Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GWOT Year 4 - 2005
What brand is your parachute? by Philips Maddocks 
What brand is your parachute? By Philips Maddocks Friday, March 25, 2005 The problem with public relations campaigns is they tend to be beautiful conceptually but terrible intellectually. The notion is wonderfully high-minded. The presentation is spectacularly choreographed. But the thinking behind it is all right hands and telegraphed punches. Man and boy I have watched companies like Coca Cola stagger around in something of a fog while adhering to expensive campaigns designed to transform them in the public eye. In the case of Coke, this has meant transforming from Old Coke to New Coke to Cherry Coke and back into Old Coke, with all the sincerity of a John Kerry pheasant hunt in the South. The Coke campaigns were rolled out with a technical assuredness that made it easy to forget that this is a product so insecure that it is constantly reinventing itself for fear that its audience will desert it for something more interesting - perhaps a fowl slaughtered by a one-time presidential hopeful.. The new Coke products may have their carefully marketable slogan, their methodically appropriate jingle, and their mathematically eye-pleasing redesigns. They may be exquisitely faithful to their new brand theme, but creatively there isn't much for the eye, mind, or even palette. Coke and the other big players have spent so much time dressing themselves in images they think the public wants - branding themselves in the parlance of the trade - that the battlefield has changed. It seems that in the fight to win the hearts and dollars it is the best slogan or best celebrity spokesperson, not the best product, that counts the most. Maybe it has always been that way. Product worthiness has a long history of playing the poor cousin to monied ad campaigns and product placement deals. I remember one day when my brother and I, having just started playing organized hockey, made the mile or so trek through the winter cold to a local sports store to buy hockey sticks with a few of the dollars we had gathered by shoveling driveways. We were too young to understand long division but we were old enough to spot the stick brands the pros used in the games we saw on the television. That was enough to convince us to slap down our hard-earned money for a couple of Northland Custom Pros. As the years went on, I experimented with a lot of different hockey sticks. How the stick felt in my hands became more important than who used the brand. I came to realize that what works for one particular star may not work so well for me. I also came to realize, as have most of us, that the equipment the stars use may have the same brand name as the equipment on the store shelves, but the similarity often begins and ends there. Most of the sticks, shoes, rackets, and so on are customized for the professionals. This revelation has only made the boys behind the public relations campaigns push the concept appeal of the product over the intellectual appeal even more strenuously. Last week McDonald's launched its "Go Active! American Challenge," a conceptual advertising campaign if there ever was one. In it McDonald's challenges Americans to fight obesity by eating healthily and exercising without, presumably, thinking about the likely long-term consequences of eating almost anything offered on the McDonald's menu. Only in an ad campaign could a company that sells many of the foods linked to obesity and unhealthy eating attempt, in all earnestness, to "rebrand" itself as a champion of a healthy lifestyle. But this seems to be the new style in staving off criticism. You don't argue the merits of the accusations. Instead, you position your company as the champion of what it is accused of undermining. Cigarette companies now run ads telling smokers where to find help quitting the habit and fast-food companies run ads telling eaters they should eat more healthy foods. What's next, the FBI championing the common sense of the public at large? Funny you should ask. Just two weeks ago there was FBI director Robert Mueller telling Congress that after spending more than $170 million, the FBI has abandoned its current attempt to upgrade its computer database and will now start from scratch, and look for a more updated, flexible system using off-the-shelf software. Mueller was hardly five words into his mea culpa when the admission, in the fashion of the accused today, began to turn into a hasty rebranding of the FBI director himself. "It's my fault for not having put the appropriate persons in position to review that contract and assure that it was on track," Mr Mueller said. "I am tremendously disappointed that we did not come through with virtual case file, but by the same token, I see this as an opportunity." It's a vision that seems to have extended to, or maybe down from, the highest reaches of government. The White House signaled earlier this month that it was stepping up its efforts to win hearts and minds in the Arab world through a massive international PR campaign. Stepping forward to head the effort is the newly visible Karen Hughes. In her latest reincarnation, she will be in charge of repairing America's tattered image in the Middle East. There will likely be plenty of money available. The state department spent $685 million on public diplomacy last year, which seems to suggest that it is intellect, not talk, that is cheap. And the intellect appears to be getting even cheaper in 2005. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, appearing on ABC television last week, noted that, "It is no secret that the U.S. needs to revamp its public diplomacy role." Rice went on to endorse the propaganda efforts of the cold war, and the part played by broadcasters such as Radio Liberty. "It was not spin. It was getting people the truth," she said. Recently, the White House's PR efforts on the home front have caused it to be upbraided by its own watchdog. The General Accounting Office issued a critical ruling of the Bush administration's public relations drive last month, calling such segments "covert propaganda." Earlier this month, the justice department reacted by circulating a memo instructing agencies to ignore the GAO findings. Getting the truth to people, it seems, is getting harder all the time. Philip Maddocks can be reached at 508-626-4437 or by e-mail at pmaddock@cnc.com. |