Reducing cost of health care and insuring everyone would have simple. The problen is that neither congress nor the administration addressed the root causes of the high costs. Had they only taken a look at the health care trends that are clearly portrayed in the Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States–which has been updated each and every year for a couple hundred years.

In the late 1990’s, I was invited to make a presentation at a Health Care Research Conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Since I love to ski, I immediately accepted. As a marketing research director of a multi-line insurer, I had no idea what aspects of health care I would address at the conference. But I quickly discovered the health care trends that have long been reported by the Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States. 

Based upon my analysis on the health care trends that had been reported in the Statistical Abstract for all to see, I prepared a paper entitled “Holding the Line on Health Care Costs” which was published in the Conference Proceeding as well as in a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal . The trends were all up-more office visits, more specialists, more procedures, and more reliance on third-party payors.

The conclusion that I drew from the treads I observed was that  costs were up because patients had no direct personal responsibility for paying the bills since someone else was paying them, that is, that patients were no longer making traditional consumer buying decisions when it came to health care.

The solution that I envisioned encouraged folks to once again make consumer-buying decisions. I recommended that we don’t purchase comprehensive medical insurance covering everything-rather that we use a small portion of that money to buy a very high deductible major medical policy and put the remainder in a health care account that could be used for health (or for whatever else they  wished). Some years after the conference, I was with my wife when her physician prescribed an MRI for her. When I asked the price of the MRI, neither he nor his staff knew-since no one had ever asked. Had my my recommendation have been implemented, patients would have asked because they would have had to pay for it out of their own account. So you don’t think that I am hard-hearted to ask the price of my wife’s MRI (I would willingly pay any price of my wife’s well being). Just minutes after I asked the price question, my wife learned what an MRI entailed and said “I can’t get into that tube.” Before the physician had prescribed the MRI, he already had administered a corisone injection. Upon hearing of her reluctance to get into the MRI chamber, he said “if the cortisone doesn’t do the job, we’ll figure some way for her to get the MRI.” As it turned out, the corisone did the trick. But he had prescribed a very expensive test that was unnecessary.

What does all this have to do with Health Care Reform? Instead of having a comprehensive health insurance policy, those currently carrying health insurance could spend a small portion of that price on a, high deductible, major medical policy with the rest of the money going into a health care fund–which would be used for health care costs or anything else the patient chose. For folks who lack the funds to purhase the policy and create the health care account, we the tax payers will cover it.

The net result would be that health care costs would drop even though every one was covered.

While things now look bad, I am absolutely certain that the American people are about to change our nation’s course from the disastrous direction in which we are heading to that which our founders envisioned in our Constitution.

In the meantime, do we wait for this redirection of our country to occur before taking action to grow our businesses? Absolutely not! This is the time to charge ahead—when the timid won’t. Yes, Virginia, businesses still can thrive!

That’s what I do–help businesses grow and thrive.  I have no interest whatsoever to merely helping them survive. Several years ago, I had a conversation with an experienced banking executive who had just become the CEO of a start-up banking enterprise that realistically had the potential to rapidly become a major, profitable, player in the market. Our conversation was about how I could help him position the bank to profitably realize it’s potential. Among other things, I asked the CEO this simple question “Would you be happy with a loan officer who never made a bad loan?” When he responded with a “yes,” I knew that he was risk adverse and, consequently, it neither surprised me that he didn’t contract with me to help him grow his business nor that a decade later that business has barely tapped its vast potential.

A couple years ago on a Sunday afternoon, I emailed the CEO’s of the top 25 advertising agencies and claimed that I could identify those minor changes in positioning that would greatly increase a brand’s share and well as those minor changes which should be assiduously avoided because  they would hurt share. The note said something like “Many ad agency executives will think that this simple psychologist is  ’delusional’ to even imagine that he could possibly help an agency grow a client’s share; but I also said that a few may think that I am ‘crazy like fox’ and would give me a call. That’s just what happened that very evening– one of the CEO’s reached out to me.

I can help you seriously grow a client’s share. Just  contact me!  Then judge for yourself whether I’m ‘maniacal’ or ‘crazy as a fox.’

When JFK became President, he brought in McNamara–known as a whiz-kid-from Ford Motors as his Secretary of Defense. It was McNamara who established the military strategies for the conduct of the war in Vietnam with the help of other whiz-kids (MBAs) he had brought with him from Ford. Talk about irony. Now Obama has brought in his whiz-kids to rejuvenate General Motors and Chrysler Motors. McNamara and his whiz-kids had no experience running wars and they failed in Vietnam. Neither Obama nor his whiz-kids have had experience running automobile companies. Why should we expect any more success than we saw with McNamara and his whiz-kids in Vietnam.

As for this simple psychologist and marketer, I have have no experience either in overseeing the conduct  of a war or in operating an auto producer. But I do have  a proven record of successfully helping marketers use their talents and experiences to make things happen. What I do is really quite simple. I help marketing organizations achieve significant  profitable growth–even in the current economic environment.

To have the audacity to claim that I can help organizations achieve significant profitable growth during this downturn in the economy may make it seem to some that this psychologist is certifiably crazy. But if you think that this psychologist just might a sly fox who can achieve exactly what he claims, challenge me!

It certainly appears that appointing Timothy Geithner to be our Secretary of the Treasurer isn’t a lot different than putting the fox in charge of the chicken house. He knowingly failed to pay taxes for several years in a row while working for IMF.

Not good! 

Now about 125 days into Barack Obama’s presidency, the question “Is it 2012 yet?” isn’t premature in the least. During President Obama’s brief presidency, we’ve seen many questionable decisions. To me, one particularly grievous decision was appointing Timothy Geithner secretary of the Treasury. That nomination and its acceptance reflect badly on the character of both men–Geithner and the President. Knowing what he had done, Geithner should never have accepted the nomination and the President should have immediately revoked the nomination once he learned that Geithner had avoided paying his duly owed federal income tax. Now every time I see Secretary Geithner in the news, I cringe.

I met Ginni, the girl of my dreams, in Richmond, Virginia in the ’70s. I talked this Belle of the South into marrying this big dumb Yankee. Shortly before our one child, Neil, was born, we moved to Dayton, OH.  I wish that we’d have been able to have a dozen kids but Ginni always said that “The good Lord gave her exactly as many kids as she could handle.”

Some years later, Ginni was a good sport in moving with me to Louisville KY, then Bloomington-Normal IL, then Minneapolis-St Paul, and finally back to Bloomington-Normal IL. Shortly after 9/11, Neil married Brandi, the girl of his dreams. About three years later, they had Hannah who is between Ginni and me in the picture. Then just over a year ago, Brandi & Neil had twin daughters, Mia Faith & Ava Grace, shortly after Neil had became the lead pastor of his church in Naperville IL.

The girl of my dreams from the ’70s is still the girl of my dreams and even more beautiful than she was then. With the exception of being alone with her, nothing is better than being with family.

I joined such a company some years ago after the long-term CEO had been dismissed and the outside board of directors had been thoroughly and repeatedly chastised by the state’s insurance commissioner. One would have thought that the board would have learned their lesson but a few years after I had departed, the insurer was once again “flown into the ground” while the board simply watched what was happening. There was no 3rd chance for this insurer; they were acquired by another insurer.

That rings a bell for me. I really get a great deal of satisfaction out of helping corporations profitably grow. Having sent a note, a while back, to a large bank’s chief marketing officer suggesting that I could help them make things happen (grow share), I received a call from one of his assistants saying “Nothing is happening here; the marketing V.P. has gone and the bank’s name has changed.” Clearly those in charge had been asleep at the switch and. sadly enough, this assistant had not yet grasped the reality of what had happened.

I have absolutely no desire to help corporations survive. My goal is to help businesses thrive by growing profitably.  To do this, one must constantly keep abreast of what buyers and potential buyers need and want and provide it. Be apprehensive when corporate executives claim that they know exactly what buyers need–thus it is unnecessary to ask. From my experience, there is only want to know what buyers want; ask them!

 

But what does that have to do with “Marketing Research and Advertising When the Economy Goes South?” Everything. The sad reality is that many otherwise “bright” folks are prone to cut their advertising (and marketing research) expenses when the economy is soft. The fact of the matter is that a soft market is exactly when advertising (and marketing research) investments should be increased, not reduced.

When Philip Morris set out to outpace their competitors, they viewed increased spending in advertising and marketing research as an investment, not as an expense. And their investment probably had a greater return than even they had expected.

In this challenging economy we find ourselves in as we enter 2009, I’d recommend that  well thought-out advertising and marketing research investments be increased, not decreased. Of course, if you don’t mind giving up share to competitors, let them outspend you as did RJ Reynolds (and other tobacco companies) when Philip Morris starting outspending the competition. When they started their heavy spending, share wise they were (as I recall) a distant 4th to the category leader, RJ Reynolds, who had long held more than 30 share points-now far behind the leader, Philip Morris.

Everything that I do is directed at helping businesses make better decisions. And I cherish the opportunities that the good Lord gives me to help businesses become more effective. Much of what I do could undoubtedly be done just as well by other marketing research providers. But there is one area in which I have no peer!

I developed a brand choice model (a mathematical model) that actually does what a brand choice model is supposed to do.  I call it the Optimal Brand Choice Model since it identifies the brand positioning that optimizes a brand’s share. Several years ago, I fully described this model in the scientific literature. But I will chat more about that later.

Sorry folks–it won’t just be the “fat cats” who will get their taxes increased. Every one who pays income tax now will get their tax increased. But how could that be? One candidate and all of his surrogates keep telling that 95% of the people will get a tax decrease.How could those people get their taxes increased–or at least those people who now actually pay some income tax?

The explanation is quite simple. It’s much the same as Clinton’s “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” In this case, it means that rescinding Bush’s tax cuts (or letting them expire)  doesn’t count as a tax increase even though every single person that pay taxes will end up paying more taxes.But the net result is that everyone will get an increase in their income taxes, not just the ‘fat cat’ who, incidentally, are the very ones who create jobs. Sadly, this will result in fewer jobs available and less jobs created.When you vote on November 4th for the next President of the United States (POTUS), think about whether the so-called “tax decrease for 95% of the people” will result in more jobs for the 95% or fewer jobs.