Month: November 2004

In a July column, entitled “One casino in Rockaway Beach does not a Las Vegas or Atlantic City make,” the Ole Seagull “bet that within a relatively short time after the August 3 vote on Amendment 1, whether it passes or not, that the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce, the Branafia^*, and a lot of the others who are fighting Amendment 1 will try to get a one percent retail sales tax, that some call ‘The Chamber Tax,’ imposed on all those who shop in Branson. What will be the justification for this tax? Branson needs more money for marketing to bring more people to the Branson area.”

The term “Branafia” is a term that the Ole Seagull has semi affectionately concocted. He uses it to describe those families, businesses, and individuals who appear to exert a disproportionate amount of influence and control over the affairs of the Branson area and the quality of life of its citizens all the while maintaining an innate ability and desire to have others “pay” for the benefits that it receives.

“But Seagull, wasn’t it estimated that Amendment 1 and the casino it would have permitted in Rockaway Beach would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors to the Branson area?”

“That depends on whose estimates were used. Although the estimates ran from 500,000 to 1 million new visitor’s one thing is a good bet, more new visitors would have come to the Branson area if it had been approved than will come because it was defeated.”

If it wasn’t so ludicrous it would be funny. With one hand the Branafia actively worked against an attraction that would have brought hundreds of thousands of new visitors into the area even while they were getting ready to present the Branson community with the Christmas gift that just keeps on giving, a regurgitation of the one percent retail sales tax that some call the “Chamber Tax.” What’s the purpose of this tax? Its purpose is to provide funding for more marketing to bring more visitors to the Branson area.

“Whoa now Seagull, why would anyone want to bring more visitors to Branson?”

“What do you mean?”

“Didn’t the opponents to gambling in Rockaway Beach bring in experts that said that more visitors meant increased crime?”

“Hum, come to think of it they did but they must have been referring to another kind of visitor.”

“What kind of visitor is that, one who spends their money where they want them to?”

“That would be the percentage bet.”

Sometimes it seems as if the Branafia has eaten one Burger King too many. They appear to have a dominant belief that they can have what ever they want, their way, whenever they want it. For instance, the very law that authorizes the new tax provides relief from the tax, and perhaps even a windfall, to the very theatres, attractions and lodging establishments who will benefit most from the tax.

“Surely you jest Seagull. Are you saying that the Branafia developed a law that would impose up to a one percent retail sales tax on locals and visitors alike for things like clothes, school supplies, toys, diapers, and “Pampers” etc. while putting in a provision reducing their own liability for the same tax?”

“Not really, that’s what Section 67.1971 of the Missouri Revised Statues authorizing the tax says.”

If it stopped there it would be sad enough but it doesn’t. The Branafia designed the legislation for the tax so that the millions of dollars in tax proceeds it generates is administered and controlled by a board of other than elected officials. Even that wasn’t enough however because they designed the legislation to require that the tax proceeds for marketing be awarded, not to the entity and in a manner that can most effectively market Branson, but to a one “not-for-profit organization” described in the legislation.

“Seagull, does the reason some people call it the ‘Chamber Tax’ have anything to do with the organization described in the legislation that must get the tax proceeds or that has the authority to appoint more people to the board that will make the actual decision on who will get the tax proceeds than any other?”

“That was a rhetorical question, right?”

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, common sense dictates that something celebrated as “Thanksgiving Day” should be a “day” of “giving” “thanks.” How many times have you ever said “thanks” for something to “no one?” Generally, when we say “thanks” it is for something and the thanks is given to the person or entity believed to have provided that something.

Yet, even as some would take “Christ” out of Christmas so too would they take “giving” out of Thanksgiving. To whom are we giving thanks and for what? From Coronado’s 1541 Thanksgiving in Palo Duro Canyon, in what is now West Texas, through the 1600 Puritan Thanksgivings in New England, history testifies to the fact that our modern day Thanksgiving is based on giving thanks to God for blessings bestowed. One of the “First Thanksgiving Proclamations,” issued in 1676, by the Governing Council of Charlestown, Massachusetts proclaimed, “a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favor.”

On November 16, 1789, the First President of the United States, George Washington, issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating, “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’”

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, in his 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation said it best. “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Particularly at this time in our Nations history, it would seem appropriate, during our Thanksgiving celebrations, to stop and give “thanks” to Almighty God for the many blessings he has bestowed upon this Nation and its people. As Lincoln so beautifully said, “No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things.They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God.”

Some say that Branson does not have enough money to market effectively and still others say that it is a matter of using the funds that are available in a more effective manner. For what it matters, an Ole Seagull would suggest that the amount of marketing money available for a unified coordinated marketing and promotional campaign to market Branson is totally insufficient to do so effectively. And, that’s the good news; the bad news is that even if there was enough money, based on past performance, there is a reasonable doubt that it would be used effectively.

“Whoa now Seagull, what do you base that on?” Well, as an example, let’s look at one of the most dynamic marketing tools to come along in the last one hundred years, the World Wide Web (WWW) of the internet. There were commercial Branson web sites promoting tourism in Branson on the internet by February of 1995. When did the agency receiving millions of dollars from the City of Branson for tourism marketing and promotional purposes finally have a web site up on the internet promoting tourism in Branson? Was it 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, or later?

Was it before or after, the majority of those providing the marketing expertise and advice to that organization had web sites on the internet and were using them to promote the businesses that they owned, worked for, or represented? If it was “after” does that say anything about either the priorities of those giving the marketing advice or that organizations ability to adapt and change in a timely manner?

“But Seagull, what about the much vaunted marketing expertise of those giving the marketing advice to that organization?” In his 63 plus years of life an Ole Seagull has learned that a person’s title, knowledge, ability, and the organization they work for is one thing and the results achieved in a given situation involving that person is another.

On October 26, Austin McGhie, representing the Sterling Group, the firm hired to conduct a branding study for the Branson Tri-Lakes Area made a presentation to the Branson Board of Aldermen. The study was commissioned by the Branson Lakes Area Chamber of Commerce and CVB, the chamber, and paid for by the City of Branson. A chamber press release on the presentation quoted McGhie as having said, “Our research discovered that there is a Resistor group of people, who look like Branson’s current Loyal customers in ways such as lifestyle and demographics, but they are under the misguided perception that they know what Branson offers and that it’s just NOT for them.”

Some might wonder exactly what “misguided perceptions” people might have about Branson in the summer of 2004. A news article on the meeting, published in the October 29 edition of this paper reported, “Marketers say the tourist driven town of Branson must shake its image of out of date country music shows and overall-clad hillbillies to increase tourism in the city.”

“But Seagull, the need for Branson to change that very image has been common knowledge and discussed publicly for at least a decade. Hasn’t tens of millions of marketing dollars been spent over the last few years trying to change that image and bring more first time visitors to Branson?” Exactly the point and, regardless of who did it, what their expertise was, or how much has been spent, the chambers own study testifies as to the effectiveness of that marketing.

Isn’t the answer more money? Eventually, but for now an Ole Seagull would heartily endorse the recommendation of McGhie at the meeting when he said words to the effect that “If it cost ten dollars a person to get the message across spend ten dollars per person at one destination, get it right at that location, and then move on. Don’t spend two dollars at five different destinations and never get the message across because you are just wasting your money.”

What a refreshing concept, make sure your marketing strategy will accomplish what it is you want it to accomplish before you spend millions of dollars on advertising. In an Ole Seagulls opinion, Branson is running out of time to get it right. Those potential misguided first time visitors that Branson so vitally needs are saying to various destinations vying for their business, “Can you hear me now?” The destinations that hear them best and let them know it will get their business. Said another way, it all depends on whether or not, Branson, the town with “entertainment you can touch, entertainment that touches you” can “reach out and touch” them.

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.

Historian Lord Acton’s warned that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It applies to individuals, institutions, and governments and is as applicable today as it was when he said it in 1887. In terms of the United States of America, a government, “by the people and for the people,” that has stood as a bastion of freedom to the world, and is allegedly a democracy, one would not expect to find absolute power and the corruption it brings but, never the less, it is there.

Not only is it there but it is enabled by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This article establishes the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. It states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

When most think of the words “power” and “corruption” in connection with government they immediately think of the type of corruption that involves those in power being paid money in exchange for political and other favors. Although that could happen within the federal judiciary it would probably be discovered and prosecuted. Unfortunately, the type of corruption that the federal judiciary is involved in, although it affects the very moral fabric and value system of our Nation, is so subtle and shrouded in the shadow of “Lady Justice” and the authority of the U.S. Constitution that it is hard to recognize and even harder to do anything about.

At its basic level the word “corrupt” can be defined as, “to ruin morally, to destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of,” or “to change the original form of” something. Interestingly enough, with the country divided on the issue of the war in Iraq and the economy, most are attributing Presidents Bush’s reelection on November 2 to his stands on conservative social values related to God, abortion, guns, and gays. It is a stand that appears to transcend geographic, social, and economic divisions while, at the same time, flying in the face of the corruption of some of those values by the federal judiciary, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an example, is it the legislative or executive branches of our government that is trying to remove any mention of God from government? Removed prayer from our schools? Prohibits nativity scenes or the mention of Christ or the story of His birth even as it pertains to the teaching of the meaning of Christmas? The answer is, “No,” it is the unelected and unaccountable federal judiciary. What is their basis for such actions? In the opinion of an Ole Seagull, a judicially invented doctrine called the “separation of church and state” based on the corruption of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the federal judiciary.

Left uncorrupted, the language of the First Amendment, as is the case with the rest of the Bill of Rights is relatively simple and straightforward. It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Does it take a legal Solomon to read and understand that the “Congress” referred to is the Congress of the United States not the legislature of a state, a school board, or a sports team that wants to have a prayer before a game?

Is it hard to understand the specific act that Congress may not do? Make a certain type of law. Is anyone aware of a law that congress has passed saying there must be prayer in school or that a high school cross country team must say a prayer before it competes or establishing a national religion? The Ole Seagull isn’t.

Do not most people understand what it means to “establish” something? How can any reasonable person make the transition from the actual wording of the First Amendment to the doctrine of the separation of church and state without changing the original wording of the amendment?

From an Ole Seagull’s perspective it simply can’t be done. The reason the Supreme Court, and its federal judiciary, gets away with what they do has nothing to do with reason or logic. It is because they are not elected, serve for life, and are without accountability to those they serve or anyone else on this earth. To an Ole Seagull it is it is the perfect example of what Lord Acton meant when he said, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor and publisher of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.