"Branding" the War

[John Cole]

Interesting view on US policy from marketing expert Jack Trout, who, for one, believes that Bush has failed to change perceptions about our role in world affairs. Trout believes that the US marketing itself as the "world's last super power" and calling Saddam "evil" instead of "dangerous" have been fundamental mistakes.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/World/iraq_sellingwar_csm_030326.html

[Jedi Poker]

Trout's opinions presuppose that Bush should be the only messenger and that there should only be a few messages. I think this is wrong. There should be many messengers, 1 or 2 per audience segment, and many messages each tailored to a specific segment. A different set of messengers and messages for the Arab audiences (I'm surprised that we still don't have an "Arab face" and an "Arab voice" having regular and continuous appearances in Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV). We need spokespeople in Europe. We need spokespeople to target different audience segments in the States, including the Anti-War Activist segment, Pro-War Activist segment and others in between.
I won't go into details. But the Bush administration should first segment it's "markets/audience" , know the distinct ways in which each of the segments absorb information and form opinions. Then they should then develop separate messages to get at these segments, channeled through unique mixes of mediums, messages, buzzwords, and carried by the appropriate messengers/spokespeople. Corporations do. Why shouldn't the Administration?

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/blush.gif hey john...on tv last , i heard the foolish mind hobgoblin saying..no kidding..,darn, just cannot remember what show, i think it was a news show...one of my foolish consistencies...piss poor memory..lol..gl /forums/images/icons/cool.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif bush has the bully pulpit..that's where the most potential branding is done...jmho..gl /forums/images/icons/smile.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[adios]

Great! Just what everyone want's better and more spin doctors! I'm sure you noticed Bush's popularity ratings have risen dramatically since the war started.

[IrishHand]

Presidents pretty well always benefit from a boost in popularity anytime a war starts - the average American is initially supportive of most military actions as a matter of course. His father was also very popular shortly after the initiation of the first Gulf War. Ask him how well that worked out. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Jimbo]

" the average American is initially supportive of most military actions as a matter of course.

It appears we have a plethora of "below average" Americans on this forum! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Bush's approval ratings may be up, but the odds on him winning the 2004 election have dropped significantly since the war started.

I don't know about you, but I trust the bookies before I trust the pollsters.

[Jimbo]

"I don't know about you, but I trust the bookies before I trust the pollsters."

C'mon Clarkmeister, surely you jest, a savy gambler such as yourself understands how a bookie sets his line. It is based on their perception of the people they believe might bet on the result, not on a random accurate sampling that negates normal bias. Looks like it is back to statitistics and probabilities class for you! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

i could be wrong but in say football i was told the bookies are almost always right on when they set the spread, meaning that they (im not sure but it seems that way) accurately predict the results.

[Jimbo]

Brad bookies set spreads so that (ideally) 50% of the total money bet will be on each side of the game. Their profit comes from the 10& vigorish paid by the losers. An intelligent bookie has no desire to gamble on the outcome of a game. That is why points are adjusted often prior to the game, to help even the money on both sides.

The spread of a game has some relationship to the eventual outcome but is calculated to determine the ideal 50/50 betting pattern

[adios]

Clarkmeister's comments are a red herring anyway. The question is why has this occurred. It could be just a temporary rally round the president type thing or something more. I commented to my wife last Sunday that the Iraqi regime was making a major blunder in their tactics because they were more likely to turn US public opinion against them. As their terrorist acts accumulate it makes Bush's case stronger. I believe it has turned US public opinion decidedly against the Iraqi regime and I believe in the court of world opinion it is starting to do the same thing i.e. many in the world are growing increasingly more disgusted with the tactics employed by the Iraqi regime.

[Clarkmeister]

"Brad bookies set spreads so that (ideally) 50% of the total money bet will be on each side of the game."

This is a common misconception. Books frequently have an opinion on a game and shade the line to encourage action on one side. Though what you say is definitely true for the majority of games. If they put up a soft number, there are simply too many sharp bettors who bet too much for the books to survive for long.

"Their profit comes from the 10& vigorish paid by the losers. An intelligent bookie has no desire to gamble on the outcome of a game."

Again, this isn't true. Although it is more true than it used to be for the same reasons as above.

"The spread of a game has some relationship to the eventual outcome but is calculated to determine the ideal 50/50 betting pattern"

The spread has a direct relation to the outcome of a game. In fact, the closing spread of a game is by far the most accurate predictive indicator available. Over the last 15 years in the NFL, the record against the spread for the home team is 1893-1846-92. There is simply too much information and too many professional bettors out there for the lines to be incorrect. If the line today indicates that the Republicans have a 62.0% chance of winning the 2004 election (which it does), then that is as good an indicator as you can get.

[Jimbo]

Pretty much wrong on all counts Clarkmeister. I see you are a typical gambler. Good luck flipping those coins. I was not talking about your corner bookie but rather a professional handicapper. If he believes Green Bay is gonna beat Tampa Bay at home by 6 points but he also believes that 70% of the people in Green bay are willing to lay the 6 the line will be 7.5. If this isn't adjusting for the money what is?

[andyfox]

Maybe Mr. Trout's thinking that our "spin" has been bad has some merit, but it would take an awfully bad spin doctor to be worse than Saddam Hussein's. However, if any can manage it, my money would be on this crowd (the Bush administration). We invade their country and then we complain when they don't fight the way we want them to.

The way they are handling the Perle situation is typical. This guy is bad news for them, period. Bush ought to issue an immediate press release saying that while there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Mr. Perle, his administration is interested in preventing event the appearance of conflict of interest, especially on such an important issue as the war with Iraq, and therefore, he has accepted Mr. Perle's resignation from the Defense Policy Board. This business of having him resign from the chairmanship only to reamin on the board, is just stupid.

[IrishHand]

I believe Clarkmeister is referring to the betting lines which apply to the whole country - not in Green Bay for a Green Bay game. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[adios]

This agrument that anything goes because we are invading their country is baloney. First of all under Hussein it's not "their country." Second of all there's many actions that have been reported that are criminal and will be prosecuted at some later date. I'm not going to take the time to enumerate all of them and provide links because it's a waste of my time as it will fall on "deaf ears" anyway. I dare say there will be plenty more as well as the war progresses.

[adios]

"The spread has a direct relation to the outcome of a game. In fact, the closing spread of a game is by far the most accurate predictive indicator available. Over the last 15 years in the NFL, the record against the spread for the home team is 1893-1846-92."

It's not relevant to the elections but your statement from a statistical arguement point of view is bogus or put another way is meaningless. I believe that the standard deviation from the point spread is between 10 and 11 points. Assuming the spread is the mean what interval (+ or - from the spread) gives you a 95% confidence level based on the standard deviation and the sample size. It might be 1/3 of a point either way, it might be 1.5+ points either way I don't know. If it's 1.5+ points either way then I'm not impressed. If it's 1/3 of a point I am. This also assumes that the standard deviation is constant throughout this time span.

[IrishHand]

First of all under Hussein it's not "their country."
Try telling that to the millions of Iraqis who, up 'til a couple weeks ago, had homes, families, and jobs despite the fact that according to you and the other pro-war folks, life in Iraq is little more than a pile of arabs running around cowering in fear from Saddam. The reality that it's basically a country full of normal people leading relatively normal lives is apparently beyond you.