Creative Marketing, or The Frustrated CFO Attends Louis XIII Legacy Experience


Louis-XIII-Barrels-300x239General public, constantly bombarded by advertising campaigns from TV screens, Internet sites, pages of periodicals, billboards, transportation exterior, etc. is rarely aware of the fine correlation between the commercials it is forced to absorb and the economic nature of the products being promoted to them. The majority of consumers don't realize that Mad Men, both real and fictional, are after the largest chunk of their disposable incomes – the money spent on what's known in the economic science as "normal" goods, i.e. every-day necessities with a moderate income elasticity of demand.

In plain words it means that when people's wealth increases, the demand for the normal goods increases at a slower than income rate. It's not like you are going to start using twice as much detergent if your salary doubles, but you may switch to a more expensive brand, which supposedly delivers cleaner and brighter clothes. And that's why commercial sequences look like the war of brands: Progressive vs. Geico aka Flo vs. Gekko; Advil vs. Alive, Post vs. Kellogg's, etc.

On the other hand, marketing for "inferior" goods (i.e. those for which demand decreases as income increases) is basically non-existent. It would be a waste of the advertising budget to promote items that sell themselves anyway because they are the cheapest in their product groups. For a store-brand quart of milk at 99 cents you don't even need too much color on the packaging. On the other hand, to sell a quart of the fancy Farmland Special Request Skim Plus Milk for $2.99 you need it to stand out on the shelf in its purple lettering and black cow spots.

What about even fancier, extraordinarily expensive items? The ones labeled by the economists as luxury goods, for which demand inexplicably increases more than proportionately when income rises? We don't see much advertisement for them either. Yes, from time to time De Beers injects a bit of its A Diamond Is Forever campaign into various media. And on a rare occasion you can catch on TV one of those sexist (targeted exclusively to men) Porsche commercials. If you are a tennis fan watching one of the Majors you get to see Roger Federer in a Rolex ad… rarely.

But, have you ever seen a broadcast spot for a $12,000 Chanel suit? A $350,000 Harry Winston diamond necklace? A 73-foot ocean yacht (about $1.3 mil)? A Bentley (average price $200,000)? Louis Roederer Cristal Rose 2005 ($600 a bottle)? How about a public notice for the upcoming Sotheby's Fine Art auction?

One may think, "Well, if I had this kind of money, I would've found those things." Who doesn't want a yacht with a polished mahogany stateroom? Or a rare car? Yet, it would be a mistake to think that these items don't require any form of marketing or that they are above competition. Yes, rappers drink and rhyme about Cristal, but according to many experts the champagne that can really blow your mind is Dom Perignon White Gold Jeroboam, which can demand an auction price of $40,000 per bottle. Imagine that you can afford it – how would you know about its existence? These products are exclusive rarities that occupy narrow niche markets. Hence, they call for innovative, targeted marketing tailored for creating brand awareness.

Enter Remy Martin Fine Champagne Cognac (est. 1724) and it's most privileged drink – Louis XIII cognac.  Blended from 1200 eaux-de-vie aged from 40 to 100 years, in very special 300-year-old oak barrels hidden in a secret cellar in Grande Champagne region of Cognac, France, and, when deemed ready by the Cellar Master, bottled into proprietary Baccarat crystal decanters – this is as high-end as brandy can get and its price reflects it: a "regular" bottle goes for $3,000 and limited editions (such as Rare Cask or Black Pearl) can fetch anywhere between $22,000 and $44,000 per bottle.  And I can personally vouch that it worth every penny.  I mean, that shit will spoil you for life: you try it and you don't want to drink any other brown-colored grape liquor no more.

It was the fast-growing and hungry for new clients EastWest Bank who invited me to participate in the cognac's exclusive (20 people) degustation event jointly hosted by the bank and "the brand ambassador" (i.e. a good-looking English-speaking Remy Martin's representative) in a building in SoHo formerly owned by Charging Bull sculptor Arturo Di Modica and temporarily converted to accommodate the  Louis XIII presentation.  It was an installment in Remy Martin's marketing campaign called Louis XIII Legacy Experience, which has been on the World Tour for six years, rolling through the cities with major concentration of wealth – New York, Los Angeles, London, Dubai, etc. 

This is how it works:  In each location, the brand's representatives contact high-net-worth individuals, heads of private financial institutions, high-tech moguls, distributors of other luxury goods (Ferrari and Porsche dealerships are always targets), etc. and offer them an opportunity to host an exclusive event for their most important customers, prospective clients, business partners, or other wealthy friends.  The price tag… NOTHING!  

It's truly a marketing tool.  What Remy Martin gets out of it is: 1.) The brand recognition through introduction of the drink to people who may never heard of it before; 2.) Additional entries in their contact list – one of the leggy hostesses meets you at the entrance with her iPad and asks you to share your business card and/or an email with Louis XIII; 3.)  Spot orders of both "standard" and special-edition bottles of the famous drink - I know for a fact that before our event was over all Rare Cask and Black Pearl bottles on display were sold.

With no price tag attached, what does the Experience offers to guests? 

The event starts with a gathering/mingling part.  In our case, quite excellent Piper-Heidsieck champagne (with refills) was passed cocktail-style accompanied by extraordinary finger-food trays (I wish I knew who the caterers were), while people talk to each other, looked at the displays of special Louis XIII, and read leaflets about the silent auction of silkscreens and lithographs made in Andy Warhol's Factory, which lined the walls of the drawing hall (an NYC-specific added benefit). 

After that you are taken to a screening room (red semi-circular couches) for a presentation of a film that tells the story of Remy Martin and its highest-priced product.  Next, we were led to the underground level (a fortunate feature of this particular venue – it looks like a cellar with exposed brickwork and arches), where a surprise display was revealed: an actual 300-year-old barrel, previously used to age the cognac for 100 years and now retired due to its diminished quality. 

Over this artifact a 750-ml bottle of Louis XIII de Remy Martin was opened and pored into the proprietary Baccarat glasses (if a group is larger and/or more valuable to the organizers, Le Jeroboam, 3-liters-full, is used).  Warning you not to down your drink right away, the "ambassador" gives a mini lesson on the proper tasting of the dark-amber liquid.  Let me relate the first bit: like with many other drinks, you start with the nose.  The difference is that, instead of trying to squeeze as much of your face into the glass as you can, you experience your first nose of this incredible cognac at the stomach level.  As a person with chronic respiratory aggravations, I was very doubtful - I didn't expect to smell anything.  But let me tell you: the power and the complexity of that aroma…  It will probably take me extra 100 words to describe it.

While recovering from the magic of swallowing the drink, you are invited to place an order for your own bottle of Louis XIII complemented by two glasses of the same type you are still holding in your hand.  With that comes a special perk from the ambassador: if you order a bottle from him you get your initials engraved on the decanter. 

I know that on some occasions the Legacy Experience rolls into a dinner, but for us that was it.  Still, what an amazing adventure!  Thank you, EastWest Bank! Everyone leaves feeling incredibly grateful to whoever invited them to participate in this memorable gathering.                   

Are you grasping the commercial meaning of this?  This is genius!  Nothing short of a double-impact marketing: Remy Martin broadens its brand awareness and sells some of its ultra-expensive booze, while the co-hosts, being the actual invitors, make a lasting impression and raise their customers' satisfaction.

In this predominately business crowd, one guest of a guest was an artist. And, of course, she was the one who has recognized the familiar traits in the creation of Louis XIII cognac: a single person, the Cellar Master (presently, Pierrette Trichet – the first female to hold the position), relying purely on her talent and experience, selects, blends, and combines eaux-de-vie to create a drinkable masterpiece - that's art. Well, it takes one to know one.  All I can say is that bringing a luxury product to a proper audience is not a trivial task either and the Legacy Experience is as good as it gets.

Snippets from a Corporate Party: Disappearance of Secure Professions


Poor-doctorThe Frustrated CFO goes to a corporate party and during cocktails mingles with bankers, all kinds of brokers, execs from various industries, business owners, etc.  Everyone exchanges cards, handshakes, hugs, or cheek-pecks depending on the length and the warmth of the relationships.  Some people talk shop, some solicit business and/or advice, some boast about themselves and/or their children, some discuss the Super Bowl without much enthusiasm (it's NYC after all – we only got excited when we saw our very own Eli Manning in the stands watching the event turning miserably for his brother).  Many, of course, discuss the weather – it has been an appropriately cold winter, which makes the clueless schmucks unhappy.

The Frustrated CFO does her duty of actively participating in this business-social hubbub.  She doesn't even have her cards out, because in this room everyone knows her and she knows everyone.  This is great – no pressure, no awkwardness, no need for ice-breaking: she freely rotates herself around the space joining a conversation here and there, mostly listening to others chattering away. 

The party is not very large – just 60 people.  So, it is a testimony to the prevalence of the trend that  she catches two independent dialogues, which support one of her it's-only-gonna-get-worth observations: that there is no such thing anymore as a "secure" profession.

A VP of Acquisition and Investment from a Commercial Real Estate Brokerage humorously tells a story how at a recent RE conference she met a middle-aged gentlemen with a double-sided business card.  One side introduced him as a licensed commercial property broker and another… as a cardiologist.  He told her that he'd been a practicing heart specialist for 25 years before getting into selling corner delis, Korean restaurants, and warehouses.  People didn't know how to react and, therefore, they snickered – a typical response.  Someone said, "I wouldn't trust that guy with my heart."

Well, I've been saying for some time now that HMO's together with malpractice insurers did a pretty thorough job of downgrading the medical profession from one of the highest-earning trades to a regular struggling-to-survive occupation.  This is why it's so hard to find a good primary physician nowadays: the insurance pays $8-$25 monthly allowance for PP patients and the only appointment you are allowed to bill to the provider is the annual full physical.  Every single privately practicing doctor that I know, including specialists, feels obligated to tell me how he is about to lose everything and how he cannot afford his kids' tuition anymore.  But I have to be honest: A cardiologist going into real estate?  That was surprising even to me.               

In another conversation The Frustrated CFO's corporate attorney was explaining how they had to push one of the partners out because "he wasn't bringing enough business."  His arrangement gave him rights to share in the combined profits, while the other partners didn't feel that he was pulling his weight.  So, they simply didn't renew his contract.  Now, the attorney said, the ousted ex-partner went to work for a law firm that kept all attorneys strictly on the eat-what-you-kill basis.  No more sharing in each other's efforts – if you don't bring any business on your own, you don't earn anything at all. 

Well, this has been a shift in many partnership-based professions: not just law firms, but also accounting, managerial consulting, architecture & design, web development, advertising, and some-such companies.  It's not that important anymore whether you are a good lawyer – it's all about the salesmanship, the "rolodex," the ability to snatch a new client.  I keep waiting for the time when these entities start hiring sales execs without the required professional backgrounds and pay them humongous bonuses for selling services fulfilled by someone else.  

As recently as 10 years ago parents still thought that as long as they force their children into being a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, or a money manager (regardless of the kids' actual talents and dreams), they did their "duty" of making sure that these young men and women were financially comfortable and could provide for themselves and their future families.  But it's not true anymore: there are no more cushy jobs, no security in any profession, no guarantees. 

Quote of the Week: Obama’s Next Move Towards Socialism


Obama_0c245_image_1024w1-300x200From CNN's Breaking News:

"EXCLUSIVE: President Barack Obama told CNN's Jake Tapper on Thursday that some of the country's largest corporations have signed on to a White House plan to boost the hiring of the long-term unemployed.

'What we have done is to gather together 300 companies, just to start with, including some of the top 50 companies in the country, companies like Walmart, and Apple, Ford and others, to say: Let's establish best practices,' Obama said in the exclusive interview…

Obama's move is in line with his pledge to use executive action on his agenda items that he hasn't been able to get through Congress."

The Frustrated CFO Comment:

Alrighty then!  So, this is how we are going to deal with overpopulation and economic stagnation:  Instead of cutting down government spendings, ceasing the preposterous fueling of the financial sector, ending the subsidies to failing industries, letting the stock market to finally adjust to its real value, providing incentives to domestic manufacturers for repatriating their productions from overseas, and reducing business taxes in order to reignite small-business growth, the President proposes to create a new form of Welfare, i.e. to force big-time employers to absorb long-term unemployed people - in exchange for some tax credits, no doubt. 

Hmm…  Not that I'm concerned for the overgrown business superpowers with their blown out of proportion stock values and unjustifiable multi-million-dollar executive salaries, but if they don't experience a labor-force deficit, why would they accept extra employees?  That goes against every single principle of a market economy, even in its degenerative form we have right now!  And where they are going to employ them?  Walmart is planning on opening more super-stores?  They are everywhere already.  So is Apple.  And Ford?  Do you mean Ford Motor Company, the one that posts $5-$6 billion losses every year; the one in Detroit – the city declared bankrupt by US judge Stephen Rhodes two month ago?  You must be kidding!  

And how these companies are going to pay these people?  I can't imagine the execs will let their ballooned compensations to be slashed by 80%.  So, what then?  Everybody, except for a handful of the privileged, will take the same percentage cut to accommodate the unnecessary additions?  Let's make most people equally poor, so that everyone can be "employed" and  bring home something?  Wait a minute!   Didn't somebody already tried this experiment?  Oh, yes, communists in the socialist camp did!  Worked like a charm: destroyed their economies and created hordes of lazy, unmotivated, and unskilled workers!  Welcome to your future, people, courtesy of your elected leader!      

The Frustrated CFO Recommends a Forbes Article: Tina Turner Gives Up U.S. Citizenship


Tina TurnerConsidering how persistently we refer to our planet as a "small" and "inter-connected" world, it's remarkable to what extent every single country differs from others – even from the immediate neighbors, let alone those separated by oceans, social structures, wealth, religion, culture, etc.  And as someone who's been in international business practically all of her career, I am inclined to say that some of the most disparate, incompatible, and frequently irreconcilable national distinctions are the tax laws

There is a tremendous variation in rules and rates used by governments in order to hack away a chunk of revenues from native, resident, and even passing-through individuals and businesses.  Moreover, the relationships between the national tax legislatures are so complicated, they make international tax attorneys into some of the richest bloodsucking professionals.  This bullshit, frequently dictated by nationalism, makes the lives of international businesses and cosmopolitan persons alike very complicated and overly expensive.  More frequently than not human and artificial taxpayers (thouse who don't cheat and try to avoid going to jail for ridiculous violations) end up paying double, triple, and quadruple taxes.

I personally know people who gave up their US citizenship in order to avoid giving away their entire wealth to multiple governments.  Even though, as a financial professional, I totally support their decisions, it always made the patriot in me very sad.  But the fact that an American treasure, Tina Turner, will be Swiss now in the name of tax savings – that's just heartbreaking, granted she has been residentially foreign to her homeland for the past 18 years.  (By the way, my mind simply refuses to deal with Gerard Depardieu's becoming a Russian).

Robert Wood's article for Forbes (see the link below) is not necessarily the most coherent, but it's relatively brief and full of illuminating numbers that many of my readers will find interesting.  Enjoy it!

Tina Turner Gives Up U.S. Citizenship   

Some Economists Say That a Robot Can Replace My Paige. For Real?



RobotThere are
quite a few optimistic economists out there who convinced themselves
that,  even though the Industrial Revolution, which was responsible for the unprecedented economic development of the United States since the 19th century, is pretty much over, there is no need to panic and envision impending doom.  According to them, we are yet to pull through.  Do you know what will save us?  Artificial intelligence and 3D printing, i.e. fucking robots and compressed plastic powder.  

Ok, let's leave the 3D printing alone for now. I'm quite impressed with the replication capabilities of the so-called printers: the manufacturing of complex forms, moving parts and all directly from scanned or modeled images looks like magic; and I do think that this innovation will revolutionize toy-making and change sculpture forever.  However, because the "printing" powder recipes are kept secret, I cannot really say anything about the quality and/or safety of the household items, tools, auto parts, etc. made this way.  I hear the plastic guns shoot people dead pretty well, but what else is new?

I am more curious about the robotized future though.  From the vantage point of the economists in question, 65% of American employees are engaged in tasks that they classify as "information processing" (sounds pretty arbitrary to me, but let's go with it) and these poor "dehumanized" worker bees will be replaced with super-efficient highly intelligent machines, who never get depressed because information is what they do. And it doesn't matter that the damn toasters will never be able to look at a plant and pick an appropriate tool to trim it (it's just something that cannot be programmed). 

In case you are wondering, the other 35% will be occupied in professions and functions that require superior intelligence and talent: executive management (you wouldn't believe how many executive dumbasses I know, but whatever!), strategic planning, creative work, and of course, gardening (on account of the robots' deficiencies mentioned above).  

Seriously though, I hope you agree with me that defining ALL tasks performed by office employees as "information processing" essentially turns these people into some sort of robots already, which creates an illusion that replacing imperfect human tools with slick intelligent machines is an efficient, easy, and necessary process.  And yes, some of the office routines can be tedious and dehumanizing.  Yet, the reality is that only in large companies, marked by narrow specialization, standardization, and redundancy, work can be likened to the repetitive conveyor operations.  Everywhere else people multitask!        

Ever since my doctoral studies of economics (many year ago), I had a problem with the pervasive tendency of theoretical generalization; with the application of the macroeconomic approach to microeconomic systems.  Again, maybe such abstractions are somewhat pertinent to giant enterprises, but you and I know that every small business operates differently – none of them will fit into an artificially constructed etalon.  It scares me to think that these pseudo-scientists possibly envision the future without any entrepreneurship at all – just fucking GMs, GEs, Microsofts, Starbucks, Smithfields, Apples, Googles, COSTCOs, and Carl's Jr. (Wait a minute, doesn't this ring a pretty loud bell?)

But what if this nightmare doesn't come true? (Call me a fucking optimist!) Imagine that 20 years from now small businesses still exist, but now they can be outfitted with highly efficient (and affordable!) intelligent machines available to step in as your trusted office workers. Let's conduct a mental experiment and see how a robot will deal with three (could've been 100) straightforward issues customarily handled by one of my most reliable and teachable subordinates of all time (I call her "my Paige").  In other words, let's see if a robot can really replace my Paige.

#1.  A commercial customer has a $300K credit line.  The total of the customer's open invoices is $265K.  A $51K order for the product your company really needs to move is transmitted  for the robot's credit approval.  Of course, a discretionary flexibility is programmed into the algorithm (robot designers are not stupid) – it's 5% above the limit (remember, standardization is unavoidable with machines), making the total allowable credit exposure $315k.  But approving the order would exceed it by a mere $1,000.  The robot rejects it, denying its employer an opportunity to move the product, increase the revenue, make a nice profit.  In addition, the relationship with a long-time customer is at jeopardy over a thousand bucks; and the salesperson is mad because he lost his commissions.  And what are you going to do?  Fire the robot?  It cost the company a fucking mint!         

#2.  The operations department (also robots)  needs to make sufficient room in the storage facility to accommodate the upcoming delivery of 5000 mt of a product from overseas.  They transmit a message to Sales to start pushing the shit faster.  Sales plea and beg customers to take as much product as they can – discounts and all kinds of other tokens of gratitude are flowing.  One customer says that he can take a delivery on September 29th, but he doesn't want the inventory on his books just yet and the invoices must be dated October 14th (the "I do something for you, you do something for me" principle).  This information is relayed to my accounting robot.  It's perplexed: It's programmed to record sales according to the order terms; the terms in this case are Delivered; the proof of delivery transmitted into his system by the trucking branch states September 29th; yet, somebody is overriding his algorithm and forces the wrong date!  SCREECH!  SYSTEM FAILURE!      

#3.  The payments-to-suppliers program kicks in.  The robot tallies all invoices that need to be paid – the total is $3.3M.  Now, funds-sufficiency program kicks in: there is only $300K available on the account and the robot transmits a funding request to the CFO's all-in-one communication device installed into her left ear's diamond stud.  The borrowing and investing functions are still done by the human CFO, because the risk of some crafty thief hacking into a fucking toaster is, as you can imagine, pretty high.  The problem is that the CFO is in London dining with a Financial Director of a company her employer targeted for acquisition.  She is trying to pump the stiff for some information beyond the official reports, and she just got him talking, and there is no way she can lose this opportunity on account of some payments.  But the robot must do his job – he must be timely, the payments must be made.  Yet, he sees that, if he actually makes the payments, the account will be overdrafted by $3 million.  The conflicting algorithms are tearing the machine apart, literally – it short-circuits.  

What? Are you telling me that the economists don't have these tasks in mind; that these are semi-managerial-somewhat-analytical duties? Guess what, Mr. Big-Shot-Futurologist? That's what's going on in small businesses with flat structures: Every sector of the value chain is manned by one executive/manager and a handful of her direct reports aka the "the information processors." No middle management. You cannot possibly reassign these minute but essential issues to CFO's and Controllers – that's just too expensive in terms of the compensation, wasteful in terms of the time taken away from more strategic obligations, and demeaning in terms of the moral incentives. And if I have to buy robots AND keep my subordinates for the semi-managerial-somewhat-analytical work, what kind of progress is that?

According to the US Census data, there are over 6 million companies in this country with less than 100 employees.  Obviously, they are too small to see from the top of the theoretical mountain. So, in articles for academic magazines and thick manuscripts for Wiley publications, their diverse office workers first get bundled together with the narrow-niched redundant zombies of large bureaucracies, and then replaced by robots in one sweep of a Montblanc pen.

Just for argument's sake let's get back for a second to the scary possibility: The economists, politicians , and the big businesses paying for them actually erase small companies from the national map. The intellectual flexibility is ignored in the interest of standardization, and all of the "information processors" in the remaining giant conglomerates are replaced by machines. What kind of plans do the movers and shakers have for these 65% of American workers?  How about their children, lately multiplying at the three-per-family rate?  Considering the dramatically falling IQs of the general population, it's unlikely that they will be viable candidates for high-level managerial or creative work.  So, how is the robotization going to make the whole nation wealthier in the same way the Industrial Revolution did?  I see a more polarized society with hordes of people pushed below the poverty level.

But the biggest question I have for the big-time big-picture economists is: Where the fuck are you going to get the energy to power all those robots and their managing network servers?