in Memorium

This is not the blog post that I had intended to write for today.  My original plan got upended by the tragic events last Friday in Newtown, CT and Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I wish my blog had been the only victim.

I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a resident of Newtown.  The grief, sorrow and sense of loss for everyone in that town must be overwhelming.  My heart and thoughts go out to them.

I do not want to be political with this post.  I do, however, want to shine the spotlight on a couple perspectives which seem to resonate with truth and honesty to me.

The first centers around comments that were originally attributed to Morgan Freeman regarding the role of the media in perpetrating massacres such as this.  That now appears to be a hoax.  Regardless, the sentiments expressed in the statement warrant some consideration.  One of the things that the now mysterious author of this statement says is that the media deserve some of the causal blame for tragedies like this.  Too rarely do we hear the stories of the heroes of these events, of which there are many.  Heroes like Victoria Soto, the 27 year old teacher who protected her students and paid with her life.  Heroes like Principal Dawn Hochsprung, and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, who allegedly rushed the perpetrator when he broke into the school.  They were killed valiantly trying to protect others.  There are, I am sure, dozens of other heroic acts, large and small.  It seems to me that this should be the focus of media attention.  Focus on the heroes and the victims of each tragedy.

Instead, the media tends to focus their attention, their pages and their airwaves on the perpetrators of these crimes, building them up in a way that many of them cannot dream of achieving in life without taking extraordinary measures.  To a person who is struggling with their grasp on reality, watching coverage like this can arouse thoughts of a copycat crime and copycat fame.  It is for this very reason that many newspapers and media outlets often do not report on teen suicides, or at least do not discuss the details.  I think this is a wise policy.

Which raises another issue that too often goes under discussed in the wake of these tragedies.  100% of the people who perpetrate these tragedies are mentally ill.  I don't care what their official diagnosis is, they are mentally ill.  As a nation, we need to figure out a better way to identify, treat and care for those who are wrestling with inner demons.  We cannot continue to hide from this issue or ignore these people who deserve our care and attention.

Mental health care has always taken a back seat to physical health care in our country.  I don't know why that is, but it has to change.  For an exceptionally personal perspective on what these issues look like from inside the family, please read an unbelievable blog by The Anarchist Soccer Mom here.  I thank her for her frank and heartfelt revelation.

I don't have any answers regarding what has happened in Connecticut and too many other places around the world.  I think we need to do something, and I always prefer taking positive, preventative action over negaitve, reactive action.  I don't think the answer is turning our schools into prisons or locking away anyone who shows signs of mental instability.  I do think there are answers and solutions out there.  I know that for me, the first step was and is hugging my family.

Peace.

Please.

Is Voter Turnout a Communications Issue?

Yesterday,  someone commented on my March 21st post on local elections with this question:
"I am active politically at the local/state level. We have had declining voter turn-out over the years so that the last city council election garnered less than 10%. I used to think that those elections would have higher participation for exactly the reasons you mention - council & school boards being so close to home. any thoughts on this?"

After responding, I continued to think about this issue.  I suspect that low voter turnout, in part, is a communication issue.  Venturing a risky step into political blogging (just for today, I promise!) I wanted to expound on some of my thoughts.  Please join in on this discussion if you want to add to the discourse!

I suspect that there are several reasons for the decline in voter turnout.  

• I think that many "could be" voters stay away from the polls because they question whether or not their vote makes a difference.  I suspect we will see a significant drop in the percentage of people voting in the national election this fall (as most states saw during the primaries) because there has been a lot of attention paid to Citizen's United issues.  "I don't have millions to contribute so how can I change things" is how many individuals are viewing things this political season. 
• Related to that, many erstwhile voters question what impact, if any, one candidate will have over another.  If you view all politicians with the same suspicion-colored glasses, they all look the same and then why take the time to go to the polls?  
• While they were set up to make it easier for people to vote, I suspect that the preponderance of options like Early voting and Absentee voting can be intimidating and confusing for those not fully engaged in the process. It also has the impact of lessening the special aspect of Election Day. 
• When I was growing up, I remember hearing leaders of all shapes, sizes and political flavors talk about the importance of getting out to vote.  I grew up believing it was EVERYONE'S civic duty to vote.  I don't hear that from our leaders nearly as much.  Voting no longer is held out as a sacred duty of citizenship.  
• It is harder and harder for politicians and political parties to cut through the communications barrage we are all subjected to every day.  With an ever-increasing number of communications venues and an exponentially increasing number of message that most of us have to contend with every day, it is hard for your voice to be heard.  It is hard for McDonald's and Chevy, who can market 24/7/365.  Imagine competing with that with an uncertain source of funds and a limited time frame.  On top of that, try communicating complicated policy issues and positions in a 30 second ad or a two minute "news" story.  Perhaps that is why candidates and PACs turn toward negative ads.
• Negative ads.  Proponents say they work.  But they work not by bringing out your voters but by discouraging the voters of the other guy.  

More specifically on local elections, 

• I think it comes down to people not realizing the impact that local elected officials have on their day-to-day lives. There are fewer and fewer independent, local media sources to tell us the value of those local elected officials.  When all you have is national and regional media, who is covering the city council meeting?

As any good marketer knows, in order to get people to act, you have to move a prospect through certain steps of interest and affiliation before you get them to consider taking action.  I suspect that our political system, used to a bygone era when stronger party affiliations provided automatic interest and affiliation to a candidate.  They still have to adjust to a new political reality in which more and more voters identify themselves as being independent and even those who identify with a party are more willing to cross over to vote for a candidate or an issue that captures their imagination, their interest and their affiliation.

In the end, voter turnout is tied to interest in the candidate and the system.  For some of the reasons I suggested above and many others, eligible voters have lost, or never obtained, that interest.  From time to time an issue or a candidate will fan those flames and generate new interest, and new voters.  Ronald Reagan  in the 80s and Barack Obama in 2008 both come to mind.  And both of those candidates were touted as being Great Communicators.

Palin: Marketing Genius or Public Spectacle

One of the questions that arise from the barrage of media attention Sarah Palin is getting for her book, Going Rogue, is whether she is a media clown or a PR genius.  Most of the political ilk would love to command the media attention that she is getting (although many from both sides of the political spectrum will tell you how they would make better use of that attention.) Meanwhile many in the general public don't know quite to make of the former governor.  Nevertheless, they eagerly watch every video clip and read every news story that has her name in the headline. 

I have to confess that I am of two minds on the subject of Governor Palin's publicity.  Few in the public eye can generate the meda attention that Gov. Palin has, especially with virtually no specific objective other than to sell her book (and the persisitant question of whether she is auditioning for Obama's job or Oprah's?)  She seems to have mastered the ability to generate the viral soundbite or videoclip.  Both get passed around with fervor and passion by supporters and detracotors alike.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that her media attenition has a definate half-life.  Since so much of her book and the subsequent press is about past events and her response to those past events, there is little substance left for a second or third act. 

Like Governor Palin, if your company or organization wants a sustainable media presence, you need a couple of things.  First, like Gov. Palin, it is helpful to have some element (a reputation, a product, an event, a leader) that captures the attention of the public and (perhaps more importantly) the meida.  Second, you need to have a message or a story that you share.  If your story, like Gov. Palin's, is focused primarily on the past, (here's what we've done, these are the awards we've won, etc.) the attention you generate will be short-lived.  However, if you focus on the future (this is what we are going to do for you, Mr. Customer) then the media "buzz" you generate will have some life to it.  That is the marketing difference between Going Rogue and The Audacity of Hope.  The first looks backward and the second looks forward.