by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC + Incorrigible BACN Addict

I have few addictions, but I confess to loving me some bacon. I’ve tempered my addiction somewhat by subbing in turkey bacon, but that’s like seeking a buzz off light beer. It’s possible but hardly as satisfying.

Same thing goes for most e-newsletters. I think they’re going to be great, so I subscribe to a whole slew of them. Yet every morning the first thing I do when I check my email is delete almost every single one.

There’s a term for e-newsletters that we subscribe to but never read: “bacn” — which is a step above that other four-letter word, spam.

So what separates e-newsletters we read from bacn we don’t?

The good ones pull a Don Corleone and make us an offer we can’t refuse.

Take the following e-newsletter I just got from The Jared Company, a Blackberry application developer. I just bought my first Blackberry a few weeks ago, because I love being electronically leashed to my clients 24/7. And nowadays, no smartphone is complete without a load of apps on it. So I bought a few. Over the ensuing weeks, other app developers sent me updates and plugs for their other products, but JaredCo did something different: they made me like them.

The e-newsletter arrived with the subject heading, “Tether Your Blackberry: How To Guide.” And, yes, thank you, I would like to know how to hook my Blackberry up to my laptop to get Internet access. So in the midst of one of my early morning bacn purges, I actually stopped and clicked on one to find the following:

So what’s to like? First, there’s no phony attempt to address me by name — as 21st century consumers, we all know such “personalization” is computer generated. However, the newsletter is personal: written in the first person and first-person plural, while signed by an actual human being. Who’s Michael? No idea. His real name could be Akash Ramachandran for all it matters. But the point is that JaredCo knows it’s invading my e-mailbox, so it’s at least making a nod toward being personal. To top that off, Michael solicits feeback. Nice touch.

But all that social hocus-pocus would mean nothing if the newsletter didn’t have value, and this one does: a free PDF full of advice I want. Sure, it’s not a free iPad or chance to win a trip to the Bahamas, but it’s still useful. Better yet, there’s no commitment on my part — I don’t have to sign up for anything, enter a contest, or recommend a friend. I just click. And that click helps JaredCo measure the effectiveness of their campaign beyond a mere “open.” Yes, Michael, you got the attention of your customer and the desired action for your post-campaign analytics.

The PDF guide is also branded, with links back to the JaredCo site — nice integration. My only beef* is that the tethering guide was about PC’s, and I’m a Mac user. I guess they assumed most Apple fanboys have iPhones, but I’m one of those strange consumers who wants a phone with good reception. Go figure.

So after all that, I got left out. Sigh. But I was still impressed enough to blog about this bit of promotion. There’s nothing dazzling about it — this e-newsletter likely won’t hit the cover of AdAge or the pages of Mashable — it’s just smart marketing by a small company. Keep that up, and they’ll soon be a big company bringing home lots of the real good kind of bacon.

Update 7/15/10: I forwarded this blog post to Michael as an fyi, and within a few hours he sent me a link to a third-party article on how to tether my Mac. Nice. (And, yes, Michael is his real name.)

•••

Shameless plug: Want to create a corporate e-newsletter that doesn’t become bacn? Contact us…

*Sorry about all the meat references — it’s almost dinner.

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC + No Fan of Captain Ahab

image by McAuliflower, Brownie Points Blog (click image to see the full original)

How do you go from being one of the hottest restaurants in town to being completely out of business in just weeks? Simply follow the example of The Hump, a trendy sushi bar in Santa Monica, CA, that shut down after being busted for selling whale meat.

That’s right: someone there actually said, “Mmm, beautiful, intelligent and endangered species — let’s eat it.”

Two activists covertly filmed the staff of The Hump serving whale sushi. This happened in March 2010, and I’ve since been teaching it as a vivid example of how not to run a business — and why a complete stakeholders analysis is essential before launching any product or campaign.

In a stakeholders analysis, marketers evaluate their customers, competitors and own company. This helps shape strategy and gauge odds of success. Recently a fourth “C” — community — was added to factor in the relevance and influence of the government, labor unions, the news media and special interest groups. It’s the “C” that often gets left out of the equation, and it’s the “C” that factors most prominently in this case. Let’s dive in, shall we?

Customers: I’ve written several posts about customer worship in which I’ve noted that, yes, it’s essential to know your customers’ needs, but, no, you can’t afford to dismiss the following facts:

• customers don’t always know what they want
• customers disagree with each other
• customers are not always right
• certain customers can actually be bad for business.

The Hump perfectly met the needs of certain customers — the restaurant wouldn’t have offered whale sushi unless they had customers willing to pay hundreds of dollars for it. (Note: the activists who exposed The Hump weren’t customers — they were vegans on the prowl.)

Competitors: One principle of successful marketing is to be highly differentiated from your competition. And in this case, serving cetacean sushi certainly distanced The Hump from the thousands of other restaurants in the L.A. area (or so we whale lovers hope). Mission accomplished!

Company: Before doing anything, a company should know if it has the means and willpower to do so. Did The Hump have access to whale meat? Check. Were The Hump’s staff willing to serve it? Check. Was the chef willing and able to prepare it? Check. Indeed, in an earlier review, the L.A. Times wrote, “The chefs at The Hump are deadly serious about their sushi.” No kidding. So all systems go!

Community: And here’s where the happy whalers of The Hump met their Moby Dick. First of all, the restaurant was not located in some red state outpost where the residents regularly flip their fingers at environmentalists. This was Santa Monica — aka “Soviet Monica” — an extremely liberal city that’s home to the environmental group Heal the Bay and an office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. People here love whales — but not for dinner. Beyond residents, it was a collaborative effort between activists, federal agents and news-hungry reporters that served The Hump up on a plate.

In sum, The Hump adequately met the needs of customers, differentiated themselves from competitors, and leveraged the skills and motivation of company stakeholders. But after 12 years of business, they decided to neglect the interests and power of their community, and wound up sinking themselves.

Case — and doors — closed.

A too-late mea culpa from The Hump's website.

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC & Japanese Food Lover

So you manage a small chain of sushi restaurants, and business is not exactly stellar, so you decide to run one of those coupons that winds up in people’s mailboxes en route to the recycling bin. And that’s when this happens…

click to enlarge

When I first saw the coupon, I noticed the right part first (red type catches the eye much better than reverse type on a blue background). Then I noticed the people, since the eye tends to gravitate to human faces, and I thought, “Oh, look, white sushi chefs in L.A. That’s different.” Then I noticed the logo for “Worst Cooks in America.” Then I knew, “This must be blogged.”

The contest is run not by Sushi Mac but by Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc., the company that puts together these coupon packs that wind up in people’s mailboxes en route to the recycling bin. Usually, there’s only one business advertised per coupon — I’ve never seen two. So I wonder what Valpak told the folks at Sushi Mac… “Hey, we’ll give you a discount if you let us run a contest for the Food Network on your coupon.” I can only guess that they did not tell them that “Worst Cooks in America” would be located just inches away from “Unique Dining Experience!”

My appetite for sushi was quite diminished. The offers on the reverse side — which included “All Sushi $3.00 (Tax Included!) Per Order” — did not provide any culinary reassurance, since most consumers associate low prices with low quality. Not exactly what I want with raw fish.

In addition to poor ad placement and questionable pricing strategy, having a sushi chain sound like an Apple computer doesn’t help much, either: “Get the New Sushi Mac — Raw Power for Those on a Roll! Now Comes with iTunas.”

Recycling bin here it comes.

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango + Board Member of City Garage Theatre

Whenever I get hungry in a strange city, I hunt out brewery restaurants. My belief: anyone who cares about the taste of beer is going to make pretty good food — or at least a decent burger. And so far, my belief has not failed me.

Throughout Oregon, I dug on the McMenamin’s chain. In Austin, I enjoyed Opal Divine’s. And close to home, my favorite joint is the Library Alehouse in Santa Monica. Although the Library Alehouse doesn’t brew their own beer, they do carry dozens of artisan brews, from imported Belgian lambics to my fave, Arrogant Bastard of Escondico. Their burgers are wholly unpretentious (hold the blue cheese and arugula) and consist of primo quality beef. And their Grilled Chipotle Shrimp Salad makes me grateful for every single tastebud.

Now take note, all ye who work for non-profit organizations: Library Alehouse also regularly hosts charity fundraisers. During these public events, they donate 15% of their day’s revenues to a local charity, such as the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition and the Santa Monica Museum of Art. Why doesn’t the charity just ask people to donate 100% of the money and skip all the wining and dining? Because like a good microbrew, there’s much more to such an event than meets the eye…

Overusing the “G” Word

As you might have experienced during the holidays, so many organizations told us to “give” that this four-letter word started sounding like a four-letter word. This past year in particular, non-profits were walloped by drastic deductions in donations (government, corporate and individual) and — for the arts — basic patronage. Consequently, I couldn’t open my mailbox or Facebook page without getting hit up for a hand out. I myself sent out requests for donations on behalf of City Garage Theatre, where I sit on the board of directors.

Now, around Christmas, it’s easier to solicit donations because of general feelings of goodwill and/or guilt. It’s hard to snub a charity when you’re eyeing that new 50″ LED-backlit flatscreen for your den. But now that the holidays have exhausted themselves, how can non-profits continue to ask these same prospective donors to give?

They can’t.

They can certainly try, but in this still cruel economy, many Americans are feeling drained, emotionally and financially — particularly those who just bought 50″ LED-backlit flatscreens. A non-profit might as well try to make wine from raisins. So rather than ask these people to give outside of giving season, non-profits should be answering a certain donor question — even if they never hear it asked: “What’s in it for me?”

Of course, most people would never say that directly to a charity. Some might never even think it. They’ll donate if the charity is personal (they know a member of the organization or some of its beneficiaries) or emotional (the cause touches a nerve, like Hurricane Katrina did, so that giving feels like a no-brainer).

Those aside, most charities are not personally related to the donor and might not seem terribly desperate in the grand scale of human events. That’s when the non-profit must think beyond their own needs to what would entice the disinterested. In other words, what does the donor want or need?

Some charities might be appalled at this notion of having to appeal to the self-interests of others. But ignoring the reality of the non-profit marketplace — crowded, needy, and highly competitive — is idealism, and idealism won’t pay the rent. It’s also idealistic to ignore human nature: we the people can’t help feeling attracted to something that meets our particular desires and needs.

Feed the Needs

Looking at a restaurant-based fundraiser, like those at the Library Alehouse, reveals multiple levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy being served:

• Food: People have to eat. A charity event gives penny-pinching consumers an excuse to dine out. And if the restaurant is new and enjoyable to them, they’ll appreciate the introduction.
• Friendship and amore: What better way to connect with new mates than over drinks and a great cause? Indeed, one way to drum up attendance is to invite singles’ clubs…
• Networking: Whether someone needs a job or a client, a themed event makes for easier schmoozing than a generic “networking” event. The charity breaks the ice and makes everyone in attendance seem benevolent.
• Entertainment: Let’s see, stay home and watch reruns of NCIS/CSI/ColdCase/Numbers, or actually go out on the town and interact with people not wearing toe tags? Hmmm, tough choice there…
• Beer: No explanation necessary.

Businesses also have needs. Far too often, non-profits will hit up a business for a donation without even considering what the business will get out of it. With these fundraising events, the restaurants benefit on multiple levels:

• Sales: These days, walk into any establishment that doesn’t ask “would you like fries with that?” and you’ll likely see empty tables. Any sales, even at a discount, would be welcome. Since these discounts are donated to a charity, they don’t cheapen the value of their dishes (as coupons might), and unlike other discounts, they’re tax deductible.
• Exposure to new clientele: With one event, small establishments that can’t afford to advertise can now reach entire new pools of customers — and let the non-profit do the marketing for them. Some of the attendees (such as the wealthier donors) are definitely worth reaching. In addition, some of these newcomers might become repeat customers, particularly since the restaurant helped support a cause they care about.
• Brand boost: A great way to enhance the brand of a for-profit enterprise is to collaborate with a worthy non-profit. The establishment is no longer just a business — it becomes a member of the community.

What about the non-profit organization itself? It also benefits beyond the dollars:

• Brand boost, part deux: One challenge that small non-profits have is building credibility. The last ten years undermined trust in our society, even of various charities. Collaborating with a credible local business — not to mention a favorite watering hole — gives an unknown charity visibility, and reassures donors that it’s a real non-profit and not some guy with a P.O. Box.
• Newsworthy event: For a community newspaper, a charity fundraiser in conjunction with a local business is much more newsworthy than a boring solicitation for donations. The key is to notify the newspaper staff far ahead of time, and to invite them all (including the receptionist) to join in the fun. The event also makes for great content on the non-profit’s blog, Facebook page and other social media. Photos from the event will later draw traffic from the attendees and their friends (don’t forget to collect names so you can tag the photos on Facebook).
• Exposure to potential new donors: Encourage regular supporters to bring their friends, family and colleagues. Since the event doesn’t cost anything beyond the regular price of food and drinks, it’s an easy invite. The charity will also attract the attention of other diners at the restaurant.
• Bonding: Non-profit work can get fairly serious. Such events give the organization’s staff a chance to loosen up and bond over brews and burgers. More importantly, these events enable donors, board members, beneficiaries and other members of the organization’s extended family to meet the men and women behind the curtain. Adding faces to an organization helps encourage loyalty.

In sum, the benefits of a collaborative fundraiser far surpass the value of the donations and are spread all around. In a tasty twist, meeting the selfish interests of others can actually generate more value than simply being Idealistic.

And if it’s done at a microbrewery, it’s a great way to build a buzz.

Update 1/5/2010: This post has been republished by Vivanista.

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC and Hardcore Caffeinated Beverage Addict

A nice start.

So Pepsi is skipping the Super Bowl, ending a 23-year run of entertaining ads. Contrary to what the social media cultists would like to believe, Pepsi is not doing so because it prefers social media. (As much as I use social media — including this here blog — I find its cheerleaders to be about as endearing as televangelists on crack.) Indeed, Pepsi will be promoting another of its products, Gatorade, on the sidelines, so it’s hardly abandoning the game.

Rather, for its flagship brand, Pepsi is launching a $20 million campaign to “refresh” American communities. Super Bowl ads just didn’t fit the concept. Writes Advertising Age (subscription required), “the concern is that glitzy Pepsi spots would not bolster the image of the brand as one that encourages healing, growth and improvement…”

Wait — did they really just say healing, growth and improvement?

I love all those attributes — they make for a great antibacterial ointment. And, yes, they’re also great for differentiating a brand. (The competition would certainly have a hard time tearing them apart.) But, uh, we’re still talking caffeinated sugar water here, right? Healing, growth and improvement might make sense as brand attributes for, say, a bicycle company or a pair of fair-trade 100% organic shade-grown cotton thermal underwear. But for soda? Pepsi’s old standbys of humor and celebrities make much more sense.

I suppose ardent soda drinkers could make this new communal vibe a reason to pick Pepsi over Coke. And maybe this campaign will make current Pepsi fans more jazzed about their choice. But in the long run — and most of brand building is over the long run — I’m not certain that Americans will come to see Pepsi as a mighty force for good in the world. Seriously: Pepsi as a source of healing?

Back To School For You…

True, anything that pumps $20 million into cash-strapped communities is nothing to sneer at. But considering that the budget deficit for L.A. public schools alone is $500 million, that 20 mil will probably evaporate faster than spilled soda on a hot sidewalk.

Indeed, to close that deficit, L.A. is now eviscerating its arts education programs. According to the L.A. Daily News, “Half of the district’s 355 elementary arts and music teaching positions are set to be cut next year — and halved again by 2012.”

Considering that so much of America’s competitiveness now relies on creativity — whether it’s making movies, designing computers, or putting all that social media technology to some practical use — cutting educational arts programs seems economically and culturally suicidal.

So here’s my hope: that somehow, through some magical nationwide gestalt, consumers will vote to allocate that $20 million to keep arts and music education in place. It’s the perfect brand fit: arts and music education for young people courtesy of a corporation that was built using pop music and colorful ads.

I hope Pepsi picks up that note and takes it even further — perhaps starting a long-term fund for arts and music education. Then, in my Technicolor 3D fantasy, I see corporations and voters across America coming to the realization that investing millions of dollars into the arts is as attractive and potentially rewarding as plunking it all down for a football game…

Oops, sorry, I got high on the healing, growth and improvement trip there, daddio, and forgot what country I’m living in. I know, having American corporations support arts and education is a lot to hope for. But if Pepsi truly wants to refresh the community, and truly have that become the foundation of its brand, then it needs to up the ante. A $20 million charity campaign is immensely better than a token commercial, but it’s also just a start. I’m sure Pepsi’s masterful marketers know that — after all, they did build a trillion-dollar empire based on sugar water.

But let’s suppose Pepsi isn’t willing to up the ante, and all the healing stops after the $20 million is slurped up. Well then, hey, Coca-Cola, whatcha doing after the Super Bowl?

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC

Warning: The following blog post contains full frontal liberal snarking and might not be appropriate for all audiences. If you’re a Republican with a thin skin, please escape now to somewhere you might feel more at home.

The way I see it, ridiculing Sarah Palin is not only fun, it’s our patriotic duty.

Not a laughing matter... (source: WikiMedia Commons)

Many of us laugh at her now, viewing Palin as a living Saturday Night Live sketch. But the scary part is that many others take her seriously and want her to be — gasp — President. Our mission: to convince enough sane people that the Wacko from Wasilla is far too ridiculous to allow in the White House for any reason.

Easy enough, right?

Flashback: Nine years ago I laughed when the Republicans nominated George W. Bush for President. “Who’s gonna vote for that draft-dodging idiot?” I guffawed. Of course, I wound up eating my words not once but twice. (As verbose as I am, no wonder I put on weight.)

Now, from a marketing perspective, W didn’t do anything to win — he wasn’t even a good campaigner. He floundered in debates. He dodged questions. He offered no inspiring policies.

Rather, his diabolical henchman Karl Rove (a marketer by trade) brilliantly repositioned my candidates Gore and Kerry as duplicitous and unlikable. And it worked. Not once but twice did Rove sell Americans some seriously damaged goods, and he did so by scaring undecided voters away from two intelligent, experienced and accomplished veterans. Consequently, as much as I despise Rove’s politics, I consider him one of the most brilliant marketers alive — a true master of repositioning.

What the hell is repositioning — or positioning for that matter?

In marketing, a position is where a brand stands in relation to its competitors: it’s cheaper, faster, sexier, smarter, younger, greener, hipper. It’s more luxurious, more educated, more moral, more colorful, more convenient, more conservative, etc. (Note that the brand can be a company, product or person.)

The key factoid: that position is strictly in the eyes of the consumer. A brand can claim to be anything it wants, but it’s the consumer who decides what the brand’s ultimate position is.

The classic example is Walmart, which has owned the position of low-price leader for decades. But in 2006, Walmart decided to reposition itself as low-priced AND fashionable. It spent millions of dollars on ads to claim this new fashion position, only to have consumers roll their eyes and continue to buy their tube socks at Walmart, their party clothes elsewhere. Walmart eventually deep-sixed the fashion campaign and pursued an entirely different position (more on that in a bit).

Every one of us holds a position. Whether you’re pursuing a mate or a job promotion, you should determine where you stand relative to your competition. Your hope is that the consumer — in this case, the object of your desire or your boss — finds your position ideally appealing.

To resonate with consumers, all brands must claim a position — and hold onto that position tightly — or else their savvy competitors will try to find a position for them. “Repositioning” is when someone tries to redefine where a brand stands. Coca-Cola claims to be “Classic,” so Pepsi repositions them as old-fashioned and tired. Microsoft claims to be ideal for business, so Apple repositions them as awkward and uncool.

It’s easy to identify the positions of politicians, since they publicly promote them — and because their competition is continuously striving to reposition them.

Sarahnormal Activity

Sarah Palin is positioned as a “woman of the people” and a “maverick.” (Just the mention of that M-word makes me wince and grimace, as if I were grating my front teeth down a granite wall.) Compared to all those suited-up, over-educated elitist politicians from D.C., she’s positioned as more down-home, more easygoing, more human, more normal. From Andrew Jackson to Bill Clinton, that type of populism has long resonated in America. So how does a paranoid liberal like myself undermine it?

First, by ridiculing it.

A friend recently sent me a video of Palin-philes being interviewed at one of her book signings. At first, I refused to watch — walking talking examples of America’s broken education system always depress me. But after a second and a third friend sent me the same video, I relented and saw that it contained everything I imagined it would: clueless denizens of middle America who couldn’t describe Palin’s own policies while believing the most nonsensical lies about Obama…

The video’s purpose was clear: to position Palin’s supporters as idiots, and convey the message that only idiots support Palin. Perhaps that might scare some fence sitters into thinking, “Uh, yeah, Palin doesn’t really bother me, but I don’t really want to be seen as one of, uh, them.” So, as a dutiful liberal, I too shared this video with others. Kind of like the mom in the horror movie “The Ring”: if we don’t share this video, our children will die.

How very Karl Rove-esque.

Yes, the video is scathing, funny and alarming. It’s also completely unfair.

As I watched it, I remembered that the Republicans had done the same thing during the Presidential election: they interviewed Obama supporters, depicting them as clueless idiots who couldn’t describe a single one of his policies. They didn’t bother interviewing any of Obama’s savvy, educated enthusiasts.

You could do the same thing at any political rally: act like Jay Leno and ask people on the street serious questions. Odds are, you’ll find a few who sound silly. Keep those and share them with the world. If you tape someone who’s informed and reasonable, delete them immediately and consign all trace of them to digital oblivion.

This was recently done to unsuspecting workers at the non-profit organization ACORN. This organization had positioned itself as a champion of civil rights, helping people in the inner city register to vote, build careers, and attain a greater political voice. This inspired a couple of conservative activists to dress up as a pimp and prostitute and ask ACORN to help them set up a whorehouse. The activists’ hidden camcorder then captured the ACORN employees offering helpful — and illegal — advice. When this video was posted on YouTube, ACORN immediately became the object of ridicule and scorn nationwide. The kneejerkers in Congress quickly cut off ACORN’s funding.

ACORN has protested that those clips were taken out of context. Some of their workers were just playing along, they claim, in order to get these con artists out of their building. An L.A. Times reporter decided to verify this by asking the conservative couple for the rest of their video footage — unedited — but the filmmakers refused.

The lesson here: it’s easy to get people to hang themselves. Just videotape them — and delete the stuff that goes against what you’re selling. It’s part of a broader strategy that I call “chiseling.”

The Rules of Chiseling

There are two ways to try to reposition someone:

First, you can lie about them. Lying is fast, it’s easy, it’s nothing new. But if you lie, you risk having your lie exposed, you risk losing all your credibility, and you risk being taken to court and having your pants sued off.

The second way is chiseling. Here, you’re just chipping away at your competition’s brand bit by bit in ways that are completely legal. It takes longer and requires more effort, perhaps some creativity, but it works without putting you at risk. Here’s how to do it:

1. Highlight mistakes. No one is perfect. If you wait long enough, even the most admirable person or company is going to commit an error. Recently, the seemingly unassailable brands of Toyota, Dubai, Tiger Woods and the President’s Secret Service have all taken huge hits because of massively bad mistakes. None of them set out to do anything mean or vicious — they just blundered. If you’re the competition and you see this happen, capture every juicy moment, then make sure the evidence gets into the right hands — salacious bloggers, talk radio hosts and the like, who are all too willing to spread the dirt. Because those mistakes were actually committed, no one can complain or sue.

2. Selectively edit. As noted above, after you record an entire event or review an entire career, show only the parts that support the desired new position. I call that “pulling a Fox News”: in no way do you attempt any balance. The goal is to portray your competition as completely ridiculous, completely wrong, completely out of their minds.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, a medical doctor with a lifetime of accomplishments in public service, was made to look like a mad man because all that the news media would show of him — over and over — was his losing control while trying to pump up a political rally. The “Dean Scream” lasted just a couple of seconds, but that’s what people came to associate with him, not his actual decades of work. Again, because the behavior actually happened, it could not be denied.

3. Joke around. Ridiculing the competition is all in good fun, right? Hey, PC, we Mac guys are just pulling your leg! Hey, Coke, don’t you think we Pepsi ad guys are hilarious? Hey, Sarah, why don’t you guest star on SNL so we can all laugh together? We’re all Americans — we’re a humorous bunch, and we’ve been teasing our friends, colleagues, family members and lovers forever. Ha ha ha LOL (jk). Where’s the harm in that?

But over time, the continuous joking effectively shapes the perception of that brand, particularly if enough people share those jokes. Jokes can even chisel away the identity of entire peoples so that they won’t be treated respectfully. Repeated enough, racist jokes get transformed into “insights” that get worked into public policy. (Remember “welfare queens”?) If pressed, the jesters can apologize and say they were just joking, and that you’re being too sensitive and politically correct, so lighten up already, huh?

4. Mock the core. You can never change the hearts and minds of a brand’s hardcore fans. Whether they love the Red Sox, Apple computers, Star Trek, or Sarah Palin, you can’t say a thing to swing ‘em. The only way they’ll ever betray their beloved brand is if their beloved brand betrays them first. (A lot of ardent supporters of W and Chevrolet and Manny Ramirez have quietly jumped off their bandwagons.) At the same time, that means there’s no risk in mocking these core fans — they would never support your side anyway, so what have you got to lose?

I noted the knock on Sarah Palin fans above. BMW drivers and Starbucks drinkers get ripped for being materialistic yuppies. Harvard grads are portrayed as stuck-up insufferable elitists. Walmart shoppers are depicted as freaks of nature. The result is that some people won’t let themselves be seen walking around with a Starbucks cup or a Walmart bag — they don’t want to be associated with that brand or its customers. The brand can’t do anything about it, since you’re not saying anything about it personally — just its supporters.

If you use one or more of these four tactics to make enough consumers see a brand the way you do, then the repositioning has succeeded.

Suddenly, everything else the brand attempts to do — stuff that you never even brought up — gets cast in the same disfiguring light. Sarah Palin has a book out? Well, we all know it’s a bunch of semi-literate claptrap without having to read a single word. Microsoft has a new operating system? Well, we all know that it’s just going to replace old problems with new ones. Chevy has a new car? Well, we all know that it’s gonna be a bucket of boats with the lifespan of a gnat. And Bob in accounting wants a promotion? Well, we all know he’ll just screw that up like he screwed up the holiday party…

Now I hear what some of you are saying: Those are all vile, unethical, reprehensible activities that should be shunned and forgotten so that they disappear forever! But these tactics are part of American tradition: our Founding Fathers did a pretty damn good job of repositioning their own king and homeland. Revolutionary, no?

Even if you refuse to perpetrate any chiseling tactics yourself, it’s critical that you know how they work so that you can recognize when they’re happening to you or to a brand you love. More importantly, you’ll know how to deal with it.

How to Respond to Chiseling

What can you do if you’re being chiseled? Your brand is ridiculed, the competition is only showing one side of you, your mistakes are highlighted, and your followers are mocked. Do you just sit there and take it?

Some do. When John Kerry came under attack from the Swift Boaters, he let it slide — until the Swift Boaters had successfully repositioned him as a liar or, at the least, someone too weak to stand up for himself. The problem was that Kerry was mentally living in the pre-Karl Rove and pre-Internet past, when the common strategy for dealing with salacious rumors and one-sided attacks was to ignore them and assume they would fade away. After all, if you draw attention to a rumor, you just give it validity and more spotlight, right?

But then came social media, and now things don’t go away anymore. Attacks live eternally on YouTube or some other readily accessible platform, and from there they get shared on Twitter and Facebook and hundreds of blogs. Furthermore, if you pretend to ignore what’s being said about you, that could look like tacit agreement or even a confession. So you can’t simply ignore the chiseling — but you can undermine it…

1. Respond with the facts. If someone distorts the truth or presents only one side of you, quickly and publicly respond with the facts and all the supporting materials you’ve got. Post them online, advertise them, and get the evidence in the right hands to help spread the word for you. A credible third party endorsement of the truth makes a big difference with people who are undecided.

2. Emphasize your position. Continuously emphasize what you stand for — long before you’re ever attacked. This strengthens your brand and makes it harder to chisel away. Don’t wait for competitors to appear before you start building your brand!

3. Discredit the discreditors. When under attack, turnabout is not only fair play, it’s survival. Reposition your critics as politically motivated, self-serving, fact-starved distorters of the truth — which they likely are if they’re chiseling. Again, have a credible third party spread your point of view to win over the undecideds.

4. Self-deprecate. If you poke fun at yourself, you steal the thunder from your opponents. Tiger Woods should have immediately made fun of his driving abilities (“I think I’ll stick to golf carts”), instead of acting like he had something to hide. Microsoft should acknowledge that they’re nerdy — and then show how nerds rule. (Hint: hire the cast of “Glee” to do a Microsoft commercial.) Sarah Palin did go onto SNL, but she waited too long — she should have joked immediately about Tina Fey’s impersonations instead of claiming that she watched them with the volume off.

5. Promote an accomplishment that’s completely unrelated. This is the most critical counter-chiseling act. If you don’t want people talking about one of your mistakes or about a rumor, then give them something bigger, better and completely different to talk about. And make sure you invest your marketing dollars into promoting that something bigger and better. You want that positive, exciting news to pop up everywhere, including when people Google you.

Walmart has long come under heavy criticism for its anti-union activities. The company could just respond that its workers are happy, well treated and anti-union themselves. But more effectively, Walmart is trumpeting something completely different: its ecological sustainability. Walmart has loudly and proudly become one of the greenest major corporations in the world. As I wrote in another post, this greening of Walmart splits the opposition, since many of them are environmentalists as well as union supporters. Even Good magazine — which covers progressive causes — had to put in a good word about Walmart. Now Walmart is positioned as both low-priced and environmentally friendly.

If I were advising Sarah Palin, I’d tell her to pick a cause that no one can criticize. That obviously would not include her pet platforms of drilling in national parks and banning abortion. Those stances and issues just appeal to her core fans and provide fuel to her critics. Rather, she should use her current fame to become the national leader of an issue that all sides can agree upon, such as special education. It’s a cause that has no enemies, and that parents on both the right and the left care about. She should also donate a significant portion of her book sales to special education charities, which would defuse some critics who say she’s only interested in fame and money. Could her critics then claim that she’s being cynical and exploiting a cause? Certainly — but they in turn run the risk of being accused as cynics who “hate” special ed students.

You can see the sweet irony of this self-preservation tactic: by countering those who are trying to reposition you, you just might find a better way to reposition yourself.

Parting Shot

Now, my fellow liberals (I assume I’ve lost all conservative readers by this point), worry not. I did provide some honest advice here for Ms. Palin, but there’s no danger that she’ll ever follow any of it. First of all, she’d have to find my tiny unknown blog and then take time out from her busy schedule to comb through this terribly long, overwritten article just to get to that advice. And, of course, that’s assuming she even knows how to read…

Oh SNAP! — chisel, chisel, chisel…

Related Articles:

• Copycats Beware: Obama from a Marketing Perspective
• Rules of Competition: The Magic Number is 2
• The Greenbox Effect: Wal-Mart Changing Its Ways – or Playing Divide and Conquer?

Shameless Self-Promotion: Need help positioning — or repositioning — your own brand? Contact Atomic Tango...

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder of Atomic Tango LLC and Marketing Demonologist

"And the most horrifying part was that I only got paid $500 to star in a movie that's made over $100 million!"

It was brilliant. Not the film, but the marketing campaign that turned a $15,000 amateur horror flick into a $100 million box office smash. The problem? Serious anticipointment…

Last night I finally saw “Paranormal Activity.” I wanted to see it the day it opened in L.A. but was trapped in my own personal nightmare: grading midterms. (I love teaching, but grading? The horror, the horror…)

The numerous stories about the film’s success and its clever promotional tactics made it mandatory viewing for someone who blogs about marketing and media. Plus, my filmmaker buddy Dane Boedigheimer and I have been planning a low-budget horror flick. We both wanted to see what made this one click.

So after teaching viral video strategy in my class at Antioch L.A., DaneBoe and I hit the nearly deserted Century City mall. Want to know what’s really scary? This economy. An upscale mall on a Monday night is a true ghost town.

And that was part of the problem: the theater was also nearly empty. We counted eight entire living humans, including ourselves, in this screening. Normally, I prefer to watch movies with very few others, since people tend to distract me — particularly those who think a movie theater is, like, totally the bestest place to chat with their BF’s. But “Paranormal Activity” is a movie that screams out for a crowd: just like a live sporting event, the communal reaction is part of the entertainment. And last night, the six other people in the audience barely uttered more than a couple of gasps. This meant that we had to focus entirely on the film for our thrills. That’s a tall order for most movies. Perhaps too tall for one that’s been overhyped.

“Anticipointment” is one of my favorite neologisms of the past decade. I first read it in Wired magazine back when Wired was printed on paper thick as tortillas and graphically designed by spidermonkeys on LSD. Anticipointment is that feeling you get after experiencing something that’s been hyped to a hyperventilating degree; the result almost always falls short of your expectations. Kind of like most Academy Award Best Pictures, BCS Championships, halftime shows and gourmet food trucks.

“Paranormal Activity” was no exception. Sure, it delivered chills and starts. Anything that involves unexplained noises, unwelcome night visitors and unexpected things that go BOOM! usually does. But it was also highly repetitious, with night after night of watching amateur video about strange footsteps and moving doors.

On a more fundamental level, basing a horror movie on a “discovered” amateur video has now been officially done to death: “Blair Witch Project” made it buzz-worthy; “Cloverfield” gave it the big-budget Hollywood treatment; “Paranormal Activity” has hopefully buried it.

Abnormal Activity

The biggest challenge facing many horror filmmakers is not creating believable ghosts or monsters: it’s creating believable people.

“Paranormal Activity” features two people who might as well be zombies for all the ingenuity — and basic instinct — they apply to their predicament. There’s a demon in our house? Let’s just keep yelling, “What was that?!” and “Who’s there?!” In a moment of panic? Don’t forget to grab the camcorder. Confronted by supernatural evil? No problem — just research it on the Internet. Who needs an exorcist? Google will save us!

Seriously parannoying.

Not once did this couple try anything to combat their unwelcome visitor — no priests, no prayers, no cans of Raid. More beguiling, they didn’t even try to leave the house! There’s some vague warning that “you cannot run from this, it will follow you”… but wouldn’t most people say, oh what the hell, let’s give fleeing a shot? You know, let’s go to a Denny’s, find an open church, or check into a major hotel where we’re surrounded by hundreds of other people and can order some room service… “Hello, front desk? Could you send some raw garlic and a carafe of holy water to room 666?”

Instead, despite having a malevolent entity visit their bedroom every single night — once even trying to drag the woman away — this couple repaired to the same bed and fell asleep at the same time without fail. I suffer more insomnia just thinking about what’s happened to my USC Trojans football team. This couple should be doing ads for sleeping pills: “Got demons? Try Nytol…”

Consequently, not once did the film get my heart racing or make me break a sweat — like a great football game will. (Last year’s Super Bowl nearly sent me into cardiac arrest.) Sure, “Paranormal Activity” had its moments, and I confess peering suspiciously into the shadows when I took out the garbage after midnight, but I didn’t lose a bit of sleep. The imagery from the otherwise silly film “The Ring” haunted me more, and nothing creeps me out like David Lynch at his best. (If Lynch ever decides to direct a pure horror film… watch out.)

So This is Where The Genius Bit Comes In

Got an average horror flick on your hands? Time for some business as unusual.

Paramount sat on this film for two years trying to figure out what to do with it. And let me just say that no one does marketing better than Hollywood. Given two years, they came up with a campaign that could raise the dead.

Rather then spend millions advertising a small film in jaded major-media markets, Paramount seeded “Paranormal Activity” with midnight-only screenings in a dozen college towns. The time of night, combined with the relative quiet and darkness of college towns and campuses, enhanced the effect.

More importantly, the college audience was perfect:

• They’re old enough to see an R-rated movie.
• They have an appetite for horror and cult films.
• They enjoy group activities at night.
• They’re the same age as the couple in the movie.
• They’re not long separated from the years when they were afraid of the dark — some might still be.
• For the first time, most are not living in the comfort of their family home.
• They’re too young to have seen “The Exorcist” (a truly great demon film).
• Above all, they’re extremely web savvy and social. Let the word-of-mouth begin!

If “Paranormal Activity” had failed at this low-cost test, then it could have quietly gone straight to DVD and late night Cinemax. But it succeeded. The buzz turned into a roar. Paramount then tapped Eventful.com — a site normally used to promote rock concerts — to have young people “demand” the film open in their cities. This ploy alone created fodder for the media.

The result: “Paranormal Activity” beat out “Saw VI” to hit No. 1 at the box office, scored over $100 million in ticket sales and counting — and created some heavy doses of anticipointment in us latecomers.

Serial Thrilling: The Horror of Sequels

Of course, this much money entices Hollywood to make sequels. The challenge in any movie genre is making a sequel that lives up to the first. In the case of “Blair Witch Project” and “Paranormal Activity,” the kick of a “discovered” amateur video is that the audience gets to pretend it’s real. Sequels make it difficult for even the most impassioned fan to enter that mindset again — witness the disaster that was “Blair Witch 2.”

I also suspect other horror movies will try seeding the college market and tapping Eventful.com. Those tactics might work again, but they won’t generate the media coverage granted to the first marketer who does something.

And, yes, there’s talk of a “Paranormal Activity” sequel. Hopefully, it’s subtitled “Leaving the Bedroom Already.” I’m also hoping that, next time, all that creativity devoted to marketing will be used to make a truly killer film.

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder & Fusion Director of Atomic Tango LLC

Arnie the Armadillo: Striking terror into the hearts of boring marketers everywhere.

It’s violent. It’s funny. It’s different from anything you’ve ever seen in business insurance advertising — or imagined you’d ever see.

It’s Arnie the Armadillo, the new mascot of Britain’s Kingsbridge Professional Solutions (KPSol). And it’s creating quite a stir among business-to-business marketers….

But, first, watch for yourself:

Sure, it’s taking some creative risks. But you know what’s even riskier in business? Being boring and having no one remember you.

KPSol is not the first B2B marketer to take a risk — nor even the first insurance company. AFLAC’s duck has significantly increased awareness and sales of a dry product. Quick: can anyone name another company that sells supplemental insurance? Though more consumer-oriented, GEICO’s cavemen, gecko, and talking pothole have actually made an insurance brand likable. (Gasp! The horror, the horror!)

Now consider all the free coverage that KPSol (who?) is getting because of Arnie. Would we be talking about KPSol – or even know who they are – if they used a stock photo of smiling suits in a boardroom, or stock footage of an elderly couple holding hands on the beach? (Excuse me for a sec while I purge my mind of those stock visions.)

B2B marketing isn’t end-of-life consultation; it’s business. As in money. Fame. Golf outings. Holiday parties. The “rule of boredom” in B2B marketing was imposed long ago by stuffed shirts who didn’t have a creative bone in their bodies. In order to get promoted by stodgy bosses, their young minions perpetuated that rule. There’s no logic to it — just corporate politics.

An armadillo, in fact, is a fitting symbol for business marketers who curl up in a ball and hope that whatever makes them nervous goes away.

B2B buyers are human, believe it or not, who also happen to be consumers in real life. Some actually do things like go to movies and dress up for Halloween. Unless the stagnant office depicted in “The Office” (harsh British version) is our ideal of business nirvana, then we business marketers need to lighten up.

I hope that vibrant, fun-loving Gen Y will ultimately put this false-notion of “business must be gravely serious” to rest. That’s one end-of-life consultation I endorse.

Shameless Plug: Want B2B advertising that’s not boring? Contact Atomic Tango!

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder & Fusion Director of Atomic Tango LLC

He was fine until he started to use Twitter... (illustration by Andre Koehn, from Wikimedia Commons)

The belief that Twitter is more than just another communications platform continues to spread, kind of like swine flu for media geeks. And like the flu, it’s plunging victims into feverish hallucinations: “Twitter saved the Iranian protestors!” they cry, neglecting the fact that it, uh, didn’t. “Twitter made the Kogi Korean BBQ Taco Truck a sensation!” Yay, a fast-food truck makes money. “Twitter kept us updated about Balloon Boy in real time!”

Oh, waiter, next media fad, please!

OK, I confess, I’m being harsh here because, well, Twitter is so easy to pick on. How often do you get to rip on a company valued at $1 billion even though it doesn’t have a revenue model? If it weren’t for all the hype, I might actually love Twitter.

But there’s one aspect of Twitter culture — not Twitter itself, but the culture that has bubbled up around it — that bugs me on the same level as spam, lipsynching by millionaire popstars, and phony executive quotations in press releases (“I’m proud to announce that I’m pleased with the results confirming that we’re on the right track on a go forward basis”)…

Fake following.

"OMG, I think I'm being followed!"

Self-proclaimed social media experts tell us that social media is different from traditional mass media — even superior — because it’s about building relationships. And, yet, Twitter’s most successful users are currently “following” thousands of people. That’s freakin’ amazing. How can I not be impressed by this? I can barely follow a couple hundred. Seriously, being able to manage over 1,000 concurrent relationships should score you a recurring spot on “Heroes.”

For some people, Twitter has become one big hysterical numbers game, where it’s not the quality of interactions that matters, but the quantity of their followers. Apparently, he who dies with the most followers wins. And you know who the biggest perpetrators of this numbers game are?

The self-proclaimed social media experts.

Story Time: The Cocktail Party…

A month ago, I wrote a blog post in which I compared social media to a cocktail party:

“People are there to socialize, to share thoughts and opinions and funny cat videos. They’re there to meet new people and to promote themselves. They’re not there to shop… If you crash a party and start shouting, ‘Hey, buddy, you want to buy this?’ you already know what kind of reaction you’ll get.”

Last week, another blog also compared social media to a cocktail party, with the same bit about people conversing and sales pitches scaring them off. So, OK, it’s a big world, and coincidences happen. As I was later informed by the article’s writer, the cocktail party/social media analogy isn’t anything new, probably because it’s so obvious.

But here’s what got my spider-sense tingling: This writer wasn’t some stranger in the vast reaches of the blogosphere. He was someone I knew personally. I had guest-blogged for him earlier this year. And — you know what’s coming — he was one of my followers on Twitter, where I promote my blog.

I started salivating at the forthcoming debate. (Someone, get me a distemper shot.)

So I confronted him about it, and he denied even knowing about my post, least of all reading it. I believed him. He’s always been a nice guy, and does great work for charity. So I let that be and apologized for suspecting anything untoward. Then he said something that sent me off on a completely different mouth-foaming tangent: he didn’t even know he was following me on Twitter.

And this guy advises others on how to use social media for a living.

Call it Faux-cial Media….

“I follow 6,000+ people on Twitter,” he wrote me in an email. “Unless someone is talking directly to me or about me or I happen to be online at the very moment they tweet — the odds of me seeing anything are pretty remote. It’s just too much noise to sift through.”

This is the same guy who wrote in his cocktail party blog: “If you want to be a part of a community or build a community — you do it online just like you’d do it offline. You mix and mingle. You share what you have — interest, expertise, connections, and your attention.” Except in his case, his attention is divided over 6,000+ people that produce “just too much noise” for him.

I told him that didn’t sound like a cocktail party to me.

He responded, “But it’s a huge cocktail party. And as much as you’d like — you can’t talk to everyone, you can’t listen in on every conversation. You can mix and mingle the best you can, but you’re only going to scratch the surface.”

So basically, I said, your cocktail party is open to the public, and you don’t even know who’s in your house. You claim to “follow” your guests, but when someone later says, “Hey, you’re using the same ideas I told you at the party,” you reply, “Dude, I didn’t even know you were there.” How is that social media?

His response to this:

“I think it is an issue of volume…not disconnection. I can’t control who follows me on Twitter, other than to block those that are offensive. So yes, I guess it is open to the public, much like FriendFeed is. People subscribe to me…and create that base of listeners. I think it’s courteous to follow them back. I use twitter to share resources, to connect with friends and colleagues (and readers I have not met) in @messages and DM messages… I also use it to search for topics and follow up with people, usually in a DM conversation. But, to respond to or track what a few thousand people are saying….for me personally would be impossible. But…the bigger issue — how does someone manage the volume of noise/communication is a worthy one. Lots of people have kicked it around but I don’t think there is any one right answer. If you have it all figured out and manage it all without anything slipping through the cracks, I applaud you. I don’t have it that well tooled.”

Ah, but there is an easy and obvious way to manage it all: don’t follow 6,000+ people. Period.

Auto-following is NOT being “courteous”; it’s LYING about having an interest in others — particularly if you don’t have a clue who you’re following. And if you’re a social media advisor telling people that Twitter is all about paying attention and building relationships, following others without even knowing that you’re doing so is hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, he defended himself:

“If I only followed a couple hundred people (and if only a couple hundred followed me) I would not be able to contribute as significantly to projects… which have raised over $25K for charity.”

That’s a completely fair and noble point, and I commended him for using Twitter for a worthy cause. But just because one can make money or promote a cause on Twitter doesn’t make it “social”; it makes it just another marketing platform, as the spammers who infest Twitter would readily agree.

What’s more, occasionally communicating with people through direct messages isn’t “social”: that’s business as usual.

Web 2.0verrated…

The social media experts have concocted this myth that, until Web 2.0, businesses spent thousands of years in hermetically sealed cocoons, spitting out products blindly, not knowing or caring who consumed them, and ignoring messages from customers.

Veteran marketer Ron Shevlin — who I met and actually follow on Twitter — noted this about companies socially interacting with customers:

“…for years, firms have been ‘listening to customers’ (market research is hardly a new field), ‘offering their knowledge’ (plenty of salespeople in stores and in call centers have helped me make product decisions), and providing ‘interesting content’ (I’ve received excellent newsletters from Vanguard and Fidelity for years).”

Indeed, once upon a time, a business person would occasionally have to play golf with prospective clients. These days, I guess it’s OK just to occasionally DM them.

Despite all the bluster, Web 2.0 simply introduced different ways for businesses and customers to interact. Indeed, I would argue that social media has made communicating with corporations more difficult than ever since it’s created “just too much noise to sift through.” For example, I had to use old-fashioned email to get this social media expert’s attention, since he didn’t respond to my tweets.

Back in the days of yore, when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the Web didn’t exist, I used to contact corporations by snail mail and phone — and I almost always got responses. Now, thanks to social media, corporations have to either hire several (or even hundreds) of customer service/social media reps, or they have to avoid customer contact as much as possible. Even the Web 2.0 sites have to do this: quick, try to find a phone number or even an email address for customer service at Facebook or WordPress. Be sure to bring a snack — it might take a while.

Mass Movement…

Those most successful at using Twitter to promote themselves have learned that the “social” part is unwieldy. Because it’s impossible to track or respond to the tweets of thousands of people, the emerging “best practice” is to treat Twitter as a traditional mass medium. Got 6,000+ followers? No problem. Occasionally talk to a few to show that you’re paying attention. This will also serve to excite your other followers into thinking that they, too, might be able to interact with your holiness. But most of the time, issue one-way statements about your views, your relationships with other famous people, your special offers, and where your fans can check out your latest books and articles. Sound familiar? Yeah, it’s called talk radio.

In other words, for all its social features, Twitter is simply the hottest thing to hit broadcasting since Howard Stern.

Now, let’s be honest here: using Twitter as a broadcasting tool is perfectly cool if it serves your business goals or raises awareness of a worthy cause. Who says you have to be social on social media? Oh, right, the social media experts do…

I contend that the word “follow” has lost all meaning except to new Twitter users, and that “auto-following” is an oxymoron that’s worse than not following at all — it’s the big lie practiced by some of Twitter’s biggest users. The Twitter consultants can write all the didactic articles they want on how to use social media properly, but if they don’t even know who they themselves are following, they’re no different from a multinational bank, government bureaucracy, or other institution that treats its customers as numbers. Such cold impersonal treatment is unfortunate but expected from a giant corporation; it’s abhorrent when it comes from a social media advisor.

So beware of any social media expert who claims to follow thousands of people. And if your social media consultant has his Twitter account set on auto-follow, it’s time to get a new consultant. As much as they claim to be on the cutting edge of communications, they’re just traditional marketers feeding you a bunch of lines, 140 characters at a time.

Related Articles:
• Words of, uh, Wisdom: How to Score More Twitter Followers
• Not Weird Science: Social Media in One Word
• The Authenticity Movement: A Totally Bogus Journey

Update 11/5/9: Doug Cone of Nullvariable Consulting quotes this post then takes it a step further, teaching tweeters how to identify Twitter Zombies…

by Freddy J. Nager, Professor of Marketing & Founder of Atomic Tango LLC

Sometimes you look at a chart and it seems that everything is clear as day. Then you look closer and that “day” turns out to be a foggy afternoon at San Francisco Airport with everything completely grounded.

For example, check out this chart of school staffing, spending and test scores in the United States:

I received this from a Republican (yes, I really have Republican friends) who argued that, “While spending has increased 150% per pupil and staffing has increased over 70% since 1970, achievement (in the form of student test scores) has either stagnated or declined… This is why I contend that the nation does not need a federal Department of Education. In terms of increasing student achievement, it has been a failure.”

Looks pretty convincing, right? But for me this chart raised more questions than it did answers:

1. Do the test results reflect changes in family income? Lots of middle and upper class students have left the public school system in the past 40 years. The American middle class in general has shrunk. In addition, more than 40 years ago, many working class children didn’t even go to high school — they went straight into farming or factory work at age 16. Now the working class constitutes a majority of many public schools. Level test scores don’t look so bad in that light.

2. Did all schools enjoy equal increases in spending? How did schools with no increases in spending or staffing perform? How about schools that endured budget and staffing cuts? If the latter two cases showed test score declines, then increased spending was effective.

3. What was the money spent on? If a school already has nice facilities (like in the suburbs), any increase in spending can go to teaching and learning tools. For a school that started with inadequate facilities, increased spending often goes to just keeping pace with repairs, crowding and security. Then there are the costs of those learning tools: Personal computers didn’t even exist in 1970, now they’re present in most schools. Meanwhile, the price of textbooks has far outpaced inflation.

4. Do the expenses include school construction? The past 40 years has seen a surge in new school construction, since 100-year-old buildings tend to fall apart. The problem is that land values and construction costs have skyrocketed since 1970, particularly in major metropolitan areas. There’s not exactly a lot of cheap empty space in major cities to just start building. If a small old building in L.A. costs $1 million, what does constructing a brand new school from scratch cost?

5. Is immigration considered here? The percentage of public school students for whom English is a second language has increased substantially since 1970. Poor immigrants usually don’t go to private schools. Indeed, considering the number of languages spoken in today’s urban public schools, it’s amazing that reading-test scores have even been flat. ESL also costs extra. Would reading-test scores have plummeted had expenditures and staffing not increased?

6. Weren’t teacher salaries extremely low to begin with? Although salaries have increased, have they kept pace with salary increases in other industries and with the cost of living, particularly in major cities? What do public schools have to spend to attract good teachers in the 21st century? Some regions of the country (Santa Barbara, California, for example) have had to subsidize housing for public employees. Is that included in the expenses?

7. Did the researchers always measure inner city and poor rural students as comprehensively as they do now? The U.S. Census didn’t.

8. Have the tests and how they’re graded changed over the course of 40 years?

9. Could there have been a deleterious effect on student ability to learn thanks to increased television, video games, parental drug abuse, poor childhood nutrition and other social factors? With both parents now working in most households, particularly in the working class, public schools have been asked to do a lot more child raising, from discipline to providing proper meals to simply transporting the kids to campus. You must also factor in the number of public school students raised in single parent households, which has also increased.

That’s just a quick brainstorm of mitigating factors. There could be many more. The point is that simple charts can be impressive to look at, but they don’t necessarily prove anything — particularly since a 2-dimensional graphic can only show a few elements. Pictures can be helpful, but they’re not always worth 1,000 words.