This post is part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst in Money 2008 feature.

As we undertake a hasty exit from the tumult of 2008 and plunge headlong into the mysteries of 2009, we might find it interesting to consider some business entities that could benefit from a little "freshening up." Four familiar names; Kmart, Playboy, Starbucks, and Wall Street, are each in need of a timely makeover, to varying degrees. But if you could chose just one of these big name operations to fix up for 2009, which one would it be, and how would you fix it?

First let's consider Kmart, the adopted son of Sears Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SHLD). What are the changes that Kmart might need to remain competitive going into 2009? Should the company try playing the boutique angle, which failed to work for Wal-Mart Stores Inc (NYSE: WMT)? Should the company tighten up and consolidate, while pursuing a deeper product value play, or should it attempt to spread out its market coverage and work over its wholesale vendors, while engaging Wal-Mart in a game of cut-throat retail price points? If you were CEO of Kmart, what would you change?

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

You may have noticed, as I did, that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson seemed colossally uncomfortable during his testimony before Congress in September. Obviously, no one would enjoy jumping into Paulson's shoes and defending the merits of the government's $700-billion bailout bill to skeptical senators. However, the good Secretary's level of discomfort went up to 11 when the legislators began grilling him about the obscenely fat pay packages received by Wall Street CEOs -- even those who, you know, bankrupted their companies and stuff?

I can't blame Hank for breaking a sweat. Before he assumed the role of Treasury Secretary, Paulson was better known as the handsomely compensated CEO of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). To his credit, Goldman is one of the few titans of Wall Street still standing in the wake of the mortgage-backed securities mess. Although he managed not to drive his company into the ground, I'd argue that Paulson is not quite impartial enough to lead the charge for CEO pay reform.

On the other hand, I have never received a salary that could be described as "scandalous." Plus, I have a healthy amount of indignant rage regarding the pay packages scored by such Wall Street ne'er-do-wells as Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers and Martin Sullivan of AIG (NYSE: AIG). With this arbitrary sense of entitlement, I feel more than qualified to suggest some new guidelines for executive pay.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

When Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) released its Windows Vista operating system product almost two years ago, the market was initially excited. That excitement turned to boring indifference as customers, both business and consumer, realized that this was just another update to Windows. Nothing revolutionary, or even evolutionary (in many minds). The problem was this: Windows Vista was a huge change under the hood, but where its users interact with it, it seems like a boring reinvention of an operating system from half a decade ago.

But Microsoft doesn't just make operating systems. It's into the office productivity business (Microsoft Office, anyone), it's big into the mobile business (Windows Mobile), and it's tried desperately to compete with Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) in the web search advertising business (which has largely failed). So, the company, which continues to make a ton of cash every quarter by selling Windows on all those global PCs that are sold, has no debt and a ton of cash under the mattress. It's still a boring company with a business model that's being made rapidly outdated by the internet and web-based competitors. Should it take its cash, return it to shareholders, and close up shop? Though this was suggested of Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) some time back, that company roared back (maybe you've heard). Can Microsoft?

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

OK: Starbucks Corp (NASDAQ: SBUX) is already in the middle of a serious makeover, with instant oatmeal as its unlikely star. CEO Howard Schultz is back with a vengeance, slashing cannibalistic stores, reducing middle management, training employees on how to make lattes (such an idea!), coming up with new mellower coffee blends to combat the constant complaint of burnt-tasting coffee, and unveiling a breakfast menu meant to save Schultz from his own unhealthy habits.

What more could I ask for? Plenty. To begin with, Starbucks has a serious green image problem that was recently exacerbated by the revelation that store policy mandates a faucet in the "dipping well" be kept running constantly. To combat this, Starbucks could institute recycling programs in each of its stores; more aggressively market the "bring your own cup" programs; become more of a leader in demanding sustainably-harvested ingredients in its products (not just coffee beans but hormone-free milk from grass-fed cows -- I know, pie in the sky -- and organic oats for its famous oatmeal); further lead the charge toward healthy food by reducing the sugar contents of its standard beverages and treats.

The other problem with Starbucks is its prices. The company has set the worldwide bar for coffee beverage pricing, without simultaneously setting the worldwide bar for coffee quality. Its coffee is OK, but not nearly so good as much smaller, independent coffee roasters whose beverages are the same price. Price and quality should be commensurate and it's no secret that your consumers are going to start running out of money when the credit crunch hits Visa and Mastercard. Woo them with a 50-cent across-the-board price cut, make the $1.00 coffee a regular menu item, and you'll keep their loyalty.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

While issues like the economy and the war in Iraq dominate the current election, one lesser theme has largely gone unnoticed by the mainstream media. Often, while discussing his middle-class origins and lifestyle, Joe Biden points out that he regularly rides an Amtrak train to and from his home in Delaware. By comparison, John McCain has been an outspoken opponent of Amtrak, voting to cut the rail provider's budget and stating that he would shut it down if he became president.

It's easy to understand Senator McCain's dislike of the train line. I have ridden Amtrak for years, and have often found it to be slow, filthy, and surprisingly expensive. The dining cars are overpriced and generally missing at least a few items, the staff is often rude and uncommunicative, and there are many places where the line seems to run as a local commuter rail, seriously slowing down travel time. Based on Amtrak's current level of service, it's not hard to understand why Senator McCain is calling for an end to the company.

The thing is, Amtrak doesn't have to be like this. In riding trains throughout Europe, I have generally found rail travel to be clean, efficient, and utterly enjoyable. Admittedly, I was once on a Polish train that asked the passengers to help move a tree that had fallen across the track, but the train's employees and service staff also gave us free drinks and snacks, so I feel like things evened out. Beyond that, the club cars were well-stocked, the bathrooms were usually spotless, and the staff was friendly.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

Every Sunday like clockwork. I put my copy of the Sunday edition of the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) in front of me at the breakfast table hoping to bask in the gray lady's take on the week's events. Then, the interruptions start. My 2-year-old son wants me to read him a book. Household chores need to be done. Groceries need to be bought, and soon the day has slipped into afternoon football time. The newspaper lies on the kitchen table, waiting to be world.

What my family's weekend routine underscores is that newspaper publishers have not kept up with modern life. The notion of a lazy Sunday afternoon seems quaint to me at times, laughable at others. The woes of newspaper publishers have been repeated endlessly. Circulation is declining. Advertising is plunging. Newsroom budgets are being slashed. Many veteran reporters and editors are counting the days until retirement.

But even though the world has changed, the Sunday newspaper has basically remained the same. Publishers continue to view this as their showcase edition. They publish the best stories by the best writers. Many of these features are long because newspapers figure -- wrongly is my view -- that people have the time to read them. These lengthy opuses win journalism awards and may lead to changes in government policy. Think of the Washington Post's (NYSE: WPO) expose on the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed Army hospital or the Times' scoop on warrantless wiretaps. These pieces, though, are the exceptions. Many stories in Sunday papers -- or in their daily counterparts as well -- are simply too long.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

This summer I had the misfortune of flying AMR Corp.'s (NYSE: AMR) American Airlines. In my experience, it ranks near the top in its expression of contempt for its customers. As I wrote in my book Value Leadership, it is almost the opposite of Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV), which has tarnished its flawless image with its first quarterly loss in 17 years due to a $247 million charge resulting from a jet fuel hedge gone sour. But to give American Airlines a makeover, it would be wise to borrow selectively from what makes Southwest so great.

In August, I was scheduled on a 1:50 pm flight from Boston to Miami -- trying to get a connecting flight to Chile on its excellent airline, LAN Air. American Airlines said the flight would be delayed for 15 minutes because of a mechanical problem that caused the air-conditioning in the back of the plane not to work. Half the plane got out, and an hour later American Airlines announced an indefinite delay.

A big line formed at our gate to rebook. Next to our gate was an empty one with two American employees who were working on their computers. I waited patiently until one of them finished her work and asked if she could help me. She stared at me and said no, she could only help people on the flight scheduled for that gate, and went back to her computer. No thanks to her I ended up booking a flight that left at 6 pm, causing me to miss my connection to Chile.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

McDonald's has been hit by one serious critique after another of food safety and nutrition. The company has gone from being a family chain to something only those desperate to save time or money want. There have been half-hearted efforts to modernize, but what McDonald's really needs is a complete menu makeover.

I'm not talking about changing away from hamburgers in all their infinite variety, either. But over the last couple decades the eating public has gotten a lot more picky and worried about getting fat or sick from mad cow disease or some contaminant.

There have been many serious critiques of their impact on worldwide nutrition. Eric Schlosser described in Fast Food Nation how mega-producer McDonald's uses butchering assembly lines. In an era of food safety concern, "a single fast-food hamburger now contains meat from dozens or even hundreds of different cattle." Morgan Spurlock examined in the movie Supersize Me and a related book what happens when an individual -- or a whole country -- eats too much McDonald's.

Of course, McDonald's is facing pressure from the other side, too. We want cheap food. Especially in a recession, people love the dollar menu. But McDonald's has just got to improve the food.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

Founded in 1945 in a garage workshop in southern California, Mattel Inc. (NYSE: MAT) is now the world's biggest toy maker, with a market cap of about $5.2 billion. Number two Hasbro Inc. (NYSE: HAS) has a market cap of about $4.2 billion. Mattel produces from everything Barbie and American Girl, to Hot Wheels, Fisher Price toys, Scrabble, and the Magic 8 Ball, as well as tie-ins with Pixar, the Dark Knight, Harry Potter, and Nickelodeon. However, in 2002 Mattel shut its last factory in the United States, and since then most of its products have been produced in China.

That decision came back to bite Mattel when, beginning in the summer of 2007, it was forced to issue a series of recalls of Chinese-made toys that contained lead paint. The company is still reeling from that PR disaster, which for some reason included an apology from Mattel to the Chinese people. The situation prompted BloggingStocks contributor Tom Barlow a year ago to suggest (tongue in cheek) that Mattel merge with Waste Management Inc. (NYSE: WMI) so that toxic toys could go directly where they belonged, bypassing the middleman (i.e., the children). That would be one way to make over the company, I guess.

As Christmas of 2007 approached, it looked like the worst might be behind Mattel. The year-end numbers were respectable, and some investors were beginning to eye Mattel again. But first quarter 2008 results were disappointing, and by mid year, expectations were very low. The share price has continued to slide since the recalls, reaching a multi-year low recently. While there was a copyright infringement lawsuit settled in Mattel's favor (though they didn't get as much out of it as they wanted), and they are no doubt hoping for the Dark Knight and other tie-in merchandise to help boost what otherwise looks like it could be dismal holiday season for retailers, the newest thing Mattel has to contend with is claims by some parents that one of its dolls secretly promotes Islam, which Mattel denies.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

Remember Dick Cheney? He hasn't emerged from his spider hole since shooting his buddy in the face at a quail hunt. But last time I was in Washington, I was walking along the street near George Washington University Hospital and suddenly all the cars disappeared and an armada of police cars and black suburbans whizzed by. I was later told that it was Cheney getting his stent checked up.

Prior to his stint in the administration of the 43rd president, It turns out that Cheney's heart beat for Halliburton (NYSE: HAL). In 2004, for example, taxpayers provided Halliburton's KBR subsidiary with $7 billion to provide services in Iraq while it took hundreds of millions of dollars in improper charges. With its 2% profit over costs, the more taxpayer money Halliburton spent, the higher its profits. Fortunately, Halliburton spun off that pesky KBR subsidiary in April 2007.

But it has other problems. The SEC is investigating Halliburton for paying bribes in Nigeria; its KBR subsidiary did a lousy job replacing bolts on an undersea pipeline that will cost Halliburton up to $220 million; the SEC investigated Halliburton for bogus contract revenue accounting; it settled asbestos litigation; a competitor of Hallburton accuses it of antitrust violations; and it received a $108 million judgment for dumping hazardous waste.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

In light of the short-selling ban, someone recently asked me for my opinion about short selling. Personally, I'm grudgingly accepting of the practice, but I believe that some serious changes need to be made. I believe that the practice of short selling should be made harder to engage in, more expensive to execute, limited in duration, and heavily scrutinized.

The uptick rule is fine, and it never should have been suspended, but I feel that it falls short of the mark. Bear raids can still be orchestrated in spite of uptick only buys. Purchasing on the uptick simply slows the process a little. A system must be developed by which the practice of bear raids is effectively terminated.

When I researched opinions and viewpoints on short selling, it became quite apparent that the writers I had encountered were not supporting short selling nearly as much as they were simply railing against a short-selling ban. Not one person actually made a case for why the practice is essential to market health. The closest I came to finding an eloquent argument in favor of short selling was an article by Paul R. LaMonica, editor at large, CNNMoney.com. Though Mr. LaMonica didn't really explain to me why I should be shorting stocks to benefit the markets, he did quote the SEC on 3.5 reasons why shorting might be beneficial.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

Can we agree that Sony (NYSE: SNE) stumbled when it launched the PlayStation 3? Sales statistics can be looked at from many different angles and spun this way and that. But the bottom line, as I'm sure any Sony fan will concede, is that the PlayStation brand has suffered an agonizing defeat, at least at this point in the current console war. At the time of this writing, the PS3 has sold over 14 million units globally. Microsoft's (NASDAQ: MSFT) Xbox 360 has sold 20 million systems. And last, but most certainly not least, the Nintendo (OTC: NTDOY) Wii has moved over 29 million units across the planet.

Without a doubt, the Wii has captured the imagination of both the mainstream, casual gamer and a good chunk of the younger generation. And a good many hardcore gamers are in love with the Wii as well. Not only that, but I believe that Nintendo has been able to leverage the popularity of its DS handheld system to convert a lot of those owners into putting Wiis on their Christmas lists. It's sort of like the phenomenon of the iPod selling Mac computers. Add to that the highly competitive pricing of the low-end model of the Xbox 360 (you can get it for $200 here in the U.S.), and you can only come to one conclusion: Sony's PS3 needs some sort of new strategy, a makeover even, to get it back on top of the video-game heap. I'll present a few thoughts, suggestions if you will, on how Sony's management can turn things around.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

When Kmart bought Sears to become Sears Holdings Corp (NASDAQ: SHLD) it seemed like a perfect match. Here were two retail titans of the 1970s who had completely missed the boat of modern big box retailers. Instead of trying to sell dowdy clothes, Sears could have concentrated on hardware and become Home Depot (NYSE: HD). Instead of selling dowdy everything with surly service, Kmart could have become Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT).

Now what both stores need is a makeover. They need to become that bright, wide-aisle store that people love to shop at because they find neat things they didn't know they needed. Heck, if the Kmart in my neighborhood could just manage to keep its shelves stocked and not hire the surly, it would be a step up.

Both Kmart and Sears know they have trouble, but it just may be too late to make the changes. Kmart already went through bankruptcy and closed about 300 stores. They even came up with a bright, open store prototype with wide, well-lit aisles. But then they couldn't afford to really roll it out, says Shopping Centers Today. And many think they didn't close enough bad stores.

This post is part of a feature on companies and products that our bloggers think are in need of a makeover. See all 26.

General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) will never be the same. The American manufacturing icon is in the worst shape of its life in the past five decades, it's not selling the larger vehicles that have been its bread and butter for years and its stock is absolutely in the tank. It's also shutting down factories as it feverishly tries to reinvent itself. After all, Madonna has done this many times -- so why can't GM?

Okay, that's an unfair comparison. But for long-term survival, companies always need plans to rapidly change with the times, even if the money needed for that flexibility conflicts with the incessant market need for quarterly expectations. After all, like we've seen this week, the market is more emotional than a 14 year-old girl. It always will be. So, what can GM do? It's hard to say, but time is of the essence. Makeover times in this age should take double-digit months, not double-digit years.

Wipe off the dribbling eye shadow, visit Neiman Marcus, and get an extreme makeover -- that's what. Since GM really doesn't have a cash pile like some other blue chip companies, can it pay for a makeover? Doubtful. Can companies reinvent themselves with marketing and image? Sure, this happens all the time.