Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 @ 03:14 PM
Whether your brand licensing practice is decades old or just starting out, optimizing it is critical to the long-term health and vibrancy of your brand. A fully optimized program ensures that all licensed products reinforce the brand’s positioning, that consumers have access to the licensed products through designated retail channels authorized in each licensees’ contract and that the net sales and royalty revenue growth are balanced across retailers and Stock Keeping Units (SKUs). Unless a brand licensing program has a systematic approach to measuring its level of optimization, the quality and success of the program can be both unpredictable and harmful to the brand. The only thing worse than a program conditional on the decision making whims of one retailer is a program that is selling millions of branded products annually in the wrong categories, reinforcing the incorrect brand attributes or eroding brand equity. So, let me ask you brand managers, marketing directors and CEOs out there, “How optimized is your brand licensing portfolio? “
Determining the level of optimization of a brand licensing program is relatively straight forward if you know what questions to ask. Outlined below are eight categories to help you determine your program’s degree of optimization so that you can begin to identify gaps. Before we get to them, let’s dig a little deeper into why brand owners should pay particular attention to this topic. After all, a program may be growing steadily in net sales and royalty revenue. It may even be adding terrific licensees and exceeding plan year after year. With positive indicators like these, brand owners have good reason to believe their licensing program is on the right track. However, without a detailed understanding of how the program is achieving its sales and royalty growth, companies may be at risk of losing a substantial portion of sales and royalties if their top licensee’s largest program does not get renewed, or if there is a safety recall on the program’s highest selling SKU. Some savy brand owners realize that diversification is important and have chosen to sign a large number of licensees to avoid dependence on a limited number of licensees or SKUs. However, programs with a large number of licensees may become administratively overburdened. If your program has many licensees, when was the last time you had the chance to meet with each of them face to face? And when you did meet, did you take the time to inquire about the state and health of their overall business?
If you don’t know your brand licensing program’s level of optimization or if you are concerned that it may be out of balance, it may be time for a brand licensing audit. A brand licensing audit allows you to dig into your program to assess its current level of optimization and begin to identify gaps so you can close them. Here are eight categories to consider when assessing your brand licensing program’s level of optimization:
1. Portfolio Balance
- Is the overall brand licensing portfolio balanced?
- How many licenses does the program have?
- What percentage of the licenses comprises 80% of the net sales?
2. Category Alignment
- Is your program licensed in the right categories?
- Does the brand have permission to extend into the existing licensed categories? (internal/brand research – consumer focused)
- If so, are there category positioning statements written for each category?
3. Licensee Search and Suitability
- How are you prospecting licensees to ensure you are finding the best suited to support your program?
- Where do you look for information when prospecting licensees?
- What parameters are used to shortlist licensees from the universe?
4. Licensee Health
- What is the overall health of your licensees? Times are tight, are your licensees as stable as they were when you signed the license?
- When was the last time you checked their audited financial statements?
- Do they have any current or pending law suits that could seriously impact their business?
5. Category Management
- How often are reviews conducted with each licensee to ensure they are meeting their objectives? Annually? Quarterly? Monthly?
- What questions are being asked in the review?
- Who from the licensees’ side is attending the reviews?
6. Licensee Orientation and Alignment
- Is there a robust orientation program in place?
- If so, who attends the orientation and when does it take place?
- How often do you meet with the licensees individually and collectively?
7. Business Planning
- Is there an existing business planning process in place?
- Is there a licensee summit to review the planning process?
- How often do you discuss the plan with the licensees?
8. Contract Quality and Accuracy
- How robust are the contracts you currently have in place?
- Do they accurately reflect the deal terms and procedures being practiced?
- When do your contracts expire? Is there proper succession planning?
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 @ 02:03 PM
A workshop designed to enhance speed to market and profitability
Few companies use Brand licensing to extend their brands into new categories. Those that do, including Coleman, Newell Rubbermaid and P&G, have successfully delivered millions of products a year into the marketplace by leveraging the competencies, resources and distribution networks of hundreds of manufacturers throughout the globe. Up until now licensing has been a nice to have tactic for companies to extend their brands. With the recent recession and dynamic changes in the retail landscape, it is now an economic necessity for companies who plan to grow profitably in the 21st century.
Before any successful licensor like P&G enters a new category with their brand, they go through a disciplined and systematic process to determine the categories in which their brand should play and what approach - manufacturing, sourcing, acquisition or licensing - they should employ to enter the marketplace. Of course, brands owned by Coleman, Newell Rubbermaid and P&G are rich in brand equity, making them desirable by consumers and manufacturers alike, a prerequisite before launching any brand licensing program.
So, have you ever considered extending your brand via licensing? If you have, you may have considered the benefits of brand licensing and felt strongly about taking advantage of these benefits. After all, what brand owners would choose not to connect with their consumers faster than they could organically? Or, who wouldn't want to leverage a licensee's resources to market their brand? What about the opportunity to protect your brand's trademark in a particular category that would otherwise be at risk? That's important, too. Right? And, of course, the chance to earn royalty revenue to reinvest in marketing or to strengthen the company's operating income is compelling all by itself. But, how do you really know whether your brand is ready to be licensed before you commit the time and resources to launch a brand licensing program?
Based on our experience and industry knowledge having extended the world's greatest brands into new categories via licensing, we have developed a highly facilitated, day-long workshop designed to assist you in getting the clarity you need before moving forward. We start by determining what categories your brand is ready to be extended into and then utilizing our proprietary evaluation process, we assist you in selecting which of these categories is best suited to be extended via licensing. As success of any brand licensing program is contingent upon you, we have structured our program to gain consensus amongst your organization's management and marketing leadership. That way you can begin implementing your findings immediately.
Our workshop makes certain your brand's positioning, architecture and consumer perceptions are the focal point in making brand licensing decisions. We do this by:
- Determining the value of your brand from an awareness and perception perspective
- Identifying and or verifying categories your brand has permission to extend into
- Evaluating which of these categories should be extended through licensing
- Prioritizing the categories to ensure you are capitalizing on your best market opportunities
Specific research is a critical and necessary input to this workshop. Accordingly, we build the research into the workshop's pre-work phase so that the workshop can be utilized to build consensus and make key decisions. The research is designed to answer the following questions:
- What is the awareness level of the brand?
- What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the brand, by target segment?
- What new categories does the target segment want to see the brand in?
- What is the market attractiveness of these categories?
We include educational components throughout the day so that all participants are speaking a common language. For example, we make sure participants understand the brand's architecture and its components including: product attributes, functional benefits, emotional benefits and higher order brand identity. We also ensure participants are clear and aligned on their brand's positioning statement. Finally, we review:
The deliverable is a consensus on whether the brand is ready to be licensed into new categories and if so, provides a list of the top categories that represent the best opportunity to extend the brand through licensing.
That way you know how to extend your brand via licensing so you can take advantage of this critical go to market tactic. And, because the brand's vitality and essence are critical to its long-term health we work with the team throughout the workshop to ensure that every category selected by definition reinforces the brand's position. While the group can be larger, we generally plan for attendance by 8 to 10 key organization stakeholders, including the organization's leadership.
This workshop is lead by renowned brand licensing expert Pete Canalichio.
Please email me for more about how this workshop can benefit your brand.
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, May 25, 2010 @ 01:15 PM
Jack Trout in his blog published on http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com "Licensing: Trouble for Brands" dated February 25, 2008 makes a compelling argument for why not to consider licensing as a method of brand extension. Furthermore, he backs it up with multiple examples of established brands with flawed licensing programs that serve to prove his hypothesis. After reading about Pratt & Whitney and Pierre Cardin, what CEO in their right mind would choose to risk the company's crown jewels to a group of third party manufacturers which don't have a clue about how to build a brand, let alone manage one? With so much at stake, only those CEOs that are either reckless or desperate would consider licensing. Right?
Maybe the problem isn't licensing, but its poor or improper execution? After all, why would a company choose to forgo its consumer driven innovation process or marketing principles only when it comes to extending their brands through licensing? Some of the best and biggest brands around the globe have been actively and successfully licensing. Disney, P&G, Coke and Harley Davidson each have outstanding licensing programs. These programs not only enjoy strong royalty income, they enhance their brands' attributes in the process.
The problem definitely isn't licensing. Rather, it's either the lack of sound brand guardrails in the brand licensing process or a failure to heed to those guardrails. Jack Trout builds multiple assumptions into his argument that are flawed. I agree that the promise of royalty revenue can be intoxicating, especially to a public company struggling to meet its forecasted quarterly operating income. However, this is an indictment of management and not licensing. Licensing is simply a tactical execution of a brand extension strategy (even if the strategy is no strategy).
In considering brand licensing, the first question that needs to be addressed is where the brand should play. In other words, what categories should the brand be in? If a company begins with a sound understanding of their brand's architecture and positioning, they can then develop a robust brand extension strategy. Knowing where the brand has permission to play enables a company to identify extensions that offer the best overall business opportunity. Once the company knows where the brand can play, they must determine "how to win." Should the company extend the brand organically? Or, should they source the category? If the company chooses not to extend the brand with internal resources, they do so through acquisition or licensing. Like any brand extension, each licensed category must support the brand's architecture and positioning. At Newell Rubbermaid, we would draft a category positioning statement aligned with the brand positioning statement for each licensed category. This ensured each category licensed reinforced the brand's positioning.
If a company chooses to extend their brand without a fundamental understanding of the brand's architecture and positioning, the licensed products will at best have a neutral impact on the brand. More likely, they will permanently erode the brand's equity. This consequence would occur irrespective of how the company chooses to extend their brand. Licensing gets a bad rap for damaging brands when either internal licensing teams or their agencies decide to extend a brand into "adjacent" categories in the pursuit of a quick royalty infusion. Whether or not a company chooses to use other peoples' resources and money when executing their brand extension strategy, they must always ensure every product brought to market continues to support the brand's commitment and promise.
Learn more about Brand Licensing
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Tue, Apr 27, 2010 @ 11:58 AM
In Part 1, I discussed how the Lexus brand came to be. Toyota, a company for the masses, under the tutelage of Eiji Toyoda, launched the Lexus brand and quickly elevated his company into the desirable and lucrative luxury market.
Juxtaposed with the creation of the Lexus brand, the Rolex Company in 1946 chose to create the Tudor brand, inspired after the long-reigning English dynasty. To put the launch of the Tudor brand in context, Hans Wilsdorf and his brother-in-law Alfred Davis founded the Rolex Company in 1905 with the belief that watches could be worn on the wrist and be both elegant and reliable. At the time watches were large needing to be carried in the pocket. They also were plagued with inaccuracies. Wilsdorf knew if he could solve these two problems, he could revolutionize the watch industry. In 1914, the Kew Observatory granted Rolex a class “A” precision certificate, the first wristwatch to ever receive this rating. Rolex would go on to achieve many “firsts” including the first ever watch with a self-winding mechanism and the first ever waterproof and dustproof watch. These achievements made the Rolex brand synonymous with precision and cutting-edge technology. To compliment this precision, Wilsdorf pushed his designers to create timepieces with unmistakable style and elegance. From the early twentieth century to this day, Rolex has been the benchmark in chronometers. With watches ranging in price from $2500 to over $40,000, the Rolex brand is reserved for the wealthy.
And so, Wilsdorf in 1946, decided to create a new brand “that would sell at a more modest price” while attaining “the standards of dependability for which Rolex is famous.” With WWII ending just a few months prior there was hope for a better world. However, this was an especially difficult economic period. Many returning home from the war could not find jobs. Factories throughout Europe and Asia had been destroyed and the focus was on rebuilding. Even the wealthy weren’t buying like they had been and this was affecting Rolex sales. Rolex needed a new brand that could capture a bigger market for their watches. If the Rolex Company could capture consumers at the price point below where Rolex branded watches were sold, their market size could more than double. This would allow Rolex the ability to significantly enhance revenue growth for the foreseeable future. Wilsdorf also understood that if he didn’t reach a broader audience for his product, Rolex might suffer a significant period of revenue decline in the aftermath of WWII. Like Toyoda, Wilsdorf could have purchased another watch company such as Breitling or licensed an existing affluent brand such as Waterman to meet his objectives. Instead, Wildorf selected the Tudor brand which he had trademarked back in 1926 for just such an occasion.
Unlike Lexus where Toyota parts could not be used if it expected to be classified as luxury automobile, Tudor watches, which were a category below Rolex, could make use of Rolex parts and movements. Moreover, in a lower classification, Tudor could be sold for a fraction of the price of a Rolex while still commanding strong margins. Through the creation of the Tudor brand, Wilsdorf understood he could grow revenue while preserving the exclusivity of the Rolex brand. The Tudor brand, in turn, would fulfill pent up demand of the affluent market which had been clamoring for a watch with performance and elegance, but which was not as expensive as a Rolex. To ensure the Tudor brand would have its own enduring identify, Wilsdorf positioned Tudor as the watch to be worn when participating in “dangerous” professions. This positioning allowed Tudor to be the perfect watch for real and aspiring divers, miners, pilots and race car drivers. Over the past 60 years Tudor has built a reputation for ruggedness and reliability. In a natural evolution of the brand, Tudor became the official “timing partner” for Porsche Motorsport in 2009. By aligning with one of the world’s most renowned performance automobile brands Tudor will continue to reinforce it brand promise for exacting precision in all types of environments.
While the Rolex Company is privately held and does not divulge its sales by brand, we know Tudor markets and sells more than 140 styles of watches today. Suffice it to say, Wilsdorf's launch of the Turdor brand enabled him to achieve his objective of growing the Rolex Company revenue over the long-term (now at $3 billion) while offering a larger portion of the population a chance to own Rolex technology. Both Toyoda and Wilsdorf were visionaries that understood where they wanted to take their companies. Toyoda began with a brand for the masses and elevated his company with the Lexus brand that has been the benchmark in luxury, performance and reliability since its inception. Wilsdorf set out to create the world's most accurate and elegant watch brand. He then devised a way to share his achievement with a much bigger portion of mankind through the Tudor brand.
Interested in reading more about brand extensions through licensing? Download our free "Intro To Brand Licensing Report" today!
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 @ 12:25 PM
When you think of how some of the world's greatest brands came to be, Lexus and Tudor come to mind. Both brands were launched by companies that already had well established brands in different segments - Toyota in the case of Lexus and Rolex in the case of Tudor. Toyota, a brand for the masses elevated its company with the Lexus brand, a benchmark in luxury, performance and reliability since its inception. Rolex, the worlds most accurate and elegant watch brand, devised a way to share its achievement with a much bigger portion of mankind through the Tudor brand. Two brands, two methods, two incredible accomplishments.
I remember when Toyota launched the Lexus brand. It was back in 1989. I was in my first year of business school at the University of North Carolina. At the time, Japanese automobile manufacturers where capturing huge chunks of market share in the US from their American competitors. To put the share loss in perspective, the big three automobile manufacturers - GM, Ford and Chrysler - were responsible in the early 1970s for 90% of all vehicles sold in the USA. By 1989 their collective share dropped to 73%. Today that number has dwindled to about 40%, making all three companies a mere shadow of their former selves. While there are a variety of reasons for the demise of the American automobile manufacturers at the hands of their Japanese competitors, the primary reason was quality. The disparity in quality between Japanese and American vehicles grew to such an extreme, a bitter rivalry ensued. As Japan grew stronger and stronger in other industries as well, many Americans feared the Japanese would soon own the United States. The tension between American and Japanese automobile manufacturers got so high that Hollywood made a movie in 1986 called Gung Ho in an effort to portray this cultural divide in a light-hearted and disarming fashion. For those interested, the movie features Michael Keaton as the protagonist who struggles to bridge the gap between his Japanese and American colleagues. While Gung Ho never won any major awards, it should keep you entertained while educating you on this distinct and important period in history.
It seemed the more American consumers drove Japanese made vehicles, the more disappointed they became with American engineering. With each shortcoming, American automobile brand equity suffered. The loss in equity adversely impacted consumers' brand loyalty. The only people who insisted on driving American made automobiles at the time were WWII diehards, which I am imagine many stubbornly regretted. You see, this wasn't about patriotism, it was about value. At the same time, Middle America was becoming enamored with the features and benefits of the Japanese automobile manufacturers. Toyotas, Nissans and Hondas were better designed, more reliable and cost substantially less. Furthermore, they got much better gas mileage than their American counterparts. With the oil embargos of the 1970s and early 1980s, gas mileage became an important attribute for American consumers. Because the Japanese understood this, American consumers rewarded the Japanese automobile brands with increased brand preference. While Nissan and Honda saw significant gains during this period, Toyota connected the most with American consumers and achieved the greatest success.
Toyota's market share in the US grew from 2% in 1970 to 6% by 1983 (source: Ward's Automotive Group). Eiji Toyoda, Toyota's chairman at the time understood that his company's competitive advantage would enable Toyota to continue to make inroads with American mass market consumers. However, Toyoda also understood that these attributes would not enable his company to break into the desirable and lucrative luxury automobile market. At the time, the luxury market was dominated by Germany's BMW and Mercedes brands and by GM's Cadillac and Ford's Lincoln divisions. The German brands offered the affluent top-notch engineering and performance; the American models provided the wealthy with comfort and status. Sensing a window of opportunity Toyoda knew he had to make a push now if he hoped to enter the luxury automobile market. To compete, Toyota needed an automobile that could outperform its foreign rivals on their own turf. And, since the Toyota brand stood for reliability and economy, it could never serve the role needed for this new unnamed luxury automobile. With a clear understanding of the time and resources needed to enter the luxury automobile market (almost 7 years and over $1 billion), Toyoda could have chosen to purchase an existing luxury automobile manufacturer such as Jaguar (the way the Tata Group did in 2008). Or, he could have chosen to license one of the world's luxury brands from another category such as Gulf Stream aircraft or Mont Blanc pens and extended either brand into the automobile market. Instead, Toyoda in 1983 decided to build the brand in house and initiated the F1 Project. To accomplish this goal, Toyoda spared no expense. The F1 was built from the ground up utilizing no existing Toyota platforms or parts. To ensure its lofty standards were achieved, tests were conducted throughout Europe, the US, Australia and Saudi Arabia. To compliment the F1, Toyota created the Lexus marquee in 1986 and designated the first vehicle the Lexus LS 400. In January 1989, the Lexus LS 400 debuted at the North American International Automobile show in Detroit. With a litany of new features including memory seats and automatic tilt-and-telescoping steering, the Lexus LS 400 was met with significant praise. With a price tag thousands less that the competition, the first generation Lexus LS 400 sold 165,000 units over its life - more than BMW and Mercedes. The Lexus LS 400 consistently earned the JD Powers award for best in quality and quickly built a reputation for reliability. Shortly thereafter, Consumer Reports rated Lexus one of the best automobiles in the world. Now in its fourth generation the Lexus brand stands for excellence, performance and quality. I would say, not only did Eiji Toyoda achieve his goal of entering the luxury automobile market, he virtually captured it.
In Part 2, I will take you through the origination of the Tudor brand by Rolex, one of the world's most prestigious brands.
Interested in reading more about brand licensing? Download our free "Intro To Brand Licensing Report" today!
Posted by Pete Canalichio on Mon, Feb 01, 2010 @ 01:57 PM
Here we are a month into 2010 and many of us have already broken our New Year's resolutions. You know what I am talking about, the ones we made in late December or early January when we promised we would get to the gym at least three times per week. We told ourselves we would eat more fruits and vegetables and stay away from processed foods - the kind with all that high fructose corn syrup, saturated fat and carbohydrate content. And we really would have kept those promises to ourselves, but it has been so damn cold outside and there were all those college bowl and NFL playoff games on TV that had to be watched. Everyone knows that when you are watching football, you've got to have the right kind of munchies to eat and plenty of beer to wash them down. Right? Oh well, maybe we can get back on track when the weather is warmer...
When you're in your 20s or 30s, you can get away with making excuses about being young and not having to worry about all that healthy lifestyle stuff until later. But for many of us in our 40s and beyond, later is now and if we are really honest with ourselves, we've run out of time for excuses and we've seen too many of our family, friends, or friends of friends suffer from an "early" case of cancer, heart attack or stroke. Many are left incapacitated, or worse. Western medicine makes it pretty easy for us to be slackers. The obesity standards get a little more tolerant each year and so do the testing tables for cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure. Before, there was either "normal" or "obese"; now you become "overweight" before you become "obese." The same thing goes with those testing tables. We now have normal, high normal and high. And when your test results finally do come back high because you are 20-30 lbs. overweight, you have a host of medicines to regulate you back to normal.
There's just one problem with all of that. The added weight, lack of exercise and improper diet affect a whole lot more than your cholesterol, blood sugar and blood pressure. And those pills that help get you back on track have a tremendous number of potential side effects. They may help you keep your heart healthier, but what about what they are doing to your other organs?
Unfortunately, there's no free lunch. We intrinsically know that, don't we? Still, it is easier to make excuses until we get a small scare, like when a friend of a friend or a distant relative dies way too early. Hopefully then we start to make a permanent change to our diet and exercise. If not, we may persist in our bad habits until things hit a little closer to home. Maybe we lose a loved one or suffer a "minor" heart attack, as if there were such a thing.
This year I was due for my first colonoscopy. You see, my dad died of colon cancer. They say he didn't die early, so I didn't have to get my test early. Of course, I disagree and wish he were still on this earth to offer me advice and to keep my mom company. But that is another story. In any case, I have made it a point throughout my entire life to tell my doctors that my dad died from colon cancer and I've been awaiting the day when I would have to have one of them examine my colon to ensure it was free of polyps-or God forbid, something worse. For most of us, the prep for a colonoscopy is much more uncomfortable than the examination itself. For those of you who have yet to have one, I won't go into detail as to why, just in case it may dissuade you from having the recommended test. And for those of you who have had the pleasure, there really isn't much more to say, is there? Fortunately for me, my test came back clean and I am good to go until the next time. And despite a broken healthcare system in this country, my insurance covered the colonoscopy. I guess it must be financially beneficial for insurance companies to pay for us to get our colons examined.
In addition to cancer, my dad suffered from heart disease. He had a triple bypass in his 60s, which enabled him to live another 10 years. As a result, I have been wary of high cholesterol my whole life and have wondered if my arteries were clogging despite all my best efforts to keep them clear. Without warning, my cholesterol started creeping up about fifteen years ago. By the time it hit 200, the normal range went to 220, so I was ok. I committed to eating healthier and exercising more. Nevertheless, it crept up to 225. I got pretty worried until I found out that my cholesterol wasn't considered high. It was only "high normal" so I was ok, sort of. I discussed a plan with my doctor and we both agreed if my cholesterol didn't go down on my next test, I would begin taking a drug called a statin to reduce it.
Instead of going down, my next test came in at 247 and I had to begin taking the drug. After three months my cholesterol went down from high to high normal. While I felt better about my cholesterol, I was worried about what the drug was doing to my liver. I realized during this period when my cholesterol was creeping up that my weight had crept up as well. I had gained 20 lbs. Could 20 lbs. make that much difference? I guess so. Last year I got serious about losing weight and managed to shed the 20 lbs. Not surprisingly, my cholesterol is back under 200. While my doctor and I were pleased with my results, he prescribed a calcium scan to determine whether any build-up had accumulated in my arteries.
Given my dad's track record, I was a bit worried. To check for calcium, they use an MRI machine. As I lay motionless inside that big circular magnet getting my arteries checked, I wondered if the weight, lack of exercise, bad food and bad genes had finally caught up with me. Before I knew it the technician said the test was over and I would hear from my doctor in two days with the results. I had 0 percent build-up. My arteries were clear, the best I could have hoped for. I had dodged another bullet, for now. Surprisingly, my medical insurance did not cover this test. Go figure. What if my arteries had become blocked, but I couldn't afford to take the calcium scan to find out? It seems a bit counterintuitive. In any case, I am thankful that I am going into the second half of my life in relatively good shape and at an optimum weight. If I stick to a healthy lifestyle, I might even live a few years more than my dad.
If you are still reading this blog, you are probably wondering why I chose to title it the way I did and what the relevance is. If you are like me, you have seen a host of managers make the same kinds of poor decisions with their companies that many of us have made with our bodies. Weak management is pervasive. Very few managers are choosing to invest in their employees or to take a long-term approach to decision making. Like our bad habits with regard to eating and exercising, managers have cut corners in the workplace and lowered their standards. As a result, our global economy has stopped working properly, just like our bodies. Our financial system is in intensive care and our real estate market needs a defibrillator to revive it.
I remember not too long ago visiting my doctor for a routine test. Instead of the nurse asking me to stand on the scale to get weighed, she asked me what my weight was. I can only assume that the scale in the office was broken. How many of you would have answered the nurse honestly about your weight if you were in my shoes? How different is it to be asked by a lending institution to provide a "stated income" when applying for a home loan? No wonder our economy is in a state of emergency! Instead of improving our practices when the results of our "business tests" were out of the normal range, we looked the other way-or worse yet, we chose not to have our practices tested at all.
For those who have followed good business practices over the last 20 years or longer, I say, "Well done." For the rest of us, let us learn from this economic crisis and resolve to manage our companies with an unwavering commitment toward long-term health and prosperity. And like our own bodies, maybe our companies will live longer than some of the giants of industry who ignored the warning signs for too long and died an untimely death.