New Balance's Mitt Romney problem

By Richard K. Barry

I started running recently after having been away from it for a few years. Not that this is very interesting to most people. But, as happens with a new pursuit, I began surfing the net for running products of one kind and another. In the process, I ran right into a post on the New Balance website with the title "New Balance Statement on Political Donation."

If you don't know, New Balance is a running shoe manufacturer and they have been around for as long as I can remember. I'm sure I've owned several pairs of their shoes in one style or another over the years.

The statement in question had to do with the fact that the company chairman, Jim Davis, made a $500,000 political contribution to something called "Restore Our Future," which is a Romney political action committee. This, it would appear, has created a problem for the company.

Here's their statement:

Dear New Balance associates, customers and consumers:

Earlier this year, a private donation was made by our chairman to a political action committee that is affiliated with Mitt Romney. First, let me be clear that this was a private donation and not a contribution from New Balance. We encourage civic engagement at all levels and will always respect the rights of any of our associates to engage in the political process as they see fit.

Mr. Romney recently signed a pledge that challenges same sex marriage and that has offended many including those in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. Mr. Romney's position on this issue is not reflective of Jim Davis', my or New Balance's position and support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community. As a company, New Balance embraces the differences in all people and we work tirelessly to create and sustain an environment where everyone - our associates, consumers, customers and guests are treated with dignity and respect.

Sincerely,

Rob DeMartini

President/CEO

According to Huffington Post, the statement came after the website Change.org ran a petition demanding to know whether New Balance stood by the contribution made by the company's chairman. We should note that the website received over 2600 signatures before New Balance issued the statement.

Change.org wrote that Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage, which argued that:

LGBT families should be broken apart, that same-sex marriage should be banned in the U.S. Constitution, and that married couples in places like Washington, D.C. should have their relationships voided.

But it gets even worse (they say). When Mitt Romney signed the pledge, he agreed to - should he win the 2012 presidential race - appoint judges and an Attorney General supportive of banning same-sex marriage, and to appoint a presidential commission to investigate LGBT supporters.

What I find most interesting in all of this is how quickly New Balance went into damage control. Whether or not it is any indication, every single comment on their website at the time I first found it was from a customer claiming that they will never buy the company's products again.

I don't have an issue with the CEO of New Balance making a donation as a private citizen. Not much we can do about that. It is unfortunate, though, that big corporate money is polluting our political process more and more every day. It's a good thing we can still make decisions about where we spend our dollars and show our "civic engagement" in that way.

So, I hope advocates continue to do research that helps consumers better understand the character and values of the business people they might or might not choose to support.

And I understand that it cuts both ways, and I'm still okay with it.

It really does look like New Balance got caught out and that they are doing their best to spin a bad situation. I wonder if it will significantly effect their market share. I know I'll have no difficulty choosing from among the countless, non-New Balance, running products on store shelves.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Marketing 101

     So some company wants me to stay as a customer of their overpriced service, and their marketing plot is this:

lock in savings at a low rate that's GUARANTEED for two years.

     Let me get this straight....you clearly are about to go up on your prices...the ones that are ALREADY so high I am an inch away from cancelling...and you are threatening me?...saying unless I sign a contract agreeing to pay those high rates for two more years, you'll increase them again and I'll stop SAVING?

    Tell 'ya what. Here's your chance to lock me in as a customer. Go DOWN on your currently too-high rates and maybe, just MAYBE I'll continue paying you every month. Clear enough? Geeze.

[UPDATE: 8/10/11 WSJ reports cable and dish companies see subscribers abandoning their services.]

Disney drops plans to trademark "SEAL Team 6"

By Richard K. Barry

Just to close the loop on this one, having written about it earlier in the month, I'm pleased to report that the Walt Disney Company announced yesterday that it was going to withdraw its application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be granted exclusive rights to use the term "SEAL Team 6" on a range of items that would include clothing and games.

SEAL Team 6 was of course the military outfit responsible for finding and killing Osama bin Laden. Just a couple of days after the raid some genius in the Disney marketing department thought it might be a fine idea to cheapen that name by putting it on merchandise.

The quote from Disney that accompanied their decision was that they pulled the application "out of deference to the Navy."

According to a Wall Street Journal report:

Navy officers privately expressed relief Wednesday that the company had chosen to retract its application, saving the organization from a long trademark battle.

The Navy first fired back at Disney with their own filing for trademarks on the phrases "SEAL Team" and "Navy SEALs," on May 13, several days after Disney's application.

I will say that I don't have a fancy MBA in marketing from one them there prestigious Ivy League schools, or from any school for that matter, but I kind of thought that this idea was a stinker from the moment I heard it. Seriously. The Disney organization has to be one of the greatest marketing success stories in the history of capitalism. How could they have been so tone deaf?

And the idea of doing battle in court with the Navy, after they emerged as national heroes for taking out bin Laden, that would have played really well in the press. I'm pretty sure Mickey would have been out of work in short order if something like that were to have happened.

Here's the topper:

Disney's intentions were misunderstood, according to a person familiar with the entertainment company's plans. Disney, which owns the ABC television network, is considering a TV show about an elite squad, similiar to other fictional drama about real-life arms of the military, such as "NCIS" and "JAG."

Yeah, right. Looks to me like this mess got handed from Disney's marketing department to its public relations department in a hurry. The whole thing is positively goofy. (Sorry for that one, but I had to).

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is Disney really going to trademark "SEAL Team 6"?

By Richard K. Barry 

Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has a short mention today of the fact that Disney has trademarked Seal Team 6. He wisely introduces the story by indicating that it is not parody. It's real:

In a perfect example of a big media company looking to capitalize on current events, the Walt Disney Company has trademarked Seal Team 6, which happens to be the name of the elite special forces team that killed Osama bin Laden.

The trademark application came on May 3rd, two days after the operation that killed bin Laden and two days after Seal Team 6 was included in thousands of news articles and TV programs focusing on the operation.

Disney's trademark applications for Seal Team 6 covers clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games, entertainment and education services among other things. 

A couple days ago I wrote about being uncomfortable with the thought of grotesque pictures of bin Laden's body on T-shirts and in other public displays as a business proposition, had the pictures been released.

I want to be really careful here because I am not anti-soldier. I have said before that I think bin Laden had to be killed and that I am glad we had people trained to do the deed. Their bravery and resolve is to be lauded. Medals, commendations, our gratitude and respect. Absolutely.

There is just something about Disney, the standard in family entertainment, selling stuffed animals or whatever with a Seal Team 6 logo on it. There is nothing warm and cuddly about what had to be done. There is nothing clean and easy about it. Pretending that we don't compromise our humanity by committing or supporting violent acts is folly, no matter how necessary they may be. This was not a Disney moment and trying to make money off of it, especially by these people, is kind of sick.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)