I think the fact that the Pats were unable to videotape the Giants from the 1st meeting on Dec 28, meant they could not have the advantage that they had in there other super bowls. I guess they are not the same team with out the illegal videotape advantage.

Gautam Dutta Executive Editor Asian American Action Fund

The most shocking part of this story is that there were worse ads – which ones?

And besides, one Desi’s cringeworthy ad is another’s creative genius at work.

Amazing, wasn’t it? Tom Brady shut down by a defense? As they say in football, “Any given Sunday…”

32 Limeduck: “Ennis’ real issue — is the mutual back-scratching of Gupta and the Clintons no big deal, illegal, improper or just icky, and is it the small visible tip of an iceberg of fishy activity?”

Hey, fellow marketer!

My views on the impropriety aspect of the story: 1. Mutual back scratching is built into and duly sanctioned by our democratic process, like it or not. Whether it is one-on-one, as in the Clinton-Gupta case, or institutionalized as in the case of such powerful lobbies as the Teamsters, realtors, gun owners, even teachers, the giving of campaign contributions, votes and other support in return for some concessions is exactly how our democratic system works. In other words, if you don’t like something in our country, you can change it. But it will cost you. Fair enough? Oh, you don’t have the money? Perhaps you belong to some union or association. Don’t worry, a portion of your annual dues is already earmarked for lobbying and buying the politicians who will work on your behalf. What, no money and no association? Then, my friend, you are outta luck.

1. The Clinton connection per se is not the real reason for the shareholders’ lawsuit against Gupta. The suit was initiated by Dolphin Limited Partnership, an activist hedge fund that owns 3.6% of infoUSA, claiming wanton fiscal irresponsibility by Gupta and the board. Gupta could have lavished millions of dollars of his own money on the Clintons without any censure, but the assets of a public corporation are not his to squander on his personal political agendas, and the Clintons are his personal agenda. He had funded them way before infoUSA went public, but he forgot to make the necessary change in his corporate check-cutting practices after going public.

Is activism good for the common people? The corporate raiders and funds that take huge positions in certain stocks don’t exactly do it for you and me, but nobody can deny that they bring arrogant, irresponsible and financially wasteful boards and CEO’s in line with their activism.

Perhaps none of Gupta’s fiscal philandering at his company’s expense significantly depressed the stock. But the average Joe that invests in stocks to make a little extra money to send his son to college or buy braces for his little girl deserves a lot better than this.

Equity markets in today’s economy are no longer the playground of the rich. With almost 60% of the households today vested in the markets (from a mere 19% in the early 80′s), the equity markets or, in other words, the public corporations, now belong to the common people. Therefore, there has to be zero tolerance for the likes of Gupta if we are going to keep the game clean and safe for us common folks. He doesn’t need to be thrown in jail for this. He and his board cronies simply have to reimburse the company for their Clinton related expenditures.

No the only thing I remember from that night is…….Giants 17 Pats 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The discussion of the ugliness (racial, aesthetic or otherwise) of the ads is obscuring what I take to be Ennis’ real issue — is the mutual back-scratching of Gupta and the Clintons no big deal, illegal, improper or just icky, and is it the small visible tip of an iceberg of fishy activity? I imagine that if InfoUSA had sold a campaign $800k worth of lists for only $8k, the campaign finance people would be interested in the $792k gift, but what’s the deal the other way around? Does anybody regulate political campaigns’ gifts back to donors? If a future Clinton administration were to pursue a legislative agenda that benefits the direct marketing industry, that would be more or less the way the game is played, wouldn’t it?

When you’re done burnishing the brown off this story, I think you’ll find its mostly about green.

these ads were dumb, ineffective, and insensitive what was up with ramesh having 8 children?

But the ad itself? I watched it twice. It does exploit the Indian sterotype, rather along the lines of Apu in the The Simpsons. But offensive? I think if you are thin-skinned you may feel that way, but I feel there are many lurking who think this is overblown.

Do you think Apu is offensive? What about Peter Sellers in The Party ? Tastes differ…

Anyone else feel we are are over-reacting ?

Is it racist because the students were personally insulted or because the siren call of communal virtuosity was too hard to resist?

I’ve commented on this elsewhere.

that the top salesguy in a compny is an accented desi is a pretty huge ethnic stereotype busting btw.

the key thing is the chinese is a successful entrepreneur and the indian is a sales guy who’s usually alphadog type of person in an org. this is not unknow. even local ikea radio ads poke fun at the svedish accent.

I dont think these are racist [though they are tacky]. If it doesnt work for you, dont buy the lists – but I actually thought they did a good job positioning 1st gens. their target market is the entrepreneur*, not welfare recipients or social scientists. all this is saying that info-usa levels the playing field.

*point of note – i didnt hear floridian say he’s going to be canceling his list listsubs anytime soon.