Blogging The M

There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

2011-11-12T18:27:00.001-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I had this great marketing idea.

My client, Sears, was looking for ways to drive traffic into their new Sears Home Appliance Showrooms.

My idea was to blitz the market with radio and TV commercials driving to a “street fair” in the parking lot of the store.

I contacted the local radio stations and had them come out to play music and do live hits from the parking lot. I brought “Mobile Mike“ to give away free shirts, hats, sports tickets and other swag. I even brought a gourmet food truck to give away free food.

About an hour into the event, the guy I hired to carry signs along the street came back to the store dejected. He said he wasn’t having any luck getting people to come in.

It didn’t make much sense to me – I knew what the sign said.

So I grabbed the sign and went to the street myself.

And there I stood – at the corner of Commercial Blvd and University Drive -- holding up a sign that read “FREE FOOD.”

“Go get lunch,” I yelled to passers by.

“Absolutely free,” I screamed to the cars at the light.

But guess what?

Nobody believed me.

Right behind me was Mobile Mike’s gourmet burgers, chicken and BBQ food truck.

Right behind me was a parking lot full of radio stations and tents.

But despite all of the evidence – including people mulling around the parking lot eating plates full of food – I had a hard time getting people to believe that me and my sign were telling the truth.

“Go get some free food,” I told a nice woman in a mini-van.

“How much does it cost?” She asked.

“Nothing,” I replied, “It’s free.”

“What do I have to buy?” she asked.

“Nothing, “ I replied again, “Really!! It’s free.

“What’s the catch?”

“Seriously!!! It’s totally free. No purchase, No catch, No cost. Sears is giving away free food -- Go get yourself some.”

“No thank you,” she eventually said as she turned into the parking lot of the Chic Filet across the street.

And that’s when I realized what a profound commentary this was on how skeptical people are of marketing.

They are so used to us marketers spinning, stretching the truth and outright lying to them that even when we are telling the truth about giving away free food many people simply will not believe us.

3.9 Trillion And Other Fun Numbers

2011-04-13T10:35:00.001-07:00

There's another budget storm in Washington. Politicians are pointing fingers, pundits are claiming the end of the world is nigh and the 24/7 crisis media is winding itself into another frenzy.

In order to put things in perspective, I thought it might be time to have a little fun with numbers.

President Obama has proposed a 3.6 trillion dollar budget - that's $3,600,000,000,000.00

The United States is projected to bring in 2.4 trillion dollars in taxes

So we're talking about a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit.

1.2 trillion dollars is what we will add to the deficit this year - 1.2 trillion dollars is also about what the entire Federal budget was just two decades ago.

In order to bring in $3.6 trillion - every single one of the 307,006,550 people in America would need to be taxed $11,726

OR it means that every single one of the 114,825,428 households would need to be taxed $31,351.94.

But that's OK because median household income in the US is $46,326 - so the median US household will still have about $15,000 a year to live off.

In case you were wondering, the US Census Bureau defines "poverty" as anyone making less than $22,350 per year.

And that's why 47% of US households pay NO Federal taxes at all.

But there's no need to worry about the people who are currently poor. The President's proposed budget allots $888,000,000,000 for welfare - so the more than 8 million families living below the poverty level today can receive roughly $108,997 each in government pay and benefits.

Meanwhile the 53% of households that do pay taxes... well... they'll all need to pay $59,154.60 each in order to meet the President's proposed budget.

And that's rough because that's about $12,000 more than most of them bring in each year.

Boy - with weighty issues like this looming, it's a good thing we averted that government shutdown. After all, the Federal government is responsible for spending about $69 billion dollars a day.

And that means that if we shut it down for just three weeks, we'd save about a trillion dollars.

Now there's an idea.

How bad branding caused the Middle East crisis

2011-02-01T09:10:00.000-08:00

Cities in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, Yemen and the Palestinian Territories are on fire. And the United States of America stroked the match that set the blaze.

If you’re following the news, you know that all of these countries have protestors flooding the streets calling for the ouster of their respective governments.

And I maintain that this region-wide crisis is, at least in in part, our fault.

Most political science and Mideast experts would agree with me at some level on this point – but not for the reason I am going to lay out for you.

You see, the problem in the Mideast is not the USA’s backing of Israel.

It's not our continued military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan or our drone bombings of Pakistan.

It's not even because of the fact that we are a licentious, covetous, gluttonous people who pollute the young of every other nation on the planet with our our egomaniacal pop-culture bile.

While each of these is certainly a contributing factor, they all can be overlooked -- even embraced - if not for the billions of dollars we spend every year on foreign aid in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. (FYI - this list does not include the billion-dollar-a-week plan that goes with our standing armies in Iraq and Afghanistan).

To be clear about the numbers, The United States sends $3.1 billion per year to Israel and another $5 billion per year to the countries listed above (again, not including our “investment” in Iraq and Afghanistan).

That’s $8billion per year (or just about 8 x the annual budget for the International Red Cross).

What do we get for our money?

Well… in many cases we get brutal, totalitarian governments that only masquerade as democracies (Mubarak {Egypt}, Ben Ali {Tunesia}, Abdullah Salah {Yemen}, Khaled Mashaal {Palestinian Hamas} Qaddafi {Libya} and more.

We’ve spent decades (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama) sending bags of blood money to scumbags just because they will, at times, play nice with us.

Moral and ethical problems aside – the bigger issue, the issue that we see exploding in the streets right now, is the brand issue.

Let's face it - We're Mel Gibson. Fans of Lethal Weapon, Braveheart and The Passion of the Christ love us. Our ex-girlfriend, on the other hand...

What I'm saying is this: You can’t be a country that says it stands for freedom while, at the same time, funding torturous regimes. You can’t go to war to oust one repressive dictator while you spend billions to support other repressive dictators.

Now all of these countries – and their leaders that America has spent billions on propping up - are crumbling under the anger of people who are marching for reforms.

These people are taking their respective governments into their own hands – tossing their proverbial tea overboard.

And they are not just rejecting their own leaders but they’re also rejecting the people who helped keep those leaders in power – namely us.

In other words, these Middle Eastern countries want what America was supposed to represent (government for the people by the people) but they reject what America has stood for to them (the sugar-daddy for totalitarian regimes).

Can you blame these people if, after the dust settles, they insert aggressively anti-American governments?

The question now is this: Is it possible to repair our brand?

And the answer – as is so often the case for this question - is simple: We must first repair our truth.

2011-01-20T10:36:00.000-08:00

I received an email a short time ago from a very dear friend. I wouldn't normally use this space to post someone else's opinions but I found this so powerful and profound that I simply had to post it somewhere. Here it is in its entirety - please feel free to link to this or post this wherever you'd like.

Subject: article

Date: January 20, 2011 12:32:54 PM EST

To: Thom Mozloom

Hey, can you post this for me somewhere? It can’t be under my name because of my position here but I want someone to think about this. Thanks.

THE QUESTIONS NOT ASKED

Several days ago an abortion doctor in Philadelphia was charged with having murdered seven babies. He induced their mothers into labor, delivered the babies and then plunged into their necks a scissors.

Seven babies dead, nameless, unwanted, unloved. Delivered by their mothers to a beast, whom they paid, and then thrown away with the rubber gloves and the cotton swabs and the rest of the medical waste. Not forgotten, but erased as though they had never lived at all, never cried or yawned or wriggled their toes. No one wants to remember.

Pinned up on refrigerators across the country are the ultrasound images of babies younger than these. They were loved before they were held. But inPhiladelphia there are no pictures. No mourners. There is no public vigil. The national editorial pages are quiet. They can find no one to scold this week. There will be no televised tribute to the babies. President Obama will not come.

Is this not a national tragedy in the same dimension as the Tucson massacre? The doctor is said to have killed many more than seven babies in the course of his gruesome career. Is there nothing here on which the media nags would like our political leaders to reflect? There are no policy implications? There is no need, then, for a national dialogue on the condition of our culture? Shouldn’t someone apologize for this?

They’ve all been bickering for two weeks over whether Republicans and Democrats should be nicer to each other, a question that is invisibly distant from what happened in Tucson. But in Philadelphia there are questions splashed in the blood of seven babies that not a single national figure cares to discuss.

I supposed that it may be the only kindness available to the babies now that they are not being used by politicians and pundits as mere opportunities for moral exhibitionism. On the other hand, if it is suddenly necessary that the nation debates whether larger ammunition clips make murder easier, then why is it not urgent as well for us to question whether partial birth abortion is as dangerous to the innocent?

No one is asking because the answers are more threatening to everyone: to the Democrats who would sooner ban crosshairs than partial-birth abortions, and to the Republicans who want not to be in the media’s crosshairs again.

Branding Can't Save the Democrats

2011-01-03T12:06:00.000-08:00

There is an article in the Huffington Post at which I literally laughed out loud.

It's titled New Year's Resolution for Democrats: Stop Being Out-Branded by Republicans and it's written by Zach Friend.

This is the basic thinking among my political clients (both Right and Left) -- that the success of their specific agendas will boil down to how they "brand" them.

The problem with this thinking is that the the owner of a brand doesn't actually create the brand.

The consumer of the brand creates the brand.

Most people think that high impact messaging delivered through powerful marketing and advertising create a good brand.

All of that, however, is a support structure.

The thing that creates and maintains a brand better than anything is THE TRUTH.

Conversely, the single biggest reason brands fail is because their marketing and their reality are different.

THIS is the lesson of November --

In 2008 the country rallied around a guy who said that he would change the tone in Washington -- that it's not about "... red states or blue states but about the United States." He built a movement around the idea that we can work together. Many politicians stayed in office or were elected to office based on the long coattails of this brand promise.

Then they spent two years proving we actually can't work together.

Obviously, the Republicans had as much to do with the lack of unity as the Democrats did -- but the Republicans were not the brand promise makers -- and therefore, they didn't suffer at all (in fact, it was proved that they actually benefited a great deal) when the brand promise was not delivered on.

So the real lesson is this -- good branding -- built only on messaging and marketing -- can get someone to try a product... once. If the reality doesn't match the branding, however, it will be twice as hard to get them to try that same product a second time.

The pithy version of this says -- Nothing will kill a mediocre product quicker than great marketing.

The Right To Lie

2010-10-23T10:05:00.000-07:00

I've recently received a slew of emails in response to one of the statements I've made while doing political commentary on Sirius/XM radio P.O.T.U.S. channel (channel 110/130)

Here's one of the emails:

Sir,
This week on POTUS I heard you make a comment in passing that intrigued me. You said some thing like..
"Congress has already said that forcing candidates too tell the truth is an infringement on their right too free speech."

Please take a moment too let me know too what you were referring. I would like very much to know more.

This was my response to that email:

Here's the deal on the Truth in Advertising laws that my industry is subject to:

When my company creates a campaign for a corporate client, the stuff that we say in that campaign has to be true. If it's not, both my company and my client's company can be sued.

A real world example of this happened in 2004. KFC tried to claim that fried chicken could be part of an effective diet program. The Federal Trade Commission fined the company, required it to pull the commercials AND required KFC to submit all advertising for FTC review for the next 5 years.

Now that's a pretty stiff penalty.

But these laws DO NOT apply to politicians.

Our government has consistently upheld the notion that political ads are a form of "political speech" which fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

Lawyers and politicos will tell you that this is important because voters have the right to uncensored information so that they can better decide for whom to cast their vote.

This "right to lie" that politicians seem to enjoy is further complicated by the Federal Communications Act which dictates that the media MUST run these spots uncensored -- even if they believe the ads to be false or offensive. And not only must TV, Radio and Print outlets run the political ads -- they are obligated by law to sell the air time or ad space to the politicians at the lowest advertising rate.

Here's another real world example of this

In 1972 there was a guy named J.B. Stoner from Georgia ran for US Senate. He called himself a "white racist" and he created an ad that said this: "The main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women."

Obviously this is type of statement is both false and offensive -- in every sense of the words -- but because of the Federal Communications Act, the FCC forced stations in Atlanta - despite their complaints - to accept and run the ad. The reason, of course, is the "freedom of speech protections"

So the big question is why hasn't congress - a body made up of politicians who continue to get elected in part because they can lie in their political ads - why haven't these guys addressed the issue of truth in political advertising?

hmm...

I hope that is helpful in understanding where I'm coming from on this.

Thanks everyone for listening and for taking the time to write me with your questions and comments.

Negative Impact

2010-09-07T07:17:00.000-07:00

There were a number of recent media surveys released this week that reveal 2 very important statistics

1. 20% more money has been spent at this point in the political races nationwide than was spent at this point in the 2006 mid-term elections (and that's in a significantly worse economy to boot)

2. 80% of all political advertising on the air right now is NEGATIVE.

This means that more people are hearing more negative messaging about politicians than ever before.

Also interesting to this dynamic is the fact that much of the negative campaigning energy across the nation is unifying into only two consistent messages:

1. Democrats are out of touch with the American people - just look at the socialist agenda the Obama/Pelosi reign has brought.

2. Republicans are too radical and/or extreme in their views to appropriately represent the American people - just look at these Tea Party radicals.

If you take the branding view that I do -- that all of these political ads actually work together as a single campaign about the products "politicians" and "government" --- then 80% of all advertised messages about these products are saying that "candidates" are not normal people, cannot make decisions for normal people and are, in general, not fit to lead.

Again, if we look at all of this advertising as a single campaign operating at a multi-local level throughout the country, and we look at the amount of money being spent to execute this campaign, then it is hard not to be impressed (and perhaps startled) at the reach and frequency this campaign is garnering.

The ramifications of this thought should not be underestimated.

We all know that advertising works. This is why big companies advertise a lot -- delivering the same message over and over to through mass media in order to create "top of mind" thinking in all those who see the ads repeatedly.

We know from research that this type of consistent and persistent messaging is effective in shaping people's attitudes about specific products. Even if a person does not believe the message the first time they hear it, ongoing repetition of the same message through a variety of channels eventually shifts that opinion.

Americans are being bombarded with the message that there is nobody fit to represent them in government of any level.

They are being told this at a frequency rate that is difficult to ignore and impossible to calculate.

There are many people who might already be saying that this message is "100% true."

But I say that the more people begin to truly believe that there is nobody fit to lead, the closer our form of Democracy is to collapse.

Don't underestimate the power of branding.

Election Money - Supreme Court Ruling

2010-06-02T06:24:00.000-07:00

What are we talking about?

The discussion focuses around the January decision by the Supreme Court to render parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- a.k.a. “The McCain-Feingold” law -- unconstitutional.

What was the ruling?
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that there should be no restrictions on corporations spending money out of their general treasury on political advertising.

It’s important to understand that this is not about corporations donating money directly to campaigns. This is about corporations and unions spending their own money on their own political ads.
“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.

It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court upheld (8-1) the part of McCain-Feingold that says that corporate disclosure is still required. In other words, the company spending the money has to identify itself in the ad.
Here’s the catch – In bell-weather state Michigan – The Chamber wanted to know whether it could now form a political action committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures for “express advocacy” ads that directly endorse a candidate, whether it could solicit funds from others to pay for those ads, and whether it would have to disclose which companies or individuals had contributed to the new committee.

In a final ruling on the Chamber’s question issued May 21, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land said that the Chamber can spend any amount it wishes on independent expenditures for express advocacy, but it cannot collect money from other groups for the purpose of funding these ads.

“A corporation’s political speech,” Land wrote, “must be funded exclusively by that corporation.”

In practical terms, what does this mean?

This ruling means that if Coca-Cola wants spend $12-million on spots that say “Coke supports gay marriage” or “Coke encourages you to vote for Rand Paul,” they have the constitutional right to do so.
They have to spend their own money doing it AND they can’t raise money to do so (in other words, they can’t solicit donations for the express purpose of supporting their political advertising).

So what’s the hubbub?

If you’ll recall pundits (including me) said that this will mean that we will see more money than ever being poured into elections – And as you know from talking to me, I believe money is the great evil in elections AND that when you all elect me to be president, I will propose that we do away with all political advertising (since presumably, I won’t be running an branding and advertising agency anymore so I won’t need the work ☺)

How much of this is HYPE?

When it comes to companies like Coca-Cola or Ford, all of this is just hype.
Corporations like these are not going to spend any of their money advocating for candidates or issue.
The free market is more than powerful enough to curb free speech!

Here’s why:

Anytime a company that sells stuff to the masses takes a political stand or chooses a side, it alienates all those potential customers/clients that disagree with them. There aren’t too many companies of size that are willing pay that much and take that big of a chance.

I can’t imagine a political candidate that is so attractive that I would advise one of my clients to openly piss off half of their potential customers.

In fact, we go out of our way to make sure our clients (and the people who are easily recognized as working for them) stay apolitical at all cost.

This is a bit different when you’re talking about unions and associations, groups like the NEA and the NRA. But these guys already spend gazillions of dollars on political ads – now they will just try to spend a little more.

So what’s the real solution?

Well, I alluded to this in many reports on Sirius/XM's POTUS channel – the real solution is the voters.

There’re things that the people who consume ads should understand as we get closer to election time:

1. Nobody is really going to make political advertising illegal (even though I think they should)

2. AND – there is substantial evidence to suggest political advertising works – it rallies the loyalists and persuades those on the fence to vote.

3. This means that candidates and political issues folk will always try to find a way to get MORE advertising on the air (in other words, politicians of one political party will always want to encourage an environment that allows more their party to run more ads while ensuring that their opponents can’t run as many.

NOW HERE ARE THE BIGGIES

4. Political advertising is considered a form of “political speech”. That means that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of “Truth In Advertising” laws.

5. Next to ad time, candidates spend a ton of money on polling – they do this so that they know what you – the voter – want to hear them say. They then use this polling data to craft their commercials (I know, my company works very closely with polling companies for political spots).

6. The result of this is that candidates can and will say whatever it is they believe you want them to say in order to get you to vote for them.

Basically political ads are one of the few places candidates can outright lie about themselves and their opponents – unchallenged and uninterrupted for the duration of that commercial.
In that commercial, however, the voter has the responsibility to research the claims as to what is factual and not (go hang out at politifact.com).

The voter should also understand the messaging and the branding of the spot to understand what the candidate is trying to make them think – and more importantly – feel.

There is going to be a lot of money spent to try to get you to vote one way or the other. (I will be receiving some of that money and my job is going to be to get you to vote one way or the other.) Trust me. I’m good at my job – so are all the other guys.

Wanna avoid having some guy like me shape your opinion? Do your research. As things heat up, tap into non-biased resources to help.

Branding Immigration

2010-05-04T15:20:00.000-07:00

The day the healthcare bill was signed into law, another event was taking place on the grounds of the National Mall.

More than 200,000 people came to Washington DC to demonstrate for comprehensive immigration reform.

Obviously, that story was buried in the signing of healthcare, but it resurfaced in a big way weeks later after the signing of the Arizona immigration law.

All cards on the table, my company – The M Network – is the company that’s did all the ads for the Washington DC rally as well the other immigration demonstrations that have been happening all over the country recently. (“si no es ahora… cuando?”)

Because of that work, we might have a little different view of all of this than the traditional pundits.

The real issue here – the one that nobody is talking about – is the fact that we need illegal immigrants.

This is not about the rights of any person within our borders or the pain and suffering going on in the countries where most of these people are coming from or even the Democrats importing voters. It’s not about any of the things you’ve heard recently on cable news channels or talk radio.

The reason we need illegal immigrants is for very practical, financial reasons.

One good one is that in illegal immigrants, we have a workforce that actually pays into government programs like social security without ever having any chance of getting money out of those same government programs.

If it weren’t for illegals, those programs would go broke much faster.

Another reason why we need illegal immigrants is this: If all the working illegal aliens in this country became legal, imagine what that would do to the cost of labor. They would all have to be paid minimum wage. More expensive still is that they would also have the ability to unionize.

Imagine what that would do to the price of strawberries!

From a branding standpoint, however, you can’t open those cans of worms.

For those who are for the kind of immigration reform being bandied about at these rallies, it’s important to paint amnesty as something noble and righteous and necessary to help those less fortunate.

For those who are against this kind of immigration reform, it’s important to paint amnesty as an affront to our laws and a threat to our safety.

So let’s talk about immigration!

Let’s talk about immigration! That way we won’t have to talk about the fact that, by law, we must pay our legal employees exponentially higher than the rest of the world pays their employees. As a result we have no ability to compete with them on price for basic manufacturing goods and, therefore, are pigeonholed into exporting high priced jobs and/or importing illegal, low priced laborers.

Let’s talk about immigration! That way we can hide —at least for a little while longer – the fact that the government puts out far more on government programs (like social security) than it could ever possibly bring in.

The big problem, of course, is that you can’t logically talk about immigration without first addressing these other issues.

But that won’t ever happen – because the immigration debate isn’t about reform, it’s about branding… and it’s about the worst kind of branding, branding without substance.

The Massachusetts Message

2010-01-21T11:26:00.000-08:00

When Barak Obama campaigned on a message of “change” and “hope,” America jumped on the bandwagon. The message resonated because America believed a fundamental “change” in the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd would bring “hope” to the American economy, security and overall standing in the world.

After one year of rushed legislation, bulldozer diplomacy, back-door deals and ill-conceived publicity stunts, it’s become apparent to many that what Barak Obama really meant by his messages of “change” and “hope” were exactly the opposite – that a fundamental “change” in America would bring “hope” to the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd.

And that is what America is pissed off at.

This disconnect with how the target audience defined the new administration’s brand is why, in my opinion, we’ve seen political upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and now in Massachusetts.

At least from my branding vantage point, these upsets are not a repudiation of the Obama agenda, as right-wing pundits would want us to believe.

Similarly, this is not a function of some “deep discontent with the pace of change” as communications from the Obama administration and pundits from the left are suggesting.

Instead, the anger and frustration coming from the American voter seems to me to be about HOW things are getting done in Washington as opposed to WHAT things are getting done.

America, in general, wants health care reform. They just don’t want a government takeover filled with politically motivated “deals” and a very, very big price tag to drive up taxes and eliminate personal choice.

America, in general, wants Banks and Wall Street to be held accountable for screwing with the economy, tanking people’s retirement funds and selling people mortgages they could never afford. They don’t, however, want the government to take over our banking industry and create intrusive mandates on how private business concerns are to be run.

Most importantly, though, American voters want a seat at the table. The country does not want people they do not trust making decisions that will heavily impact their lives and the lives of their children. They especially don’t want these decisions to be made behind closed doors. And they definitely don’t want these decisions to be politicized in any way.

As the Democrats and Republicans in congress continue to feud between themselves – deploying strategies and setting policy seemingly solely as a means of partisan sparring – the American voter has felt increasingly left out of the process.
The beauty of the system we have in place, though, is that it always allows the voter to eventually speak. And speak they did - in New Jersey, in Virginia and now in Massachusetts.

Did you hear what they said?

Our “hope” will come with a fundamental “change” in how Washington plays politics.

Longtime incumbents beware.

National Write Your Congressman

2009-12-22T11:17:00.000-08:00

I have been a member of "National Write Your Congressman" for some time now.

For those of you who have never heard of "National Write Your Congressman" you should go visit www.nwyc.com.

For me, this has been one of the best tools I've run across to help look over the bills that congress is voting on and read opinions from both sides of the issue.

National Write Your Congressman has helped me stay on top of the news stories that I am often called on to render commentary on.

Now, you might be wondering why the big plug for NWYC -- and this is the reason.

Things with healthcare reform have transformed me from merely a pithy analyst who talks about branding and Godfather references into the kind of guy who actually writes his representatives.

Exactly -- I am now that kind of crazy person. Except I no longer think it's crazy. (Of course most crazy people don't think they are crazy -- we can examine that issue later).

When I look at the disconnect between the public polling numbers and the actions of our government (over the course of the last decade or more) I can't help think that people simply have to get more involved.

Since my wife would shoot me if I actually ran for office, writing congress is the next best thing.

Do I think my Congresspersons - Representative Kendrick Meek, Senator George LeMieux or Senator Bill Nelson - every actually read this stuff?

Probably not. But I'm fairly sure some staffer does (at least the first line or two). I also think that if enough people wrote their congressperson on a regular basis, these folks might just start reading their own mail.

Anyway -- Here's the letter I sent out using National Write Your Congressman.

December 22, 2009

[recipient address was inserted here]

Dear [recipient name was inserted here],

Below are my thoughts regarding the Senate health care bill.

No, I am not in favor of the Senate health care measure.

You guys on Capital Hill have given the 24/7 news folks (like me) the best Christmas
present they could have asked for - fodder for the machine.

Sadly, however, just about everything that most Americans know about the
bill is what comes from those same news folk.

Honestly. What is in this bill and why are you all on this fast moving
train to pass it?

We've waited 50-years for healthcare reform. We can wait another couple of
months (or years) in order to make sure it's right. (For the record, I'm
not sure you can have actual healthcare reform without having some sort of
tort reform as well - but let's save that for another letter).

The polls are pretty clear. The faster you move, the more divided you are,
the less confidence we have that you all are serving our best interest.
And that, in a nutshell, is the BIG problem.

The urgent problem is not healthcare!

The urgent problem is that the American people (your constituents in
particular) do not trust you anymore.

We think that the political process is broken.

We look at the process by which this bill is being moved forward and we
say amongst ourselves, "you people have no clue."

That stated I'm not writing to just to criticize.

I would like nothing better than to see this trend reversed.

The only way that is going to happen, however, is if you take the lead.

If you truly want to help voters gain back their trust in you, now is the
time and healthcare reform is the issue.

Consider these 6 easy steps:

1. Vote NO on this bill.

2. Remind the President and your peers of the President's own Transparency
and Open Government directive - you can see that directive at this link
---
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

3. Suggest that the senate publish to the Internet a "finished" version of
their healthcare reform bill (Keeping with the spirit of this directive,
the published version of the bill should be one that is translated from
"Lawyerese" to a language that at least 90% of your constituents can
actually read and understand).

4. Put out a non-politicized TV PSA reminding people to read the bill and
post comments.

5. Wait 90 Days to let your constituents react to it (and pay attention to
how they react).

6. Vote your conscience.

I recognize that this is probably a ridiculous request given the political
climate in Washington right now. I understand the pressure you must all be
under (Democrats to pass this thing - Republicans to defeat it).

The bottom line, though, is that healthcare reform can wait. Voters,
however, are quickly losing patience with how you all are conducting
yourselves.

Please vote NO on this bill and demonstrate to the electorate you truly
understand that this government was built to be "by the people, for the
people".

A proud member of National Write Your Congressman.

Sincerely,

Thom Mozloom
President
The M Network

Healthcare Reform??

2009-12-15T14:48:00.000-08:00

Two things about the continuing healthcare reform circus.

First -- now that the Democrats have conceded a public option AND have given up on the expanded Medicade proposal -- their is a HUGE branding question on the table:

What is this thing?

The idea that every person in America would have access to quality, affordable healthcare was an easy message to digest -- easily brand-able - and a lot of people bought into the notion.

Now that this thing has morphed into what many people are viewing as nothing more than an ideological debate (as opposed to real reform) it's done two things --
1. Bled away a lot of support both from the right AND the left
2. Demonstrated clearly to voters how screwed up Washington is.

Prior to this - public polling indicated a waning approval for this legislation anyway -- that was mostly spurred by the "big government is taking over" crowd and an overall lack of trust in the federal governments ability to actually create and manage a system of any worth. Now that the most well "branded" aspects of the plan have been blown up, we're starting to see erosion in support from voters on the left as well.

I don't see that public support coming back anytime soon because there simply isn't enough time to explain to the public why this bill is a good thing if it's not going to do what it was originally intended to do -- provide healthcare to every American.

Now don't get me wrong -- I don't actually believe that the bill needs public support to pass -- and that brings us to the second part of this line of thinking:

If a bill passes that does not provide healthcare to all Americans --- and is not even understood by most Americans --- then:

- Voters on the right will feel that they were railroaded by a liberal congress into a bad bill that increases the size of government -- it's a government takeover of 1/3 of the economy.

- Voters on the left will feel that they were railroaded by a weak congress that was bullied around by the far right minority. This bill isn't real reform but rather a watered down version of change that amounts to little more than politics as usual -- protecting the massive health insurance lobby and the donation dollars that go along with it.

In other words -- this bill is now a political (at least a political marketing) albatross.

No good can come from it.

Nobel Standards For President

2009-10-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

I can completely understand when conservatives decry the fact that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

After all, they are conservatives.

They lost the election.
Their policies have been watered down.
They don’t seem to have a clear agenda.

Their job, then, is to criticize the winner for the next four years. That’s what partisanship is all about – and I’m cool with that.

I have, however, also heard from quite a number of my Democrat friends who have stated how much of a “joke” or “embarrassment” they believe it is that the Nobel Prize was awarded to President Obama.

“What has he done,” they cry.

“You can’t award him the Nobel Peace Prize based on what you hope he will do,” they whine.

There’s a certain level irony – or at least hypocrisy - when people who voted for a freshman senator with virtually no experience to be our president complain that he hasn’t actually achieved enough to be awarded the Nobel Prize.

I would dare say that the responsibilities of the leader of the free world are substantially greater than the responsibilities of a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

As President, the decisions Obama will make will have far greater impact than the decisions he makes as Nobel laureate.

Detractors to this logic will say that we vote for president based on what we believe that person WILL do, but the Nobel Prize is given to people based on what they HAVE done.

To them I say, “That’s the problem, isn’t it?”

Breakfast Cereal And Box Tops For All

2009-08-24T13:42:00.000-07:00

It’s been a fascinating respite from blogging, reporting and doing various commentaries… one prompted by the birth of my third child (my second daughter).

Prior to Tessa’s arrival, I was on someone’s air, website or pages about every other week or so. With the self-imposed downtime following Tessa’s birth I had the opportunity to:

➢ Act like a husband and father.

➢ Give my day job some TLC (running The M Network)

➢ Take a two-week family vacation (driving a 35 foot RV up and down the East Coast – which I will write about at a later post)

➢ Review some of my past commentaries.

In tackling the last bullet point, I discovered a rather large error in what I’ve been yapping about for the past couple years.

Ok… maybe error is a little strong --- omission is probably the best way to put it. Nevertheless, I’d like to take this opportunity to correct that omission.

You see - I’ve always approached my role in giving political commentary as being limited to the branding and marketing aspects. But in watching the events of the past few months unfold - without having the obligation to create new and pithy commentary around them - I believe I’ve hit upon something I’ve never said before.

There is no such thing as political marketing. – It’s a redundant statement. Politics IS marketing.

The idea behind marketing/branding has always been to understand the emotional connection that a target audience already has with a product, service, issue or other human being and then massage (or manipulate) that emotional connection in a specific and desired direction (try my product – vote for me).

As I watch the administration (henceforth to be known as Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show) trying to sell healthcare, automobiles and the desire to kill more Afghanis than Iraqis -- and the conservative opposition to each of these issues --- it dawned on me that I was not watching a heated political battle in which lives and ideas hang in the balance – I was watching Bud-Light vs. Miller Lite.

Our beer has fewer calories.

Well our beer has less carbs.

Their beer costs more

Well their beer comes in a can.

Such and such celebrity drinks our beer

Hot chicks dig guys who drink ours.

And while some of those statements may actually be true, none of them have anything at all to do with the customers’ best interest. It’s beer after all – and even the “drink responsibly” genre of commercials are carefully scripted to achieve the beer company’s main objective: Selling more beer – or, getting more votes – ya know – same thing.

(My sincere apologies to Adlai Stevenson).

Conservatives becoming Liberals?

2009-02-17T19:18:00.000-08:00

On a dare from Scott Walterman, I actually took up the task of listening to conservative talk radio for a couple days. What I heard was… well… noise (and lots of it).

There was some guy (whose name escapes me) literally screaming about the stimulus package. I listened to Sean Hannity brag about how the Dems (particularly President Obama) are out to get him (personally). And then there is Rush, who I consider to be a master showman.

In short, what I heard was pretty much the same empty-gong-rattling rhetoric that I heard on Air America after the 2004 elections.

And here’s what the branding guy sees:

** NOTE – I could care less about party affiliation. My goal is to treat everyone as a “brand” irrespective of political affiliation or belief. **

Conservative talk and the hosts of those shows – if indeed my limited sampling of them is the norm AND they continue to conduct their shows in that manner – will become totally irrelevant to the national conversation within months.
Here’s why (and again – this is based on a limited sample and I welcome other’s perspective on this):
1. Whiners – Wow! If you keep that up, you are working on a system of diminishing returns. The more you whine, the fewer the number people that will want to listen to you whine (I tell my 4-year-old this all the time). The first to drop off will be the people who listen to you now but disagree with you. This will continue to cull listeners until the last one left is you. Good luck with that.

2. Lack of constructive criticism – people will listen as long as you are offering solutions. This means that if you just want to vent … well… shut up!

3. Ain’t no I in TEAM – irrespective of your political affiliation, the President is the President (it’s the office not the person). Now more than ever we need to be praying that this President is successful (even if he’s a socialist ☺ ).
So let me try to play this from both sides of the aisle.
If I were advising the Republicans:
Hey! Michael Steele. Go on the talk show circuit and tell all the hosts this – “We need to calm down and get on our Presidents side. We do that by NOT compromising our platform of SMALL GOVERNMENT and LOW TAXES as well as our stand on MORAL ISSUES – but we need to give our criticism in a gentle and constructive manner.
If I were advising the Democrats:
Hey! Rush and the rest of you, Stop your whining you’re making my ears hurt. You are not helping things. All of this vitriolic rhetoric… that’s the reason why people stopped voting for your side. Stop being a hater and we might… actually… never mind.

The Office of The President Elect's Branding Machine

2009-01-11T19:57:00.000-08:00

President elect Obama is still 8 days from taking office – but since the election, he’s faced all the branding challenges of a veteran – and he’s done it pretty well.

He steered relatively clear of the Blagojovich scandal in Illinois – avoiding comment and, thus far, implication.

One of my favorite branding moves was the December 15th memo that Obama released to the media. in which Obama clears himself and staff of any wrongdoing.

OJ Simpson is sitting in a jail cell somewhere thinking to himself, “dog-gone-it, why didn’t I try that?”

His second big branding challenge came with the daily advisories of who would be serving in his cabinet next. Have you looked at the list ?

It’s like a who’s who of Washington insiders. (Far more Washington insiders than Bill Clinton or either Bush’s). Here’s just a few of the choices:

State – Senator Hillary Clinton – my former employer needs no introduction

Defence – Current Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates – ‘cause things are going so well thus far.

Health & Human Services – Sen Tom Daschle – 25 years in Washington - former Senate Majority Leader. Other than that, no real Washington ties.

Justice – Eric Holder – Janet Reno’s #2 person all through the Clinton years

Treasury – Timothy Geithner – another President Clinton guy who was nominated to this position out of his post as CEO of the New York (Clinton State) Federal Reserve. Also on his resume, Geithner helped engineer the sale of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. and was willing to consider a government rescue of Lehman Brothers

Commerce - Governor Bill Richardson - Oops

And my favorite -- CIA Director - Leon Panetta - Let's face it, as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Mr Panetta is probably the best person on the planet at knowing how and where important information is hidden. He's got my seal of approval.

So how does a guy who ran a campaign based on changing Washington DC defend his decision to pack his cabinet with Washington insiders:

“What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking,” said President Elect Obama. He went on to explain that it would be foolish, at such a “critical time in our history”, to pick people who “had no experience in Washington whatsoever”.

He added: “What I don’t want to do is somehow suggest that because you somehow served in the last [Clinton] administration you are barred from serving again.

Again, this is exactly the response he should have made. From a branding perspective only, this statement succeeds on a lot of fronts:

1. It redefines what change is – it’s fresh thinking. And that doesn’t necessarily have to come in fresh packages.
2. It focuses people on the problems and concerns of right now, not on the fact that these people will still be in office even after the crisis is no longer so critical
3. It validates selecting a ton of people from Bill Clinton’s administration and opens the door for more (remember the 90’s – they were pretty good years).

Whew! Thank goodness.

You see, when President-Elect Obama gave his acceptance speech and said, “It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.”… well… I thought this whole “Change” thing was going to be difficult.

If I had known it was just a matter of putting the band back together for one more mission from God --- heck – I might have voted this year (I’m just kidding about that, I did vote... early AND often).

What I also really like about this line is the fact that I’ve already heard it repeated by everyday Joe’s who are still filled with BaraKool-Aid. That, my friends, is the hallmark of good messaging.

It doesn’t have to actually be a good argument; heck, it doesn’t have to actually make sense. It just has to be easy to remember and easy to repeat – “It’s waaaay better than fast food.” (Ok , bad example. Because everyone knows that slogan sucks – even Wendy. I should have used “Just Do It”, which is a great slogan but also means nothing.)

Then there’s the whole issue of the inauguration itself. The “Office of The President-Elect” (I love that term too) issued a statement saying that the total cost of the event is currently estimated at over $50,000,000. This is, without doubt, the most expensive inauguration in history. And I am all good with that. This is an truly historic occasion and it should be a big BIG deal.

The problem is that most of the money raised to pay for this thing has actually come through Wall Street bundlers. That’s right – the same folks who will be asking for bailout money are the ones supplying most of the dough for the big O’s party.

No worries. The OPEL (Office of the …. You get it.) has also dictated that no one person will be allowed to give more than $50,000 -- which is why billionaire and left wing sugar-daddy, George Soros has donated money in the names of members of his family, in this way giving $250,000.

Corporations are also banned from donating, although corporate CEOs are certainly not. Google and Microsoft big-wigs, for example, have combined to give more than $450,000 to the inauguration fund. (FYI - executives from each of the two corporations also donated the Obama election campaign more than $700,000).

But it’s OK – because commenting in the New York Times, Obama spokesperson, Linda Douglass silenced the critics when she said emphatically, "No one who has contributed to President-elect Obama has ever been led to believe that they're going to have any special influence with him. He is passionately committed to changing business as usual and breaking the grip of special interests on government."

Which is absolutely perfect branding once again. In fact, this single statement goes well beyond ordinary branding and into the heretofore uncharted waters of “Jedi Mind Trick.”

1. Yes, there is a ton of money coming to us from people who generally get their way by buying it – but don’t worry, they know better.
2. This is Obama. He’s the “Change” guy --- or as one of my buddies defended this statement – “Obama IS the change. It really doesn’t matter if everything else outside of that stays exactly the same – because HE’S the change.” -- It’s waaaay better than fast food.

But despite the veteran acumen with which the Obama camp has deflected such intense probing by our media and citizenry, there is one issue with the new administration with which I am deeply disturbed.

Being a small government kind of guy, I have never seen the creation of so many new departments and committees and plans in such a short time. But don’t get me wrong; it’s not the mushroom-like expansion of government that has me nervous. It’s the names.

Let’s be honest. Once government expands, it rarely contracts. That means that all of these new creations are going to be around for a long time, a lot longer than the people who actually created them. And that, in turn, means that we, the American people, are the ones who are going to have to live with a position in our government called “The Chief Performance Officer”.

It’s true.

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that said that Nancy Killefer has been named our Chief Performance Officer.

I, of course, jumped to the logical conclusion that she would be overseeing the regulation and distribution of ED drugs – but, alas, I was wrong.

Evidently, The Chief Performance Officer is the person we are relying on to “to scrub the federal budget and reform government”

WAIT!!! I thought that’s what we elected Obama to do – you mean he’s delegating that?

This will be much more palatable to the American people if we give this new position a title that is long enough to sound important but not blunt enough to sound like it’s something the president himself should be doing.

As a branding expert I’d like to suggest something a little more descriptive. Instead of Chief Performance Officer, how about we title her the director of Budget, Lending Interest & National Goals

Also known as BLING.

She can ride around in one of those black suburban’s – but with really great rims.

The Times had a great Article on another new project, the heinously named, American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.

Ick.

Recovery and Reinvestment is something you do with scrap metal. Those are not terms you want to apply to jobs and people and misplaced national pride.
This would be the perfect type of title we could just steal directly from Barack’s enormously successful election campaign.

Let’s see. There was HOPE. That gave everyone a great feeling about the future.
There was that the ever-present chant at all of the Obama rallies, “Yes We Can” – which just exudes optimism and confidence.
And now there ‘s the whole CHANGE thing that the OPEL has adopted (their website is actually www.change.gov).

In branding and advertising, we try almost never to come up with anything actually new. We just take what’s already been done successfully and reconstitute it to appear to be something totally different and fresh. So if I were to do that with Obama’s three big branding themes from the election, I think I have the perfect title for this plan --- HOPE WE CAN CHANGE.

But the worst offender, in my opinion, is the newly formed White House Office of Health Reform – For an acronym infested country, I’m not sure we really want an agency in the US government --- called WHOHR -- no matter how accurate it is as a description. (I did not make that up - I promise you.)

So what have we learned?

Well, we’ve learned that The President Elect is doing a yeoman’s job at protecting his brand while communicating around touchy subjects and potential scandals.

We’ve learned that he’s surrounding himself with all the experience necessary to allow him to be the change he’s been waiting for. In other words, he’s waaaay better than fast food.

And we’ve learned that as our government continues to expand – there will be more and more programs, committees, departments and initiatives, all of which will need pithy and memorable names. It seems to me that this, in and of itself, can help create an entirely new job sector tailor-made for.... well... tailor made for the kind of people I’ll be laying off after the promised Obama business taxes take effect. And that is exactly why I have included this web address on all of my employees pay stubs this month --- http://change.gov/page/s/application

Gasoline & Dry Tinder

2009-01-11T11:40:00.000-08:00

There’s been a lot of talk about the big winners during this economic meltdown.

Bank of America.

General Motors (maybe).

NASCAR

Wooden Arrow Makers.

Even Barack Obama was supposedly helped by the meltdown as John McCain clarified to the nation’s voters why he’s never been invited to serve on the Finance Committee.

But, from a branding perspective, there is a big, BIG winner who we haven’t heard from in a while.

Remember when gas prices were hovering around four bucks a gallon?
Remember all of those TV commercials by oil companies that were playing?

For those who pay attention to this type of thing (both of us) here’s the score:

- BP had spots on the air entitled “Energy Security 1” and “Energy Diversity”

- Exxon had a whole series of commercials on how their new technology was helping them find new oil deposits, get to them with minimal damage to the environment and how their innovations were making batteries last longer.

- Even Citgo re-released it’s Hugo Chavez propaganda/lobbying campaign.

Why all these ads?

You might jump to the conclusion that big oil started to advertise when prices went up because people weren’t buying as much gas.

Before you go there, however, try these statistics on:

According to the Energy Information Administration, even when prices where at their highest (July), Americans still bought more than 55,000,000 gallons of gas EVERY DAY.

In fact, the big, 2,000,000 gallon a day dip in gas consumption didn’t actually take place till well into September – AFTER gas prices started coming back down to earth.

So if the ad spree wasn’t about boosting sales, what was it about?

That’s right. Branding.

In the midst of a heated election and to drown out the shrill cries of “Drill Baby Drill”, big oil, across the board, needed to find a way to lessen the impact of being painted as “THE BAD GUY.” Right down the line, each of them launched their own branding campaign in an attempt to show how they were in this thing with us. The goal, of course, was to keep the US government out of their knickers while also keeping the US citizenry from picking up pitchforks and torches in order to storm the big oil bastilles.

Did the marketing efforts work?

Well… not exactly. They didn’t have to.

The omnipresent marketing efforts of big oil companies were shouted out of necessity, not by the din of the right screaming for more drilling or the shrill of the left whining about exorbitant profits but, rather, by the deafening shatter that followed our economic meltdown. Four dollars a gallon still sucked – but not nearly as badly as the loss of savings, homes and jobs.
Today, gasoline consumption remains pretty much exactly where it was throughout the last couple years, right around 55 million gallons per day.

Prices have come down and that’s good. But that’s not why you don’t see big oil companies advertising in every break of your local news or national sporting event. It’s because they are no longer in the cross hairs of the public’s ire and concern or the government's new corporate acquisition program. Therefore, big oil no longer needs to prosecute what could have been one of the most costly and most protracted, industry-wide marketing campaign since big Tobacco tried to advertise themselves out of crisis not so long ago. And that means all of that money they would have spent on branding can go right back to the bottom line.

Just one more thing for which the oil industry has to thank Wall Street.

Gaming The News

2009-01-08T21:25:00.000-08:00

The question of whether the political press is fair has been debated since the founding of the Republic. Never has a candidate admitted to having received favorable treatment and it is common for both candidates in the same campaign to squeal simultaneously about bias. Even Barack Obama, whose lopsided advantage with the news media this year was actually quantified by researchers, frequently cried foul. That he was not vaporized for doing so casts doubt upon the existence of God.

Nevertheless, it proves that the relationship between politicians and the press remains properly and fundamentally antagonistic. But is it really?

Remember all of those campaign ads that you saw during the presidential race. It seemed as if the campaigns were releasing a new ad every single day.

But it may (or may not) surprise you to learn that many of those ads never actually aired anywhere -- except, of course, as content in your evening newscast.

That’s right.

There was never actually money spent to air a surprisingly large number of the presidential campaign ads.

And this only makes sense. Why would the campaigns spend actual money on ad time when they don’t have to?

In other words: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Just think about the hours upon hours the punditry spent “analyzing” the advertisements.

Remember that controversial Barack Obama ad that said John McCain couldn’t use a computer? Well… according to research from TNS media, it never actually aired as a TV commercial – only as fodder for the punditry. The same can be said for countless John McCain spots including the now infamous “Celebrity” ads.

Ok, well… THE Celebrity ad aired. But only after it aired on the 24/7 news machines first. And as for the sequels? There were four. But only two of them actually saw any airtime at all.

Don’t think that this trend took hold only in the general election though. Hillary’s 3am aired fairly heavily. Barack Obama’s 3am ad (the response) was only released to pundits and news organizations yet received nearly as many GRP’s (Gross Ratings Points) in coverage as the paid schedule for Hillary Clinton.

Add to this John McCain’s 3am ad – the one that he released after Barack Obama announced his VP pick (not Hillary). It never had an ad buy behind it either, yet that ad ran ad nauseum until, later in the day, the McCain camp released the anti-Obama ad which used Joe Biden quotes throughout to help introduce America to Senator Obama’s new VP pick.

Let’s face it, earned media, or free media, is the real mothers milk of politics. Very few campaigns can raise enough money to make substantial television buys. That's especially true for local campaigns and its usually true for all but the biggest statewide or national campaigns.

Most often campaigns will manufacture a media event - a press conference, or a rally, or some other public activity designed to make news.

The presidential campaigns have taught us a slightly new trick though. Releasing new and controversial pseudo-spots has become a way to generate news without the hassle of having to make any. This is the new unmanned drone of political warfare.

What's more, many in the press may actually be in on the gag.

Larry Weitzner is the CEO of Jamestown Associates, a full-service political consulting firm headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey (with offices in Washington and elsewhere). He’s a top notch strategist with a reputation for winning the tough races.

According to Weitzner, reporters and editors know that most of the digital ads clogging up their in-boxes are intended more for buzz than broadcast.

"They'll usually ask whether we’re spending money on the spot or where we’re running it, but they know the deal,” says Weitzner. “They need the content, so it’s about feeding the beast.”

So how does it work?

1. Start with the understanding that all news outlets are overworked and starving for new content. The easier you can make it for them to cover a story the better. Providing the video and audio content (in the form of your “newly released ad”) is a no-brainer. Finding some pundit or pundits to gab about it on the set is an even bigger no-brainer.

2. Even if the pundit rips your spot, it really does not matter. Your spot aired for free and got two to three minutes of talk time in the content of a news show. That talk time is way more valuable than any of the actual commercial time you could buy in any newscast. Not only that, the audience is going to watch your spot and formulate their own opinions about it – irrespective of what the talking head says. From a purely branding perspective, the talking head is just filler; it’s something that takes up the time between commercials.

3. Realize that most media organizations have a solid brick wall (becoming thinner by the minute) between the News department and the Sales department. In practical terms, this means that most reporters don’t have any grasp at all on what exactly is the difference between a real TV commercial and what amounts to be a video news release masquerading as a TV commercial. Most reporters honestly do not know the questions to ask.

4. Newsrooms gravitate toward stories that are controversial or funny or both. This is why John McCain’s “Celebrity” ads got so much news time. Never mind the fact only something like two of the four or five that were released ever saw a media buy; all of them made news – ALL OF THEM.

5. The size of the campaign does not matter. It’s the “newsiness” of the spot. If you’ve got an attention getting spot that is well produced and will raise people’s eyebrows, send it to the news agencies with a release. If you don’t have the spot – call someone who can create one for you.

6. The last and perhaps most important part of deploying this tactic is for those of you who actually have a media buying budget. For you, releasing pseudo-spots to news organizations is a great way to test the waters before you actually place a buy. Let them air it for free first. Then, depending on the reaction to the spot, you can actually pay for the ad time.

Now, the magic question of all of this is whether or not this strategy has a shelf life. That all depends on the answers to two questions:

QUESTION 1: How soon will media outlets catch on?

ANSWER: My guess is that most local media outlets have no idea this has been going on (unless, of course, they are reading this issue of Politics Magazine). Not only that, unless this becomes big, public news, they won’t

QUESTION 2: Even if they do catch on, will they care?

ANSWER: Those that do know about it – well – they clearly don’t care.

Good luck.

Introduction: The Fifth Estate or The Fifth Column?

2008-11-18T10:22:00.000-08:00

Many people assert that mainstream Media is the Fourth Estate and that any media that does not fit into the mainstream is, therefore, The Fifth Estate. Others suggest that it is the ever increasing ranks of the punditry that actually make up the Fifth Estate, while others would argue that The Fifth Estate is composed of citizen journalists and bloggers.

As a guy who spent more than 20 years working in The Fourth Estate and who now appears regularly on TV, Radio and in Print as “the expert in blah blah blah” to speak about some issue or another, I’m feeling a bit of Estate confusion.

And that’s because it’s quite possible that we’re using the wrong terminology.

Sharing whatever Branding and Advertising knowledge I might have with the general public may be far less about being a member of an Estate than it is a Column – The Fifth Column to be exact.

Yes. I realize that the term “Fifth Column” is a bit of a pejorative. But how else would you describe someone who talks regularly about the tactics his industry is using AND he talks about them to the people his industry is using those tactics against.

“Thom,” the host of this program or that says, “How do you think this particular campaign will work.”

“Well,” I answer, “this campaign is going to have a very emotional impact on three-legged people with purple hair. This company has obviously infiltrated this particular community with spies, also known as public opinion research teams, and is now regurgitating the messages that three-legged, purple-haired people want to hear. I’m sure this will be highly successful. In fact, if I were the guy running this campaign, and I really wanted to get three-legged, purple-haired to give me all their money, I would… ”

So if there are any three-legged, purple-haired people out there, watch out!
Here’s how they’re going to get you to buy their product.

On the other hand, if there are any business owners who are trying to sell wares to three-legged, purple-haired people… well then… you’ll definitely want to stay tuned to this site.