You live in the Minnesota Fourth Congressional District.
Your home value is plummeting.
You may well be out of work, and are certainly nervous about your job.
Your local property taxes are skyrocketing, while your schools are collapsing (especially if you’re black, asian or latino). They promise to zoom still further, as business, overtaxes and then starved out by light rail construction, deserts the city or starves to death.
And the nation is on the path to make Greece’s meltdown look like a fart in a tornado, with trillion dollar deficits and a national debt that just rocketed past a years’ GDP. And when the depression over all this is getitng to be too much and you need to see a doctor, before long you’ll need to see the one assigned to you by Gus the Cranky Public Servant.
But hey. At least Betty McCollum is tirelessly fighting Army ad money to NASCAR.
Thanks, Betty.
It’s one thing to drop sponsorship because the entity isn’t paying back with the desired results (in this case recruits). Companies drop their race team sponsorships every year without much fanfare outside the racing community as their marketing plans change. (Anyone seen the Tide car lately?) If the Armed Services find they aren’t getting results (ie: recruits) or there are better ways to spend their recruiting dollars, I’m all for moving sponsorship to a better alternative.
For some odd reason though, numerous local companies (3M, Best Buy, Fastenal, General Mills and Target) seem to find value in being major sponsors in the sport. Maybe Dimbulb ought to ask the marketing exec’s at these companies what they see in sponsorship and perhaps what the Services could be doing better.
If she truly believes that the Services could be spending their recruiting dollars better, I’d like to hear her plan. Let us hope that it doesn’t involve sponsoring an armpit hair poetry festival at Macalester. I don’t think that will bring in a lot of new recruits (except perhaps for the Navy).
I guess the question is whether you need to spend much on recruiting ads when there is a waiting list to get into the service. In a down economy where young people can’t find jobs it seems like overkill to spend millions on advertising. They are flocking to the door without ads . . . perhaps McCollum knows something about this, and prudent spending of taxpayer dollars ??
“perhaps McCollum knows something about this, and prudent spending of taxpayer dollars ??”
Yea, Sanity, go with that! You are giving Betty Boop far too much credit, but then, you libs usually do! Meanwhile, Commie Hilary Clinton takes $1BILLION from the defense budget and gives it to Pakistan!
So you are in favor of the military continuing to spend millions on recruitment ads on NASCAR autos?
So I suppose, Sanity, with all four major service branches surpassing their recruiting goals the question is – did sponsorship of motor sports aid the Services in exceeding their recruitment goals? If Target or 3M exceeded their sales budget, would they cut back on their advertising?
Most companies have a ratio of sales dollars to advertising expenditure – so normally advertising goes up relative to sales. The old saying is that half the advertising budget is a waste, but no one knows which half. It’s a little more sophisticated these days, and there are measurement tools to determine why a customer (or potential recruit) came to your door. If she can show where the sponsorship dollars are wasted on motorsports (and better spent elsewhere), I’m all for this “prudent spending of taxpayer dollars” on other forms of recruitment.
” If Target or 3M exceeded their sales budget, would they cut back on their advertising?”
This is an apples to oranges comparison. A government (nonprofit sector) operation is not the same as a private (for profit) sector enterprise — the military does not turn a profit, it is in fact, exclusively, a cost center, or what 3Mers would call “overhead” cost.
That is to say, there is no upper limit to how many widgets 3M can sell, but there is a cap on the number the military needs to recruit, and it is entirely at taxpayer expense.
3M has to assess their goals based on a for-profit model, whereas the military does not turn a profit, and as such does not have the same goals as a private enterprise. Again, the military runs on taxpayer money, and not at a profit, so advertising goals are not the same and cannot be measured the same way.
Sanity, I can’t believe you used Betty McCollum and prudent spending of tax dollars in the same sentence.
But thanks, laughter really is good for the soul.
I guess the question is whether you need to spend much on recruiting ads when there is a waiting list to get into the service.
Just because there’s a waiting list doesn’t mean the list includes the people the services actually want.
Do young people in the NASCAR audience have something the services need more of – like (say, hypothetically) mechanical aptitude?
It’s entirely possible that the military thinks a young NASCAR fan from Alabama who can tear down an engine might deserve a jump ahead in the queue over a kid from Woodbury whose sole life experience is first-person shooters.
Betty understands that the combination of war and fast cars is not appealing to young men.
It really isn’t apples to oranges. It is about what it takes to bring customers/recruits through the door. If the military has more recruits than it needs coming through the door because of advertising, it has the opportunity to be more selective in the recruits it chooses just as a business that has more customers will sometimes be more selective about pricing/types of customers, etc. There is absolutely an upper limit to the number of Widgets 3M can sell – you apparently haven’t been in a 3M facility that is has capacity problems.
I’m not arguing that the military shouldn’t review the expenditures it makes for recruiting. I think I read where the Blue Angels and Air Force Thunderbirds were cutting back on performances as they weren’t getting the return in recruitment for the dollars expended. I’m merely pointing out that if motorsports sponsorships aren’t working to bring recruits through the door, Dimbulb is right that we should end motorsports sponsorships.
PS: Thanks for this…
“A government (nonprofit sector) operation is not the same as a private (for profit) sector enterprise — the military does not turn a profit, it is in fact, exclusively, a cost center, or what 3Mers would call “overhead” cost.”
It’s good to hear you note that government is nothing more than a cost center. I would argue that goverment is a service, that many of us pay for, with the expectation that it returns our tax money (investment) in the form of services (like fire, police, infra-structure and of course our beloved educators) who serve all of us. We can discuss or use our free speech rights regarding the appropriate level, efficiency or utility of government, but it’s really not “overhead”. Don’t feel bad though; President Obama doesn’t know what “working capital” is either, so you are in good company.
Well put, Mitch. Perhaps I am bigoted, but I imagine their is quite a crossover between young Nascar fans and young NRA members.
I work for a non-profit. That is, a “loss center”. Loss centers are every bit as particular about spending money efficiently as a for-profit business. The difference is in accountability. When a business makes bad decisions it goes under. When a non-profit deals with its board of governors it has to convince the board that their money is being spent efficiently and in furtherance of the non-profit’s goals.
“Do young people in the NASCAR audience have something the services need more of – like (say, hypothetically) mechanical aptitude?”
That’s an excellent question. Does the military marketing department have data to support this speculation? In an environment where there is a two year waiting list to get into the military is it still necessary to market to the NASCAR audience to get enough of the mechanical aptitude types? Or does mechanical aptitude exist in other places as well? Are there other, cheaper venues to use to recruit them? Those are weighty questions that military marketers must grapple with . . . and who knows whether McCollum considered these . . . the brilliant and inquiring minds here are indeed a beautiful thing . . .
With the reduction of the military that is going on, it is appropriate to cut back on recruitment expenditures. That said, you probably want enough potential recruits coming through the door that the military can select those with the best skills and aptitudes for the missions expected in the future and push the less skilled aside.
Based on the current administrations use of the military, better to get the best joystick jockeys and world class athletes as missions have become fire & forget drone strikes and targeted assassanations of targets the President himself selects. Maybe the military would be well off to study where the gamers and jocks hang out. Look for the military to sponsor the next comicon and tough mudder.
PS: Based on a Navy gunner opening up the .50 cal on a boat approaching at ramming speed in high seas, better have someone with good hand/eye coordination as well. Maybe the Navy will be at the Game Fair Skeet Shoot coming up in Ramsey this month.
While I’m all for eliminating and reducing waste of taxpayer dollars and of the opinion that there needs to be cuts across the board, and honestly know little of this story…This is where we start??!! Why couldn’t we start…say… with NOT loaning (throwing away) half to three quarters of a billion to some solar energy company for which we will never ever see the initial investment, much less a return on it…merely to curry and/or payback for political favor??!!
Our elected officials priorities are so out of whack, it reads like the script for a bad sitcom…and much less funny as they are wreaking havoc with our economic security…
“So you are in favor of the military continuing to spend millions on recruitment ads on NASCAR autos?”
Actually, yes! In fact, I’d rather have it spent on anything instead of giving it to those two faced jackasses in Pakistan!
The problem with your comment, Sanity, is that you don’t assert McCollum actually knew anything special that justified her action, you ask whether’s it’s hypothetically possible she might have. Sure – and Elvis not be dead. But in the absence of perfect knowledge, probability rules.
It’s perfectly possible McCollum opposes military spending in principle and this was a convenient way to divert funds for spending she does approve of. Since she’s a liberal Democrat and Code Pinker, that’s more probable.
Based on his experience over years of listening to her and the news accounts of this most recent action, Mitch formed the opinion McCollum had no special knowledge to justify this action. Have you any concrete information tending to show Mitch’s conclusion was wrong? Trot it out. we’d all love to see it.
My congressman is Mazie Hirono. She is a fully vested member of the Democrat good-ol-boys network that has run Hawaii since statehood. She sees her job as stealing from the poor and working families of Hawaii and handing the money off to her union cronies. She does not deserve the benefit of a doubt. If you are a constituent you are wise to conclude that any law she seeks to pass is meant to take more money from you and hand it to her friends.
I expect Mitch feels the same about McCollum.
HEY In SANITY:
This just in:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/house-backs-military-sports-sponsorships-071712
Apparently, the majority of the House doesn’t agree with Betty McDimwit!
The most aggravating part of this is McCollum’s arrogance. She knows what motivates young men to join the National Guard and it isn’t NASCAR advertising. Besides, the Army is cutting back, so that proves it.
No, Congresswoman, it proves you have NO understanding of how the uniformed services operate to please their bosses in a political environment, or how military units fill the ranks.
The Army has been floundering for a decade: black berets, “An Army of One,” new uniforms, different advertising, but nothing works. The Marines have had the same uniform and “The Few, the Proud, the Brave” slogan for ages, it works for them. BECAUSE MARINES ARE LOOKING FOR A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PEOPLE THAN THE OTHER SERVICES.
Air Force and Navy want techs; Coast Guard wants lifesavers; Marines want warriors; They know what they want and they know how to get them. Army and National Guard want . . . their share of the budget? They can’t decide who they are so they can’t decide what they need so they don’t know where to look to get them.
None of the services need Betty McCollum’s silly micro-management for the THIRD year in a row (oh, yes, this is her ode to Harold Stassen, her perennial amendment to cut military spending that always fails). It’s not intellect, it’s idiocy.
For Betty McCollum to tell the National Guard they don’t know how to recruit soldiers reminds me of then-Senator Hillary Clinton lecturing General Petraeus (West Point with honors, Masters of Public Administration, Ph.D International Relations from Princeton – dissertation on “Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era”) that he’s wrong about whether the surge in Iraq would work! And you know this how, lady? From your ability to gaze into the future (no wonder she made so much money on cattle futures).
McCollum is solidly cemented in the Far Left, Code Pink, War is Bad, Macalester wing of the Democrat party. The only thing greater than her arrogance is her ignorance.