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.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
National Write Your Congressman
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
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
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Healthcare Reform??
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Nobel Standards For President
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?”
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?”
Monday, August 24, 2009
Breakfast Cereal And Box Tops For All
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).
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).
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Conservatives becoming Liberals?
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.
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.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Office of The President Elect's Branding Machine
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
