Philster, there is a certain point past which it doesn’t work that way anymore. If a business or product is really, really bad, and everyone knows it, then people will not want to see its name on things. The Ford Pinto comes to mind. As does the Edsel… honestly, a lot of Ford products come to mind. But that’s a whole other thread.
I think there are probably advertising approaches that would serve Citibank well at this time-- ads which emphasize gratitude, fiscal sobriety and a desire to honor the public trust. Big-ass imperialist branding of public buildings does not fit in with such a model. That approach only works if no one has reason to doubt your power. But times have changed; today, everyone already knows that Citibank is bad meat. Pissing away tax money on lavish self-congratulation only emphasizes-- advertises, if you will-- their untrustworthiness.
[QUOTE=Terrifel;10501951So. The stadium cost $850 million, of which $450 million is subsidized directli with public funds, and the other $400 million is paid by Citibank with federal bailout moni. In return for which, the stadium will be named after Citibank.
This involves so much moni, and is so alien to my understanding of cause and effect, that for me it might as well be happening in the Andromeda galaxi.[/QUOTE]
With your kind indulgence, I corrected your spelling.
Dude they arent spending Advertising dollars earned by Citibank and set aside for use as advertising…they are spending your tax dollars on this bullshit, what good is advertising if every time I hear the name of that field for the rest of my life all I think is “fucking PRICKS!!”
they could definitely do with some better ideas right about now.
Once again, I would prefer my tax dollars be used to maintain and grow Citi. If you abandon what got you there, why should I have confidence in you? You have time to pit advertising. Please, feel free to substantiate your point, that it is not money well spent. You have a near-impossible task at hand.
You guys have a severely immature view of the business world.
Not to suggest you aren’t doing the exact right thing, but I was under the impression that from the POV of a business, a “good customer” is one who behaves in a way that will maximize revenues to the business, rather than keep them down.
You’re apparently the kind that they’d just as soon do without.
Oh, right, we should continue to trust the ‘mature’ view of the dumb cunts that got us into this mess in the first place. :rolleyes:
Here’s another vote for face punching and crotch stomping.:mad:
They didn’t get ‘us’ into this mess, assface. They got themselves into the mess, and your elected representatives shoved your life into their business. Try to keep up with the issue at hand.
Yeah, we’ll trust you to understand how mutlibilllion dollar companies work. The people who run and build those enterprises are just common morons. Okay…thanks for that insight, all.
Why is it not safe to say that somebody involved is a moron? Why are they up shit creek, if the people running the enterprises are not morons?
If your point is that we should shudder to imagine how much trouble they’d be in if they didn’t advertise, I guess that might make some sense. If your point is that spending money on advertising actually demonstrates their cool, calm, and collected business sense, I guess that leaves something to be desired.
To put it mildly. These jerks are apparently on record as saying things like, “I hope we’re all retired when this house of cards comes tumbling down.” They knew it was a bad idea to do this shit, but they did it anyway. All to justify their multi-million dollar paychecks. I used to wonder how the French got so blood thirsty during their revolution that they just lopped the heads off of anyone they didn’t like. Now, I’m starting to wonder if they didn’t have the right idea, after all.
No, I think from the POV of a credit card company, a good customer is one who carries a $10,000 balance and pays slightly more than the minimum, on time, every month, and regularly transfers balances from other cards to that one. Sure, they don’t get to ding me with late fees, but they’ve never not gotten a payment, either. The size of my balance alone, and the interest that brings in even with a fairly low interest rate, is - or rather, was - more than they’ll make from me from now on.
Am I a Bill Gatesian “good customer”? Of course not. But I wasn’t a no-interest-pay-off-everything-every-month bad customer, or a doesn’t-make-payments bad customer.
Advertising is money well spent, if it is spent well. If your advertising reminds the public why they hate you, it is not money well spent.
Presumably, Citibank originally became successful not simply by putting its name on things, but by managing their money better than other businesses. (If they actually became successful through some big government handout, I really don’t want to hear about it at this point.)
Back when Citibank was a successful business, they could effectively exploit and reinforce that perception through advertising. Putting its name on a public venue reminded people of how successful they were.
But now that has changed. Today, Citibank is an unsuccessful business, and putting its name on the same venue reminds people of how big a failure Citibank is. Hence this Pit thread, which would not exist if Citibank were in the black and all were right with the world.
Everyone knows that Citibank has failed. Yet Citibank is continuing to use its advertising in a way that suggests it has no interest in changing or even acknowledging the fact. Keeping their name on the stadium by using tax bailout money doesn’t-- cannot-- inspire confidence in Citibank. It advertises that they don’t intend to change. It is now bad advertising.
Reminding people of how unsuccessful you are is bad advertising. Suggesting that you have no intention of learning from failure is bad advertising. Declaring your willingness to spend other people’s money is bad advertising.
I freely admit that Wall Street and Madison Avenue are equally mysterious to me. But I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong about this. Am I? Can anyone break this down for me in simple terms?
Ah, thank you. I definiteli should have kept that bit all the way through.
Citibank: fountain o’ comedi!
(Talking of advertising and branding and the like: is there a proper term for the phenomenon of “neologistic variant spelling” seen in business names like “Citibank,” “Pik-Qwik,” “Stride-Rite,”* etc.?)
*I assume that the name intends to suggest ‘correctness of stride,’ not that there is a rite performed in association with the shoe.
Y’know, I’ve paid my share of $30 fees to the bank for fucking up my accounting and letting things get too close to zero and something unexpected comes in and there goes the balance. And I’ve pointed out the unreasonable size of these fees and the unfairness of them (it only costs a buck or two to process an overdraft) but people on this board said it was all my fault because I was fucking up at the job of maintaining my financial records, and it was appropriate that I and others like me should be “punished.”
Now the bankers, people who are SUPPOSED to be financial experts, have fucked up on a scale I couldn’t even BEGIN to fuck up on, because for one thing, I know my limits. And it’s interesting to read the same sorts of people who were so sanguine about the $30 overdraft fees I had to pay, talking about how we need to help the bankers.
Hell, nobody ever wanted to give me a bailout, why should the fucking bankers who fucked the fucking hell up get a bailout?
When King Farouk of Egypt was deposed, he made off with the treasury, such as it were. In a show of generosity and contrition, he offered to endow a university in Cairo, so long as it was named after him. His offer was declined when it was pointed out that the school must necessarily be known as “Farouk U”
