Continuing the discussion that was started yesterday, should companies gear advertising towards a certain demographic and/or race?

Advertising towards a certain race, BMWs in this case, isn’t something new.  If I remember correctly, a brand of malt liquor was advertised with black people in mind a while ago.  I guess the thinking goes white people wouldn’t buy it anyway.  Now that I think about it, are there any black people in Coors commercials?

By the way, after doing some research I found out that the thing with BMWs was only partially about BMW – it actually had to do with Mini Coopers.  I happen to know someone very close to me that drives a MINI  What kind of world would this be if we let others limit what we do?

So how do you feel about advertising being geared towards a certain demographic?  I would say race, but that wouldn’t be totally accurate.  See, some companies seperate their wealthy customers from their customers who don’t spend as much money.  All of this is transparent, but it still happens.  The next time you call a business and are forced to go through all those telephone prompts remember that the system may be directing you towards a certain group of customer service reps set up for your financial demographic.

BMW’s media buying agency sent an email to stations requesting information on ad rates, but specifically stated “No combos or urban formats” should be included. In other words, BMW issued a ‘Non Urban Dictate (NUD)’ to the radio stations.

Not clear on what a NUD is? Well, it basically means that a company is not interested in the Black consumer. [A NUD label means that a company does not want their marketing and advertising materials placed in media that claim an urban audience as their main target.] Sometimes, there are legitimate reasons for companies not using urban radio. It may be that Blacks don’t index high in certain categories or that a company’s strategy is to market to the Black consumer down the road after they have established a strong position in their primary target. But, typically, a NUD means that a company is not interested in the Black consumer.

The National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters has weighed in on the controversy surrounding BMW’s NUD. The trade organization has requested a meeting with the chairman and CEO of BMW, Jim O’Donnell, to discuss the implications of an email from a media buying agency for the carmaker requesting information on ad rates, excluding those targeting urban areas, from radio stations in the Boston, Houston, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. markets. In addition, the good Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has sent a letter to BMW expressing concern over the NUD.

Now, when I read this, I was taken aback simply because I like BMWs and I am seriously contemplating purchasing one of their vehicles. But now with this…..I don’t know! I mean, if BMW doesn’t care to market to Black consumers — me being one of them —- then I should rethink my plan to purchase from them, right?

7DayBuzz readers, what do you think about this NUD? Is it fair? Should business be forced to market to every ethnicity or should they be able to pick and choose who they want to buy their product?

Hey 7DayBuzz readers. It’s that time of week ….. WordPlay Wednesday! Are you ready to be creative with your comments? Remember, use no more than five words to convey your sentiment about the topics listed below.

Okay, here we go…..

1. Jon and Kate ’8′ revolt against being filmed.
2. Is reality show about addiction going too far?
3. Ted Kennedy, dead at 77 - only Kennedy brother to die of natural causes.
4. NFL wide receiver Plaxico Burress; two years for carrying gun, shooting himself
5. Is Tobacco the hardest addiction to kick despite negative impact?

The debate (or shall I say campaign) for, and against President Obama’s healthcare reform has caused angst amongst both sides of the spectrum. On one hand, you have the Democrats who, for the most part, are for the overhaul of our country’s healthcare system. On the other hand, you have the Republicans who are against the overhaul because they say it’ll cost too much money. Well, who’s right (and wrong)? To help you come to some sort of decision, I’ve listed seven myths about the healthcare reform (taken from factcheck.org):

Myth #1: Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement)

This untrue claim has its roots in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), which called for the creation of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The council is charged with supporting and coordinating research that the government has been funding for years into which treatments work best, and in some cases, are most cost-effective. Supporters of this type of research say it can provide valuable information to doctors, improving care and also lowering cost.

Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York (and now a professing Democrat), wrote in an opinion piece that the government would actually tell doctors what procedures they could and couldn’t perform. The claim took off from there, popping up in chain e-mails and Republican press conferences. It’s not true.

Myth #2: The Bill Is Paid For

At least, it isn’t paid for yet.

President Obama has repeatedly said that a health care overhaul “will be paid for” and that he won’t sign a bill that isn’t deficit-neutral. But neither the House bill nor the Senate HELP Committee bill meets that criteria. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, the House bill as introduced would add a net $239 billion over 10 years to the deficit, while the HELP Committee bill racks up more, $597 billion over 10 years.

Myth #3: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal

In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

Myth #4: The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling

This claim is nonsense. In an appearance on former Sen. Fred Thompson’s radio show, McCaughey also enthusiastically pushed the bogus claim that the House bill will require seniors to have regular counseling sessions on how to end their lives:

“McCaughey, July 16: The Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care … all to do what’s in society’s best interest … and cut your life short.”

This is a misrepresentation. What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Myth #5: Families Will Save $2,500

Proponents speak constantly of holding down rising medical costs. As recently as May 13, the president said legislation plus some voluntary measures by the private sector “could save families $2,500 in the coming years – $2,500 per family,” echoing a claim he made countless times on the campaign trail last year.

Don’t start spending that $2,500 just yet.

For one thing, Obama isn’t actually promising to reduce health care spending below current levels, only to cut the rate of growth in spending. And even that is proving to be far tougher to accomplish than Obama led voters to believe. We’ve already mentioned that the Congressional Budget Office says “savings” in Medicare spending resulting from the House bill would fall short of what is needed to pay for two-thirds of its cost, which is Obama’s goal. And those savings come only in what the government pays, not in what families pay.

Myth #6: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed

The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors’ Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn’t keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings – or cuts, depending on one’s perspective – come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

Myth #7: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered

One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that “5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare,” and we’ve been peppered with queries about similar claims. They’re not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

“H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

Also, under current law, those in the country illegally don’t qualify for federal health programs.

I’m sure you are somewhat familiar with the “Cash For Clunkers” program, known as CARS, but here are the program guidelines:

• To participate in the CARS program, you do not have to sign an agreement to pay back the dealer the CARS credit amount if the deal is rejected.
• You are required to leave your trade-in vehicle at the dealership and sign over the title to the trade-in vehicle at the time of the deal.
• Your vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date
• The dealer must give you the new vehicle at the time of the deal.
• Only purchase or lease of new vehicles qualify.
• Generally, trade-in vehicles must get 18 or less MPG (some very large pick-up trucks and cargo vans have different requirements).
• Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in.
• You don’t need a voucher, dealers will apply a credit at purchase.
• Program runs through Nov 1, 2009 or when the funds are exhausted, whichever comes first ($2 billion dollars was recently added to the program).
• The program requires the scrapping of your eligible trade-in vehicle and that the dealer disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in. The scrap value, minus $50 the dealer keeps for administrative fees, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate.

The program seems like a good idea that may actually hurt those it was designed to help.  Many people just can’t afford to go out and buy a new car and not only does this program not allow them to buy a used car, it could make it harder for them to fix the car they currently own.  Automobiles traded in under this program are destroyed which means one less car on the used car market and many less parts for used auto parts stores.

The bottom line, said Norman Wright, chief executive of Stadium Auto Parts in Denver, is that the program will most hurt the people who can least afford it: lower-income Americans.

“A lot of low-income people can’t afford any other type of car, and if there’s a shortage of those engines and their vehicles need one, then those people are going to have a hard time finding a recycled engine to get their car back up and running,” Wright said.

New car dealers are benefiting from this program, but auto parts dealers, used car dealers, lower-income buyers and even organizations who accept auto donations are eagerly anticipating the end to this program.

“I understand that people are getting a good deal in the car showroom, and I realize the car manufacturers need the help,” said Capt. Eric Wilkerson, administrator of the Salvation Army in Portland, Ore.

“God bless them,” he said. “But don’t forget about the Salvation Army. We need your help, too.”

For now, dealers and charities say they’re rolling in reverse while they anticipate the end of the program.

I’m of the opinion that this is another program, under the Obama administration, that will rub some people the wrong way and help others.  It isn’t a permanent program so “non-participants” who aren’t in a good position right now have a light at the end of the tunnel.

I hope one of our readers has participated in the program to answer a question I have.  Are dealers willing to negotiate on price or do they think the money coming from the government is all the buyer deserves to get taken off their desired price?  According to some information I found on the Internet, some dealers/manufacturers are adding to the program.  Additional incentives range from $500 to doubling the amount a buyer would receive under the CARS program.  Think about this with me for a minute; if dealers can do this now, why couldn’t they lower the prices by up to $4,500 to sell cars before they (GM and Chrysler) took government money?

I think they could have but didn’t because they are greedy at their core.

Okay, so I’m a reader of Huffington Post, which is a website dedicated to politics. Sometimes they do so-called expose’s of the goings on in Washington and elsewhere. Well, today, they did a post about the White House making a deal with the pharmaceutical lobbyists although in public, President Obama has been saying otherwise. Who do we believe?

Here’s the memo/proposal that’s the crux of this expose:

The pharmaceutical companies agreed to:

Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.
1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 – 23.1% ($34 billion)

2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details — express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)

3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion

4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.

Total: $80 billion

In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:

1. Oppose importation

2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D

3. Oppose repeal of non-interference

4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B

“Non-interference” is the industry term for the status quo, in which government-driven price negotiations are barred. In other words, the government is “interfering” in the market if it negotiates lower prices. The ban on negotiating was led through Congress in 2003 by then-Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.

The rebates reference is to Medicare overpayments Big Pharma managed to wrangle from the Republican Congress that Democrats are trying to recoup. The House bill would require Big Pharma to return some of that money. The rebate proposal would save $63 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The White House, given the chance, declined to tell the Wall Street Journal for a July 17th article that it supported the effort to pursue the rebates.

The Medicare Part B item refers to “infusion drugs,” which can be administered at home. If they fall under Part B, Big Pharma gets paid more than under Part D. The agreement would leave infusion drugs in Part B.

In the section on Big Pharma’s concessions, “FOBs” refers to follow-on biological drugs. Democrats have pushed to make it easier to allow generic drug makers to produce cheaper versions of such drugs, an effort Big Pharma has resisted. The Senate health committee bill gives drug makers 12 years of market exclusivity, five more than the White House proposed

Again, both sides are denying this ever happened. Obama supporters are saying this is just a proposal. The antt-Obamaites are saying, “I told you so….”

So, what do you think 7DayBuzz readers? Did Obama sell out? What’s really going on?

Police allow man to wait for President Obama with unconcealed handgun!

Check out the link above, watch and be amazed!

The POTUS was going to New Hampshire for a town hall meeting and there was a protester with a gun out in the open!  It doesn’t matter if carrying a gun in the open is normally legal.  It doesn’t matter that the man was on private property.  What matters is the fact that this was allowed, shortly in advance of the President of the United States making an appearance.

ARE     YOU    SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is all I have to say right now; that is all I can think of.

By now you may or may not be familiar with the DUI manslaughter case involving Donte Stallworth.  If you aren’t, Stallworth allegedly spent the night drinking in a bar/club, went home for a while, got up to go get something to eat, then hit and killed a pedestrian with his vehicle.  It doesn’t lessen the blow, but Stallworth’s cooperation with the police and the fact that even sober he would have hit and killed the man played a part in Stallworth’s sentence.

Stallworth was sentenced to 30 days in jail – he served 24 days.  His plea agreement included two years of “community control” (Florida’s version of house arrest), eight years of probation, drug and alcohol testing, 1,000 hours of community service and a lifetime suspension of his driver’s license.  Stallworth, 28, also reached a confidential financial settlement with the family of 59-year-old Mario Reyes, the construction worker struck and killed early on March 14 by Stallworth, driving drunk in his black 2005 Bentley.  Apparently, Stallworth thinks his sentence is too stiff.

A Miami judge is expected to hear arguments to reduce Stallworth’s sentence – he wants is time on house arrest and probation cut.  In light of the facts surrounding this case, namely the fact that he slept for a while and would have killed the guy if sober, I had softened my initial opinion.  But this is going too far! 

Stallworth still has the potential to earn millions as a professional football player which is more than many people in his situation would be able to say.  Yes, he can no longer drive around in his expensive cars and for the next two years he will be on house arrest (I can imagine something will be worked out that will allow him to do his “day job”), but he will probably still be a millionaire when all is said and done.  What could the details possibly be that would lead him to think his sentence was too harsh?  What is there that we don’t know about?  On the surface, I would say go back to your mansion, wait for NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to rule on your suspension and shut up.  But there has to be more to this.  I’m really hoping our society hasn’t put professional athletes on such a high pedestal where they think they can get away with a crime like this with what many would consider a slap on the wrist.

I really hope there is more to this story.

What you’re about to see is a video of an 80-year-old Black woman approached by an officer, in a Wal-Mart parking lot, then being slammed to the ground. I got this video off of YouTube. The person who posted it wrote that the lady had been swinging a knife at different people in the parking lot, so the cops were called.

This video was extremely disturbing to me. This is an elderly person and no matter how threatened the officer felt, I feel the situation could have been handled so much better! There is so much blood underneath her…..I really won’t understand any justification for this.

How would you like to help provide a new computer to a graduating high school student who’s next venture is college? You can do this by making a donation to We Embrace, Inc.

We Embrace is a non-profit organization that embraces education and rewards high school students who decide to further their education. We Embrace has been in operation since 2004 and since their inception, have awarded a total six computers (desktops and laptops).

The founders of this organization use their own money to fund this organization, that’s why there is a small number of recipients. This organization would love to be able to expand their giving, but that takes help from people who like to give.

This organization would benefit greatly from a small grant; unfortunately, the founders do not know how to write grants nor do they have the funds to hire someone to write a grant for them. If you know of someone who can write a grant, for free, or at a very charitable price, please let us know and I’ll pass on the information.

Here is the website, www.weembrace.com. Check it out and let us know what you think. The website is very dated. To solve this dilemma, the founders are also looking for someone to update the website — again for free, or at a very reasonable price.