Spin, Marketing, Truth, Honesty

Free time is a precious commodity that I rarely have. Watching TV is something I rarely do. But last night those two came together and I ended up watching an incredible show on PBS: The Persuaders

The fact that it was in HD, was one reason I watched it, but once I started the show totally kept my attention. I highly urge you to either catch it on broadcast, or to watch it online here.

It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again - eventually we will become 260 million markets of 1. This show seems to indicate that we are heading in that direction with all the advances is personalization and “narrowcasting.”

Obviously, as with everything else in this world, that is both good and bad. On the positive side, the consumer is more valued than ever - it really is about you. You are what matters. They want you. It’s all about you, you, you.

Of course, what does this mean about the direction of society? This show postulates that as we continue to head in the direction of being addressed as specific ‘groups’, we will be more divided - acting purely in our own interests (or the groups), versus thinking of the good of the whole.

This is true in the political arena already - I’m constantly asked to join the 80-20 initiative which is an Asian American organization that is devoted to getting Asians to cast 80% of their ballots to one candidate, instead of the usual 50/50. So that Asian Americans can become a voting bloc that pols will have to pay attention to (and the unspoken quid pro quo). This group perpetually cites the powerful Hispanic and Jewish voting blocs as role models to follow - whether that is true or not (I don’t know - I kind of doubt it given the 50/50 split of the Latino vote in the recent Presidential election).

This cause offends because it strives to accomplish its goal by dividing us - and by us I mean Americans - in order empower us - and by us I mean Asian Americans.

No, thank you. I am a citizen of the World first and foremost. And then, I am an American. I will vote for whomever I think will lead us in the right direction - and by us I mean everyone.

But going back to the point, will narrowcasting and the continual focus on dividing the market into segments, further divide our - and by our, I mean American - advertisement saturated society?

If anything, watch it for the rather funny and brilliant comments by Clotaire Rapaille:

Yes, and those can be, of course, translated into how to address the real needs of the consumer, which means marketing practice and marketing strategies. For example, if I know that in America the cheese is dead, which means is pasteurized, which means legally dead and scientifically dead, and we don’t want any cheese that is alive, then I have to put that up front. I have to say this cheese is safe, is pasteurized, is wrapped up in plastic. I know that plastic is a body bag. You can put it in the fridge. I know the fridge is the morgue; that’s where you put the dead bodies. And so once you know that, this is the way you market cheese in America.

I started working with a French company in America, and they were trying to sell French cheese to the Americans. And they didn’t understand, because in France the cheese is alive, which means that you can buy it young, mature or old, and that’s why you have to read the age of the cheese when you go to buy the cheese. So you smell, you touch, you poke. If you need cheese for today, you want to buy a mature cheese. If you want cheese for next week, you buy a young cheese. And when you buy young cheese for next week, you go home, [but] you never put the cheese in the refrigerator, because you don’t put your cat in the refrigerator. It’s the same; it’s alive. We are very afraid of getting sick with cheese. By the way, more French people die eating cheese than Americans die. But the priority is different; the logic of emotion is different. The French like the taste before safety. Americans want safety before the taste.

Or watch as the brillian Republican consultant Frank Luntz uses scientific methods to wordsmith language for his purposes:

The language of America changed with the election of Bill Clinton, because with all due respect to my friends on the Republican side, Bill Clinton is the best communicator of the last 50 years. He felt your pain. Now, I’d argue that he caused your pain, but at least he felt it while he was causing it. When Bill Clinton spoke, his words were so good, and they were spoken with such passion. And that biting of the lower lip and the squinching of the eyes — you just couldn’t turn away. Bill Clinton made Frank Luntz because Bill Clinton discovered the power and the influence of words. Now, I’d like to think that I apply them to clients, to philosophies, to products and services and corporations that I believe in, that are good. I don’t argue with you that words can sometimes be used to confuse, but it’s up to the practitioners of the study of language to apply them for good and not for evil. It is just like fire; fire can heat your house or burn it down.

(This, btw, was the man who invented the phrase “Death Tax” to replace the “Estate Tax”, and got the Republican party to use the milder phrase “Climate Change” instead of “Global Warming”)

Wow.