Advertising is a strange thing. I have never believed that advertising as intended works for the most part. It can certainly alert you to a new product. Sometimes, perhaps, it can create an aura around a product, though I think this only works if the product earns it. A good example of this would be Lexus, which set out from the beginning to make itself sound like something rich people own. Whether or not that worked, I'm not sure. But what it did achieve was to announce that Lexus considered itself a luxury car far above the herd. And since the cars actually delivered on that promise once you sat in one, an image was born. I doubt though that the ads did this themselves. Indeed, several other car makers tried the same thing with their cars and it never took because their cars were viewed as cheap. I also think that individual ads are incapable of making you want a certain product, though being bombarded with ads I suspect can shift your opinions more generally. For example, a Domino's ad will not make you want a Domino's pizza, but it can make you hungry. And if you get flooded by enough ads all saying the same things, I can see how that might skew your view of the consumer world.
Interestingly, the economic theory behind advertising is that advertising acts like a bond for quality. In other words, the fact that Coke spends a billion-trillion dollars each year advertising is a way for them to tell you that they maintain a high quality, because the cost of failing to live up that level of quality is that they wasted their advertising dollars. Hence, the concept of a bond because the money is lost if you don't live up to the promise. It's an interesting theory and I suspect it does make sense.
Anyhoo, back to the point. Advertisers do a lot of things I don't like. I think they contribute to obesity because they are constantly pushing people to eat, they are pushing the wrong things, they try to sell food as a reward, they suggest people deserve rewards whether they have earned it or not, and they provide a truly distorted image of portion control. For a species with a low tolerance for delaying their gratification, that's all bad. They also push unwise spending and envy by using herd-instinct appeals like "keeping up with everyone else." They pimp the cult of personality by using celebrity endorsements. They promote narcissism by "affirming" the idea that YOU are perfect and deserve better than what the fools around you are giving you. Many mislead. Some outright lie. Anyone selling gold, lawsuits, investment advice, dieting anything, or vitamins/supplements is trying to mislead you.
But that's not what bothers me at the moment. What bothers me right now is this new breed of ad that you see on the net and on the radio, though I haven't seen it on television yet. These ads typical start with: "Doctors hate this..." or "Insurance companies don't want you to know this..." This is advertising by conspiracy. This is using the "secret organizations are trying to hide the truth" idiocy that has become so popular in political circles, both left and right. By using this line, the advertiser suggests that people who are smarter and better trained than you, people you actually should trust, aren't really smarter or better trained than you... they're just part of some vast conspiracy to hide the truth from you so they can make money. It's utter bullsh*t. Then, of course, they offer you the too-good-to-be-true deal.
Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that has become popular. So much of our political discourage now pimps this very idea. Vast conspiracies of insiders/RINOs/DINOs/capitalist pigs/secret commies are keeping the truth from you... and the truth is that if we would just "insert idiotic statement here which listener wants to believe", then the country would be transformed into paradise and everyone would love us and unicorns would take us to Heaven. Look, there is no secret doctors don't want you to know. You can't cure cancer with "this simple herb." You can't out-think the market by reading what's in super-trader Smith's book. You are not going to make any money in a class action suit. There is no trick to getting cheaper car insurance except drive a cheaper car and avoid trouble. And there is no conspiracy running the world.
Conspiracy theories are sucker bait... and the too-good-to-true deal is only meant to part a fool from his money. It just worries me that our society has regressed to the point that these people can operate so brazenly and so successfully.
46 comments:
I think it's interesting to note that advertisers picked up on "the experts hate this" messaging after it saturated political talk. That seems to support the idea that advertisers are nothing more than ear-ticklers, telling consumers what they want to hear. This isn't to say that advertisers are not doing a disservice with those and other negative messages. But it suggests they do little more than feed confirmation bias.
tryanmax, I would agree with that. I think advertisers try to reflect what is going on in the culture, rather than drive it. That's one reason that I think studying advertising is much more enlightening about what people really believe than studying their literature.
That said, I HATE this "experts hate this" stuff and it's all over now. It's fodder for idiocy. It's like encouraging people to become morons.
BTW, I have seen those commercials on TV. They generally run in the same slots that as-seen-on-TV and ambulance-chasers buy up.
Speaking of ads that irritate, two come to mind for me.
The first, anything using the line "get the _____ you deserve!" It plays into the attitude that the viewer is somehow being screwed by someone. Probably "THEM."
The second is actually a particular ad by a domestic law firm. The speaker is painting divorce as a last resort. To do that, he characterizes separation or orders of protection as an "intact home"--because kids do better in an intact home. The problem is that research shows kids of separated parents fare no differently than those of divorced parents and orders of protection suggests a tumultuous household, where kids do worse than those of divorced parents. In short, my issue is that it clings to and propagates outdated ideas regarding divorce and children.
I've seen those conspiracy-style ads in messenger programs myself and personally I brush them off quickly. The whole thing just sounded like nonsense to me, though it doesn't surprise me that there are some who would buy into it. I can definitely see why this type of advertising is so troubling, though, especially in this political climate.
As far as ads that bothered me go, there was one I heard on the radio several years ago from an Atlanta area jeweler. The Shane Company's Atlanta stores are fairly well-known and the competitor (I forgot its name) had some pretty nasty ads attacking it. The one that stands out to me was a game show called "Slap You Silly" where someone would get slapped for lying or something similar. The victim was "Mr. Friendly," a clear stand-in for the Shane Company's owner, Tom Shane, who repeatedly got slapped for saying things like his company was an Atlanta one when it was really based out of Colorado and other things while the other jeweler proclaimed its superiority.
The whole thing struck me as disgusting, and reading this site helped me process that. They weren't saying anything good about their own jewelry, they were just tearing down a competitor, and being pretty ugly about it to boot. The fact that Shane Company ads still play on the radio down here while I can't even remember who the competitor was should tell you how that particular campaign turned out.
- Daniel
Advertisers HATE this Andrew Price post.
Me, not so much. The sooner idiots click through and get rooked of their bucks, the quicker the "it's all a conspiracy" meme will be equated with punishment and go into hibernation until the next generational cycle.
Agreed about the "get what you deserve" ads. They imply both that somehow you have an entitlement to something you don't have AND that you've been unfairly denied by THEM.
In a related note, I'm amazed how many ads tell people that "it's finally time you rewarded yourself," as if most people aren't intensely selfish to begin with and spend their days thinking mainly about themselves.
I don't know the law firm ad you speak of, but I've seen several that promote false ideas. You see those a lot when it comes to education or investing, where they are promoting "truths" that are anything but true and then promising to solve the problem for you.
As an aside, another set of ads I can't stand are the "You could save UP TO X% OR MORE." Those are really popular now, and I think that's flat out fraud. I think those should be viewed as legal promises because they are essentially disavowals of the limits they just placed in the ad, and the people making the promise should be held accountable for the "or more" part.
I just consider "up to X or more" bad copy and puffery. I fight that phrase daily in my work, because scientists (oddly) love to use it when talking about achievable detection limits. I generally encourage using only the "up to X" portion, or asking for a range. I only dislike it because it says nothing. "Less than or greater than X." Unfortunately, the concept being expressed doesn't fit into any other short phrase.
Daniel, I'm glad we could help! :)
Yeah, that definitely sounds like a disgusting ad. It makes me wonder too who they think their audience is. Normally, people looking for jewelry are looking for things that evoke love, not violence.
In any event, that's an excellent observation. It's really, really hard to sell a product by attacking your competition. I know a lot of advertisers try it, but there is a really fine line between showing why your product is better and just injecting a lot of negativity. In my experience, people don't respond well to negativity unless they already share the view. Not to mention, once you start, the other guy may respond and then it's mutually assured destruction as people get a negative view of both products.
Loyal customers are loyal because they love your store/products, they aren't loyal because they hate your competitor.
K, That's true and I have no sympathy for the people who let themselves get taken by this, but it troubles me that this meme is so strongly ingrained in the culture at the moment that it's become an effective advertising method.
tryanmax, That is all it's considered from a legal perspective: puffery.
But in my opinion, it's fraud. By saying, "you could make 10%," they are telling you the limit of their promises. Use this and you can make a 0-10% gain. That implies some sort of accuracy -- either backed up by a study or experience, with 10% being the top limit achieved and something you won't achieve, but still a rough order of magnitude of what they are promising. There is the suggestion that they are not allowed by advertising law to suggest more.
When they then add the next part, "or more," they are essentially lying. They are suggesting that "we were obligated to tell you the 10% limit" but your results will be better than that... wink wink. It would be like saying, "The FDA tells us we can't say this drug grows hair... get it? wink wink."
Again, it's conspiracy theory advertising: THEY won't let us tell you the truth.
That's another good point, Andrew. I really can't see men looking for an engagement ring, anniversary gift, or whatnot or women buying something nice for themselves or a gift for a loved one taking well to that sort of ad. It struck me as juvenile frat boy nonsense at best and unfair and malicious at worst.
Compounding that is the fact that all the things eliciting the slaps just seemed to petty. So the Shane Company is based out of Colorado? So what? Around here the company and its ads have integrated into Georgia so well that it sometimes doesn't seem right if I don't hear one of their ads while I'm out on a drive. I did find it interesting that it's known enough in its native Colorado to where South Park referenced it in one of their episodes, though I forgot which one.
I think another thing affecting the way the ad came off is the way Tom Shane comes off in his company's ads. Whatever he's really like in person he always comes off as calm, reassuring, and likeable in the radio ads. It just didn't seem right to see that kind of attack played out. Of course I'm allowing for the possibility that he could be a real troll outside the recording booth, but for PR purposes he handles himself well I think.
Your point about needing to offer something rather than tear down something else really does have a lot of good application in business and politics alike. Where products like computers and cars go I expect a little bit of bragging at their competitor's expense, but I really haven't encountered anything abrasive in that regard. By and large, though, I don't see that kind of thing when it comes to selling products. People can still find new lows, though, as this conspiratorial crap shows.
- Daniel
In my industry, I can tell you it's born of CYA. There are actually clients who would return a product for performing better than advertised. (Namely, the Japanese.) There's also the issue of making blanket claims about a product used for multiple applications, many of which we cannot anticipate.
As for *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* advertising, I only have limited sympathy for anyone taken in by that. At that point, they've stopped just short of calling themselves liars.
tryanmax, I agree, I don't have any sympathy for people taken in by that, because you are basically actively deluding yourself if you believe it. It should be patently obvious. I'm just amazed they get away with it and annoyed that I have to hear what is obviously an attempt to mislead.
LOL! I've never known anyone to return a product that worked better than expected. That said, knowing something to the Japanese mindset, I can see that - conforming to standards is what matters and it's just as big a sin to be better than others than it is to be worse. Kind of like extreme social socialism.
Humor is a dangerous tool for advertisers to use because humor is so subjective and few people agree on what's funny. So if your humor comes across as "frat boy" humor, as a lot of advertising humor does, you automatically turn off a lot of people. Women in particular don't find that funny, so a jewelry store using something that comes across that way is a really bad idea.
On the states, every once in a while an ad works well. Think about Pace Picante sauce: "This stuff's made in New York City!" That was really effective because when you think of Tex-Mex food, you don't think of NYC. So the humorous swipe at a phantom competitor (they never named the competitor) really worked because it enhanced their authenticity. But attacking a jewelry store for not originally being local doesn't sound like it will mean anything to people. And if you spend your time making points that don't matter, people quickly come to feel that you don't understand them. That means they are better off finding someone else who does.
That's a really good point about how the guy (Shane) comes across. If the audience likes the guy you are attacking more than you, then you have problems. And if you get one of these spokesmen who is just really likable on screen (e.g. Dave Thomas of Wendy's), then attacking him is suicidal because it will generate a tremendous amount of blowback ill-will. People rally around people they feel are unfairly attacked... that's human nature. And the more they like someone, the more they are likely to feel that criticism is an unfair attack.
I think there is a truly broad application to the rule about selling yourself rather than attacking a competitor. For one thing, when people make choices, they are trying to figure out which choice will give them the best reward. Attacking the other guy (be it a politician, a product or a service) doesn't give them anything to tell them what you will do for them. In other words, it doesn't answer the one question they have: "What will I get if I choose you?" All you really tell them is what they won't get if they had chosen the other guy, and that's not enough to make them want what you are selling.
I'm not saying that you can't point out the flaws with your competitor, but unless it's something truly dramatic: "Four out of five of their cars blows up!" then you need to tell them why they should buy what you are selling.
Whenever I see an ad that says "Experts HATE this product" I typically believe the ad is telling the truth with that statement and as a result decide not to buy it.
Also, re the emptiness of commercials:
Maybe this is why I like the Microsoft Surface commercials so much. I'm more of a Mac guy but I do love these commercials because they show off a level at all stages of filmmaking from the dancers to the choreographers to the cameramen to the editors to create a 30sec of real joy.
Exhibit A: LINK
Exhibit B: LINK
Other commercials I like...
-Ipad's "Heart and Soul" ad. I love that tune*.
-Coca Cola's "Grand Theft Auto ad". You gotta see it to believe it.
-Coca Cola's ad about what happens in side a Coke Machine: LINK. It has an animated movie quality.
Maybe its because I like it when commercials dare to tell a good story or at least display a level of artistry in their ads other than "BUY OUR S--T!"
(It should be noted the two Coca Cola ads were Super Bowl ads)
*Do not own an iPad. I already have a basic 2nd Gen Kindle and a MacBook and I prefer my comic books in paper. No need as of yet.
Kit, I'm going to write about pads soon because I'm declaring them a fad that has peaked.
On the Surface ads, I agree that they were a decent ad from an entertainment perspective, but they failed miserably at the one thing they needed to do: give people a reason to buy their product. Coke can do artistic ads because they don't need to educate the public. They are just in "bond" mode. But Microsoft was introducing a new product and that requires information. They blew it and have been heavily criticized for that campaign. One guy called it, "The worst rollout ever." ($900 million write-down and they spent more on advertising than they made in sales.) Now they are doing ads attacking Apple, which won't work because people like Apple better.
Good point about the "Doctors hate this." I think that too: "Yes, they do hate that you can spew this sh*t and cause people problems with your lies."
Andrew,
I still enjoy the ads. :)
But the only reason to buy a PC for me would be so I could play Total War: Rome II... or I could just wait for it to come out for the Mac in 3 years.
(Hint: I'll wait three years)
Kit, You can like the ad, but it isn't an effective ad. That's the problem. It left people saying, "So what does it do and why do I need one?"
Andrew,
You are probably right.
regarding Bond ads
2 years ago Disney had an ad campaign called "let the Memories Begin." The ads featured home videos of families at Walt Disney World. Focusing not so much on the rides as on the fact that the family, especially the kids, were at a Disney theme Park. Images of them arriving at the park, interacting with characters, etc.While the rides featured occaisionally, they were not the focus, which instead was on the family and kids interacting with the park
While Universal and Sea World were not mentioned in the ads it is as if Disney was saying Universal has cool rides and Sea World as sea stuff we have the fact that we are DISNEY!!!
And as someone who has been to Disney I can say they have a good record of customer service.
They seemed to be saying "Disney is more than just rides -its an experience!"
Here are 2 ads (heck, less than a third of the commercials below feature the parks.)
LINK
The link does not seem to be working. Here is a link:
LINK
Oh, and they are still using the line "Let the Memories Begin" in most of their ads.
Andrew.....Let me steer this advertising thread to something that I see more and more. Internet ads that start running video that you can't turn off. Floating ads where you can't click the X. Ads where the X doesn't come up for a minute or so and dominates your screen. Ads where the X is so small (especially on tablets) where when you go to X out, your finger hits the ad anyway and you've now opened the ad.
In all the above examples, I take note of who the advertiser is and remember them with outright anger and swear to never have anything to do with them.
I know that they are done this way on purpose, as like most people, I click the X to get rid of them as soon as possible. It just really pisses me off and I can't believe if the product/service company understood the anger these little advertising tricks engender in viewers that they would tell the companies placing them to cut it out.
Thoughts?
"On the states, every once in a while an ad works well. Think about Pace Picante sauce: "This stuff's made in New York City!" That was really effective because when you think of Tex-Mex food, you don't think of NYC."
You know what work out really well? This ad sparked a new industry of NYC-made salsas!
And I have been screaming about the portion sizes they use in food advertising. That bowl of corn flakes they use is always 4 portions worth.
But, advertisers lost me years ago when everything went "New and Improved Formula" Everything. Detergents, Soap, shampoo everything was new and improved. It just made think if they have to improve their formula, it must have not worked well to begin with...
Then came the "Fat-free" v. "Cholesterol-Free" advertising. I had a roommate who was buying "Cholesterol-free" pound cakes and eating the whole thing and she wondered why she gained 25 pounds. I had to point out to her that "Fat-free" and "Cholesterol-free" does not mean calorie-free. Read the label.
Does anyone remember "Olestra"? In the early '90's scientists developed a new miracle fat for frying that would move through your system without stopping and now we would all be able to eat those fat-laden savory snack products without guilt! Yay!! Lay's Potato chips were the first to try and use it. You could eat a whole bag of Ruffles and not gain an ounce. But oops, because it moved very quickly through your system, it came with some pretty unsavory side effects...well...let's just say the term "leakage" became a "new and improved" name and Olestra quickly disappeared from the marketplace.
Bev, That's hilarious. That's so typical American. Someone claims something is no good, so a dozen people set out to prove them wrong. LOL!
The portions are stunning in advertisements. I really think they are distorting public perceptions. And you're right about the cereal... that's not one serving.
The new and improved stuff always felt like a fraud to me, especially since it often just seemed to reference a higher price point.
I do indeed recall Olestra. Even without the side-effects, I didn't like them because they felt waxy in your mouth. And yeah, the "reduced fat" thing is really a bad idea all around. Reduced taste... reduced guilt... just as bad for you... and you eat more.
Kit, Disney does both. The introduce new products all the time and they spend heavily to post the advertising bond. Very classic example where the company reputation is critical.
Patriot, I generally click away when those things happen. I click away too when I click on a news article and they only show me a video.
I just wanna see a bit with some Woody Allen type--stereotypically Jewish--complaining at the deli counter about the pastrami and saying, "Well no wonder! This stuff's made in San Antonio."
Andrew....Same here. Yet to your point of advertising being effective and not treating their target market as fools, these click ads are so obviously ineffective as many will look at the sponsor in distaste and treat us as fools because they think if they pull these stupid tricks that their product will be seen more and remembered.
Remembered alright...with disgust and anger. By me at least.
BTW....One of the better ads the last few years was for Bridgestone tires I think. Showed a couple driving down a country road and then a squirrel in the road. When the car got close to the squirrel, it started screaming in horror and then the woman in the car started screaming too. The guy driving swerved and missed the squirrel. All to show the handling of the tires. Effective, funny and memorable.
tryanmax, LOL! That would have been hilarious counter-advertising for something like a NYC sausage company.
Patriot, True, but keep in mind... advertising isn't aimed at everyone. It's aimed at a specific target market. If they can reach those people, then they don't care what anyone else thinks.
What troubles me about the ads mentioned in the article is that they highlight that a large enough segment of our population to be worth advertising too now falls for this garbage. That seems to be a growing problem.
I liked that Bridgestone ad as well. I think the best ads are the ones where you remember the slogan and it includes the name of the company: "Every kiss begins with Kay." Very smart.
Careful, Andrew--some people's entire private medicine stock is built on that "what doctors don't want you to know" line. (By "some people's" I really mean "my mother's.")
I think it's mainly just frustration at the prices doctors and insurance companies charge, plus the uncertainty of it all. There's nothing exactly unfair about it--they have to make a living too, after all--but it's hard to see that when you're in need of something. I wish the many charlatans in advertising wouldn't take advantage of that frustration so shamelessly, but what are you going to do?
T-Rav, There was actually a book a few years ago called "What doctors don't want you to know" or something like that. They sold it through an infomercial. And the guy selling it kept saying things like, "We know how to cure cancer. There are foods and vitamins that can cure cancer. But doctors and BIG PHARMA don't want you knowing that. They want you doing chemotherapy, which doesn't work. So they silence people who try to tell you the truth." He went on and on about one thing after another. I seriously wished that someone would enter their studio and beat him to death with his own book.
How are you feeling?
Bev, the official term for the side effect of Orlistate (Olestra) was called "oily seepage".
Re: Surface ads, I thought their choice of song was stupid. "And it feels like I'm just too close to love you." Ok, so I won't buy it if I won't love it.
I generally dislike ads and is why I am watching more Netflix. I tend to record games and watch them later fast-forwarding through the ads.
One (of many) reasons I don't like soccer is I can't tell which team is which. They are covered with ads but for some reason don't think that the team name is important. And if I have a favorite team, why would I buy your jersey with an ad on it? Oh, I can buy the soccer jersey without ads but it isn't the jersey being worn by the players.
"Oily Seepage" sounds like the name of some Southern Politician from the Jim Crow era. "You dun vote foh old Oily Seepage, and he gonna make sure of the natural ordah uv thangs."
I stick to movies more than television too for the same reason... I hate watching ads.
Totally agree about soccer. It looks chaotic and silly that they're all covered in ads. I am really glad that most other sports don't do that.
Andrew, I am feeling considerably better today, thanks. :-)
Most of those claims I consider roughly akin to the story of the secret car with 200 mpg that's being kept hidden by the auto companies. Um, if such a thing existed, wouldn't those corporate guys be all over it?
I do get why people would want to believe there's an easy effective treatment for cancer out there, or at least something a lot better than chemo et al. I also get why when one sees some jackass taking advantage of their desperation, one would have a natural urge to beat said jackass to death with their own book. Totally understandable, both ways.
What fires me up about the snake oil salesman is that they complain that oncologists are just in it for the money. However, somehow patients don't see that the salesman is also in it for the money.
T-Rav, Yeah, I can definitely see why people feel this way. They want to believe there's an ideal world out there. It is frustrating though that people fall for this stuff.
Good point about the secret car. If such a thing existed these companies would make a fortune exploiting it. But super-secret hidden patents (an impossibility fyi because patents need to be public) have been conspiracy fodder for decades. In the 1970s, they were passing around a double-secret patent for an engine that ran on water which the oil companies had supposedly hidden from the public. The "patent" shows two tubes wrapped around a sphere. At the top of one of the tubes was an arrow labeled "water." That it. It was obviously nonsense, but I can show you a bunch of UFO/conspiracy books that took it seriously.
Koshcat, I think that's the conspiracy element. They claim that they are "true believers" and that their real goal is "truth," and they always suggest that they've given up lucrative careers to peddle this stuff at "just about cost." People then wrongly believe this because "they can't lie in advertising."
"they can't lie in advertising."
This is just one of the reasons I believe there should be a mandatory high school course on media. It should cover things like advertising, elements of propaganda the TV "effect" that makes small events seem large and individual tragedies seem general.
It would be one small step back to some kind of sanity.
mandatory high school course on media
Good luck getting that past the right wing. If it ain't readin' and 'ritin' and 'rithmetic, it's got no bidness bein' taught in skool! 'Cept the Bible. That should be mandatory!
But I agree, we live in a media culture and most people are ignorant of the workings of it. Even on (liberal) college campuses, communications majors are pooh-poohed as not being smart enough to tackle a "real" degree. But the people with communications backgrounds (whether that or a related field) are the ones who influence the culture. I would also argue that a law degree is related b/c a lot of it is persuasion--so there's your politicians.
I think a mandatory class on media would be a good thing for everyone to have... ditto on logic.
Don't get me started on education though... "BIGFOOT WROTE COMMON CORE!!" Idiots.
As an aside, being a lawyer is like a communications degree on steroids. And if you do it right, it's also a philosophy degree, a civics degree, a logic degree, a psychology degree and an acting degree. But that's a big if there.
We can't expect teachers, or public schooling for that matter, to teach common sense. With that said, I believe there should be "practical" courses taught. Courses on how to recognize bias. I've heard/read that one of the 'Progressives" goals was to get control of the schools and media in order to influence society.
Case in point: Yesterday I heard this radio ad, Verizon(?), where the little girl teen, was remarking to her brother about historical figures using Twitter and Facebook in order to show the power of the internet to educate. One of the very subtle lines was something like: "Abe Lincoln was a progressive." Just thrown in there for our edification. Why couldn't they have said: "Abe Lincoln was a Republican" That then would put in people's minds that Lincoln. a great historical figure beloved by all (hah!) was a hated Republican who freed the slaves. So, little things like that in advertising that either create, or perpetuate in the public's mind (consciously or unconsciously) a certain point of view or outlook (this good....that bad) that shapes our society.
Very effective manipulation of facts and human nature to achieve their ends. In the above case, to equate Lincoln with the term "Progressive" NOT Republican. Because all Republicans are racists and bigots you know.
(Wow....that's a mouthful for Sunday morning!)
Patriot,
I don't think Verizon was trying to push a political agenda there. I think they were trying to appeal to hip, young liberals.
Patriot, I wouldn't worry too much about the "Lincoln was a progressive" bit. When the umbrella of what is progressive is widened, the term is diminished. The GOP won't disown Lincoln, so the left trying to claim him also is confusing.
Actually, pushing against the progressive label is probably the worst thing conservatives can do. When "progressive" is seen as a good thing (as it is now), fighting the label applied to one of your own sends the message that you don't like what is "good." It says, "We want to be the bad guys."
The smarter thing to do would be to happily accept the label and try to apply it further. "Of course Lincoln was a progressive. The GOP has always stood for the progress of human liberty and equality. From Abe to T.R. (the lefties love Teddy, so just go with it) to Reagan; progress all the way."
Remember, what is good or bad is not determined by the labels applied to it. Words are horrible, malleable things, but they are perceived as concrete. The persuasive orator knows this and turns it to his advantage. The ineffective orator insists on their concreteness and is stunned to find his words turned against him. The honest orator is concerned only with being understood--the greatest feat of all when words are the only available tool.
Post a Comment