Bain Brain
Wikimedia Commons
There has been a great debate in The Roanoke Times and The RoundTable blog over whether GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s business experience would make him a good president. Adam Hanft, a brand strategy consultant, asks a different question in an article for The Atlantic: Does Romney’s business background make him a less effective candidate?
Hanft argues that Romney has made a ton of money because he is adept at the kind of orderly, rational analysis necessary to be successful in private equity investments. But what Hanft calls Bain Brain doesn’t translate well into the emotional, gut-driven world of politics. He writes:
That was precisely the species of unflinching analysis on display in his now famous remarks about the 47 percent, revealed by secretly recorded video. That was the Bain Brain at work — a classic example of segmentation and market analysis, now applied to a political setting.
Widgets are different from people, but Romney analyzes both with a “cut-your-losses and double-down on the ‘addressable market’ voice of private equity,” Hanft argues. A businessman doesn’t have to worry about whether widgets like him. Politics requires a different marketing approach. Hanft believes Romney is naturally suspicious of “branding,” pointing to the campaign’s conservative advertising expenditures. And he notes that what ads the candidate is producing lack a storyline and an element of myth-making.
Regardless of which candidate you think is best qualified to be in the White House, this article is an interesting read.
September 27, 2012 - 11:25 AM
I agree with Mr. Hanft; Mr. Romney does not have what it takes to lead our Nation. It frightens me what the Nation would look like in 4 years after he has sold out the 47% of us that he doesn’t care for. I see less jobs, more poverty and complete economic downfall. Those are my thoughts on the subject.
He makes a very compelling argument and I cannot gainsay his assessment. Even were I so inclined.
Absolutely. What we really need is someone who is more of a politician, not someone who says what he means, but just more of the same old Washington that tells you what you want to hear. Isn’t that what you guys wanted back in ’08? After all, why in the hell would you possibly want someone with a proven track-record of financial success during economic times?
There is success and there is success. Larry Flynt is not Bloomberg. Fred Phelps is not Billy Graham. Paris Hilton is not Martha Stewart. You may well want to overlook how Romney got and created that success. I chose not to.
“Mitt Romney Gets Tax Break Off Firm Sending Jobs To China”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/mitt-romney-sensata-tax-break_n_1920396.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_hp_ref=politics
Why is it I should respect your choice when you do not respect mine?
Lemme make sure I understand this correctly…
“orderly, rational analysis” equals BAD
“emotional, gut-driven” equals GOOD
If Adam Hanft is correct about what it takes to be “effective” in government, then I begin to understand how our government can be such a source of divisiveness, ineffectiveness, and utterly insane amounts of deficit spending.