Home > Oz Politics > Disruptive marketing …

Disruptive marketing …

October 18th, 2007

… is one of those buzzphrases that is in the air in business schools, and since I’m located right next to the business school here at UQ I tend to be exposed to them.

Economists have their own buzzphrases and are not usually inclined to adopt those of marketing, but I must say this term seems apposite to Howard’s approach to the campaign. Starting from behind (but with the notional advantage of incumbency) he’s making up new rules and then demanding that Rudd adhere to them.

On tax, for example, the standard occasion to release what will presumably be the biggest single policy initiative of the campaign would be the policy speech (hence the name). Howard released his on the first day, then demanded that Rudd follow suit. Similarly, Howard has proposed a totally new format for a debate, effectively killing off the debate as it’s been understood, and is now trying the “empty chair” ploy on Rudd, saying he’ll go ahead with or without him.

It makes a certain kind of sense, but the obvious thing for the market leader (there I go again!) to do is to ignore it.,

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. observa
    October 20th, 2007 at 10:37 | #1

    “I think you have breached the rules of postings making such a personal attack on snuh.”
    Yeah I was having one of my acid Tim Blair moments. Apologies snuh. We’re all guilty of overreacting to symptoms which push our buttons from time to time, when there’s a larger issue bubbling along under the surface unaddressed.
    In that regard JH execs squibbed the opportunity to stand up for the overarching principle that we as a society shouldn’t be hypocritical about the problems of epidemiological risk, as distinct from taking known engineering or technical risk. They didn’t and as far as I’m concerned got everything they deserved.

    By the time it came to pay the piper with asbestos(the true social cost), the JH entity was no longer the appropriate vehicle to go after. Real culprits had either been planted, or going after the occupants of nursing homes, would not have been a good look and besides, most of the private consumers had long absconded with the cheap private costs of asbestos products. JH execs could have easily rustled up the facts on employees service and shareholder longevity to amply demonstrate that fact and then asked- what about asbestos brake linings for the last couple of decades you lot?

    We can see the hypocrisy and smug 20/20 hindsight of what was really a witch hunt, in the same epidemiological dilemma of GW right now. That’s why we all need to be clear about a sound overarching constitutional rule here. Until such time as wea as a society, democratically decide to proscribe, or ban an activity or product, there should be no retrospective liability for those who seel, deal or use same.

  2. melanie
    October 20th, 2007 at 11:12 | #2

    Observa, you’re grabbing at straws. There are plenty of legal precedents for retrospective damages in cases where people knowingly sold something that caused damage to others, even if the nature of the product was not widely known at the time.

  3. observa
    October 20th, 2007 at 14:51 | #3

    There are legal precedents for hanging, drawing and quartering too Melanie but…? If you firmly believe I’m grabbing at straws, please feel free to answer my question re GW. When should the fossil fuel industry turn out the lights? Already?I put it to you that they(really we as consumers and voters)should continue doing exactly what they are doing until such time as we legislate otherwise and noone should be retrospectively sued for current business as usual. Anything else is lunacy.

  4. observa
    October 20th, 2007 at 15:00 | #4

    Basically if you put Al Gore fans in the position of past Hardies execs, workers and consumers and put the word on them about their current behaviour, there is stony silence. Ipso facto you’re as guilty as they were eh? When and where can your children begin to sue for damages, with your own lofty, legal precedents in mind? Lunacy.

  5. snuh
    October 21st, 2007 at 13:04 | #5

    We can see the hypocrisy and smug 20/20 hindsight of what was really a witch hunt…

    whatever observa. i’ve already said the thing i thought most offensive about james hardie’s conduct was that they’ve actually known since 1950 that the product they sold was lethal. hence no issue of the benefit of “hindsight” is raised.

    fwiw, i detest militant anti-plastic baggers, but try to avoid their use myself.

Comment pages
1 2 3738
Comments are closed.