Welcome to Holiday 2009, where nearly every major retailer is doing anything and everything possible to avoid the dismal sales performance of last year, hoping to avoid sustained losses and possible insolvency.  The "deals" started a little bit earlier this year than last, and marketing departments country wide are trying out ways to stimulate sales and in some cases, take sales directly from competitors to compensate.  Despite these "noble efforts", retails average consumer is still pretty leary about going all willy nilly with the plastic given that there is a 10.2% (and climbing) unemployment rate in the country.  Not to mention the general FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt for you non-technical types) regarding things like the economy at large and more specific areas like housing, grocery costs, and fuel prices.

Though the concept has been tried before, more stores than ever are getting into the "holiday spirit" by posting Thanksgiving hours at their establishments.  In some cases, this is only at select locations for an abbreviated period of time... typically around 4 or 6 hours.  In a surprising number of others, some stores are actually open all day as if the Thanksgiving holiday simply didn't exist.  Extra sales are so crucial to these establishments that they are willing to sacrifice one of the most familial of holidays in order to get a jump on the competition.

And make no mistakes, this is a sacrifice... not only for the holiday itself, but the poor folks who are stuck working what would have otherwise been a guaranteed day off to spend with loved ones.

Previously, I wrote an article regarding GM (and to be fair, Chrysler) begging Congress for taxpayer funds to save their failing automotive business.  I opined that GM was simply not as pivotal to the American economy as when the famous "As GM goes, so goes the nation" quote was made decades prior.  I argued that a "bailout", of which GM received a significant majority, did little more than reward corporate greed and provide a perpetual safety net against mismanagement.  I concluded that patriotism should not have been a factor in the decision either, given GM's less than stellar embrace of American workers, parts, and factories.

As we approach the one year anniversary of what I consider one of the biggest financial mistakes our government has made, several headline worthy events have occured at GM.  Primarily, the company has essentially become a U.S. government majority owned entity that recently replaced both the CEO and chairman of the board.  After a "quickie" bankruptcy, which the bailouts were supposed to allow GM to avoid lest the country disintegrate, several product lines were discontinued followed by a barrage of advertising touting the "new GM."  These ads gloated about how fresh, new, competitive, and most of all "customer in-tune" this brand new face of an established company would be.  In fact, the pinnacle of these ads even suggests "may the best car win" and that consumers (gasp!) will ultimately make the decision as to which automobile manufacturer adequately suits their needs.

Regarding the specific "new face" of GM, I was eager to see who the spokesperson would be for the inevitable rah-rah ads that would follow.  At first, GM merely ran spots containing "Americana" type panoramas as a calm, direct, yet faceless voice told us that GM was changing, going in a bold new direction, and inviting us along for the ride.  More recently, the "may the best car win" ads hit touting the new 60-day money back guarantee on all its vehicles.  Even with this new deal effectively in place, it's tough to argue that the "new face" of GM doesn't look a whole lot like the old one both figuratively and literally.