Written from the point of view of a strategist for Democratic Governor Deval Patrick:
Tim Cahill's sudden and dramatic bank to the right has made it clear that the treasurer is intent on battling Charlie Baker for votes, not Governor Patrick. However, although the Patrick campaign now has an ostensibly uncontested claim on Democratic voters. As far as right-versus-left-versus-center goes, Cahill's shift has left you sitting (somewhat) pretty. But you must not ignore another crucial divide: establishment versus populist. You need to bolster your populist credentials in the lead up to the election.
John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, found a high degree of correlation between "trust in government" and growth in disposable income in a recent historical study. Of course in the midst of trying economic times, even though the Patrick Administration has little or nothing to do with the national recession, it is incumbent upon you to take aggressive action to improve voters' economic situation in order to increase their trust in, and their likelihood of voting for, you. Your move to reject insurers' premium increases was a good one: it bolsters your populist credentials and depicts you as an active, attentive chief executive, not a milquetoast pushover who passively stands by while constituents see their health care costs rise.
There is the danger of being painted as a meddler with free markets. But truth is, even in Massachusetts, perhaps the most-educated state in the nation, the average Joes and Janes don't know how healthcare works. This gives you the chance to frame the issue, and frame you should.
Push forward on this issue unapologetically. When reporters ask you if denying premium rises for insurers will doom them to insolvency and costly state receivership, answer this way:
"That's a good question, an important question. Since Commonwealth Care began in 2006, we've worked with insurers to ensure that consumers are getting a fair shake and that health care is affordable and fair. We're coming out of a recession, and middle-class Massachusetts families are struggling to get by. They need to pay their bills—rent, mortgage, food, electric, tuition, and, of course, health insurance. We will work with health insurance providers to reach an agreement on a fair premium adjustment, fair for insurers and families both. This is something we can do, and I am confident that all sides will emerge from this pleased, and that the Massachusetts consumer will save some money they didn't need to spend."
Whether or not the courts rule in the governor's favor, your campaign has a wonderful opportunity to directly advocate for voters' finances, and if you frame the issue thusly, it's a major winner of public opinion.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Mass. health insurance rate memo
Written from the point of view of a strategist for Democratic Governor Deval Patrick:
Tim Cahill's sudden and dramatic bank to the right has made it clear that the treasurer is intent on battling Charlie Baker for votes, not Governor Patrick. However, although the Patrick campaign now has an ostensibly uncontested claim on Democratic voters. As far as right-versus-left-versus-center goes, Cahill's shift has left you sitting (somewhat) pretty. But you must not ignore another crucial divide: establishment versus populist. You need to bolster your populist credentials in the lead up to the election.
John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, found a high degree of correlation between "trust in government" and growth in disposable income in a recent historical study. Of course in the midst of trying economic times, even though the Patrick Administration has little or nothing to do with the national recession, it is incumbent upon you to take aggressive action to improve voters' economic situation in order to increase their trust in, and their likelihood of voting for, you. Your move to reject insurers' premium increases was a good one: it bolsters your populist credentials and depicts you as an active, attentive chief executive, not a milquetoast pushover who passively stands by while constituents see their health care costs rise.
There is the danger of being painted as a meddler with free markets. But truth is, even in Massachusetts, perhaps the most-educated state in the nation, the average Joes and Janes don't know how healthcare works. This gives you the chance to frame the issue, and frame you should.
Push forward on this issue unapologetically. When reporters ask you if denying premium rises for insurers will doom them to insolvency and costly state receivership, answer this way:
"That's a good question, an important question. Since Commonwealth Care began in 2006, we've worked with insurers to ensure that consumers are getting a fair shake and that health care is affordable and fair. We're coming out of a recession, and middle-class Massachusetts families are struggling to get by. They need to pay their bills—rent, mortgage, food, electric, tuition, and, of course, health insurance. We will work with health insurance providers to reach an agreement on a fair premium adjustment, fair for insurers and families both. This is something we can do, and I am confident that all sides will emerge from this pleased, and that the Massachusetts consumer will save some money they didn't need to spend."
Whether or not the courts rule in the governor's favor, your campaign has a wonderful opportunity to directly advocate for voters' finances, and if you frame the issue thusly, it's a major winner of public opinion.
Tim Cahill's sudden and dramatic bank to the right has made it clear that the treasurer is intent on battling Charlie Baker for votes, not Governor Patrick. However, although the Patrick campaign now has an ostensibly uncontested claim on Democratic voters. As far as right-versus-left-versus-center goes, Cahill's shift has left you sitting (somewhat) pretty. But you must not ignore another crucial divide: establishment versus populist. You need to bolster your populist credentials in the lead up to the election.
John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, found a high degree of correlation between "trust in government" and growth in disposable income in a recent historical study. Of course in the midst of trying economic times, even though the Patrick Administration has little or nothing to do with the national recession, it is incumbent upon you to take aggressive action to improve voters' economic situation in order to increase their trust in, and their likelihood of voting for, you. Your move to reject insurers' premium increases was a good one: it bolsters your populist credentials and depicts you as an active, attentive chief executive, not a milquetoast pushover who passively stands by while constituents see their health care costs rise.
There is the danger of being painted as a meddler with free markets. But truth is, even in Massachusetts, perhaps the most-educated state in the nation, the average Joes and Janes don't know how healthcare works. This gives you the chance to frame the issue, and frame you should.
Push forward on this issue unapologetically. When reporters ask you if denying premium rises for insurers will doom them to insolvency and costly state receivership, answer this way:
"That's a good question, an important question. Since Commonwealth Care began in 2006, we've worked with insurers to ensure that consumers are getting a fair shake and that health care is affordable and fair. We're coming out of a recession, and middle-class Massachusetts families are struggling to get by. They need to pay their bills—rent, mortgage, food, electric, tuition, and, of course, health insurance. We will work with health insurance providers to reach an agreement on a fair premium adjustment, fair for insurers and families both. This is something we can do, and I am confident that all sides will emerge from this pleased, and that the Massachusetts consumer will save some money they didn't need to spend."
Whether or not the courts rule in the governor's favor, your campaign has a wonderful opportunity to directly advocate for voters' finances, and if you frame the issue thusly, it's a major winner of public opinion.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Vote for this URL: Candidate Websites
I thought it would be interesting to look at two sites from the same campaign, the district of my hometown, which covers the northeast corner of Massachusetts. On the front page of both Websites, John Tierney, the Democratic incumbent, and Bill Hudak, the Republican challenger, featured: a campaign logo; an email sign up box; contribute, volunteer, and subscribe buttons; a link to their Facebook page; and a welcome message.
To me, Tierney's site (johntierney.com/home) is underwhelming, and its content limited. The layout is inefficient, not using the sides of the page, but only the middle. There is no multimedia on the page, and the 327-word welcome letter dominates it. For people who do not want to read the letter, this is a waste of space, and there is nothing else on the front page to engage them.
However, Tierney does feature a picture of himself (two, in fact) on the front page, which Hudak does not. I think including a picture helps candidates build familiarity and rapport with voters, and should be on every campaign front page.
To see just how far the Internet has come in seven years, I've included a February 2003 screengrab from Tierney's site (I'm sure that at the time, it loaded properly, but you get a concept of its archaic nature.)
Hudak's site (hudakforcongress.com) impresses me much more, using the front-page space very well. An 80-word "welcome" from Bill sits in a small box at the top with a "read more" link. A slider alternates
between four embedded YouTube videos. A scrolling calendar shows Bill's itinerary on the lower left. Links to his Twitter and YouTube accounts. A news feed links to recent mentions of Hudak in the media. The part of the page that caught my eye is the "voter shout box," which scrolls to show comments left by campaign supporters. It's a nifty device, and lets voters know that the Hudak is legitimate - he has supporters already.
The third candidate Website I looked at was Marco Rubio's (marcorubio.com). Rubio is running in the Rubublican primary for a Florida US Senate seat against Governor Charlie Crist. Rubio's site has a good color palette - white, light blue, and, to a lesser extent, red - which is easy on the eyes. His Twitter and Facebook links are easy to find on the right, and the top of the page is well-spaced, not cluttered and overwhelming, but not empty and fuctionless, either. However, the "latest news" section takes up far too much room, stretching all the way down the front page. Also, there is no picture of Rubio.
Overall, I think campaign Websites have become increasingly useful over the years, but at the moment, we don't agree on what their function is. Some people think they are mostly a way to learn about a candidate. Others think they are for fundraising. Still others think they are for organizing and networking supporters and volunteers. Really, they're for all of these things, though each candidates needs are different. Challengers need to share their backstory and platform with voters--and are desperate to raise money. Incumbents also need to raise money, and they need to tap into their base for volunteers.
In and of themselves, most people won't vote for someone because of their Website. And that's okay. With integrated marketing communication, there are many other ways for a candidate to get their message out. When voters are exposed to these multiple times, the message starts to sink in.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Midterm: public policy scrapbook
Here are some pertinent links to supplement my midterm on carbon footprint labeling for consumer products:
¶October 2007: "Food industry rejects "carbon label" idea." European Union agribusiness speaks out against "misleading" carbon labels.
¶October 2007: "Food industry rejects "carbon label" idea." European Union agribusiness speaks out against "misleading" carbon labels.
¶August 2008, The Guardian: "Japan to launch carbon footprint labelling scheme." Excerpt: "Although the labeling scheme is voluntary, few firms want to be seen to be lagging behind rivals in the rush to corner the growing market in eco-friendly products."
¶Jan. 28, New York Times (blog): "CO2 Labels for Motorbikes in Europe?" Excerpt: "The European Commission plans to propose rules that would oblige motorcycle manufacturers to label new models with the amount of carbon dioxide they emit."
¶July 2009, Boston Globe: "Wal-Mart using its clout to go green." Excerpt: "By rolling out an environmental labeling program disclosing to consumers the environmental costs of making products sold at Wal-Mart, the $401 billion retail behemoth has transformed green standards from nice-to-have to must-have."
¶October 2009, Boston Globe: "Talking with Timberland CEO on sustainability." Excerpt, Swartz quote: "Business has the ability to efficiently solve problems through innovation, and that expertise should be maximized during the climate debate."
¶October 2009, New York Times (graphic): "To Cut Global Warming, Swedes Study Their Plates." Excerpt: Beef up to 170 times more carbon-intensive than apples.
¶The Global Warming Diet: How carbon food labels would look
¶A Carbon Label for California
¶July 2009, TreeHugger.com: "Wal-Mart's Sustainability Index: The Greenest Thing Ever to Happen to Retail?" Excerpt, in relation to Walmart's "sustainability index": "With inspectors and analysts crawling up the supply chain and peeking into every corner of production in order to deliver a comprehensive environmental assessment, we might see some major changes made by some major companies."
Monday, March 1, 2010
I'm telling you with my eyes: Non-verbal messages in advertising
This advertisement could be a parody, but it could just be blunt. There's no smoke and mirrors here, just a handsome couple and a woman about to open a jewelry box. She is close to her romantic partner (proxemics) and is smiling and clasping her hands with anticipation. The message here is similar to most jewelry ads: give her this and rekindle the passion; give her this and you'll be back to new love.
A very sappy commercial. This commercial isn't so different from the Jetpack print ad, but it seems to focus on younger couples, those who are looking for a grand gesture of love, not to turn back the clock to happier days in their relationships. Most of the communication here is through the eyes and laughter.
I've always loved Stouffer's ads, but they've never made me want to buy their food, because that's not what they're selling. They're selling the linchpin of a happy family: dinner together, and dinner fast (because we're busy, you know). This image features smiles and applause all around as daughter/sister puts on a show. The advertisent's wood-brown color palette and watercolor appearance make it look almost like a Norman Rockwell, evoking the good feelings of years gone by, which Stouffer's can help bring back.
Ads like these are everywhere, and Giorgio Armani has been using them for years. It works like this: Here's a model; The model uses this fragrance; You, too (or your significant other), can look like this, or at least boost your allure, by using the fragrance. The last step is implicit. Smell is absent from advertising, so other methods must be used instead.
"I will be many things," this ad reads, suggesting that Virginia Slims cigarettes broaden your horizons, boost your capabilities, and give you daring and wit. The pose of this model, a handstand, suggests vitality and quirkiness. Also, that the model is a young, pretty, African-American woman with a great smile counteracts the perception that smoking ravages your body in every way possible.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Alan Macdonald paper
In his presentation last Wednesday, Alan Macdonald provided us with a look inside a high-stakes public affairs campaign, one whose opponents, allies, and audience ranged from the Air Force to the late Senator Kennedy to the citizens in the towns surrounding Hanscom Air Force Base and the Soldier Systems Center in Natick. Macdonald described his task as come-from-behind: It was all but decided, a foregone conclusion, that Hanscom would close. But in the end, he helped see that didn't.
Mass Development, of which Macdonald was a senior vice president, launched a steering committee to keep the base open--and to spare from elimination the 33,000 jobs it supports.
Macdonald said that the difference between the Hanscom effort and the efforts of other military bases, many of which met failure, was that "we were better." It is hard to believe, though, that Macdonald's triumph was only a matter of magnitude. There must have been some strategic variation from team to team.
It was obvious and predictable that everyone facing the Base Realignment and Closure proceedings would focus on intensifying their base's good (a corner of the Rank Model). After all, in situations like these, you can't go directly after your opponent. Had Macdonald and his peers launched a "close Fort McPherson in Georgia instead of Hanscom" campaign, it is possible they would have lost popular support and the sympathetic ear of the Air Force. Therefore, Macdonald's organization focused on intensifying their good and--subtly--pointing out that other bases did not do as good a job as them in some areas: employee talent and intellect being the foremost.
One thing Mass Development's pitch did extremely well was presenting Hanscom as a part of Massachusetts--not a wart on its face, but an organ in its whirring body. This integration suggested to the Air Force bigwigs that the base would not be easy to shut down, and that if it came to that, relocating its programs may result in diminishing returns wherever they moved Hanscom's responsibilities.
The central part of this argument was that Massachusetts is different, and that Hanscom is different. Massachusetts has a glut of people with higher degrees and research institutions, as well as good schools and towns where people want to live. Hanscom Air Force Base's influence is not confined to its physical boundaries, but requires and thrives on collaboration from area businesses--high-tech companies that are prolific in the Commonwealth.
In convincing the Air Force of Hanscom's unique character, Macdonald's team was able to redefine what was in the military's best interest, and win the struggle to keep the base open.
Some in our class expressed reservations over the morality of Macdonald's mission: keeping a military base operating instead of allowing it to shut down.
Though I don't support a rampant war economy, I believe that Macdonald was not doing anything wrong, and that he believed in what he was fighting for. If Hanscom was moved, 33,000 Massachusetts workers would have lost their job or had to chase it out of state.
These people have families and mortgages and consumer debt and kids in college. Mass Development's triumph is something to be proud of. Even if some of their jobs involve researching and developing lethal weapons, someone else would do it if Hanscom didn't. Macdonald helped preserve what these workers had in Massachusetts.
However, he seemed to waver slightly when it comes to his current job at South Shore Hospital. He said that a lot about the healthcare industry disturbs him, a lot of which, working for a hospital, he may see firsthand.
Part of the justification process for Macdonald is the fact that incredible things happen in the hospital every day--people are born, people die, and people are saved. Fresh off his Hanscom victory, Macdonald realizes that institutions are malleable. Just because some things about the healthcare industry disturb him does not mean that it is inherently bad or evil, but merely broken, perhaps.
Macdonald reconciles the cognitive dissonance of objecting to some of his industry's ethics by working to make that industry better for hospitals and for its patients. His work on federal hospital reimbursements, and on a South Shore hospital alliance, are an example of that.
Mass Development, of which Macdonald was a senior vice president, launched a steering committee to keep the base open--and to spare from elimination the 33,000 jobs it supports.
Macdonald said that the difference between the Hanscom effort and the efforts of other military bases, many of which met failure, was that "we were better." It is hard to believe, though, that Macdonald's triumph was only a matter of magnitude. There must have been some strategic variation from team to team.
It was obvious and predictable that everyone facing the Base Realignment and Closure proceedings would focus on intensifying their base's good (a corner of the Rank Model). After all, in situations like these, you can't go directly after your opponent. Had Macdonald and his peers launched a "close Fort McPherson in Georgia instead of Hanscom" campaign, it is possible they would have lost popular support and the sympathetic ear of the Air Force. Therefore, Macdonald's organization focused on intensifying their good and--subtly--pointing out that other bases did not do as good a job as them in some areas: employee talent and intellect being the foremost.
One thing Mass Development's pitch did extremely well was presenting Hanscom as a part of Massachusetts--not a wart on its face, but an organ in its whirring body. This integration suggested to the Air Force bigwigs that the base would not be easy to shut down, and that if it came to that, relocating its programs may result in diminishing returns wherever they moved Hanscom's responsibilities.
The central part of this argument was that Massachusetts is different, and that Hanscom is different. Massachusetts has a glut of people with higher degrees and research institutions, as well as good schools and towns where people want to live. Hanscom Air Force Base's influence is not confined to its physical boundaries, but requires and thrives on collaboration from area businesses--high-tech companies that are prolific in the Commonwealth.
In convincing the Air Force of Hanscom's unique character, Macdonald's team was able to redefine what was in the military's best interest, and win the struggle to keep the base open.
Some in our class expressed reservations over the morality of Macdonald's mission: keeping a military base operating instead of allowing it to shut down.
Though I don't support a rampant war economy, I believe that Macdonald was not doing anything wrong, and that he believed in what he was fighting for. If Hanscom was moved, 33,000 Massachusetts workers would have lost their job or had to chase it out of state.
These people have families and mortgages and consumer debt and kids in college. Mass Development's triumph is something to be proud of. Even if some of their jobs involve researching and developing lethal weapons, someone else would do it if Hanscom didn't. Macdonald helped preserve what these workers had in Massachusetts.
However, he seemed to waver slightly when it comes to his current job at South Shore Hospital. He said that a lot about the healthcare industry disturbs him, a lot of which, working for a hospital, he may see firsthand.
Part of the justification process for Macdonald is the fact that incredible things happen in the hospital every day--people are born, people die, and people are saved. Fresh off his Hanscom victory, Macdonald realizes that institutions are malleable. Just because some things about the healthcare industry disturb him does not mean that it is inherently bad or evil, but merely broken, perhaps.
Macdonald reconciles the cognitive dissonance of objecting to some of his industry's ethics by working to make that industry better for hospitals and for its patients. His work on federal hospital reimbursements, and on a South Shore hospital alliance, are an example of that.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Extremist environmentalist rhetoric
This week, our assignment was to find examples of extremist environmental rhetoric. I classify all these as persuasion. Sure, there may be guilt involved, but these advertisements are all on paper, and even if their claims are grand, Greenpeace does not threaten harm. Mostly, they shame leaders for not taking a stronger environmental stance. Enjoy the Greenpeace tour of Europe!
Greenpeace France advertisement with President Nicolas Sarkozy photo illustration made to look like Obama "Hope" poster. "Reduce greenhouse gases in Europe by 30%? Yes you must!"
Greenpeace France advertisement calling for abolition of the red tuna trade. "Mister mayor, the red tuna cannot await! France took a disappointing position on the red tuna. Demand an end to the fishing industry!"
Greenpeace Nederland banner on a cathedral tower "Don't let climate change reduce us to nothing."
English-language advertisement featuring German Prime Minister Angela Merkel. Found similar ads featuring Spanish Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and President Obama.
Greenpeace Espana demonstration, putting a gas mask on an Osborne Bull, a Spanish national symbol, in protest of livestock-related emissions.
Greenpeace Deutschland advertisement, featuring Prime Minister Angela Merkel mocked up as a character from a Schwarzenegger film. "Have muscles for the environment, Angie!"
Greenpeace France advertisement with President Nicolas Sarkozy photo illustration made to look like Obama "Hope" poster. "Reduce greenhouse gases in Europe by 30%? Yes you must!"
Greenpeace France advertisement calling for abolition of the red tuna trade. "Mister mayor, the red tuna cannot await! France took a disappointing position on the red tuna. Demand an end to the fishing industry!"
Greenpeace Nederland banner on a cathedral tower "Don't let climate change reduce us to nothing."
English-language advertisement featuring German Prime Minister Angela Merkel. Found similar ads featuring Spanish Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and President Obama.
Greenpeace Espana demonstration, putting a gas mask on an Osborne Bull, a Spanish national symbol, in protest of livestock-related emissions.
Greenpeace Deutschland advertisement, featuring Prime Minister Angela Merkel mocked up as a character from a Schwarzenegger film. "Have muscles for the environment, Angie!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
