overshot the mark brands

"Chairman Pitofsky"s timely book teaches us important truths about antitrust. This book convincingly rebuts the Chicago School approach to economics and competition policy while reminding us that the antitrust laws, when effectively applied, are robust tools that enhance competition and benefit consumers. Chairman Pitofsky and the other distinguished contributors provide a badly needed counterpoint to the excesses of Chicago School economic theory that has led to an overly hands-off and lifeless approach to antitrust enforcement in recent years. This excellent volume should be studied by all those who care about competition policy."--Senator Herb Kohl

"Into the grand antitrust debate between Warren Court advocates, on the one hand, and the treatises and court opinions out of the Chicago School tradition, on the other, comes finally a voice of reasoned moderation--or rather a full-throated chorus of such voices. With a clear-eyed regard for the paramount importance of consumer welfare a the central governing principle of antitrust enforcement, this collection of essays deserves to be read carefully by practitioners, academics and politicians--but especially-- and exceedingly carefully--by federal judges all across the country, not least of all by the current justices of the U.S. Supreme Court."--John Shenefield, Former Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust

"When they asserted efficiency as the new benchmark of antitrust, the scholars of Chicago paved the way to very welcome developments. But efficiency is more and more treated as an ideology and therefore it leads to forgetting the facts and restoring presumptions. If avoiding false positives becomes the priority of antitrust, how many real negatives will receive undeserved immunity? The questions raised by this book are no less timely than those raised by those scholars forty years ago and deserve no less attention from practitioners, academics and judges all over the world. I am confident that some copies of it will also be available in the library of the U.S. Supreme Court."--Giuliano Amato, Former Prime Minister of Italy

"This collection of essays--by lawyers and economists, many of whom are former antitrust enforcement officials--will generously reward a close read by anyone who is interested in the current intellectual state of antitrust thinking. As largely a critique of recent legal decisions and of recent enforcement, these essays are likely to form the basis for new directions for antitrust in the coming decade."--Lawrence J. White, Professor of Economics, NYU Stern School of Business

"Taken as a whole, the book makes a forceful argument that the many positive contributions of the Chicago school have been overshadowed by an increasingly conservative laissez faire view of antitrust in the federal agencies and the courts. The results of this change have been an emphasis of theory over empirical evidence and a deliberate choice among confl icting economic theories and evidence, rather than a consensus about that theory and evidence. For me, this was the best and most provocative antitrust book of 2008." --Spencer Weber Waller, Loyola University Chicago, School of Law

Reverse any Strike maneuver of 5D or greater, any High Risk maneuver, or any maneuver played after the card titled Irish Whip, and end your opponent’s turn. This card is +#D, where # is equal to the reversed maneuver’s Damage.

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.

The EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR)has applied since 26 May 2021, significantly extending the legal specifications for the medical technology sector. This EU Regulation comprises 123 articles and 17 attachments amounting to a total of 175 pages. The German amendment act comprises 99 paragraphs, whereas the previous German Medical Products Law (MPG) contained 44 paragraphs.

The MDR represents a huge extra effort for medical product companies, for example, on account of the requisite personnel increases and greater bureaucracy involved. Around half of the companies participating in a survey by the Federal Association of Medical Technology (BVMed) incurred extra financial costs of more than a million euro when implementing the MDR. Accordingly, not only medical experts are warning that patient care is in great danger.

After all, approximately 93% of medical technology companies are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with fewer than 250 employees. “But if SMEs in particular are forced to relocate all of their development resources to regulation procedures and at the expense of innovation, it is obvious that the MDR has overshot the mark,” claims Dr Meinrad Lugan, CEO BVMed. This also means that development projects and innovations are being postponed or simply relocated to the US market, which is having a negative impact on prosperity.

Having said that, the medical technology sector is a key pillar of the industrial health economy (iGW) in Germany: it stabilises the economy, safeguards jobs, and encourages innovations. More than one-fifth of gross value added by the health economy is accounted for by the iGW. Strictly speaking, the medical technology sector stands directly for €15.5 billion gross value added and 235,000 jobs. When indirect and induced effects are included, the MedTech sector represents 450,000 employees and gross value added of €34 billion. The sector is a key driver of medical progress which entails intensive research efforts. On average, MedTech companies invest approximately 9% of their turnover in research and development. German medical technology is particularly successful on the international market, with exports in 2020 accounting for around 66%.

Since it came into force on 26 May 2021, MedTech companies, doctors and associations are in consensus that the MDR has evolved to become a major regulatory issue. The rules are not yet workable: the number and capacities of notified bodies is still too low. It is difficult to record clinical data on existing products. Innovations have been put on hold and are at risk of being relocated abroad. The issuing of 20,000 certificates by the end of the 2024 “grace period” is time-critical. But there is still no legal basis in place for remote audits and the regulations are not harmonized throughout the EU. There are no derogation procedures for “orphan devices” (niche products). The guidelines of the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) are inconsistent and lacking in grace periods. The EUDAMED database (the European database for medical products in which economic players and official authorities are obliged to enter data) is not yet operative.

The German ARD production Plusminus also broadcast a piece in early August in which critical medical representatives voiced how medical care is deteriorating as a result of the new MDR.

The associations representing the medical products industry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have presented a joint 10-point paper outlining the current problem areas in implementing the MDR while making proposals as to how they can be solved to safeguard the care of patients in the form of both innovative medical products and those which have proven their worth for many years.

Pragmatic solutions need to be found for tried-and-tested existing products in particular, for example, using the “Acceptance of clinical practice” instrument.

For orphan devices, the European Commission should create derogation procedures in Europe in line with the US model of “Humanitarian Device Exemption” and the “Orphan Drug” regulations.

Manufacturers of medical technology face the difficult task of being obliged to subject their products to extensive regulatory qualifications and submit comprehensive documentation prior to launching them onto the market and not just since introduction of the new EU MDR. This takes time and demands considerable know-how, as well as a partner availing of exactly this expertise.

At Actega, for example, there is a fixed contact person for each project who offers the corresponding service and specialist competence in the area of thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) materials and supports manufacturers and projects from development through to market launch. Extensive and comprehensive documentation is available for the ProvaMed TPE which guarantee compliance with the MDR as well as permit faster and better project success.

Comprehensive support is important because not only the products themselves but often each individual component also needs to meet complex requirements, such as proof of biocompatibility in line with USP Class VI or ISO 10993-5, for example. Biocompatibility means that the properties of the material used must be biologically compatible and should not display any undesirable interactions with other materials or living tissue.

Apart from the general requirement concerning the use of source materials comprising non-toxic substances, this requirement is subject to additional specification for substances which are carcinogenic, toxic to reproduction, and affecting the endocrinal system. Those manufacturers of medical technology relying on successfully tested, non-cytotoxic TPE synthetic granulates which can make an essential contributiontoward successful qualification are significantly facilitated in terms of tasks relating to conformity. The biocompatible ProvaMed TPEs have already been tested to ISO 10993-5, with outstanding results. And they are free of PVC and plasticisers. The use of TPE materials also helps manufacturers of medical technology to counter the increasing criticism of PVC and plasticisers as well as improve the safety of patients and specialist personnel.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- When Mark Ketchum joined the board of struggling consumer products maker Newell Rubbermaid (Charts) at the end of 2004, he had no idea what he was in for. A 33-year veteran of Procter & Gamble (Charts), where he headed mega-brands like Pampers, Ketchum, 57, was asked to serve as interim CEO after the board finally lost its patience with underperforming former chief Joe Galli in October 2005.

Last February, Newell"s board removed the "interim" label, and Ketchum has embarked on a plan to get the company"s disparate assemblage of brands (Sharpie, Graco, Calphalon) moving in the right direction. So far, investors are pleased, as the stock returned 26 percent last year. Fortune"s Matthew Boyle recently sat down for an exclusive interview with Ketchum to discuss branding, what he learned from his old boss (P&G CEO A.G. Lafley), and how his golf game might never recover.

At P&G, I was one of the top four officers reporting to [Lafley], and running a big piece of the business - Pampers and Charmin and Puffs. But I"m two years younger than A.G., so I concluded that I was not going to become the CEO. So I decided to get on two or three good corporate boards, and eventually I wanted to be chair of one of these boards.

I was a good match for Newell because they were adding consumer branding capabilities to their board, bringing in people from companies like Nike and Gillette. Over the course of 2005 we parted company with [Galli] and the board asked me to step in, on an interim basis. I was less than a year into my retirement, which my wife now tells me I flunked.

Rubbermaid, in its heyday, was one of the most admired companies in the world and one of the most well respected brands. But was it a good branding company as I walked in the door? No. I was convinced we did not have the right strategy. What wasn"t working was the marketing. We were still a "customer-push" strategy. Previous management had focused on pushing things out to [our retail] customers. The [retailers] told us what they wanted and what would sell.

In our Graco car seat business, it would be typical for us to go in with 100 different fabric swatches. We"d walk in to the retailer and they would pick three, but what do you think the likelihood is that those three are the most popular with consumers? Not very good. Often the retail buyer thinks he knows the consumer but the fact is, he has no research to back it up. We had abdicated our responsibility. We own the Graco brand, and nobody else. So now we research the fabric patterns and reduce the number of choices available to retailers. We know the consumer response will be much better.

A.G. Lafley was very good at simplifying communication and repeating that message so that it stuck with the organization. I do try and emulate that myself. For example, I added the phrase "Brands that matter" to our [corporate] logo this past year. I didn"t ask permission from the board. I just did it, because I really needed to give the organization something to rally around.

There are no brands that can"t matter. But some matter more than others. This is an eclectic group of brands, and not one you would put together if you were starting from scratch. But I got rid of the parts we really didn"t like, so we are down to a brand portfolio we can grow from. We have a lot of good brands waiting to be great. Even Rubbermaid is only a good brand. It used to be great. We can make it great again.

We need to invest in them. The infusion of brand spending was the single biggest driver of our performance last year. We went from spending 3.9 percent of sales [on promoting brands] to 5.5 percent of sales in one year. The previous plan had us going to 5 percent over three years.

Take Calphalon One, our premium cookware. Its sales in 2005 were flat. We said, how can that be? But we only spent half a million dollars marketing it. I said, why don"t you spend $2 million in one quarter? We gave two or three of our brands a shot in the arm like that last year, and we overshot our gross margin [targets] by a wide mark.

The cultural change is every bit as important as the other things we are doing. If we don"t make that happen, none of the other things will work. I have learned that culture trumps strategy any day of the week. And you"re right, it starts at the top. You need a lot of stomach to do this, because you will get a lot of resistance. One of the cultural changes is improving collaboration. Before I got here, the direct reports to the CEO got together, at most, once a year. I do them monthly now.

The housing market affects 10 percent of our total business - a portion of our tools business and a portion of Levolor [window blinds]. So is it having some effect? Yes. The point I want to make is that the housing market will not make the difference between a good year and a bad year for us, but it might make the difference between a good year and a great year.

I actually had it at Number Two in my definitive list in my talk of the all time greatest marketing bullshit. You should have watched it Deepak! On top of all the existing comments and critiques there is also that incredibly underwhelming corporate moment when you tell people in the C Suite or distribution or sales that our brand is a "Sage" or a "Magician" or the "Jester". And when queried you just keep saying Jung! Jung! You can see the words "colouring-in department" materialising before their very eyes if they stick around long enough. Which they don"t.

Archetypes is one of the foundational concepts I learnt as a young Brand Manager. Invented by Jung, this represents a way to segment people based on the influences that shape their psyche. These are influenced by folk tales, shared universal behaviors and common human instincts and are imprinted and hardwired into our brains. There are 12 Archetypes that exist.

By connecting your brand"s marketing and communication messages / tone of voice with your consumers" unconscious desires, you can build deep and long-lasting connections.

As we hurtle towards the metaverse, I believe that this concept is even more relevant to stand-out and create irresistible brand experiences. Hope many of you find this article useful.

Bit harsh to say it’s BS but controversial so you’ll get the click bait. Might be BS for you but if brand/marketing teams find it helpful to shape tone, personality, expression then that’s a good thing.

When it comes to brand positioning, ultimately, it"s about what the target instinctively thinks and feels - the perceptual "label" that is applied to a given product/service. As marketers, there is much that we have little to no control over in this process, thereby placing so much more importance on those aspects where we DO have some level of control. These models may offer some limited value in evoking hand-wringing inspiration with teams around the board room table....but, sadly, have little value in making a difference with the more important audience - the target. Why waste time. Rather do the work and explore something that makese the brand unique...for the target!

For once i don"t fully agree with you. I do agree that the model is frequently misused, and should certainly not be used as a classification model. And on a side note, the structure of 12 archetypes in the referenced article looks quite odd ... but that is a side point.

Where I do find the archetype model useful is as a reference model and as a way to help clients explore the way they talk about and understand themselves. When you have done the research about how the market currently perceives the brand and what influences their buying decisions you still need to set the direction for where the brand wants to be and where its profitable position is. In these discussions the archetype model can help illustrate different options and expressions by acting as one of several reference models.

Mark Ritson and Deepak Subramanian, respectfully, archetypes are not marketing tools; they are patterned expressions of nature. Good leaders tend to agree that

Archetype is the instinct that informs the way we perceive our experience. As with all forces of nature, it is dynamic, hard to predict, and behaves independently of our will. We are able to recognize archetypes only indirectly through stories, images, and dreams.

When brands say they are a “Magician,” they are referencing (but not exploring or working to understand) Carol Pearson"s framework, which does ultimately point back to Jung’s research. It’s these default efforts that do not touch the ineffable but orbit, as you say, “bullshit.” It would be more helpful to brands (and the humans involved with them) to say that a brand’s essence is formed and maintained by a pattern of primal behaviors driven by human instinct—and these patterns form the guardrails of resonance.

I have a running joke with my wife based on a scene in History of the World Part I, did you bullshit today, did you try to bullshit. I try, sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. I found archetypes and Carl Jung useful in narrowing down exploration, but never a substitute for the work. Also TNS incorporates this into Needscope in a more quant fashion.

Braudillard said it well, “the motivating force behind consumption thus is the incorrigible hope that reality could possibly match the dream. As however fantasies have the inherent quality of being perfect, the consequence of each purchase necessarily must be disillusionment. The only way to re-experience this illusory pleasure again is to take the dream forward and to attach it to a new product. This is possible because the actual intent is not to consume the product per se but its sign value.”

CSO. Co-Owner/Strategy Partner at Harbour / Co-Author of "The Creative Nudge" (thecreativenudge.com). TEDx speaker. MA Lecturer in Creativity. Keynote speaker: chartwellspeakers.com

As usual both posts prove that binary thinking is only helpful in mathematics or computing. Archetype thinking is neither the answer to everything, or "Bullshit" (although I get why Mark wants the clicks and controversy). Archetype thinking can be a useful/helpful starting point for exploring the positioning of a brand. It isn"t the be all and end all, and it isn"t useless either. I have found it, many times, to be a useful tool for exploring the body language of a brand - and it"s been the foundation of many a proven, successful campaign I"ve worked on. It"s quite tedious how everything these days has to be positioned as one extreme or the other. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Jung is just used to justify marketers doing what they want to do and can’t explain rationally. See how nicely it fits, and how it looks like something Simon Sinek would do a ted on.

It’s selling non-marketers on the wisdom of doing marketing. As marketers, it doesn’t past the smell test. Obviously