The Message Machine in Action

[guido911]

I love it. The "have nots" telling the "haves" how to make the economy work. I love Carollla's point: Occupy a name tag, vest, hairnet and start paying taxes. Lazy@ssed failures.

[we vs us]

You either missed or intentionally are ignoring the implied message that even a well marketed idea can be rejected. 

You could make an advertisement for liver and onions that would have some people drooling in anticipation. I don't care for liver.  I would not buy your liver and onions.  I do like onions.  I would not buy onions cooked with liver though.

I'm not intentionally ignoring anything.  I'm discussing.  You know.  Free flow of ideas and all that.  

The holidays getting you down?  You're pretty snippy lately.

You personally may not like nor buy liver and onions.  But renamed, rebranded and reflavored, you might.  And even if you don't, liver and onions might be more palatable to an increasing share of other people; and so long as liver and onions (in whatever shape or form) is more electorally palatable than, say, anchovy pizza (in whatever form), you've done your job.  

As Luntz says in the piece, referring to "government spending" as "government waste" changes the complexion of things entirely.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Think you can make it work for you?

Nope.  I can't bring myself to lie and cheat to the extent needed.

[RecycleMichael]

I think conservatives on the national level are just better hypocrites. Then they can use their FoxNews channel to give them fake credibility.

One example is to attack the poor by finding examples of fraud with food stamps, then attack the left by saying they are engaging in class warfare when they mention rolling back the 2% tax breaks on the wealthiest.

Newt Gingrich attacks Barney Franks for his role on the Senate committee overseeing Fannie May, but when Newt was confronted that he was paid $1.8 million, he answered that he was paid for advice they didn't take.  

I also think that the national republican party is good at coming up with examples of little things that piss people off and making them fake attacks on America.

Two decades ago they argued over and over again about flag burning. They wanted a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. I don't know about you, but I have never seen anyone burn a flag in person (except for Boy Scouts during it properly). I have never even seen on TV anyone in America burning an American flag, yet when the anyone from the left argued about freedom of speech, all democrats became anti-American.

More recently, gay marriage in Massachusetts was used by Oklahoma republicans against Oklahoma democrats during campaigns. Even if the local politician had never spoke a word on the topic, republicans sent out mailers saying that because their opponent was a democrat, they must be for gay marriage and it would ruin Oklahoma. Frankly, gay marriage has now been legal in Massachusetts for many years now and I can't say it has any impact on my life in Oklahoma.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Don't forget that pack of clowns down the turnpike who also want to add Sharia law to the prohibitions we enjoy in this state.  Even though it never has been relevant.  It's all about the button push!

[Conan71]

That's, like, three different things. And it's not even a sentence.  

One of the things that interested me about OWS is that it's been very active in marketing its ideas -- rather than simply stating them.  It's one of the other reasons that Obama's presidential campaign (as distinct from his administration) was fascinating:  it crafted messages and marketed them very successfully.  (FWIW, I think he's completely dropped the ball on the marketing/messaging end of things during the last 3 years; his brand is mostly trashed at this point, partly because of the GOP and partly because of his own failure to engage).  

**COUGH** Hang on let me put my joint down.... Okay now how are the occutards marketing their ideas rather than stating them?  All any of us know is this group chant stuff, holding signs, or the more coherent of the bunch being interviewed.  Is that really marketing?  I thought that was just the exercise of free speech.

Why should you be surprised about Obama?  He didn't drop the ball.  He never had a plan to start with, just a bag-load of focus group tested slogans.  The whole objective appears to have been for him to win the White House, not actually lead the country.  I'd say he's been a smashing success on that objective, so go easy on him, would you?

[we vs us]

**COUGH** Hang on let me put my joint down.... Okay now how are the occutards marketing their ideas rather than stating them?  All any of us know is this group chant stuff, holding signs, or the more coherent of the bunch being interviewed.  Is that really marketing?  I thought that was just the exercise of free speech.

Why should you be surprised about Obama?  He didn't drop the ball.  He never had a plan to start with, just a bag-load of focus group tested slogans.  The whole objective appears to have been for him to win the White House, not actually lead the country.  I'd say he's been a smashing success on that objective, so go easy on him, would you?

Pffft on both counts.  OWS was definitely marketing itself . . . just not to you.  In fact, as a nationwide protest, the whole thing was marketing.  From the idea of occupying a public space (and use of the word "occupy," rather than "invade," say), to the 99% idea, to the use of social media to organize and broadcast, to the purposeful nonviolence of the entire project.  It was strong enough to inject the whole concept of inequality back into "the national discussion," and that's pretty impressive considering that before OWS hit its stride, the national discussion focused on deficits and austerity. 

You and I will  just have to disagree about Obama.  You seem to think that he's a moron stuffed shirt, as well as a complete and total political naif.  Or maybe simply a talented master manipulator, depending on the day. I don't think any of that is true . . . He's a smart man, has nuanced opinions, and when he turns it on he's an excellent communicator.  But he's missed opportunity after opportunity to mobilize the group he brought together to elect him.

But aside from that . . . the way he marketed himself during his campaign -- especially in the last couple of months -- was really well done. 

[Red Arrow]

But renamed, rebranded and reflavored, you might.  

I could listen to reflavored but haven't seen any that appeals yet.  Renamed and rebranded does nothing for me. 

[nathanm]

You either missed or intentionally are ignoring the implied message that even a well marketed idea can be rejected. 

Here's the thing, polls consistently show majority support for basically all of what Gaspar would define as the pinko commie liberal agenda. Except when they're described using marketing terms the Republicans came up with. Describe them with neutral language, people love it. Describe it with Republican language, people hate it.

People don't reject the liberal agenda, they accept the conservative marketing. That sounds like the cleanest possible example of a message problem.

What people do reject is this milquetoast half-Republican BS that well over half of the Democratic Party is presently engaging in. They want to see bankers prosecuted. They want to see stronger regulation of systemic risk. They want a lot of things that neither party is giving them. That's the danger of Luntz and his fellow travelers. They define the debate in such a way as to forestall discussion of what it is that the public wants and instead define it in terms of what Republicans want or what Democrats want.

It's yet another example of how a small part of our society has coopted government and business both for their narrow interests by highlighting where the rest of us are divided and refusing to talk about the things we all agree need to be changed.

[Gaspar]

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  The right has an exceptional structure built for that, while the left is still struggling.  This article was interesting to me because it showed in striking detail how some of the verbiage and ideas get created and disseminated.  And to whom.  What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.  What that tells me is that the right in this country is able to package their ideas and get them to people on the ground almost immediately.  There may not be a sense of where the argument originates -- it may be Luntz, or the National Review, or Fox News, or Neil Boortz, or XYZ -- but folks who are generally conservative will hear them, fit them in immediately into the general right worldview, and then start arguing them in chat rooms and lunch rooms across the country.  

The left has much less of that kind of structure built out.  The so-called liberal media is still a group of outlets put together explicitly as news organizations, and so the messages that they put out aren't necessarily marketable. Even the folks who you'd think would be liberal message people -- aren't as tuned into the general leftie psyche as you'd think.  Olbermann left his perch at MSNBC (which, in viewership still pales in comparison to Fox News) and went to an even more obscure network; Michael Moore had his 15 min and is now only barely listened to.  Maddow and Krugman are probably the most popular thought people on the left, but even they have a really limited reach compared to talk radio + Fox News.  

Exactly.  For a lib, you are by far the most observant and reasonable.  Again, you hit the nail on the head, but swerved around the point a bit.

It's not that the liberal movement is somehow too young, immature, or unstructured to have a handle on marketing.  That's an insult.  Liberalism is a very mature political flavor, who's members include the pioneers of modern marketing, PR, and message packaging.  

The problem is not with liberal "marketers," it is with "Marketing" itself.  

The very concept of marketing is to use communication techniques to generate value for people. Success in marketing is generated by satisfying needs and wants.  Standard marketing technique fits for any product or service that can deliver consistent value and satisfy needs.  

The reason that conservative concepts and initiatives are easy to market, and represent a "well developed" or mature structure is because they are fairly static, and based on very old principals.  The creation of Prosperity and opportunity rooted in individual responsibility, freedom, innovation and hard work are the basis for all Conservative initiatives and programs.  These are as old as time, and when applied, deliver value consistently.

Liberal concepts and initiatives are typically rooted in developing equality, or freedom-through-equality, reflecting on the prosperity and the disparity of the target audience.  To put it bluntly, most liberal concepts revolve around some proposition of envy; Rich vs poor, old vs young, healthy vs sick, black vs white, gay vs straight, etc.

Liberal concepts are indeed marketable, but requires non-conventional marketing techniques, because of two factors:
1. They are progressive and therefore the value proposition is constantly changing.
2. They must be aggressive, so an antagonist must always exist for them to be successful or the value proposition dies.

Number two is easy, but number one is the hardest because a moving target is difficult to consistently market.  Your observation was spot on because Conservatives have been marketing the exact same ideals for over a hundred years, but liberal ideals are consistently progressive, so most never really get the chance to mature, and those that do require the constant antagonist, enemy, or subject of envy, to be sustainable.

[Teatownclown]

I love it. The "have nots" telling the "haves" how to make the economy work. I love Carollla's point: Occupy a name tag, vest, hairnet and start paying taxes. Lazy@ssed failures.

Liberals are worthless and stupid and naive - until a Republican needs to be a victim. Then we're smart enough and evil enough to control all
media, all education and have a plot to discredit all true (Republican) Americans.

[guido911]

Liberals are worthless and stupid and naive - until a Republican needs to be a victim. Then we're smart enough and evil enough to control all
media, all education and have a plot to discredit all true (Republican) Americans.

Well, since you have been reduced to strawmen, here ya go:

[nathanm]

I love it. The "have nots" telling the "haves" how to make the economy work. I love Carollla's point: Occupy a name tag, vest, hairnet and start paying taxes. Lazy@ssed failures.

And the other 11 million for whom there are no job openings?

[Red Arrow]

People don't reject the liberal agenda,

Still in denial I see.

[Conan71]

Pffft on both counts.  OWS was definitely marketing itself . . . just not to you.  In fact, as a nationwide protest, the whole thing was marketing.  From the idea of occupying a public space (and use of the word "occupy," rather than "invade," say), to the 99% idea, to the use of social media to organize and broadcast, to the purposeful nonviolence of the entire project.  It was strong enough to inject the whole concept of inequality back into "the national discussion," and that's pretty impressive considering that before OWS hit its stride, the national discussion focused on deficits and austerity. 

You and I will  just have to disagree about Obama.  You seem to think that he's a moron stuffed shirt, as well as a complete and total political naif.  Or maybe simply a talented master manipulator, depending on the day. I don't think any of that is true . . . He's a smart man, has nuanced opinions, and when he turns it on he's an excellent communicator.  But he's missed opportunity after opportunity to mobilize the group he brought together to elect him.

But aside from that . . . the way he marketed himself during his campaign -- especially in the last couple of months -- was really well done. 

I don't think he's a stuffed shirt, I said "empty suit".  He's a great campaigner, probably one of the best American campaigners there ever has been.  The problem is, he never transitioned from campaign mode to leadership mode.  He's even refused to offer strong leadership to Democrats in Congress, preferring instead to rely on Pelosi and Reid to carry the mantle on his initiatives.  I don't know if it's a detachment issue or he believes smart delegation of duties means shifting leadership roles to others.  Great leaders are always great delegators.  However, the most successful are ones who will still provide leadership to those they count on.