The Secret Memo to Derail Financial Reform
A reader pointed me to Joe Weisenthal’s Business Insider article based on a HuffPo piece that was itself based on a secret memo by Frank Luntz designed to kill any regulatory reform of Wall Street.
Luntz is the political consultant and pollster who has figured out precisely how to speak to the American public. He extensively uses focus groups and interviews to “find the right words and phrases” to influence political debate. He is a student of Orwell’s Essay On Language, taking the writers warnings against mass manipulations and using them to, well, mass manipulate:
“To be ‘Orwellian’ is to speak with absolute clarity, to be succinct, to explain what the event is, to talk about what triggers something happening… and to do so without any pejorative whatsoever.” (NPR)
Luntz has been a key factor in the debate on Global Warming (he renamed it “Climate Change”), oil drilling (new name: “energy exploration”) Health Care, and now Financial Reform.
Have a read of his memo designed to defeat the reform of TBTF Banks and Wall Street, and see for yourself if he is an evil genius or not . . .
>
See also:
The Secret Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reform
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/the-secret-memo-to-kill-financial-regulatory-reform/
REVEALED: The Secret GOP Playbook For Killing Financial Reform
Joe Weisenthal | Feb. 3, 2010, 6:43 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/frank-luntz-guide-to-killing-financial-reform-2010-2
Frank Luntz Pens Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reform
HuffPo, 02- 1-10 10:37 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/01/frank-luntz-pens-memo-to_n_444332.html
Frank Luntz Explains ‘Words That Work’
NPR, January 9, 2007
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6761960
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
February 4th, 2010 at 7:31 am
I actually like the guy and think he is smart, although, I’m probably one of the view who knows exactly what he is doing and why it works. Having said that, he’s a dyed in the wool republican thus he believes he is doing good versus me who see’s it as propoganda. Face it, repubs are excellent at it, dems not at all because generally dems as a whole are diverse, hearding cats, yet, for the most part fairness is pretty key to most of them, thus, they fail at this political football.
The only way too combat propoganda is to unequivocably state facts versus opinions, which is franks key in trade. Now, the problem is you gotta get the correct facts, the once that influence the most, the ones you unequivocably believe ( repulbs have no problem lying, dems mostly not ) and then you have too say them all the time till you are blue in the face, and then take a deep breath and do it again.
ie, my strong voice belief
right now, i’m really digging mish’s site, all about states problems in one click, good article, yet, he always hits it up with facts
on a side note, dylan ratigan needs better facts and a plan on how too trump with those facts, personalizing facts tend to come closest, also thus must be easily digestable to an average 12 year old
February 4th, 2010 at 7:41 am
He is now, in my opinion, one of the most powerful men in this country. Read that memo. If you care at all about financial reform, it will send shivers down your spine.
I’ve been predicting this since it became apparent that healthcare reform was going down. I knew they were going to use the same strategy to kill almost anything else meaningful that Democrats would do.
@torrie-amos
I couldn’t agree more with your comment. When I hear GOP on the TV, they all hit the same talking points that Luntz probably sends them every morning. They all continue to beat those same talking points to death (e.g., “government takeover of healthcare”) and they are very effective. When I hear Democrats on TV, they just sound like incoherent college professors.
I was encouraged by one thing though recently. That talk that Obama gave at the GOP retreat was a perfect way of how to defeat talking points. If you haven’t seen it yet, you have to see it. It’s GOP congressmen spouting talking points written by Frank Luntz and Obama just taking each “question” and just murdering them. You rip talking point lies apart unequivocally with FACTS that are CLEARLY and CONCISELY stated. You don’t bloviate for 2 minutes and say nothing which is what most liberals do.
February 4th, 2010 at 7:44 am
Btw, I would recommend buying banks around the time that financial reform has its up or down vote moment. When financial reform fails, banks will rally just like health insurance companies did when Scott Brown won.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:04 am
It’s incredible what I’ve read above about TheBamster who is looked upon favorably but is one of the most blatant liars to occupy the throne since Clinton, Hillary, and Bush.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:07 am
The key question directed by Luntz in this memo to ordinary people was:
Which of the following, if true, would concern you most about a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (“CFPA”)?
In which case, people were given prepackaged answers.
From which, the most common answer was basically “how much it will cost.” Fair enough. I think that most people would have the same “concern” about local police and fire protection. Or schools. Or any number of necessary government programs.
What Luntz is doing is turning legitimate concerns about police protection against the public that needs it. A CFPA program — in lawyer speak — is an extension of the Constitution’s police powers. It creates “cops on the beat” of Wall Street and banking to make sure that the owners of these institutions don’t cheat their customers out of their hard-earned money.
You may not like the fact that police protection costs money, but it is a form of “loss mitigation” — which is something the general public doesn’t understand too well. It is precisely this lack of understanding that is being used against Joe Sixpack’s interests (and he is then made to feel good about his own opposition to policies that would ultimately benefit him).
It is truly sociopathic to manipulate public opinion in this way.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Mach,
Oh I saw it, I liked it, actually had some hope. Yet, now Axlerod says it won’t happen again. The first time a real conversation happens and no one wants to do it again.
I’m not so positive right now, what I’m hearing with more frequency is this line, “What the EXPERTS SAY” , when people start to use that phrase it’s a 100% cop-out, both sides have picked up on it, yet, Obama is starting to use it more……………..F experts I say…………I’ve dealt with so many incompetent ones it gags me………….Now, that knowledge has been commoditized, a decensation is taking place and few take the time too question things in general………….Once you understand what the subject is there is usually only a few things that have prime infuence over whatever the problem is………….
I have been looking at small/regional banks…………I actually had my largest stake in 2 years in bio-tech drugs which i let go at peak before the pullback, lol, now of course my hodlings, gild, genz, biib, all made it thru uscathed and rallied significatnly, i saw it more as a ten year cycle in bio, plus, safety, i blew out before earnings, i’m not too trusting right now, lol
February 4th, 2010 at 8:18 am
fwiw, luntz doesn’t need focus groups, all you need to do is with the use of language get the brain too connect event x with catstrophe y, so al u need is either a recent emotional y, or a significant historical y that is common too all…………obviously you can chop up x any way you want all the time
February 4th, 2010 at 8:19 am
It is high time that the facts be spoken and understood concerning the Repubs systemic manipulative tactics meant to deceive the very people who would be hurt the most by adapting their ‘talking point’, overly simplistic, agenda. They are able to make issues appear simple and thus their minimalist approaches appear to make sense… the only problem is that the issues are not simple.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:26 am
I don’t see the “evil” connection to “kill” “good” bank regulatory reform. I do see a detailed game plan for “killing” “bad” bank regulatory reform. I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Where is the proof that this is a plan of attack, a Republican blueprint, to kill the reform? This could just as well be a blueprint for the Democrats to kill any meaningful reform. They are the ones in power and most likely to benefit from this “scheme”, if you see it that way.
I’m for “reform”, but as a “Joe Sixpack” I couldn’t tell you what that means in detail. I read the blogs but I’m not in the business. I’ve seen several lists of “THE THINGS WE MUST DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM”, but I can’t imagine that a lefty or righty-only solution will truly fix the problem. It has to be a no-shit bipartisan approach to fix the problem. If it’s a bipartisan approach to keep the status quo then we are really screwed.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:26 am
imho, healtchcare went down because of obama, not the rebuplicans
tackling healthcare was like discussing the best insulation to use for your house when the roof is leaking
one weekend for tarp, 18 months no financial reform, everyone gets that, everyone
a major stupid tactical blunder because of common expert thinking in politics, oh my political capital will never be higher, when do i spend it on what
it failed when it became common knowledge votes were being bought and paid for
February 4th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Barry, this is tremendous. Agree with the comments above that the GOP’s main value is party discipline whereas the DEM’s value Truth. The rhetorical judo move that counters assertions of “Truth” every time is Pontius Pilate’s classic question to the J-Man: But what is “Truth”? Educated Romans knew their rhetoric.
Obama is in a bind. The GOP is maneuvering him into a position of complete ownership of the present situation. Bringing up Bush is ducking responsibility and/or the Blame Game. So pointing out the gutting of SEC and other regulatory agencies under Bush, the indefinite delays on the promulgation of new regulations in a special office overseen by Cheney.
A lot of people don’t understand that drafting regulations is typically the responsibility of government agencies. Regulations are “where the rubber meets the road” implementing a much broader congressional statutory mandate. Regulations are constantly updated and tweaked. Bottlenecking that process creates a situation in which the Code of Federal Regulations contains many cross references to sections that were repealed more than 10 years ago. It’s a freaking mess.
But for all intents and purposes, these regulations carry the force of law. So the problem is twofold: (1) under-enforcement (deliberate or through under-staffing/incompetence) of existing regulations, and (2) inadequately fleshed out regulations to govern agency oversight activities.
To Luntz’s talking point about “Washington Bureaucrats”: they don’t do a damn thing the governing laws, regulations, and their politically appointed superiors don’t tell them to do.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:34 am
s/b:
So pointing out the gutting of SEC and other regulatory agencies under Bush, the indefinite delays on the promulgation of new regulations in a special office overseen by Cheney is a non-starter if the GOP has its way setting the terms of discourse.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Transor,
one of my hot buttons, imho, the dems should be jamming that down the republicans throats, bush cut the budget of all govt. regulators by some obscne amount like 50%, now whereas that is bad enough, how do employee’s react when that happens, they all keep there mouth shut and do nothing too rankle anyone for fear of losing there jobs, thus it had a magnifying effect, although one should just tag it too police decrease crime rises
February 4th, 2010 at 8:56 am
The Dems would be smart to let the Republicans retake the reins of government — proving once and for all exactly how useless and dangerous they are to the general security and prosperity of the citizenry. The Dems should also adopt the Talking Point strategy the Republicans have used so effectively: don’t make any cogent points — just point the finger and constantly hammer away at the culpability of those “in charge.” Not that it would make much difference in the end game (the Republic is already dead), but it would pretty much guarantee that those responsible for all of the fuckery committed in this country over the past 40 years would face the ultimate rage of the citizen-bag-holder.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Re Obama’s appearance at the Repub retreat, Rep. Paul Ryan did a pretty effective takedown of Obama on the budget question. He refuted Obama’s answer, Obama tried to come back, and then essentially gave up, saying something like — We’ll have to have a more extensive debate on the budget later. In other words, Obama had no answer on one of the most important issues that he’s dealing with. It was nothing short of shocking, since Obama’s aides try to sell him as the most informed person in the room no matter what the meeting is about. And against Ryan he had the deer in the headlights look.
@ Transor, Dems valuing truth is laughable. Did Obama tell the truth during the campaign when he slammed McCain’s proposals on health care then adopted them as President? Did Obama tell the truth when he promised — numerous times — that all health care meetings would be on C-Span? Was he being truthful when he tried to claim that congressional hearings re health care that were on C-Span fulfilled that promise? If so, since such hearings are broadcast anyhow, I guess that means his promise was empty. Which would itself be a deception.
And would you count crooks like Rangel and Murtha as truth-telling Dems?
As far as Repubs having party discipline, did they have discipline when they rejected Bush’s proposal for comprehensive immigration reform? How about when they deserted him on reform of Social Security?
Seems to me the facts paint a very different picture.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Clarification:
The Dems would be smart to let the Republicans retake the reins of government — proving once and for all exactly how useless and dangerous they (the Republicans) are to the general security and prosperity of the citizenry.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:59 am
At this point, I doubt it matters one way or the other.
With the help of traitors in our government, China has conquered the United States without firing a shot, and they got us to pay them to do it. First they steal our manufacturing base, then with government mandated “free trade” they had a captive customer base to get it off the ground. Throw in millions of poor, uneducated “undocumented immigrants” to mop up what remained of our economy, and voila!
Detroit is the future of a country in economic and social ruin, conquered and destroyed.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:02 am
interesting developement, Chanos has been on a campaign for a month now, if you follow him each time he let’s out one more morself of the china bear case, today he hit on commercial real estate being built, it was un-mutha-f’n unimaginagle coming from a construction background
February 4th, 2010 at 9:02 am
alex in cambridge:
Make no mistake: The “Republicans” or “Conservatives” (or whatever the hell they are calling themselves nowadays) drove this country into the ground. The Dems aren’t perfect, or even good, but only an intellectually dishonest or blitheringly stupid observer would try to equate the methods, motivations and results of the governance of each party.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am
We didn’t strike while the iron was hot to get financial reform and now the big banks have been pulled back from the brink and have fine tuned their manipulation of the US gummint and we will keep going thru cycles of private profit, public expense until the currency or economy totally melts down (which might be a lot closer than we think). the Fed is the servant of the big banks and Geithner is one of their tools and O’bama has been coopted by them into largely continuing the Bush policies that brought us to the point of crisis.
O’B will be a 1 term Prez being blamed for the incredible deficits and high unemployment that TeamBush put en train.
I think the TBTF banks will continue the process of transferring their bad loans to the various GSE as the mortgage crisis reaches it’s crescendo in the next couple years and then buy back the foreclosed properties from the US and then turn them into cash rental cows – maybe with a rent with an option to buy scheme.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am
I read the report. And it didn’t make a lot of sense. The whole argument is don’t regulate Wall Street because Government is ineffective and wasteful. To which I say “True, but fuck Wall Street” I want to see them regulated so heavily that they have to get permission before they can order pencils.
The anger at Wall Street is so profound that the “Government is Worse” message just isn’t going to work.
Luntz’s message is predicated on the notion that I still value Wall Street and want to see them succeed. I don’t.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:14 am
To be Orwellian is also to speak your mind, not say what they want to hear.
This is not news really, Obama is very good at it too, talking that is… bla bla bla bi-partisanship my ass.
“L’etat, c’est moi” now shut the hell up.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:18 am
@alex:
GOP members stay “on message” way better than the DEMs do. That’s just a fact.
Where exactly in my earlier comment did I say the DEMs were honest?
February 4th, 2010 at 9:21 am
So the backroom strategists use the tools of marketing/PR to advance their client’s agenda. Meanwhile those who oppose that agenda use similar tactics including pulling the curtain up on their opponents tactics. There is nothing new here. Both Republicans and Dems use the services of marketing mercenaries to advance whatever cause, as do the special interests. In all cases it is about manipulating public opinion.
In this specific situation the HuffPo crowd are using this to take a jab at their Republican opponents, yet this same marketing mercenary helped to promote the mostly left of center Climate Change agenda.
The sad reality is that politics is marketing and while Luntz is a tactical genius, so too is Axelrod , David Plouffe etc. Consider the tactics of character assassination that define most political campaigns or the almost $1b that the Obama campaign spent to get elected. The expansion of K Street, the vitriol of political blogs, the bias of Fox news, the bias of MSNBC. It’s all about marketing and manipulation of the population.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Colbert has been all over the Republican talking points thing for years. He often plays short clips about the same subject of four or five Republicans using the exact same language and saying the exact same thing, whether it be about WMDs, health care, budget deficits or what ever. They spout the exact same words. I knew this uniform parroting had to be generated from some central source. If Colbert knows the source he never brought it up that I have heard.
It is amazing how effective this is. During the build up to the invasion of Iraq, I recall that 78% of the people thought IRaq was behind 911. Same techniques were used.
Goering had it right:
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
If it works to lead people into a war, which is what Goering said and Bush proved, it will work for anything especially when you play on people’s prejudices and fears.
What also amazes me is that people that have been duped in this way never learn nor do they care. They seem to disremember how they were manipulated and move on to the next thing. But when you are doing Gods work, defeating terrorism, the Democrats or big government logic and honesty doesn’t apply. Like Bush listening to voices telling him to invade Iraq, people display a remarkable ability to be manipulated. Doesn’t bode well for democracy, but it is a fact that has been proven by history to work.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:44 am
A secret memo that controls everything!
LOL.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
interesting-
my opinion- any and all funds needed for any bailout needs to go through congress- no shortcut- no panel- that’s the way it is suppose to work folks
my other opinion- is that any funds procured should be used to wind down the institution not prop it up
also- is everyone aware that money fund mangers will be given the authority to freeze redemptions if deemed prudent-
scary thought indeed- especially in an deflationary environment- let’s hope you don’t need the money- because almost certainly it will be frozen and unavailable if there is any hint of a run via redemptions in money market funds
February 4th, 2010 at 9:46 am
curious how publishing this isn’t violating his copy write?
February 4th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Anyone that takes the view that this reveals something evil about one party or another is a fool. Both parties devise strategies to market their message. What it really reveals is how utterly cynical is the process for manipulating the public–a process that goes on with both parties.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:48 am
The question remains why do they want to ‘kill’, not improve any legislation? The manipulation of public opinion to that end is one thing, but one who is interested in the truth needs to be concerned with why they would want to kill it. Are they simply stupid, naive, blinded by ideology? Do they have an alternative that is viable or is it just do nothing since that is better than anything? This is what the proponents of reform must focus on.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:56 am
17 U.S.C. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Have a read of his memo designed to defeat the reform of TBTF Banks and Wall Street, and see for yourself if he is an evil genius or not . . .’
This is a good question. I have attended a Frank Luntz seminar and I understand his area of expertise. Basically Luntz has developed a strong understanding of how the human brain processes information and how we react to issues that are presented to us.
In essence, in spite of our self-images as rational and logic beings, humans respond far more to emotional cues rather than logical cues. Thus, in order to sway public opinion, the issue must be characterized in words that portray an emotional context.
I was unaware that he coined the term “climate change”, but this shows that, while he caters mainly to the right, he views himself as a consultant providing a service regardless of political persuasion.
Personally, I wish that all issues could be addressed in a logical context and that emotion would be set aside for sake of rational discourse. But that is not the reality of how public opinion is formed and thus Luntz teaches his clients how to use words to better communicate their message to others in a manner that others will relate to.
So on one hand, he is teaching the art of manipulative communication – which is evil, but on the other hand, he is teaching his clients how to communicate to an audience that reacts more to emotion than to logic, which is providing a service in understanding how people think. He is likely to be more helpful to the right because the right is generally more bottom line oriented and he is likely less helpful to the left because the left has already encompassed many of the emotional cues (helping the poor, the sick, the unrepresented, etc.)
Thus, to a conservative, Luntz is likely viewed to be someone who helps to level the playing field by teaching how to communicate on an emotional level that most people will relate to and to a liberal he likely is viewed as an evil genius who twists the words to manipulate the masses.
Again, i just wish everyone would be better educated and trained to look at all issues through a more rational and logical lens so that the Luntz approach would not be necessary at all. However, that is a naive wish on my part and thus I suspect Luntz will stay in high demand.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Forbes,
Agree to a point, yep, it’s all business as usual, imho, few are not aware of that, you have two distinctions now, imho.
A. If you are a corporation to survive you need lobbyists at the ying yang on all levels. Corporations like most folks couldn’t care less about politics, yet, the telco’s and utilities who were forced to deal with government always, have taken that knowledge and transferred it too all business’s. Most noteable healthcare.
B. Tipping point, imho, most realize you have to have government, and do not despise it as the republicans love too spew, all we want is smart government, do your damned job like we the people to do and leave me the f-alone.
Governments insane stupidity factor is entering a blow off top imho. Obie came at the point of the breakout, and he’s done nothing at all to bear it down.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:26 am
what he proves is how stupid and gullible most of the populace is and why their asses get consistently handed to them. Let’s say this guy knows how to levarage people’s ignorance and stupidity and he is an evil genius at it.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:26 am
@torrie: “Facts”?! What are those little pesky things? People don’t want facts. Facts are ugly. People want their opinions (however wrong) confirmed and our MSM outlets is only too happy to serve in that role to keep the tribes divided and conquered. It’s like medication every night for the Sheeple to turn on their favorite echo chamber and hear what they want to hear. An addiction, if you will.
February 4th, 2010 at 10:59 am
One man’s “fact” is another man’s dogma.
February 4th, 2010 at 11:25 am
It’s ironic that the memo is filled with errors of syntax and spelling.
On page 13 in “Language Finding #13″, the text directly contradicts the pie chart below it.
Consider the implication of the line “Washington incompetence is the common ground on which you can build your support.”
The memo is apparently intended for the use of those responsible for Washington incompetence.
Rather self-referential :-)
February 4th, 2010 at 11:52 am
[...] man who sold the world.. In Uncategorized on February 4, 2010 at 5:52 pm Saw this on Barry Ritholtz’ blog (The Big Picture) today and felt that I couldn’t pass up a [...]
February 4th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
There are two simple things Washington can do to prove that it’s neither incapable of reform nor bought and paid for by the lobbyists/oligarchy:
1. Put a few of the rat-bastards in jail. Submit a small number of the more egregious bad actors – Angelo, Lloyd, Chuck and Martin Sullivan for starters – to public trials and jail sentences. Impose fines that will wipe out the years of earnings they enjoyed on profits ginned up by fraud and dedicate those funds to helping people who have lost homes/jobs,
2. Form a committee of knowledgeable people who are neither elected officials nor employed in the industry to write the reform bill. Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren come to mind. Then have the legislators pass it without amendment, earmarks or revisions.
Until the people can see actual justice and genuine industry-independent legislation, then exploitation of their anger, disillusion and fear by the most cynical politicians as described in the memo is probably inevitable.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
@ Transor at 9:18 am I never used the word honest. You used the word “Truth” — capitalized, saying that the Dems “valued Truth”. I responded with examples of the Dems being anything but truthful.
@ Transor at 9:56 am Fair use does NOT allow you to copy an entire work (I’ve gotten desist letters on this point from the NYT re a website I help manage). Only selected small portions for the purpose of criticism can be reproduced.
@ farmera1 at 9:34 AM — I’ve heard Limbaugh playing clips of 6 or 7 Dems repeating exactly the same phrase on some issue of the day. Both sides understand the importance of staying on message, and both sides incessantly repeat talking points put together by very high priced consultants.
@Marcus Aurelius at 9:02 AM Your name calling, as in “intellectually dishonest or blitheringly stupid observer,” is no substitute for making a coherent argument.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
@Forbes: Luntz’s professional and premeditated lying is state-of-the-art for what passes for public discourse from both major parties. I would only add that the success of such mendacity rests upon the abysmal level of civic virtue that prevails in contemporary America. No reasonably informed adult would lend Luntz et al. a scintilla of credence. W.C. Fields summed it up: “You can’t cheat an honest man.” The only remarkable thing about the entire obscenity is that the polluters of the public mind think that there will be no untoward consequences for themselves. Segue to the Frankenstein theme . . . .
February 4th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
This isn’t evil. Or genius.
This man is just a talented marketer who knows how to craft a message that resonates.
I have won just about every advertising award the industry has– national and international, for both creativity and effectiveness. I’ve made everything from pizzas to luxury dresses to 401k accounts fly off the shelves. My work has helped move needles that “couldn’t be moved.” So I know….what this memo reflects is focus group confirmation of what Weisenthal already suspected as an intuitive reader of the mass market.
Do not deceive yourselves into thinking that Repubs have lies and Dems have truth.
Any effective ad begins with the truth the consumer already knows/believes in his/her heart. The work is to then build a bridge from that truth to what your claim is. You gain the consumers’ trust by agreeing with what they already believe– you’re a credible friend then, not a slick salesperson. You’re paisan, you see eye to eye. Once you’ve established that credibility, then you lead them to the “natural” conclusion that stems from what they already believe.
If “a” is true (and we agree with you that it is), just add “b” and that equals “c.”
“a” is what the consumer already believes. “c” is what the marketer wants them to believe. “b” is the part that takes talent. Like the game of 6 degrees of separation, you have to build the connection between “a” and “c”. Except you don’t get 6 degrees, you get 1.
And that’s why Obama’s brilliant discourse with the Republicans last week will have zero impact with the general public. They don’t track long explanations. The formula isn’t a+b-z(72)x3.14159=c when V=1/3*Pi*r^2*h. That’s why commercials are 30 seconds and print ads are typically limited to one page. You can only communicate ONE message strongly.
(Infomercials and Ross Perot are the exceptions since they are based on product demos, which by the way are very effective.)
It is mind boggling and disheartening that the Dems don’t seem to grasp basic marketing strategy. If they did, they could counteract (and would’ve already counteracted) this perception problem by changing the public’s fundamental premise: Government regulations don’t work because they’re not enforced.
I’ve been saying for the last year that what the public needs before they can move on is some form of justice. The premise in the focus group above that they’ve been decimated, hurt and are very very angry is true. Decimated. Hurt. Angry. Sound like a victim to you? Then there must have been a crime. Crimes require prosecution and perp walks. Crimes require justice and revenge, ideally in equal proportion to the perceived size of the crime committed.
The public looooooves perp walks. And right now, they desperately need them.
Where are they? If this poll had asked whether the public perceived crimes had been committed, I have zero doubt that the overwhelming majority believe crimes were committed. Massive, global economy wrecking crimes.
That’s why there’s firm belief (consumer truth) among the populace that current regulations are not being enforced.
There is a man named Eric Holder. There is an organization called the SEC. In my 30-second, non-technical mind, non-MBA mind, I cannot recall either of them prosecuting anything or anyone related to the downfall of the average consumer’s savings, 401k, mortgage, etc. (Bernie Madoff doesn’t count: 1) His clients weren’t average, 2) Only more proof of SEC ball dropping.)
Before they can get public buy-in and effectively fight the Repubs, the Dems need to change the premise. The premise is current regulations don’t work, so we don’t need new ones. Therefore current regulations need to be enforced in a way that is very visible to the public. Like perp walks. Televised, breaking news on every channel perp walks. One after another for weeks. The mighty must fall. And a government official or two would sweeten the pot.
Then Obama has credibility. He believed what the public believes, he’s paisan and he did something about it.
The public has been avenged. And since they have emotionally moved beyond anger they can get on with the other stages of grief, including “reconstruction” aka new reforms.
Anyone who thinks this marketer is not dealing in “facts” is naive. He is dealing in the “facts” that matter to the public– the only facts that should matter to any political party trying to engage them. Wishing that voters operated on logic and trying to “educate” them will not change millennia of human social evolution and information processing. You have to serve people what they already eat.
I have never written a comment on your blog before, though I’ve read it for over a year. Never registered. I’m not an MBA, so I mostly listen and learn. But I know marketing, human psychology and public opinion as intuitively and effectively as I know how to breathe.
Last thought: Recent studies have shown that the more conservative and individual is, the less likely it is that his/her beliefs can be changed by facts. This confirms my decade-long belief (arrived at by wondering how people could repeatedly support Bush in the face of increasingly damning facts), that if conservative voters can be swayed at all, typical unleaded tactics cannot be used, but the effort must be based on the same high octane methods used by those who deprogram cult members. Their actions are not based on facts, but on unwavering belief despite the facts.
Of course, many marketers would argue, that should aim for the low hanging fruit of people who can be converted. But with help of Rush, Beck, et. al, the supply of such voters is rapidly diminishing.
Now I’ll go back to listening and learning about financial stuff.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I think Bullseye has hit a bullseye. Neither genius nor villian, Luntz is just very good at what he does…and, I suspect, gets paid very well for doing it. That’s not to say I like the message or why/how it is done, but give the man some credit, he put together a slick document.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:57 am
@ Transor at 9:56 am Fair use does NOT allow you to copy an entire work (I’ve gotten desist letters on this point from the NYT re a website I help manage). Only selected small portions for the purpose of criticism can be reproduced.
Please run through the Fair Use Doctrine factor test and establish conclusively that Barry’s reporting, commentary, and criticism of this document — by deconstructing it on the basis of presentation and rhetoric and policy/political implications — does not qualify for the exception.
This isn’t the same thing as your buddy pirating NYT copy and disseminating it in competition with the NYT web site.
February 5th, 2010 at 4:39 am
@ Transor at 1:57 PM I didn’t say that anything that Barry did violated Fair Use. Barry embedded someone else’s posting of the full article on docstoc. doug86 asked how reproducing Luntz’s work was not a copyright violation, and you seemed to be arguing that it was OK under Fair Use, which it is not. Whoever put that document on docstoc violated Luntz’s copyright (assuming it was done without his permission).
February 5th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
@alex in cambridge:
I don’t think the fair use question is nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Have you followed any of the Wikileaks stories around LDS and Scientology? Fair use is very much in play — in addition to First Amendment and whistleblower theories.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368315,00.html