My Trump Media Conspiracy Theory

Preach, H.L, Preach

I'm going to step away from the usual beat (marketing and advertising), because I feel the following point is being missed, and needs to be addressed before it gets wiped away on the whiteboard that is modern history. And for the record, I'd like to think that I'd hold this opinion regardless of my partisan position, but as it's probably going to be pretty apparent to you which way I lean, I'm not going to apologize or hide that.

In the last week of the presidential race, there has been two interpretations of the rhetoric coming from the Trump campaign.

1) That he's speaking truth to power, calling out the timing as well as the veracity of various news stories as suspect, and daring to speak of vast interconnectedness at the highest levels of finance, media, and political influence.

2) He's grasping at straws to spread the blame for a failing campaign, and setting up a future delegitimization of a Hillary Clinton presidency, which will help when he sets up a new media network for those in his influence. This is where Roger Ailes' role in the Trump campaign comes into play. Trump TV as an exit strategy has been more than a persistent rumor.

Now, I'm not going to convince anyone of the merits of either of these theories. We live in a time where convincing anyone about anything requires great tact, data, and expertise, as well as a background where you trust the proprietor of the opinion for past work.

But what I can assert, and maybe even reach some minds across the aisle from mine, is that there is some suspicion in the timing, but it's not necessarily due to a favoritism towards Clinton, or away from Trump. Rather, it's toward, well, profits. Ratings. Also, that a democracy that serves these needs in front of informing the populace seems more than a little dangerous.

There has been ample time in this campaign (we're going on what, the second or third year of it?) to vet the candidate from all of his various issues, without anything new coming out in the last few weeks. The bus tape that started the latest avalanche is over a decade old, and many of the women who have come forward with allegations could have been published some time ago. Sure, some of the client's own statements may have caused some to move forward, but a persistent journalist or staff could have, perhaps, gotten some of this out earlier in the calendar year. The graphic and easily understood nature of the tape gives it more red meat than, say, the Trump University issues, or some of the more racier stories about overtones of organized crime in the Atlantic City days, or past instances of adultery, but that's not what concerns me here.

Rather, what seems to be the case is that the media wasn't as dogged in pursuing those stories during the Republican primary, not when there was such a fountain of ratings and takedowns of various candidates to fill the news hole and bring in casual viewers. Some blame must also go to Trump's primary rivals, who clearly didn't do the same level of opposition research (witness Alicia Machado) that the Clinton team did. While it's clear that any single Republican rival that went that strongly against Trump in the primary would have suffered a direct counter-attack, it's also clear that the entire field would have been more likely to end the insurgency had all of the countering forces come out earlier, when support for him wasn't as entrenched.

Much about this campaign has seemed unprecedented, unique, and straight out of an over-ripe screenplay. But what it's also been is highly lucrative for a media industry that has done as little as possible to talk about differences in issues or policy, and has profited mightily from lowest common denominator news stories.

While we can hope that lessons have been learned, and this kind of phenomenon will get faster vetting in the future, it's hard to argue with money. Perhaps even more depressingly, that this is the new normal, where scandal and malfeasance is what will rule the day, now and forever more.

Also, the eternal, true and depressing adage that you learn very early in political science class, which you can also call out for the ratings being so high...

The people get the government they deserve.

And in the words of the late great H.L. Mencken, they'll get it good and hard.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Even The Losers

More Losing Might Be In Order

Last weekend, I took my mom, a huge Philadelphia Eagles fan (OK, I am too) to a road game for our annual birthday tradition. So far, we've been to Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago, Tampa, Green Bay, St. Louis, and now Detroit. (We're 4-4, and my beloved team lost this last one by a point. We had a good time, because we always do, but it could have been better. Alas. Moving on.)

On the way to our parking spot, I saw the following PSA, which just made my day on many levels. Let's dive into it, shall we?

1) As a fan of a team that is nearly as futile as the Lions in terms of time between championships (1957 for them, 1960 for my laundry), I kind of like that this headline is a few blocks from the stadium. I'd like it more if it were close to Dallas, Washington, New England and New York, but you take what you can for smart aleck snarking moments.

2) On first blush, the ad pops and makes sense... but if you look at it more than five seconds, you'll catch a rather, um, glaring mistake. (I apologize for the image, but we were in the car and I had to rely on Google Earth for the grab.) Take a second look. See it yet?

Namely, um...

If you are losing, dude in the hoodie with the hands up in obvious distress...

Why do you have the mountains and mountains of chips?

Which you clearly have not lost, or at least, not yet?

Look, I get that outdoor ads are hard. You can't go for any concept that takes more than three seconds, the copy has to be pretty much header online, and you need obvious graphic relevance and stopping power. They cost real money and take significant industry, and even PSAs get real attention in the community.

But, um, how hard would it have been to show the chips being raked away, to back up the whole idea of Losing?

Or just not show the chips at all, since the hoodie, green felt and copy might have gotten the point across?

Which leads me to the following and final point about any marketing and advertising project like this one...

Maybe run it past someone who is actually in the target demographic of, well, actually having gambled in their lifetime? Before you put the damned thing up?

Play me out, Tom Petty...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Dad's Favorite (Only?) Game

Sing It, Fry

This past Saturday saw another college trip for the eldest -- the third this month, and the seventh of her process so far. She's getting serious about this, on a lot of levels, and it's honestly great to see. But the nuts and bolts of that isn't what I'm going to get into here. Instead, I'll use the experience to answer an age-old question for some casual observers of marketing and advertising, which is why the vast majority of pitches in our world are geared to dramatically younger audiences. But first, back to the college visit.

The trip this time was a 3-hour drive to a state with dramatically higher costs for gasoline, as well as a toll road to get there if you want to save about 15 to 20 minutes of time. As we were late getting out in the morning and had a hard stop of when we needed to get back, this was all part of my consideration set, because, well, every dollar we save is a dollar we've got to help with the college costs in a couple of years. And at this stage in my life, I just enjoy finding new ways to save money. It's a Dad Game, to be sure, but a game all the same.

Which meant that I bought just enough gas in the neighboring state to get back. Also, that we left in time on the trip back to take non-toll highways, which also allowed me to drive at more mileage-friendly speeds. When we did get back, I filled up at my local warehouse store, where the gas is a few cents cheaper and still good quality. That also gave me the chance to grab a handful of groceries that were also a deal. While also using the cashback credit card, which doesn't carry a balance, because, well, we're avoiding the finance charges. The warehouse store also has a cashback bonus, so we're kind of double-dipping on that. And so on, and so on. I stretch dollars now in ways that I never did when I was younger.

Which leads me to the point I wanted to make, and the one that has been an abiding mystery in many marketing and advertising circles. Namely, why is so much marketing fixated on younger and less demographically advantaged users, when the older folks are the ones, well, with the money?

In automotive advertising, it's particularly striking. The average new car buyer is in their early '40s. Up to then, most buy used or increasingly just avoid the expense. (Personally, I didn't buy a new car until that age as well.) So when you see ads for cars that are filled with millenials, it's something of a miss, but understandable from the standpoint of the prospects wanting to appear younger than they are, or building brand for the long term.

If you want to tell a nice story about this, it's because younger buyers are presumed to be highly impressionable, and you can more easily change their buying patterns. The not so nice story is that older consumers are, well, cheap, and aren't likely to adjust well to the new price levels for things; consider the not overwhelming cash you might have gotten in cards from your older relatives back in the day.

But for me, what it really comes down to is being able to say no to myself pretty easily, whether it's for drinking free office coffee over premium stuff, shifting to store brands over premiums, doing my due diligence for price checks, and so on, and so on.

Saying no to the kid, especially if she gets into a school that could have a dramatic impact on her future life and earning potential?

Well, being Dad means you can't always play the game you'd like to play...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.