Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Shadow Government, Shadow Management

Whither cable news and corporate America?

Vol. 4, Issue No. 63 | November 11, 2008 By Denny Hatch
9

IN THE NEWS

What now for cable news?
Politics has never monopolized the conversation on TV the way it has during this election cycle. That's unquestionably true if we extend the definition of conversation to include partisan bloviation and endless conjecture. And since those rhetorical flourishes are the stock in trade of cable news outlets, those channels, as you might imagine, have had a monster year. For instance, from August through October, the prime-time audience for Fox News was up 99 percent, CNN 119 percent, and MSNBC 125 percent from the same interval last year. It's been a riveting ride. "I don't remember an election like this," said Phil Griffin, MSNBC president. "I do remember a month that was as incredible. That was November 2000 during the recount."

—David Hiltbrand, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 6, 2008

Different kinds of shadow governments exist in the United States, where elections are held every four years and the incoming administration has 75 days to affect the transition. One shadow government is the aforementioned media.

With no presidential horse race to cover, cable news will morph into a kind of shadow government. While not in-waiting to take over government, the cable crowd will make sure that every major and minor development is talked to death—analyzed by "experts" who will give all kinds of advice to business and government on health care, the economy, foreign affairs, social issues, energy and the environment to the point where the public wonders who's really shaping policy and inspiring decisions.

Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, no one knew where or when the next assault would come, if it were coming at all. President Bush wisely set up an official shadow government whereby senior civilian officials live and work outside of Washington, D.C. in order to ensure continuity in the event of another attack. As Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt wrote in the March 1, 2002, edition of The Washington Post:

Deployed "on the fly" in the first hours of turmoil on Sept. 11, one participant said, the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution. For that reason, the high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast. Rotation is among several changes made in late October or early November, sources said, to the standing directive Bush inherited from a line of presidents reaching back to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The civilian cadre present in the bunkers usually numbers 70 to 150, and "fluctuates based on intelligence" about terrorist threats, according to a senior official involved in managing the program. It draws from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies. Its first mission, in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, would be to prevent collapse of essential government functions.

This system was codified on May 9, 2007, through Presidential Directives NSPD 51 and HSPD-20. (See hyperlinks below).

To me, this makes sense—people in bunkers with the authority to make command decisions and keep things going should Washington, D.C., be turned into a parking lot.

The equivalent in business is a company called SunGard, with computers directly tied into the data processing of its clients—primarily financial services. In the event of a catastrophe that knocks out a client's business, a switch can be flicked and the SunGard instantly takes over, enabling the affected company to continue operating without missing a beat.

The Shadow Government of Corporations or Industries
From Gretchen Morgenson's story in this past Sunday's New York Times titled, "How the Thundering Herd Faltered and Fell":

THERE were high-fives all around Merrill Lynch headquarters in Lower Manhattan as 2006 drew to a close. The firm's performance was breathtaking; revenue and earnings had soared, and its shares were up 40 percent for the year. And Merrill's decision to invest heavily in the mortgage industry was paying off handsomely. So handsomely, in fact, that on Dec. 30 that year, it essentially doubled down by paying $1.3 billion for First Franklin, a lender specializing in risky mortgages. It was a moment to savor for E. Stanley O'Neal, Merrill's autocratic leader, and a group of trusted lieutenants who had helped orchestrate the firm's profitable but belated mortgage push.

The key sentences in Morgenson's story:

Two indispensable members of Mr. O'Neal's clique were Osman Semerci, who, among other things, ran Merrill's bond unit, and Ahmass L. Fakahany, the firm's vice chairman and chief administrative officer. A native of Turkey who began his career trading stocks in Istanbul, Mr. Semerci, 41, oversaw Merrill's mortgage operation. He often played the role of tough guy, former executives say, silencing critics who warned about the risks the firm was taking.

Two years later, Merrill Lynch crashed, burned and was forced to merge with Bank of America. O'Neal, Semerci, Fakahany and hundreds of others are gone. Stockholders are screwed. "It was an ignominious end to America's most famous brokerage house," Morgenson wrote, "whose ubiquitous corporate logo was a hard-charging bull."

These guys weren't making cars. Nor were they making it possible for cars to be made, which is the business they were supposed to be in.

They were making bets.

I spent some years as a lowly marketer running book clubs. I dealt with bad debt, wrote and designed billing and dunning efforts, and was very careful to cut off members who failed to pay.

If one of these hotshot honchos said to me, "Hey, we're building a huge industry that's going to make us a lot of money based on irresistible offers to customers who won't be able to pay their bills! Do you want to get in on the action?" I would say, "You're all out of your [expletive deleted] minds!"

It's now my opinion that some kind of shadow government should be set up to oversee the operations of individual companies—and entire industries.

As it stands now, the only shadow government of a corporation is its board of directors.

In the case of Bear Stearns, Lehman, Goldman, Fannie and Freddie, AIG, and Merrill Lynch, the directors failed to give guidance based on business common sense. My bet is the directors didn't have a clue what was going on and were gulled into believing management's rosy scenarios.

The directors of Ford, Chrysler and GM allowed management to preside for years over a failed legacy business model that concentrated on gas-guzzlers rather than moving to hybrids. They spent more per car on health care than on steel. Why did the directors not act?

Congress is incapable of industry oversight with its members in thrall to the lobbyists that contribute millions to campaign coffers and party committees. Until now, the Fed, the SEC, Council of Economic Advisors and other federal agencies couldn't ride herd without being accused of government meddling.

A trillion dollars later, not only are taxpayers and stockholders screwed, the whole world's screwed.

Takeaway Points to Consider

  • If you work for a corporation, it makes sense to learn all you can about its inner and outer workings, as well as what kind of shape it's in financially.
  • Is the business model under which your organization operated last year, and in prior years, still completely viable in these unsettling times? Or are changes in order?
  •  What do you know about the agendas of the officers and managers running your show? Are they making decisions based on long-term growth, or looking for a quick buck in order to collect bonuses or position the company for a sale?
  • How about the directors of your corporation? Are they in the pockets of management? Do they do what they're told? Or are they assiduously looking out for the welfare of the company—its people and its future?
  • It's imperative to fine-tune what Ernest Hemingway called your built-in, shockproof shit detector. In business and life, the one thing to be avoided is a surprise.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition

"What Now for Cable News?"
http://tinyurl.com/5og25v

"MSNBC's Tag for Now: 'The Power of Change'"
http://tinyurl.com/5wpk5s

Bush creates shadow government following 9/11
http://tinyurl.com/5dyx3t

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives 51 & 20
http://tinyurl.com/yqthor

"How the Thundering Herd Faltered and Fell" — Gretchen Morgenson
http://tinyurl.com/62bdcn
 
9

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
John Walters - Posted on November 11, 2008
Another interesting and thought provoking article, Denny.
I think the current situation and the actions and events that led to it may, perhaps, lead to a complete review of the regulatory area for corporations.
First up - what do the Boards of Directors actually do? Or better, what do they do that the CEO does not do or should be doing? So the question is do they have a role at all in modern corporate organisations? It is often argued that they contribute wider experience than is available in house, but surely that can be hired on an 'as needs' basis without saddling the organisation with a permanent director drawing substantial remuneration to sit around a boardroom table offering monthly pearls of wisdom?
Secondly, don't underestimate the understanding and abilities of the auditor. Auditors learn an astonishing amount about the corporations they audit well beyond their apparent financial responibilities. Given the opportunity they could become a real force for ensuring that corporations not only toed the line financially but in business social and welfare areas too. They are independent and could report quarterly on all of these areas, as the motto of my own institute states, 'Without Fear or Favour'. (Given away my own profession there!).
At the very least I hope that the current situation will bring about reasoned argument for methods to avoid the worst excesses that are now becoming embarrassingly public.
As an aside and as a passionate advocate of the O'Brian books, I envy you your trip next April. I trust it will be on HMS Surprise.
PS As an accountant I can cope with your mathematical puzzles but do they deter others?
Wash Phillips - Posted on November 11, 2008
Genie Z - Posted on November 11, 2008
Speaking of those boards of directors, who are they? Why haven't their names been seen in public? Their choices are getting bailed out by us. If we have to cover their bets, why can't anyone tell us who they are? Shouldn't they be held accountable at least a little? They are the ones who set the salaries and golden parachutes. They set the direction of the company. Who are these shadow people? and how much are they benefiting from our public funds for their mistakes?
Dev. Kinney - Posted on November 11, 2008
When I was at Holiday Inns, my division, Holiday Press, once a basement operation printing only in green ink, grew during my tenure to be the largest commercial printing plant in the South. I had gone from a two-man art department to a pre-press operation and art department operating three shifts 24/5. Rather than kill myself running an operation that had no idea how to sustain itself, I left. In 5 years the plant was sold off and closed. People invested in a bad idea are either unable or unwilling to face the consequences.
We invested in the idea of foreign terrorism and used that idea to grow government and entitlements. That cancer spread throughout our economy and has almost wiped us out.
Denny Hatch - Posted on November 11, 2008
bilou - Posted on November 11, 2008
When more corporations realize that "doing good" is also good business, this will help the economy as well.

The "Double Down!" greed mentality, always needing a quick fix doesn't solve much of anything, though. It's an addict's mentality. (And, we ARE a nation of addicts!)

The few friends I've told about how my 401k actually gained during the 3rd quarter were beyond shocked.

When I told them that my investment was 100% in the socially-conscious option and that it has steadily gained just a little...but very nearly always a little, including this last quarter, it gave them pause for thought.

May more of us pause for this thought!
Nate - Posted on November 11, 2008
Thank you Denny, your 'spot on' with the bailout. When will the legislation be repealed that legalized this betting on Wall Street? Why aren't the Democrats being blamed for going along with this program? And who repealed free market capitalism, where it is the survival of the fittest? I don't think any one needs a 'new' business model, they need to get off their __ butts and do some real old fashioned work!
Fred Groh - Posted on November 11, 2008
Kristen - Posted on November 11, 2008
Not only is cable news going to need a new business model, they're also going to have to find a new way to appeal to advertisers. With the election over, these networks are facing significantly smaller audiences, and an even bigger issue-- there are no more campaign ads, which generated record ad revenues for these networks. Watch a set of commercials now, and notice how many "filler" ads (promotions/plugs for shows the network itself owns) are displayed compared to commercial advertising for products etc. Without the giant media budgets of the presidential campaigns feeding the coffers, these networks are taking a hard hit--one that only gets harder as the returns on internet advertising prove to be far more trackable, the data far easier to come by, and the costs per contact much lower.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
John Walters - Posted on November 11, 2008
Another interesting and thought provoking article, Denny.
I think the current situation and the actions and events that led to it may, perhaps, lead to a complete review of the regulatory area for corporations.
First up - what do the Boards of Directors actually do? Or better, what do they do that the CEO does not do or should be doing? So the question is do they have a role at all in modern corporate organisations? It is often argued that they contribute wider experience than is available in house, but surely that can be hired on an 'as needs' basis without saddling the organisation with a permanent director drawing substantial remuneration to sit around a boardroom table offering monthly pearls of wisdom?
Secondly, don't underestimate the understanding and abilities of the auditor. Auditors learn an astonishing amount about the corporations they audit well beyond their apparent financial responibilities. Given the opportunity they could become a real force for ensuring that corporations not only toed the line financially but in business social and welfare areas too. They are independent and could report quarterly on all of these areas, as the motto of my own institute states, 'Without Fear or Favour'. (Given away my own profession there!).
At the very least I hope that the current situation will bring about reasoned argument for methods to avoid the worst excesses that are now becoming embarrassingly public.
As an aside and as a passionate advocate of the O'Brian books, I envy you your trip next April. I trust it will be on HMS Surprise.
PS As an accountant I can cope with your mathematical puzzles but do they deter others?
Wash Phillips - Posted on November 11, 2008
Genie Z - Posted on November 11, 2008
Speaking of those boards of directors, who are they? Why haven't their names been seen in public? Their choices are getting bailed out by us. If we have to cover their bets, why can't anyone tell us who they are? Shouldn't they be held accountable at least a little? They are the ones who set the salaries and golden parachutes. They set the direction of the company. Who are these shadow people? and how much are they benefiting from our public funds for their mistakes?
Dev. Kinney - Posted on November 11, 2008
When I was at Holiday Inns, my division, Holiday Press, once a basement operation printing only in green ink, grew during my tenure to be the largest commercial printing plant in the South. I had gone from a two-man art department to a pre-press operation and art department operating three shifts 24/5. Rather than kill myself running an operation that had no idea how to sustain itself, I left. In 5 years the plant was sold off and closed. People invested in a bad idea are either unable or unwilling to face the consequences.
We invested in the idea of foreign terrorism and used that idea to grow government and entitlements. That cancer spread throughout our economy and has almost wiped us out.
Denny Hatch - Posted on November 11, 2008
bilou - Posted on November 11, 2008
When more corporations realize that "doing good" is also good business, this will help the economy as well.

The "Double Down!" greed mentality, always needing a quick fix doesn't solve much of anything, though. It's an addict's mentality. (And, we ARE a nation of addicts!)

The few friends I've told about how my 401k actually gained during the 3rd quarter were beyond shocked.

When I told them that my investment was 100% in the socially-conscious option and that it has steadily gained just a little...but very nearly always a little, including this last quarter, it gave them pause for thought.

May more of us pause for this thought!
Nate - Posted on November 11, 2008
Thank you Denny, your 'spot on' with the bailout. When will the legislation be repealed that legalized this betting on Wall Street? Why aren't the Democrats being blamed for going along with this program? And who repealed free market capitalism, where it is the survival of the fittest? I don't think any one needs a 'new' business model, they need to get off their __ butts and do some real old fashioned work!
Fred Groh - Posted on November 11, 2008
Kristen - Posted on November 11, 2008
Not only is cable news going to need a new business model, they're also going to have to find a new way to appeal to advertisers. With the election over, these networks are facing significantly smaller audiences, and an even bigger issue-- there are no more campaign ads, which generated record ad revenues for these networks. Watch a set of commercials now, and notice how many "filler" ads (promotions/plugs for shows the network itself owns) are displayed compared to commercial advertising for products etc. Without the giant media budgets of the presidential campaigns feeding the coffers, these networks are taking a hard hit--one that only gets harder as the returns on internet advertising prove to be far more trackable, the data far easier to come by, and the costs per contact much lower.