Church of the Customer Blog
« Up next: The Accenture State of the State address | Main | A new definition of word of mouth marketing »
September 14, 2004
Up next: The Accenture State of the State address
In the News from the Weird desk, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is considering creating an "official state beverage."
The untold "millions of dollars" this marketing scheme could bring to state coffers has administration officials in a luxurious lather. Here's the idea: A beverage company "would pay the state for the privilege of calling itself the 'official; state beverage and selling its products in about 1,300 vending machine at roughly 100 Illinois state parks, rest stops, offices and other government facilities." And then truckloads of money would magically arrive.
There's no explanation for this idea other than: Illinois' executive branch of government has brand fever. Symptoms include:
* An unironic belief that a state is a "brand"
* An irrational belief that "brand equity" really exists
* A naive belief that a "strong brand" automatically means easy money
* An overwhelming desire to monetize anything associated with a "brand"
* An undeniable belief that Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is actually Judas reincarnated
OK, I made the last one up.
Eventually, a patient suffering from brand fever exhibits pathologically destructive behaviors, like proposing that a governmental entity enter the beverage licensing business.
States have "official" flowers, birds and other ecologocial phenomenon due to native and natural forces. But there is nothing natural about branding; it is a contrived form of selling, largely driven by ego and Donald Trump's hair. Creating an "official" beverage of Illinois is about as natural as a Pepsi sign growing out of Gov. Blagojevich's ear.
Other than tourism, the role of government is to inspire, enable and manage commerce as an objective, disinterested third party, not compete with it. Licensing dollars pouring into state coffers can only have a corrupting influence on state government (although some might say that time is well past for Illinois).
If the number of comments on the Chicago Tribune's website about this idea is any indication, most citizens think this idea is dumber than New Coke.
Every level of government should be held accountable for continued improvement in the value of our tax dollars that make modern society possible, including customer-focused delivery of services. Just as the country's Founding Fathers championed the division of church and state, so too should a division between business and state continue to exist, however wobbly it is currently. The widespread influence of big business in politics has introduced new and complex problems into lawmaking that often favor corporations over citizens; licensing deals like an "official beverage" just open the door wider for Big Business.
In the big picture, a sponsored "official beverage" simply equates the state to the level of sugared water.
Should this distasteful idea pass, what to expect next?
* "The Chrysler Deparment of Motor Vehicles"
* "The Accenture State of the State Address"
* "The Deloitte Touche State Comptroller's Office"
* "The Tap Pharmaceuticals/Illinois House of Representatives"
* "Trojan, the official sponsor of (former) senatorial candidate Jack Ryan"
Other blogs that reference Up next: The Accenture State of the State address:
» Branding gone mad? from Johnnie Moore's Weblog
Nice to see Ben McConnell in full rant mode: Up Next: The Accenture State of the State Address. Prompted by the idea of the state of Illinois creating "an official state beverage" as a way of scooping millions of dollars... [Read More]
I am Effern, and I approve of this comment.
Ya know, just drive down (or up) I-294 and check out the billboard selection. How many tout [product] as the "official" [item] of [Chicago, IL, the Midwest, etc]?
Gov. Blagojevich is well-meaning, I am sure, but think of all of the cellar-dwelling football teams (pro and college) that mug for the TV cameras by waving a "#1" finger around. Yes, there really is a #1, but in the case of pro football, there aren't 32 of them. Maybe the argument can be made about "last in the league, first in your heart" but I digress.
Bottom line: [Company] can pay to declare [brand] as "the official [whatever] of Illinois", but that won't stop other companies/brands from making the same claim without dropping big(ger) bucks to do it.
An unironic belief that a state is a "brand"
Hey now, you're negating all of that "brand called You" stuff, as seen in such magazines as Fast Company.
You didn't hear about Snapple becoming NYC's official beverage? See:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0422/robbins2.php
http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=42014
Q: What's next? A: Advertising on the moon!
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?602
When I lived in Utah, they were actively engaged with an advertising agency to work on Utah's brand (read: change the perception) strategy. I have a feeling that Illinois isn't the first nor last to attempt to brand a state.
On the issue of mixing church and state, business and state, well it's almost too late to shut the doors.
While detestable, this example is a particularly unappealing manifestation of the existing 'partnership' of business and state, to which we'd all prefer to avert our eyes.
Ah, the sweet smell of corruption in the morning! Now the politicians can sell out to their corporate buddies and make it look good for the public. Imagine the fine headlines as we call them...
The Halliburton Department of Defense.
The Georgia Pacific National Park.
When corporate sponsorship is enacted into law in the name of fighting terrorism or making us "feel safer," then you'll know society has completed its crossing into Orwellian society.
