“Welcome my friends to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside ...”KarnEvil 9, Emerson, Lake and Palmer
"Brand hijacking is about Consumers shaping the brand meaning and endorsing it to others ... Special brands offer up a vision that people can identify with, one they want to involve themselves in more deeply. At its best, market involvement creates a cultural benefit, offering meaning in an otherwise chaotic modern world.” Brand Hijack, Chapter1.
The Corzine Brand is generally identified as shrewd businessman (Goldman Sachs), straightforward person (ethics reformer), and socially concerned citizen (Good Samaritan). The ill-fated relationship between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, however, may re-brand the product. As such, it’s a propagandist’s best daydream and a reputation managers worst nightmare.
The beauty of the ongoing Corzine - Katz saga is the story is so easy to hijack. First, its sticky because it is primal. The relationship will be long remembered because it combines soap opera with reality tv. A Master of the Universe dating Cinderella entices us with a promise of glamour, romance, power, money and sex. Second, the end of the relationship is increasingly mysterious and curiosity increases the susceptibility to a hijack. Coupled to the fact the alleged wrongdoing is so vague and the facts are so tenuous, the interpretation of what happened is settled by personal attribution: "Romeo and Juliet", "War of the Roses", "Play Misty for Me" (Fatal Attraction), or "All the Kings Men." "Citizen Kane" or Mae West. As we feel we have experienced it we will name it. Thus, rumor psychology fuels the increasing word of mouth. Each side however, seeks to ultimately control the Corzine Brand identity and each side can only allow the public to go so far in determining brand identity. Ergo, each group seeks to manage the direction. Republicans spin for political gain. Democrats counter-spin for damage control.
Doctor Strangelove or Doctor Feel-Good
Republicans contend that the recent NYT article is new evidence that Governor Corzine cannot appear or cannot actually administer State business when these activities involve interaction with Ms. Katz. Moreover, with the “liberal” Times as the basis for their authority it is argued Governor Corzine is not the forthcoming person he portrays himself to be as the funds given to Ms. Katz were not a half million dollars (plus or minus), but $6 million. The payments were not the act of a good samaritan exercising kindness by forgiving a loan, but were a self-interested financial settlement arising from unknown acts or omissions committed by Governor Corzine during his relationship with Ms. Katz. And, finally Governor Corzine is not the shrewd business mogul he appears to be as the payments were either restitution for some wrongdoing or hush money. In short, it is not Ms. Katz who is in obligated to Governor Corzine. It is Governor Corzine who is in beholden to Ms. Katz.
The Democrats appear to have chosen to ignore “the establishment” NY Times article. Rather, they seek to counter Republican concerns by relying on a cursory recognition of Ethics Advisory Panel authority and a general public awareness of its’ “opinion” the Governor had no pecuniary interest to be a total vindication. Nothing is said about the numerous unseen, and inappropriate emails between Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz. Nothing is said about why such communications were not immediately stopped after the first email, but rather were allowed to continue well into the negotiations. Ironically, this is the one action the Advisory Panel “advised” Governor Corzine was improper. And, nothing is said about why the unfounded “advice” of the Governor’s Executive (as opposed to judicial) Branch Panel should be accorded any sort of finality or respect.
The bottom line is no one knows whether the personal relationship is inextricably intertwined with the personal relationship.
“Interviews with some three dozen people who know the pair - from union administration officials to lobbyists and friends - leave no clear explanation as to why he paid the settlement or why their interactions have become strained. Some see her as a spurned lover still nursing hopes of reconciliation: others say she is a savvy advocate eager to leverage any avenue for political results. He is alternatively viewed as afraid of what she might say about him, or simply as a rich and generous man who considered the relationship significant enough to warrant helping her maintain the lifestyle they had shared.” NY Times, May 23, 2007 (subscription).
Rosebud.
