Skip to main content

Excellent campaigning

I'm not a fan of the so-called reforms about Wisconsin's collective bargaining for public workers. To be fair, reform was necessary, but it went a little too far in some ways and way too far in other ways. Regardless, I have to give props to the campaign the "WI Club for Growth" has going on. It's the billboard below. Because of the psychology involved, it's an excellent campaign.



The reason it's particularly excellent is because research shows that so many people automatically discount ads from party they disagree with. If you are a Democrat who likes Democrat A, any ad that says "Democrat A is good" turns you on and any ad that says "Democrat A is bad" turns you off. Both happen viscerally even before you apply rational thought to it.


So this ad starts by inviting you in before your brain can shut out the ad viscerally, before you can recognize it is not pro-Democrat A. It shows a nice picture of Barrett's face (from his own mayoral site, I believe). It says something that is apparently complimentary. Then it slides in the dagger. Because of the positive Barrett image and the positive main statement, it will cause some cognitive dissonance for Democrats, like it or not.

Ads like this don't have to change someone's mind in order to change the debate. If they influence Democrats to speak up just a little less loudly or less often, and embolden Republicans to speak out a little louder or more often, that is how they influence things. Suddenly the Republican position seems more popular, and people are influenced by that 'social proof'. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof


Of course, the figure (on the billboard) is arguable and, like much of the "savings" that today's Republicans brag about, there's an assumption that it was saved without any cost, as if someone just donated that money rather than cutting benefits or services.


Perhaps this technique can be used by others:



George W. Bush's legacy keeps looking better
because Obama stopped things from getting even worse.



It's time to end class warfare
or we will destroy you. Paid for by the top 1%.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."
1 comment
Read more

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi
2 comments
Read more

Welfare for the wealthy

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear
Post a Comment
Read more