Re-branding The Political System -- and Politicians?

In a recent speech on Branding, Peter Economides, the branding guru, mentioned the need to "re-brand" Greece. During his speech, he also mentioned that there is a crisis in Greece, but the crisis it is not exclusively Greek -- but it is a global crisis.

It got me thinking.

{By the way, it was the first time I heard Economides speak on brands, branding, and re-branding. And re-branding a country, no less!


What if the crisis is because we are tired of the old, greying, brands many of us live in? Our political systems, our politicians, our democracies and pseudo-democracies...

Do we need to re-brand our political system or at least re-brand our political  procedures and processes?
What if people are no longer buying the "political brand" any more: the people and the processes and procedures?

Economides points out that "brand is what people think of you" or, simply put, your reputation. "Branding is the process of managing what people think of you".
Useful, easy to remember and nifty definitions: clear and to the point.


In terms of politicians, the brand erosion is not very surprising. Look at what we had and what we have now. Take Churchill, for example. Whatever you may think of Winston Churchill, no-one can really ignore him.
In other words, Churchill was a strong brand and he delivered. In fact, you can tell many things by just looking :

Churchill, left; Stalin, right; Roosevelt, middle.

Churchill's cigar was his logo. As was his drinking -- part of his branding, perhaps.

Now compare these guys with the mediocre, featherweight politicians of today -- I will not choose any, to each his or her own.

Or, how about bankers?

Compare and contrast, say, Giannini (Bank of America) with anyone current; how inventive is the current one?

Compare and contrast JP Morgan, or Warburg or Rothchild, or J Merrill with what we get today; think of Merrill's ten commandments. That was back in 1949..

Of course, there is one revolutionary concept in recent years: microcredit. prof Muhamad Yunus' Grameen Bank. That was revolutionary. It still is.

But for the rest: nondescript, unremarkable, indifferent -- and except for exceptionally high incomes, that is!

Meant to be a random "institution"

Methinks the brand has lost its luster; to paraphrase our friend Economides, maybe the political system, our fundamental institutions and related personalities, have lost their reputation -- i.e the brand was lost somewhere along the historical way.




So, on a more positive note, is our way out of the global crisis just a matter of reviewing and re-branding our political and financial institutions and their minions? 

Is it just a case of urgent rebranding?

Let's call Economides!

Europe's Politicians Don't Seem To Be Up To Snuff...

In general Europe's present politicians don't seem to be capable of measuring up to some of their more illustrious predecessors.

How does president Hollande fare compared to, say, the General de Gaulle? We choose the General because we now have tough times -- and when times are tough, the tough get going. But how tough is he?
Not very...

Ms Merkel from Germany and her "conservative" penny controlling policy and Thatcher German style presence.Compared to Adenauer, not very inspired, compared to Thatcher not very inspiring.

Mr Cameron? Nice chap. Compared to illustrious predecessors (and we do not mean president Bush's sidekick). Best not go there.

What about Greece's Mr Samaras. At best tepid. Exciting as dishwater, perhaps not quite as, but close.


Think: how well do these people fare in a negotiation with, say, the CEO of a major Bank?
Think: the experience and track record that led said CEO to the C E office...

Exponents of a political modus operandi that dates them back to the 19th century, negotiating with people well into the 21st century -- even if they're bankers, not the brightest of the bright. 

It's scary!

Wealth is Relative

...the road to wealth may not be relative or theoretical, however.

Wealth is relative to what other peoples' wealth may be. No doubt. As we found out in the past fortnight without a shadow of doubt, some forms of wealth sometimes tumble and crumble easily and fast. Indeed, wealth did tumble fast and easily for very many; some of these people were even well off until one month ago. Some probably planned to sit back and enjoy whatever life was left to them.
No longer.

Here's a very short story:
It was the 1st of September. A day I expect I'll remember.
A man, senior executive in a global corporation, wanted to purchase a small house on a Greek island. For many reasons, he believed this would be a good purchase, a useful asset and a family abode that would be put into frequent and good use. Frequent is the operand word. He had no real assets to use towards that purchase; a loan would be crippling.

He discussed with family, but most of the family was average income or cash-stripped. He ended up asking one member to consider. It was a bold move: on total net worth of, say, 10, the man was asking for a considerable share: no less than 10% of that family member's net liquidity.
As that member had no children and a monthly guaranteed income, the man promised a pay back and hedged the request with house ownership and other considerations.

Unfortunately, the two did not see eye to eye, and the family loan did not come through.

Unfortunately the money the man was asking for was tied up in stock.

• By 30 days later (to the day) the family member was sustaining losses of 40% of her net worth.
• The amount of her losses could subsidised the purchase of 5 houses.
• Those houses would have provided something; as we discovered through this crisis something for nothing. I.e., by substituting an entry for cash and using said cash to purchase real estate.
  
• Now, in our story, we are left with 40% less of the nothing we had 31 days ago.
  

What a shame no-one can predict the future!

Kaput: banks, shares, savings, younameit...

The US parliament (Congress?) did not approve the bankers bailout plan. Markets are going kaput.

Of course, why should failed bank executives' employers, i.e. the banks, be saved from annihilation just because they failed?
Answer: Because the extent, the reach, and the consequence of their failure is tremendous.
Savings will topple, people are left without a penny, and those banks' senior management is left without its golden parachute...

Of course, some say that it is better this way. I'm not sure I wouldn't support this view myself: why use our children's money to bail out out bankers' fathers?

Whatever the case may be, it is useful to pray. Buying power in many European countries is down by 35% in the past 8 years. The erstwhile middle class is getting poorer. And in becoming so, it is breeding widespread discontent.

Easy to grasp, if you think of this in the following way: see your children worse off than you were.
In the hitherto inalienable grand scheme of life, offspring were supposedly bequeathed a better world than their forefathers.

No longer! Pray, pray, fast, right now, immediately. Who else is there to save us but God & ourselves. We are incapable of saving ourselves.

That leaves only God. Yet again.