Measuring Up

The pot calling the kettle black

Ed Moed — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:45:41 -0500

Ever notice how many famous (or highly regarded) public figures who go through scandals (or are disgraced) rehabilitate their image only to jump right back into the spotlight a few years later? I’ve always been intrigued with the ease that most gain acceptance. And, although their lapses aren’t forgotten… typically they are forgiven.

Don’t get me wrong. In many cases, these former politicians, dignitaries or celebrities come back even stronger and have every right to do so because their new found visibility has little to do with past crimes or indiscretions. One case in point is Martha Stewart. Martha went to jail for insider trading (actually the official crime was lying to the government.) With her jail term served, those who cherished Martha’s wise home living advice and tips before, accepted her quite affectionately again by enthusiastically watching her shows, reading her magazines and books and maintaining their overall fan status.

Take a look at Eliot Spitzer and we see a completely different scenario, albeit an interesting storyline. It wasn’t so long ago that the former Governor of New York went through this state’s largest political scandal in recent history when the news broke that he was caught red handed frolicking with an expensive call girl. The governor quickly resigned from office and then created his own Richard Nixon-like, self exile scenario. We thought that would be the last of Mr. Spitzer, until 18 months later when he appeared on many talk shows to offer his very relevant commentary on the plummeting financial markets and Wall Street’s blame in the economic disaster that had resulted. Yes, people were shocked to see the disgraced governor in the spotlight again. Some were even outraged. Yet, in the end, this was most likely the smartest move Mr. Spitzer could have made to rehabilitate his image because the only positive and credible piece of his reputation that still existed was forged over a 12 year period as having an Elliot Ness approach to fighting Wall Street corruption and greed by standing up for all those ‘little people’ who needed to be protected.

Then, there exists a few hypocrisies that I simply don’t understand. These include real life examples of larger than life successful people who fell from grace because of some misdeed, or simply because their success was built on a lie. Yet, somehow, they managed to come back in the most credible and public way to provide counsel or advice on the very same issues or manners that caused the controversy in the first place. One such example I’m thinking of is the former dot.com super star analyst Henry Blodget.

Do you remember Henry? I certainly do. Think back to 1998 or 1999. This young buck was seen as a God within the investment/technology community for his outlandish Internet investment picks. At that time he worked at Merrill Lynch and instantly reached star status after predicting that Amazon would rise to become a $400 stock (which it actually did.) Every technology or Internet company wanted to get on the radar screen of young Henry after that. He was paid at the highest Wall Street levels, treated like a rock star in all public circles and seen as a new sage on Wall Street. This all worked beautifully well until the Internet bubble busted and it was later found out that Henry and others from Merrill’s research/analyst department were conducting questionable activities within the firm. He was sharing information (and more importantly) helping Merrill’s investment banking customers prosper by writing favorable financial reports on questionable business models. The Wall Street Chinese Wall relationship between research and investment banking was torn down because Henry (and others) helped Merrill make lots of money through these investment banking relationships at the expense of individual investors. In return, top analysts like Henry also received special early investment considerations into a number of the firm’s hot IPOs.

In the end, Henry’s picks all went south and his conflicted relationship within Merrill caused then New York State Attorney General to investigate him. Though he wasn’t ever convicted of anything, Henry was later barred from the securities industry and paid a fine of $2 million.

That’s why it makes no sense to me and truly comes across as the ultimate hypocrisy when I see that Henry is a top anchor and host on “Tech Ticker,” a heavily watched Internet news segment which dissects and analyzes the latest developments on Wall Street and within the technology world. I’ve watched these videos for over a year. While they are entertaining, it’s absurd that Henry actually plays the ‘heavy,’ watchdog role at times by beating up Wall Street executives and their companies for having ethical lapses and questionable judgment.

I’m not sure how Henry could be seen as credible by any audience on this topic based on a history laced with suspect decisions himself. Talk about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black…

All the news that isn't fit to be relevant

Ed Moed — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:36:41 -0500

Check out this photo. You see it, and, of course, you're led to believe that because these two Phillies are high fiving, their team won the World Series game on Saturday night. Right?

Not so. That high five took place in the early innings when the Phillies advanced to take a 2-0 lead. In the end, the Yanks caught up and won the game. Too bad the New York Times sports writer and photographer had probably already gone to bed, though. If someone had stayed to report the full game, we might be viewing a different photo.

This is just bad journalism. I rarely ever say or write this about The New York Times. But, it's Sports section has always been a cut below standard. Although there is some small print below the photo which tells the reader to go to NYTimes.com for the latest news. No reader wants to be unintentionally misled about the game results (a pretty important game) with the largest photo on the front page.

For years, The Times advertised that it had the best sports section around. What a crock that is. Yes, the articles are well written and the section does provide the reader with lots of important statistics and data. But, one area it always failed miserably in is providing the most recent, relevant news, like other rival papers do. And, I for one, have always had a problem with that.

In this case, it would have simply been better to not put any World Series photo front and center on the cover page. At least it wouldn't be wrong.

I never understood why this paper can't find a way to report any game played late at night in the next morning's paper. I guess with shrinking staffs and resources, this reality will never change. That's life. I just hope The Times understands when news isn't reported the next morning, it isn't really news at all.

Because of credible digital communications, I never looked “back”

Ed Moed — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:19:06 -0400

Every few months my aching lower back acts up again. Like many, I’ve tried most therapies, from acupuncture to intense physical therapy to regular chiropractor sessions. All of these have helped in making my back feel whole again for 4-8 month periods. But unfortunately, none gave any type of real lasting powers.

Ask 10 different people for advice on back therapies and you’ll get 10 different answers. Go on the internet looking for solutions and you’ll only find yourself tired, frustrated and more confused about the myriad of “guaranteed” procedures and doctors who can supposedly “cure” your pain. I was just about ready to end my Internet Google search, when this series of videos hit my screen.

; ;

In case you don’t have the time or desire to watch it, Dr. Howard Goodman (a back physician and chiropractor) discusses how something called spinal decompression can possibly help those who have inflammation or herniated discs (I have the former). What caught my eye about this series of videos (and kept me watching) is the simple, easy to understand and credible manner with which this specialist comes across. Instead of guaranteeing any type of magic solution, or trying to impress me with high brow MD knowledge, Dr. Goodman calmly explains to me what decompression is and how it can really help SOME patients (but not everyone.) He discusses it in the context of an alternative to surgery and then walks the viewer through symptoms that a candidate would have (and why.) Lastly, in layman’s terms, he describes the end benefit that this procedure can accomplish during a 6-8 week therapy timetable. I also like the fact that the entire intro video is only three minutes in length. (That’s plenty of time to explain to me the basics.) All the videos can be accessed from YouTube as well.

There’s nothing new about creating YouTube videos to educate and promote products, services and thought leadership. I just think that many in the medical field haven’t really figured out how to leverage this powerful Internet tool to effectively communicate credibly with target consumer audiences. With so many different medical “solutions” continually pushed to us, it’s incredibly hard to know which one is believable and really fits the problem at hand, or just pure snake oil (and there are quite of a few of those on the Internet these days.) So, guarantees and/or cocky promotions about medical pedigrees and language that I don’t understand are sure fire turnoffs for me.

After watching this video, I went to the Web site of New York Rehabilitation Center (which luckily happens to be physically located a block away from where I work,) and was further educated about the way decompression could really work for me. I also read articles (posted on the site) and did my own analysis on the doctors there to feel comfortable that everything seemed legitimate. In many ways, Dr. Goodman and his staff did everything right to successfully create a credible social media offering. The large amount of positive reviews about this video certainly helps to reinforce that. I think that others in the medical field should take notice.

Will this work for me? That’s a good question. I’m on to my 5th decompression appointment and the old back is actually starting to feel better. But, only time (6-8 weeks) will tell. I’ll be sure to report back to you how I’m feeling then.

Is there such a thing as a “dumb city?”

Ed Moed — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:41:48 -0400

I know this post may come across as cruel. But, yesterday’s article about Atlantic City’s “death spiral” has me truly wondering whether the answer is… yes.

I’ve been around Atlantic City (AC) for the last 25 years or so (living in NYC and New Jersey.) And, over this time period, I’ve watched this once promising gambling resort destination deteriorate to become nothing more than a cesspool at the sea. Think about it. That really isn’t an easy thing for any town, municipality or city to achieve when so much of its prime real estate lays on miles and miles of truly beautiful beach front property. Nothing is certain in life. But, any real estate destination that offers ocean views and sandy beaches should have among the best chances of flourishing. Unfortunately, almost since its inception, this city of false hope has been mismanaged, misappropriated and misguided by so many inept politicians, business executives, promoters and municipal guardians who promised prosperity and instead brought nothing but shame.

That’s why this article, entitled, “Can Atlantic City Raise the Stakes?” makes me twinge. This city had every opportunity and expectation of becoming the Las Vegas of the East Coast (or even bigger.) It’s hard to believe that after so much colossal failure, once again there are a few believers out there who are doubling down on their bet that Atlantic City can make a comeback. The old adage, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” is what comes to mind here.

Here’s my question: After how many blunders can someone (or in this case someplace) officially be labeled dumb? Seriously. The Mob first owned Atlantic City in the early days and boy did it start with a big bang. (And I don’t mean gun shots.) Those early casinos on the boardwalk (like Resorts) were so jammed back, that tourists would wait hours to see a show or have a chance to hit a casino table.

The way I see it (though) is that even when the Mob left, wide scale corruption never stopped. And through all of this, Atlantic City continues to make the worst type of decisions. Here are a few of them:

• What happened to gentrification? We’ve probably read about 10 plans over the last 30 years to root out all the inner city crime and turn the bad part of Atlantic City (that’s about 90 percent of it) into middle class, or at least more respectable neighborhoods. This city is too far gone for that to happen now. Allowing all the bad in this city to grow and fester out of control has certainly been the major reason behind its downfall.
• Who would create casinos on the beach and not take advantage of them? I just can’t figure that one out. These casinos could have created truly sustainable properties that wouldn’t live and die on pure gambling (all subject to economic highs and lows in our economy) if they had the foresight to build these beaches into major consumer destinations (i.e. maximize their beaches as full swimming/boating/drinking resorts.) Walk along a typical AC casino boardwalk and see how poorly the beaches are actually utilized to make money.
• The Indian Tribes just left them in the dust. First it started in Connecticut (Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun) and then it exploded with tribes opening up casinos in PA, NY State and now Delaware. AC casino operatives had their heads buried in the sand trying to find a way out of their junk bond miseries, while their savvy and nimble upstart competitors moved swiftly to offer a better entertainment product that is much closer to where they live. This had helped to really put the nail in AC’s coffin.
• Current modernization is still flawed. I went to Caesars Casino this summer for a night of dinner and gambling. On the one hand, it was nice to see how millions of $$$ have been pumped into this property to keep it afloat. (A new mall with restaurants and shops has been developed.) Unfortunately, the entire décor is designed in an 80s feel and that is just very strange. From the music, to the shops, to even the architectural design, if felt like we were being transported back in time. I’m just not sure why anyone would find that appealing.

Maybe there’s something in the water they drink near and within Atlantic City, but I firmly believe that the “apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” when it comes to the clarity by which some people think and make decisions in that neck of the woods. As a case in point, about 15 years ago one of the first prospects that called upon Peppercom was something called The Atlantic City Golf Association. Steve and I were excited because this qualified lead is an association that managed all the beautiful golf courses in the greater Atlantic City area and its Board was looking for a small, strategic firm to help immediately.

The first problem was that most target consumers/business people didn’t even know these golf resorts existed. The bigger challenge was that they were looking for a new way to position the association to compete with really “hot” golf vacation destinations such as Myrtle Beach and South Florida.

This looked like the perfect early client opportunity for us. We could really help them articulate a new brand positioning that would be both exciting and real and then our little firm could promote the heck out of these picturesque golf courses. That was until we had our last meeting (before being hired) when two of the association Board members were adamant that they knew exactly what the new positioning should be. Not wanting to sound like know-it-alls, we listened… and then we laughed… and then we realized it wasn’t a joke.

They wanted to position their golf courses as, “The Perfect Place to Golf ALL YEAR ROUND.”

We tried to explain to the powers at large that this wasn’t actually true. It isn’t possible to golf on these courses in the middle of January or February when six inches of snow are on the ground. But, they wouldn’t listen. Nope, they were adamant that technically golfing is still possible then (maybe it’s called frozen golf?) and they wanted to reposition themselves in this way to compete with the warmer climate destinations. Then they curtly said that we could take this or leave them. So, we did just that… we left them.

After that experience, I realized that sometimes people in life just make very little sense. And, there’s nothing you can do to change their perspective or how they go about making business decisions. Are they dumb? Well, you’ve read my story. So, now I’ll let you be the judge of that.

One size fits none

Ed Moed — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:23:08 -0400

Our crack PepperDigital team conducted a very interesting study on social media trends across the global spectrum. They are currently writing a 12-part blog series based on analyzing a host of interesting findings.

Not surprisingly, one of the core insights that was proven (though) shows how different cultures, crossing different countries utilize the Web and communicate/socialize much differently from each other. Marketers everywhere need to pay attention because overall campaigns, product introductions and/or relationship building clearly needs to be tailor made and implemented uniquely for each and every demographic and country/region that is targeted.

Our PepperDigital team offers a number of examples of how this is acutely true. I can think of one specific example that recently happened with a former client (not to be named) in which the senior executive in charge wanted to gain more attention for a blog post he had written on key business ethics principles. He asked us to generate a lot of international exposure among online communities where his customer base (senior HR managers) socialize and go to for thought leadership content. This all sounded great except that these principles were very US-centric and although they were smart and strategic, we believed they wouldn’t resonate with target audiences in some parts of Europe and Asia.

Although we pushed back, this former client was adamant about making this happen. So, we reluctantly backed down. Of course, the result was many comments on his post. About half were positive (from US business managers) and the rest chose to negatively dig into the very fact that these comments didn’t take into account social business norms in other key countries (like the EU). Not what our former client wanted.

If you’re interested in this topic, please take a few minutes and check out PepperDigital’s 12 different forthcoming posts. I think you’ll find them interesting.

ABC Network Reeks of Hypocrisy

Ed Moed — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:30:55 -0400

I love this story: “At ABC, Cougars Are O.K., but Not Always.” ABC really looks dumb for how it handled its big cat controversy, known as 'Cougar Town.' For those who haven’t heard, this comedy about middle aged women targeting younger, male studs in their sexual pursuits, is the network’s latest attempt to find a new prime time hit. 'Cougar' is actually a much touted term these days (in bars and night clubs) to describe those ‘older’ women who date, or chase, considerably younger men.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Right? Not according to ABC executives, who feel that the content is appropriate for night time network television. In fact, the network has even allowed some big time advertisers (like Cadbury Adams) to run ‘Cougar themed’ ads during the premiere. As an example, in one risqué Halls Refresh candy commercial, an ordinary middle-aged woman is given a candy drop by her son’s nerdy college roommate. All the while, the two stare at each other intensely while suggestively sucking their drops. Oh boy… get the picture?

Whoa…Disney (ABC’s owner) didn’t deem this subject matter too over the top for network, nighttime TV? I guess not. That’s why it rings so hypocritical that the network decided to turn away Cougarlife.com, another similar themed, wannabe advertiser, which seemed to be a natural fit for this show. ABC executives issued this one sentence response in defending their dismissive actions, “The ABC Television Network did not accept the CougarLife.com commercial based upon the fact that the Web site had not launched at that time of submission, and there was concern about its proposed content.”

Yet, according to those ‘in the know,’ that statement was a ruse. CougarLife.com had been fully seen and reviewed by ABC head honchos (and, in fact, it is a pretty standard dating web site – albeit for older women looking for younger men.) So, it seems that the network looks awfully silly. It doesn’t find the content from its show or candy commercial offensive, but worried that a web site promoting the same values, would be. And, of course, the owners of Cougarlife.com are pretty annoyed (as they should be). Claudia Opdenkelder, president of this web site, summed it up nicely in these few words, “So they’re comfortable with this in fiction, but not in reality.”

What a crock. ABC is stuck on some high and mighty morality cloud that makes absolutely no sense. The network surely knew that the very nature of this show would create an enormous amount of controversy among family and religion oriented groups who have loudly objected to its anti-family values theme (and it has.) Yet, it held firm, took its beating and stood behind this show because of a belief that ‘cougars’ do not cross the morality line and are fair game in the hunt for greater ratings in prime time TV. That’s why it should never have turned down any advertiser which supports the same values, cause and general content as well.

Of course, Cougarlife.com did not take this sitting down. The web site is urging visitors to sign an online petition to get the network to change its mind (which has yet to happen.) In this spirit of ‘all publicity is good publicity,’ I asked myself the question – is all this hoopla actually good for ABC and it’s new hit show? Ordinarily, I might say yes (because it will certainly cause more viewers to watch upcoming episodes.) But, with so many morality groups watching ABC’s every move, there’s no doubt that Disney will now feel a ton of pressure in the worst of ways. And, that won’t be fun for network executives.

If A Client Asks For The Moon…

Ed Moed — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:46:58 -0400

Today's guest post is by Michael Dresner, CEO, Peppercom’s Brand² Squared Licensing Division.

MeasuringUP has recounted lessons from 'Mad Men' we can take into the office on Monday mornings. This past week’s episode was no different (SPOILER ALERT for those DVR junkies out there). A long-nurtured relationship between Don Draper and Conrad Hilton shockingly unraveled in one fell swoop during a formal agency pitch. Don was flabbergasted. So was Lili, my wife, who watches Mad Men as religiously as I do. Muttering screenwriting inconsistencies, she fell asleep. I didn’t.

Many years ago I had a jewel of a client – a national restaurant chain that laid out an aggressive plan to evolve into a lifestyle brand. For an account person the assignment was exciting. And my rapport with their marketing director seemed impenetrable. We were in similar places professionally. She just moved to a city from which I relocated. The passion between our two respective companies was mutual. I could do no wrong. It was like, well, walking on the moon (reference to the 'Mad Men' subplot herein).

She sent me a deck late one afternoon summarizing her new strategy and asked for my feedback. I stayed until the wee hours of the morning analyzing each page thoroughly, documenting (many) areas where I felt she was misdirected, and sent a comprehensive response long after midnight which was constructive and kind but utterly candid. Without being self-aggrandizing, I was really happy with my work.

The response e-mail hit me at 8 am the following morning. “You don’t understand our business. You don’t see what I’m trying to accomplish. You clearly haven’t read the materials I have sent to you. I am concerned about this agency relationship.” I was dumbfounded. Our analysis was great.

Following the #1 rule of delivering bad news quickly, I brought the e-mail to a senior manager, along with my analysis. He spent 60 seconds looking at everything. “You did not listen to her,” she said. “You brought no one else into this. You did not give her what she asked for. And she may fire us.” A few months later, she did.

During this season of 'Mad Men' Don Draper was courted by Conrad Hilton. Meetings at the Waldorf. Trips to Italy. Drinks at all hours of the night. Don’s ego inflated. Whose wouldn’t? Yet during this courtship, Mr. Hilton made his own professional style very clear. He was a micromanager. He was a control freak. And when he asked anyone for anything, no room for challenge existed. Don witnessed that across many contexts. So when Conrad reviewed the boards for his brand, he asked why Sterling Cooper didn’t take Hilton to the moon. That’s what he asked Don Draper to deliver in earlier meetings. So what did Don do? Don still pushed his work that didn’t include the moon. Don made a patronizing comment about incorporating the moon into an already existing board. The new business opportunity ended then and there – and the same thing would happen today.

Mistake #1: Don Draper allowed strong rapport to make him think he could do no wrong. Mistake #2: Don plunged into this new business pitch by himself, as if he were a one-person show, without ever thinking that maybe the smart people around him could have helped digest Conrad’s wants and needs during the meetings and drinks preceding the pitch. Mistake #3: Don heard a client ask for the moon and didn’t come close to responding – in neither strategy nor creative. Mistake #4: Don took Conrad’s legitimate, and polite, questions about where the moon concept was, and Don (rather than apologizing, retrenching, or opening up a dialogue) grew defensive and told Conrad that “this was a great campaign.” As if Hilton was already Don’s brand. Any prospective client would get up and leave. Mine did.

With regret, I believe many of the inappropriate situations that take place on 'Mad Men' remain part of our current culture, perhaps on a more subdued level. Don’s failure to win this enormous client opportunity – despite his obvious depth of talent and hunger for new business – happens all the time. Talent and hunger are easily replicated. Engaging a team to listen to client needs and wants is a special skill but no less important. Regardless of expertise area, marketing service firms must remember that.

Who is using YouTube and why are they using it?

Ed Moed — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:17:58 -0400

Listen to Peppercom’s Sam Ford and Dr. Joshua Green, author of the book “YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture” discuss the significance of YouTube and how it is transforming our culture, society and the economy.

YouTube Podcast

Way too bullish on this bull

Ed Moed — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:16:11 -0400

I just read that Bank of America is about to bring Merrill's renowned bull logo back to life. Yup. In this quarter, the global bank (that is still in a heap of trouble for buying Merrill Lynch) will spend upwards of $20 million to reinvigorate (maybe more like resuscitate) this legendary Wall Street symbol for stakeholders around the world.

If someone had asked me, I would have said, "Forget about it."

While Merrill isn't despised anywhere nearly as much as much as Lehman Brothers or AIG, it certainly falls into the same general failure bucket. Remember, Merrill only survived because its leader (John Thain) moved quickly to find an acquisition partner in those frightening, spiraling out of control, stock market days last year. Merrill's name and reputation was then beaten to a pulp as news came out that this same leader and his top managers had taken billions in bonuses, all the while the company's stock plummeted and its core business came close to bankruptcy. BofA then took the hit for swallowing Merrill, as its leaders were seen as naïve for being so in the dark as to just how much secret debt existed in the once proud financial giant.

Putting all of that aside, this financial calamity will not soon be forgotten. Americans do have short memories, but my view is that even in five or ten years down the road, many will still conjure up images of the worst behavior that took place within our financial services industry during this near depression drop. Merrill Lynch and it's now infamous bull logo will only bring back those terribly negative, frightful feelings that investors felt in the fall of 2008. And, that's not good.

I'm sure the marketing folks at Bank of America conducted a lot of worthwhile research to show that the bull has enormous brand visibility and awareness among audiences everywhere. My guess is that they figure the brand can be rehabilitated if enough money is thrown at it. Maybe they are right.

But, I'm skeptical. Most everything on Wall Street needs a fresh beginning these days. And my feeling is that the bull should spend its remaining days in some unknown pasture, grazing on millions of worthless mortgage backed securities shares.

I just don’t get it…

Ed Moed — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:29:45 -0400

I know it’s ancient news now. But, this weekend I found myself engrossed with the latest Bernie Madoff headlines again. For those of you who’ve stopped caring, now the trustee for this mess (Irving Picard) is going after Madoff’s two sons, niece and brother for over $200 million in ill gotten booty.

This is a civil action (not criminal), which makes me scratch my head in utter confusion as I mumble, “Huh?”

Let’s focus on Madoff’s sons (Mark and Andrew.) They were the co-directors of trading for Madoff’s investment company. Yes, we all know what happened many months ago. These two ‘honest’ men immediately turned their father in when he finally clued them into the fact that for over 20 years, Madoff’s entire investment company has been nothing more than a ruse… just a pyramid scam where, in fact, not a single trade was actually ever made.

You know where I’m headed with this, right? Two serious investment professionals (Mark and Andrew) were in charge of TRADING. This means they were supposedly overseeing all the trades being recorded. I’m not by any means a trading expert, but I do have a fair amount of common sense (and I spoke to a few friends who are traders.) From what I can glean, it’s near impossible to direct trading at any firm (especially one as small as Madoff’s- it isn’t Morgan Stanley after all,) and not be able to actually watch, assess and then understand when a trade is really happening (or not). So, we are supposed to believe that in all the years these sons supposedly watched over trading activity, they never got an inkling that every single trade was actually a work of fiction. Weren’t they the ones who forged trading strategies, and managed those traders who were actually… trading? The only possible rationale I can think of is that both sons were in a coma, or simply never actually came to work to witness any trades.

This story gets better. According to reports, several trades in Mark and Andrew’s accounts were actually fabricated. The accounts never received a penny, but they reported millions in profits from nonexistent trades in shares of Microsoft, Dell and Lucent Technologies. Yet, the brothers were clearly bamboozled, like everyone else. Right?

OK, no more kidding around. These guys had to know. It just isn’t feasible that they didn’t. And, I cannot understand why no one is going after them on criminal charges like their crooked dad.

Of course, their lawyers repeatedly say that their clients were kept in the dark about the fraud by their father. That’s just poppycock, though. The DA nailed the biggest fish (Bernie) and he is now serving a life time prison sentence. But, if memory serves, he never negotiated or offered up any important information to the Feds that would protect his kids from criminal prosecution. So, are we supposed to just sit back and believe that criminal justice has been served?

I guess so.

Someone needs to treat me like a third grader and explain to me in simple sentenced how this is possible. Because, as my headline reads, I just don’t get it…