Anti-Murdoch Marketing
Rupert Murdoch writes lots of paychecks, and as he is a believer in Capitalism (capital-C), we understand the purpose of these checks. The Fox News people, the Fox Sports people, the New York Post people and the voice talent for the Simpsons are to make him money short-term and/or long-term. The checks Murdoch writes are investments.
Murdoch, being a sophisticated strategist, invests in the media for more than one reason. Sure, he likes selling ads. He also likes selling opinions. He wants the governments of the countries where he operates to regulate his operations (but not necessarily others) minimally such that he can make the most money and have the most influence.
Do you notice that only one side is being argued effectively on Murdoch's media? More than not, the academic evidence would argue the opposite. But, we do not read much science-based evidence in the Murdoch papers. Everything is man-bites-dog. Everything is a political opinion. People get used to it. Watching Fox News, it has been demonstrated, can actually make you know less about the subjects they report on.
The same is true with the baseball announcers on Fox Sports. They talk endlessly about small ball, momentum and match ups, the low sample size junk-statistics which are generally not predictive, and the zero sum, zero run strategies that usually do not lead to wins. Often it is players that tell us these things. Perhaps, the dumber players. These same announcers critique "stat guys", the people who understand the importance of players not making outs and understand the large sample size stats (platoon advantages, park effects, cold weather) that do affect the scoring of runs that cause winning and losing. In the opinion of the typical Fox Sports baseball announcer, "heart" is far more important than the skill "stat guys" would measure. Older announcers like Vin Scully understand the game and the statistics, but I do not recall hearing Vin on Fox. Murdoch has a strategy: "Keep the people who understand baseball off the air." And you may rightly say, "it is just a game". So what, if most baseball announcers are dunces?
But, Murdoch also keeps the people who understand economics and the like off his stations, reducing science based fact to a poorly argued "side" of a "fair and balanced" opinion discussion. He is presenting equivalences. He is marketing that my unsubstantiated opinion is equal to your substantiated opinion.
Evidently, most people do not care if their sports entertainment and news entertainment are presented in the same manner. Maybe, we like an announcer that clearly favors our team or our country. Maybe, it makes us feel superior to have ideas that are often more correct that what we see on TV. Maybe, people just like having their naive beliefs reinforced. I do not understand how this strategy of "keeping us dumb" sells, but it obviously makes money for Murdoch.
But, Murdoch is not the only Capitalist genius around, and what works for him can work for others. Murdoch is a "threat" in the SWOT analysis of competing media. How to deal with the threat? One can copy what he does, only with opposing slants.
The first point an anti-Murdoch makes is that hired opinion leaders are not "people with heart" who instinctively know economics and the like, whether expert in these topics or not. The first point an anti-Murdoch makes is that the people on Murdoch's stations are employees of Murdoch, who parrot Murdoch's talking points.
How does an anti-Murdoch communicate that Beck, Palin and the WSJ editorial page writers are Murdoch employees? One thing you might try is to hire a sports announcer to do the same job as Beck and Palin, but making the opposite points.
Next, suspend the sports announcer over an employee manual violation.
Marketing is hard. And, no one markets opinion like Murdoch.
But, making the point that opinion presenters are employees, just like most people, and do what they are told, just like most people, is brilliant anti-Murdoch marketing.
Murdoch, being a sophisticated strategist, invests in the media for more than one reason. Sure, he likes selling ads. He also likes selling opinions. He wants the governments of the countries where he operates to regulate his operations (but not necessarily others) minimally such that he can make the most money and have the most influence.
Do you notice that only one side is being argued effectively on Murdoch's media? More than not, the academic evidence would argue the opposite. But, we do not read much science-based evidence in the Murdoch papers. Everything is man-bites-dog. Everything is a political opinion. People get used to it. Watching Fox News, it has been demonstrated, can actually make you know less about the subjects they report on.
The same is true with the baseball announcers on Fox Sports. They talk endlessly about small ball, momentum and match ups, the low sample size junk-statistics which are generally not predictive, and the zero sum, zero run strategies that usually do not lead to wins. Often it is players that tell us these things. Perhaps, the dumber players. These same announcers critique "stat guys", the people who understand the importance of players not making outs and understand the large sample size stats (platoon advantages, park effects, cold weather) that do affect the scoring of runs that cause winning and losing. In the opinion of the typical Fox Sports baseball announcer, "heart" is far more important than the skill "stat guys" would measure. Older announcers like Vin Scully understand the game and the statistics, but I do not recall hearing Vin on Fox. Murdoch has a strategy: "Keep the people who understand baseball off the air." And you may rightly say, "it is just a game". So what, if most baseball announcers are dunces?
But, Murdoch also keeps the people who understand economics and the like off his stations, reducing science based fact to a poorly argued "side" of a "fair and balanced" opinion discussion. He is presenting equivalences. He is marketing that my unsubstantiated opinion is equal to your substantiated opinion.
Evidently, most people do not care if their sports entertainment and news entertainment are presented in the same manner. Maybe, we like an announcer that clearly favors our team or our country. Maybe, it makes us feel superior to have ideas that are often more correct that what we see on TV. Maybe, people just like having their naive beliefs reinforced. I do not understand how this strategy of "keeping us dumb" sells, but it obviously makes money for Murdoch.
But, Murdoch is not the only Capitalist genius around, and what works for him can work for others. Murdoch is a "threat" in the SWOT analysis of competing media. How to deal with the threat? One can copy what he does, only with opposing slants.
The first point an anti-Murdoch makes is that hired opinion leaders are not "people with heart" who instinctively know economics and the like, whether expert in these topics or not. The first point an anti-Murdoch makes is that the people on Murdoch's stations are employees of Murdoch, who parrot Murdoch's talking points.
How does an anti-Murdoch communicate that Beck, Palin and the WSJ editorial page writers are Murdoch employees? One thing you might try is to hire a sports announcer to do the same job as Beck and Palin, but making the opposite points.
Next, suspend the sports announcer over an employee manual violation.
Marketing is hard. And, no one markets opinion like Murdoch.
But, making the point that opinion presenters are employees, just like most people, and do what they are told, just like most people, is brilliant anti-Murdoch marketing.
Labels: Don't Vote 2012
posted by David Rasmussen at 11:28 AM
<< Home