This Blog Post is by Chris Kieff
Editor of Unconventional Thinking

Most of our readers get this blog via our email system. This means that you’ve most likely missed the lively debate that’s running on the blog about whether we are, to use the words of another blogger; “Rude, Crude and Socially Unacceptable“

Since the “Mark Stevens Vs. Warren Buffet” blog has received 25+ comments (as of Thursday) we felt that there is enough interest to reprint the excerpts from some of the best comments for all of our readers to see and consider.

I’ve found it interesting that while the comments on our blog are very nearly 50/50. Which may be because of the back and forth dialog. The voting on BrandSizzle is clearly running 89% that Clear Channel should not have violated their contract with MSCO, vs. 11% that Clear Channel was right in removing the ad. While several of the commenter’s noted that it was purely the use of that term in the title of Mark’s books which caused them to pick the books up, and ultimately buy them.

There was much speculation that Mark and by extension the rest of us here are childless, which is quite wrong- the children of staffers exceed the employee count (as it should). However, we do live in the NYC area and so believe that we may be more tolerant than some other areas. But that didn’t stop our friend over at Net Jets.

The one point I found conspicuous by it’s absence was that offensive ads for all manner of things were never brought into the discussion. Blatant sexuality is tolerable, but the mention of a word that has one meaning of a sexual nature is unacceptable? Look at the cover of Cosmopolitan Magazine that any 6 year old can see in the supermarket, I’m embarrassed by the language used.

Does Mr. Net Jet worry about explaining these to his daughter?

“Sex Tricks He’s Never Seen Before: The Outrageous ‘Rock’ Technique And 21 Other Moves That Will Make His Thighs Go Up in Flames!”

“Turn your man into a YOU pleasing sex genius”

“The Sex he’ll die for!”

I would propose that in common usage today; “that sucks” doesn’t carry any sexual meaning, while “that blows” certainly does. I think that the Net Jets executive is a little behind the times, while perhaps MSCO is a little on the leading edge in our usage of “sucks”. In another 5 years the point will be moot, (a word that’s reversed it’s meaning in the last 15 years,) by which I mean it is not going to be worthy of discussion.

I think that the real issue here is that some fat cat Net Jet executive threw his weight around simply because he could make the little guy suffer. There are many other egregious abuses of social standards that could and should be fought. But this jerk decided that he would take on MSCO purely because he would win, because he’s working from a position of the Big against the Little. He doesn’t fight against Cosmo because it’s strength against strength and he won’t win that one.

And finally a message for our clients, and those who read this blog looking for business insights. In order to engage your prospects- you must engage with them to create a dialog. While this discussion is only thinly related to the business of marketing, it is highly engaging to many intelligent people who read it. Now our task it is transitioning this engagement into a business engagement with those who have found us anew as a result.

Selected Excerpts from comments to Mark Stevens vs. Warren Buffet:

You can read the full comments here:

Mark (not Mark Stevens) says, “The word sucks is offensive because of it’s sexual root which is why it gets peoples attention and I am guessing why you used it.”

Gaston M. says, “If he really cares that much, why stop at MSCO why not keep crusading against all the bad words seen in the media? ITS RIDICULOUS!!!”

Paul says, “However, “sucks” is not a word that is used in my household, either by the adults or the children. We find it in poor taste, and I certainly don’t want my 8 or 10 year olds thinking that it is anything but rude, despite the fact that I know they’ve heard it many times at the school yard.”

Paul says, “You aren’t being prohibited from publishing your book, or speaking in appropriate forums. Commercial speech is not the same as public speech, and has no absolute guarantee of privilege. Your website name in large letters on a billboard is offensive to community standards.”

Jordan M. says, “Clear Channel is doing you a huge favor because (hopefully) news organizations will pick up on this story and give your books and (delightful, talented) firm ‘free’ publicity.”

Paul says, “While the judgments of the mayor’s office and of Clear Channel’s management were wrong in how they dealt with this issue, neither is trying to hurt anyone. Rather, they are trying to respect that we are pluralistic, with many different views of what is acceptable in the community.”

Rajan S. says, “Just as we are expected to teach our children right from wrong, we are also expected to teach our children how to use good judgment, and part of that is knowing how to filter what they see, read and hear the second they step out of the household and in to the real world.”

Paul says, “I’ll be at the front of the line defending Mark’s right to use the word in the right context, but it has no place on a billboard that is seen by everyone.”

Andrea says, “With media on display and easily accessible by everyone at all times - online, in the middle of primetime television, on billboards - we seem to have to be more responsible for where our own eyes (and our kids) may linger.”

Marketing Recruiter says, Why is this necessary? Because it’s clutter busting? Because the URL was available? Maybe. But just as likely it’s because you may not have kids, or because the problem you caused with my kids is very abstract and not your problem. It’s selfish.”

Rajan S. says, I recall many times seeing billboards as well as public store fronts in shopping malls advertising the fashion company “fcuk”, which stands for “French Connection UK”. The “fcuk” is obviously meant to shock - read it fast enough and the other word appears. I don’t see anyone recalling those ads or preventing their children from going to malls.”

Gaston M. says, “Kids can watch TV or the news and learn about prostitution, the acts of rape & murder, money laundering, sex and all different criminal acts. Now someone puts the words SUCKS on the billboard and a community of parents are in uproar because it’s ‘offensive’…priceless.”

Paul says, “Many puerile-minded, insensitive and selfish “marketers” haven’t the intelligence to create marketing campaigns that don’t rely on below the belt shock factor to make their point

Nedra W. says, “They should have written policies regarding what falls within their guidelines of acceptability in terms of content. If they did not feel the word “sucks” was appropriate, they should not have agreed to post the billboard. Having signed the contract, they were then obligated to follow through despite the complaint they received.”

And now it’s your turn to sound off.

Is this a tempest in a tea pot?

A major social ill facing our society today?

Click on the comments below and add your bit.

It Really Doesn’t Matter Citigroup is, yet again, rebranding itself.

By Tom Taulli

[This is excerpted from the article on MSNBC.COM]

I recently wrote a book review of the Real Deal, the autobiography of Sandy Weill. In building his financial empire, Weill changed the name of his company several times — always when he struck a transformative deal: Primerica (1988), Travelers (1995), and Citigroup (NYSE: C) when he merged with Citicorp. Perhaps there is now another name change in the offing: according to a report from The New York Times, Citigroup might become Citi. However, it is likely not to amount to much.

Citigroup spent about 14 months on the process and had the support of Landor Associates, which is a branding company and part of the WPP Group (Nasdaq: WPPGY). The plan calls for the elimination of the memorable red umbrella logo, which 137 years old and has lots of brand equity. But it does have issues — it is a sign of bad luck for certain countries in Asia. Besides, isn’t an umbrella a symbol of defensiveness? Doesn’t Citigroup want to show it can still grow?

…

I also interviewed Mark Stevens, the CEO of MSCO and author of Your Marketing Sucks. His opinion on the matter is straightforward: “It sucks. Why? A stupid waste of shareholders’ money. Is the new better than the old? Why don’t we just change Microsoft’s name just for the hell of it.”

…

Read the whole article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16670755/

How dumb can a smart person get? Not much dumber than Judith Regan who attempted to add Simpson to her name.

To the widely disgusted and completely agitated U.S. public, the publishing diva is now known as “Judith Regan Simpson”.

It’s as if she woke up one morning in need of a cash infusion and thought to herself: let’s give the butcher a vile reality show! I’ll make a “killing” for my friend Rupert, myself and the most repugnant man in America. Then, we’ll treat the people like morons by telling them we are doing this as a healing exercise, a spiritual experience.

How did a gifted marketer suddenly stumble into the ranks of the Michael Jackson’s and the Rosie O’Donnell’s? How did she move from backstage genius to front and center object of wrath? How did she allow his stain to soil her soul? Forget the spin: the answer is disgustingly simple: she wanted to buy a beach front home! Problem is, given her new best friend, she had better lock the doors.

Mark Stevens, CEO MSCO

• Can all the marketing skill in the world, successfully market abject losers?
• Can we make losers be perceived as objects of worship?
• Or as technological marvels.
• Could David Olgilvy have convinced the world that the Maginot Line was really a masterpiece of war?

Of course not. Ridiculous worthless junk is always ridiculous worthless junk. Bill Ford used Madison Avenue and a war chest of shareholder dollars to tell Americans his third-rate cars and forth-rate management was going to use innovation as the power to drive Ford’s renaissance. But you can’t turn losers into heroes when there’s no beef in the bun.

Now Tony Snow faces another impossible task. Selling a war we refuse to win. We actually refuse to win. Ford got fired for refusing to make cars that sell. No one, even Nonsense (Madison) Avenue, has ever tried to portray the Maginot Line as a reason we should all sing The French National Anthem.

Listen, Ford, you still own a big chunk of the company so now that you had your grossly over-paid star turn, fix the cars.

And Tony Snow, tell your boss he can end the war with victory, but he can’t sell it to the American people. And that’s a shame because we deserve to be safe.

The rule is you can advertise all-fat burgers and $1,200.00 shoes because people like them and that’s their prerogative, but you can’t market losers people abhor. Well you can, but they won’t sell. And good marketing should always lead to sales.

Mark Stevens
CEO

Okay so Wal-Mart takes some heat (for what, I’ll get to in a moment) and hires the “distinguished” civil rights leader, Andrew Young, to build bridges to the inner cities/minority groups and the like. And Young promptly does what these demagogues so often do: disgraces himself with racist remarks that smear nearly every minority in the nation. Nice Job Andy. I think there’s a place for you at the UN.

But enough with Mr. Young. The bigger issue is why Wal-Mart feels the need to pacify, Chamberlain style, the so-called inner city. Here is a list of Wal-Mart’s egregious crimes:

• Enables consumers to buy almost everything you need at lower prices than everyone else sells them. So the Wal-Mart bastards actually built a business model that saves you money. Every day. Disgusting?
• employs about a zillion people (1,800,000) and provides career ladders for thousands who wouldn’t get the chance to graduate to the mailroom at the “elite” corporations who view anyone without an ivy league diploma as functionally illiterate.
• pumps billions of dollars into state, local and national economies and is the lifeline for a legion of small businesses that bitch as they make a fortune as Wal-Mart suppliers.

Terrible isn’t it? Crimes against humanity! Listen to Wal-Mart’s critics and that seems to be the case. So in true Chamberlain style, Wal-Mart seeks to pacify the whiners by hiring the likes of Young when there isn’t a reason in the world to pacify anyone.
Just look back to your recent past Wal-Mart. Your founder Sam Walton was the greatest marketer of his era. He built clean, accessible, enormous stores in backwater towns the whiners are too arrogant to even drive through and he offered working class families prices that made the fat cat rip off artists who bled them before, shut down and leave.
Who has to apologize for that? Certainly not the company that brought the savings to you and in the process reinvented retailing. Wal-Mart should continue marketing itself as it has always done: low price leader. Low price leader. Low price leader.
Anyone who finds that objectionable can shop elsewhere. Or triple the markup and send the proceeds to Andrew Young’s favorite charities.

Mark Stevens,

CEO

Hollywood is a buzz with advance word of Mel Gibson’s rumored new epic “Why I Hate Jews.“ Based on the Gibson family’s real “PASSION,” the new film will reportedly reveal heretofore unseen newsreels of David Ben Gurion, Albert Einstein, Marc Chagall and their cohorts planning the myth of the holocaust.

Marketing genius that he is, Gibson reportedly staged his recent DWI incident, knowing that his anti-Semitic outburst would provide a powerful boost for his image worldwide, given the growing hatred of all things Jewish. And with box office revenues outside of the US growing exponentially, Gibson is building the ideal platform for his hot new hate epic.

In Gibson’s recent meeting with Jewish leaders, convened at his request, the actor/producer apologized for his recent behavior and asked his hosts to protest violently against “Why I Hate Jews.” when is it said to be released this Christmas.

“There’s no better way to build momentum for my new film,” Gibson reportedly told his friends in Tehran, ” especially in France, than to have a bunch of angry Hebs protesting against it. I smell money here. And I’ll take that over Passion any time.”

Click for more on anti-Semitism, or Mel Gibson.

Mark Stevens,

CEO

Dear Wa-Wa:

Didn’t you tell us for years – for decades, actually it feels like centuries – that you are a newswoman? A journalist? Yes, I think there’s no denying that. You got the scoops with Castro and Kissinger and then in the “I know the stars better than anyone else,” years, with every flash in the pan or ‘just got dumped by their ex’ emotional train wreck.

And now, Wa-Wa, the only real “Star” on your show tells the truth, and the Mother Theresa of journalists screams to her minions – and then to her audience – “this black woman had the temerity to tell what really happened.” Star: How could you? And Barb, I guarantee you wouldn’t have said this about Meredith.

Think of it this way: Wa-Wa wanted Rosie. Wa-Wa fires Star. Wa-Wa first hired Star because she was outspoken (know your limits girl). Then Star decides to shun the Wa-Wa spin for the truth, and Mother Theresa crucifies the uppity bitch on air.

Tell us why Wa-Wa. It’s your show. Your zillions. You won years ago. You are an old lady. Go out in style. Do you really need to mud wrestle at this stage? To leave the stage with the epitaph “her marketing sucks?”

Mark Stevens

CEO

Any leader can lead when the champagne is flowing. When the company is flourishing. When the business is the toast of Wall Street and the darling of the shareholders. When a glowing halo illuminates the executive suite.

Lay and Skilling were superb at that. Wow, could they bask in the limelight. Like Nicholson on Oscar night. But what happened when “you know what” hit the fan? When the adoring headlines turned to subpoenas? When employees lost their jobs and all of their wealth?

Simple: in a surreal song and dance, they simply declared, in so many words, we weren’t the leaders after all. Just innocent bystanders watching a car wreck they had nothing to do with.

Well, that’s like a platoon commander running for the hills as soon as his men come under fire. “Hey, I had no idea this was war!”

Yes, the Lay and Skilling case has to do with the rule of law. But equally, it is about management. Lousy, gutless management that sucks so badly it smells like dead fish. Bye guys!

Mark Stevens

CEO

So the NY Times reports that our friend, Ford CEO William Ford, is holding a three-day off-site retreat with his senior managers with a primary focus on advising him on where he is falling short. Advising him on where he is falling short! He needs a Retreat for that? Folks, stay in your offices and continue the wonderful work you’re doing losing billions of dollars while Toyota eats your lunch and makes you pay for it.

Billy boy: allow me to provide you with a bit of feedback on what you are doing wrong:

1. You haven’t yet admitted that your management sucks.
2. You haven’t yet admitted that too many of your cars suck.
3. You haven’t yet admitted that if your last name was anything but Ford, there’s precious little chance the letters “CEO” would follow your name.
4. Instead of asking a bunch of managers getting rich while Ford sags, sit with a group of consumers. Start with the ones who have abandoned the brand on your watch. Guaranteed you’ll wish old Henry was there to hold your hand.

Bill, do everyone a favor: Quit.