Wife Beater Brand Woman's Shirt

I'll be the first to admit I find sick things funny. I listen to metal music, which is wrapped with sick imagery, usually for the sake of shock value. I get it.

However, Wife Beater brand clothes cross my own arbitrary line of what I can take. Maybe because I'm a victim of childhood abuse myself. But take a look at the picture of the women's shirt to the right. There is something deeply unsettling about women wearing a bloody hand symbol, representing domestic violence. To me that's like Jews wearing swastikas or blacks wearing the KKK symbol. There are some things I can't even laugh at.

Read more from: Geek Meets Girl.

H/T: @chris_oh

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mel Gibson: Crazy, vicious creep (beliefnet.com)
• Wife beaters could face random police visit to discourage reoffending, Theresa May says (telegraph.co.uk)
• Seattle Seahawks' Leroy Hill Should Not Be Released Or Traded (bleacherreport.com)
• Marriage and Abusive Relationships (socyberty.com)
• Mel Gibson: Classic Batterer? (thedailybeast.com)

I know this making the rounds, but still, it is the best press release ever. Ever. Ever.

I'm a technical writer. Have been for more than 15 years.  I have used FrameMaker since it was at version 2 and was owned by company called Frame. I have owned RoboHELP Since the early days of Blue Sky Software who used to spam my work fax with "specials". Both Blue Sky and Frame eventually found their way into Adobe's family of products.

Words cannot describe how much I love FrameMaker. I use(d) it to write everything, including mundane office dribble because I love structured documents and Microsoft Word has turned a once usable interface into tabbed hieroglyphics. RoboHELP on the other hand is now just Robohelp and hasn't changed much in years. It's not the best documentation solution, but it beats many others and has some cool features strapped onto it by Macromedia before Adobe ate them too.

Why People Hoard Violent Hostility Before Driving Home

Last August, I noticed that my installed, and perfectly functional, Adobe Technical Communication Suite 1.0 was working fine one day and the next day the serial number stopped working. This was because some update made Adobe Captivate reject my serial number. This happened on both my desktop and my laptop.

I thought I would call Adobe support. Looking back, I now see the folly of my youth and inexperience. I miss the old carefree me who doesn't cook blood-boiling hatred for Adobe's customer support methods and people.

Naturally, the support is in India. I'm okay with Indian support as long as the company they represent actually empowers them to do things. From what I've experienced, Adobe has empowered their Indian call centers to say "no" with various inflections as well as transferring me back and forth between customer service and technical support.  I have been told I need to pay for support. I have been told I need to completely reload all of my Adobe software. I have been told that I should know why my serial number doesn't work.

And Time Flies

Starting in August I called several times to kick-off a mind-numbing cycle of ignorant troubleshooting. My complaint is the serial number stopped working. I upgraded to Tech Comm Suite 1.3, hoping for a new serial number and never received one.  I'm told the old one will work for 1.3, but alas, it's not that easy. Adobe support's response to all of this is to have me uninstall and reinstall everything over and over for the next few months. Seeing how this is a suite of products, I spend more time following "Steve's" broken English instructions than I do getting real work done.

So now it's January 2009. Obama will be sworn in soon. Yet I am not getting Hope or Change from Adobe. We're still going back and forth on the phone. People say they will call me back and never do. I can't even guess as to how many call-backs were promised to me that just didn't happen.

I used to sing Adobe's praises for all to hear. InDesign is my publication designer. Dreamweaver is my prototyping and quick site building workhorse. However, FrameMaker is the ultimate documentation tool for me. Robohelp is a great addon that helps me just give customers what they want.

It's not like I don't want to be an Adobe customer. It's more like they resent that I still live and breath after I buy the product. This particular problem, from what I understand, is not uncommon. Damn that man who keeps calling and whining about his serial number.  Damn him back to FrameMaker 5.5 and don't let him upgrade again, they say.

You Can't Fight City Hall

With every call, I'm polite and I understand that each person at Adobe tech support is special in their own way. I'm sure "Ron", who was kind enough to hang up on me "accidentally" just needs a hug. And there was "Annona" who was very stern in insisting I had to pay for support to fix my serial number.  I don't yell at these people. Special people need a special place so they aren't operating machinery.

If I could affford it, I'd move to MadCap Sofware. They seem to have some interesting products. I would like to try their Robohelp and FrameMaker killers, Flare and Blaze.

But the expense of software conversion for small independents like me is enough to cause marital problems.

I'll stay with Adobe, but I'm angry with their support and I'm more angry that they know their support sucks and they are not taking steps to correct it. Maybe they're jonsing for a future bailout. Who knows.

I just know that after 6 months, I have an unresolved issue with a serial number for a product I've purchased and then upgraded. I've been treated as if I don't matter to Adobe and I can't use the software I purchased.  Thanks Adobe! I can now have a blog post about it.

Fox 4 here in DFW is reporting how Macy's is trying to market to Hispanics with a T-shirt that the report claims is offensive to Hispanics. The T-shirt reads, "Brown is the New White".

I've seen my share of T-shirts, everything from ironic to pornographic. In fact, I noticed in Target the other day, they are selling toddler T-shirts that read, "1. I want it. 2. You buy it for me. 3. Any questions?" I thought that was more offensive because of the fact it was for a toddler and it feeds the entitlement culture, but I digress.

"Trendy", as quoted in the article, is referring to a statement on a T-shirt that they knew was controversial. Don't be fooled for second that people at Macy's are this stupid:

The T-shirt, which reads "Brown is the New White," is offensive, according to Hispanic marketing expert Dr. Ed Rincon.

"Macy's doesn't know a whole lot about what Hispanics want in the way of clothing. It also says that Macy's doesn't understand Hispanic culture. More importantly, it says that Macy's doesn't understand the Hispanics that lives in the U.S. and the kinds of products they are looking for," Rincon said.

However, Rincon said some Hispanic customers might enjoy and even purchase the shirt.

Macy's apologized for its decision to sell the shirt, releasing this statement:

"We are constantly looking for unique and differentiated merchandise that will resonate with our customers as hip, current and trendy. We also continue to work in developing business relationships with minority vendors to serve the growing diverse customer base. We apologize if customers have found some of the merchandise offensive and have removed the style that they found objectionable."

As usual, the reporter found an expert, in this case Dr. Rincon, who can defend the company by saying that Macy's people are culturally ignorant. To believe that, you have to believe that Macy's is totally run by white people and they did zero research. A major retailer who carries products without research is also known as "bankrupt" (e.g. Montgomery Wards). Since Macy's is not bankrupt, you can bet they don't carry any products without running them through over-thinking comities who approve the product based on market research and vendor-provided information.

I happen to think this shirt is consciously marketed to a specific group of Hispanics, the ones who came out in droves during the immigration protests and flew Mexican flags. It's not like anybody living in the Dallas area didn't know about immigration protests going on this year. You would have to believe that Macy's employees here don't pay attention to the news. Marketing people always pay attention to the media. That's what they do. They just didn't think it was a big deal. It just so happens somebody somehow routed this story to Fox 4 and they chose to carry it, making it a big deal.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is it reveals a dirty little secret of the marketing industry. Marketing could be described as racist. It breaks people into groups based on race, sex, age, and any other way to group people to examine buying habits. This seems benign because people do have a tendency to behave in similar demographic groups. This seems at odds with those who want you to believe that everybody is the same. How companies handle demographic data becomes a fine line between savvy marketing and pure racism.

In the above story, a product that is obviously racist is targeted at a group of people by race. When Macy's says it's "trendy" they really mean "ironic racism". I think we'll see more of this as we continue segment different groups of people and treat them differently based on those groups.

Eventually, everything gets reduced to a formula of some kind, including art and writing. The formulas generally come from marketing professionals who see dollar signs from mass producing whatever the popular trend is of the day. I'm afraid blogging is coming down to this. The latest buzz in the business world is for businesses to have their own blogs. Momus at Wired has noticed this too.

Once upon a time, the wooden tongue was restricted to corporate reps, PR mouthpieces and government spinmeisters. But over the last couple of years, there's been a fashion for official websites to reformat as blogs. A corporate website might be consulted once or twice, but a blog invites readers to return for a daily dose of "rolling news" about the product, personality or politician being advertised.

Since people like to read blogs, it's only natural you can take the square peg of blogging and cram in the round business hole. A friend of mine who works for an advertising balloon manufacturer told me his Web master was trying to upsell him on adding a blog to their Web site. The very idea that there was something in the advertising balloon arena to write about every day that would actually appeal to their market and lead to revenue is laughable. Obviously there is no one size fits all to marketing and PR. Blogging is popular, but at the same time, it is a unique phenomenon that can't be bottled like a soft drink.

Small businesses especially need to think about their own Web sites. Blogs are only as good as their content. The content must be edgy and fun to read. Most small business can't afford to have somebody working full time on Web content. And blogs are work--this I know. In addition, many people assume that blog articles for business read like magazine articles. Writing magazine-like articles will only dull the impact of a blog and demonstrates the aforementioned wooden tongue.

Small business owners should seriously plan and consider their Web content since their investment must produce results. A better use of money is in search engine optimization and creative marketing. Leave blogging to individuals and press releases to the businesses. That's the way it should be.

It's been a couple of weeks since word started spreading about Wal-Mart's new "War Room" made of political veterans to combat negative media attention. Wal-Mart has become a political target and the release of the new fake-u-mentory, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices, with its endorsement by Ted Kennedy and the increasing anti-Wal-Mart rhetoric coming from the political left. Obviously, Wal-Mart has to defend itself on many levels.

Public perception is increasingly fickle and anybody with enough venom in front of enough cameras can say anything they want and be believed at face value. Today's reporters are too damn lazy to research facts and investigate the motives behind the spewing hatred. Byron York, who is investigating the claims of the film, already found out an interesting piece of information:

BYRON YORK, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, the story of H&H Hardware didn’t actually happen precisely as it is depicted in the picture. The store did close, but it closed three months before Wal-Mart actually opened its doors. And I talked to Don Hunter, the man you saw in the film there, who founded H&H in 1962, and he said that the coming of Wal-Mart had nothing to do with the decision to close the store.

Like Michael Moore, Robert Greenwald is using images and emotion to try and create a reality to prove a political point. The people interviewed are real, but the timeline is off and the facts aren't quite all there. So this is not really documentary filmmaking as much as it is realistic fiction. The problem is that Wal-Mart feels it has to rely on itself to get the facts out. Byron York works for the The National Review, which causes credibility problems with the left, and he is in an apparent minority when it comes to researching the facts of this film.

Remember Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Democrat National Convention? Now we have Robert Greenwald getting an endorsement from Ted Kennedy. This is a frightening trend and Wal-Mart is ahead of the curve by creating its own War Room. The PR battles are going to be intense. Wal-Mart has more than just its bottom line to think about. If I was an executive at Wal-Mart, I'd be deeply bothered by the political handling of how I did business. This is a prelude to regulation. When U.S. Senators publicly bad-mouth companies, you know they want to pass laws and make themselves into union heroes.

While the media fawns over this film, remember that Wal-Mart employs 1.5 million people worldwide. The more that Wal-Mart gets negative press and pulled into the left-versus-right political whirlwind, these people will be affected. Wal-Mart has already shown it will close stores rather than deal with unions. They will also have to raise prices to conform to unreasonable regulations, which seems okay to Kennedy. I'm interested in how the War Room will gear up and combat the politics. Somebody has to.

In the future, Apple Computers will be studied for their ability to continue to innovate new products against expectations. With the new iPod, Apple keeps on invoking technolust.

The new video iPod, available in black or white, will be able to play video and podcasts. A 30-gigabyte version will sell for $299 and a 60-gigabyte, $399. Extra features on both versions include a clock, a calendar that Jobs said never looked better, a stop watch and a screen lock.

"It's really very beautiful and very thin," Jobs said at the much anticipated news conference.

Apple has been riding high on the success of its iPods, which helped quadruple the company's profits last quarter.

In the last fiscal quarter, the iPod accounted for nearly a third of Apple's revenue; Macintosh computers, Apple's historical core product, accounted for about 44 percent with 1.2 million units sold.

Who wouldn't want to run a company that gets so much coverage over a new product line and people buy just because it's cool? Apple has much to teach the rest of us on how to develop and release products.

As I pointed out a couple of days ago, Quark is really proud of their new logo. They were so proud they sent out an email hailing their logo as the savior of their company. It supposedly represents their new direction. However, I'm thinking they should get a refund on their logo research fees.

But a spokesperson for SAC described the similarities between the two logos as "indeed uncanny", adding: "We are very proud of our logo which the design company first presented to us on 7 February 2001".

Quark's spokesman stressed that privately-held company Quark conducted: "Extensive checks to discover any similar existing logos", and added, "we evidently didn't find them all."

This may not be enough for the Scots.

"Our logo was intensively researched, and then trademarked and launched in 2002," the SAC spokesperson explained.

Compare for yourself:

There is an interesting discussion regarding this in the comments of this posting at Be A Design Group. Some of the comments point to other examples that look similar.

So I get an email from Quark who is in the middle of an extreme makeover. I'm assuming it's because Adobe and Macromedia are gettin' hitched and will make even more competitive little babies. As a Quark customer for many years, there are a few things about Quark I have never liked:

• The excessive high price of Xpress
• Their inexecusably poor customer service
• The lack of useful enhancement for content creators versus graphic designers
• The excessive high price of Xpress

I'm not the only one either. Much has been written about their poor customer service and lack of response to their market. None of these issues were addressed in this marketing email from Quark. Instead, what is the email basically about?

I would like to take this opportunity to present you with an exciting change at Quark. As you can see from this e-mail message, we've re-designed our logo and corporate identity to reflect our evolution over the past couple of years.

You'll see our new look in e-mail messages, on Quark.com, and on everything we do.

As I'm sure you have noticed recently, our logo and corporate identity are not the only things that have changed at Quark. We have grown into a company that listens and responds, and we're happy to show off our new look to compliment our new outlook.

Let us know what you think — about our new logo or whatever is on your mind. Just send an e-mail message to cservice@quark.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Their logo? Granted, their audience does consist mainly of graphic designers, but come on. Their logo has no affect on how their customers do business. To write a marketing email to draw attention to their logo rather than problems they are supposedly addressing is strikingly self-aggrandizing as well as a poor marketing strategy. Then to top it off, when I clicked the link the other day, here is the first thing I saw on Quark's Web site:

Nice

I'm getting spammed by some Microsoft hater who is linking to a story reported on CNET about Steve Ballmer going nuts and having a tantrum about Google (see Court docs: Ballmer vowed to 'kill' Google). The message itself quotes the article and then has some extra commentary about trusting Microsoft and a few quotes from other executives about how Microsoft is the largest institutional spammer (I'm sure the irony of spamming about spam is not lost on the actual spammer in this case).

The email looked legitimate enough the first time I received it because the link was to a CNET article so I actually read the article. I must admit, Steve Ballmer is a strange dude. I've seen video of his frothing-at-the-mouth Microsoft pep-rallies. It doesn't surprise me that he has just as much on the negative side of behavior to throw some chairs and curse and scream. The lesson for Ballmer is to not do things that could appear in court documents. But for Microsoft, that's pretty much everything. I don't think there is any room for error for Microsoft because somebody will be there to assume the worst, even for things that are should be acceptable.

A good place to find the anti-Microsoft culture is to lurk around the comments on ZDNet news stories. Inevitably, any story about Microsoft will have a comment like "This is the very reason everybody should use Linux." And for some reason, the commentor cannot simply type "Microsoft" without using a dollar sign for the "S". Just so we are all clear about spelling it "Micro$oft": it lost its cleverness about ten years ago. I know the spelling is ironic, but I think we all get that Microsoft is a company that tries very hard to make money, unlike all the other companies in the U.S. that simply exist for the sake of serving humanity.

Certainly Microsoft has more than its fair share of major screw ups. But most of its problems stem from a lack of awareness regarding its own culture, kind of like some sort of ivory tower syndrome. Microsoft sees itself as so important to the world that nobody can live without it. This attitude is sad since the rotation of the Earth is not directly tied to Redmond. There is some awareness at Microsoft that adaptation for the future is important, but the old ways still prevail in its products and marketing. For example, it wasn't until Firefox began to chip away at Internet Explorer's domination that Microsoft discovered that end-users might like some new browsing features. Once Microsoft knocked Netscape out as a serious competitor, Internet Explorer development pretty much stopped--for years. This is Microsoft's cultural arrogance.

There is always going to be a subculture that hates successful companies. The Wal-Marts, Microsofts, and McDonald's of the world will always be under attack. However, these companies are so big many of the complaints could be legitimate and should be addressed. An executive in charge of public relations should be monitoring the public discourse and measuring it against the cultural reality within the company. Addressing problems as they occur may actually help save companies from having to air dirty laundry in court.

First the qualifier: I'm not a reality show junkie; in fact, I dislike them more than I dislike changing a flat tire on the Dan Ryan Expressway during rush hour in January. You get the point.

However, I'm hooked on the CBS show Rockstar: INXS. First, it is not like American Idol, which is a plus. Second, it is the most brilliant PR move for an aging band I've seen yet. INXS is definitely one of the most influential bands of the 1980s. But that's the problem isn't it? They sort of peaked in the 1980s and early 90s. Then their lead singer, Michael Hutchence, committed suicide, shocking the rock world. Unlike AC/DC recovering after Bon Scott's death almost immediately, INXS has been lying low for a while.

I think Rockstar: INXS is an excellent PR vehicle for an aging band without a front man for nearly 10 years. Think about how many bands out there couldn't survive the come-back world with a new lead singer. I'm talking about everything from one-hit-wonders like Better Than Ezra to stadium rockers like Judas Priest. As much as many bands hate to admit it, the front man is perceived to be the band.

Consider Rockstar: INXS to be INXS' market research and PR vehicle. They are obviously aging rockers who love music and love their history, as they rightfully should. They want deeply to continue the band's legacy and Michael Hutchence is a tough act to follow. So instead of secretly auditioning singers and launching a doe-eyed newbie to a world full of disenfranchised fans and overly-critical critics, they are publicly auditioning singers, instantly disarming critics. This strategy is effective in that the critics are already picking their own favorites and not debating if INXS should have gotten a new lead singer to begin with.

Another interesting issue with the show I enjoy is the feedback from the band. I can tell a lot was edited out, but some of what was left in was telling. For example, they are praising one performer who can take direction--so much so, they asked him for an encore. That tells me they want full control of the band and for the new singer to follow along, at least at first. I'm reminded of the movie Rock Star when Mark Wahlberg's character, Chris Cole, brings the band his own ideas and they lecture him on how they've been doing this for years and they know what sells. Naturally, the movie is sympathetic to the misunderstood lead singer. However, as with any business, the newcomer should defer to the experienced mentors. INXS has a lot to teach any young lead singer, and that singer can go on to bigger and better things with that knowledge.

Any business can learn a lot from INXS in that critics can be diffused with the proper PR. Major corporate decisions that are kept secret may be better accepted if they aren't so secret. I'm not sure how much the voting on Rockstar: INXS actually matters in the end. But the fact is the fans feel they have input. Keep in mind INXS already screened the singers before the show. So the public is picking from a limited menu, but the PR part of this is that the public has input. What if a company presented options like that to shareholders publicly? Maybe Donald Trump is on to something.

Joel on Software has some good advice when it comes to recruiting talent, even if you have a negative public image.

That's a recruiter who works for Microsoft talking, not me.

So, my point to Gretchen, sympathetically, was, “recruiting has to be done at the Bill and Steve level, not at the Gretchen level.” Want to solve Microsoft's recruiting problem? Open a downtown development center in Pioneer Square and another one South of Market in San Francisco. Then split up the company into lots of small, well-funded startups and give people stock options in their own products, which actually have a fighting chance of growing. Then create some spinoffs with their own personality. Spin off X-Box so it feels more like a cool gaming startup rather than a big corporate “General Motors Trying to Sell Hip Things to an Appealing Demographic.” I'm sure there are a million other ideas, but none of the kind of decisions that would make Microsoft an even more attractive workplace are in the hands of the recruiting department or even the hiring managers. No wonder there's so much frustration.

This important because companies are not a single, living being. They are only perceived to be that way and presented that way by the media. Andersen Consulting was destroyed because they were perceived to be the partner-in-crime with Enron. In reality, they had thousands of emloyees working with hundreds of other clients that had nothing to do with Enron.

A negative public image has to be fought by a deliberately constructed internal culture and sophisticated public relations effort. If you have problems recruiting and keeping talent, maybe it's time to talk to your company's leadership.

Back in May, I wrote a little about public relations and sports. There was a Wall Street Journal op ed addressing the growing problem. Now we have players brawling with "fans" (I used sneer quotes around fans since some of the audience apparently threw stuff at the players). I don't watch sports for this very reason. All I saw were clips of overpaid thugs in a brawl.

If professional sports organizations don't get tough with the players, this is going to become as common as the games are themselves. Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson, and Ben Wallace are professional athletes. They are not playing street ball and they carry a complex set of responsibilities that accompany multi-million dollar salaries.

They represent the team and the team's locale. Think of them as ambassadors who are supposed to represent the best from their origin. That's what games are all about. Yet most professional players feel no obligation to their local sponsors. Few players choose to stay in a city because they love it. Granted, if somebody waves an additional million in salary, anybody will weaken. But I also think it says something about the players who seemingly have no loyalty except to themselves; they apparently don't seem to care when they makes asses of themselves.

Another responsibility professional athletes carry is that of a role model. It's almost cliché to talk about how young kids look up to these athletes; that's probably why nobody takes them seriously as role models anymore. In addition, all of the athletes that were suspended were black, further complicating the role model issue. I don't think young African American children need to look up to street violence moved to the sports arena. Maybe my philosophy is different, but the more public exposure you have, the more aware you should be of your behavior and how people respond to your behavior. Yes, children look up to professional athletes. Yes, they live a life where they have little room for error. But, like everybody else that chooses to make that much money, there are stakes. The last thing young, troubled people need to see is that even the most successful people are still assholes. What kind of motivation is that to find the best in themselves?

I'm also deeply saddened that the objects of admiration, money, and celebrity have so little regard for where their wealth comes from. It's a deep, moral disconnect between reality and the fantasy of their day-to-day lives. When things like this brawl happen, I can't help but think that the difference between a street thug and an NBA player is the NBA player is a thug with money. Sure that's unfair, but this is the image they apparently want everyone to relish. Ron Artest himself has a series of suspensions and he is lovingly called a "bad boy" by the sports media. What the hell is that? If I went around beating people up, I wouldn't' be called a "bad boy", I'd be knows as Prisoner 2442533.

That leads me to my final point about these athletes. What is it that keeps these guys employed? There are many people who have suffered from career-ending maneuvers. Police officers who are guilty of misconduct are fired. Corporate employees only have to look at a somebody the wrong way to get canned. Why is it that the discussion I'm hearing on the news is that these suspensions are severe? If I worked with somebody who went around punching people, I wouldn't want the guy back in the office, even a year later. Let's face it, the professional sports organizations do not have the courage nor the moral fortitude to actually fire these guys and banish them from sports forever. That's what they need. A few banishments and the violence, drug arrests, prostitutes, and other unacceptable behavior would be reduced.

Finally, the fans need to seriously assess some things. Whatever makes these guys think it's okay to throw food and drinks at players comes from the trailer park, Jerry Springer, anything goes culture we keep showing on television. In the real world, people shouldn't behave that way or they risk getting kicked out of the arena by some hideously unfriendly security guards.

I've had enough of this behavior from everybody. There are some things more important than money. However, I think more money could be made in the future if we kick out the jerk fans throwing stuff and permanently ban players who are nothing more than criminals in a jersey. I think it's really that simple.

Adbusters, the magazine, never did much for me. The entire concept can be boiled down to this: consumerism is bad; capitalism is bad; wear biodegradable clothes. There is an intriguing idea or two generated by one of the magazine's founder, Kalle Lasn. In his book Culture Jam, he basically writes that people are so inundated with advertising, branding, and consumerism, they are mentally polluted. There is a lot to think about, but I found the book to be nothing more than a rant without realistic solutions.

The very idea that our culture is flawed because of consumerism ignores how we got to where we are today. Capitalism in its purest form is a direct alternative to taking things by force. Money was created to take the place of objects that were traded when reasonable humans wanted to exchange goods and services. Adbuster glorifies everything antiestablishment and attacks anything corporate without logic or perspective. A recent visit to Adbusters.org reveals liberal political articles in addition to hard core environmentalism based on junk science and social economic theories, pushing the idea that their ideal company is not about making money. You get the idea.

When I saw this article, I laughed a little, especially at this quote:

But here's the thing about the guerrilla information war that Lasn and his rotating crew of two dozen or so employees at Adbusters were fighting: "We were losing," he admits. While the Adbusters Media Foundation has built enough of an audience to keep it out of the red -- the magazine sells for $7.95 an issue and has international circulation of 120,000, according to Lasn -- it has had little success getting its incendiary anti-ads into any mainstream venue.

I think they lost.

The article then points out that Lasn is starting a company to make an environmentally friendly shoe to compete with Nike. Adbusters, like many activist groups, use the tactics of their enemies. They exploit the same media they condemn: they want to run TV spots, they want to sell more magazines, and now they want to sell shoes. Yes, they do. Lasn's new company is called Blackspot. Supposedly, it has an anti-logo and "Blackspot" is an anti-brand.

Anti-brand: more activist semantics. Creating an anti-brand is like building an anti-car to drive you to car shows to protest the idea of cars. They are using traditional advertising channels and guerilla marketing techniques pioneered by underground/alternative product manufacturers. It's the pot calling the kettle "Blackspot". The proof is in the approach:

To Lasn, the Blackspot exemplifies a new kind of grass-roots capitalism, driven by entrepreneurs motivated by something other than accumulating wealth. It could give consumers a new voice in the marketplace, allowing them to buy into a set of ideas that challenges the megacorporations that dominate so many industries. Lasn's attitude toward Nike is particularly visceral, and in conversation he refers to its CEO, Phil Knight, as a "mind-f---er" at least six times. Why this level of personal anger? Partly because he dislikes the way Nike handled the sweatshop allegations of the 1990s. Knight "kind of ignored the no-sweatshop movement for as long as he could," Lasn asserts. "Cleaning up those factories is not something he did out of the goodness of his heart, as far as I can tell. It's something he did because the times changed and the pressure was put on him."

But mostly, he says, he opposes Knight because the Nike brand offers a false promise. Lasn describes a hypothetical teenage boy, insecure, trying to fit in and find an identity. Where does he turn? To Nike. The awesome brand power offers instant cool. But, Lasn continues, it's a fleeting cool -- a lie, a concocted image that stands for nothing but profit, manipulation, and exploitation. "I want to offer that kid a real form of empowerment," Lasn declares, "and that's what Blackspot is." So this is his way of fighting the "guerrilla information war" against Nike's cool: Be cooler.

There's a certain logic to this. Nike is a big brand. It's totally mass, with revenue in the billions, frequent big-budget television ads, a logo everyone recognizes, a ubiquitous retail presence. Why not try to be Red Bull to Nike's Coke, or Diesel to its Levi's?

Let's face it, people don't buy ideas by themselves. Consumers are driven by needs and wants. Therefore, marketing and advertising is important and has its place. Adbusters is about throwing out the bath water and the baby, but not before bathing first. This idealistic, "it's-not-about-the-money" company has been done before. Ben and Jerry's was one of those companies that tried to make a social point by hiring a CEO who had a restrictive cap on his salary--he didn't last long. Saving Ben and Jerry's from certain doom was a large corporation, Unilever, who bought it in 2000. That little anti-corporation is now part of an international conglomerate.

As far as I can tell, nothing is different about Blackspot compared to any other product out there. When companies launch, they use PR to generate a buzz and hope the buzz leads to sales. Being "cooler" than Nike is simply trying to out-promote Nike. Blackspot's PR is carefully crafted to look like anti-corporate, anti-brand buzz. But it's more of the same, proving that today's corporate culture is fully intact and works within the framework of western culture. It's going to take more than a black spot to change that.

You can sum up the recent problems at Krispy Kreme with one word: overexposure. Krispy Kreme used to be unique and special. I knew it was over when their doughnuts shamelessly appeared in the local Jewel Osco. Almost overnight, Krispy Kreme was nothing special.

Macy's is going down the same path. The analysis in this Motley Fool article is right on:

It may not seem like that big of a deal. It may even seem like a good idea to consolidate its various brands to just Macy's and Bloomingdale's. Then it could cash in on the synergy that comes from national marketing campaigns and everyone tuning in to watch holiday floats glide by in the name of Macy's.

During my senior year in high school, I went to New York. Visiting Macy's in New York was a big deal and part of my tour package. Federated is gambling with the Macy's name and they're counting on drawing shoppers in like flies to bug zapper. If it were only that easy. Not only are names like Macy's special, they are also volatile. Brand names come and go. Montgomery Ward's brand couldn't keep it alive. I saw first hand how inept management took Wards apart.

Is the goal of Federated to turn Macy's into a Kohl's? A Macy's in every town is not a good strategy for an exclusive brand. A new, unified brand might be a better strategy. The last thing I want to do is shop for Krispy Kreme doughnuts at the Macy's supermarket.

This is from last week, but I didn't get a chance to finish until today. Pretend you're in a room full of marketing executives and one of them suggests that you create a fake computer virus to promote one of your products. Yes or no? I think it depends on whether or not you consider any kind of publicity as good. CE Europe invented a non-existent mobile phone virus to promote their new Resident Evil: Outbreak game and are reaping negative results.

"The messages themselves are not infectious, but some people have panicked that they might have received a real mobile phone virus," said Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos. "This marketing campaign seems particularly ill-conceived, as there is so much genuine interest in the mobile virus threat at present."

Obviously, this isn't as bad as faking a bomb threat or yelling fire during the middle of a screening of Envy (which might be a good thing). Since the first cell phone virus, people are starting to realize how serious of an issue personal information security is. That's a step forward. Making fake viruses is two steps backwards.

There is an old saying that there is no such thing as bad PR "as long as you spell my name right." One of my business partners and I discussed this at length. She contends that there is bad PR. I agreed. If you don't think so, look at the current panic in the Kerry campaign. The campaign's ill-prepared responses to the Swiftboat Vets plus the difference between Kerry's speeches is going to kill his campaign.

Another spin on this story is the legal angle. Granted, this was a European company and they are not as litigious as we are in the U.S. So it may not have been as much of a consideration. But here, I could certainly envision individuals filing suit for fraudulent viruses. I've seen sillier suits.

To answer my own question, I would probably have to question the judgement of somebody who would propose a PR campaign that would deliver a ton of negative press. I give it a thumbs down.

In a great example of PR, Xerox sponsored an extreme office makeover. The real news here is how a company can function in the environment Mad Science had. Xerox is on to something; I bet there a lot of companies like Mad Science out there needing extreme makeovers. Xerox provided Mad Science with:

• An Ethernet network (I still can't believe they didn't have a network)
• A multifunction printer/copier/fax
• A Phaser 8400 (I have an 860 DP that I can't live without)
• A server with Xerox's DocuShare software
• Furniture, carpet, and a paint job

Xerox could sponsor a show like this on TLC. People are eating up the makeover shows up right now. The office angle is very interesting. I suggest the Sanford and Son theme for the opening and the host to be Gary Cole from Office Space. It would totally work.

I'm going down the political path again, but this is more PR than it is political to me. Forget for a moment that we are talking about a Presidential candidate and think of John Kerry as a business. He's run like one. John Kerry is not running for President by himself--he has an enormously large staff helping and supporting his efforts. He has bank accounts, an existing customer (i.e. voter) base, a potential market (i.e. undecided voters), and a deadline to make it all come together. The element that ties all of this together is his public relations effort, and that's the one thing that he can't seem to get right.

In fact, this whole Cambodia controversy is a good example of how not to run a PR campaign. If you're running for President, it doesn't take a genius to figure out how you'll be dealt with. For example:

• When running for President in today's age, every aspect of your life is fair game. Your enemies and journalists will stop at nothing to track down a story that could bring you to your knees.
• Because of blogs, cable news, and radio pundits, there are a million fact-checkers out there. Bloggers are especially good researchers. I find comments in blogs very educational on some Web sites because many of the participants are armchair historians with a special interest in specific subjects.
• The success of Fox News has proven that alternative view points are viable and important.
• You can't please everybody at the same time.

The end result is that you must be a person of high moral character, consistent, and open about your past. Kerry is not showing any of those traits and his campaign is beginning to implode. Kerry's problem is that he is undermining the efforts of those who want him elected. I'm willing to bet that his self-image is so skewed, he can't even see there is a problem and he probably sits around fuming at the insolence of people questioning his integrity.

While I'm no political expert, I do see the writing on the wall for his campaign because Kerry is, above all, inconsistent and that is proving him to be a liar. I don't think any candidate can recover from lying to the Senate. I'm not the only one thinking this way either. The best articulation of this crisis is this article by Kathleen Parker.

If Kerry didn't fabricate, he exaggerated. Or misspoke. Or got confused. Or something. But whatever the differences among versions, the story is part of a larger narrative that may matter more than the details.

It is a story of naked ambition and grandiosity, the narrative of a self-absorbed man who always needed to be best and first, whether captain of the boat in Vietnam or winner of the debate in school. Who, when accidentally knocked off his snowboard as an adult fumed, "I don't fall down.'

He's the sort of man who thinks to take a movie camera to war to document himself for uses now known to be political; who willingly exploits his heroism in ways real heroes never do; who builds a career on disgust toward a war he later characterizes as the crowning achievement in a life that seems more risumi than real.

I'm sure there were many in the Kerry campaign who saw this coming and probably advised him. However, he continues to manufacture answers to please the audience at that moment, forgetting the bigger picture. This is a PR problem and Kerry will fail because he can not will not expose who he is really.

There has to be truth in marketing or the campaign will fail. Business can learn a lot from Presidential campaigns because they are the ultimate rapid product development environment.

Here is a good commentary by Michael Kanellos about ARM. It underscores what I said a few weeks ago about business karma. Specifically, I ranted (who me?) a little about companies built on negativity, suing anybody in their path and ignoring innovation.

There are only two ways to make it as an IP company: bend over backwards to accommodate your customers and potential clients, or sue the pants off of them for patent infringement.

ARM has taken route 1. As a result, the company functions almost like a Swiss bank, providing technical assistance and engineering to avowed enemies.

Go read the whole thing.

I want to rant about Jean Ziegler, the UN Human Rights Commission's special expert on the right to food. He has made it his mission to investigate and disparage Caterpillar Inc because Israel owns some of their bulldozers and uses them to destroy the homes of suspected terrorists. I grew up around Caterpillar equipment because of my grandfather's construction business. I don't immediately think of Israel when I hear the name Caterpillar, but there are some very determined protestors and Jean Ziegler who have decided to take their issues with the Israeli government to Illinois.

Ziegler accused Caterpillar of supplying the Israeli military with armored bulldozers, but Caterpillar, which is headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, said the bulldozers were standard-issue equipment that later may have been modified.

Israel used the bulldozers "to destroy agricultural farms, greenhouses, ancient olive groves and agricultural fields planted with crops, as well as numerous Palestinian homes and sometimes human lives, including that of the American peace activist, Rachel Corrie," Ziegler said.

There was long report about this on Fox News television over the weekend (I will add the link here if Fox puts the report online). In an on-camera interview, Ziegler claimed Caterpillar should not allow its products to be used for "illegal" purposes. Illegal? Forget for a moment that international law is a joke. The UN has admitted that they have no jurisdiction over Caterpillar. In fact, even though the letter to Caterpillar was written on UN letterhead, Ziegler is acting on his own. This is a publicity stunt to bring attention to a political agenda and Caterpillar is collateral damage.

Unfortunately, many businesses have to watch politics as much as the market and economy. Politics change the market dynamic considerably. Caterpillar, if wise, should have a staff of public relations experts creating the proper counter message. Not only is Ziegler threatening the company, but its employees, which Caterpillar has a moral obligation to protect.

Also consider the Stock Building Supply fire in Utah on June 17. the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for the fire that caused $1.5 million in damage. ELF claimed they set the fire at the Stock Building Supply lumber yard to protest the use of diesel forklifts. ELF is using terrorist techniques to shove its agenda into the news. Ironically, the smoke from the fire probably caused more pollution than the forklifts, but nobody said hippies were smart.

This trend of dragging businesses into the political arena is disturbing. Anyone with an agenda can start a stink about any company and receive media attention. Now there are times companies should be scrutinized through the political microscope. IBM still hasn't been held accountable for their support of Nazi Germany during WWII. Then again, it's a little too late to hold companies accountable for their involvement with the slave trade hundreds of years ago. I understand that this is a complicated issue. IBM purposefully involved themselves with an enemy of the United States during wartime and that's clear cut.

However, Caterpillar and Stock Building Supply shouldn't be punished for operating within the law of the United States. International law does not remove our own sovereignty and just because there is a perceived problem, doesn't mean the company should be vandalized or publicly smeared without proof of illegal activity. Political activists have a tendency to skirt the law to prove a point. And this is where companies need to be vigilant with both public relations and ethical business practices. As Enron proved, smoke does lead to fire. Companies with something to hide will be found out.

Companies like Caterpillar are, for the most part, good companies with ethical practices. These companies should ensure they are watching political trends and improving their own security. Self-appointed political activists attacking companies is going to get worse. The best response is to be above board in action and word and protect employees at all costs.

Fox news has placed the video online: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123136,00.html

SCO is getting theirs: SCO tries to reinvigorate product line.

The company's SCOsource effort, which includes its legal actions and its attempt--largely unsuccessful so far--to sell intellectual property licenses to Linux users, could trigger more declines, SCO disclosed in a regulatory filing Monday.

"The decline in our Unix business revenue may be accelerated if industry partners withdraw their support as a result of our SCOsource initiatives and in particular any lawsuits against end users violating our intellectual property and contractual rights," SCO warned in the filing.

This is business karma. You cannot build a business on negativity, no matter how much you are in the right, legally and ethically. Nothing good comes from a negative business campaign and SCO has built it business model on litigation. I won't even go into the pros and cons of their lawsuits. Just step back and picture a school yard bully. He is bigger than the other kids. He wants your lunch money and he's going to get it even if he has to pound you for it. Sure he has a mother and a family. He's probably a smart kid. He may even make good grades. Under different circumstances, you might even like him and he'd let you help him blow up his action figures with real fireworks--something you both enjoy. But at the schoolyard, all you see is an asshole. It's the only side he wants you to see.

SCO is a bully and nobody likes him. What goes around comes around. Karma.

Why is it that only after bankruptcy and a several years of fixing a corporate scandal along with an accounting mess of epic proportions, does MCI think, "Oh, customers are important"?

One of the biggest things is the focus on the customer. We are streamlining our product portfolio and contracts. . . . There's a big focus on the small to midsize business organizations. Field customer service and sales folks were assigned to higher-end customers in the past. Now customer service centers are assigning all those customers to individual reps. We're calling them. We're touching base trying to tell them about new products and services. . . . Virtually every customer has someone assigned to them.

Maybe if the bean counters who cut customer programs in the past and then juggled the books to make up for losses would have focused on the customer in the past........

Nah, it takes an SEC investigation, lawsuits, and years of negative press to remind executives of business fundamentals.

Not too long ago, I commented on the image and cultural problem of the NFL related to Pat Tillman. His death should have shown the sports-powers-that-be what fans really value in an athlete--it's not the bling bling nor is it the bad boy. Professional sports overall has a growing public relations problem and I'm not the only one to notice. Geoffrey Norman did too in WSJ's Opinion Journal:

Shaq endorses everything that costs money, and Kobe did too until he got into trouble with the law. Just as people who didn't know anything about the game would tune in to watch Michael Jordan, nonfans ought to be drawn to Shaq and Kobe, who has been called the heir to Jordan's throne. Plainly, it isn't working out that way.

Perfect for L.A., if not for basketball, these Lakers resemble a troubled film crew on location, with feuding stars, an ever more temperamental, gnomic director (coach Phil Jackson) and egos ceaselessly banging into each other so that the real point of the thing gets lost in the din. Great material for one of those fan magazines where celebrity is its own justification. Who cares if Kobe unilaterally decides to take over a game and plays as though making a pass to the open man might cost him a shoe endorsement? It doesn't matter because . . . he's Kobe.