October 31, 2007 1:59 pm : Comments 001
It’s ok to be a Yankee fan. I’m not talking to you fair-weather fans who are wearing day-old baseball caps, but the true diehards who rooted for the Yankees in the hot summer sun even when they were 14+ games out of first place; the true fans of baseball. Yes, the Yankees had yet another post-season collapse, but it’s not the team’s on-field exploits that caused me to question my faith as a fan, despite what Red Sox Nation will have you believe.
This post-season featured another episode in the annual Torre saga: a high payroll, superstar-laden team having a round one failure, George Steinbrenner issuing an ultimatum, and Yankee management still tendering another contract. The difference this year? Joe Torre turned down the Yankees. My entire world tilted.
While the Yankees have seen better days, the fault lines (such as starting pitching) were there well before Game One played out in Cleveland; remember they had to have one of the best regular season comebacks in baseball history just to make it to the playoffs. If they were going to fire Torre though, which I was against, I wanted to see it done quickly and with the respect he deserved. Sadly, this was just wishful thinking
Keeping the Yankees in the national news is a guaranteed money maker, and Yankee management knows that. Baseball is currently in a golden age (despite the steroids abuse scandal), and the Yankees are its fussy diva. They are the team you love to hate or hate to love, but either way, you pay attention. The Yankees have an entire sport divided on their every move; is it any wonder that the Yankees cable network is worth twice as much as the team itself?
It’s hard to admit, but Boston pitcher Curt Shilling touched a nerve when he stated the obvious that the Yankees were “making sure we were updated every 15 minutes about when they were actually going to name their manager.” This was after more than 2 weeks of constant coverage on Torre’s fate. Sure New York’s rabid media plays a large part in the firestorm, but someone has to feed the beast, and no one else in baseball has done that better than Steinbrenner & Co. Ray Ratto of CBS Sports sums it up perfectly:
New York, though, throws its drama at you whether you want it or not, and demands that you be interested far beyond your capabilities, which is why the Torre story has so run its natural course.
Who else but the Yankees could turn a managerial job change into such high-stakes drama? At least four other MLB managers have moved on this season, yet none of them have had the relentless coverage of the Torre saga. Watch the national news and be hard-pressed to find any team in any sport coming close to the Yankees for coverage. A Google Trends search of George Steinbrenner shows that its not just people in the New York metro area who are curious about him. Call me na�ve, but is the team that I’ve loved since my childhood become nothing more than a “brand?”
Since their last World Series win in 2000, I’ve watched the “House that Ruth Built” being torn down for a new ballpark, the team consistently overpaying for “superstars” who lose in the post-season, Yankee heroes insulted by team executives and now Torre treated like an interim manager. Any one of these alone is a staggering hit to the hallowed legacy of the Yankees; collectively, they are near fatal blows. But it is this same legacy that sustains me as a fan.
DiMaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Jeter, Torre – they all have their faults as people off the diamond, but there was no mistaking that they truly believed in what the Yankees stood for and they showed it nearly every day on the field. It is the players and pride that make the team and ultimately derive its value, not the other way around. This is what being a Yankee fan stands for.
While other fans may chide me for supporting a team that “buys” its victories, and forces out one of the greatest managers in the history of baseball, I still wear my pinstripes without hesitation. No matter what obstacles are thrown in its way, know that the Yankees will always be a team of history and heritage, as it always has been.
I have no doubt that Joe Girardi, the new Yankee skipper; will guide the Yankees into the next chapter with great class and success. After next season though, he’ll be doing it across the street, in the “House that Torre Built.”
Share This Post
October 26, 2007 1:26 pm : Comments 003
The New York Observer, a quirky newspaper that is often first to take note of social and other trends, this week has a story that should be a must read for anyone who is concerned about the future of America’s national media. The story focused on how reporters are increasingly trying to brand themselves and that even The New York Times – a newspaper that didn’t routinely give bylines to all its reporter until the 1970s – is falling into step with the trend.
Julia Allison could be said to represent the new class of brand-conscious “reporters”. This “dating” columnist for Time Out magazine and “editor-at-large” for the gossip rag Star, is quoted in The Observer piece rationalizing her own “brand me, baby!” ways:
“I looked around, and I saw that the people who were getting assignments and getting paid really nicely for it were names. They were brands,” said Ms. Allison. “All journalists are journeymen. You might have a PR team you work with at your magazine that’s taking care of the magazine, but who’s taking care of YOU? Ultimately, you’re replaceable if you’re not a brand.”
Once upon a time journalists pursued their craft because of a passion for truth, justice, and the American Way (or was that Superman?). Back then, the only way to get ahead in the business was to deliver great copy about great stories. If you wanted to see your name in lights, you probably couldn’t make a worse career choice than journalism, the few exceptions like Ed Morrow notwithstanding.
It’s heartening to know there are still a few reporters out there who haven’t lost sight about the true mission of journalism, and who understand and appreciate the responsibility and privileges that come with being part of the profession. One such reporter is Dan Popkey, a political columnist with the Idaho Statesman. His name is no doubt familiar to more than a few for his coverage of the Senator Larry Craig saga. Mr. Popkey recently spoke to Matthew Felling, co-editor of the CBSNews.com daily blog “Public Eye”. The resulting interview speaks for itself.
Share This Post
October 23, 2007 12:20 pm : Comments 000
I was saddened to read this morning that Vincent DeDomenico died. He was the man behind Rice-A-Roni, the well-known pasta-meets-rice comfort food with the catchy and enduring advertising jingle that I paid tribute to just last week.
Rice-A-Roni is etched in the minds of an entire generation as being “The San Francisco Treat” thanks to an addictively catchy jingle that was paired with an equally unforgettable advertising campaign highlighting the city’s beloved cable cars and the jangle of their bells.
“One thing my dad insisted upon was a jingle,” his daughter Marla Bleecher told The New York Times. “He said if there is a jingle, people will say it over and over in their heads.”
Mr. DeDomenico certainly got that right.
Given that the city and its famous cable cars are so much a part of the Rice-A-Roni story, it seems only fitting that San Francisco acknowledge the passing of a man who no doubt did wonders to boost the city’s tourism over the years. Rather than a minute of silence, however, I suggest a minute of loud cable car bell ringing to commemorate his memory.
Share This Post
October 15, 2007 3:48 pm : Comments 000
Is it just me who can’t help start singing “Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat” every time I hear the bell of a San Francisco cable car? The commercial hasn’t aired in years yet every time I visit the City by the Bay it still keeps playing in my head over-and-over-and-over…
Is there a clinic that treats Rice-A-Roni Jingle on the Brain?
Now repeat after me:
Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat. Rice-A-Roni the flavor can’t be beat…
4 of 9
Share This Post
September 6, 2007 9:34 am : Comments 001
As originally posted on Strumpette.com on September 6, 2007.
Like a writer who keeps random plot line ideas and bits of dialogue scribbled in a notebook kept by the side of the bed, I’ve kept the Daily News‘ infamous “Ford to City” headline in the back of my head, just waiting for the right opportunity to rip it off. Thanks to Apple CEO Steve Jobs latest orchestrations, the moment finally arrived.
The technology impresario announced yesterday that Apple would slash the price of its iPhone by some 33%, but denied that lower-than-expected sales were the reason. As he told the New York Times: “It’s very clear we have a breakthrough product on our hands, but it’s also clear that many can afford it, some can’t. We’d like to make it affordable to even more folks going into this holiday season.”
So exactly when did Apple become a philanthropic organization for the tech gadget-deprived?
I don’t know about you, but if I was one of the Apple diehards who camped out overnight a mere 10 weeks ago just for the privilege of coughing up $600 the next morning to get their mitts on an iPhone, I’d be pretty ticked off right now. And I’d go into orbit after reading Jobs’ dismissive comment to USA Today about the brand-worshipping customers who paid full price: “That’s technology. If they bought it this morning, they should go back to where they bought it and talk to them. If they bought it a month ago, well, that’s what happens in technology.”
Can you imagine the fallout if, let’s say, BMW suddenly slashed the cost of its highly popular 3-Series cars by more than 30% just weeks after they were introduced? Or if Rolex slashed the prices of its watches by 30%? The brands would be forever damaged. But the traditional rules of branding and public relations don’t seem to apply to Steve Jobs, and his fire sale discounting of the iPhone is only the latest example.
Take Apple’s exclusive partnership with AT&T. The telecom company has one of the slowest wireless networks around and a solid reputation for bad customer service. Apple offers superior technology, and while its customer support has deteriorated somewhat, it’s still way better than its competitors. The pairing of the two companies is as mismatched as Armani entering an exclusive distribution agreement with Sears.
Then there is the iPhone’s inconvenient replacement battery requirement which, with the exception of the New York Times‘ Joe Nocera, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Like all cell phones, this one’s battery will eventually need to be replaced (Apple says the original one will last 200-400 charges, approximately 12-14 months). The kicker is that is must be sent back to Apple, however, leaving people without their beloved iPhone’s for an estimated 10 days. I’m hardly a heavy cell phone user, but being without my phone for just one day would cause me some angst – and mine doesn’t have all the fancy bells and whistles that the iPhone does! A couple of lawsuits have already been filed regarding Apple’s battery replacement policy, but they have received scant media attention.
The cost to replace the battery will be approximately $100, or roughly one quarter the cost of the newly discounted iPhone. My guess is that Jobs will have the next generation model out within a year and he’s banking that a good number of iPhone owners will decide they’ll get better value for their money by replacing the whole phone with the latest version instead of just getting a new battery.
Truthfully, I’m somewhat in awe of Steve Jobs. I give him credit for his unparalleled ability to get away with sticking it to his most ardent customers, for getting the technology media to dance for him like puppets on a string, and for creating an aura that he is not someone driven by profits and personal wealth. P.T. Barnum has long been regarded as the greatest showman on earth, but I suspect even he would agree that Steve Jobs is in a league by himself.
Share This Post
July 20, 2007 1:19 pm : Comments 000
As originally posted on Strumpette.com on July 20, 2007.
Few things in public relations are harder than getting reporters and their outlets to admit they have screwed up. And I don’t just mean when it comes to reporting on issues that are admittedly open to interpretation, such as whether the CEO really was “fired” (their choice) or “stepped down to pursue other interests” (the client’s preference). Wrangling a printed correction or clarification or even a verbal “oops” over the phone for any mistake at times seems more challenging than selling Soldier of Fortune subscriptions to Quakers.
So kudos to BusinessWeek for chowing down on a heaping plate of humble pie in its July 23rd issue by publishing a story about Volkswagen’s “last-ditch drive” to save its U.S. operations. It was just over a year ago that the same magazine published a rather different article – a cover story no less – that was much more effusive about Volkswagen’s prospects, thanks in large part to its retaining Miami-based Crispin Porter + Bogusky, a “hot” ad team it hired to lead the big push to “rekindle” the Volkswagen brand.
To be fair, the earlier cover story wasn’t a total puff piece. The magazine did include commentary from ad industry execs who accurately foresaw the marriage of Volkswagen and Crispin Porter + Bogusky as an ominous one. Peter M. DeLorenzo, publisher of Autoextremist.com, was quoted saying that Kerri Martin (Volkswagen’s “director of brand innovation”) and Crispin Porter + Bogusky “would destroy the brand in the U.S. once and for all” if they weren’t stopped. BusinessWeek also noted that Advertising Age pulled no punches in its of review Crispin Porter + Bogusky’s first ad, writing that it was “so horrendously awful that it smoothes the way for Volkswagen’s quick and complete withdrawal from the American market.”
As it turned out, BusinessWeek should have given the detractors a tad more ink because they were right on the money. Volkswagen’s sales last year slid to 235,000 compared to 338,000 in 2002. Hindsight, what a wonderful thing.
Very much to its credit, BusinessWeek makes clear in its latest Volkswagen story that the exuberant vibe that ran through its May 2006 cover story was a bit premature and that its reporting could have benefited from a lengthier “to be sure” paragraph of cautionary insights. And it reminded readers of its earlier cover story. I wonder how many publications would have chosen to simply ignore Volkswagen’s current plight had they earlier published a similarly ill-judged cover story about the company’s turnaround efforts. I admire and respect BusinessWeek’s integrity, which is why I’ve long been a long and devoted reader.
Reading the two BusinessWeek stories side by side, there is a clear lesson to be learned from Volkswagen’s mistakes – and no, I don’t only mean the questionable decision to use a thick-accented, bleached blonde, dominatrix-type named Helga and an equally over-the-top German Engineer named Wolfgang to sell economically priced compacts.
It’s about overemphasizing image and style over “delivering the goods.” It’s about thinking that clever gimmicks, big marketing budgets, and slick ads are enough to make the silk purse from the sow’s ear and, if need be, make the sow’s ear as well. It’s about the dangers of putting all the public relations, advertising and marketing eggs in any one basket, and entrusting it to someone (or some functional group) who doesn’t know nearly enough about the multiple disciplines to keep a steady grip. Typically, it’s the Almighty Grand Poobah Brand Manager who gets that gig.
At Volkswagen, it was the “hot” advertising agency that seemed to be entrusted with the brand basket. It was Crispin Porter + Bogusky that talked Volkswagen into recasting the redesigned VW Golf as the VW Rabbit, a brand that hadn’t been used in 20 years (possibly, just possibly, because it was a problem-plagued car that frequently broke down or caught fire). Crispin Porter + Bogusky, by the way, is the same organization that believes good advertising “is anything that makes our clients famous” and responded to criticisms of its strategy by saying “I like that they are talking about the work. If they aren’t talking, then your brand is dead.” (There’s just so much wrong with those statements, but I’ll leave it for another day.)
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Crispin Porter + Bogusky is totally to blame for Volkswagen’s continued failure to launch. After all, Volkswagen was not exactly at the top of its competitive game when the agency was hired and the products they were asked to support are as lackluster as ever (there’s just so much lipstick you can put on a pig). And someone back in Volkswagen Marketing had to be signing off on those proposed storyboards, right? I guess that would have been Kerri Martin, the person who brought the ad guys in. She was shown the door six months after BusinessWeek’s cover story.
If Volkswagen truly wants to make a go of its U.S. operations, it needs to start with making better cars, ones that aren’t ranked by J.D. Power & Associates in the bottom 20% of automakers for reliability, quality, and service.
In the interim, save the ad dollars and stick those leftover “Drivers Wanted” signs in the front window of U.S. corporate headquarters. Hey, it worked for the Chinese restaurant down the street.
Share This Post
top of page