Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!

4.8.05
The Windbag City
-- OR --
Promo Pilgrims Get Saved
When protesters convene, there's bound to be an abundance of idealism, and even a bit of delusion in the ranks. Lyrics written by Graham Nash in response to arrests of protesters at Chicago's 1968 Democratic Convention, for instance, are anything but realistic: "We can change the world, rearrange the world….If you believe in justice, and if you believe in freedom, let a man live his own life, rules and regulations who needs them." The song's first line, about a protester who was restrained during his trial, is equally dramatic: "So your brother's bound and gagged and they've chained him to a chair."

Sure, a tune like that belongs at a protest convention -- or even a hippie jam fest -- but a marketing convention? Believe it or not, a couple of word-of-mouth marketing whizzes actually used the tune in their podcast coverage of last week's first-ever Word of Mouth Marketing Summit in Chi-town, hosted by WOMMA (Word of Mouth Marketing Association). Yep, Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba, authors of the book, "Creating Customer Evangelists," posted a podcast to their ChurchOfTheCustomer.com blog that indeed features Nash's Chicago, including the bit about the brother being bound and gagged. Nice.

Besides being inappropriate, the use of the Nash song, in a way, displays the delusion many marketers seem to be clouded by. They get so hung up on their nuclear networks of business associates, their trendy neologisms and ghost-written books on the marketing fad-of-the-month, they can't see past their own hullabaloo to what's real. And when these naval-gazers get together to discuss especially-hyped selling strategies, such as the increasingly popular marketing tactic known as word-of-mouth or viral marketing, an empty ideological circle jerk is bound to ensue.

Like most "new" forms of marketing, word-of-mouth isn't actually new; it's merely an old concept that's being thought about and applied in new, more orchestrated ways. And it's spurred a number of self-proclaimed evangelists whose sermons are steeped in religious zealotry. Word-of-mouth goes by several names, but generally involves strategies that hinge on the willing participation of consumers to promote products to their friends and acquaintances. To the marketer, word-of-mouth campaigns essentially equate human beings with media buys like TV spots or billboards. Of course, they would say word-of-mouth marketing empowers consumers by allowing them to have a conversation with the brand. But they're tryin' to sell you something, remember?

The prophets of marketing trends, including this one, like to make up silly words and phrases like "ideavirus," "shockvirus," "napsterize," "e-fluential," "tech-fluential" and "Cost Per Influencer." They also seem to relish spouting bombastic puffery in the form of lists and rules. At the summit, keynote speaker Guy Kawasaki, author of Art of the Start and Selling the Dream, and evidently a big fish in the little pond of 350 attendees, indoctrinated the audience with his "Rules for Evangelism." As posted by John Moore on his Brand Autopsy blog, the "amazing and inspiring" Kawasaki commanded his followers to 1: Make Meaning, 2: Niche Thyself, 3: Don't be Paranoid, 4: Localize the Pain, 5: Let 100 Flowers Blossom, 6: Look for Agnostics, not Atheists, 7: Enable Test Drives, 8: Provide a Slippery Slope, 9: Foster Team Spirit, 10: Don't Ask Anyone to Do Something You Wouldn't and 11: Be a Mensch.

Sure, each rule is accompanied by some sort of explanation, but c'mon, do you really care what "Let 100 Flowers Blossom" means? Man, I really hope somebody at the summit had the nerve to tell Kawasaki to go niche himself....

And if Kawasaki's laws ain't biblical enough for ya, check out WOMMA high priest Andy Sernovitz and his "four horsemen of deceptive word-of-mouth practices." As listed during his interview with the ChurchOfTheCustomer.com podcasters, he's deemed these apocalyptic indicators "Abusers, Accommodators, Bystanders and Bankers." Basically, they each play a role in perpetrating evil word-of-mouth practices, or enabling the bad seeds who do.

I'm always fascinated by the way burgeoning industries are dominated by an elite group of thought-leaders, who love to praise one another almost as much as they love promoting themselves. While perusing several blogs written by these wannabe marketing gurus, I was amazed by the reciprocal masturbation taking place. Of course they all promote one another's books. You know, the types with ostentatious titles like Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable, The Pursuit of Wow! and The Art Of The Start: The Time-tested, Battle-hardened Guide For Anyone Starting Anything.

I wonder if there's anything in that one about starting a book bonfire.

And then there's the sycophantic arse-kissing. ChurchOfTheCustomer.com's Huba called the summit attendees interviewed for the podcast, "remarkable." Jake McKee, "evangelist for online and offline community building," was smitten with several summit speakers. As noted on his Community Guy blog, one was a "terrific speaker and a great magician." Other's were "great folks" and "hilarious." Still others "impressed the hell out of [him]." And at one point, Forrester Research analyst, Jim Nail, even made Jake "want to kiss him."

Hmmm…I'm not sure what the ChurchOfTheCustomer's stance on that type of relationship is….

I'll admit, I've railed against advertiser-engineered word-of-mouth for quite some time now, and I don't believe that simply by pledging transparency, word-of-mouth marketers are vindicated when it comes to their potential to enable the corruption of our personal relationships. Here's the thing: I'm not trying to attack any of the people I've mentioned. It's just that I find it humorous and ironic that they've managed to create so much hype about a form of marketing that, in essence, is nothing more than creating hype.

One has to wonder whether, by presenting their tactics as a form of consumer-worship rather than what it really is -- employing people as ads (and even measuring the results by "Cost Per Influencer") -- these word-of-mouth disciples aren't infected with their own malignant ideavirus.



No Taxation without Amplification
-- OR --
CPA: Certified Public Annoyance
I don't know about you, but the last thing I wanna do when I'm out gettin' my rocks off is think about work. Like most workin' stiffs, I go out to forget about the grind, not wallow in it. I want a whiskey in my hand, a band on a small stage and guitar blarin' so loud out of an amp that it's more fuzz than Fender. I don't wanna see jerks in business suits and I don't wanna hear about email or PDAs.

That's why when I read the declarations of Louisville, Kentucky band, The Accountants, my bullshit detector went off. According to their site, the four 30-somethings "live and work in the corporate world. And they are fed up: with their jobs, their bosses, and all the corporate BS." They claim to play "music for grown-ups who work for a living and deal with real issues," and proclaim themselves "the heroes of the white-collar weekend warriors who want to rock."

Ugh. Can't these suits go open for Robert Palmer and leave Louisville's white-collar weekend warriors alone? Apparently not. Now they've gotta preach to 'em about paying their taxes! Yes, it turns out the shticky pub rockers have signed with The Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Revenue Commission to help promote its tax amnesty program.

According to the 3/29 edition of American Public Media's Marketplace, the commission hired The Accountants to write a song to convince tax dodgers to take advantage of the limited amnesty period and cough up their overdue occupational license fees.

As told by Louisville Metro Mayor's Office spokesperson, Phil Miller, in the report, "It's a pretty serious topic and a fairly grim topic, particularly for those who owe, and so we wanted to do something that was a little more fun and that's when we kinda had the idea of perhaps doing a song that would be really good for tax amnesty…a jingle perhaps."

Man, and I thought NY's smoking ban was a bar biz killer. Now all those deadbeat rock 'n' rollers hittin' their local dive on a Friday night in the hopes of escaping their financial woes are outta luck. They just might come up against a government shill on stage scolding him to "give up the dough." The second verse of the tune, in fact, demands just that. And, in perfect bar band form, the lyrics couldn't be any cheesier:

You've laid low and you've not paid
-- but don't be afraid
It's your only chance to improve your finance
If you come clean you'll save some green

"Amnesty, no penalty, interest free
-- pay your license fee" (Repeat)

You've only got till the end of May
The deadline to pay
It's money you owe so give up the dough
I'm gonna shout
-- Time is running out!

"Amnesty, no penalty, interest free
-- pay your license fee" (Repeat)

Our public schools depend on you
A tug that gets you there
The services we all enjoy
It's time to pay your share

"Amnesty, no penalty, interest free
-- pay your license fee" (Repeat)


For a tune commissioned by county officials, though, "Amnesty" isn't half bad. It's got a solid rock hook; plus, the nasal vocals and the bridge's back-up oohs give it a third rate Neil Young and Crazy Horse feel that I can't help but dig. The song is by no means heavy, but that didn't stop Marketplace host David Brown from wasting time reviewing it when he could have been inquiring whether it's getting radio play, or is featured in an ad, or just how its target audience would hear it.

"You have a lotta folks who are into AC/DC there in local government?" jabs Brown. Responds Miller, "Yeah, I think so, we've got our share. There were some people who wanted to vote for something a little bit harder or a little bit softer." Then Brown pounces, "Excuse me, a little harder? Is that what? [laughs] What are ya lookin' for Metallica?"

Getting back to the actual intent of the report, Miller explains, "Well you know, it might grab a particular segment of the audience that hasn't paid their tax."

Ya know, I might not like taxes, or the idea of using rock 'n' roll to get people to pay 'em, but I've gotta hand it to The Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Revenue Commission: at least they don't want to take money from pussies who are afraid to rock.



All the Plugs Fit to Print
-- OR --
Quip Gyp
"Alright. I need a flag expert, and I need an expert on donkey basketball. And, I need a hooker - I mean, I need an expert on hookers." Ever wonder where those courtroom "experts" come from? So did the sardonic comedy geniuses at Mr. Show. In a sketch from the HBO show in which David Cross plays Spank, a performance artist hack who demands the American flag be jailed for trampling his rights to relieve himself on it, a court bailiff enters the "Experts Lounge" in search of these outlandish authorities. Once the bailiff's order is filled, a timid expert played by Jack Black approaches, and inquires meekly, "Sir, you got anything for me today?…I can be an expert on anything. Just give me a chance."

Perhaps Larry Sabato can relate. According to an article in the April/May issue of American Journalism Review, the University of Virginia professor and director of its Center for Politics is a member of a select group of people reporters refer to as "easy quotes or dial-a-quotes." Sabato and his opinionated colleagues (Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, Stephen Hess and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report and John Pike of Globalsecurity.org are specifically named in the piece) have become the go-to talking heads for time-strapped reporters in need of a quick quote on a variety of topics.

In fact, sometimes these so-called experts get so much ink, they begin to be perceived as opportunistic press whores, more concerned with propelling their own careers as speakers and authors than providing thoroughly-considered commentary. (I can think of a few Senators who could be accused of the same offense.)

As noted in the piece, "once 'sources' are quoted often enough to become 'pundits,' journalists think of them as self-serving P.R. reps on the make." The story continues, "The publicity arms of [universities, think tanks and other research organizations] aggressively pursue media interest in their experts….A number of organizations, including the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institution, have built television studios in their offices to make it easier for their experts to appear on air."

The AJR article lays bear the symbiotic, yet potentially dangerous relationship between journalists and analysts, experts, pundits and the like. Similar to the reporter/PR flak relationship, the one that exists between reporters and their sources is one of codependency. As someone who's worked as a daily reporter and features writer, I know first-hand the reliance journalists have on these analyst types. They're meant to lend an observer's perspective to stories in order to complement opinions and information provided by insiders who typically have a vested interest in the issue being covered.

The problem is, as the story illuminates, some reporters rest on their laurels. They get stuck in a rut, calling on the same analysts or pundits again and again, sometimes because they're on a tight deadline and don't have time to seek out alternative sources, and other times because they're too damn lazy to locate a new source. As presented in the AJR piece, LA Times national political editor, Don Frederick, "had a researcher assemble a list of more obscure sources for his reporters." He admits in the story, "Sometimes you have to push your folks….We're trying to guard against being lazy in the reporting."

Call me overdramatic, but this really disgusts me. There's no reason why an editor should have to resort to spoon-feeding sources to his writing staff. Maybe this is a common practice in newspaper reporting; I don't know. Still, if an editor finds it necessary to supply a list of new sources to his reporting staff, maybe what he really needs is new reporters.

Another distressing revelation, as noted by The American Enterprise Institute's Ornstein in the story: "There are lots of reporters who call you because they have something specific they want you to say....I get a lot of that now. They want you to say something, and they get unhappy when you don't." This notion of dialing someone for a quote, or calling on certain people based on the stance they're expected to take, exposes even more journalistic laziness and prejudice. If journalists are simply calling these quote-aholics for witty quips as opposed to discussing issues with them at length, in many cases the context of the quote could be misinterpreted, and the story could suffer for lack of research and reporting. And if journalists typically have the outcome of articles determined before they've conducted interviews to truly understand the reality of the situation, we may as well be reading The Weekly World News.

The AJR article is a good one, and draws attention to a much overlooked issue that relates closely to the topic that gets most of the hype -- media bias. When reporters constantly quote the same pundits, most of whom have their own agendas or are aligned with agenda-driven organizations and think tanks, their stories will inevitably lack a well-rounded view of the issue at hand.

Over the years, I've grown more and more aware of and disappointed in the overuse of professors and think tank representatives -- who also tend to be academics -- in presenting the outsider's viewpoint in news coverage. The problem is that these people typically exist in nuclear environments, immersed in a culture of book-learning and ideological theories, rather than actually practicing what they claim to have expertise in. It's not that their opinions are not valid, but they're often formed in a vacuum, not through real-world experience. Reporting that relies mainly on these sorts of sources for perspective most likely is not representing the practical, realistic perspective.

While some may think of the AJR story as an indictment of self-promoters like Sabato (he evidently makes enough dough that he was able to donate $1 million to the University of Virginia, "estimated to be 12 to 13 times the scholar's annual salary"), I don't. It's the prerogative of any pundit, think tank researcher, or professor to market himself.

The true culprits are the lackadaisical reporters who enable these pundits to become so marketable in the first place, shirking their journalistic responsibility to research and report a story in a way that's as unbiased and thorough as possible.

At this point, I'm startin' to wonder whether the reporters are pocketing payola from the pundits to ensure their expert status, which would in turn set up the pundits for the ultimate payoff: Armstrong Williams-style scratch.


Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!


The Lowbrow Lowdown is available for syndication.

Disclaimer
The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ is a registered trademark. Any use of The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ name or content without consent of Kate Kaye is strictly prohibited.

While best efforts were used in collecting and preparing the information contained herein, The Lowbrow Lowdown™ does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident or other causes.