TWIT: Does anyone care anymore?

How the mighty hath fallen...so to speak.

I don't watch TWIT much these days and when I do I'm frequently disappointed.  Which in itself is a surprise since I didn't think things could get any worse.  Looking at the holiday offerings this year for example was much like last year.  Just a bunch of "Best of's" which were compilations of anything but.  Where were the Holiday themed episodes?  The special round tables with the likes of John Hodgman and Jonanthan Coulton?  Where's the New Year's Special!

Oh yeah, Leo don't do that anymore...

Truth be told, the promise of the TWIT was always far more grand than the product delivered.  Big dreams, the resurgence of a 90's tech icon.  A network built on a small but vocal demographic of those for whom their mantra, their religion, their dearest wish was all things tech.

It wasn't a hard sell for devotees of the defunct TechTV ( formerly ZDTV) basic cable channel.  Leo Laporte was an affable "every-man" who just happened to have a silky smooth presentation and at least an idea of what he was talking about.  

You never saw him confuse a Hard Drive with a Video card.  He was someone you felt you could trust.  A family man, someone like you and me.  A trusted friend you drag along with you to CompUSA.

Yes, I'm dating myself but only in so much as the era where Laporte was relevant.


Now?

NotsoMuch...

A check of the current TWIT schedule reveals just how bad things really are.  Entire days of the calendar are blank with most having maybe 2 shows recording and of those only a few stalwart remnants of the near-glory of the network's past.

Nostalgia wasn't enough and even Laporte's attempt to rekindle the vibe of his TechTV days has fallen flat with the announced cancellation of "The New Screen Savers."  Gone as well are the Iyaz Akhtar created, Know How which in later years found itself increasingly squeezed to the margins and finally choked out of existence with the exit of replacement host Fr. Robert Ballacer.  

The good Father's charisma was the only thing keeping many shows afloat in the past few years as he played stand-in for Laporte and other popular (mostly departed) hosts.  His exit in June of 2018 might as well have been the death knell for the network with Laporte the only recognizable face left.  

Those that might have taken up the reigns and brought the network to the lofty heights envisioned by its founder like Sara Lane, Tom Merritt, Brian Brushwood and Shannon Morse now long since gone.  

Their content and audience driven programming replaced by bland, also-ran drivel only an advertiser could love.  

It's not unlike so many popular YouTube channels that now focus their content almost exclusively at the pleasure of their paid sponsorship.  Don't expect a sour word about a Geforce Card from a YouTuber with NVIDIA sponsorship for example. 

So it is with TWIT.  That which destroyed TECHTV has ultimately destroyed TWIT.  It is now an also-ran competing with YouTube channels produced in somebody's garage for the same advertiser dollars.  Laporte has admitted as much saying his reason for cancelling the New Screen Savers was he was trying to... 


"do a network television show on a podcaster’s budget."

And the now all too familiar excuse for any show's demise on TWIT....

“The New Screen Savers” just hasn’t developed a big enough audience to pay for itself.". (source)

Yes folks, that's an admission of what TWIT is today.  A lowly podcast channel with the overhead of a network broadcaster and every show under the gun to perform.  Or so we would be led to believe.

Yet by Laporte's own admission the network was pulling in 13 to 14 million a year (source) which far exceeds 99% of even the largest YouTube channel's revenue.  Apparently that's not enough as the studio moved to a smaller location in 2016 and has since axed or put on hiatus at least half a dozen shows.  

Still it seems there's never enough money for TWIT and every show has to carry it's own weight.  Yet inexplicably shows like Floss Weekly and Ham Nation continue unabated even though they cater to a subset of a niche at best.  

Meanwhile shows more in line with TWIT's general demographic like Coding 101, Know How, This Week In Law and Game On get the axe.

That pool of money is a lot more contentious than it used to be too.  In at least that much we can cut Laporte some slack for TWIT's failure.

TWIT is now competing for advertisers with those same YouTube channels (some led by former TWIT hosts) with far less lofty ideals but a far more consistent viewership. 

A quick peek at the ads you'll see on the average YouTube tech channel are also found on TWIT.  With most TWIT shows struggling to break into a 4 figure audience per episode no matter where you watch them (most are low 3 figure BTW) it's not TWIT dictating the terms anymore.  Advertisers can find far greener pastures elsewhere.

Let's also not forget that YouTube creators don't have the overhead of TWIT (maybe) and can survive on much thinner margins (definitely) while providing the same mediocre content. 

That said, none of the supposed financial strife at TWIT seems to have stopped Laporte and wife/[sic]CEO  from extravagances like month-long European vacations or purchases of luxury items like his Tesla Model X (source)

There was a time when Laporte chafed at the idea of TWIT as a podcast network.  Now, he clings to it for every bit of relevancy it can afford him.

And that aint much friends.

TWIT is now like a favorite TV series that over the years has replaced the entire cast and writing staff.  Nothing remains but the set pieces and it's just not enough.

TWIT isn't dead but it's been a slow roll down the slope to the graveyard and we're far closer than we've been before. 

Commercials: Barometer of a society

Have you been watching TV lately?

I don't mean becoming one with your comfy couch binging on entire seasons of Game of Thrones.  No I'm talking about plain old TV, commercials and all.

In a world where just about everything is on Demand from your dinner to your favorite sitcom you probably haven't noticed the latest trends in advertising.  With the curated experience of services like Netflix and Amazon Instant video you'd be excused if you haven't seen a commercial in months.

The vast majority of viewers, however, aren't completely detached from the advertiser-driven TV experience.  That means there's still an audience to watch somebody's commercial.  

Regardless of how irrelevant they may be to you, commercials aren't created in a vacuum.  Whatever they're selling,  you can be sure somebody wants it.

Ok, so we're all used to ads from everything from cars we can't afford to phones we don't really need and food we really shouldn't be eating.  I don't care about those.  I'm more interested in the filler commercials.  The ones about things like prescription drugs and ambulance chasing attorneys.  The ones you see far more often.

In the past few years I've seen more commercials about one-off gambling casinos, lottery games, settlement funding and prescription drugs for every ill than anything else.  Even the ambulance chasers have upped their game from simple fender-bender litigation to multi-billion dollar payouts from big pharma.

That there are so many means the U.S. isn't as much about consumption anymore.  It's more about want.  We're underpaid, poorly fed and sick and we can't seem to find relief.

We can't count on much these days.  Careers are transient and so are people.  It seems the ground is ever shifting under our feet. 

They sell us the promise of stability, the righting of a wrong or just something to make us feel a little better about our situation.

Maybe that's the classic advertising formula, sell a belief instead of a product.

The trouble is, what they sell is a reflection of the world we live in.  A world where needs can only be met by indebtedness to monoliths that profit from continuing our suffering.

We want the lottery win, the big settlement, the freedom from worry and want.  That desire has become an industry in itself.

We are a country forever searching for the light at the end of the tunnel but the tunnel never ends.  The joke has long been that the light is an oncoming train.  That's wrong.  Were that the case at least there'd be some hope of an end but the light seems ever out of reach.

So am I making too much out of a bunch of stupid ads? 

I don't think so. 

If the "product" is security and freedom from want then it stands to reason that those are commodities we're sorely lacking.  I don't find it acceptable to be "sold" on a dream of self-sufficiency.  I shouldn't "need" a mason jar full of pills to live another day or settlement funding to catch up on my bills. 

Trading on fear is a dark negotiation. 

Not the mark of a healthy society.

Think about it...

The next step, another clue about TWIT's future

The house that Leo built may still stand but its foundation continues to erode.  An exodus of hosts,  ever increasing ads and unstable schedule all chip away at it.  Then there's the shameless self-promotion of swag but that much at least can be excused.

After all, what red-blooded tech geek wouldn't want a genuine, limited edition, TWIT branded T-shirt, Leo Bobble head or spoon cup.

Spoon cup?? 

Don't ask...

Hey, promotion is excusable even necessary, building a network around it, however,  is not.

Unless you're Home Shopping Network or QVC that is...

If you're not charging a subscription fee you're going to have ads unless you enjoy podcasting in a vacuum.  Somebody's got to pay the bills after all and a few seconds of sales pitch seem a fair trade for good content that's otherwise free.

Laporte has been adamant in the past that ads on TWIT would always be relevant to the network's tech focus.  Unfortunately, history has shown that assertion to ring increasingly hollow. 

Remember Ice.com?   They're an online jewelry retailer that had thousands of techies scratching their heads when they showed up as an advertiser on TWIT around Valentine's day 2011. From This Week in Tech to NFSW it was painful to watch hosts (including Laporte) try to make the topic of tennis bracelets  interesting to Iphone jail breakers.

Nobody would argue that Gazelle.com, lynda.com and proXPN didn't live up to Laporte's carefully curated advertising policy.  It was a mutually beneficial relationship that put willing eyes on relevant products. 

It seems that policy has been increasingly under assault, however,  as the network moves away from its traditional fan base.  Take a look at the newest members of the TWIT advertiser parade for proof...

ZipRecruiter, an online job posting service.  Great for stuffing job seeker's spam email boxes...

NatureBox, which for only $20 a month gets you into the fruit and nut club. 

Personal Capital, which might as well be Charles Schwab or any other investment firm with an online presence (meaning everybody)

Prosper, which is peer to peer lending or in other words the online equivalent to a hard money lender (otherwise known as a loan shark)

To be fair, it's just a few minutes annoyance out of otherwise good content except that what constitutes good content is also coming into question.

I'm not talking about Ham Nation or Floss Weekly.  Their relevant albeit narrow fan base is in sync with TWIT's original vision.

But what about a show about marketing?  

Advertisers are bad enough but a show about advertising?  

Never!

Except...

Coming soon to an Itunes playlist near you is TWIT's newest podcast...

Marketing Mavericks...

The pitch is this...

" Marketing Mavericks covers the intersection of marketing and tech. Each week, Tonya Hall interviews top marketing professionals to discuss case studies, communication strategies, and brand insights on social media, trends, and analytics."

Read that again, especially the part about interviewing "top marketing professionals."   Overflowing spam folders, popup ads and pre-rolls on Youtube videos all lead back to them.  The very antithesis of the TWIT mantra now finds a loving embrace.

One could hope that the TWIT chat rooms would rail against such an assault on their sensibilities but ever present (and at times draconian) moderators would quickly dismiss detractors.

So much for feedback driven content...

If there were any justice in the world such programming would find a short lifespan on the network but don't count on it.

It's far more likely that as TWIT content becomes a more advertiser friendly shade of beige, shows like Marketing Mavericks will become the norm.   Expand your audience and expand your reach.  The content becomes diluted but fortunes will rise.

At least that's the hope...

TWIT still has some good content but it's increasingly becoming more like a Netflix subscription.  That  contradicts  Laporte's stated wish for more live viewership of TWIT.   Fans of specific shows  are migrating to downloads over live broadcasts while devotees of former hosts leave the network entirely. 

Numbers don't lie and while TWIT stalwarts like This Week in Tech and Security now remain in the top 10 Tech podcasts on ITunes, new shows like The revamped Tech News Today and Tech News 2Nite are nowhere to be found.

All this kind of flies in the face of the new 24/7 news mantra doesn't it?  

Not to worry, everybody just accepts irrelevant content as a fact of life these days...

After all, look how well it's worked for Facebook!  Except that  even Facebook has seen a decline in new eyeballs as its focus on ad revenue has increasingly invaded the privacy of its user base.  When the novelty wore off they began to trade on their users instead of their users content.   A strategy that's led them to a  bizarre move to Virtual Reality.

That's left onlookers scratching their heads...hmm...sound familiar?

Facebook is all about the money and its reputation not to mention its fortunes have increasingly suffered because of it. 

There's a lesson in there somewhere...

Facebook buys Oculus VR, not as left-field as you think

Originally published on Kupeesh!

By now you've heard the big news...

Facebook has bought Oculus VR, the company at the forefront of virtual reality products aimed at the consumer and de facto mascot for the power of crowd sourcing.

The real question is, what does VR have to do with social media?  Does Mark Zuckerberg expect us all to start running around with VR headsets poking fingers at the empty air screaming "Like!" and "Friend!"

Zuckerberg has an answer...

"... we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home."

Zuckerberg the futurist or maybe it's more like Zuckerberg coming to the realization that Facebook as a service is losing relevance. 

Enter Facebook, the brand.  Remember the failed HTC First?  It was the short-lived Smartphone that forced users into the Facebook ecosystem whether they wanted it or not.  It was the first indication that the Facebook bandwagon was losing a wheel.

As early as October of last year the company warned advertisers that "organic reach" will eventually be inconsequential.  "Organic reach," by the way,  is the number of Facebook page views that don't come from your "Fans" or "Friends" but rather from sources like search engines and shared links outside of the service.

That means advertisers have to work harder to attract eyeballs as veteran users become increasingly jaded against ads they have no interest in.  Not good news for a free service that depends on ad revenue.

There's little doubt that many of Zuckerberg's visions will come to pass but whether they're all Facebook properties remains to be seen.  It's far more likely that this move is meant to elevate Facebook the brand above Facebook the service. 

Much like Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility in 2011 it's less about owning a space than creating a halo effect around the brand.    In Google's case, they didn't need to dominate the Android device market to dictate what it looked like.  Mission accomplished and now Motorola Mobility is on its way to Lenovo sans a few patents safely kept in Google's breast pocket.

We're entering what could be called the "Post-services" era.  It's more about the halo around a brand than the products themselves.  History is on Zuckerberg's side.  Nobody thinks of Google as just a search engine anymore and Zuckerberg is betting that Facebook can evolve beyond social media. 

Much to the dismay (or the delight) of IP attorneys everywhere we may soon view online Icons like Facebook, Google and Twitter the same way we look at Ford, Chevy and Toyota.   You'll be picking brand not product.

But fear not social media addicts.  Facebook the service will always remain a place to jeopardize future job prospects by posting embarrassing videos of yourself.

New Media is older than you think - Part 2

YouTube is perhaps the most blatant example of the "New Media" hypocrisy. Their motto is "Broadcast Yourself" although it's hard to find on their webpage anymore.  Here's their current claimed reason for being...

Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.

The real truth is that only thing YouTube cares about since the Google acquisition is becoming the Internet equivalent of NBC. They've invested a few million in a Los Angeles production studio called the "Creation Space" supposedly to support the YouTube community.  What you find in the small print, however, is that you don't get to use it unless you've been "invited."    

To get that golden ticket you need to  have at least 300,000 average views with the first crop of "invitees" being closer to a half million or more.  Check out the bulk of the channels and  you're going to find a lot of crossover from old media interests, entertainment figures and those with a popular following elsewhere. 

Sorry guys, your chances of getting in on the new digs is pretty slim with videos of your new kittens produced with Windows Movie Maker.

By the way, a common thread among successful YouTube channels is a partnership agreement with an even  larger channel. 

Oh yeah, and being a pop star with a record company backing the production of your new "Internet only" video wouldn't hurt either.

So what exactly is this New Media then?  A shortcut for old media billionaires to make more money by spending less on production?

Seems that way which means supporting your tiny channel is not their focus.  In fact since the Google acquisition, the service has become increasingly hostile to small content creators.  The recommendation is to sign up with bigger partners if you want to increase your views. 

That means revenue sharing or basically paying the bigger partner a percentage of your monetized views on top of YouTube's normal cut.  Kind of like a pyramid scheme.  Paying for views, by the way, is something YouTube actively discourages anywhere but partner agreements.  They can't turn a profit outside that structure so they make sure you don't either.

The only thing YouTube is nurturing is its own fortunes.  Don't expect to get a call to reserve your slot in the "Creation Space" if you're not in the less than 1% of YouTubers able to live off your partner income.  It's not going to happen for smaller channels simply because their take isn't lucrative enough for them.

YouTube will reap millions from its relatively paltry investment in facilities and you're going to pay for it with deeper cuts into your monetization.  Even if you never get to use it.  So much for their philanthropic motives.

Why?  Simple, it's a corporate interest and  you're just a consumer of their product.  Your "partner" status just gives them license to hijack your content for their own ends with minimal benefit for you.  So while you spend hours hoping that all that slaving over the perfect upload will go viral, know that YouTube has your back.  Well at least so long as they can turn a profit on you.  Oh yeah and you don't do anything to threaten the sensibilities of their advertisers or even suggest the possibility of a copyright infringement. 

Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst gets them pulled down.

Sound familiar?  It's the same dynamic that got your favorite show kicked off of network TV and drove innovative cable networks like TechTV into the ground. 

So dry your tears New Media pundits, it's the same old crap in a new package.  Nothing's really changed as the same "old media" gatekeepers are still collecting the tolls.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from engaging in this "New Media" just don't believe everything you hear about it.  It's definitely fun but it's far from free and not as lucrative as it seems so don't quit your day job.   

You can start a blog, post hundreds of videos on YouTube and spam all your Facebook friends with them  and still not earn a dime.  Without the backing of the gatekeepers you may as well post your blogs on telephone poles.  Just remember the "New Media" isn't all that new so take it with a grain of salt.  Most of the hype you're hearing is the same kind of noise you get from an "Internet Millions" infomercial. 

              

New Media is older than you think - Part 1

The Internet is delusional. More precisely, people who see it as something other than a shill for corporate interests are delusional. I suppose that means I'm raining on somebody's parade but then again, I've never thought Felicia Day was that big of a deal. The promise of "New Media" was broken the day the term was coined.

So it should be no surprise when you suddenly find your creative expression cut short by some mysterious mechanism that's denied your 15 minutes of fame.

 I've watched a lot of misty eyed podcast pundits proclaiming the impending doom of the "old" media model and the rise of the "New Media" model. They postulate on how all those silly old men in their corporate towers are powerless to prevent the tidal wave of content in this brave new media world. Surely the tables are turning and the rise of entertainment by mob rule will conquer the day.

They fondly recall short lived television shows that to their minds were unfairly struck down only to find rebirth in a new medium. A feat not possible without the promise of the... Internet!

 I guess they forgot about that whole thing with VCR's and DVD box sets. Oh yeah, and the fact that 90% of television programming couldn't draw 1000 views in a YouTube channel anyway. Worse, YouTube probably wouldn't let them monetize it due to some BS about "commercial use rights".
What they fail to mention is that the "rebirth" found its conception with an sympathetic ear who had control of the content. And why not, they had nothing to lose by offering up these "lost gems" on the web. All the better if they could squeeze a few more bucks out that old crap too.

So it goes with most of the New Media superstars as well. Most of whom started with more than just a laptop and a webcam.

People like to point to podcasting and YouTube as the best examples of new media. Look behind the curtains of the most popular "visionary" media offerings, however, and you find a deep bench of old media. 

Take the example of Leo Laporte's TWIT netcast (podcast) network. Built on decades of broadcast experience on radio and television as America's favorite tech pundit, Laporte's TWIT it is the wet dream of anyone with a YouTube channel. With over 20 shows built around technology related topics from social media to law it's frequently held up as the example of successful "New Media."

The part that gets glossed over is that without Laporte's "Old Media" gravitas and a few handpicked hosts from his TechTV days, TWIT would be just another hobbyist channel on YouTube. Not surprisingly, the collective TWIT resume is heavy in traditional media as well as technology luminaries like Steve Gibson, Bob Heil and Alex Lindsay. Not exactly the kind of talent easily accessible to the average podcaster trying to make their way in the world.

There's nothing wrong with leveraging your strengths but you can't hold TWIT up as a pure example of New Media precisely because of them. It's existence is entirely reliant on leveraging old media concepts if not its on-air personalities.

I mean, really now, TWIT would literally have to start airing "This week in gym socks" and "The Social Terrorist Today" to fail with their talent lineup.

While tightly controlled, TWIT still relies on advertising and audience metrics for a revenue stream. Programming that doesn't meet a revenue threshold no matter how popular can find itself cancelled, which isn't exactly a new idea. We're still being asked to vote with our wallets instead of our interests. Even popular hosts organically grown from this "New Media" that run afoul of "old media" hierarchies can quickly find themselves out on the cold.

Perhaps the most vivid example was the ousting of a rising star on the TWIT network in 2011. Erik Lanigan came fresh out of college and worked for TWIT as an editor before beginning the rise to the ranks of a show host after Laporte recognized his talent. Toward the end he gained a loyal following and was reportedly being groomed to substitute for Laporte on his weekend "Tech Guy" syndicated radio show.

From available information Lanigan wasn't receiving adequate support for his fledgling overnight show not to mention a paycheck in general. It culminated in a chat conversation where he admitted as much. Viewers of the live broadcast were none the wiser, however, with even Laporte struggling to find anything derogatory in the show's recorded video. It appears Lanigans sin, was to admit that he wasn't being fairly treated by TWIT management to chatroom friends.

Laporte's commentary on the subject was probably the most emblematic of old media icons when in response to questions about Lanigan's firing he said, "I had to kiss a lot of butt in the first 20 years, that's why I'm here...You kiss butt in media for a long ass time"

Isn't this the core issue of old media that the New Media is supposed to correct? Isn't the rule that the quality of the content should supersede ego or advertiser metric? So the old maxim of brown nosing to the top is part of the new revolution in media? It calls into question if New Media outlets are really the incubators of fresh ideas or just a new medium for the old guard to monetize.

Part 2

                  

Advertising to your affliction

Commercials annoy me.

"Yeah so what", you're likely saying to yourself right now...

If you have time on your hands like I do, you get to see a lot of ads pitching everything from luxury automobiles to breakfast cereal.  Of course the later the hour the more egregious the commercials become. 

Male enhancement and impotence cures show up the most frequently followed closely by well dressed lawyers pitching resolution via litigation.

All of those are the standard fare.  Even those products that promise to rectify men's...shortcomings. 

Most disgusting of all, however, are the ads from the pharmaceutical companies.  Regardless of how you feel about modern medicine, hawking prescription drugs like feminine hygiene products is something just short of criminal. 

"Ask your doctor" and "You don't have to suffer anymore" are common pitches.  Since when is it acceptable to create a demand for a controlled substance?  Is it wise to blithely wander into your doctor's office requesting medication without being sure of the affliction?  The commercials would make you think so.

How arrogant is that? The pharmaceuticals industry does the diagnosis making your doctor just another middleman.  I'd hope that rampant capitalism hasn't done the medical profession what it's done to our eating habits but I wouldn't hold your breath.  The practice of kickbacks and promotions given to physicians to favor one treatment option over another isn't as rare as we'd like it to be. 

With the advent of the Internet it seems self-diagnosis with a website as attending physician  has turned us all into hypochondriacs.  Every pain or discomfort is sure to have a miracle pill and all we have to do is make an appointment and ask for it.

Of course all the ads mention, "Ask your Doctor". 

Why?

If my doctor knows my physical condition and I don't have any medical training shouldn't he be the one prescribing treatments?  Who cares what a commercial says?  Why is it so important that I be aware of the names of prescription drugs and why do the drug companies feel the need to give them catchy names? 

So what's the point? 

Why does a company that makes drugs have a retail profit motive?  Need should dictate sales in medicine, not the other way around.  Commercials are explicitly designed to create a desire for a product.  In the case of prescription drugs that's a potentially unhealthy goal to say the least.

It's disgusting and highlights one of the primary flaws with the healthcare industry in the United States.  Personally, I don't believe healing should have a profit motive.  When you corrupt healthcare with greed both health and care are compromised.  There is no profit without sales and the ultimate goal of the salesman is to sell as much product as they can.  It's a goal inconsistent with medicine. 

Medicine should be more like the Red Cross than General Motors.  After all GM may charge you for antenna wax but the Red Cross will never charge you for a cot and a blanket when you need one. 

The worst part comes when we see our friends in the legal industry show up on late night TV again.  This time, however, it's not an auto accident or denied disability claim.  It's a class action against the pharmaceutical companies for injuries caused by their wares. 

Medicine isn't M&M's and shouldn't be marketed as such.  Pharmaceutical companies rush products to market often with inadequate testing and lax safeguards.  Competition may be the core of capitalism but it can be lethal to the unlucky patient receiving a recalled prescription.  Profit motives in business is fine, profit motives in healthcare at any level is a perversion.

Politics as Product

Article first published as Politics as Product on Technorati.

Never has there been such a splendid example that we as a society are severely afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder.  This flavor of ADD  is far from the inattentive child nervously fidgeting in his classroom, however.  

No, this is an affliction of the first world dominated by the churn of  consumerism.   It expresses itself in everything from fad to fashion and increasingly to critical thinking as well.

We in the first world have become so conditioned to reacting to a marketing message that we require no further information to make a decision.  We make the choice based on the promotion we most easily identify with.  No further deliberation is entertained. 

We've come to expect all of our information to be packaged in this way.  Politics enjoy no immunity.

Our impatience is reflected in the flood of campaign ads that have plagued our airwaves for the past year.  Probably the most obvious example is the current U.S. presidential race.  To date, both candidates for president have raised over 2 Billion dollars for their campaigns with approximately 1.5 billion of that spent thus far. 

Half truths, errors of omission and inflated context are the tools of political persuasion and they easily translate to the world of marketing.  Politics promotes the image by obscuring the product. 

FedEx Office Print Online Large order 20% Discount

We choose our leaders with less care than our favorite sports team.  That's by design and the reason why political positions are largely parroted from political propaganda.  Politicians know voters have a low tolerance for long-winded technical arguments.  Instead they choose a popular position with their base and relentlessly repeat the same message regardless of its veracity.

Remember the Go-Daddy commercials?  In 30 seconds we knew who they were but only because we were constantly exposed to scantily clad models that appealed to a core demographic.   How many of us tried them based on a subconscious reaction to those ads instead of their reputation?

It works just as well for politics as it does for web hosting.   Think about where you get your political news.  Is it C-Span or are you more interested in the packaged offerings of Fox News or MSNBC?

Let's look at a current hot button political issue as an example...

Is it really the fault of a sitting president that the worst economic downturn since the depression of 1929 is still affecting the economy?

It is if you ignore the boring technical argument that it took a decade and a world war to bring the U.S. out of the great depression.   

Unfortunately, our short attention spans won't allow the retort.  We crave instant gratification and sway toward the product that promises it.  Ironically, If challenged we frequently justify our position based on that same marketing construct.  It's circular logic which dovetails nicely with our distaste for depth.

Perhaps it's time to examine how informed we really are.