What Obama’s Budget (And A Second Term) Would Do For U.S. Innovation

If Barack Obama is reelected, what would it mean for innovation, startups and science in America? His newly proposed budget–as well as past actions–offer clues.

Barack Hussein Obama–POTUS to you and me–is the man in control of what’s arguably the world’s only current superpower. At 50, he’s looking for a second go at the country’s top job. In order to get there Obama’s relying, in part, on his Net-savvy staffers to whip up a storm of interest on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and even Instagram. Obama’s campaign proved successful last time around, running on a pro-tech ticket. Let’s look at what a second term would mean for innovation–and for us.

Rocket Boosts For Startups

Startups and entrepreneurship really do seem to be close to the President’s heart, and Facebook’s looming IPO,
at $100 billion of value, makes a loud and positive statement for the Silicon Valley
system.

Immediately after
his State of the Union address, Obama sent out a proposal for the
Startup America Legislative Agenda–an outline plan that would fix small
business taxes, enable new ways for startups to seek funding, and
attempt to tackle the issues of science and tech immigration that the
H1-B visa arguments are all snarled up in. It’s safe to say Obama is
going to keep pushing for startups–although he’ll have to push tricky
tax rulings and visa proposals through Congress to do so, and that’s not
exactly a frictionless process.

Shooting For Something Other Than The Moon

Bipartisanship may not be very popular in Congress these days–but it is here! We’ve previously looked at what the administrations of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would mean for innovation in America.
»Would President Romney Be Good For Tech, Science, And Space Innovation In The U.S.?
»Gravitational Pol: What President Gingrich And His Moon Base Would Mean For U.S. Innovation

Obama’s future as President is intimately tied up with the budget his administration proposes, as its outcomes will be played out over a second term. A lot of fuss has been centered on his plans for the future of space, with opponent Newt throwing harsh criticisms around, and a lot of confusion about the future of NASA in general, and the new budget is stirring up more noise–at about the same time the European space effort is doing pretty well.

So, news that the Prez is recommending a deeper cut for NASA’s finances, one that would reduce it to the lowest levels in four years, strikes a curious note. The cut is slight, down to $17.7 billion from a $17.8 billion figure Congress approved in November, but compared to last year’s five-year budget it’s a 5% slide. Ouch. What’ll it mean for NASA’s mighty rockets, moonman, marsmen, and exciting missions to the moons of far-flung planets? Nobody really knows, so we guess “confusion” is the first result. It does seem like one casualty will be ties for EU cooperation in the impressive ExoMars mission, and Mars missions overall look glum. So Obama’s future for space involves sending humans to…generic space, to do…stuff. And probably hitching a ride on some impressive (but definitely not interplanetary) commercial space endeavors.

Not exactly the right stuff to inspire generations of schoolkids!

Smarts In Science

Last week Obama threw a party at the White House for… schoolkids. It was the second annual White House science fair, and as well as mingling with the young crowd, Obama got in a few words about the future of science under his power: “It’s young people like you that make me so confident that America’s best days are still to come.” He mentioned things like winning the future, the best and smartest workers in the world, and future jobs and industries. Good stuff, Mr. President–it tallies with your original pre-election calls, and reminds us that you’re aware that science and engineering underpin man future industrial successes in our techno-centric world. Sure, plenty of the most successful tech entrepreneurs right now were school and university dropouts…but hey, any education is good (which is why he wants to invest millions more into it. Maybe Apple can help? After all, we know the Commander in Chief likes the iPad).

The State of the Union address was more positive for scientists currently working, because it was very pro-science with the President urging no cuts in basic science research, begging for foreign science students to come and earn citizenship, and suggesting tax cuts for high-tech manufacturing firms. It all sounds good, though the last bit is a bit of a pipe dream: Can you imagine how many tax cuts would be needed to make manufacturing as cheap in the U.S. as it is in China?

Investing In Innovation And Immigration?

A good chunk of the 2012 State of the Union speech centered on Obama’s ideas on innovation–he even mentioned he wanted to inspire entrepreneurship so the next Steve Jobs would be grown in America, and wanted to push the same kind of innovation that led to the computer chip. Then he moved on to one of the biggest goals for innovation, which was to create American-produced energy…not just oil (the stinky global-warming criminal) but American-made energy that is “cheaper, cleaner, and leads to new jobs.” A shame that in the words about clean energy that followed there was another emphasis on natural gas, a resource that does require innovative work to access, as it’s yet another greenhouse criminal. But still, way to go Obama, at least you’re no warming skeptic!

Late in 2011, Obama set out the future goals for his health care plan–including a $1 billion spending initiative for innovation in the health care world that would lead to better treatments, cures, and new drugs. And “innovation” is a word he keeps saying (even if it runs counter to some of his spending cut ideas)–so it’s something he’ll focus on in term two. But maybe his speech writers need to innovate to prevent the message from getting tired, eh?

[Image: Flickr user j-No]

Chat about this news with Kit Eaton on Twitter and Fast Company too.

Why Planned Parenthood Should Change Its Name

With the current brouhaha over Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s
defunding of breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, the backlash, the
reversal, and the exposure of the source of the initial decision, it’s obvious
that Planned Parenthood is in a constant storm of contentious political struggle (even if the most recent dust-up was an unplanned branding bonanza).
And, it’s been happening for a long time.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, one can easily recognize
that Planned Parenthood is at the center of the abortion debate. To constantly
swim in a turgid sea of conflict has its costs. As business owners we know a
battle like this prevents a 100% focus on the mission and effectiveness of the
institution. What is the mission of Planned Parenthood?

You can see its official mission here. But despite its prominent role in the abortion debate, if you look at the numbers you will see that only 3 percent of Planned
Parenthood’s services are abortion services. The rest of their time goes
towards serving women (largely) who can’t afford medical care including breast
cancer screenings, pap smears, STD testing, sex education, and pregnancy
prevention. Seems like a win-win for our society in general. We recognize that
supporting women’s health is about supporting society in general.

Branding for peace versus
warWe believe Planned Parenthood is about the health of women. Why
is their name still Planned Parenthood? If the organization has such a range of
services, why are they still being branded by a name that is a relic of the
1960s? Perhaps it’s time to change the name to reflect what the institution is
really all about.

The current name is a lightning rod. Pro-life constituents hear
the name as an affront to their values and beliefs. And they are right. But the
brand is potentially so much more than an affront to opposing factions. While
the nonprofit world is focusing on empowerment of women and girls as the
solution to future poverty, we are shooting ourselves in the foot with the conflict around Planned Parenthood.

So here is our recommendation: Change the name of Planned
Parenthood and make the new name about women’s health. This would be a powerful
transformation that could be embraced by women across the country. It could
relegate abortion to 3 percent of the conversation instead of 100 percent of the
conversation. It would galvanize the organization to become a greater movement
dedicated to the goal of serving women and thereby serving men, family, and
society at large.

This is a simple, authentic branding solution, but one that could
be extremely effective in enhancing the focal point of the conversation,
drawing together versus apart, and creating a more relevant leadership
brand for the 21st century. Planned Parenthood should take a page from the
corporations of the day and actively contribute to the conversation with
marketing and branding acumen. It is this conversation of our day that is getting
play and activating support that is truly needed.

We hope Cecile Richards is listening.

Related: 

How Susan G. Komen For The Cure Torpedoed Its BrandPlanned Parenthood’s Unplanned Branding Bonanza

Jody Turner is a future trends strategist who works with
companies, conferences, and organizations in bringing forth thriving and
relevant futures. Turner is CEO and founder of the global insights
group CultureofFuture.com, a trend innovation group working with companies such as BMW, Munich, and is associated with Trendwatching, London. (@cultureoffuture). Coauthor Jerry
Ketel is Culture of Future’s strategist. He is also the
founder/creative director of Leopold Ketel & Partners, a West Coast
branding and innovation firm. His clients and partners have included
Pendleton Whisky, Benchmade Knives, Tillamook Cheese, The Humane
Society, and Microsoft. Join his unedited mind @jerryketel.

[Image: Flickr user David Bledshoe]

The Future Of Ethics In Branding

Last year, I received an email I will never forget: One of the world’s tobacco giants wanted me to consult for them. It’s not that I’m a stranger to requests from the tobacco industry. In fact, ever since I published Buyology in 2008, my email address appears to be on every tobacco executive’s Rolodex. You see, among other things, the book addressed the issue of how the use of subliminal advertising in the industry was successfully getting smokers to smoke more. The fallout was spectacular, culminating in Philip Morris being forced to withdraw their $100 million sponsorship of Formula 1. After this, you would imagine the tobacco industry would not want anything to do with me. Surprisingly, they actually wanted to know more. That was the nature of the email in question.  

The email started off quite diplomatically, requesting I consult with them. Nothing out of the ordinary. The ending, however, left me dumbstruck. Like something out of a science fiction novel, the tobacco giant wanted six months of my service. The inducements were mind-boggling. They would pay me a fee that would propel me into a very comfortable, early retirement. Not a bad thought for a hardworking man in his 30s. The scope of the offer took my breath away. I had to sit down and take stock. My mother has smoked since she was 15, and I grew up hearing her coughing and wheezing through the long winter months. My mother-in-law, also a lifelong smoker, had only just recently died from a smoking-related illness. So, after much deliberation and consideration, I felt I had little choice but to decline.

But when my friends and family came to learn of this lucrative offer, they thought I’d made a big mistake. My own family thought me to be a little ridiculous turning down an offer that would guarantee lifelong security for a mere six months’ work. I began feeling twinges of regret. Was I too quick to say no? At the time, my doubt was painful and all-consuming. For hours on end I pondered the questions: Should I? Could I? Maybe…

As you can imagine, this was not an easy time. However, one year on, I’m convinced I did the right thing. More importantly, it forced me to think about the ethics of the advertising industry in ways I’d never done before.

As a brand guy who’s worked in advertising all my life, I’ve seen my fair share of ethical issues. To be frank, ethics and advertising don’t go together all that well. They are not exactly on first name terms. Pick up the phone and call any advertising agency anywhere, and ask them about their ethical guidelines. Chances are you’ll be met with an embarrassing silence. In the same way that there are few schools you can go to to learn advertising, there are even fewer where you can learn the ethics of advertising. Training for a career in advertising commonly happens on the job, and the ethical guidelines are filed away somewhere in legal departments’ archived rules and restrictions.

As a brand futurist, an important function in my role is to predict the future for whatever industry I’m addressing. In 2003, I wrote the book BRANDchild, in which I predicted that every kid would become a personal brand. Each would have his own homepage which would act as a promotional hub promoting the child’s brand to the entire world. A bit like “I have a homepage, therefore I am.” Facebook, the social networking site, was launched in 2004. In 2005, I wrote BRANDsense. In it I predicted that every brand would harness senses other than sight and sound. Today, it’s estimated that two-thirds percent of the world’s Fortune 1000 brands include a multisensory platform in their brand strategy.

My prediction for 2012 is a rise in the importance of ethics. I foresee a kind of WikiLeaks emerging to tackle the maneuvrings of less-ethical brands. The move will come from an independent organization with the sole mission of disclosing what those companies are up to. Most companies will be vulnerable to being targeted, despite having some sort of written standards. You see, in most cases, the small print is far too complex and removed from consumers’ daily reality. The safety net as designed will hardly save a soul.

So how would one go about establishing a true safeguard? As I said, I’m a brand guy who’s worked in advertising for ages. So I’m not necessarily the right person to ask. Maybe we should ask the people most affected: the consumers. Last year, I began a study of 2,000 consumers in which I asked for their ethical perspectives. Their advice proved invaluable. We would be wise to take note of it:

Don’t do anything to kids and consumers that you would not do to your own children, friends, and family.Every time you launch a campaign, a new product, or a service, secure an “ethical” sign-off from your target group. Develop your own independent consumer panel (a representative target audience) and disclose the perception of the product, as well as the reality. Let the consumers make the final call.Align perception with reality. Your talents might very well lie in brilliantly creating convincing perceptions, but how do they stack up against the reality? If there’s a mismatch, one or the other must be adjusted in order for them to be in sync.Be 100% transparent. Nothing less. The consumer needs to know what you know about them. Furthermore, they must be told exactly how you intend to use the information. If they don’t like what they see, they need a fair and easy way to opt out.Almost any product or service has a downside, so don’t hide it. Tell it as it is. Be open and frank, and communicate the negatives in a simple and straightforward way.All your endorsements and testimonials must be real–don’t fake them.Does your product have a built-in expiration date? If so, be open about it and communicate it in a visible, clear, and easily understood manner.Avoid fueling peer pressure among kids. Bear in mind you’d hate for your kids to come under such pressure.Be open and transparent about the environmental impact of your brand (including its carbon footprint and sustainability factors).Do not hide or over-complicate any legal language you must place in your ads or on your packaging. These should be treated just like any other commercial message, using a simple, easy-to-understand language.

My advice: The smart brand players out there should spend the next few years cleaning up their house. Honestly, you won’t find it that difficult. Furthermore, you won’t be forced to reject an offer that could fast track you to retirement. The worst thing that can happen is you’ll sleep better at night. Not a bad proposition, I’m sure you’d agree.

Martin Lindstrom is a 2009 recipient of TIME Magazine’s “World’s 100 Most Influential People” and author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy (Doubleday, New York), a New York Times and Wall Street Journal best–seller. His latest book, Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy, was published in September. A frequent advisor to heads of numerous
Fortune 100 companies, Lindstrom has also authored 5 best-sellers
translated into 30 languages. More at martinlindstrom.com.

[Image: Flickr user Thomas Lieser]

Fast Talk: How A Brooklyn Clothing Label Fights "Fast Fashion"

Meet David Gensler, whose Brooklyn clothing company Serum Versus Venom advocates a return to craft. Read on to learn about the value of a well-made belt, what would’ve happened if Picasso had tweeted, and how Jay-Z could be the next Oprah.

David Gensler is, among other things, the creative director of Serum Versus Venom, a New York fashion label that, according to its site, “proudly stand[s] in opposition of mass-marketed, mass-produced, mass-consumed fashion.” Fashion Week, which is currently underway in New York, seemed like the right moment to speak with him.

FAST COMPANY: What got you fed up with the ways fashion brands were currently operating?

DAVID GENSLER: I was chief marketing officer at Jay-Z’s Roc Brands. It was great, hip-hop was at its apex, and having a partner like Jay-Z is a pretty interesting experience, and in many ways rewarding. But at the same time, the lack of efficiency was overwhelming to me. The amount of money being wasted that could have gone into our profits, it just felt so wrong to me. 

So Jay-Z didn’t live up to his line, “I’m not a businessman, I’m a business, man”?

I have nothing bad to say about Jay. But the people he surrounds himself with that manage his brands are just…. Jay could be in the category of Oprah if he just hired a team around him at the level you would find in a global brand.

I never thought of Jay-Z as aspiring to be the next Oprah.

I think he would aspire to have Oprah’s bank account. I want to be Oprah…

Tell me about your clothing line, Serum Versus Venom.

We thought things could be done differently, which is the motivation for most people starting something. We just started from a completely clean slate, just wrote down what we thought was completely wrong with modern fashion, and set that into our DNA. We just thought it’s so easy if you have control of all elements of the brand. We own our own factory. One hundred percent of what we produce is produced here.

You call it a “study into the interconnectedness of craft, utility, and luxury.”

All of the crafts that we know are based around utility. Some guy working in leather was trying to make a bag that will last a person a lifetime. They didn’t make belts to go out of style. They made a belt that could be used to hold up your pants and also pull your wagon. How we value shit isn’t the same as one generation ago. We put value on almost nothing. People in business kind of laugh and say, “Yeah, right, our job is to make a profit.” That’s not how people in the past built companies. They were built to last forever. People didn’t build companies and flip them: that’s a two-generation-old concept. Look at our economy in this country. We can’t make anything, no one wants to go work in a factory. My way of dealing with it is to try to make really nice shirts.

I imagine your feelings on Fashion Week are mixed.

Part of it’s good, because it brings the industry together–a competitive industry that is infamous for not communicating and sharing ideas. But if you look at how London and Milan treat young emerging designers, it becomes clear why they’re ahead of us. They realize it’s not about maintaining the status quo, maintaining the existing icons. They have a culture of support, and we have a culture of celebrity.

Some people distinguish between fashion–something new this season–and style, something more enduring.

There’s this idea that, “Oh my God, it’s new, it’s new.” But is it better? No one ever stops to ask the question, “Is the new thing better than the old thing?” I think the generation beneath me, the millennials, came of age right when the digital global society was forming itself, and they became very easy to market to. Hopefully they’ll activate Skynet, and someone will pull the plug on the Internet, and we can get back to being humans.

You’ve said that it would be a shame if Picasso were alive today and had a Twitter account.

People ask, “What stores sell your stuff?” And I’m always like, “Why do you ask?” No one asks, “Where do you get your fabrics?” Or, “Can you tell us why the buttons are like that?” They only judge you by the consumption of the thing. The same thing happens online: No one cares about the ideas of anything, just how many likes you have on Facebook and how many Twitter followers you have. But then the reality of my job is I gotta sit there and fucking set up Pinterest accounts.

[Photos courtesy of Serum Versus Venom]

This interview has been condensed and edited. For more from the Fast Talk interview series, click here. Think you’d make a good Fast Talk subject? Mention it to David Zax.

Follow Fast Company on Twitter.

Like us on Facebook.

(Pinterest forthcoming.)