In addition to developing hi-tech products, I develop methods for communicating why my technology is superior to someone else's. The jargon for this communication is "marcom" rather than "propaganda", but at the root they are the same sort of thing: information provided by an advocate to further a cause.
There are people who lie and cheat to be effective at marcom. I've always found that truth works better, but that's just me. I make excellent products, and often the best in their class, so I'm happy to explain why they kick ass in no uncertain terms.
Likewise, in politics truth is better. But without the right presentation, the message just won't reach the audience. Here's something I like about the hypermedia: it's possible to create images and ideas that attract attention, and then back those up with links to the details. It is possible to be catchy, truth-based and non-superficial.
The big red dude is scary, but he emphasizes the stakes in this political marcom game.
My work requires a lot of promotion as well. I've been making andmarketing cultural products (aside from my own artwork, which is a bit of a different issue) for about 10 years. It's really important that the marketing and the experience of the marketing remain distinct from the product, and the experience of the product. I like the exercise of truthfully articulating the value of, say, an art magazine, to a broad audience, and trying to attract new readers. But I am nervous of the fact that the buzz I create can sometimes replace the actual intellectual experience of, say, the magazine. It's important to be vigilant about the distinction.
Grass roots politics is the same. We want a bike lane on certain road, so we organize a media stunt that is also a party - use imaginative props, good photo-ops, yummy snacks, cute young people and beer, to build a momentum around the idea. But there's no mistaking the media event for the bike lane itself, the lives saved, the improved air quality, etc.
With election campaigns, however, there is NO CONTENT except the show. It's really infuriating, and it's why we end up talking on and on about a yawp. We don't get the goods, so there is nothing to latch onto except the propaganda. I don't feel that its very significant whether it is the mainstream media talking about it, or individual bloggers, it's still just empty optics. This is how people decide to who to vote for, and I don't like it.
I don't like it either. But it is what it is.
I like the bike lane example. My method of adapting to while fighting the system is to use the "empty optics" as entry points to more serious content. E.g. Trailers of Mass Destruction.
To further the "politics is marketing" theme, I've decided to start using PowerPoint as a tool of political satire.
|
There are people who lie and cheat to be effective at marcom. I've always found that truth works better, but that's just me. I make excellent products, and often the best in their class, so I'm happy to explain why they kick ass in no uncertain terms.
Likewise, in politics truth is better. But without the right presentation, the message just won't reach the audience. Here's something I like about the hypermedia: it's possible to create images and ideas that attract attention, and then back those up with links to the details. It is possible to be catchy, truth-based and non-superficial.
The big red dude is scary, but he emphasizes the stakes in this political marcom game.
- mark 1-28-2004 6:35 am
My work requires a lot of promotion as well. I've been making andmarketing cultural products (aside from my own artwork, which is a bit of a different issue) for about 10 years. It's really important that the marketing and the experience of the marketing remain distinct from the product, and the experience of the product. I like the exercise of truthfully articulating the value of, say, an art magazine, to a broad audience, and trying to attract new readers. But I am nervous of the fact that the buzz I create can sometimes replace the actual intellectual experience of, say, the magazine. It's important to be vigilant about the distinction.
Grass roots politics is the same. We want a bike lane on certain road, so we organize a media stunt that is also a party - use imaginative props, good photo-ops, yummy snacks, cute young people and beer, to build a momentum around the idea. But there's no mistaking the media event for the bike lane itself, the lives saved, the improved air quality, etc.
With election campaigns, however, there is NO CONTENT except the show. It's really infuriating, and it's why we end up talking on and on about a yawp. We don't get the goods, so there is nothing to latch onto except the propaganda. I don't feel that its very significant whether it is the mainstream media talking about it, or individual bloggers, it's still just empty optics. This is how people decide to who to vote for, and I don't like it.
- sally mckay 1-30-2004 9:51 pm [add a comment]
I don't like it either. But it is what it is. I like the bike lane example. My method of adapting to while fighting the system is to use the "empty optics" as entry points to more serious content. E.g. Trailers of Mass Destruction. To further the "politics is marketing" theme, I've decided to start using PowerPoint as a tool of political satire.
- mark 1-30-2004 10:39 pm [add a comment]