11:20 am | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Er, Bud-Wise?

One month ago, I wrote an entry on InBev's unsolicited takeover of Anheuser-Busch. At the time, I worried about Anheuser-Busch's attempt to use patriotism in its favor to ward off a potential buyout and suggested that by manipulating consumer loyalty, the company might be setting the average-Bud-drinker up not only for an actual defeat, but for symbolic defeat as well. Compounding the letdown.

By attempting to make this into a potential “Miracle on Ice” scenario (though Belgium isn't quite the USSR), Anheuser-Busch succeeded in getting our hopes up, rallying us behind our red-white-and-blue cans—exactly as they'd wanted to do. Politicians began weighing in on the deal, and even the presumptive democratic nominee reportedly chimed in, saying, "I think we should be able to find an American company that is interested in purchasing Anheuser-Busch if in fact Anheuser-Busch feels that it's necessary to sell.” And what politician wouldn't want to weigh in? This issue was a gift to those in politics (or at a party) hoping to prove their patriotism.

Well, yesterday InBev bought Anheuser-Busch in an amicable deal for $52 billion, offering us yet another example of the reality that no flag speaks louder than cold hard currency. When InBev raised their offer by $5 a share – from $65 to $70 – there was incentive enough.

In the end, this deal was smart for Anheuser-Busch and will no doubt be approved by shareholders on August 1st. Though Anheuser-Busch loses 150 years of family ownership in the process, the company gains a few seats on InBev's board (one for Auggie Busch), will retain all 12 of its American breweries as well as keep St. Louis as North-American headquarters, and will get that much needed leverage in foreign markets. (Not to mention revitalizing A-B's business from the top down.) Of course, for the typical Bud consumer, there will always be subtle reminders of the new foreign ownership, like the company's new awkward company name, for example: Anheuser-Busch InBev. Rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Oh, and one of the Clydesdales has been renamed Ludolf. I joke.

The thing to watch for is how InBev goes about dealing with the $45 billion worth of debt used to finance this deal. There are bound to be cutbacks at Anheuser-Busch, and for an economy already hobbling, lay-offs at Anheuser-Busch won't exactly do wonders for local, state, or national morale.

In conjunction, an important detail that should not be overlooked is that InBev plans to make $1.5 billion in cost savings by 2011. Likelihood is you've heard this before and know what it means. Both Anheuser-Busch and InBev are healthy companies without much overlap, so the transition could be smooth, avoiding mass layoffs. But as we see by InBev's cost savings projection, efficiencies – as in any merger – are king. Even of beers. "The odds that the effect is going to be negative are very high," Don Phares, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Missouri – St. Louis said, "I just don't see any way around that."

The merger will no doubt have a serious impact on the economy in St. Louis, but it is too early to tell how acute that impact will be. In the long term, it seems unlikely that InBev will maintain all of A-B's breweries and sustain headquarter-operations in St. Louis on the same scale it does today. So, as when any city loses a piece of the infrastructure that provides so many jobs for local citizens, St. Louis must turn to other growth industries where expansion is possible, and necessary, like health care and biotechnology, for example.

For the average Bud drinker, little is likely to change. But for the average St. Louisan, change is imminent and could be immense. In light of this, I suggest Americans take a cue and start (or continue) supporting your local brewer.

So there you have it. America is up for sale, and foreign acquisition and investment are being encouraged. In light of Bernanke's projection of a sluggish economy to come, what do you think? Is this smart? Will you continue to drink Budweiser?

12:39 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Cloud Profiteers: Syncplicity and the New iPhone

Over the last year, Web 2.0 became cloudy. Yes, once upon a time, Sergey and Larry defined their vision for Google as an effort “to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible.” As a result of this ambitious goal, “cloud computing” as the web savants call it, has become all the rage. Move over Doppler 5000. Today, “cloud computing” has become an integral part of the interwebs’ inexorable movement into sunny weather.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with clouds of the Internet variety, I can tell you that cloud computing is a constructive metaphor for an upgraded (or improved) version of utility computing. And utility computing is the combination of computing resources, such as computation and storage, offered as a metered service, similar to the way we get power and water from a public utility. I've found that the "cloud" metaphor is used and defined broadly on the Internet, but in this case, let's stick to describing it as an updated iteration of utility computing.

In this sense, clouds are basically virtual servers spread across the Internet that extend the existing capacity and capability of a business’s tech resources. For example, think about what an IT service might need to help a business run more efficiently: improved capability to add more storage space and speed on the fly--without adding more hardware, infrastructure, or personnel...

Sounds like a good recipe for success, right? It's probably the reason that so many cloud-peddlers have popped up all over the Internet in the last year, large and small, offering increased storage, spam-filtering, and applications--in an apparent effort to level the playing field and open up the transaction of information. Just like old Sergey and Larry wanted it.

About six months ago, Business Week suggested that, “for clouds to reach their potential, they should be nearly as easy to program and navigate as the web.” Sounds like something out of a preachy meteorology textbook, if there is such a thing. But truly, this statement was intended, I think, to refer to the giant clouds (like the cumulonimbus that is Google), who had not yet succeeded in offering smooth, easy access to the colossal reservoirs of information piling up on their servers. As we’ve moved forward, many companies have begun setting up in the “clouds” to mine through the accumulated data in sites like Amazon and Google. Think what smooth navigation of this information could do--in positive ways, and negative.

But with a small company like Syncplicity (that's a helluva portmanteau, eh?), we see this happening on a much smaller level, and, again, it bodes well for the leveling of the informational playing field—or stratosphere, if you want to extend the metaphor. Which you do.

Syncplicity is a company dedicated to the graceful integration and synchronization of a person or company’s database. Said another way, they are a company endeavoring to liberate people from worrying about where and how they store their important personal data. They want to speed up your computer, take away that unwieldy data and store it neatly for you… “But, where?” you ask. Why, in the clouds of course.

Syncplicity offers a program that automatically stores, backs-up, and links your documents, photos, music and video files between each of your or your company’s computers. It has a cloud-share of its own. And you can access this cloud-program online or offline, which, to my understanding, gives Web applications equal footing on the desktop.

I think Syncplicity is such a germane topic now, because the company recently launched a new iPhone application--just in time for the release of the new iPhone 3G. The beauty of their new application is that iPhone and iPod users can now access data from anywhere. Thanks again to the clouds. iPhone users with less capacity – smaller GB – can have access to photos and TV shows through Syncplicity’s optimization program. Signing up for, and downloading, Syncplicity is really easy, and the best part is that you no longer have to worry about deleting or overwriting files, as Syncplicity keeps track of deleted files, previous versions, so you can always have them. You can access them from any computer, at any time, even if your computer is not connected to the Internet. You can share any file or folder you like, even with people who don’t have the program. Pretty cool.

So the question then becomes: for Apple, is this a good thing or a bad thing? With the ability to store your data in the clouds, there’s really no need for the increased storage space of the 3G, right?

Put your head in the clouds and think about it.

11:19 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Radiohead: Freedom-Lovers or Publicity Exploiters?

On Thursday, Radiohead released a live video album exclusively on iTunes. The album -- called In Rainbows - From the Basement -- features the band playing various tracks from its new album In Rainbows at the Hospital Studio in Covent Gardens in the U.K.

This comes as the latest in a string of brand-altering moves for Radiohead –- for better or for worse. Depending on what side of the fence you’re on, this is a band that is always searching for a new creative approach to business, music, and socially responsible music and business -- or this is a band, like any other, that is exploitive and simply in the game to make a buck.

Three weeks ago, Radiohead finally “gave in” and agreed to sell their songs individually on iTunes. Until then, the band had refused to offer their songs as singles; like The Beatles, their philosophical approach to recording was holistic, believing that, together, the songs on an album form a "gestalt" -- something more than the sum of its parts. Jay-Z had also taken the concept album approach -- like that of Ziggy Stardust and Tommy -- to his album American Gangster (inspired by the film), declining to sell singles on iTunes.

The motivation behind the Radiohead’s acquiescence seems due in part to the radical alteration of their approach to music management.

The transformation began in 2003, when the band opted not to resign with EMI after Hail to the Thief and the completion of their 6-record contract. According to Thom Yorke, Radiohead’s frontman, the band simply wanted “more control” over their own work and how EMI would use their material in the future. So they did what anyone in their position would do: they left. Seems simple enough, but this move was truly paradigm shifting for the music industry, inspiring many bands to follow suit.

Then, last fall, Radiohead shocked the music industry by proffering In Rainbows on a Radiohead-affiliated website, allowing fans to pay as much or as little as they wanted. Naturally, this innovative new business model was touted as an industry-revolutionizing concept. Since then, Radiohead has not only begun offering singles and a live video album on iTunes, they’ve also established a music video contest and an open source remix competition.

As part of the remix competition, Radiohead granted fans access to the stems -- or the parts of a multitrack recording, e.g. the bassline or vocals -- of “Nude” (a song from In Rainbows), for a small fee and allowed them to remix the song with their own equipment. The remixes could be added to the site, where fans could then vote on their favorite re-takes. Over 2,200 remixes were uploaded in the first week and hundreds of thousands of fans placed votes. (One art student missed the deadline but made this video of old singing hardware and was subsequently inundated with job offers.)

For the video contest (which began in April and is still ongoing), Radiohead invited fans to make animated videos for any of the songs on In Rainbows -- no expertise necessary. Again, fans voted on the videos to pick their ten favorites, and three additional videos were chosen by judges. The thirteen finalists will be given $1000 to create a one-minute concept-short. From those, the band will then pick the winner, who will receive $10K and will be chosen to direct the band’s next music video.

It seems that Radiohead, now that they have full control over their brand and artistic content, has the ability to open their material to collaborative interaction with their fans. The ethos behind their new self-management strategy appears to be the democratization of music, right? Of course, these contests -- and simply the fact that Radiohead originally offered In Rainbows for free -- has given the band an enormous amount of exposure and marketing power. Some are no doubt wondering if the band is actually using these “democratic phenomena” to make more money. And some claim that Thom Yorke has even gone so far as to suggest that the whole event was simply a publicity stunt. I cannot confirm or deny this, though I will say, I hope for Radiohead’s sake there is something more behind it than cold, calculating greed.

Naturally, some musicians aren’t too happy about Radiohead's metamorphosis. Face-paint enthusiasts like Gene Simmons of Kiss insist that Radiohead -- along with music fans -- have helped to murder the music industry with their free-loving ways: “[Radiohead’s] decision is contributing to the demise of the record industry… It’s six feet underground and unfortunately the fans have done this. They’ve decided to download and file share. [Right now,] there is no record industry around so we’re going to wait until everybody settles down and becomes civilised.”

Stunt or no stunt, Radiohead has taken leaps and bounds toward democratizing music. More and more bands are joining in the chorus-of-free-music. It's almost an exodus. Record labels beware, fans have tasted the fruit and no doubt they’ll be wanting more. Much more.

12:07 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Tiger Effect: No Longer Business as Usual

“It’s not even a sport; it’s just a pointless leisure activity for old white people…”

“It’s worse than watching a filibuster on C-SPAN…”

“It’s like watching grass grow, or paint dry…”

These are some colorful descriptions I’ve heard about -- you guessed it -- the game of golf. And in some ways, these words are not inaccurate. Golf is a boring sport for most people to watch, just ask my dad -- who uses the Golf Channel to help him fall asleep.

But imagine this: imagine that one person had the ability to make the growth of grass something exciting, to make paint drying an inspiring process that you would pay to watch. Imagine that one person could be the catalyst of a paint-drying and grass-growing evolution, could reverse the debilitating stigmas attached to their cultures, and make everyone involved better in the process. What would this near-supernatural influence do for their respective businesses -- and business in general?

Debuting on television when he was two-years-old and receiving $60 million worth of endorsements when he turned pro at twenty-one, Tiger Woods has -- from an early age -- been peddled as the savior of his sport. Unlike other finicky icons (ahem, Bob Dylan), Tiger Woods has coolly shouldered the responsibilities of fame and fortune, embracing the role that was thrust on him with a maturity and poise unusual for someone of his age and early celebrity (ahem, Michael Jackson).

Like tennis before Federer, golf was slipping from the national consciousness before Tiger appeared, and many believe that without him, the game was destined for a dismal future -- perhaps obsolescence. But Tiger’s precision, his restless competitive drive, and really his cold-blooded ability to finish (touchstones of an old school American value system and/or a sociopath), helped change all that.

Today, fans, aspiring athletes, lawn care specialists -- whoever -- have the ability to watch the guy play whenever and wherever, in multimedia. Now we’re at golf 2.0, and this is what it looks like:

On Monday, Tiger Woods won the U.S. Open for the third time in his career, claiming his 14th Major Championship and another giant paycheck. As per usual, he did his winning in dramatic fashion. In the 4th and final round of the historic tournament, on the 18th and final hole, Tiger sank a 12-foot birdie putt to force a playoff with Rocco Mediate -- probably the equivalent of hitting a half-court three-pointer at the buzzer in the 7th game of the NBA Finals. The next day, Tiger and Rocco battled it out in an 18-hole playoff, and again, on the 18th green, Tiger dropped a birdie putt to force yet another playoff, or “double overtime,” as the kids say. Anti-climactically, in the first hole of the sudden- death-matchup, Tiger sealed his victory. No big deal, right? Still seems a bit like paint drying, correct?

Wait a damn second.

On Thursday, Tiger followed his already-impressive victory three-days-prior by divulging a little tidbit of information. In characteristically gracious and modest fashion, Tiger Woods informed the media that he’d played the entire U.S. Open with a double stress fracture in his tibia and will soon undergo season-ending knee surgery. He then revealed that he was actually an android sent from the future to destroy us all. Well, not exactly, but…

It is true that Tiger has an unprecedented osmotic -- or perhaps capitalistic effect -- on his sport. According to Ron Sirak at ESPN, whether or not Tiger ultimately proves to be made of alloy, his legacy will not be that of an aberration; instead, it seems that he’s started a trend -- an enduringly positive one. Aspiring golfers have begun using him as a model by which to design their learning of the game. Truly, the fact that he’s reached the pinnacle of his sport and yet remains unjustifiably ambitious is starting to rub off on the business and culture of his sport. His training regiment, for example, is legendary; the guy has completely reconstructed his swing (twice) in the hopes of gaining an extra hair of power, of control. Young golfers are getting a full, multimedia dose of what it takes to be dominant in the sport and are reacting accordingly.

Obviously, the Tiger Effect reaches into and beyond the bottom line. Courses have been altered and lengthened to accommodate him; he’s changed the way golfers train, the clothes they wear, and the equipment they use. He has single-handedly changed not only the business but also the culture of golf, democratizing and, surprisingly, making it more affordable.

The Indiana News Room reported that, since Tiger began swinging his way into history in 1996, more golf courses have been built than ever before -- the majority of them being public -- more adults and youth are taking up the sport, and many of those are being encouraged to get in shape and compete, simply in order to emulate the man himself.

Unsurprisingly, since his announcement that he will miss the remainder of 2008, many publications have begun reporting on the ripple effect Tiger’s absence will have on the business of golf -- branding -- and sports in general. Many are beginning to panic, and Buick has already cancelled many of its promotions. Sam Sussman, director of sports activation at Starcom told the Wall Street Journal that “no one, or no team, moves the ratings more than Tiger Woods.”

Furthermore, the USA Today reported that the recent U.S. Open -- because of Tiger’s clutch performance -- was the third most-watched in the tournament’s history. Nor was his effect on national web-viewership insubstantial; according to the Arbor Networks, traffic to the major ISPs grew as much as 25% during the broadcast. The security agents monitoring the systems had not anticipated the increase in traffic and thought they might be experiencing some sort of web attack…

As it stands, the truth appears to be in the numbers: during 2007, his presence alone boosted TV tournament ratings by 58%, said the New York Times. Sean McManus -- president of CBS News -- worries that future tournaments hosted by CBS will lose a significant chunk of its viewership and may have to give advertisers free ads or make-goods in other broadcasts.

However, it seems that Tiger’s effect on the bottom line may be more complicated than I’d originally expected. Despite my having said that Tiger’s influence on aspiring golfers is positive, Slate reported in January that a study by a grad student at Berkeley -- Jennifer Brown -- found that whenever Tiger entered a tournament, the simple appearance of his name on the roster had a negative effect on the performance of all other players. And apparently the effect was substantial enough to cost each player at least one stroke-per-round. No doubt there is a level of intimidation, of distraction and frustration, when Tiger enters the fray. Now apply the Tiger Model to the non-golfing world and performance in the workplace, and the results seem at least a little counterintuitive.

Even if a company is able to hire someone as outstanding as Tiger Woods, the simple proximity of this employee may cause his or her fellow co-workers to under-perform. When the level of competition is intense and employees feel like the available incentives are paltry compared to that of the Tiger-like employee who will no doubt take first prize, the incentives become less motivating and performance begins to slip. In golf, the reward for first place is often much greater than it is for second, and the payoff drops exponentially thereafter. To do the same in the marketplace would be like offering a new car to your top employee while the second place finisher, which is everyone else, receives a Pez dispenser. Probably a hyperbolic analogy, but you can see why -- in the workplace with Tiger as an example -- second and third level incentives must be of enough value to motivate the rest of your staff.

Imagine that: someone so good at what they do that they can wreak existential havoc on their constituency and alter business paradigms for everyone else.

If you’re running a business, it’s certainly something to consider. But in the meantime, I’m going to go make some paint dry.

09:14 pm | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

A Beer in the Hand is Worth Two in the Busch

There are few things more American than Budweiser, which is why this news from the Beer World is sure to rumple some star-spangled flags: on Wednesday, Anheuser-Busch officially became the target of a $46.4 billion unsolicited takeover by InBev of Belgium.

This deal, if sanctioned, would combine Anheuser-Busch’s Bud and Bud Light with InBev’s Stella Artois, Bass, and Beck’s, to produce the world’s largest brewer. Of course, Anheuser-Busch has been under family ownership for 148 years, and August Busch IV, the company’s present scion, said that he plans to fight the proposed acquisition, despite resistance from shareholders. The company’s stock has been fairly static in the past few years (really, since its high in 2002), and many stockholders feel that InBev’s offer of $65 a share is well worth any subsequent accusations of anti-patriotism. Obviously a capitalistic nation bows to no beer. Or does it? For some, these colors never run.

Clearly, some lapel pins have been upset as well, as a few brave politicians have decided to stand up for their beer; according to the New York Times, Gov. Matthew Blunt of Missouri declared, “[Wednesday’s] offer to purchase the company is deeply troubling to me.” Mr. Blunt’s concern likely stems not only from self-interest, but also from the fact that it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will challenge the buyout. Seeing as antitrust infringement would be the only true grounds for breaking up the deal, there is a very good chance it will take place.

But before you take to your pitchforks and torches, there does appear to be recourse for Anheuser-Busch. The brewer has begun initial talks with Mexico’s Grupo Modelo, hoping to acquire the 50% of the company it does not already own. Buying out Modelo would presumably make Anheuser-Busch too unwieldy for InBev, nipping the deal in the bud, so to speak.

As the economy struggles and the dollar weakens, consolidation and foreign acquisition have increased; thus, the Anheuser-Busch deal has become in many ways, symbolic. Anheuser-Busch is now the third American brewer to be wooed by foreign investors, following South African Breweries’ merging with Miller in 2002 and Molson joining with Coors in 2005. If the company is able to resist foreign purchase, it could be an emblematic victory for a vulnerable American economy.

The chief executive of InBev, Carlos Brito, hopes to keep the deal affable and maintains that the acquisition will not alter the company in any significant way, shape or form. Budweiser will not be renamed Le Bud, don’t worry. (Read Brito’s letter to August Busch IV, here.)

Many fall in line with Mr. Brito, believing that this merger would revitalize the stagnating Anheuser-Busch stock, as well as enable the company to gain access to developing (and potentially lucrative) world markets through InBev’s impressive global distribution. As InBev is the product of a 2004 merger between Brazil-based AmBev and Belgium-based InterBrew, it holds a strong presence in the soft drink market in Latin America and Europe and boasts sales in 130 countries worldwide.

Regardless of whether or not their coup is successful, InBev’s bid will set the stage for a heated battle for control of Anheuser-Busch. The company is going into self-preservation mode, with nationalism and patriotism used to spur its defense. The battle will no doubt get ugly, and aluminum egos could be crushed on foreign foreheads. So put on your beer helmet -- this could get interesting.

09:49 am | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

An Inconvenient Economy

On Friday, the price of oil jumped a record $10.75 per barrel, to more than $138, immediately sending the dollar into a freefall and causing the Dow Jones to ask for a sick-day. Meanwhile, unemployment rose at a record-setting pace in May and energy costs have continued to seek the cooler temperatures at high elevations.

All of this economic misery has Americans feeling desperately in need of some good news, but judging by a survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs last week on American driving habits (see the results here), it looks like Americans may be spending more time at home this summer. More than a quarter of Americans polled in the Ipsos survey said that they will be cutting back on non-essential driving over the summer, and unfortunately, for many, travel and recreational driving will be the first to go. Errands were next on the list, as one in five Americans revealed they will make fewer trips to the local bazaar.

The good news (which is not good news for most) is that—this summer—we will all be getting a little “greener.” With no end in sight for soaring oil prices, green habits are no longer simply for those who can afford to shop at Whole Foods. According to the survey, the spike in prices at the pump will have the greatest effect on households with average annual incomes under $50,000 and families with children under eighteen (which is more than 50% of the American population according to this data). In rural areas, especially across the rural South, the price of gasoline is forcing families to choose between food and transportation. On average, American households are spending 4% of their take-home income at the pumps, but in parts of the Mississippi Delta, for example, that figure can be as high as 13%.

When an economic squeeze forces Americans to become vegetarians in order to save that extra dollar for the pump, the problem is undoubtedly serious. Desperately serious. Though we may have found a short-term treatment for our national obesity, the effects of our petrocentric economy have finally touched the majority of Americans, and there’s really nothing funny about it. It is now crystal clear that we can quite literally no longer afford to tow the old party line.

At $4 per gallon, 65% of Americans have fundamentally changed their driving habits. At $5 per gallon, Ipsos speculates that 85% of Americans will have altered their daily driving routines. For a dependent economy, a continued rise in the price of oil might be for the best, forcibly bringing about renewed national energy policies. But while many remain unable to afford fuel-efficient vehicles, and as airlines raise prices and cut flights, the price of gas will continue to sting. As such, carpools and public transportation—where available—are only the first step in finding welcoming alternatives to our gasoline-induced cash-flow problem.

At the outset of his film “Addicted to Oil,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman warned: “this is not your parents’ energy crisis.” An inconvenient truth, to be sure, but one that Americans can no longer avoid. The necessity of developing alternative sources of energy have never been more immediate. From the bottom up, we are feeling the effects of an incoherent and deficient national energy policy. Regardless of whether or not you feel Tom Friedman deserves a green pie in the face, our transition to a more fuel-efficient economy will not (and cannot) end with conservative driving. Truly, smaller carbon footprints for man will become a giant leap for mankind.

What can the average American (and the average American business) do to become more energy efficient?

02:17 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

The Clinton Campaign: Tomorrow Never Dies

In an e-mail today addressed to her supporters, Hillary Clinton offered her thanks and expressed a willingness to help the Democratic party unite behind Senator Obama. On Saturday, she plans to hold an event in Washington that will likely act as a farewell address, where she'll pay tribute to her followers and to her accomplishments and possibly endorse Senator Obama: "[I will] be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."

Prior to this e-mail, Senator Clinton offered little indication of what her supporters could expect in the coming weeks. By all accounts, it seems that she may have been gearing up for a last-ditch effort to convince the electorate of her candidacy’s viability. After Tuesday’s split results, she seemed ready to reflect on the proper course of action. However, since Tuesday, many of her top advisors and congressional colleagues have strongly encouraged her to take action. Immediately.

Yet, Thursday has now practically come and gone and, from the appearance of Senator Clinton’s website, there is little evidence of an exit strategy. Though, Thursday night brought rumors of a meeting between the two candidates where they supposedly discussed everything from pantsuits to large personal debts. That being said, at this point, Senator Clinton has not yet officially dropped out of the race, nor did she explicitly state in her e-mail that she plans to endorse Senator Obama on Saturday. In the meantime, it seems that she will suspend her campaign, opting to remain a candidate and maintain her portion of state and district delegates.

Top democrats from her home state of New York, however, have chosen not to wait. As early as Friday, even her most virulent supporters will begin to officially endorse the Obama campaign.

Since Montana’s results, many Americans have become troubled by what is perceived as hesitation on Senator Clinton’s part to declare Obama the outright winner. Mike Lupica of the Daily News went so far as to say, “[Senator Clinton] acts as if she is the shadow-president of a constituency that includes the 18 million people she says voted for her, as if those votes belong to her, as if all 18 million people are waiting for her to give them their marching orders. She leaves the race with the same air of entitlement with which she entered.”

The Clintons have long complained of a media-bias for Obama, and perhaps Mr. Lupica has unwittingly become primary evidence of this. No doubt Senator Clinton is drained after months on the campaign trail and deserves a moment’s pause without being berated for demonstrating a little intertia. Yet, regardless of the veracity of Mr. Lupica’s statement, his emotive response to Clinton’s inaction raises a fundamental point of contention for the Democratic Party. Senator Clinton (intentionally or not) remains a polarizing figure for the American public. For both Bill and Hillary, it’s still love or hate. And Toby Harnden of Real Clear Politics holds that many potential cross-over potential Republican voters would vote against her no matter where she appears on the ticket in November. Not only that, but conservatives might be moved into actually voting for McCain, should Hillary appear as VP. On the other hand, many of Clinton’s supporters have demanded that she be awarded the vice-presidency, and may not vote should Obama seek a different running mate. Not to mention that many Clinton supporters stated early on that they would not vote for Senator Obama at all should she be defeated.

Senator Clinton will presumably endorse Barack Obama on Saturday, but questions swirling around the vice-presidency remain. Senator Obama would be well-advised to keep Bill away from the White House especially after the Vanity Fair expose last week. Most likely, he'll seek another alternative to a Clinton vice-presidency.

Looking back on the campaign, it seems the Clintons have been alternately praised for having that do-whatever-it-takes-scrappiness and criticized for their “ethical pliancy.” But whatever their non-political image may be, the Clintons are superlative politicians; they are tough, sharp, charismatic, and know how to step to a challenge.

Thus, with her bid all but over, Hillary now faces her biggest challenge yet. It's time to see how Senator Clinton reacts as a LEADER. She has fought hard for what she believes in and what she represents, but it is time for Senator Clinton to show that she understands her role as a political leader and that she can do what is best for her constituency and the American public at large.

How do you think she’s handled her exit from the campaign? And what will her role be, if any, in the Obama Administration?

 I’d love for you to weigh in.

05:14 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Obama's Web

Watching a bit of the DNC rules committee’s (a committee wrapped in a committee, like the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie pop) meeting today on CNN, I discovered yet again that the Democratic race is still not over. It seems that, at the beginning of both the Democratic and Republican campaigns, lo those many months ago, Americans were inspired, if not excited, by the prospect of an election. Yet today, after being inundated with news from each race for months, Americans are feeling saturated, if not bobble-headed. For me, the word “pundit” elicits uncontrollable sneezing, and donkeys and elephants make me nervous. But regardless of how Florida and Michigan finally dress for the convention in August, and how much angst this interminable race causes Democrats, there’s some good news to be had.

Two posts ago, I addressed Barack Obama’s reputation as a web-savvy candidate and his formulation of a political brand and wondered how he’s going about it. Today, I would like to attempt to discover why Obama is being touted as a pacesetter.

On Thursday, the ClickZ Network released the Federal Election Committee’s estimates of the Obama campaign’s online ad spending. Obama, yet again, has outdone all other candidates in terms of online spending—and fund-raising. The numbers tell us that his campaign spent $3.5 million on online advertising between January and April—with Google scoring approximately 82% of that money. For many, Google ranking among the most patronized in any online category is no surprise, but if you’re like me, you may want to know why.

In traditional media, how much an advertiser pays for a particular ad is dependent on how many people will be exposed to that ad. This arrangement (impression-based advertising) was applied to online advertising during the dotcom boom—as advertisers paid for an ad based on how many people were exposed to a particular banner, for example. Today, according to Brandt Dainow of iMedia Connection, business has pushed online advertising to shift towards performance-based advertising, that is, paying for ad-space based on how many people are actually delivered directly to the company’s website.

Cost-per-action advertising, which is where online advertising is going next, takes this one step further, as the advertiser pays when a customer not only clicks to their website but actually fills out a form or makes a purchase. Google has been extremely successful in delivering customers to advertisers because of its development of programs like Adsense, which has recently incorporated cost-per-action advertising into its repertoire. For those unfamiliar with Adense, one can allocate space on a homepage or blog to be filled by ads. Adsense places ads relative to your business in that space, and each time someone goes to the advertisers’ homepage, the owner of the website gets paid. Adsense serves ads to your website (using similar technology to its SE) that are relevant to your website’s content and are less intrusive than, say, a banner, making the ad much more likely to reach its targeted customer.

ClickZ tells us that Obama has begun doing what businesses have been doing for quite some time, that is, taking advantage of online performance-based advertising. Online advertising is evolving and businesses that keep up with the progressing trends often find that their revenue increases in turn. By going to the web to raise money, and by investing in online advertising, Obama is encouraging a more cutting-edge approach to politics—and highlighting a still-for-many novel idea for business. By patronizing Google, Obama’s brand starts to meld in the public’s mind with innovative, fresh brands like that of Google and Apple.

Another interesting way Obama has embraced social media and online potential is by starting a user-generated campaign think tank. According to ReadWriteWeb, by letting users participate in the generation of ideas and content for his campaign and by letting his supporters vote on the best ideas and proposals, Obama is able to gain access to and then utilize “the ideas that your most loyal customers really want, [which are the] things that are most likely to succeed in the marketplace.” The interactive online think tank was originally promulgated by businesses like Starbucks and Salesforce, but Obama has now integrated this idea into politics with his own unofficial online think tank called “Oh Boy Obama”.

Many companies are taking advantage of the web community. With millions of people able to communicate and connect quicker and easier via the web, companies are relying on this new resource to help refine their product, refine their advertising, and build community interaction. As online activity grows and as more and more people spend their free time on the web, the politicians who succeed will invariably be the ones who integrate their brands with the resources and technology being honed on the web.

At this point, the money and attention devoted to online advertising and web-based think tanks may still pale in comparison to the traditional venues, but it seems that trends are shifting. Not only that, but Obama’s online ad strategy shows that he’s leaning towards long-term fundraising and long-term development strategies that will benefit the interconnectivity of every politician and his or her base. Smart, Fast money.

12:10 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Most Valuable Team

In 2005, Malcolm Glazer bought the Manchester United Football Club for $1.5 billion, creating enormous controversy. Glazer designed his takeover of Man U so as to make himself a majority shareholder (now 75%), ending the team's fourteen-year status as a PLC. Of course, many fans were distressed, interpreting it as a move that would take the team out of the community's hands. They saw the Red Devil nation losing its democratic status. To make matters worse, Glazer's purchase of the club required borrowing a colossal sum of money from investors, dropping the franchise into sizeable debt. As an American business mogul, and owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Glazer's purchase was unwelcome not only from a business standpoint, but because he was, you guessed it, an outsider. A foreigner. An American. And a rich one at that. Does any of this sound familiar? Some may remember George Michael’s (as I like to call him) takeover of the Bronx Bombers in comparable terms...

Yesterday, Manchester United defeated Chelsea in the championship game of the UEFA Champion's League. 85,000 fans crammed into Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow to watch the match. In the aftermath, some have reported that Moscow's management of the event (high costs, doors closed to non-attendees, bureaucratic inertia, etc) was disappointing, particularly as a business venture. (And for some Americans making history, it was a boring spectacle as well.)

Though the game may have been insipid entertainment for some, for the winner, naturally, it was a huge success. In more ways than one. Man U's win in penalty kicks followed their recent claiming of the Premiere League title, making them arguably the best football team in Europe, if not the world. What’s more, Manchester United was ranked by Forbes this year as the most valuable sports franchise in the world at $1.8 billion, their brand valued at over $351 million. According to The Political Economy of Football's website, after their two most recent Premiere and Champion's League victories, Man U can expect a near $125 million dollar payout. To make matters even more ridiculous, with over 300 million fans worldwide, Man U may be not only the world's best sports team, but also the world's most valuable team-brand.

Which brings me back to George Michael (not the George Michael of Arrested Development fame). Many national and international baseball fans have been known to complain about the unfair advantage the Yankees have, their opposition citing their enormous payroll, the size of New York as a media market, their brand recognition, etc.—even before revenue sharing--as demonstrations of life’s unfairness.

Now a hereditary monarchy with Hank and Hal running the team, the Yankees franchise may truly warrant those dynastic analogies. And for good reason: under their dear-old-dad, the Empire won ten pennants and 6 World Series Championships. Proof in the pudding, as they say. Their garish success making fans of the little-guys, the underdogs, (myself included) hernia-candidates for years. Hating them for the fact that they could afford to be good. But no matter how you slice that pudding, in terms of business, the elder Steinbrenner revolutionized baseball, buying a team worth $10 million, leaving it as a team worth over $1 billion. Though he may have written the charter for the Evil Empire, George Michael Steinbrenner--as the first owner to sell game rights to a broadcasting station--is a savvy boss. He capitalized on New York as a media market and helped to make the Yankees a global brand.

Yet today, with the cost of a new ballpark opening in 2009, astral contracts, and a few tons of debt, the Yankees need to maintain their level of success if they expect a blue-sky-forecast. Leadership, for their future, is essential. Maintaining the team, its players, and the brand will demand savvy of the old Steinbrenner ilk, but whether or not it will come from the Youngers is up in the air.

Manchester United is entering into similar territory. The Steinbrenner circus has put a bull's-eye on the Yankee name; as public enemy number one, their status makes competing teams put in that little extra effort, spend that extra dollar on the free agent, just to beat them. And after looking at the numbers, Manchester United appears to be the New York Yankees on steroids. Their value, and advantage, seems to be astronomical--superlative.

But this just begs the question: Is Glazer off the hook because of Man U's big win? How can the Reds, and the Yankees, both with piles of debt, proceed from here? Should soccer consider revenue-sharing (or some better option)?

And finally, reader, what do both teams' giant payrolls and exorbitant spending mean for the business of sports? I want to know.