If anything, our “snooker” radar is better than ever. If the new media age has taught us anything it’s that the public - or at least the somewhat educated public - isn’t as easily snookered as it has been in the past.
What’s more, in a post-crash world, what makes Morgan Stanley Smith Barney different from Morgan Stanley or Smith Barney? Why should we believe their advertising?Īnd for anyone old enough to have - or have had - a substantial brokerage account, isn’t Morgan Stanley Smith Barney a lot like Morgan Stanley Dean Witter or Shearson Lehman Hutton Smith Barney etc.? Weren’t these the greatest things for investors since limited partnerships? Similarly, we know that Lorillard sees truth through a smoke-filled haze. Bankruptcy won’t instantly transform them into Honda. We all know that GM made crummy cars and bone-headed decisions for years. Do I think Morgan Stanley Smith Barney represents a rethinking of wealth management? Nope.Īside from producing much-needed revenue for The Wall Street Journal, the three ads share something that ultimately undermines their effectiveness: they fail to take customer/reader experiences into account.
“Our financial advisers can access a global network of economists, strategists and research analysts to help you manage risk and seek out investment opportunities,” the ad continues.ĭo I believe that is what happens when an investor goes to a Morgan Stanley Smith Barney adviser? Its headline proclaims that they have “rethought the wealth management firm.” Turn the page and you come to a two-page spread ad for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney. But let’s not pretend smoking isn’t killing them, and let’s not pretend that a tobacco company is taking a position out of anything other than self-interest. The point is, if people want to smoke knowing the consequences, you can’t stop them. Their executives, in fact, swore that they weren’t sure that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Lorillard and the other tobacco companies lied to the public for years about the dangers of smoking. On the other hand, do I think Lorillard has an ounce of credibility or deserves to be listened to? Of course not. We saw the dismal failure of Prohibition, so why re-create it. The bill was passed by the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate.ĭo I think cigarette smoking should be outlawed? No.
The tobacco company is afraid the FDA is on the road to outlawing tobacco, which Lorillard says will lead to greater cigarette smuggling, which leads to funneling money to al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Lorillard says the FDA is the wrong agency to do that. The bill in question - the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act - mandates that the Food and Drug Administration regulates the tobacco industry. asks that the Senate “thoroughly review current legislation and find an effective and different regulatory solution.” “General Motors may look different down the road, but we are here to stay,” the ad continues, noting that the company will be reinventing itself as a leaner, greener, faster, stronger, more transparent and more accountable company that is more focused on the customer. The ad goes on to assure readers that GM warranties will continue to be honored and that GM parts will continue to be available. Written as an open letter from company president and CEO Frederick Henderson, the GM ad starts by saying that while so much has changed at the company, its commitment to its customers hasn’t. The first is from bankrupt General Motors (I wonder who’s paying for the ad, by the way). If you read yesterday’s print version of The Wall Street Journal, you might have notices a thread linking the three companies mentioned in our headline: full-page ads in the paper’s main news section.
0 kommentar(er)
