I made a comment in my earlier post about being a sceptic concerning the negative impact of American brands.
   It's one the so-called liberal media don't like to hear, but it also makes me out to be a hard-assed conservative, which I'm not.
   The theory is that the world (other than 52 per cent of the American electorate) hates President George Walker Bush, and as a result American brands are tarnished.
   I've commented a lot on this, and some good journalists have been balanced and quoted my comments, such as the diligent Thomas Mucha of Business 2·0. However, a few liberal outlets have opted not to, and that is their prerogative.
   I have always believed that anti-Americanism is largely due to nation envy. (A contrasting viewpoint may be found here.) I do not apologize for the wrongdoings of the United States—you'll find me harsh and critical of the country sometimes—but those who seem to be staunchly against the Yanks are often instruments of governments who cannot give their people the same freedoms and liberties.
   The latest economic data seem to contradict the "wisdom" that Republican misdeeds from Bush, Cheney and Halliburton have harmed the chances of American brands.
   The United States has closed the trade gap in the latest quarter with results. While economic data are hardly good indicators of brands, the earlier "evidence" was so apparently clear, so argued with conviction in the media, that you expected American exports to suffer—badly.
   There's been just a little too much politicizing about this during the last 18 months, but now that the figures have shown that some of it, at least, is bollocks, I hope we can get the branding dialogue restarted. Now, ladies and gentlemen, just what is wrong with Brand America? And American brands? Plenty. But it needs to be divorced from the old red state, blue state stuff. posted by Jack Yan, 7:54 AM  permalink