Tweet
News Flash! 50 advertisers have pulled their ads from the Rush Limbaugh show. Updated list here.
Everyone wants to know, “What will happen next?” Some people want to know how to “fix the problem” (i.e. lost sponsors) others want to know, how can we make,”the problem” worse.
I am of the metaphorical mindset, “When your nemesis is drowning, throw him an anchor.”
There is, and will be, tremendous pressure to keep The Limbaugh Zeppelin afloat. Lots of people are scrambling to find the right words, strategy or actions to get back to the status quo. What might be surprising to some, but not to me, is that the MSM will help keep this gasbag in the air. Why? A few reasons:
1) The “They could do this to me!” fear. They might remember that Lou Dobbs is gone and Glenn Beck if off TV, not because of what they said, but because of “market forces.” The progressive left made those “market forces” happen by alerting advertisers and asking them to stop allowing these people to taint their brands.
2) Rush gives them the language for ideas that are easy to describe. One stop shopping for what “the Right” thinks. (His ability to articulate the worst impulses of the right and make them seem noble is a real talent.)
3) The MSM have to make sure to run, “Rush’s side of the story.” Rush is, of course, the real victim in all this. Their stories can cover ad experts to answer questions about the economic impact of this on Rush or Premier. Political experts to discuss the ramifications of this on the Presidential race. Social media experts on why this movement got traction vs others.
What they all know is that there is an entire community (LimbaughSphere?) that needs Rush to stay on the air.
One of the big questions that will be raised is, “How can Rush stay on the air without advertisers?”
Surprise! Rush doesn’t actually need advertisers. The people in the radio industry want and “need” that revenue stream, but not Rush. Like Glenn Beck while at Fox, he still has his contract if he has 2 or 200 advertisers. Additionally the people who want him to continue could subsidize him for months if not years if they want.
What people forget is that massive long term subsidies have propped up the Right and movement conservatism for years. Fox lost money for years. NewsCorp is so big and Murdoch’s control so strong he could hide the money losing ventures from shareholders, until they could pay off financially. Here is a link to me asking Rupert how long he will keep subsidizing Beck) In the mean time their subsidies was paying off in Right Wing messaging and political wins.
The expectation that directed messaging efforts should also make money is fairly new. The Right mocked liberal radio for “not making money” from the comfort of their money losing belief tank jobs.
When was the last year the Washington Times made money? Never. As of 2002 Moon and his businesses have plowed about $1.7 billion into subsidizing the Times, say current and former employees. (Story from the money losing Washington Post.)
Rush’s Brand is Now Bigger Than Sponsor’s Brands
What is different now is that Rush’s “brand values” have become more important than his consumer product sponsors’ brand values. His agenda has become more important than their needs. He will taint the advertiser’s brand rather than retreat from some horrific statements that advance his agenda.
This is huge problem for people who make money on Rush such a:
Radio stations, sales reps, and radio execs
Companies who get revenue sells products or services to his listeners
This is NOT a huge problem for folks who use Rush to push the movement conservative agenda. People like:
Koch, Scaife, Olin, Moon and others funding money losing papers, RW belief tanks like Heritage and American’s For Prosperity.
Brent Bozell of the non-revenue generating group, the Media Research Council who will use this as an opportunity to raise money on Rush the Victim. Of course that will be pennies vs. what he gets from his funders, Exxon, Scaife, Olin and other tax exempt right wing foundations.
However, one of the problems will be the perception problem. How do you explain keeping Rush on the air without commercial advertisers? They might admit that they support money losing shows all the time and admit that generating revenue was just a happy accident of the true goal of the show, making the extreme right’s views “normal”. Janeane Garofalo used to call it “Giving people permission to bring out their inner Archie Bunker.”)
I expect multiple methods will be deployed to change the subject from the financial consequences. I discussed some of them in my article here.
As various techniques are used I’d like to remind people of the insights that I developed when I created The Spocko Method. There will be a need to keep dogging the LimbaughSphere’s attempt to make this problem go away. I talk about some of this on Angie Corio’s In Deep Radio show, broadcast tonight, March 9, at 8:00 pm on KRXA in Monterey and March 10th broadcast in Washington D.C. at 10:00 AM on WPWC 1480 AM DC Progressive Talk Radio, @WeActRadio. Also you can listen to the Podcast of Mike Stark and I discussing this and Andrew Breitbart’s death and his impact on the media on Virtually Speaking.
If this article has become tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) you can go now.
Below is background for people who want to understand The Spocko Method and why it works vs. boycotts, appeals to the FCC or radio management. If you want to do a quick action you can go to my friends at FreePress, Media Matters or Credo who all have ways to act on this.
The Spocko Method
I learned a lot and and established a lot of principles during my early work on KSFO hosts, then advising Hate Hurts America on Michael Savage and Color of Change on Glenn Beck.
When I started my advertiser alert campaign in 2005-06 I did a lot of research on what worked and didn’t work when engaging the Right Wing media. Based on that research I determined that the leverage point was the station’s revenue stream. If you had great ratings with no advertisers, you are screwed. If they didn’t have a sugar daddy, they needed advertisers.
I looked at and discarded going to the FCC, like the Right did with Howard Stern. I looked at and discarded appealing to management since they could position themselves as, “supporters of free speech” even if they disagreed with it. Also, they easily could ignore efforts that weren’t widespread, since the audience who is offended doesn’t usually listen, therefore they didn’t really care what they thought.
My solution was to show the advertisers that the hosts of KSFO were tainting their brand. This involved finding email addresses and the right people to contact showing them the clips and letting them decide. Twitter and Facebook weren’t as pervasive as now.
My special perspective on this is a deep understanding of how to talk about the action and how to communicate to the corporations. My background is in helping companies and people tell their stories to the press, their investors and customers. I’ve media trained the top executives, founders and funders of major tech companies and consumer firms. I know what they care about. I work a lot with the marketing, PR and internal communications people.
Based on this I did some important things different.
I didn’t go to the FCC, they don’t care. (that is what the right did with Howard Stern, Brent Bozell’s Media Research Council is always happy to use Big Government to get what he wants).
Based on the liberal criticism of that action I made it clear I never wanted to silence people or get them fired. I just wanted them to be less profitable. If they modified what they said on the air or are let go because they have become unprofitable, well so be it. I explained this to other groups who then used them on Michael Savage and Glenn Beck.
Then there are some instructions I gave to my followers, basics like be polite, but also how to frame the request.
It’s NOT a boycott. Don’t write the sponsors and say, “I’m going to stop buying your product if you don’t do this.” That is a threat and advertisers don’t like to be threatened. Instead get them to see the disconnect between their own values, brand or policies and this person.
Get the corporations to see how the comments aren’t “in-line with their values.”
I did this by showing them their own policies on discrimination, violence or sexism. Then I linked them to the audio clip that aired right after the horrific comment. Imagine being Pro-Flowers after the, “women using birth control are sluts and prostitutes” comment. With KSFO they had HR companies advertising. I sent them links to sexist comments about Dana Perino and women they wanted to work in the office naked because they had “a great rack”.
Make it clear you aren’t trying to silence anyone. This is because that is censorship and there are people on the left who don’t want to have anything to do with any kind of censorship, even of someone like Rush.
They are the, ‘I’ll don’t like what they have to say, but I’ll defend to the death their right to say it.” people. They need to see that this a MARKET-based action, that way they don’t have to defend Rush under the 1st Amendment. It’s not about the host’s rights, it’s just business. The companies have a right to not advertise on a show. Nobody has a right to get rich saying horrible things.
Help the corporations explain why they are pulling their ads.
“You aren’t censoring him or silencing him. You are just removing your financial support because what he says doesn’t match with your brand image. Someone else who doesn’t have your good values can pay to be associated with him.” This information is then used by companies so that they can explain it to their customers and internal marketing people when they ask, “Why aren’t we advertising on the show with the highest ratings!” They can respond “Because, hating Muslims, gays, and vicious sexism isn’t what our company and brand are about.”
Keep your followers aware of how the other side will fight this and keep adjusting your messages to counter them.
So if they say, “Rush apologized!” point out all the other instances where he didn’t. “This is a pattern of behavior, not a one time thing. Do you want to be associated with him when he says the next horrific things?”
Avoid Media Boredom. As the campaign for Color of Change got boring to the media people wanted to “move on.” I suggested that they take the results to the next level. That was when I took it to the financial journalists and NewsCorp Institutional investors. That was a new and different story for the media. “What is the economic impact of advertisers leaving? Why was Murdoch still subsidizing him?”
(BTW that was the question I asked Murdoch during the May 2010 financial conference call. That pushed the story back into the news and got Murdoch to comment on it, which the media needed to quote on the issue.)
Prepare for Dishonest Reframing and Strawmen
You will see that in the response to defend Rush they create strawmen. “They want to silence Rush! They want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine!” But since I was very careful to never talk about firing them or bringing back the Fairness Doctrine I could easily show that this was a lie.
I think the advertisers should have a choice, and they should be able to work within the market to decide if they want to make this purchase. When they pull their ads they aren’t censoring anyone, just making him less rich, nothing wrong with that.
This is how the free market is supposed to work, but the right actually wants a monopoly. They don’t want to give companies a choice, especially if , through media consolidation, they make their guy the only game in town.
Keep up the good work everyone!
LLAP,
Spocko
Cross posted at Spocko’s Brain.
@spockosbrain follow me around on twitter
54 Comments
I know this post is super long, but I didn’t want to assume people knew the background. I’ll condense 5 years of work into 140 Characters next time.
tweeted and recommended spocko
Thanks for this, Spocko! Really helpful.
Spocko!
And we don’t need no stinkin’ Rush.
I understand your mission but I don’t agree with you. I don’t like rush limbaugh, but I think he should be allowed to espouse his views. Why isn’t your passion devoted to the signing of the NDAA by obama? This is more dangerous to the American people than anything rush limbaugh has to say.
Framing instruction #1:
Amen.
“Gosh, I love your company, so I was surprised to see . . .”
“I always thought your company stood for X, but then I heard/saw . . .”
The combination of “I love you because” and what the person in question is doing/saying is the key to getting through to advertisers.
Don’t apologize for the length, spocko. It’s tasty stuff, from top to bottom.
Spocko isn’t saying Rush shouldn’t be allowed to espouse his views.
He’s simply saying that advertisers who want to piggy back on those views need to realize that they are aligning themselves with racism, sexism, homophobia, and general idiocy.
“If that’s the target audience for your ads, feel free to keep advertising there. But if you’re looking to reach people who believe in the dignity of all their neighbors, not just those who look and act like they do, you might want to rethink your advertising strategery.”
Make it your mission. Be as effective as Spocko and let him walk his own path.
Spocko, thank you. Brilliant work!
Thank you Peterr. Very well said.
I realize that people don’t like to read more than 140 characters these days, but I did say
I used to say, when I was accused of trying to silence Melanie Morgan, Lee Rodgers or Brian Sussman free speech that 1) It was MY speech that was silenced by KSFO/ABC/Disney when they shut down my blog with a bogus copyright infringement case.
2) They were free to say what they want (with in the boundries of the already regulated broadcast radio market) but that advertisers were also free to not pay for that speech.
As for what I devote my passion to? A reporter from the local paper asked me that the other day. “Why do you do this?”
I thought about that for a minute. Then I answered.
Right wing talk radio is one of the most devisive and corrosive form of communication in America today. At a time when we, as a country need to pull together, these people’s job is to pull us apart.
Rush is gifted with his ability to turn one group of people against another, finding the ways we are different than we are the same.
How many times have you heard, “The country is more devided now than ever! Who is spending billions of dollars to keep that conflict going? The Right wing Noise machine, of which Rush is a keep part.
When I started this I focused on Brian Sussman, Lee Rodger and Melaine Morgan. I was told that they were “tiny fish” and “no-body listens to them anyway.” but they allows me to hone the principles and then teach them to others.
Rush, (and Hannity, O’Rielly and Beck and the lesser lights) are profoundly powerful in our “national discussion” because they have turned it into a war. (Newt Gingrich had a lot to do with starting this war). But for a long time it looked like only one side was participating. They liked attacking, they enjoyed, “sticking it to the liberals.” And that joy of bullying and belittingly carried over to people like my relatives in the midwest. Who want to bait me with things that they learned from Rush. They would be disappointed when I didn’t want to “play” the game.
As time when on it became harder and harder to have a conversation about things that we shared because I (the liberal in San Francisco) had been demonized. I was trying to “destroy the country” because I “hated America” when really I loved the country and wanted to build the country.
That is why Limbaugh is dangerous to our country.
In the world of propganda that I’ve studied I often wondered what were the circumstances that could lead to the downfall of people like Fr. Coughlin, McCarthy and others. Circumstances vary depending on the person and the times. Rush has been “untouchable” for a long time because he weilds so much power over the people who depend on his support, but as I said, finally he got bigger than his sponsors.
Once we had an appropriate issue to give them an excuse to wall away from him, we acted.
This might not diminish Rush’s power, but it does diminish his aura of “untouchableness” Rush could have turned this around or stopped it, but he didn’t. Partly because he knew his core audience of listeners would think less of him if he did back down. Now he has apologized, not once but twice. He has lost status in the eyes of his core listeners, and will become the vicitm. They get to see themselves as “under attack” and will either “double down” and.or strike back.
The Right is loyal. They might do something stupid like attack the sponsores, but fortunately there is a critical mass of advertisers so that one or two won’t get singled out. What they might to is rally aound a sponosor that comes on board. “Goldline! Viagra pills! Belief Tanks, The NRA!”
Rush is still going to be able to espose his views, but the people who have been making money off of him won’t be as rich as before. Since they are loyal they might just eat the losses for months or until they can get a sugardaddy to “stand with rush” Luckily they are private companies. If they were public their shareholders could ask ,”How long are you going to subsidise this money losing program?” They won’t care about the millions he had earned them before. They won’t care about the political futures he created and destroyed. Their purest goal, “Return on Shareholder value” this quarter would force them to act. That would be the free market way. However we know that they don’t really want nor have a free market. They should have to eat the losses. Will they? Sure for awhile, but you can bet they are trying to figure out how to get a government bail out or a rich billionaire company bailout untill Advertiser can be given a reason to return.
If I was working with advertisers I would be looking for companies that can ignore the will of customers or are actively hostile to women and liberals. But I’m not.
“How do you explain keeping Rush on the air without commercial advertisers?”
I guess they’ll have to cross that bridge when they come to it, huh? I wouldn’t advise holding your breath, though….
As an American that saw our once Great Nation rise from the ashes of the Great depression to become the most respected, prosporus and lender Nation to ever exist, only to fall again to the greedy bastards; I want to thank Rush Limbaugh and his pawns the evangelicals for giving us the oppertunity to discuss the devastating effects the evangelicals have had on my Children. The fact is my time on Gods Earth is running out.
Superb post.
It is so simple and so true: Frame it as a business decision, a choice that sponsors are making in the best interests of their company in order to protect their brand. Because that is exactly what it is.
I’ve heard a bit of rumbling on the left about “censorship” and people being “uncomfortable with boycotts”. But letting companies know that you, one of their customers, are seeing a big disconnect between their corporate policy–their BRAND–and this misogynistic, racist, hurtful man who uses his fame and microphone to attack private citizens for days on end? That’s not censorship: it’s PR housekeeping, and all strong companies with strong brands must do it or perish. When the gap between what a company says it stands for and what it actually stands for grows too large, the company loses its customers’ trust and loyalty, one offended and disgusted shopper at a time.
Thought this was relevant: Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.”
Well said litbit and thanks Spocko, it’s all about Branding and this hurts corp. Brand
Winnah!
Beyond 140 characters my attention begins to drift :-)
Thanks for the excellent post.
Rush lost $30 million a year growing to $50 million a year as the rich right pushed him on us – but now he has ads and indeed his program does now sell a few commercials within the tape. For a long while it was all hemorrhoids and other old person body functions – but those new national brand commercials dropping out means we may go back to the “18,000″ folks that want to advertise a cream for the old on his show. Indeed in the last few days the internal ad space has been dead air on occasion – can’t even get hemorrhoid cream ad! :-)
This is tremendous information. Thank you for sharing all that you’ve learned, Spocko.
You said it powerfully, but I’d like to underscore what will be an important thing to focus on in the future – putting out the question of why Limbaugh is being subsidized. (And you’re right, he *will* be subsidized)
It’s a short message and can have traction – it can make people wonder and ask lots of questions for themselves.
Maybe the thing to do, Spocko, is to extend your thinking a few more chessmoves ahead. What, in your opinion, is a good response to the use of dummy companies for the sole purpose of “advertising” on Limbaugh’s program in a way that doesn’t look like subsidy?
I’m so glad to see this written out so clearly. You’re a very effective communicator, and you don’t have a mean bone in your body. I think that really helps in your efforts to sway advertisers and readers. And it is so refreshing to read.
if you are counting add revenue rush lost money for clear channel for quite some time, he was pretty reviled and sponsors ran from him
but that didn’t matter, rush was a walking republican campaign, he promoted candidates and ideas and even without add revenue he was cheaper and more effective then any other dollar on the return
for instance, he is the person that single handedly got reagan re-elected, reagan was hated and it did not look possible he could win, then rush took the reigns and now somehow reagan is their standard barer
the right wing will do whatever it takes keeping him on the air
Great post Spocko!!
Expect the Koch brothers to keep him afloat with monthy stipends.
Another good question: Will the sponsors’ sudden come-to-Jesus moment extend downward to second- and lower-tier right-wing talkers, many of whom are even more boorish than Limbaugh?
El Rushbo is the tip of a really, really big iceberg.
Rush is only one prong of a mult-pronged assault on our country by those who wrap themselves in OUR flag and cry the Libs made me do it. Great post, and an even better strategy to lower the “volume of hate”. We are in the grip of some sort of religious spasm, which seems to be the fallback position of the right. Attacking the money stream is but one tactic to use. The “left” needs to come to grips with the fact that we, as a country, are under attack, not from the middle east, or Cuba, or any foe the right fears, but from those who would like to see our President fail, those who want to destroy the very system that gave them the freedom to do so. Grover? The Kochs? These are the real enemies of the People. Sit back and look at the “Big Picture”. As you look around, the states where the republicans hold sway, there is a co-ordinated effort to advance the ALEC agenda. Why do you think the Kochs have sponsored these secret confabs with the SCOTUS, selected republican leaders, business leaders, and religious leaders. I’m rambling…sorry.
Americablog has a list of current Rush sponsors — and those who have dropped him.
Also: some links to the companies still siding with Rush.
What a hoot.
So far you all have managed to shine a light on the misogyny of Bill Maher, Matthews, Louie CK, Olbermann, Schultz, and Taibbi. Leading lefty lights and closet misanthropes. That is truly a clown car in search of integrity.
Considering that the left’s message revolves around different ways to say “gimmmeee!” the right isn’t too worried about wastrels threatening to withhold their pennies.
Excellent, excellent question. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
I have been thinking about it for some time.
The goal of foundations and belief tanks is to move forward the RW agenda. Often of the, lower taxes, no regulation, spend money on big government so their clients get the money.
So, groups like Crossroads GPS, SuperPACs, and Heritage Foundation, AEI will fund him.
I don’t think that they will have a problem funding Rush, but will the media reporting on it care?
So when he gets new advertisers from these groups all our “experts” should be pointing out,
These groups, by publicly supporting Rush are showing they are anti-women.
And ask the question, who is funding them? Koch, anti-women, Rove, anti women, Olin, etc.
There no equaliant to Heritage on the Left. And Heritage plus, AEI and AFP etc,etc blow CAP out of the water. So what do THEY want? Then, the next move on our part could be, “How do you have an impact on the belief tanks?”
We see how the Heartland people responded when they were exposed. You do not mess around with these people casually, they will attack you and make themselves the victims.
What you might do is make the belief tanks funders upset at them.
How? Ironically by showing the funders they are liberal! For example show the funders that instead of pushing the conserative adgenda, show they are using the money for surfing porn, buying wasteful items, lying on expense reports, cheatingt on taxes, buying sex, or saying liberal things.
Focus on what would upset Dave Koch, and Sarah Scaife. Not what would upset you. Then make sure Scaife and Koch are aware of their actions.
Spocko,
Thanks for the tips. I told Select Comfort that we were customers and were planning on buying a new mattress by the end of the year, but wouldn’t buy from a company that advertised on a show that contributed to the disfunction we have in our government right now. With your tips, I’ll work on my framing.
I’m really tired of a political party willing to destroy America, because they want power. If they would did something besides start wars and ship jobs overseas, I wouldn’t mind so much.
That’s actually what the link at 14 above is about.
Thanks for the comment Shooter42! Miss you from Digby’s blog. How are you?
How’s work going?
Have you seen the new Movie John Carter? I heard it might be a flop, but I loves Taylor Kitch in Friday night lights. The best SF show I saw recently was “Black Mirror” out of the UK on Channel 4. Did you see it? It’s really profound but disturbing.
Right now Mrs. Spocko and I are watching The Enemy inside. It’s about the “Total Information Awareness” program in the UK. Chilling, but interesting.
Have you seen it? It stars the guy who was in Sherlock. (not RDJ, but Cumberbatch)
Pretty good so far.
I don’t notice that his name is misspelled!
It’s going to be much harder to go after the junior-varsity talkers, especially ones with local ties. Case in point: Frank Beckmann, who’s part of the WJR right-wing lineup. Frank has local ties (born and raised in the Detroit area), and has been a respected play-by-play sports broadcaster. Beckmann also writes a column for the Detroit News, which has staked out a position on the very edge of the visible political spectrum.
I’m really tired of a political party willing to destroy America, because they want power. If they would did something besides start wars and ship jobs overseas, I wouldn’t mind so much.
Don’t sell the Republicans so short. They also want to micromanage your sex life.
From Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/10/442048/breaking-98-major-advertisers-dump-rush-limbaugh/
The Rats are abandoning the ship that is Limpdick and other Bloviating RW hate programs…Seems the companies that want to sell their products are seeing just what can happen to their sales if they support these Hate Mongers
Well if Mann Coulter can become a best-selling author without actually selling any books to people who read them (as opposed to special interest groups buying boxloads of them and storing them, unread, in warehouses) then Rush can stay on the radio without advertisers and, as we now know, without many listeners at all.
His numbers are made up and so is his fame.
That’s a good point, a local figure would be a lot harder to ramp up a social media campaign against. But if this article is any indication, such campaigns may become unnecessary:
My take (from further reading) is that the clients want to avoid controversy generally, not just specified hosts. We’ll have to see how this goes, may be a temporary blip or a real trend.
“Mean-spirited” describes Beckmann to a T. When he hosted a sports call-in show, he was a notorious “house man,” i.e., someone who always took the side of management of local teams. And he was mean to the point of bullying when people called the show to criticize.
Posts like this are why FDL is my site of choice. Outstanding work!
Thanks! I’m pleased when they feature my writing and work, there are so many great writers, thinkers, journalists and activists to choose from.
I’m glad you liked it, I’ll give my little plug to FDL member ship. I’m a charter member.
Suzanne at LLN is where I hang out, (plus Digby, my blog, First draft and Atrios) but FDL editors make me feel valued and welcome.
Hmm. Something tells me that someone doesn’t know the difference between “misogyny” and “misanthropy”.
Overused metaphor alert!!
You channeling the banksters, or the defense contractors?
-stewartm
Hi Spocko,
This blog reminds me of a similar blog, on OpenLeft, by David Sirota.
The gist is that rich conservatives prop up right-wing propaganda sites even when the lose money, as they see that they will recoup that money and power by moving the political process rightward. Rich liberal donors have no such incentive, and many aren’t terribly “liberal” at all. Oh, they might advocate some facets of the progressive agenda, such as environmental issues or gay rights. Some might even argue for a return of Clinton-era tax rates or a financial transaction tax. But argue for fundamental economic changes for a system that they have prospered under? Argue for a return of the 90 % tax rate or an end of corporate personhood? Ain’t gonna happen.
There is value in what you propose. By stripping the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Savages of their corporate sponsorship, then when they remain on the air (which they will) you effectively expose the right’s agenda (enacted starting in the 1970s) to erect and maintain a propaganda mill for billionaires–not only talk show hosts, but “belief tanks” created to promote right-wing economic and social ideology that couldn’t pass muster in academia. You expose these as paid shills.
-stewartm
I think this is a great approach. Nobody is saying Rush can’t say what he wants. It’s just that we don’t need to give him implicit approval for what he says. Let’s keep giving Rush more rope. He’s quite capable of hanging himself.
Hey, if you can stop corps from “accidentally” misinforming people, more power to you. Don’t agree that turning their externalities into image liabilities is an example of the workings of the free-market. Perhaps it pays in the spocko brand but I don’t imagine you do this solely for brand value. I also can’t imagine that the effort it takes to make the idealized free-market work doesn’t contain a lot of subsidy.
Making the free market work is a clever story, but perception management is used without conscience. Rather, it’s used with the artificial conscience of powerful and privileged organizations. At one time, free market managed brands might have been plausible but the fundamental schism between organization for profit and organization for welfare was always a reason to doubt it. Moreover, as growth becomes more and more concentrated, the necessary divorce from conscience becomes more acute.
Yours is an amusing and entertaining mission despite my inability to believe in it.
I suspect that the maintenance of propaganda mills will not be so hard as their erection.
Tmannanytiger,
True, it isn’t just sex life. They only believe in religious freedom if it means their religion is the only one.
Why do I when I think of the Republican Party’s abusive attitude toward American women do I keep thinking of an abusive relationship?
I don’t believe abusive Republicans bringing American women flowers and a box of chocolate is going to make American women feel any less abused or forget the abuse any time soon that Republicans have heaped upon them for years.
Hopefully, a whole lot of freedom-loving sick-of-being-abused American women will say enough is enough and divorce the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and a whole lot of American men, brothers, fathers, sons of abused American women, their sisters, their daughters, their mothers even, will similarly divorce the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and all those supportive of the abusive, misogynist American Taliban.
Oh wait, the Republicans aren’t even thinking of flowers and a box of chocolates as a peace offering. They’re too busy flailing around with their rhetorical fists and vaginal probes, heaping even more abuses of American women upon the pile they’ve already heaped. Divorce them America. Divorce them all advertisers (or at least those that don’t like seeing American women abused, don’t like to see their money paying for this abuse).
Note: I seem to recollect the word “abuses” being used in our nation’s founding documents in relation to the abuses heaped upon the colonies by the British monarchy, and America divorcing itself from the British and its abusive tyranny. And going further back, we have the Pilgrims fleeing from the abuses, religious and political, of the Old World. All of which for some reason made me think of Dylan’s and Hendrix’s “All Along the Watchtower.”
Hey Spocko!
CPM here…I love this approach. And for those who say it doesn’t work, note the recent actions by Apple in light of various revelations about working conditions in China….they have taken action to clean up the situation over there, FoxConn has provided raises to employees, etc. (I know none of this is enough in the scheme of things, but it is tangible action on Apple’s part.)
Why would Apple do this? Because people won’t buy their products? Of course not. Apple is concerned about the effects of damaging revelations on their brand, which is a very powerful motivator for a company like Apple. They do NOT want to be “Sweatshop Apple” or otherwise linked to damaging conditions in the minds of both current and future consumers.
Other companies, I’m sure, have the very same concerns for their brands. Never forget, that to a company, people are “consumers” – not members of identity politics.
Keep up the good work S!
Interesting, I like it. You’re right, what I’m describing is too complicated and unsexy for the media to get interested. And too non-sound-bitey to get much notice from the general public.
But getting the masters angry with their wayward dogs, that’s a good possibility.
The only thought I have is seeing where these “companies” are incorporated and getting their state revenue departments interested in why they have resources that might be taxable, but no visible receipts or other legitimate-appearing income (other than think-tank money). Turn the local taxman loose on them.
I. Don’t. CARE!
Magnificent work. You have brilliantly analyzed the system and found the weak point, cash flow. You have implemented the Ju-Jitsu of political action. The best part is that the whole strategy can be revealed, and probably the right wing can do nothing about it. Playing victim will only work for so long.
The most effective conservative mouthpieces will undoubtedly find fat-cat backing, but the veneer of legitimacy provided by corporate sponsors will be gone.
The thing I find most amazing is that if Limbaugh had never mentioned Sandra Fluke’s name, never launched on his attack of her, she would have come an gone. She would have been forgotten in a day, and he would have been smashing and crashing as before. Now, due to his unfettered mouth, she is a celebrity and he is a goon.
May your methods become more widely known and utilized.
Yes, but I’ve been told that they could have manufactured the iPhone in the US for a 50 %(!!) profit. Yet they shipped these jobs to China, and Foxconn’s horrors just add to that.
What’s worse, and what we really should be concerned about, is the attack on our “right to root” that Apple has been at the forefront of been spearheading. Computing devices which by default are sold locked-down against access by their nominal owners aren’t the kind of devices that citizens of a democracy should use (IMHO).
-stewartm
Stewartm – I agree with your points. The stories about CHinese labor made me even gladder to not be an acolyte of Mr. Jobs and his “wonderful” products….
However, my point is that when confronted with these abuses, a company like Apple doesn’t need the threat of boycott – it just needs the threat of brand damage to get it moving in the right direction. Baby steps, I know.
And, yes, I believe A LOT of electronic stuff could be made right here in America – but then the 1%ers wouldn’t be making a gazillion dollars a minute by a more compliant workforce.
Thanks for this great post, Spocko.
After receiving several Dump Rush petitions, I replied to Moveon.org:
“Thanks, but no thanks.
Limbaugh and Clear Channel must continue their vitriol until the whole country finally gets what the Republicans really stand for. We want Rush to bury himself, and become Clear Channel’s $400 million albatross with no advertising revenue. Then, Bain Capital can pay for their sewermouthpiece, exclusively. This is much more effective than trying to limit his speech. The more unconscionable and despicable he is day after day, the better.”
Rush will never face his Joseph Welch moment because the question, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” exists in the world of accountability, not the alternative reality in which Limbaugh thrives.
Limbaugh is the brain cancer of Lee Atwater writ large on the American body politic.
Well, I am thinking of the recent talk by Corey Doctorow–”Lockdown: the Coming War against General Computing”. One of the most insidious attacks on human freedom is occurring beneath the radar screen, in the construction and selling of computers (IPhones, IPads) which are sold locked-down against modification by their nominal owners. Locked-down computing is totalitarian computing, and Apple has always been the biggest proponent of that (Microsoft would love to do it too, but has been prevented by anti-trust action and the threat that a significant portion of their user base would move to Linux).
-stewartm