November 25, 2004
Now that Google is number 1 brand, what interests our blog even more than the market says its compounded 40 billion $ of value for its owners in 5 years, but how much value it must have connceted between all its users (people, societies etc)? permalinkLinks to this post
As you can see if you click to one of the world's top 2 bookmark spaces on intangibles valuation, any profession that separates its own vested interests from openly compounding hi-trust productivities across disciplines and through context must be a world's worst, and strangley many big professions now need a simulataneous inquest
regarding ad agencies and brand:
-worst brand valuation algorithms (unsustainable, and often compound risk until zeroise companies- see 50 destroyed in last 5 years)
-worst communicators with other parties in transparent value exchnages of markets, with particularly vicious impacts on localities of globalisation and people with greatest needs
-worst integrated communicators (because want all the billion budget for their art)
-incapable of governing broadcast media in ways that get better for humanity
what else? permalink
Comments:Links to this post
Exxon Mobil are (the worst); they supporting in whole or in part 40 organisations that are putting out false info on global warming to try to confuse the public confusing information (eg The Competitive Enterprise whose ad campaign “CO2 they call it pollution we call it life” Exxon Mobil primarily financed) ),Post a Comment
Exxon Mobil played major role in paralysing political process for 20 years now
Al Gore/Charlie Rose video: If you believe the scientists as I do then we have no more than ten years before we cross a point of no return – we are in that sort of territory according to the serious scientists I believe in
Discuss other global market sectors that the public need to rebrand
For 6 years now, our network associates have been warning about this problem : the model of the global brand with a billion dollars of ad budget and none for reality making is unsustainable; 3 years ago we edited the first journal issue on total brand corporate responsibility and warned in the clearest terms that none of the world's biggest ad brands are safe
we believe there is still just time to turn the world's "friendliest" brands round but not unless this billion dollar ad budget conflict is resolved by benchmarking within a group of large companies that need to lear to change their communications models together
anyone interested, mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org- explaining who you represent, and in the first instance I will aim to connect you confidentially to 4 other advisers in our thinktank
Campaign aims to hit Coke where it hurts
Former stockbroker joins forces with billionaire's son in ambitious attempt to 'bring down Coca-Cola' by devaluing drinks giant's shares
Thursday November 25, 2004
An anti-capitalist former stockbroker and the son of Sir James Goldsmith have launched an audacious attempt to halve the value of Coca-Cola's shares.
The radical activist Max Keiser has joined forces with the editor of the Ecologist magazine, Zak Goldsmith, to launch a hedge fund that will donate the profits from short-sales in Coke's stock to the "victims of Coke's business model in places like India and Colombia".
The idea is that as a boycott spreads the money in the fund will increase as shares in the company drop.
Mr Keiser, founder of activist website Karmabanque.com, believes the stunt will reduce Coca-Cola shares from their current value of $41 (£22) to $22 (£11). The campaign says it will "commit to as much money as it takes to take down Coke", but Mr Keiser refused to say whether the son of the late billionaire had invested any money of his own in the project.
He said Mr Goldsmith's role in the campaign was to promote it in his magazine. Mr Goldsmith was unavailable for comment.
Last night Mr Keiser said the hedge fund already had "several hundred thousand dollars" in it despite not yet being listed, and he was approaching several big banking figures, including George Soros, to increase the value.
The high-risk strategy would see the hedge fund borrow shares in Coke from a broker and sell them at less than their market value, gambling on them dropping in value thanks to the boycott. It would then buy them back at less than it sold them for and pocket the difference before handing them back to the broker. But if the value of the stock goes up, the hedge fund will lose money.
Any profit made would be ploughed into supporting communities around the world that investors felt had suffered at the hands of Coca-Cola.
As Coca-Cola is one of the world's largest corporations and valued atabout $95bn (£50bn), the attempt is unlikely to succeed.
But Mr Keiser remained optimistic. "There's a general anti-American feeling out there which is growing all over the world," he said. "People now associate Coke's brand with the American brand and they are rejecting it across the globe. The company has never been more vulnerable."
Coca-Cola refused to comment last night: a representative said no one was available because of the Thanksgiving holiday.
Previous boycotts of major companies have had mixed results. Success stories include Barclays Bank deciding to pull out of apartheid South Africa in 1986 after a campaign halved the bank's share of student accounts. Greenpeace managed to slash Shell's pump sales with a boycott over plans to dump the Brent Spar oil platform in the Atlantic.
But the Baby Milk Action Group's boycott of Nestle has failed to damage the company in nearly 25 years. Likewise, it was not the Burma Campaign's boycott attempts of British American Tobacco that forced the cigarette company out of the country but pressure from the Blair government permalink
Comments:Links to this post
a couple of updates:
In launching a new map of how would people brand the most sustainable visions for the future of global market sectors (beyond that of individual corporations) we used the tagline, nope- love sweet love ain't the only thing there's just too little of in 21st C branding, how about trust sweet trust?
only about 2 hours later, my inbox screened in news of arguably the newest depth of non-transparency Porter has sunk too. Remember the guy who ruined marketing by coming up with defensive strategies such as using the customers money to slow down innovation and generally make so much noise that true leadership no longer outs if you have the power of billion dollar logos
Apparently Porter has audited Nestle as a magnificient socially responsible hero of Latin America; funny that 18 months ago I listened to a senior member of the Catholic church in Brazil who came all the way over to the European Social Forum in London to testify the exact opposite case;at club of Harvard we'd love to be joined by any transparency co-editors who want to ask questions like what data scas did Porter actually source before writing up his hymn of praise http://www.nestle.com/NR/rdonlyres/D47B0192-15DF-4184-A8F9-823751D9D225/0/Nestle_CSR_concept_GB.pdf
INCONVENIENT TRUTH NewsPost a Comment
... from the 22nd annual debates on the internet as mankind's greatest communications revolution:
Extinction of our species will have been quite a disastrous failure of communications experts as well as economists and valuation professions- discuss brand sustainabilty's 7 deadly sins: will global branding destroy the integrity of local (cultural) gravities?
C.M.Macrae.email@example.com (CM1) and N.A.Macrae.firstname.lastname@example.org(NM1) ... aSINworld: association Sustainability Investment Networks http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A4205819
November 24, 2004
Lest anyone's forgotten, I am sure we agreed The tenets of BB are roughly as follows:Links to this post
CASE Can marketers be any help at all in turning round the sadeest continent in the world : Africa?
Maybe the first link to change isnt doing an Iraq to Zimbabwe though once you've taken out the economics of oil and the lies of WMD the logical case seems a match
Maybe instead we should ask Africa's suprerstar to do 2 things:
explain to other stars how they risk losing all their Roots (African American's homeland do-good credibility) by going to bed with the worng image-maker
explain to the 1000 richest women she meets that wearing diamonds is permanently uncool unless that supply chain takes care of societies around its resourcing localities; heavens knows no other product depends for so much value on its reputation amongst such a small tightly knit network of icon female celebritities & powerful debutants; a diamond is practically worthless if the world's 1000 most powerful female icons think it is. So did they want to be marketed as people whose lifetimes wear only images (betraying all the sensible arguments about glass or diamond ceilings of their sex), or people who care to about humanitarian relaities. That is the choice the world's 1000 most powerful women could have today, by voting how they deal with diamonds forever
I’m only just starting to rewrite the history of world trade because frankly I prefer linking people across cities with blogsLinks to this post
There will never be a more honest pleas for world trade than this Indian guy who has spent a life connecting 150 rural villages, 180000 people interdependent on first getting their own water for agriculture, next getting their own microfinance for women as family makers; then working out how to do world trade from their context which appears to be cashew nuts and woodcrafts- 30 years of a place looking to connect with other places in long-term trades that will do both people’s good
Before the internetworking age, the molecule of world trade was people in two differently geographically located places. What these people needed was entrepreneurial transparency anchored also in deep responsibility for what they know most. This in turn was cultivated in democratic kind of involvement of the people in mapping back cultural impacts that would be compounded but this trade’s interaction with these contextually rich places. Mostly this needed to take place without interference from larger geographies such as nations or other big powers. If you look at any twin trade through history that sustained both parties as well as having deeply treasured cultural impacts that the world now enjoys, the vitality of this trading molecule should surely be what world trade economics respects above all else. So for the rest of this section, we will provide critical examples of how far world trade economics has slumped from the twinning of social responsibilities. It is X certificate stuff.
Worst Case 1 of World Trade Before Network Age
Bhopal. Essentially what happened here was a big corporation found a locality on the other side of the world where its manufacturing plant would not be subject to the regulations back home. Now maybe this started honourably- we Union Carbide can govern the risks but fast and free of concerns that local people would raise if there was anyone in the place that was highly educated about our sorts of chemicals. But clearly any such honourable idea gets eroded wherever 90-day number men have a monopoly over performance. And clearly unregulated Bhopal compounded total destruction of value for poor innocent people in Bhopal as well as most of Union Carbide’s other stakeholders. Have we learnt from this case is a question all the world should be asking? Remember today there are new variants such as: a global company deciding not to own a dirt facility abroad but to outsource it. Nor does this case’s sustainability trade logic apply only to businesses with molecules of high risk inherent in their evolution. It can happen wherever the second place where work is outsourced is undemocratic enough to permit sweat or slave labour conditions.
Worst Case 2 of World Trade Before Network Age
The EU’s agricultural policy and continental rivals it has led to have compounded misfortune of almost every human kind imaginable. Even Bill Emmott, today’s establishment oriented editor of The Economist, agrees that aspect of world trade defies economics old or new. We won’t go further with this case as you can goggle his words.
Worst Case 3 Oil 20th C
Clearly, what didn’t happen in most world trades of oil from their beginning was an agreement between a corporation on the one side and the broadest democracy of the pace with oil on the other. If it had, we would live in a different geo-political world with oil as a hi-trust human dynamic. Take just one country that is relatively easy for a Brit like me to listen to. Who around the days of Independence of Nigeria would have bet against this resource rich and country where women nurture children with so much kindness (www.kind.org). Why not expect this place to evolve as one of the greatest developing successes to enjoy freedom from Empire? The reason seems clear with hindsight. Instead of corporate interests in oil brokering an open democracy agreement with all the people of the place it did so with the fewest non-transparent people possible and in effect compounded the future of Nigeria’s governing powers to behave like that for decades.
November 21, 2004
Here's a fable worth any beyond media expert who cares about the future exploring the compound consequences of- with thanks to the thinktank and resource network of University of StarsLinks to this post
Cataloguing Stories of Stars Seduced by Sponsors: eg Africa's Supermodel, De Beers & Bushman
Well we can understand why Iman might think that the most upmarket female jewelry in the world would be a natural image sponsor. But then ask again: if you have all the budgets you've ever needed to market the decorations of superstars would you bother to connect your opinion leading influence with the local human beings in most desperate need in the areas that your product is mostly resourced from?
Apparently De Beers brand has never thought this a question worth asking; Iman didnt know that; the star as a person can make amends by telling other stars to question more carefully what they are lending their beauty to; whether De Beers merits permanent devaluation by all its riches female clientelle is an ongoing question. They need to answer it taking into account what a goodwill example they could set across everythibg they patronise and thus influence the world's humanity with. At the end of the day the compund question is do you want to inhabit a world full of images and no realities or could the human race lead somewhere where goodwill is works better than that?
Full story of Iman & De Beers here.
DO YOU HAVE STORIES OF STARS LIKE IMAN WHO LOST THEIR WAY TO A SPONSOR
We need help in collating examples so that young upcoming susperstars can see ahead, and make an informed choice. Probably no other group of humanity gets so little education on what the diffewrence could be of using fame wisely (in terms they choose their lifetime to stand for) or being played for every image, cut...
Then nations like Britons need to ask whether their public media like BBC and the journalist profession could do more on this education issue once they see what its global and local ramifications for humanity are.
It is quite probable- as we demonstrated with some early pilots of million people web- that if we could get the global public sacking of one global brand that is all hot air and worthless on any grounds of humanity or even use (beyond primitive imagery it has invested a century of 100 million dollars of ads in) then all the other global brands would learn the lesson, change their marketing systems around forever : do this by gravitaing around the biggest relaity of their sector's knowledge and future consequences it mediates with greatest matching value to the world's humanity (what the world would unqiuely miss if this organsiation and all the networks of human relationships it interconnects ceased to exist),Links to this post
-and we then have the chance of spinning a different world of hi-trust for my kid and yours.
Now what part of that logic is so hard to understand? Be specific. Don't just tell me I am having a dream. Here are 899998 votes to 1 that my valuation mathematics of intangibles is consistent until you prove otherwiose. I dont want to participate in your nightmares any longer because you will not actually question the whole systemic consequences of what global communications can do in connecting people's goodwill or badwill. This is not the time for ostriches in global marketing's profession. permalink
November 20, 2004
Extract from CBS website> Eric Engberg was a correspondent for CBS News in Washington prior to his retirement two years ago. He writes:Links to this post
As the election campaign unfolded, operators of some of the internet’s politics-oriented blogs, no doubt high on the perfume of many "hits" and their own developing sense of community, envisioned a future when they would diminish then replace the traditional media as the nation’s primary source of political news and commentary.
The public is now assaulted by news and pretend-news from many directions, thanks to the now infamous "information superhighway." One of the verdicts rendered by election night 2004 is that, given their lack of expertise, standards and, yes, humility, the chances of the bloggers replacing mainstream journalism are about as good as the parasite replacing the dog it fastens on. permalink
November 12, 2004
When we first started debating Beyond Branding many moons ago, a key theme emerged: why not remove all the expensive image-making of branding, see what B-B models people can participate in reality-making?...then always renegotiate branding budgets with hi-trust perception makers because YES we do understand human beings love stories AS LONG AS they compound better futures for all who invest their trust in the identities and contexts revolved...Links to this post
Since it unifies the simplest systemic experiences of Knowledge & Brand experts, this weekend's joyous declaration of interdependence: one of the first successful B-B models is whynot collaboration cities - ones which recognise the 21st C by going beyond only being the hub of transport to imagination and innovation centres where people love to open real communal space and spirit for a few days before linking back to other deep modes of service and networking economies
TIMELESS RELEASE EMBARGO 12 November 2004 Midday:
MVC - MOST VALUED CITIES
The timeless blog community announces a Premier League of B-B cities headed by Barcelona & London. Should you wish to stake your cities claim, mail email@example.com and along with hundreds of others we'll open up a blog around your choice of whynotcity or whynotvillage. There is no exclusivity to these editing rights as collaborative advantages of networking comes to those who are passionate and transparent co-bloggers ( a principle of networking economics we first storytold in our 1984 book The 2024 Report - do you want globalisation to be an Orwellian Nightmare or something all 6 billion people rejoice in connecting up?) permalink
November 09, 2004
Arriving in Bethesda, MD , the Thursday before the American election a small bit of local news became the clue of everything that America is currently driven by.
A 20 year old was shot dead by a US`marshal whilst in his car at a shopping Mall.
Incidentally, almost every tv news broadcast leads on a local killing.
Slightly more scary this time for me was that the killing was 600 yards up the road.
Come the election- a vast majority of Americans the world meets abroad voted Democrat but Bush was re-elected by Republicans of 2 types - the very rich, the small town and middle America states where fear and gun-downed news leads every evening's broadcast. Most of these folk are very local with quite narrow faiths and conservative agendas with a very small c. Of course America's wars abroad with Iraq and terrorism resonate with their everyday fears of gun-law and superficial media relieved by superbowls or other glorious-celebrity froth. And that's why their lifestyles can also validate the election of Bush saying they chose the candidate driven by greater faith and values.
And it is why the rest of the world needs to recognise America for what it is: a powerful country but one that is so pre-occupied with its own fears that it hasn't got any understanding of different types of fears in the rest of the world. To reverse the classic slogan: the last thing the rest of the world needs now is Coca-Cola's - or Bush's - orchestration of I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony.
Instead, this would be a good time -perhaps the last opportunity - for Europe to stand up to America. To go a different way than America's World Trade Organisation and Gatts. To sugest that it is time to relocate the United Nations; I would prefer a non-permanent 5 year touring home - perhaps Moscow or South Africa would be places to try to brfing in from the cold. Actiually, I dont care so much what dramatic demand Europe makes of America, as long as it does make some fearless ones.
Oh, by the way. Buried in smallprint on the day after the election, it turned out that my local US marshal had been off duty, and the reason for the killing appears to have been road rage on the part of the marshal.
If you want a more intellectual version of why I feel we should break with being driven by the fear values of America, google the BBC's superb 3-part series The Power of Nightmares
To see history's becoming both the world's richest and most afraid nation, read my father's 30 year classic survey in The Economist "The Neurotic Trillionaire". What's scary is that the EU hasnt found a way of constructively confronting the Neurosis faith for all that time- what chance now we will find our own united leadership? The West seems to me much more scary in its seats of power than the vast majority of eastern places.
And they call this knowledge age... permalink
Comments:Links to this post
No- can't wait a whole life time for the rest of the world to change- the simplest thing is for America to work out what it wants without the rest of your lot, and then ask if you'd like to join our way forward
Sounds like you are projecting, not observing. Those of us who voted for President Bush were amazed at your fear of someone who could make decisions and stick to them.
You confuse moral values with faith. They are quite different. I feel I have moral values, but I am not religious. Kerry may have had faith, but he showed no visible moral values.
I think you will find that relying in the BBC for inspiration is an empty exercise. Mainstream media is so morally bankrupt that you would do far better actually looking at what is going on, instead of repeating their bias and half-truths.
Do you have a source for this statement? "a vast majority of Americans the world meets abroad voted Democrat..".
If you really understand branding, you should know that a brand is a promise, and it is as valid as the consumer believes in the promise. What kind of brand image is the Democratic Party putting forth now? Take a long look. James Carville did and he had a lot to say about it. You are not doing your brand any favors.
Chris, again I don't believe in these divisions in America. I don't dispute that you have personally observed this from your time Stateside. But from the fewer Americans whom I know, things aren't quite in such clear black and white. It is perhaps the fault of some pollsters in simplifying the rationale for voting for Bush, and of the mass media for repeating it for convenient sound-bites.
Of my friends I have liberals who voted for Bush; though I haven't many conservatives who voted for Kerry. Admittedly, that is based on a tiny sample, but I like to think that the media have sensationalized the split beyond reality.
Mr St Lawrence does have a point when he raises the issue about the Democratic Party's brand. Several of my close friends in Arkansas—strongly pro-Democratic—felt that the wrong contender was chosen in the primaries, feeling that either Governor Dean or Senator Edwards were better and more in line with their view of the Party. That might be a minority view if the primaries are to be believed; and Sen. Kerry's selection certainly did not affect their voting choices, but their post-mortem analysis was that the Party did not stay true to its brand who had some Bush parallels in his plans for America.
By no means am I saying that the Republicans got it right. I was rather offended that I could not visit georgewbush.com to analyse the GOP's arguments to contrast them with the domestic liberal media, because for almost all of 2004—not just the last month, as some sources reported—the site was closed to those of us in New Zealand. I have an email from the US Embassy confirming that they, too, could not view the site, and from several friends in different parts of the country with different ISPs. I could only get in via anonymous proxy.
So there is one place where I do agree with you: the closure of the site to New Zealand—where I know eligible voters who voted both Republican and Democrat, and where among my friends it was not split extremely in favour of the latter—communicates to me a message of fear rather than one of freedom. That in itself confuses the Republican brand: freedom or fear?
The warnings, certainly, need to be heeded; by no means is the United States perfect. Nor is any other nation. I still maintain that working with America is better than a Europe that might stand up to her; for the European brand remains clouded, struggling between a choice of permitting immigration as the EU's population ages dramatically and birth rates fall, and maintaining the autonomy of its member states within the union.
My politics are reasonably centrist, but in that I see the dangers of a power vacuum. We might not return to the end of the first millennium where there were city-states that warred with one another, for the west is more connected via technology; but what of the nations that are knowledge-management-poor?
The solution this century may be to use our knowledge to narrow that gap between rich and poor as your father most eloquently warned us of; and thus the Beyond Branding world becomes relevant again. Now, if only we could get enough people reading our book—and see where things might lead for a second edition.
Nicholas, would you be willing to lead us on such an exercise once more?
"The solution this century may be to use our knowledge to narrow that gap between rich and poor"
Why? I could not care less about the 'gap' between rich and poor because me getting richer does not make someone else poorer. The 'fixed wealth fallacy' is just about the most intellectually pernicious mind-virus ever invented. Wealth needs to be created not redistributed, and you cannot redistribute wealth without destroying a big chunk of it.
Some good controversy abovePost a Comment
let's start with the brand is a promise brigade
Actually the world's biggest brands compound godwill or badwill around all whom they impact. Goodwill is led by brands ssytemised so that promise and trust turn in virtuous circles, gravitating around unique context, a transparent core that stimulates progress; badwill is systemised where billions are spent budgeting promises that the system has not a clue or an intent to keep
there is probably an additional problem that the nation state needs to go beyond its own conceit; it is no longer the main economic decision-maker, at least not unless it appreciates people beyond its borders as well as those within; yet economics is fixed with many preteneces; do it to nations, do it transactionally, dont measure how futures compound with trust and realities ...
I never said that lifting up the poor involves making the rich poorer; debates on going above zero sum are the ones that interest me and thos I network with most; does USA have one exampole of current leadership playing above zero sum?; would love to see that, praise it even?
November 08, 2004
May I simply quote the following. With historical antecedents like these there is still hope for us.
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."
Thomas Jefferson (in 1798, after passage of Sedition Act)
Comments:Links to this post
No- can't wait a whole life time for you lot to change- the simplest thing is for the world to work out what it wants without your nation, and then ask if you'd like to join our way forward
Stanley, I'd have to agree with you and have a rare public disagreement with Chris. If the American public is divided, then it already implies that many have already joined the way forward for a richer, more substantial twenty-first century.Post a Comment
However, I wonder whether the United States is as divided as the media make out; I'm not one to go for the huge gulf. None of the election issues, as far as I know, were viewed in such apocalyptic terms as American, or for that matter, international, media communicated, by the average person in the street.
And while America has her faults, the world would be a worse place without her. I cannot imagine how harmful a power vacuum might be; engagement with America for change is more powerful than isolation from the nation. In that engagement and good relations, Jefferson's hope may well come true in this century.
November 04, 2004
This seems to be where the future is compounding. All we can do from here is invite anyone (mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org) who lives in a blue community in America to join our family of hundreds of place blogs ( 1,2,3, ) concerned with connecting around the world to people who care for other people and all the open systems a networking world can sustain with or without America's opinion leading influence
Below the line- extracts of the gathering note of blogger.con that starts in Stanford on Friday. Perhaps you would like to help me insert entries on the world's most powerful nation's places of directly opposite promises :
extract from http://www.bloggercon.org/2004/11/04#a1876
We had an election on Tuesday, the result was known on Wednesday, today's Thursday and the day after tomorrow is BloggerCon. The buzz is incredible, people are flying in from all over the world, Stanford is going to be a great place to have our blogging conference, and we've got people from all walks of life, red states and blue, podcasters and people who think it's a fad, students and teachers, doctors, lawyers, people from Wisconsin, you name it, we got it!
You may of course bring your laptop (it's a blogging conference) and there will be free Wifi, provided by Sputnik. All statements like this of course are subject to Murphy's Law, which says the Wifi probably won't work at all, but if it does, it will take two hours to get everyone online.
Thanks to Doug Kaye and Mike Lehman, we should have MP3s of all the sessions shortly after the conference. There's a chance it will be webcast. Everyone is welcome to record the conference. If you have questions, or need help, please post a comment here. We will have some kind of IRC, I'm trying to delegate that, as I will be busy everywhere but IRC the day of the conference. If you know someone who can help with this, who will be at the conference, please let me know. Thanks.
BloggerCon is an unconference. That means there is no audience, no speakers, no panels. Each session has a discussion leader. They're not all famous (a few are). They are all good at leading discussions. Everyone in the room is an equal participant. The DL is like a reporter, choosing people to speak, in an order that makes sense to her or him. There's no Q&A at the end. The whole session involves everyone. No need to go out in the hallway to have your conversation, have it in the room.
Comments:Links to this post
Do you mean The World?
Then you're welcome to visit my evolving multi-lingual blog TimeIn Tel Aviv.
You have got to be joking... the Dems, who are even more statist than the Republicans, are going to "who's open up a networking world"?
You mean open up a world of networked governments, I assume. But governments are not the world and only free trade, I mean REAL free trade, can open up a networked world, and whilst the republicans are the lesser of two evils in that respect, neither party really wants free trade or a truly networked world.
The notion the Dems and Reps are polar opposites is just bizarre. Put down that copy of 'Stupid White Men', too much Michael Moore can seriously demage your brain... there just ain't that much difference between the two main parties.
...and BTW, conservative (right-statist) or libertarian/classical liberal clearly outnumber left wing blogger, probably by nearly 2:1.Post a Comment
You will understand neither America nor Blogosphere if you just look at the Daily Kos or other blogs which just reinforce your preconcieved notions.
Authors and associates individual blogs
+ Add Beyond Branding to your Blogroll
Add feedsAggregated blogs
Old Beyond Branding blog entries
Get this blog via email
Beyond Branding bloggers