Sorry if this has been posted already, but listen to Alan Keyes talk about the prez:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

that's good

Is Obama the New Coke?

By John Tantillo
Marketing and Brand Expert

Folks, first some history. In the early eighties, one of Jimmy Carter’s bright young political advisers, Pat Caddell, landed the plum marketing gig of guiding Coca Cola into the future–and he almost ran that venerable brand into the ground

I’m talking about the “New Coke” debacle. Threatened by Pepsi’s growing market share and driven by data that said that the consumer wanted sweeter drinks, Coca Cola scrapped its time-honored soda formula and introduced New Coke.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton both knew this about their Target Markets: the American people could be stretched, but in the end political marketing was the order of the day: Americans’ fundamental needs and beliefs cannot be forgotten.

The outrage was deafening. People couldn’t believe that their soda was being taken away from them. Coca Cola listened and New Coke is now just a distant memory.

How could all of the polls, surveys and consumer data have been wrong?

Well, they didn’t take into account what really mattered to the consumer: choice and continuity. One more thing –and it’s a biggie– Coke was thinking about cola drinkers not Coke drinkers. It forgot its target market.

So I ask, is President Obama the New Coke?

The electorate seemed to want change in 2008 and Obama seemed to represent the change they wanted. This change was about politicians moving beyond partisanship to get things moving again in Washington –it was not about big government solving everyone’s problems. It wasn’t a Democrat or a Republican that the electorate wanted. No, it was a person of change who would not put the same old practices into political play.

In the early eighties, the cola consumer seemed to want change too, but when they got change, they didn’t like what they got. The people drinking Pepsi didn’t start drinking New Coke. And Coke drinkers stopped drinking the New Coke. This is the worst possible marketing outcome for any product or political brand — you end up pleasing none of the people all of the time.

There are two basic scenarios for Brand Obama at this point.

One, the electorate thought they were getting one thing in Obama and instead got something very different. In other words, they wanted the change he said he would bring, but dislike the change he is actually bringing and actually believes in. In this scenario, Obama is what he is and simply won’t be able to adapt to what the Target Market demands –this spells a short stay — one term — in the White House.

Two, Obama is the change the electorate wants and he is capable of embodying this change. But the president has lost sight of his Target Market’s needs and is falling prey to inside-the-Beltway realities and left-leaning pieties and interest groups.

This is the New Coke scenario. Instead of subtly altering the ingredients of the product to adapt to changing tastes, you make a big product change, bring people’s attention to that change and alienate your Target Market. Go ahead and do that Mr. President –but only if you want to squander the marketing success that brought you to the show and got you elected president of the United States!

The problem for Brand Obama is that once you become the New Coke, it’s very hard to become “Classic Coke” again. Every compromise, every pork-filled, partisan program, every pro-big government, anti-free market message drives his brand farther and farther from the Target Market that elected him.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton both knew this about their Target Markets: the American people could be stretched, but in the end political marketing was the order of the day: Americans’ fundamental needs and beliefs cannot be forgotten.

Even though these men came from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, as a political marketer each president remained true to the fundamentals of the American electorate that has always believed in basic fair play, the power of individual freedom and the limited uses of government.

The first 100 days in office are tricky for all presidents. In this short testing period, Kennedy went a long way to losing the South to the Republicans for a quarter century.

But if Brand Obama doesn’t want to remain the New Coke, he must make some strong statements that drive home that he is not merely a more of the same liberal Democratic brand.

There are some signs of hope for his brand. This week even as he said he would sign the omnibus spending bill, he criticized the earmarks in it and promised that in the future this kind of pork would not stand. A veto, though nearly impossible, would have sent an even better message to his Target Market.

On Tuesday, he even implied that he’s going to take on the powerful teachers union to deliver on his promise of improving our education system. That’s big and if he actually does it we might just be spared another New Coke.

Stay tuned.

And remember, it’s always easier to understand politics when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

The above message brought to you by someone that forgets how we got to this point.

He has no choice but to throw hail marys at this point, the last guys screwed us long and hard. Obama had no idea what was up, but he will be fine.

lotsajizz wrote on Mar 16^th, 2009 at 5:09pm:

"and someone who equates negroes with monkeys...classy, like all his ilk..... "

Dear Wasteofjizz,

I have never equated negroes with monkeys.
Once again, you prove yourself unable to comprehend much of anything.

My monkey tag remains a lasting "fuck you" to FPM who, like you, painted me and others with a broad Nazi brush because of our beliefs.  His approach was equally as repulsive as yours.  But the difference was that before he went off the deep end, we had been friends.  You, on the other hand, are someone that I have never liked from the start.

Okay now - fuck off

nankerphelge wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 8:10am:

Nobody likes that piece of shit.

nankerphelge wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

i feel blessed every morning to wake up and live another day in this socialist paradise.....

Riffhard wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 12:38pm:




If I had healthcare (National/Socialized), I would have one less thing to worry about. I am also willing to pay more in taxes to ensure that coverage for myself and fellow Americans. I think an honest debate on this issue is needed.

The USA isn't going away. Maybe we will get larger government, but why is that necessarily bad?
Government educates our children, what alternative do you prefer? You do have the option to home school, or private school.
Government monitors our food, do you really want private industries to perform that function.
Government monitors workplace safety, again I see no better alternative.
Government monitors air traffic to ensure our loved ones travel as safely as possible.

Who will monitor the safety of our children's toys/clothing/etc . . . Private industry?
Aren't they the ones who have opted to send jobs overseas to maximize their profits? And aren't poisons appearing in imported products at an alarming rate now?

And didn't private industry (minus oversight) cause the economic crisis?

Bottom line for me, I trust very few businesses to properly govern themselves (there are exceptions, but very few).
The future of the planet relies on oversight of human endeavors. I think history bears that out.

fuman wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 1:24pm:


riffy! i'll field this one.

when i was in boot camp, one of the guys in my company was sent to the clinic to pick up some band aids for the company first aid box. he had to wait in line for over an hour...for a box of band aids. and they didn't even have scooby doo on them. this is what you get when the govt gets involved...massive inefficiency.

Quote:


the tax increase that would be necessary to ensure decent health care for all americans would be so great, it would dwarf anything heretofore imaginable. that is bad. what will most likely be implemented is something that will cause the average person to wait in line for over an hour to get a box of band aids.

i want the govt to make sure canada doesn't invade and steal my rickenbackers. that's pretty much all i need it for. i don't need it to force me to sign on to a health care plan that is more expensive and less efficient than the one i already have.