Disaggregating “Government”

As we’ve discussed here before, public opinion research shows big support levels for “smaller government,” but, on a service-by-service basis, citizens don’t want to cut much of anything government does, particularly the most expensive government services.

That’s why this TV ad by the public employees union is a good one. Yes, it has a cookie cutter feel that makes it look like thousands of look-alike ads you’ve seen before. But the ad succeeds in making the government shutdown less abstract, and more about the loss of tangible services that Minnesotans value and strongly support. That’s critically important message framing for the left. While the ad is executionally predictable and uninteresting, it is strategically spot-on.

Here ordinary Minnesotans who look like our family, friends and neighbors are being fired, not faceless, soul-less bureaucrats.

Here there are lives and emotions in front of us, not just numbers and spreadsheets.

Here critical care for vulnerable citizens, education, public safety and bridge maintenance are being shut down, not just the abstract notion of “government.”

Big difference. Big mindshift.

Anti-government legislators dismiss ads like this at their peril. If this ad airs a great deal, it will make a difference. The more “government” is humanized and disaggregated in Minnesotans’ minds, the less popular government cutters will be.

– Loveland

“Neutrality” Declaration Off Target

Yesterday at Target’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel was peppered with questions about the divisive gay marriage measure that Target-funded legislators put on the 2012 Minnesota ballot.

Mr. Steinhafel couldn’t move the conversation back to corporate business, because the questions about Target’s politics kept coming and coming. This was frustrating for Steinhafel, because he was armed with a well-rehearsed talking point:

“We’re neutral.” It seems Target fancies itself as a veritable Switzerland. Steinhafel repeatedly declared that Target’s position on the gay marriage issue is neutral, neutral, neutral.

But here’s why that message isn’t working. When Switzerland is neutral in a war, they don’t fund either side. But Target is funding a group of candidates obsessed with banning gay marriage. The citizens/customers caught in the crossfire of the Target-financed culture war do not view Target’s funding decisions as an act of neutrality.

From a brand stewardship standpoint, corporations should keep their multi-billion brands out of the destructive crossfire of the most divisive issues of our times. As long as they continue to fund political combatants, repeating the word “neutral” is not going to stop them from suffering the collateral damage inherent in any war.

– Loveland