautiful and features Mrs. Obama in a sleeveless sheath dress by designer Michael Kors.  The Wonkette blog calls the portrait "the latest proof that George W. Bush is gone and Barack Obama is president and we didn’t all just imagine this, on drugs."  Among the colorful comments on Wonkette is the one from "Say It With Wookies," who comments that "Thomas Jefferson’s totally looking at her ass."

As I said, the Michelle Arm Watch is very entertaining.  

But it wasn't until I was at the check-out stand at the grocery store last night that Michelle's arms just totally jumped out at me, from the cover of Vogue.

The four-pound March issue features numerous photos of the First Lady, taken by Annie Leibovitz (who had the good sense not to ask Michelle to pose luringly with just a blanket, as she did with Miley Cirus).  "With her long, lean, athletic frame, she moves as if she could have danced with Alvin Ailey in another life," Vogue gushes.  Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton she ain't!

But get a load of those guns, poking out from beneath her magenta dress.  Michelle Obama has launched an arms race all her own.  Just thumb through Vogue to the next "profile" in the issue, and you'll find Melinda Gates in a sleeveless red sheath.  Better let Bill fix himself and the kids dinner and put some more time in the gym, there, Melinda. 

Although the much-ado-about-arms frenzy is nothing more than a break from more serious business, it IS refreshing to see a fit and healthy mother/career gal in the White House.  It makes me believe that the hours I spend at the gym weekly are not selfishly spent "me" time, but rather a reflection of the value I put on exercise to maintain physical and mental health.

And you can bet sleeveless dresses would be flying off the racks --- if anyone was actually spending any money on clothes these days.  You're better off using the $$ for a gym membership -- and just waiting for summer to pull those tank tops out of the bottom of your drawers. 

Besides, who da every thunk we'd be getting arm toning advice from CNN?

Of Peanuts, Pills and Who's Keeping Us Safe (not so much....)

What do peanut products and pills have in common - besides the fact that both are ingested?  Not much. 

However, despite the fact that food and drugs are entirely separate beasts, and that oversight of either one is a massive, complicated, intricate and extremely crucial public health and safety job - we continue to trust just one government agency to handle both.

"Trust" however, might be a bad way to describe it.  The current peanut crises that has now claimed 9 lives, sickened 600 people and resulted in the recall of nearly 2,000 food products, is just the latest nationwide health scare to beset the overwhelmed federal Food and Drug Administration.  

The FDA's ability to keep our food supply safe in recent years has been about as effective as Congress's attempt yesterday to grill Mr. Peanut Corp. of America about how his tainted company contaminated our food chain.  In a discussion on the Room For Debate blog at NYTimes.com, Former FDA commissioner David Kessler says bluntly that "the tools and resources that the agency has at its disposal are so limited that it’s no surprise that problems go undetected."

But it hasn't just been the FDA's tardiness in tracking tainted food products to their source -- but also its reluctance - politically-motivated and otherwise - to press the drug industry on issues that put millions at risk, as occurred a few years back with the painkiller Vioxx.

"The agency is at a tipping point," William Hubbard, an FDA administrator for 14 years tells NPR's All Things Considered.  "The budget is in terrible shape, and the challenges are escalating," (although you could say that about any federal agency these days).

So while the Obama Administrator looks for someone to appoint commissioner of the FDA (a position that is currently unfilled and ranks right up there with U.S. President as "worst job in America"), calls are growing louder to split the FDA into two separate agencies.  Democrat Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut is planning to re-introduce a bill to Congress proposing just such a split.  The "Food Safety Modernization Act" would divide the FDA into two distinct agencies—one for food safety, and the other to oversee pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Standing next to the mother of a boy killed by salmonella-tainted peanut products, DeLauro says "the tragedies are preventable if we have the will to fix the system.  The push for change could not be more urgent."

But change, as we've witnessed, is glacier-like in Washington.  And the cost of splitting a behemouth agency into two smaller, swifter ones?  Unknown.  But the cost of not doing it is becoming more and more evident.

As Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show this week: "Funding for regulatory agencies?  Please.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have a peanut butter, spinach, tomato and Chinese toy sandwich to finish."

Don't Bank on Marketing To Save You

Memo to Bank of America, CitiGroup and all the other banks I'm bailing out:  Traditional marketing isn't going to get you out of the hole you've dug yourself this time. 

I hate to be the one to break it to you B of A, but throwing a $10 million, five-day long Super Bowl "Fun Fest" last weekend does absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in you.  Neither does running a full-page ad in The NYTimes claiming that you're "taking the trust and faith that America has put in us and getting to work-by lending and investing and innovating with broad-reaching purpose." 

You call a multi-million dollar Super Bowl bash "innovating with broad-reaching purpose?"  I call it wasteful spending.

In fact, I'll bet I'm one of the few people who even bothered to read the ad, (which cost somewhere around $150,000 to run).  That's because your customers aren't wasting their time reading ads anymore, because the news on the front page and the business section is what matters to them. 

Your actions - AKA "business as usual" - are crippling any attempt at image repair you banking types might be considering.  Take for example reports like this from Reuters, saying that CitiGroup, who taxpayers bailed out to the tune of more than $45 billion, is moving forward with its controversial $400 million dollar baseball stadium naming rights deal with New York's hapless Mets - a marriage most certainly made in hell.

Angry?  You bet I’m angry, as are millions of other bank customers who are watching their taxpayer dollars bail-out banks – so they can what?  Loosen up the credit market and get the economy going again. NO.  So they can throw parties and have their name put on a stadium.  And don't even get me started on the salaries and bonuses, which this AP report says probably won't stop, despite the pay caps imposed by President Obama. 

The bottom line is that customers would rather see their money put toward keeping people working -- or helping people get back to work!

But the bizzarro bank spending goes on, spurred on by marketing and advertising execs like those quoted in this Associated Press piece, who continue to argue that stadium deals and other similar marketing efforts can prove even more effective and valuable in tough economic times. 

But the climate has changed.  The world has changed.  Quit paying Keifer Sutherland to tell me that “This is America.  We keep moving forward,” and put that money toward actually helping the country move forward.  (Besides, I never understood why B of A picked the man who immortalized torture-loving, gun toting Jack Bauer, for a warm and fuzzy campaign).

But before your go off and add to the unemployed roles by firing your entire marketing division, think about how their expertise could be used to actually benefit struggling Americans by using strategic social marketing techniques.  Don Sexton, a professor at Columbia Business School, has the same idea.  He told the AP that it "would make more sense if banks spent money on ads and efforts at the branch level to educate consumers about how to handle their finances in a downturn."

“It’s a reflection of the times we’re now in,” said Marc Ganis, president of a marketing company called Sports Corp. tells the Boston Herald.  “Banks better expect more scrutiny.”  More scrutiny, and NO sympathy.  At least not until they realize the damage done down here on Main Street. 

The Caroline Dis-Connect

I admire Caroline Kennedy.  I appreciate Caroline Kennedy.  I even applaud Caroline Kennedy for the private way she's chosen to lead life in a very public family.  But I don't -  I can't - relate to Caroline Kennedy....as a woman, mother, philanthropist, volunteer, a job applicant, or anything.

This, from my perspective, is the fallacy of the media-driven discussion regarding Caroline Kennedy as a role model for mothers trying to re-enter the workforce.  It started in late December with a Washington Post column by Anne Glusker, headlined "She's a Kennedy, But She's a Lot Like Us."  Glusker wrote "If you strip away the glamour, the name and the money, then Caroline is ... me. And many of my friends."

Glusker's theory of "Caroline as every-mom" continued a week later, when the Associated Press's Karen Matthews wrote "with her Camelot pedigree and Park Avenue address, Caroline Kennedy is not exactly the average American woman. But many women identify with her impulse to enter the work force after two decades of child rearing."  

That AP article ran in newspapers across the country, re-igniting the unfortunately named (and some might say non-existent) "Mommy Wars" between stay-at-home and working moms.  Since then, the morning TV shows, cable news and talk radio have featured every woman who's ever written a book about the Mommy Track (and there have been toooooo many of them) weighing in on Caroline's qualifications - both for the Senate and for role model status within the mom community.   

Then finally last week, Susan Dominus wrote an essay in the NYTimes about how Caroline is "Coming Up Short as a Role Model for the Mommy Track."  "A 50ish stay-at-home mother looking to Caroline Kennedy for career inspiration is a little bit like your average suburban mother of twins looking to J. Lo for tips on how to lose that baby weight."

Thank you Susan, for thinking beyond the beltway where the rest of us American moms live. Ms. Kennedy's pseudo-run for the Senate looked NOTHING like your average woman's attempt to re-enter the workforce after raising children. 

The New York Senate gig is all about politics, prestige and power.  The job a former Stay-at-Home mom is trying to land is all about household finances and personal fulfillment beyond family. If women re-entering the workforce have any role models at all --- they are probably other women they actually know who have preceded them into the workplace. 

I know, I know --- Caroline Kennedy as "every-mom" makes for good copy and good TV.  But what an average "re-entry" woman does when she gets turned down for the first job she applies for (and she will get turned down) --- is applies for another job again ---- and again ---- and again.  

And -- as King Arthur sings to Guenevere in the Broadway musical of Camelot, "that's what simple folk do."

Culture Quake

You know there's been a cultural earthquake when there's more buzz about Michelle Obama's "morning after" dress than there is about the Oscar nominations. (What?  They announced those this week?)

The era of O.J. is over.  Welcome to the Age of Obama. 

Not only is it a relief NOT to be bombarded with news of Lindsay's latest love interest, or Brittany's constant breakdowns - it's refreshing.  Just like the seemingly average family of four who invited a bunch of strangers into their new house this week so they could just look around.  

Sure, Dad's the leader of the free world.  But mom is a work/life juggler who wears clothes from Target and J.Crew, the girls are goo-goo eyed over the JoBros, and Grandma is crackin' the whip making sure nobody gets too big for their britches. 

Imagine, a "normal" family as pop-culture icons.  Order your "Marvelous Malia" and "Sweet Sasha" dolls now! (Although Ty begs to differ).

TIME Magazine claims that "to say that the culture is changing with President Obama's election is not to say that he has made it change," because cultural shifts occur over time, and TIME believes it's too early to tell. 

But this is no longer a weekly magazine world.  It's a Twitter world.  And shifts occur these days with the blink of an eye rather than a turn of the page.  

Already, pop-culture in the form of product advertising and marketing campaigns are being driven by Obama....or rather the things Obama represents.  Starbucks' "I'm In" advertising effort is a direct play on President Obama's call for community service, which got a big plug from Barack buddy Oprah on her show this week.  Audi has its "Progress is Beautiful" effort. Ikea's "embrace change" mantra even features a website where you can design your own Oval Office.  Coke is rolling out its new "Open Happiness" campaign, while Pepsi's new logo and campaign is a direct "rip-off" from the Obama campaign, as MediaBistro points out. 

Little did President Obama know that his election would ignite a new cola war.

Sure, we've seen cultural influences come and go within days, weeks or months.  But President Obama and his family are much more than flavors of the week.  They have become our iconic touchstones because they are the definition of cool.

John Quelch, the senior associate dean at Harvard Business School and co-author of "Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy," tells CNN that there are "four key components to Obama's cool: he's street cool, family cool, technology cool and culture cool."  That pretty much covers all the cools.

Having the Obama's as our First Family makes us all cool.  And cool is something we haven't been called in awhile. 

Enjoy your weekend - fellow cool families!

Day One

So this is what “Day One” looks like.

Despite what’s been said repeatedly over the past two years by the people-who-would-be-President, from most of our perspectives, today looks like any other day.  The alarm went off, the sun rose, the kids bickered at breakfast.  You know, “morning in America” and all that stuff.

On the surface, Day One looks a lot like Day Two, Three, Four, ad infinitum.  Even the person who has been preparing for this particular Day One admits that regardless of recent events, we as a people have not essentially changed.  "Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. "

Americans are all "reporting for duty" as usual today:  at work, at school, at home.  We all woke up today in the same beds, in the same houses with the same people, and proceeded to conduct our lives exactly the same way we did yesterday.  So what - besides the person inhabiting the Oval Office - has changed?

That is a uniquely individual question.  What I feel has changed in my life may not be what you believe has changed in yours.  Without daring to speak for anyone but myself however, something did change overnight - and you can see it in the eyes of strangers, as well as in the knowing smiles of your friends and family. 

I've seen a few Day Ones in my lifetime...but none have felt even remotely the way this one does.  This one feels like a call to action.

"Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Welcome to Day One.  Do with it what you may. 

If The Shoe Fits....

Swearing has lost its impact due to overuse.  "The finger" and other hand gestures, though handy, are vulgar and crude.  But shoe throwing - now there's a inelegant yet visceral insult that can't easily be misconstrued, especially if you are the target.

And it appears to be a whole lot more satisfying than shouting "your mother wears combat boots."  (What is it with footwear, anyway).

In the past 48 hours, there's been no escaping video of the infamous shoe throwing incident in Baghdad involving President Bush and an Iraqi journalist.  And considering the viral nature of video in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if this show of scorn - which is an Arab tradition signifying deep disgust - starts catching on in other parts of the world.  As NPR's Talk of the Nation called it during a fascinating discussion of cultural insults, "The Shoe Heard 'Round the World."

In fact, I found three deserving shoe targets just by watching the NBC Nightly News last night.

For instance, the people of Illinois would probably get great satisfaction aiming their old sneakers at the black SUV of embattled Governor Rod Blagojevich, who seems determined to report to work in his motorcade everyday - although I don't know for the life of me what he's working on besides planning his (bleepin') legal defense.

Wall Street thieves and the king of those thieves, Bernie Madoff, is worthy of being showered with the Manolo Blahniks of other uber-rich people who were bilked by his $50 billion Ponzi scheme.  But Bernie better watch out, because retirees who have lost everything because of him have an even better reason to launch their comfortable air-soles. 

And imagine all the steel-toed boots autoworkers (and many of the rest of us) would like to fire at  the Big 3 bosses about now.

Personal politics aside, if that's possible when talking about Iraq, I don't mean to make light of the supreme insult hurled at President Bush.  As NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel reported last night, this was a serious incident involving the President -- and is being taken even more seriously in Iraq, where the shoe-throwing journalist could face up to 8 years in prison.

But at this particular moment in history - it would seem a good shoe-throwing might clease all our soles...er....souls. 

Happiness Is.....

I don't know about you, but I'm exhausted by all this gloom and doom.

With the brief exception of the election on November 4th and some post-election coverage on November 5th (boy, did Obama get a short honeymoon, or what!), we've all been surrounded by nothing but bad news and sour tidings 24/7 for months now.

As author and Boston Globe columnist John Carroll put it yesterday on NPR's Talk of the Nation, it's like we've all collectively fallen off the cliff together --- and are just waiting to hit bottom.  If Talk of the Nation gets any more morose than it's been the past week --- I may toss my radio off a cliff.

And although technically, it's "going to get worse before it gets better," (thanks for the warning, Mr. President-elect), I'm getting the feeling that there are some Americans out there like me, who are ready to pull themselves out of the malaise we've been soaking in, and get back to work on getting happy again.

I'm basing my feeling on what I'm calling  the "Charlie Brown Theory of National Recovery."  That is, if Charlie Brown - a loser of historic proportions - can overcome all the continuous failures in his life by remaining eternally optimistic and positive, then we can, too. (It also proves my theory that nearly everything in life can be related back to a Peanuts cartoon - which shows you the "middle class genius" of Charles M. Schultz.)

No, being more positive isn't going to put money back into your 401ks or give you job security (if you've still got your job).  But spreading around a little happiness can't hurt.  In fact, some new research says it can be contagious.

That's the finding of a study published online last week in the British Medical Journal.  "Scientists from Harvard University and UC San Diego showed that happiness spreads readily through social networks of family members, friends and neighbors," according to the LATimes (which could use a little happiness in their hallways this week).

The researchers found that just knowing someone who is happy makes you 15 percent more likely to be happy yourself.  And in a nod to the "Pay It Forward" movement, a happy friend of a friend increases your odds of happiness by nearly 10 percent and "even your neighbor’s sister’s friend can give you a 5.6% boost."

Conversely, surrounding yourself with gloomy people and gloomy news will make you gloomy. 

There are plenty of silver linings to be found in our cloudy skies.  Take for instance this piece written for AdAge by Doug Zanger, who reminds troubled ad and marketing people "that, when faced with adversity, this industry really can do great things."  The same could probably be said for the banking, investment, auto, newspaper, media, housing, retail, (fill-in-blank) businesses facing great challenges. 

Also, there are signs of optimism peeking out of the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.  As NBC numbers guru Chuck Todd and pals write on the political blog First Read, "there's still some optimism and a sense that we’re all in this together.  64% say they would be wiling to take a 5% pay cut if it meant saving jobs at their place of work." 

And although it may have felt like the Obama honeymoon was short lived, the poll finds that "67% say they’re pleased with Obama’s early appointments, 75% believe that the level of his involvement in making policy has been exactly right, and his favorable rating is 67%," a high number that none of his predecessors had going into office.

Great things can come out of hard times.  As Charlie Brown would say - it all depends on how you look at it. 

Let's just hope Lucy doesn't pull the football out from under us again.

Have a great weekend.

Driving Miss Schadenfreude

When things are going so horribly wrong with our nation's economy, and we all feel like helpless pawns in a game of political and fiscal incompetence -- it's so nice to have someone to direct our anger toward.

And the whipping boys of choice - which it seems everyone happily agrees on - are the Big 3 auto executives.  Sure, they'll undoubtedly be getting big bail-out bucks.  But it took some begging, some public humiliation, a public "apology" (albeit in a trade magazine), and perhaps, the loss of their jobs to land the "loans."

Ever since GM's, Ford's and Chrysler's chief executives showed up in D.C. in their private jets carrying tin cups two weeks ago, the American public has taken great pleasure from their misery.  But as the U.K.'s Telegraph put it, "as well as providing a few moments of Schadenfreude, the embarrassments of these masters of the motoring universe illustrate the grim plight of the car industry as a whole."

Congressmen, smelling blood, have gone for the jugular, particularly if there's a live news camera anywhere near them.  And although you may not support the auto bailout or even your elected representative, you've got to give members of Congress credit for the grilling of the execs - which left them burned beyond recognition. 

The auto big wigs have even marched themselves before the media, which gleefully began acting as America's mouthpiece.  Take for instance MSNBC's Chris Matthews's interview last week with GM President and COO Frederick "Fritz" Henderson," who, I'm assuming, went on Hardball willingly to take his lashes. 

Matthews asked a question I have every time I see one of these "consumer vehicles" taking up two parking spaces at the mall.

MATTHEWS:  "I always wondered what the economic value of Hummer was. It's terrible on mileage. It has no room in it. It seems to have all machinery in it when you get in the car. There's very few seats. Why did you buy Hummer to begin with? It seems like that's the kind of decision that got GM in trouble. It got a lot of consumers in trouble, too, because it's just a gas eater."

HENDERSON:  "If you look at the Hummer brand in terms of the products themselves, they have incredible attributes for off-roading. The consumers that buy them love them and swear by them and they provide significant."

MATTHEWS: "So the auto industry has made the right decisions. It's followed the consumer. It hasn't advertised its way to heavy vehicles, it's just followed consumer taste. It's not your fault, what's happened. Is that your point?"

HENDERSON: "Well, actually, no..."

MATTHEWS:  "You say it's up to the consumer, but advertising is relentless on television, car advertising. You encourage people to buy certain cars, don't you?

HENDERSON: "Yes. We promote our vehicles when we develop them and launch them. As I look at it, first of all, we do make mistakes. I think all manufacturers do. We certainly have made mistakes in the past."

It's no wonder we're all enjoying our moment of collective Schadenfreude.

But while it may be satisfying to have a focal point for our anger over the mess we all find ourselves in, THEY are the ones getting rescued with billions of our tax dollars.  "My fear is you're going to take this money and continue the same stupid decisions you've made for 25 years," Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) bluntly told the men last week.

Bingo.  We may be laughing at the discomfort of the Big 3 auto execs, but unfortunately, they will be laughing too - all the way to the bank, which we also bailed out.  Who's laughing now.....