Cutting Edges

Procter and Gamble wants to buy Gillette. Oh, the copywriters are honing their headlines to show how cleverly they can play on the words about these mega-consumer providers. The lines are too easy, and it will take some really disciplined writers to reach for the simile, metaphor or turn-of-phrase that will make readers envy the cleverness of the writer rather than fighting the urge to pummel the writer.

A favorite metaphor of management is expressed with the tired business objective "...to be on the cutting edge" of their industry. I think this is an ill-chosen image. I think they mean "progressive" or "at the forefront" or even "ahead of the pack." But the words conjure a vision of wood shavings curling away from a plank, or a scythe mowing a swathe of wheat. The cutting edge is destructive. The glint of the razor begs for blood.

When I hear some maven of business uttering this pop cliche, I cannot help but recall a Mad Magazine cartoon - a kid is sliding down a long curving banister and as he rounds the final curve, he suddenly sees that the bottom section turns into a giant razor blade. Oooch.

Tom Lehrer immortalized the image in one of his little ditties ( Bright College Days"
The lyric goes
"... Soon we'll be out, amid the cold world's strife.
Soon we'll be sliding down the razor blade of life..." (oooch)

You would think that the company that offered an eternally-sharp "Ginsu" razor blade would become gloriously successful. But Gillette has demonstrated that the real money comes from the recurring sale of blades not in the sale of razors.

There is something vaguely disturbing about the recent spate of acquisitions and mergers between already large companies (e.g., Oracle-PeopleSoft, SBC-AT&T, Cingular-AT&T Wireless). These mega-deals may benefit the corporate mavens and stockholders, but they don't sound so sweet to the employees that will be consolidated-out of a job, or to the consumers who will inevitably pay increased prices in a less competitive marketplace. (Fewer employees, more profits = bloody brilliant!)

I would like to believe in the Ayn Rand brand of free market rationalism, but my gut tells me that more big companies are not a good thing. These multi-everything institutions begin to behave like political entities rather than economically driven organizations. Monopolistic control of pricing and availability will ultimately reduce consumer choices while increasing the cost of goods. The rising costs do not result in better quality goods - because executives realize that they get more bang for the buck if they spend the buck on marketing than if they spend it on product development.

Face it. We are screwed.

========
In a related story, US auditors cannot account for Nine Billion US Taxpayer dollars that was spent in Iraq last year. Incredibly, our guy Bremer said that we gave most of it to the Iraqi provisional government, but did not make them account for how the money was spent. Don't the Iraqis have oil? Why are we paying for everything? Who the heck is in charge?

When the enterprise gets so big that those responsible do not have to answer to anyone, we are screwed. Royally.

In yesterday's historic election in Iraq, everyone was surprised. The turnout was higher (percentage-wise) than in most American elections. This, despite the fact that they all had to walk to the polls, stand in long lines, risk death or injury, undergo a personal body frisking, and hardly anyone one really knew who they were voting for.

On second thought, it sounds a lot like the reports from Ohio last November.