Category Archives: Advertising and Marketing

Understanding The Trump Phenomenon.

Posted on by

The success of Trump the candidate seems to have confused liberals and conservatives alike. But it’s really not that difficult to understand if you look at the underlying causes.

First, there is great dissatisfaction among many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides see growing poverty and a struggling middle class while, at the same time, a privileged few are thriving. Both see a dysfunctional Congress that now represents only a fraction of its constituents – those with the money and power to call in political favors.

As a highly accomplished con man, Trump has tapped into the voters’ smoldering anger toward government, fueled by Fox News Channel and virtually the entire radio spectrum of rightwing, hate radio. Using a tactic perfected by unsavory dictators, he has successfully focused the blame for our problems on outsiders and those on the fringes of our society. He has convinced a substantial portion of our population that the nation is struggling as the result of Mexican immigrants, Muslims, China and “political correctness” – an oversensitivity for minorities, Muslims, immigrants, women and the disabled. That has invited angry white men to dig out their Klan sheets and to say whatever racist, sexist things that cross their degenerate minds.

Far from being the successful business leader his supporters believe him to be (he is one of the few to ever lose money as the owner of a casino), Trump is really only accomplished at the arts of persuasion and branding. He refuses to deal in specifics, understanding that emotions matter more than facts or even truth.

Capitalizing on what I would call the Kardashian effect, Trump understood that his celebrity and outrageous statements are good for media. As a result, he has been able to manipulate the media’s greed to the point that CNN and even the so-called liberal cable network, MSNBC, were willing to spend airtime focused on an empty Trump podium waiting for Trump’s latest rant than to cover a policy speech by Hillary or a large rally for Bernie.

Trump has benefited from the chronically short attention spans of the public – a public unwilling, or unable, to research or to comprehend the issues. A public that disdains nuance and complicated answers for complex subject matter. An impatient public that views the world as black or white; good or bad; right or wrong. He has also benefited from a political environment based on tribalism – knowing that even those members of his party who despise him and everything he stands for will eventually fall in line to support him. And he has seemingly embraced the strategy of former GOP strategist, Paul Weyrich, who correctly posited that suppressing the vote – even if it means alienating a majority of potential voters – benefits Republicans.

Finally, he has benefited from a chronically disorganized and divided Democratic Party – a Party that lacks clear, decisive leadership; a Party that, without control of the media, has struggled to articulate its accomplishments and its message; a Party that has made it easy for people like Trump, Cruz, Ryan, McConnell, et al to promise everything, but deliver nothing.

A Simple Way To Reform Political Advertising.

Posted on by

Since the Supreme Court decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, there have been numerous initiatives to reform election campaigns. Most involve asking Congress to pass Constitutional Amendments that would control election finance or require publicly-funded elections. Though these attempts are admirable and necessary, I think they have little chance to succeed. Instead, I propose a much simpler way to reform political advertising that would not, in any way, infringe on the right to free speech.

All we need to do is hold political advertising to the same standard as advertising for products and services.

When a large corporation produces an ad for a product or service, it subjects the ad to legal compliance before placing the ad on television. That compliance process makes sure that any claims can be substantiated and defended in court. If the claims cannot be substantiated, the company may still run the ad at its own risk. (Indeed, even those ads that have passed legal compliance may be the center of a lawsuit.) But the company, the advertising agency, the writer and often the production company can all be held accountable for damages in ensuing lawsuits by numerous organizations such as the corporation’s competition, the Federal Trade Commission, the BBB, state Attorneys General and industry regulatory groups. This process ensures that ads tell the truth.

For example, when I began my career in advertising, I was recruited to write advertising for a product that promised to give your car better gas mileage and performance. Although I had been given a copy of an independent research report, I was still skeptical of the promises. So I asked the clients to sign an affidavit that the information I had been given was true. After the ads ran, the state Attorney General filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit naming the company, the art director and me. Thankfully, when I presented the affidavit to the AG, the art director and I were dropped from the lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled out of court with the company agreeing to pay a large fine, to return money to customers who requested refunds and to cease sales of the product.

The system worked. But there is no such system for political advertising.

Political campaign committees have long been free to say and do whatever they want. If an opponent sues over false and misleading advertising, the issue seldom comes to court until after the election. By that time the damage has been done; the entity that is the campaign committee no longer exists and usually no longer has funds to pay any fines. Only rarely are individuals held accountable and, if they are, the settlements take place much later away from the public eye.

The Federal Elections Committee could easily solve the problem by demanding that candidates and campaign managers sign affidavits that the claims made in their advertising are true and not misleading. Ads could be submitted to the FEC and bi-partisan state election committees for compliance. More important, all of the individuals would be held liable even beyond the election. (Yes, the system might require more federal and state funding. But isn’t the process of choosing an elected representative more important than choosing a laundry detergent?)

This would make the standards for political advertising almost identical to the standards for product advertising. As a result, this system should impose no undue hardship for politicians.

As for dark money groups (PACS, Super PACS, 501c4s) funded by billionaires and corporations which now sponsor the majority of our political ads, they can be held accountable by a one word change in the IRS code governing non-profits. Instead of the code requiring that non-profit groups be “operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare,” the code should be returned to its pre-1959 wording which required that non-profits be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”

The only real problem with this proposal is that Teapublicans simply don’t want to make changes. The FEC commissioners are split with 3 Teapublicans and 3 Democrats, and the Teapublicans have blocked every proposal to reform elections. They are content with dark money, with attack ads and with lies. In fact, they are quite good at it. Recent studies have shown that the preponderance of political lies come from Teapublicans. But aren’t these the same people who demand accountability from others? Adding an independent FEC commissioner would end the stalemates and make the FEC relevant again. These relatively minor changes would make all politicians accountable and likely make most political campaigns civil again. More important, it would make them more fair by requiring candidates to tell the truth and it would eliminate dark money from the process.

Who could be against that…other than liars and cheats, of course?

The Only Thing We Really Need To Know About School Shooters.

Posted on by

After the most recent school shooting, the media and law enforcement are, once again, attempting to find out what motivated the shooting. They’ve analyzed his social media posts. They’ve interviewed his friends, family members and teachers. They’ve speculated that he was suffering from mental illness. They’ve explored his relationships. Everyone wants to know why he brought a gun to school and opened fire. Such analysis may be helpful in preventing future killers. But it overlooks the only thing we really need to know.

Like all of the other school shooters, he had easy access to a gun.

This was not a hunting rifle or a shotgun. That would be bad enough in the hands of an unsupervised 14-year-old, but at least hunting firearms are difficult to hide. This was an easily-concealed 40-caliber semi-automatic handgun – a weapon that does not belong on our streets, in our schools, or in the hands of a troubled 14-year-old boy. His access to such a weapon begs many questions: What kind of parents allow a 14-year-old access to a semi-automatic handgun? Why would he need one? Did they think he needed it to defend himself in school; after football practice; at a school dance, on the mean streets of Tulalip? Did they think he was going to defend us from Ebola-infected ISIS terrorists who might be crossing our border with Canada? Did they not know? Did they not care?

Had the shooter not had such easy access to a concealable weapon, he might still be alive today along with the girl he murdered. And other children would not be in the hospital fighting for their lives.

His ready access to weapons is most certainly not unique. In most states, children of any age can legally purchase guns from gun shows and individuals even as they are prohibited from buying tobacco, alcohol, lottery tickets and most other items intended for adults. Want to buy a gun? No problem. The only questions are handgun or long gun? What caliber? How much ammunition? Would you like some extra clips with that? Greedy gun manufacturers represented and encouraged by the National Rifle Association are even marketing child-sized, but no less lethal, guns to kids. To make them more attractive to kids, they even offer such weapons in candy colors.

What normal human being thinks this is a good idea? For what social benefit? We’ve already seen what can happen when an Uzi is placed in the hands of a supervised child on a firing range. Have gun manufacturers ever considered the consequences of their actions? Of course, they have. But their judgment is blinded by visions of increased profits and higher share prices. Unfortunately, the more guns they sell, the more dangerous our streets and schools become. That generates more paranoia. And that, in turn, generates more sales.

In reality, the only way to stop school shootings and other mass shootings is to limit the sales of guns to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable; to keep them out of the hands of criminals; and to keep them out of the hands of children. And the only sensible way to do that is to follow Australia’s lead. Like Australia, we should immediately pass legislation calling for a nationwide buy-back of the most lethal types of guns, such as rapid-fire semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic assault rifles. We should immediately institute mandatory background checks on all transactions involving guns and ammo. We should ban guns in cities and other public places as was the custom in the Old West. We should limit the sale of the most lethal types of ammunition, especially so-called “cop killer” bullets. And we should ban the sale of guns to anyone under the age of eighteen.

In 2010, more than 30,000 Americans died from gunfire…nearly 3,000 of them children. That year, another 73,505 Americans recovered from gunshot wounds… more than 7,000 of them children. Yet Americans seem willing to accept those statistics. Indeed, the only response to our endless murder and mayhem has been for even more Americans to arm themselves. By contrast, our nation seems paralyzed by the fact that a single person in the US has died from Ebola…ONE! Yet our media and politicians are disproportionately reacting to the threats. While they ignore more than 100,000 shootings in a single year, they are demanding immediate action for…wait for it…Ebola.

Fear-mongering conservatives have raised alarms that we could all die if we don’t react to Ebola fast. Yet the very same people are unconcerned about mass shootings. They cower from the NRA. Instead of limiting access to guns, they pass laws making it easier to buy and carry firearms. They tell us that the Second Amendment is more important than the lives of thousands. They tell us that the number of gun victims doesn’t matter. They talk about freedom and call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic.

Keep that in mind as you go to the polls on November 4th.

How Does The Koch Money Look In Your State?

Posted on by

In Arizona, it looks as vile and nasty as the people at the Koch refinery for whom I once worked. And I suspect it looks no different wherever you live.

If you watch the political ads as carefully as I do (I know, I know, that makes me sound like a masochist), you’ll see a disclaimer at the end of the ads showing who paid for them. In Arizona, the disclaimers on the nastiest attack ads tend to read: Paid for by 60 Plus…by American Encore…by Americans For Prosperity, etc. In addition, a large number of ads show they have been paid for by lobbying groups and ideological groups such as the National Realtors Association, the National Rifle Association and the US Chamber of Commerce.

These groups claim that their ad campaigns are not coordinated with the candidates (in fact, that would be illegal), but it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart from the candidates’ own ads. The only real differences are that these ads tend to be nastier and they run a lot more often. Indeed, few of the Teapublican ads are actually paid for by the candidates or their committees.

In other words, the Supreme Court decisions that money equals free speech; that corporations have the same rights as people; that there are no limits on political contributions have done exactly what the five conservative justices wanted. Teapublicans no longer have to raise their own money. The corporations, lobbyists and billionaires give them all they need. Teapublican candidates no longer can be held accountable for vile attack ads. They can say, “I had nothing to do with it.” And if voters are so offended by the attack ads that they refuse to vote, Teapublicans benefit because only the most committed ideologues will vote, and they tend to vote Republican.

There are only two ways to fight this: 1 – Vote against Teapublicans. 2 – Keep electing Democratic presidents until conservatives are no longer the majority on the Supreme Court.

Why Democratic Candidates Keep Fighting An Uphill Battle.

Posted on by

The answer is Democratic leadership…or, more precisely, the lack of it. The only discernible strategies of the Democratic Party are to wait for minorities to become the majority and to send a constant barrage of fund-raising emails to registered Democrats in hopes of countering the massive amounts of money from corporations, PACs, Super PACs, and 501c4s aligned against them.

There has been no attempt to brand the Party (a new logo does not constitute a brand). No attempt to communicate the Party’s principles. No attempt to tout its accomplishments (Obamacare has been a great success, yet many Democrats are afraid to claim it). Instead, the Democratic Party’s entire emphasis seems to be focusing on the stupidity of Teapublican opponents (the candidates are extreme, but the Republican Party relies on sound marketing principles).

While there is abundant evidence of Teapublican failures, such as the Republican Party’s denigration of women, its simultaneous attack on abortion, contraception and education (contraception and education have long been proven to be the most effective means of preventing abortions), its attack on minorities and immigrants, its attack on safety net programs, and its penchant for war, pointing to these things is not, in of itself, a strategy.

A real strategy is to clearly and succinctly state what the Party believes. A real strategy is to have the courage to promote and stand up for those beliefs. A real strategy is to draw clear distinctions from your opponents in a positive way. A real strategy is to proudly run on your record, not from it. A real strategy is to educate voters about your candidates, not the opponents. A real strategy is to demonstrate that you serve the voters instead of the special interests.

On almost every count, the Democratic leadership fails.

That’s too bad, because the Democratic Party continues to field some great candidates. For the most part, those candidates deserve better.

You’ve Gotta Hand It To Conservatives.

Posted on by

Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the GOP employed the Southern Strategy which was designed to employ racism in order to gain votes from long-time southern Democrats. It worked. As a result of the strategy, Republicans were able to win the White House in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.

It took Southerners to break the GOP hold in 1976 and in 1992.

But after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Seeing that demographics were aligning against them, conservatives employed an equally disturbing strategy. Sure, they continued to appeal to racists after Democrats elected the nation’s first black president. But they based their new strategy on six pillars:

1 – Government obstruction
2 – Corporate political donations
3 – Erasing limits on political donations
4 – Voter suppression
5 – “Model” legislation designed to implement right wing ideology at the state and local levels
6 – The use of conservative-dominated radio and cable TV to relentlessly attack Democrats

These strategies are now almost fully in place. Since 2009, Teapublicans in the Senate have blocked nearly 400 bills and dozens of appointments. The Teapublican-controlled House attempted to shut down the government. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court ignored decades of precedent to rule that money equals free speech; that corporations are people and therefore entitled to contribute to political campaigns; that the Voting Rights Act is no longer needed; and that individuals and corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts on politics.

Concurrently, conservatives realized that it is easier to sneak bills through state legislatures than through Congress. So they began an all-out attack on groups that traditionally fund Democrats, such as labor unions. They have also pushed ideological legislation through ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and similar groups that gave us such ideological bills as Arizona’s racist SB 1070 and legalized discrimination laws such as Arizona’s SB 1062.

As a result of these efforts, corporations now have more power and influence on government (at all levels) than ever before. There has been an avalanche of corporate money from the Koch brothers and others financing political advertising disguised as “issue” ads. There are virtually untraceable millions of in political spending to influence elections. And tens of thousands, if not millions, of minorities, the elderly and the poor will be denied their right to vote in this and future elections.

The tactics have even succeeded in pushing aside dozens of moderate Republican politicians. To make matters worse, Democrats seem to have no real strategy to combat these strategies. And, with few exceptions, Democratic candidates seem to think the best way to be elected is to run away from their party’s principles and pretend they’re Republicans.

Walmart May Be Finally Getting What It Deserves.

Posted on by

Earnings reports show that same store sales for Walmart have dropped for 5 consecutive quarters. One theory is that the slump is the result of wealth inequality and lower salaries for the bulk of Walmart’s customer base.

If so, it couldn’t happen to a better company.

Walmart began as the American flag-draped spawn of Sam Walton. For years, it advertised that its inventory was American-made even though the labels on its products clearly stated otherwise. Meanwhile, Walmart used predatory pricing to eliminate its competition. As a result, the retailer eviscerated small town America, forcing thousands of small retailers to close. When the competition had been eliminated, Walmart’s prices began to rise. At the same time, Walmart was putting such severe cost-cutting pressure on its suppliers that it caused the majority to outsource their production to nations that offered cheap labor with no labor protections and no benefits.

No company has had such a profound effect on the outsourcing of American jobs. A 5-year study found that, over that period, Walmart alone accounted for the loss of 133,000 American jobs!

In 1996, labor rights groups exposed the fact that a line of clothing sold by Walmart and endorsed by Kathie Lee Gifford was being made in sweat shops. Although Gifford had no control or responsibility for where Walmart chose to make her clothing designs, Walmart let Gifford take the criticism as it continued to wave the American flag.

More recently, labor rights groups have exposed the amount of corporate welfare given to Walmart in the form of tax write-offs, taxpayer-funded infrastructure for its stores and the taxpayer-funded benefits for its underpaid employees. A large percentage of Walmart employees are paid so little they need food stamps and Medicaid benefits to survive. Indeed, it has been reported that Walmart’s Human Resources department provides the government-assistance forms to employees the day they are hired.

The company has used its size and political clout to bully local governments to keep them from raising the minimum wage. It has demonstrated a pattern of suppressing employee hours in order to avoid providing benefits. Yet, while it forces a large portion of its labor force to live at or near the poverty level, Sam Walton’s heirs have become the wealthiest family in America.

Now, according to a report by Robert Greenwald published by Salon, Walmart says that it will spend $50 billion a year more on US-made products by 2022 in order to help build families. One suspects the retailing giant may have realized that, as a result of its policies, fewer and fewer Americans can afford to purchase what they once could. Nevertheless, let’s hope Walmart follows through on its pledge. But given the company’s past history, don’t hold your breath.

The End Of Professionalism.

Posted on by

In the early nineties, I started noticing a new attitude from advertising clients. Where previous clients respected our opinions and were willing to pay for our expertise, clients began questioning everything from concepts to production to grammar. It was if our college degrees and years of experience meant nothing.

You see, this new generation of clients had seen plenty of advertising. They had computer programs to check spelling and grammar. Suddenly, they were experts.

Even worse, marketing directors and advertising managers would often hire their nephews and nieces to design print ads, brochures and websites because “they had taken a class in graphic design.” Where we had been held to account with a variety of measurements – awareness studies, focus groups, sales results, etc. – the nephews and nieces were exempt from all that. While these clients admitted the work might not be great, they said it was “good enough.”

Within a few years, large clients such as Frito-Lay were holding contests for amateurs to create their Super Bowl commercials. In reality, this became a new way to generate “buzz” and to cut costs.

The advertising industry isn’t the only one affected. The innundation of media, computers, the Internet, Worldwide Web, YouTube and “apps” have had the same affect on most professions. People with no specialized education or training now believe they are expert writers, artists, designers, photographers, film directors, video editors, football coaches, basketball coaches…you name it. For example, almost everyone is an expert on education…after all, everyone has attended some sort of school.

I realized this phenomenon had reached a point of no return when college football fans bought games which allowed them to play their team’s upcoming schedule on their home computer. They then announced the results as if they were predictors of the upcoming season. When the actual team played actual opponents and lost, these “gamers” were then convinced that the loss was the result of the coach approaching the actual game differently than they had on the computer.

Such idiocy is relatively harmless…until it spills into economics, science, politics and everyday life.

We now have politicians who think they know more about climate change than climatologists. Religious leaders who claim evolution is just a theory. (Of course it is…in the same way gravity is a theory!) Political leaders who claim the way to end poverty is to take away social safety nets. We have created a society of people who believe they’re experts about everything, and if they aren’t, they can just “Google it.”

It’s long past time that we again respect the real experts…the professionals who have spent years learning and mastering a subject. It’s time we stop seeing conspiracies around every corner (that only diminishes the real conspiracies.) We need to learn to trust again. And we need to earn that trust. Until we do, our nation and our civilization will never truly prosper.

Marketing Addiction.

Posted on by

The development of e-cigarettes was a good thing. It provided an opportunity for those addicted to nicotine and the act of smoking to replace tobacco cigarettes with something less harmful…not only less harmful to themselves, but everyone around them.

Of course, some greedy corporations can’t settle for a good thing. They have to find ways to turn a positive into a negative and, in the process, make millions.

Not content to sell e-cigarettes as a replacement for tobacco, companies like Lorillard have decided to create a whole new generation of buyers by marketing e-cigarettes in a variety of candy flavors and using celebrities to make their products seem cutting-edge “cool.” It’s a strategy right out of the playbook of tobacco cigarette brands from the fifties through the eighties. (Remember Joe Camel?) And, though tobacco companies have been forced to diversify, they have continued the same marketing strategies in Asia and other countries that lack regulations.

Unfortunately, the tobacco and e-cigarette industries are not alone. It’s well-known that the largest brewers in the US aim their advertising at males aged 30 and younger… the younger the better. The idea is that, if brewers can capture the attention of males who are younger than drinking age, those males will have already established brand preferences by the time they’re old enough to buy beer.  That explains the preponderance of TV commercials with girls in bikinis and adolescent humor.

Such tactics, while not illegal, are certainly unethical. But given the rampant greed of corporations, they’re unlikely to change.