I just completed a marketing seminar for local businesses put on by the Commercial Appeal, a Memphis, TN newspaper and website owned by EW Scripps. It was very interesting; there was a range of local businesses and levels of sophistication in the room.
On the one hand there were some very astute questions about online branding, market/audience segmentation and online word of mouth. On the other there were some extremely basic questions about how to get traffic to “our website.” One fellow was running for the Republican nomination for president and wanted to know about online fundraising. I think his name was McCain (kidding).
The event was not a commercial for the Commercial Appeal but indirectly it smartly positioned the newspaper both as a way to reach local audiences and as an online marketing resource for these local businesses.
Now it’s back to the airport . . .
June 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Thanks for the plug, though you didn’t mention my name. Here’s my story. Maybe some of your readers will want to help.
=================
Statement by Republican presidential candidate David F. Diamond,
issued at the Italian Festival in Memphis, Tennessee, Saturday, June 2, 2007
The latest polls say Republicans are looking for more choices for President. And I understand their frustration. The leading contenders in the race are taking lots of different positions on the issues. That’s understandable as they try to distinguish themselves in the marketplace.
The win-win aspect to this is that our candidates will refine our party’s stand on the major issues by the time of our convention. And in the end, we will be unified. I’m sure of that.
So I am focusing my candidacy on the issue of solving the shortage of organs for transplant purposes. This will give my fellow Republicans another choice in the contest as it continues to evolve. Still I see a deadlocked convention. In that situation, I think I can become the presumptive party nominee. When that happens, I have committed myself to adopt the positions of the number 2 contender who had best expressed the consensus of the party’s views on all the big issues. In addition I will ask that person to serve as my vice-presidential running mate.
Here’s the beauty of all this: With me as the nominee and a vice president whose views I will enhance and support — along with supporting the party platform — we will have a unified party going into the general election. And we will have a candidate who can seriously attack a real problem that is currently - and unnecessarily - causing the deaths of 6,900 U. S. citizens annually. These people die because not enough organs are available for transplant.
My plan is a real solution to a real problem. And I will provide a copy of it to anyone who writes me at: dfentres@memphis.edu or you can call me at 901 761-5580. ——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Organ sales plan announcement by Presidential candidate
David F. Diamond on March 16, 2007
First, I need to state that this plan does not contemplate any sale of a kidney from a living person. There are risks in having such surgery and for that reason and others, we set that aside and take no position on that question. In point of fact, the need for kidneys will be adequately supplied with adoption of my plan.
The shortage of organs is taking the lives of 6,900 people unnecessarily each year. Donation is good. It is the highest altruistic step that a person can contemplate. However, for a number of reasons, many people are not willing to donate.
The solution is to provide a regulated system allowing the organs of cadavers to be sold as follows:
1. The Federal Organ Transplant law needs to be changed. A futures contract can provide that when a person has decided, for whatever reasons, not to donate organs, he or she (hereafter: the provider) can commit to a plan to have the organs sold if and when the provider is brain dead. This contract will also be signed by the next of kin, spouse or nearest living relative so that that party understands the purpose of the contract and agrees that they will not oppose its implementation when the provider dies. A provider’s option to cancel the contract at any time prior to the provider’s death will be included in the contract..
2. The sale of organs can be conducted by a broker, attorney or individual designated by the provider. Appropriate compensation to that party, such as a commission for services provided, would be set forth in the contract. The rest of the money will go to the provider’s estate.
3. The party designated by the provider must maintain a public record (like a broadcaster’s operating log which is available for public viewing) specifying the individual who gets the organs, how much is being paid and the identification of the provider. This transparency will eliminate the need for a black market, and will stimulate public awareness. If there is a public record, as soon as organ sales begin, the news media will write articles about it pointing out how much money was involved in the transactions and stressing how much money goes to the heirs. This will persuade a lot of additional people to agree to such a contract, thus increasing the supply exponentially. Through the action of the law of supply and demand, the increased supply will cause prices to decrease to a level most people will consider reasonable. Unless you allow prices to be set by the market process you put a limit on the number of organs that might become available. Any fixed price, set by government or a special agency, would diminish the supply which would defeat the goal of making the most organs available. That would cause some individuals to decide not to participate. But if they knew that the organs they might provide are going to bring whatever the market process allows, they’ll have every incentive to take part.
4. The organs would have to be sold only for transplant to U. S. citizens in order to avoid foreigners from bidding up the price and reducing the supply to Americans. Of course, if other countries should adopt model legislation such as ours then we could reciprocate and become partners with them since their organ supply could be shared with ours.
5. The poor will not be discriminated against. They will have access to organs because the law will provide that, just as in Medicare or Medicaid presently, the government will pay for any medical procedure or supplies that the patient needs, upon a doctor’s certification that it is medically necessary. The government would buy organs on the market for those with Medicare or Medicaid unless donated organs were available. The same principle will apply for those with health insurance. And the wealthy, who may choose to be self insured, would be free to arrange for organs in the same market. Of course, people would still be free to donate organs. And participation by providers in the futures contracts would be entirely voluntary.
6. The use of this law will allow the provider to leave an estate to his heirs or a designated charity. A provider, with few or no assets, might otherwise have little to leave when he or she passed.
The proposal I’m offering will be, of course, subject to improvement and modification by the federal legislature. Meanwhile, I welcome and will entertain seriously any changes suggested so long as they do no damage to this essential requirement: We have to let the law of supply and demand work in order to maximize the number of organs that will be made available.