Dunno what you made of my previous comment, but #2 has its challenges because fake confidence, the kind requiring massive piles of cash conveying a feeling of overwhelming force is not really confidence, it’s the reed thin and fragile courage of the bully. Most companies do not have a natural confidence within their *cultural* DNA that says, come what may, dynamism is life and we WILL handle whatever comes our way cuz that’s *why* we exist. This is exactly the opposite ethic of the prevailing managerial mindset which crafts its models and metrics to control, control, control. All of Debbie’s managers are fearful because they are so rarely exposed to real executive bravery that an open barn door seems a threat.

If a company’s splashy, optimistic marketing convinces some consumers that the economy in general is about to revive they might spend more money but not on the advertiser’s product. In that case there there is a public goods problem for all companies–they all benefit if all expensively signal economic confidence, but the free-rider problem is severe.

On the other hand, it it is confidence specifically in the company or its value proposition that is increased by spending on marketing, then the company that spends is more likely to appropriate the gains. But that only works if a lack of confidence in the company specifically, rather than conditions in general, is what is holding back incremental purchasers.

Grant: Good point, but it all depends on how the spending is directed. Spending to chase fallen pillars only highlights a lack of thought and inspiration. True inspiring change can come without conspicuous spending; harder, but perhaps more meaningful.

But can I offer another take/tangent? So many companies are structured and psychologically denominated (?) in that they can only muster the “courage” and “confidence” they need when there’s a tidy pile of cash available as their metaphorical armour and adrenaline. I use the scare quotes because that’s assisted bravery or gumption not the real thing. I maintained several years ago to Tom Guariello that GM was doomed because they had too many options, uncategorized and unprioritized, too many excuses that their then reasonably still-tall pile of cash afforded them. They had no reason to risk anything by confidently declaring, as Daimler did recetly that they were swearing off fossil fuels in the next 15 years. A bold and confident statement borne, likely, of their sometimes annoying faith in calipers and white coats. But GM? Their courage and comfort were elusive and increasingly about the numbers not the body panels and exhaust note love, as we came to see this last year, and their soul–true worth and purpose–would only be revealed, or not, when they ran out of that money as buffer to real decision-making. Confidence is really devil-may-care wrapped in expertise or resourcefulness and those are things that Wharton and HBS do not yet teach as far as I nknow.

I guess it’s kinda like Nietzsche’s abyss except object in the windscreen are terrifyingly closer than they appear. But you cannot flinch.

Taylor: I think especially publicly traded corporations have to be significantly more than just a collective of people who share a common interest and culture, because of the enormous structural pressure for continuously increasing profits… Ira Bashkow really needs to get his Prickly Paradigm Press monograph on the subject published!

And, I want to cast still another vote for cover #1!