Measuring Up

A turnaround if I’ve ever seen one

I meant to write this post two weeks back when Amazon, the online retailer, came out with its third quarter earnings. This former dotcom shooting star has quite a turnaround story. I think that Jeff Bezos and the rest of its management team deserve a lot of credit.

Remember Amazon over a decade ago? It was one of the first fast moving “we will be bigger than General Electric” dotcoms that shot right out of the gate in 1997 to become everyone’s darling. The company quickly went from selling books online, to just about everything from CDs, movies, furniture, groceries, jewelry and even commercial freight goods. Boy do I remember those days well. Amazon (and thousands of other dotcoms) had little need to make profits (or revenues for that matter,) because they were being funded by almost any venture capitalist and private equity company who could buy in. So instead, the company focused on expanding as much as possible to build consumer traffic to its site. "Insignificant" considerations like costs, sales and profit were comically overlooked. No, Amazon was going to change the state of commerce forever and all it had to do was build, build and build itself and everything else would be taken care of.

Yup. Then, the world woke up and the dotcom world imploded. For a good four to five years, Amazon was fighting for its life and at times looked as though it would die and be laid to rest in the same dotcom cemetery as so many other high fliers.

But, Jeff Bezos is a fighter. Through the early 2000s he pushed like hell to turn this backwards business model around. I remember how he cut more than half his costs by selling off warehouses (he stopped holding on to all his own inventory,) cutting back on marketing, staff, travel and everything else that could be sliced away. Finally, in 2002, Amazon squeezed out its very first tiny profit. That was a positive sign, but even then the business worlds (especially analysts) were doubtful that his much smaller, streamlined model could work. And, in the next four to five years, we heard very little from Amazon as the company focused its efforts entirely on a real turnaround.

11 years after it was founded, through more turmoil than can be imagined, Amazon demonstrated good earnings recently in its third quarter announcement. The company now turns over $15 billion in annual revenue and met its earnings per share forecast, which is a critical test for anyone looking at the company’s stock. More importantly, once again, Amazon is seen as one of the leaders within the world of Internet retailing. And, that is big.

How did it go from near death to a successful company? Well, if you go to Amazon.com, the answer becomes quite clear. Its model is focused around three compelling criteria that all consumers want:

1) Very good prices
2) A broad selection of products in key categories
3) Convenience

I’d say that the third point is the most appealing one at times. Let’s face it, commerce on the Web is pretty amazing, but it certainly isn’t convenient. Amazon makes sure that each shopper’s experience is as easy as can be.

Amazon also has become very strategic in what it sells, as well as innovative in how it plans to make money. The company decided to drop its “inch wide and mile deep” strategy by cutting so many of those product lines which made absolutely no sense (like groceries,) and instead focused on innovating through newer offerings surrounding digital products that it could lead the way in. For example, it’s Kindle offering (online book reader,) is selling well to those steady customers who buy Amazon’s core products (books.) Amazon created Unbox, which allows shoppers to download movies and TV shows right onto their computers. It launched an mp3 store that rivals iTunes and has participation from every major music label. And, Amazon is even leveraging its digital acumen to become a leader of its own technology (and rents out part of its back end infrastructure to other companies.)

In a nutshell, the company went back to the basics and has again built a solid reputation for itself in this very way. There aren’t a lot of companies that earn a second chance after such a disastrous first one. Granted, there are a lot of questions for any retailer or business now that they’re stuck right in the middle of this terrible economy (and Amazon’s stock has taken a hit just like so many others.)  But, Jeff Bezos and his senior crew deserve to take a bow because they’ve done an admirable job.

First MeasuringUP podcast is now online

This week, Sam Ford (our Director of Customer Insights) and I posted our first podcast. The topic focused on politics and brand building and is being launched through Steve and Ted’s RepChatter podcast series. Thank you, Steve.  Future podcasts will be coming soon, and they will be housed on MeasuringUP as well as our PepperDigital blog that Sam contributes to. In the spirit of this chat, I’ve written a post here,   Sam has written on the topic, and we’ve invited other PR bloggers to join in the conversation. You can see posts from Frank X. Shaw, Todd Defren, Talya Bosch, Ted Weismann, Indra Gardiner, and our own Matt Purdue on the topic as well.

The art behind building the brand of Obama

I’ve read reports that Barack Obama’s campaign has raised more than $650 million through September. Let’s have fun and take a guess that the total amount raised through this election will be around $800 million. It wouldn’t be too farfetched to surmise that most of these funds are somehow leveraged to build the Obama brand to become the candidate of choice. After all, those $$$ are paying for his staff (who spread his gospel,) advertising, public relations, digital communications, large events, more fund raisers, travel costs and many other line items that are focused on “getting the word out” about this candidate.

Assuming you agree with my hypothesis, let’s compare this brand building initiative to what the biggest corporate marketers in the world spent last year. It’s kind of astonishing – Barack Obama’s presidential campaign would be ranked 36th among this prestigious list of corporations. This means that more resources are invested in building the Obama brand than that of Colgate, Microsoft, HP, Viacom, Wal-Mart, Cannon and Samsung.

Think about that for a second. All of these companies spend a lot of money on brand building. But, those budgets are spread across hundreds or thousands of products/services, as well as on the mother brand itself. This dilutes the impact that any one marketing initiative can have on a specific product or corporate brand. Obama’s campaign (on the other hand) continues to singularly focus (like a laser beam) on pushing out the same core messages to America for almost two years now. Just as importantly, the essence of who Obama is (his brand essence some might say) has been consistently choreographed and emitted to the American public in the same strategic manner as well. This has to be one of the largest, concentrated brand-building campaigns of all time.

Of course, brand building isn’t just about the $$$ being spent. And, creating a Presidential brand isn’t an easy assignment. For every ad, email, speech, conversation or article that pushes out the brand of Obama, there are countless negative forces being aimed directly at his reputation. Most of the time, this waters down so much of the positive image that is trying to be built. And, among many disparate audiences, those negatives are believed and taken as gospel (i.e. the man is connected to terrorism.)

In my estimation, this is precisely why Senator Obama’s campaign advisors (brand builders) deserve so much credit. You see, from the day Obama announced his Presidential bid, it’s clear that his advisors had a strategy to reinforce a number of core attributes/beliefs that the Obama brand would stand for. Love or hate the man, the brand of Obama has never wavered (through all the attacks and adversity) and in these final days before he probably becomes our next President, it’s fair to say that the excitement generated because of the Obama brand is a large reason for this success. The Obama camp has brought back so many of JFK’s attributes and brand promises to attract those same audiences that made “Camelot” so appealing to young people in 1960. These include:

-    Fresh, invigorating, change that young people want to be a part of; a new way of thinking; standing for something higher in life; freedom from the old way of politics; something that stands for a greater good; a man who is charismatic and cares.

Yes, I know it’s also about the economy… stupid. That certainly helped to turn the tide on any Republican candidate. Additionally, as I wrote about a few days back Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate certainly didn’t help matters. But there is nothing subtle about the way Barack Obama’s brand has been masterfully built.  I tip my hat to those campaign wizards who had the foresight to make it happen.

UPDATE: Frank X. Shaw has posted his own response to this topic over on Glass House. His post focuses on the concept of "fragile branding" in politics. Meanwhile, see Todd Defren's post about Obama "CMO" David Plouffe, Talya Bosch's post on America as a brand in relation to the political election, Ted Weismann's post on negative depositioning in brand differentiation (political and otherwise), Indra Gardiner's post on Obama's campaign and how it coincides with Seth Godin's book Tribes, and our own Sam Ford's post on "real America" as a brand and Matt Purdue's post on successful Obama strategies that businesses should learn from.

A man without a party

Over the last month, it’s become painfully clear that this headline rings true for me. I’m sure many  thousands of other former liberal/moderate republicans now feel the same. This week, in frustration, I decided to write the following email to Senator John McCain to explain how the party’s decision to recast its image and become something that is entirely unrecognizable and uncomfortable has caused me to rethink my views and affiliation with his republican party. My thoughts are below:

Dear Senator McCain,

My wife likes to tell me that I’m now a man without a party. And, for the first time, I’m whole heartedly agreeing with her. And, that is a true shame.

You see, for the last 15 years I’ve called myself a Republican. Like many in the Northeast, a decade ago I felt comfortable having liberal social views, while believing in many of the republican ideals of lower taxes/less spending/less government intervention. My problem is that, today, this party doesn’t stand for most any of these ideals anymore. And, in fact, those with liberal social views (in New Jersey we call these people “Tom Kean Republicans”), have been cast aside and essentially been told by this party that we aren’t wanted any more.

Don’t feel entirely bad. This evolution (pun intended) isn’t even remotely just your fault. Over the last eight years, Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of their evangelical crew have done such a tremendous job solidifying their iron-clad, “take it or leave it” beliefs, that you really had little choice but to continue leading this charge to build even greater acceptance of close mindedness and Puritan-like virtues.

Surprisingly, the fact that I can’t identify with this sort of thinking still didn’t push me over the edge to leave your party though. My discomfort with these views was growing stronger. But, I also understand that the U.S. might as well be considered seven or eight mini- countries because the social views are so different and distinct depending upon the geo-economic and cultural conditions that people live in. In my mind, I rationalized (incorrectly) that somehow more socially moderate Republicans would rise again to offer some accepted guidance within this party.

Even though I now doubt that this will happen any time soon, it was your abominable choice for a running mate just a few months back that solidified my Independent standing and caused me to jump head first out of this Republican Party. Quite simply, Sarah Palin represents two things that I simply cannot accept. And, I blame you (entirely) for that:

1.) Joe Six Pack – What happened to those smart, intellectual republicans who used to lead this party and with whom this party identified with? More to the point, when did the Republican Party become one that solely caters to the working class, blue collar man who “supposedly” only cares about being able sit on his couch and drink his “six pack” of beer? Why are small town, working class people the only “real Americans” with real values? By selecting Sarah Palin and having her ride this theme, I believe you have forgotten about and completely alienated hundreds of thousands of republicans who are White Collar professionals. These folks (like me) want to know that their party is intelligent, is thinking about our problems and will represent our interests well once in the White House. Instead, Palin’s rhetoric is transparently insulting to those educated constituents who can’t relate nor believe the messages that we will be better off with her in office. The way she whips crowds into a mob like frenzy by pushing the “us versus them” chant is downright scary because I’m really not sure who “them” is in this case (in fact, I’m starting to think that anyone with a white collar job that is somehow connected to Wall Street is lumped into that general category.)

The bottom line is that the new McCain/Palin Republican Party exponentially increases the separation and animosity between the “haves” versus the “have not’s” that the Bush Administration started eight years ago. This is a flawed strategy that Sarah Palin is very good at executing.

2.) The wrong priority – I really didn’t want to see you pick a religious right wing fanatic as your running mate. But, I might have accepted it if this wasn’t the most important characteristic in your selection and if that person had important experience that our country needs. Sarah Palin’s lack of experience, knowledge (uh…how hard is it to tell the press what you like to read?) and any type of attributes that make her prepared for the President’s job is just plain scary. And, your decisions to choose social/religious beliefs over these vital criteria made me run for the hills. To think that Ms. Palin is a breath away from becoming president should you win our highest office, is truly frightening and (as the media continue to hound you on) demonstrates your poor decision making on an absolutely critical issue.

Senator, I watched the vice presidential debate with complete objectivity. I was hoping that Ms. Palin would should signs of knowledge and that she truly understood the serious issues before her. Instead, I saw a woman who quite literally read from her notes and who wouldn’t answer any questions that were thrown at her. I wish that the moderator would have asked each candidate to rip up their notes at the beginning because I have no doubt that it would have showed the entire country that this woman knows nothing about the real national/global issues that are important.

Senator McCain, this is not my Republican Party any more. For the first time, your decisions have forced hundreds of thousands of Americans (former Republicans) in similar positions to vote for the other guy or simply stay home entirely.  Oh, how you have miscalculated this strategy. To think that some of us will actually prefer to vote for someone as liberal as the democratic nominee versus someone from our own party, says it all.

Sincerely,
Edward Moed

Results, results, results...

In the early days of Peppercom, we had a client who loved to use these three words (the headline   above) with Steve and me when discussing his business. His singular focus for our agency, and anyone else that worked for him, was very plain and simple: get results and you'll continue to be valued by our organization. If you can't, don't let the door hit you on the way out. We always chuckled when he said it. But, his no nonsense philosophy was smart and appealing because it allowed our agency to concentrate our energies on what really mattered most.

Yesterday, as I sat and listened to a special Council of PR Firms "Critical Issues Forum" interview with another corporate marketer, I felt a strong sense of déjà vu. Wall Street Journal media/marketing reporter Suzanne Vranica interviewed Eastman Kodak CMO Jeff Hayzlett on the topics of the economy, how he leverages agency resources, what success looks like to him, and a host of other topics, in front of an audience of 100 agency leaders. The conversation was both enlightening and refreshing.

As Suzanne tried to prod and extract the most interesting (and potentially controversial) intelligence from Jeff for our audience, a resounding theme emerged over and over again. You see, Jeff works with multiple public relations, advertising and marketing agencies and controls budgets well north of $100 million. But, in the end he doesn't care about any of the fancy packaging that agencies create for themselves. He cares even less about whether his agencies are independent, owned by a larger holding company, small, medium sized or the largest in the world. Jeff isn't interested in lots of fancy charts, graphs and PowerPoint presentations to demonstrate metrics, ideas or new strategies.

No, instead he just needs to understand what your agency does best and can do extraordinarily for him. And then, he wants you to set goals and push the envelope to succeed. And, you better bring account people to the table who understand his business in a substantive way, because he believes that those specialized and strategic firms are the ones best equipped to bring about the type of success he is looking for.

Jeff's no nonsense attitude was almost entirely refreshing. He needs and expects all of Eastman Kodak's agencies to play nicely in the sandbox together. If one can't, regardless of its positive contributions to his efforts, Jeff will terminate the relationship. I think his exact words were, "We liked you. But, we'll miss you."

So, how does he measure success? Well, first of all he likes to assess it in simple terms. Is the campaign having a direct impact on sales (most critical question)? And, how is it moving our brand forward? Just as importantly, he'll never look at any document with more than two slides. Jeff feels if metrics, ideas or strategies can't be presented in two slides, then they probably aren't worth looking at (that's a page right out of the Jack Welch GE Handbook). He joked that the result is an awful lot of time saved because the meetings are so much shorter.

When Suzanne asked Jeff if he planned to cut his marketing spend in this tough economy, he gave the right answer as well. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like, "Why would I cut now? I see this as an opportunity to increase sales and grow our brand in tough times. We will make strategic choices on key spends to maximize our $$$ on the disciplines that will generate the best results."

Jeff then gave us an example. He cut away traditional broadcast advertising (30 and 60 second spots). Instead, he maximized those $$$ through a strategic product placement opportunity on Donald Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” show. The cost of the marketing spend was cheaper. But, that’s incidental. Eastman Kodak’s products were mentioned once every four minutes throughout the show, driving greater sales. And, because the show is syndicated in 187 countries he can leverage other disciplines (PR, events, etc.) around each showing to maximize further sales and brand building in each country. Jeff referred to this winning scenario as “OPM.” He loves to use Other Peoples’ Money to generate success.

This top marketer didn’t come without a few quirks. He believes his job is to create angst and some discord among agencies and those who work for him. Jeff believes that this forces his people to keep thinking about what’s next. I take that to mean that he’s continually throwing new obstacles at them and creating greater challenges. There’s no doubt that if done correctly, this concept can achieve his goals. On the other hand, it can also create an atmosphere of fear that forces people to take their eye off the ball. And, that ain’t good.

Putting the last point above aside, I’d like to see more corporate marketers take on Jeff’s values and business attitudes. If that happened, it would undoubtedly create agency relationships that are significantly more focused and 100 percent more results driven... a huge plus for our industry.

This ad is simply unbelievable

In searching the Internet for news this morning I came across this ad.

I thought about just how little credibility Countrywide Financial should have at this point in time. And, for the life of me, I can't understand why this company (which symbolizes all that is negative in our current subprime disaster,) would continue to push its brand out to consumers.

Think back to January of this year. Countrywide almost collapsed as the full extent of its large subprime portfolio was uncovered and plummeted in value. Countrywide was a shooting star that came from nowhere to become one of the largest mortgage banks in the country. Now, we know why. Like all "too good to be true" growth stories, it gained enormous traction by leading the market in pushing out these risky and just plain bad loans.

So, when the music ended, Countrywide found itself without a chair and had to be rescued by the Bank of America at the last moment (to avoid going under.) BOA picked up the phony financial giant for pennies on the dollar. The net result is that BOA received some good assets (as well as liabilities) and a real mortgage capability and Countrywide investors lost out big time. Many of their subprime mortgage holders have since defaulted away their houses.

My point is that the Countrywide brand was seriously tarnished when this collapse happened. Even if BOA doesn't plan to close the actual deal with Countrywide until ‘09, I think it's making a huge mistake in pushing the brand out through these questionable advertisements.

It's not just that the brand is not believable. But, to showcase discount rates (which I also don't believe in this tight credit environment) from Countrywide, gives me a visual of a carnival huckster selling special elixirs that can cure all diseases. That's right – they are both full of sh*t.

If I was in charge of the Countrywide/BOA brand integration, I would remove any reference to this Enron-like banking company in all marketing campaigns. There is no reason why the Countrywide mortgage apparatus can't be handling all the loans in the backroom, while BOA pushes out its brand in ads like this instead. I guarantee that consumers would respond more favorably... especially in this environment. And, BOA can dump a brand that will do it no good into the future.

Big Ben versus the Big Apple

I'm spending time in our London office this week. I happened to strike an interesting conversation about the pros and cons of New York City versus London with Carl Foster, one of our senior employees based here.

Although Carl is a British national, he spent two years working and living in Boston, frequenting New York often. I, on the other hand, have been coming to London quite often for the better part of a decade. So, we both have plenty of good and bad experiences in each other's home city to offer relevant thoughts. Below, is our take on a few examples of the good, bad and ugly that separates New York City (and surrounding suburbs) from London (and vice versa.)

London (the good) versus New York (the bad)

Carl - Supermarkets - The overall quality of food is much better in UK supermarkets. The best you can get in a US supermarket are those tasteless, Hungary Men dinners. There is a much better selection of fresh and prepared food here. Even the smallest supermarkets have entire aisles devoted to fresh rolls and breads, meats and other items to make immediate sandwiches with. In the states, these types of benefits are only available at places like Whole Foods. Having said all this, people in the US eat out a lot more than they do here, and the food is better, not to mention the service. 

Ed - Political campaigns - British political campaigns typically don't begin until six weeks before the actual election. This is even true at the top of the political ticket, the contest to see which party will occupy the prime minister's seat. That is simply amazing and a God send. I can only dream and pray that our party leaders would learn something from their friends across the pond and shorten those 12-24 month, long and grueling campaigns to a more appealing length of time.

Carl - Taxi journeys are a lot better in London than in the NY for one simple reason: legroom. Why is it that those huge yellow cabs in NY have no leg room in the back? And just to make matters worse, there is usually the old fitting for a cigarette holder for you to gash your knee on. London cab drivers might not be too friendly, but at least you can stretch your legs out.

London (the bad) Versus New York (the good)

Ed - TV - From what I've seen and heard (from Carl), most households still only receive a basic package of TV access that usually only includes five channels. Of course, there are those who are able to buy packages with 40 or more channels. But, only some of these allow for the American version of On Demand, or so many unique movie channels, or U.S. shows/sports (yes, I'm the ugly American). Chris Cody, (my partner's son) had to buy a special Internet package, just to receive NFL games over his computer. Not fun.

Carl - Air conditioning - God bless America and the inventor of A/C. So what if puts out more carbon emissions than a fleet of dirty dump trucks? It keeps you cool. One thing you don't see in London is an office full of people wearing jumpers because the A/C is on too high. We just swelter for the one week of the year we get very hot weather and then grumble about the rain the rest of the time.

Ed - Bathroom water faucets - Another long standing tradition in the UK is the separate hot and cold water duel faucets in each sink. Again, I'm not really sure why faucet manufacturers here couldn't innovate a little by creating one faucet emitting both hot and cold water... but Carl tells me that I'm just asking for too much. Maybe a few creative New York plumbers should fly over and provide their own strategic recommendations. The bottom line is that it feels very 1960s though... and that isn't good.

Carl - Airports - New York and London are two of the world's largest international airport hubs, but pity the poor soul that has to navigate through one of London's airports. My last trip to NY involved endless queuing in what seemed like a construction site at Heathrow. When they say leave three hours they mean it. My return trip through JFK was a dream. I waited for two minutes before checking in. Why we seem to have so many problems is beyond me.

London (the ugly) versus New York (the good)

Ed -  Hotel conveniences - London has some of the most beautiful (and classic) hotels in the world. But, it boggles my mind how clueless even the four and five star establishments are with regard to some key nuances. For example, why can't they put electric outlets in bathrooms? I've heard there are voltage/wattage issues. Regardless, it makes little sense when a hotel provides you with a hair dryer and then you have to bend over the side of a closet or dresser (in the most uncomfortable way), jut to use it. New York hotels have outlets next to your bed also to plug in an alarm clock (or Blackberry). Not the case in London hotels. They are almost always located in an obscure corner of the room that is hard to reach.

Carl - Street crime - Whether it be reality or media fueled perception, there is a problem with street crime in London. NY might still have a reputation of being a big dangerous city, but London feels far more dangerous at night than any part of NY. Seemingly there is a policeman on every street corner in Manhattan; in London, the 'Bobby on the beat' is a rare sight. I'd say London needs a good dose of Rudy Giuliani broken windows policies.

Ed - Back to the TV channel accessibility issue again - I've never been to a London hotel that offers more that 10 channels. Typically, CNN and CNBC are the only ones that are of interest to anyone who isn't British.

Feel free to chime in on other comparisons that Carl and I have missed.

Companies void of strategy, innovation and execution deserve to be shuttered

I cannot believe that we’re reading about the possibility of General Motors merging with either Ford or Chrysler. That has to be the most absurd idea I’ve heard in a long while.

I can’t believe that we’re hearing rumors that there might be a government bailout for GM and possibly the other two (mentioned above.) That just boggles my mind.

General Motors is a very sick company. Certainly, some of this has to do with spiking gas prices over the last few months (ain’t it nice to see that’s over). And, no doubt, a recessionary economy has taken a bite out of GM’s car sales across the U.S. and the world. But, those issues are incidental in the big picture of why GM is failing. The fact is that General Motors’ overall strategy of betting on SUVs and trucks as its meal tickets were just plain wrong. Furthermore, its lack of foresight to see how important energy efficient cars would put it miles behind Toyota and its other non-US competitors in the race for profits. And, the company’s failure to innovate by creating cars that Americans actually find appealing (imagine that) should pretty much put the “nail in GM’s coffin.”  Ironically, when our economy was in excellent shape (over the last five years), General Motors suffered just the same. And, there is no excuse for that.

Now, in the midst of the worst economy, the company is sucking wind big time for cash. So, it is exploring mergers with those two other sick US car makers with the hope that two sick companies with a little more cash, can last longer than one with a little less. Think about that strategy for a second. There is really no hope that a combined GM and Ford can create more innovative products to compete in tomorrow’s market place. No, instead they hope that this strategy will simply allow one, big and bloated company to limp along for a couple more years by cutting redundancies, slashing all costs and adding cash.  With all of that, I’ve heard nothing about how this merger could create a better business strategy, allow one company to innovate more successfully to design better cars, or execute on new and improved sales strategies, though. That’s a telling sign – GM is a brain dead company and this merger will only create operational efficiencies for continued disappointment.

So, why on earth should our government step in to subsidize GM (and its other two woeful Detroit competitors)? These companies failed because they weren’t smart enough to succeed. Yes, we all know that many employees and their families will be hurt. But, hundreds of thousands have already been hurt through layoffs over the last decade. Surely, the demise of General Motors should not be a surprise to anyone now. It’s a sad state of affairs, but those employees need to prepare to leverage their skills in other industries that will continue to be important to our economy.

Our government rescued and is now reorganizing Wall Street because it impacts Americans everywhere. If those banks and giant insurance companies were allowed to fall, we would have dropped deep into our country’s second great depression. More to the point, companies like AIG have solid assets and are completely competitive within their industries. Their stupidity focused more around greed and making bad bets on hugely risky investments. It’s hard to reason that any type of economic calamity across our country would happen because General Motors or its two smaller brethren shuttered their doors. It is a little depressing to realize that the US car manufacturing industry is falling apart. But, we need to get over it and let the natural process of capitalism continue.

General Motors is heading to the same corporate graveyard as Digital Equipment, US Steel, Arthur Andersen and those other former kings of industry that simply lost their way. And, that is another part of the American way.

Reporter of business news or hangman?

I turned on CNBC at about 5pm yesterday afternoon to better understand the latest stock market calamity. And, even by the standards of today's broadcast news, I was surprised at what I saw and heard.

"Fast Money" anchor Dylan Ratigan and his five steel jawed, angry looking guest hosts were steaming mad. The mood was ominous and the tone of the conversation that had just begun was downright ugly.

You see, Mr. Ratigan wasn't focusing on why the Dow had just tumbled 700+ points, or where we could be heading tomorrow. No Dylan wanted blood and he wanted it right then and there.

His tone and constant rhetoric focused solely on finding those "despicable, corrupt few politicians whose greed put us square in the middle of this disaster." I watched in amazement as Mr. Ratigan went back and forth among his guest hosts (who ranged from a head of a trading firm, to a research analyst, to an asset manager), whipping them all into a frenzied lynch mob as they debated who should be hanging from the closest tree in Fort Lee.

Mr. Ratigan accepted calls from the outside as well. Each time, his hanging theme was reinforced and pushed out to the next caller in the hopes of supporting the anchor's rallying cry for what felt like the start of a mini revolution. It wasn't until 45 minutes later when a former New York Fed Governor, and highly respected economist came on the phone to squash this mini rebellion, that some sanity was restored and the lynch mob-five calmed down and started conversing about rational economic topics (like what has to happen now to give investors more confidence.)

Wow. This anchor may have missed his calling. If he was born 20 years earlier, he could have been whipping crowds into frenzies on either side of the civil rights debate, instead.

What's my point to this story?

I think that a lot of people let us down and are probably to blame for this monumental mess. Certainly some of them are politicians. The irony is that because most politicians have no real understanding of how our economy works, they probably made these decisions without any clue as to the negative outcomes that we all now feel.

But, where has the state of our media come to when a news show on CNBC is now playing judge, juror and hangman in front of millions of viewers? That's just crazy.

Yes, I know that a large percentage of our media do not cover news objectively anymore. And, there are those on the fringe (like Keith Olbermann, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs) who really aren't media anchors anymore. Instead, they are analysts or columnists who espouse a one sided focused view or belief.

But it's a shame to see that savvy business news from traditional CNBC shows (this wasn't the Jim Cramer show) are now completely sensationalistic and are (in my view) playing a very dangerous role by pushing viewers to hate and even possibly hurt those who are to blame. This is Jerry Springer journalism and that just isn't right.

Spoofs created for today’s financial market

Since today is a quasi-holiday, I’ve decided to write a post that doesn’t require a lot of thought and is also a tad humorous. My father-in-law emailed me a number of “new definitions” for highly used terms in the corporate/financial world. I’ve included the ones that made me chuckle the most. Good reading and please feel free to add any other funny ones:

NEW STOCK MARKET TERMS

CEO: Chief Embezzlement Officer.
CFO: Corporate Fraud Officer.
BULL MARKET: A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.
BEAR MARKET: A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no
allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.
P/E RATIO: The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market keeps crashing.
BROKER: What my broker has made me.
STANDARD & POOR: Your life in a nutshell.
STOCK ANALYST: Idiot who just downgraded your stock.
FINANCIAL PLANNER: A guy whose phone has been disconnected.
MARKET CORRECTION: The day after you buy stocks.
CASH FLOW: The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR: Past year investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse.
PROFIT: An archaic word no longer in use.