Kranz On Copy: Insights and answers on copywriting and writing copy

Time and again we hear the need for states to be more "business friendly" -- a euphemism, I fear, for low or no taxes or for outright contributions (i.e, build my stadium or I'll pull my team). The basic argument is always the same: If we don't make concessions, another state will -- and will gain the jobs, tax base, etc. We must make the cuts to remain "competitive."

OK. Setting aside all the potential legal and policy arguments, let's look at this from a business perspective. By using taxes as the basis for competition with other states, we're going for the "low cost" position. But is that where a state really wants to be?

As a businessman, I know that's not where I want to go. I'll always be undercut by someone who'll do the work cheaper -- and that's fine by me. If that's what a prospect wants, they're free to go for it.

Me, I compete on the basis of value -- for a small increase in fee, you get a large increase in results, performance, etc.

States should to the same. The low-tax method of competition among states merely leads (as it does in business) to a race toward the bottom. Ironically, "winning" means losing, as declining revenues mean declining schools, infrastructure and quality-of-life.

As an alternative, imagine a value-based scenario. Instead of creating a business-friendly environment by giving hand-outs (tax cuts) how about creating a more attractive state by:

• Revising/reviewing zoning and other regulations to encourage new housing construction?
• Investing in education, both K-12 and higher-ed, to attract the middle class into cities and established a better-qualified labor pool?
• Improving the transportation and communications infrastructure to make it easier/cheaper to get employees, move supplies and deliver products?

See Steve Bailey's terrific column today on The Lessons of Rte. 128 for another look at the public/private dance.