Whitman and the Principle of Negative Returns

During a recent session of cold call phone banking for Jerry Brown's gubinatorial reincarnation, I struck upon a thought about my days as a high school economics teacher that I could not shake. For those familiar with the term, cold calling is blind outreach, for you have no list of names or affiliations, and consequently the results of these contacts can often be comical. It was on such a call that my former lessons came back to me in a flood:
Caller- "Hello?"
Me- "Hi sir, I am calling on behalf of education supporters who believe..."
Caller- (interrupting) "If you are calling to support Brown, I'll listen...you wanna know why?"
Me- "Well sir..."
Caller- (interrupting) "Because anyone who would spend 150 million to get a job that pays $200,000 is up to something..."

It is then that the Principle of Negative Returns came back to me from those senior economics classes I taught all those years ago. Simply stated, companies increase different inputs (raw materials, labor, etc.), with the goal of increasing product, and thus, profit. On rare occasions however, a sort of paradox emerges. There is a point at which increases actually have an overall adverse impact. A simple example would be a tomato farmer who could invest in fertilizer to increase his production. There is a point, however, at which the further heaping of manure will actually hurt, rather than help the plants.

And so it is with Meg Whitman. Her initial investment of tens of millions of dollars had a profoundly positive impact and made her a frontrunner. She continued along successfully through the summer, dispatching Republican challenger Steve Poizner in due course. As summer stretched into fall, however, the cracks began to appear. The advertising blitz, so effective against her initial rival, seemed to have little effect against her general election foe, Jerry Brown. Now, as we head into the campaign's waning days, Meg's crew is left to deconstruct the current state of affairs, for it seems more money is an exercize in futility. So, were the miscues strategic? tactical? Certainly that is true to some extent. It should not be understated, though, that the path to negative returns began with the audacity of her expenditures.

In a time when austerity should be a guiding rule, Whitman's "make it rain" approach to campaigning has been too much for the electorate to swallow.