Austerity is voted out in France

Observation:  We seldom devote space to the Euro Zone at this site; there are plenty of global economic pundits covering that topic.  But it is worth noting that Francoix Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy in the French presidential election.  Sarkozy generally favored cuts in public spending to solve the economic woes of the country and region; Hollande is a socialist who believes spending will stimulate the economy and people with higher incomes should fund that spending.  Click here to see the Wall Street Journal’s full story on the matter.

Implications:   I’m just watching this story wondering how many of the 17 countries in the European Union might follow suit… and how these shifts in policy might affect companies who export to Europe, or import products and services from Europe.

Also, I’m wondering whether the mood of the U.S. can be expected to shift in similar ways between now and November.  What do you think?

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Political projection 2012: A year of angst for elected officials

Observation:   Consistent followers of this site know that I try to avoid the topic of partisan politics.  But a collection of recent stories makes the topic difficult to ignore, as the collective coverage of voter satisfaction is an interesting case study for consumer sentiment and corresponding behavior.

In today’s Washington Post, there was a story about the sharp divide between those who think the Obama administration is doing a good job (click to link).  Earlier this week, the same newspaper ran a story with the headline that only “84% of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing” (click here to see that Washington Post story).

Last month, both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran stories about the high person incomes of members of Congress, relative to the constituents they represent.  Click here to see the Post story, and if you prefer the New York Times version, click here.

Also last month, USA Today ran a story about the general disenchantment of voters—from both parties—and the significant number of people who no longer consider themselves a member of the party they were aligned with in 2008.  Fully 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the last general election.  Click here to see that article.  

Implications:   An election year is seldom a cordial, polite thing to witness.  But with the apparent discontent of voters with regard to both the White House and Congress, as well as the candidate-driven rhetoric that is only likely to escalate as the 2012 campaign moves forward… this year is likely to be particularly messy.  

Will voters (aka consumers) be impacted by it?  Or will they simply begin to ignore it in greater numbers?  Is the move away from their political party driven by anger with the policies or ideology of that party, or the tactics their party has employed to further those platforms?  Could we be seeing a period when, politically, "the party is over?"

Based on the feedback I’ve heard—in the press and from informal interviews we’ve been doing all over the country over the past year—voters are focused on things like jobs, economic stability, deficit reduction, and income equality.  It will be interesting to see which (or whether any) candidate connects with those themes successfully. 

Does your company, product or service represent an escape from all of the election noise?  Does your messaging communicate that you understand the challenges your customers face right now, and you have ways to help?

Many consumers are focused less on the macro economy of the U.S. these days, because they realize they have little control over it (even at the voting booth).  But they have taken matters into their own hands, managing their micro-economy (their household finances) much differently than they did just a few years ago.

Are you in touch with those realities?  Does your company, product or service resonate with their new priorities?  Have you explained how… to the consumer you serve?

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Political discontent

Observation:   Before you read this, note that I’m focusing on the political race purely for its’ consumer trend value, not because I want to talk politics.

A seemingly constant stream of different GOP candidates have taken their turn at “leading in the polls,” including everyone from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry, and then from Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich.   At this writing, this week’s initial primary in Iowa now seems to be somewhat of a toss-up between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and most recent surge candidate Rick Santorum.   

Now—politics aside—think about that.  Without considering the platform of any candidate or any scandal that might surround their candidacy, think simply about the churn of the race.  It is as if voters (aka Consumers) are finding favor with a fresh face, and then holding that candidate up for greater scrutiny, until scratches or dents are found, and they decide to move onto the next option.

We seem to be living through a season of political discontent… where the electorate is searching for a candidate they can live with (sometimes, by trial and error, it seems).  And it might be worth noting that the person they’re comfortable with today may not be the candidate they’ll prefer tomorrow, next week or next month.  The winner will be that candidate who peaks at just the right time… as voters arrive at their caucuses or walk into a voting booth.

Implications:   How long does your company, product or service have to establish itself as contender?  (How long is the buying cycle or consideration process for the products or services you sell?)  How could your messaging be time to make sure that you’re a strong contender when it matters most… when the consumer is ready to buy or commit?

As many campaign managers could tell you this year, being an incumbent might not necessarily be an advantage.  Have you talked with your constituents (aka “Best Customers”), lately, to see if you’re really earning their continued business?  (The alternative would be consumers who buy from an under-performing provider simply because it’s easier than shopping around… for the moment.) 

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

UPDATE: Occupy Wall Street

This week’s Iconowatch, the newsletter from Iconoculture, builds on a topic we mentioned earlier this week about the recent Occupy Wall Street demonstrations [see "Preoccupied with Wall Street"].  This article notes that Millennials make up a large percentage of the Occupy movement.  Click here to see it.

Implications:   Another particularly thought-provoking observation from this article was the idea that many commentators are referring to the Occupy movement as (I paraphrase) “more of a street party than an meaningful demonstration.” 

Didn’t they say something like that about many of the demonstrations that happened in the 60s and 70s?  It will be interesting to see if the movement fades into autumn, or whether it will grow into a voice that influences the outcome of next year’s election.


[Editor's note:  Another worthwhile story about Occupy Wall street was published the following day (10/13/11) in the New York Times, explaining the "share of voice" these protests have begun to receive in various news media, as the movement fans-out across the U.S.  Click here to see that story.]

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

Politics aside, many people seem ready to put politicians aside

This morning, the New York Times had an interesting piece on some less-than-scientific research they conducted over the weekend, having to do with the debate over raising the debt ceiling.  Click here to read the story.  Its only conclusion:  Washington is not getting anything done.  And folks are not blaming the White House or Congress… they seem to be blaming both.

Implications:    Right now, it might be easy to start thinking that many consumers—aka “voters”—are thinking that either major party is too extreme in their approach to finances. 

Will that cause one or both major parties to move more toward the middle?  Will the chasm represent an opening for candidates that either defy their current party’s thinking, or who come from an independent alternative?

Speaking as a trend watcher—not as an advocate for either party—one gets the feeling that patience is running out.  Especially for those politicians who might be seen as more loyal to their party than to the people (again, aka “voters”).  Absent some progress on the debt ceiling, the deficit and jobs, the next election could look a lot like the last… but with neither party coming out as the clear winner.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

The national mood could use a boost. Can you provide one?

Last night on the CBS News, I caught a story about a CBS/New York Times poll on how voters (consumers) feel about the state of the nation and the direction of its leadership.  It was quite telling, not just because of the dramatic numbers that came from the survey, but also because of the descriptive remarks (as brief as they were) from the real people featured in the story.  Watch the video below (commercial pre-roll required) or visit CBS.

Implications:   The two themes that bubbled up in this story are 1) frustration, and 2) the sense that leaders in Congress and the White House "don’t understand what’s important to me."  It appears that a majority of voters (consumers) think the people they hired during the last pair of elections lack empathy… the ability to consider a situation from someone else’ point of view.

Think about your company, product or service.  When people walk into your store, dealership or lobby… does their experience begin to suggest that you know what their priorities are, when considering this purchase?  Does your product/service provide some relief from the long, hard hours that consumers are working these days?  Does your website provide a means of planning their shopping visit, so that they don’t have to make additional, unnecessary trips to your store when gas prices are climbing?

Think about how your consumer sees their need and your business or product.  That is simple empathy… and people are hungry for it.

Mike Anderson, for the Elm Street Economics consumer trends blog. A service of The Center for Sales Strategy, Inc.

An educated guess: Cost of higher education going higher

Last week, Research Brief published an analysis of National Center for Education Statistics data done by the Pew Research Center. The analysis suggests that college students are borrowing much more money in recent years. (Click here to read the full article.)

The following day, the New York Times published a story that points to a cloudy future for the funding of Pell Grants. (Click here to see that story.)

Implications: Think about book stores, back-to-school clothing, wireless phones, laptops, local pizza delivery shops… right down to the beer vendors: There are lots of business categories that rely on college student spending for their livelihood. But this trend stands to impact more than just the companies who build or sell those small dorm-room-sized refrigerators. These reports suggest that we might be wise to look for fundamental changes in the way some people seek education.

Could increasing costs lead more people to online classrooms, or at least to down-grade from a distant, private college to a hometown, public university? Or, could these costs inspire students to take classes with the idea of gaining specific collection of knowledge, a skill, or ability… instead of seeking a broad degree?

Mike Anderson

Consumers are operating on a need-to-know basis

This morning’s Research Brief features a Pew Research report about People and the Press. The study was designed to examine how much—or how little—people know about the balance of power in their own government and other high-profile topics, such as the recession, TARP, and more.

Click here to read the full article.

Implications: After first reading this report, it would be easy (and a bit unnerving) to assume that a lot of people are generally idiots. But thankfully, I don’t think that is the case, and I don’t think that’s what this data implies. In my humble opinion, the report might indicate that people are operating on a need-to-know basis.

They’re very busy trying to get or keep a job, raise families, make payments, catch-up on retirement, go to PTA meetings, take care of aging parents… et al. Political rhetoric has turned government into something that would often be more compatible with Entertainment Tonight than C-SPAN, and people don’t have time for it. Bailouts and recovery plans seem like out-of-reach topics that are decided behind closed doors and topics over which the consumer (voter) has little influence… so why pay attention? They have plenty of other things to worry about.

Certainly, ignorance about how our country works is a fundamental problem, and it needs to be addressed. But lack of education is only one cause; a greater cause might be lack of interest.

When it comes to your business, how complicated has life become for the consumer? Is you marketing message focused on things you want people to know? Or does it focus on what consumers need to know?

An important question to ask… when so many consumers are operating on a need-to-know basis.

Mike Anderson

YOU can balance the federal budget and solve the looming deficit

While doing research for another project, I came across this dandy little tool at the New York Times website: It lets participants make choices about how to solve the projected deficits. Click here to give it a spin.

Implications: The challenge of government, these days, is to help its citizenry understand the complex issues of taxation, services rendered, and sacrifices required. This puzzle/tool helps the participant gain fundamental knowledge of a complex issue. (I found myself wishing a form like this could have replaced the one I was offered at the ballot box a couple of weeks ago.)

You know, really good political commentary is hard to find these days, but I did hear a pearl of wisdom one day, just before the election, while flipping through the news channels. Someone said (I’m paraphrasing), “The problem is that we all want to go on the Hot Fudge Sundae Diet. We all know we need to go on a diet, but none of us wants to give up the hot fudge sundae that’s sitting right in front of us.”

Indeed, many folks have a NIMBY approach to tax cuts, not unlike their feelings toward nuclear power plants or hazardous waste facilities: They’re necessary and important to have, but Not In My Back Yard.

I only bring it up because voters are also consumers. And most companies are at risk of eventually facing the same kind of conundrum. It could be related to the battle between products that are cheaper because they are made with less expensive foreign labor… or it might have something to do with a service that is personally enjoyable but environmentally harmful.

Do you have ideas to explain complex consequences in an easy-to-understand way? Doing so might mean the sale or no-sale of a product, service, new store location in a quaint neighborhood... or even just an idea.

Mike Anderson

The irony of consumer sentiment

An article in today’s Marketing Daily newsletter ponders why, in October, automotive sales were up, while the consumer mood was down. The story was actually published yesterday online, and you can click here to see it.

Implications: Good economy or not, we live in a mobile society… and I trust that some people have deferred their vehicle purchase to the point where they feel like it can be delayed no longer. Plus, in a world where so much is thought of as “beyond” the consumer’s control, a vehicle purchase can represent that “small indulgence” that makes folks feel better.

Either way, it’s proof that a company—or even an entire category—can do well in a weird economic (or political) environment.

Mike Anderson

The election results on Elm Street

Don’t worry, this is not a partisan rant… just the usual observation/implication, as it relates to the mid-term elections, the results of which were pouring-in all night.

Observation: People remain frustrated and very much in a “trial and error” frame of mind. Two years ago, the Obama administration came in on a platform of change. When solutions were not felt fast enough—and economic matters are still not clear—that same wave of change has washed control of Congress to the conservatism. (But not control of the Senate.)

And we’ll be watching this same process resume again, in about a twelve months from now (when campaigning will likely be underway for 2012 elections.

Implications: Set your political opinions aside, for a moment, and look at this from a consumer's point of view. I’m looking at general numbers for a variety of races across the country, and at a glance, I’m seeing a deeply split and discouraged electorate.

First of all, the campaigning was particularly bitter, given the fact that this was a mid-term election. People feel like they’ve been through a lot with this economy, and we spent a lot of time hearing that all that work, effort and cost has been a waste of time and money. One would think all of these heated campaigns would have brought a majority of voters to the polls.

As of 3:00 a.m. this morning (Eastern), voter turnout was projected to be somewhere around 41.3%. Granted, more western states still had many ballot boxes uncounted at that time. But if it stands, I’d read that number to mean more than half of voters either didn’t like their choices, or they felt like they had something more important to worry about on election night. We'll hear a lot about a mandate (it's a popular word after every election), but at this writing, it's looking like we couldn't even muster-up a quorum.

Is that an inappropriate conclusion? Do people feel like Washington is unlikely to solve these issues, regardless of which party is in power? (That’s a good question: Consider the share of White House and Congressional control over the past decade… or, over the past two decades.) My hunch is that voter strategy right now is trial-and-error… and nothing they’re trying seems to work.

What does all of this lead to? I think voters (consumers) will continue to take financial management issues into their own hands… not waiting for some magical solution to come from Washington.

As a business owner, manager or marketer, that has important implications to you. Continue talking about the value you provide (not just the cost people must put into a product/service, but the enrichment they get out of it). Talk about the fairness of your price. Talk about quality of life. Talk about how you can reduce stress, offer simple truths, and save people time (so they can continue working harder than ever).

The election continues… and people will be voting with their dollars. What do your constituents, in particular, want?

Mike Anderson

Anxiously waiting for... (what!?)

Another story in today’s Marketing Daily cites research from JWT, which suggests considerable discontent among voters (also known as: consumers). It is well worth the read, and you can click here to see the article.

Implications: The focus of the MD story is on political parties and on the mid-term elections occurring today, but it has me thinking about other aspects of the consumer’s life. The article hints at a sense of “equanimity” (being at peace with the moment) that might occur on Wednesday (once the elections have been decided).

I don’t think so.

I don’t think voters (consumers) are as dumb as most politicians (or political parties) might think. I’m quite sure consumers realize that both major parties had a hand in creating the current economic mess, and I don’t think voters believe the outcome of a mid-term election will cause a dramatic improvement in the situation. At risk of sounding like a negative Nelly, I’ll even suggest that voters (consumers) don’t expect the people who win today to fix the country’s woes.

But they’ll expect incremental improvement. They’ll expect elected officials to fix something.
When people are considering your product or service, what are they waiting for? What are they hoping for? Are they expecting a life-changing experience, or simply…

… A quiet date night on Thursday when they visit your restaurant?

… A simple explanation about how their cell phone connects to a car when they walk into your dealership?

… A clever meal idea that’s easy to prepare after work tomorrow?

… Courtesy?

Maybe it’s not necessary to be “all that and a bag of chips.” I think many consumers have dialed-down their expectations, as a by-product of the recent great recession. Perhaps the consumers you’re serving would be happy with simply a product or service provider that under-promises and over delivers in just one small corner of their lives.

Mike Anderson

Health and fitness: A national security issue?

Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity might be more than just a good idea. It could be an early initiative in a larger, longer-term focus on national health.

In yesterday’s New York Times, there was a story about the condition of new recruits when they arrive for basic training at Fort Jackson in Columbia, SC. (Click here to read the story.)

Implications: Again, I have little desire to assume the role of futurist; in fact, this NY Times story inspired me to look to the past, when poor fitness was recognized as an important problem… worthy of a nation-wide solution. I did a search for the original President’s Council on Physical Fitness (circa 1956), and came across this history at fitness.gov (click here to see the piece).

A country is only as healthy as its population; I don’t see issues like fitness, diet and overall wellness fading away anytime soon. That’s not a hint from the future, but one from our past.

Mike Anderson

Don't just watch the votes. Watch the voters.

I have waited a while before submitting this particular entry, for one reason: Remarks in either direction could have been seen as political. But I offer this posting as a matter of simple observation in the way elections are evolving. Note that both matters come to us from California.

First, in case you missed, Carly Fiorina won her primary in the race for the senate. And Meg Whitman won her primary in the race for governor. (For more information, see this primary coverage from the LA Times.) Worth noting, in my opinion not because these were both GOP races, or because they are both highly successful women from the technology field (Fiorina is the former CEO of Compaq/Hewlett Packard, and Whitman is the former leader at eBay). These candidates are important for what they both are not: Life-long politicians.

Secondly, with the passage of Proposition 14, voters in California have signaled a fundamental change in their state’s primary process. Instead of having two parties pick candidates that voters must then choose from, the top two vote-getters of any kind (party or no) will be placed on the ballot for fall elections. Political pundits don’t know whether this is a change for the better or a change for the worse: But everyone agrees this measure represents a fundamental change to politics. Read more on the matter in this story from The New York Times.

Implications: In advance of recent primaries, much commentary focused on the challenges facing incumbents at a time when the voting public is growing tired of the status quo.

Perhaps this frustration will not only impact longtime office-holders… but the system itself.
Think about consumers who have been frustrated buying in your category. Are they likely to change providers… or could they go so far as to change categories, completely?

Mike Anderson

Far more than an eyesore: Potential outcomes of the BP spill

The Deepwater Horizon tragedy cost eleven lives on the day it began (April 20, 2010). To state the obvious, the impact of this incident on the wildlife, the waterway and adjacent communities will be far-reaching. (The catastrophe is now recognized as the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history.) But considered from the context of consumer trends, what are some of the plausible outcomes of the BP oil spill?

There is a fine line between being a trend watcher and being a futurist. And while I usually avoid crossing that line, I decided to give this question a little thought over the weekend. So, as we look out over the next months or years, what kinds of things might we see that could impact consumer behavior? (I encourage you to think about this, too, in terms of the way these issues could impact consumers in your category. If you come up with anything you’d like to share, just send me a note by email.) What I offer here are not predictions, but a range of possibilities.

Regional frustration. In a post-Katrina world, everyone seems more sensitive to the lapse that occurs between a catastrophe and an effective response. One form of regional friction will likely come from the delay, again, that the Gulf region has endured in terms of response time. But that is not the only form of regional friction to watch for.

In Florida, the temptation to generate revenue through off-shore drilling has long been resisted; one reason is the threat a possible spill might pose to the immense tourism industry. Now, Florida residents and public officials are increasingly upset that they stand to suffer environmental consequences regardless of their disciplined approach to offshore oil. For more on this angle, see this story from the New York Times.

Accelerating the pursuit of alternatives. There’s a good chance that the BP oil spill could speed-up the move toward more environmentally responsible energy choices. As the intense barrage of media coverage continues, consumers are more likely to realize that the cost of energy is greater than the price we pay at the pump. Also, consumers are more likely to make the connection between their personal energy consumption habits and consideration of how that energy is created and where it comes from. Another story in the New York Times offers thoughts on this topic, as does this op-ed piece from Thomas Friedman.

Increased scrutiny and regulation of the petroleum industry. It will be politically popular to write legislation that provides for greater protections and more strict performance expectations within the petroleum industry. On a flight to Denver last week, I sat next to a gentleman from the nuclear energy industry. During out chat, he said, “This is the oil industry’s Three Mile Island” (get background on that disaster by clicking here). The implication, of course, was that the accident at Three Mile Island served as a wake-up call for the nuclear industry, which saw a plethora of new rules and protocols after that 1979 incident. (The gentleman also offered that the entire nuclear industry became safer as a result of that accident.)

After a delay, increased prices. The oil industry (and I mean beyond BP) certainly doesn’t need any more ill-will these days. For a time, I would anticipate most producers will make every effort to avoid price increases. But when clean-up costs are tallied by BP, when new preventive measures can be expressed in terms of their expense to the petroleum industry (see previous paragraph), and if the moratorium on deep-water drilling should affect supplies, those price increases are inevitable. Of course, those prices will hit drivers at the gas pump… but they could also be felt in the cost of goods that are shipped from anywhere to anywhere.

Supply & demand implications. From tourism to seafood, prices are likely to mirror demand, whether that demand is high or low. And even in cases where spilled crude has not tainted the tourism or seafood industry, much of the press coverage has. Watch for more marketing campaigns to support industries which are not as bad off as the consumer might assume.

Implications: I apologize if the thoughts I have expressed here seem, in any way, impersonal or removed. The BP oil spill has been a terrible tragedy that has touched—and will touch—many people deeply. But my goal for this conversation was to place the effects of this environmental disaster into the context of consumer trends.

Don’t think of the list above as a set of answers. Think of it as a set of questions… or a simple range of possibilities.

In what ways might higher oil prices, if they happen, impact your company or your consumers? Are there things your organization could do, in particular, to serve people in the affected regions? If jobs are seriously impacted in the region, what new industries might sprout, tapping an eager workforce whose lifestyle and livelihood has been altered, perhaps long-term? If your company strives to practice sustainable energy and operating policies, will consumers give you more credit in the future than they have in the past?

Mike Anderson

Politics aside, it might be smart to consider politics when setting policy

The developing financial reform movement is starting to see more than a few hitchhikers. As one example, a story in today’s New York Times suggests that car dealerships (and their financing practices) could be affected by legislation intended to bring clarity and consumer protections to the derivatives market.

That might sound like a bit of a stretch for some people—especially if you’re in the car business—but you’ll see the connection that is being made if you take a moment to read the story.

Implications: For what it’s worth, I believe car dealerships get an unfair share of bad press and criticism; the vast majority of shops are wonderful corporate citizens that serve an important function in the community. They are a source of jobs to thousands of people (it takes a lot of sales people, service technicians and managers to run a dealership), and they are often generous supporters of various causes and charities in the communities where they prosper. Auto dealers are a great example of the idea that a few bad apples give the entire industry a bad rap.

That having been said… I can see why—in a mid-term election year—politicians are piling-on to the idea of fairness. Few people will criticize a vote-hungry politician for saying, “I will work to make sure consumers are treated fairly.” That is a safe position for any politician.

My advice would be to consider the angst that led to this issue in the first place. How do your consumers define “fair?” Based on the NY Times story, I’m thinking that the difference between fair and unfair is often little more than information. There is a very close correlation between feeling informed and feeling “treated fairly,” as there is between finding out later that one was uninformed, and thus feeling they were treated unfairly.

I don’t like politics or regulations any more than most folks do. But I do think it wise to consider politics when setting policy. If voters (consumers, all) are in the mood for greater transparency, communication and clarity… a company can profit from delivering those elements long before they are regulated into doing so.

Mike Anderson

UPDATE: Governments seeking new revenue streams

Last month, I brought up the paradox created when income and property taxes fall, just as the demand for social assistance and other government programs is going up. (See the story about "Governments digging through the couch cushions" for revenue from January 18, 2010.)

In a story from this morning's New York Times, analysts consider state revenues from the most recent quarter, which continue to look bleak. (In fact, the author of the story actually refers to states "looking for loose change under the sofa cushions.") Click here to read the story.

Will governments be digging through the couch cushions?

I intend no political opinion with this story. I’m just sayin’.

If retail sales are down, sales tax revenue is down. If incomes are down, income tax revenue is down. So two recent stories inspired me to wonder whether governments might soon be turning-over the cushions on the sofa, looking for any spare revenue they can find.

A while back, the New York Times ran a story wondering whether companies like Amazon—and other online retailers—will soon be seen by more states as a potential source of sales tax revenue.

Another story—this one from Marketing Daily—indicates that France is looking for ways to gaggle some money from Google. (Again, politics aside, I suppose it’s hard to see a company making so much money without wondering how to get your hands on some of it.)

Implications: Governments world-wide have been hit hard by the Great Recession, due to increased costs for social programs and stimulus packages, as well as falling tax revenues.
As the recovery gains momentum—and as bills for these programs come due—it is only a matter of time before they seek to reclaim—or find alternatives to—the cash required to keep the wheels of government turning.

It will be interesting to watch how consumers respond… in terms of acceptance (or not), household spending, and political ramifications.

Mike Anderson

The Government, brought to you by...

I’m probably playing with fire by noting these two issues in a consumer trends forum like this… but what the heck. It’s the weekend, and I have to believe that, eventually, both of these issues will spark a consumer (voter) response.

Healthy debate? During the recent debate on health care reform, legislators on both sides of the issue have accepted what are essentially “scripts” from lobbyists, which are then used on the floor of congress during the course of debate. (Not to mention doling-out the same sound-bites for the benefit of eager television cameras.) In case you missed it, refer to this story from the New York Times.

Balance due. The U.S. government has been spending a lot of money over the past few years… and some significant payments are coming due. For reference on the matter, see this story from the NY Times. Since that money has to come from somewhere, consumers can expect either reductions in government services or increases in taxes. Both consumers and future candidates for public office will likely feel the tension, and sooner rather than later.

Implications: It is not my intent to take either side of either political issue. But coverage of both matters is likely to continue, if not expand… and the impact of both issues will likely draw the attention of the consumers you serve.

Interests on either side of the health care debate are doing what they can to influence the outcome (private sector stakeholders like drug companies, insurance companies and healthcare providers, as well as public sector stakeholders like government agencies, non-profit organizations, etc.) If and when voters learn that reform is more suited to special interests than the public well-being, this debate could take a nasty turn.

With regard to balances coming due on government debt, I’m curious. Whether you were for or against the investments of waging two wars, and regardless of how you feel about the various economic stimulus programs… you can expect sentiment to shift once bills begin to arrive for the spending that’s been going on for most of this decade.

We cannot know, with certainty and clarity, the impact of these issues on consumer spending. Only that there will be one.

Mike Anderson

UPDATE: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar?

On Tuesday, I shared a piece here about companies that are making adjustments now, in anticipation of new rules or legislation that could limit such actions later (see, "Grabbing cookies while the lid is off the jar," 11/17/09). As one example, I focused on pharmaceutical companies that were raising prices on prescription drugs... ahead of anticipated health care reform.

This morning, the New York Times ran a story indicating that a group of lawmakers have noticed what's going on (due to widespread media reports), and are launching an inquiry. (See the story here.)

Mike Anderson