So the Democrats are holding their convention this week and tonight was opening night.
My overall impression of the GOP convention from a PR perspective was a C. It had been a D, but the final days of the convention bumped it up to a C. The overall theme at the GOP convention was Jobs.
My impression of the Dem convention so far is a C based on the main keynotes. The theme of the Dem convention is clearly Family and Hardship (although the official theme is Forward - which I personally really don't like and blogged about months ago).
This is a tough theme to pull off successfully. Yes, when you talk about family and hardship the crowd obviously warms to you. And in the moment, it resonates strongly.
However, the real question is what 'sticks' with people a day, a week, a month later? Will they still feel that emotion of connecting to you based on what you said in your keynote? Or rather, will they be back in reality and frustrated over a lower standard of living than they had four years ago?
I suspect it will be the later. I suspect what people want in 2012 is action.
Here's the big problem with what the Dems are doing. They are positioning the Democratic party and Obama as the 'nice guy' party, the 'we care' party, the 'ideological high ground' party. The problem is that they are selling milk to the cow! Most people already think Obama is a nice guy, that he cares and that he's ideological. That's doesn't help them put food on the table thought.
Obama will not lose the election because people don't think he came from humble beginnings or is a nice guy. He'll lose because people think he's not up to the job... the job of creating jobs in America. So Family and Hardship may be a theme that tugs at the heart strings, but in my humble PR opinion, it won't win you an election under current circumstances.
Michelle Obama keynote: C
I can see a lot of people liking this speech. She talks a lot about family, of hardship, of character, etc.
The problem I have with this speech is that it's pure fluff / pandering. It does succeed in getting across the message 'We're just an American family just like you', but ultimately, it doesn't excuse the job Obama has done.
She talks about how Obama's decisions were made based on what the 'right thing' to do was. The only problem is that Obama didn't go after the bankers in the least. He let every Wall Street firm and bank that caused this recession walk scot free.
He filled his White House with ex-Goldman Sachs employees and then made every decision to favor the banks at the cost of American tax payers WHILE driving the national debt up over a trillion dollars a year.
I'm sorry, but in no world, this one or any alternate universe version, can what Obama did be seen as the 'right thing' for the middle and lower class.
Just look at the food stamp situation in America.... when he took office 31M people were on foodstamps, now 47M people are. That's insane! Even considering Bush caused this mess, this reality is the result of Obama's economic policies that shovelled trillions in to the banks, of which only a fraction of that money ever made it to the actual economy and real working-class folks.
If we're talking what's 'right'... remember British Petroleum and the deep sea drilling fiasco? They paid a 20B fine, but not a single person went to jail or was held criminally liable.
Remember Fast and Furious (US shipping guns to mexican drug dealers), or Jon Corzine (who stole $1.2B of customer funds and was never charged; and he happens to be a long-time Obama contributor), or passing the NDAA (allowing the gov to arrest anyone without giving them a lawyer or trial) on midnight before Christmas so no one would report on it?
How is any of that stuff 'right' by even the most liberal of moral standards?
So I give Michelle's keynote a C- because she speaks well and tugs at the heart strings well. But the speech itself was total soft-message pandering and does not synch up with the reality of the decisions that Obama has made over the past four years.
Yes, he comes across as a really nice guy, but I'm sorry, he has not made the choices that a 'really nice guy' would make. He's made some very cut-throat decisions over the past four years and the majority of them hurt the middle class and benefited either Wall Street or the Industrial Military Complex.
Rahm Emmanuel keynote: F
Fair disclosure, I think Rahm is a tool, so I'm biased.
But even with that bias, I still give this speech an F for two reasons.
1) Obama is a "once in a generation" president
I'm sorry but Obama does not rank as a once in a generation president. Even for those that love him, they have to admit he is no JFK. Heck, even among Democrats I would argue that Bill Clinton is still more beloved than Obama. So using language like this is nothing but hyperbole and makes you appear as though you engage in magical thinking and are disconnected from reality.
2) Reference to the troops in Iraq coming home
This actually pissed me off, which is hard to do given I'm pretty cynical about speeches given how scripted they tend to be. Right now in Afghanistan soldiers are committing suicide at the rate of one soldier per day. More soldiers are dying from suicide than from combat death.
So to say that Obama is somehow a champion of the troops and got them out of harms way in Iraq is pathetic. Because he's got fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers still at war and breaking down as a result and killing themselves.
Not to mention all the mental and physical injuries the soldiers from the Iraq war are suffering now that they are back home. And let's not even get in to the fact that they can't get jobs.
So overall, Rahm gets an F because the things he is saying are so disconnected with the reality of Obama's first four years.
Harry Reid keynote: C
Harry Reid's keynote was probably the best of the night from a content perspective. Instead of focusing on trying to make Obama sound like the savior he never was, Reid went after the Tea Party and Mitt Romney.
Reid's message was simple: if you want extremists and billionaire-friendly politicians running Washington then that's what you'd get with Mitt Romney and the Tea Party.
The reason this was a good message is, as we've talked about in a previous post, the Democrats will not get elected based on Obama's performance. So it is essential that they paint Romney and the GOP as something to be feared and never ever trusted.
So in terms of Reids content I'd give him an A. The reason I ultimately give him a C though is because of his delivery. Most like due to his age, Reid came off as very weak and fragile. As a result, there was no 'gusto' in any of his words. He came across as someone who had to give a speech, so he gave it, and then got out of there as soon as he could.
It's not really his fault. I've talked about this with regards to Clint Eastwood at the GOP convention, you have to be careful when using folks who are in their 70s and 80s. The mind starts to dull at that age and they rarely make for compelling public speakers.
But having said that, at least the content of Reid's keynote was on point, which is to say he spoke to why you'd want to vote Obama instead of Romney. He makes a good point... if you are a proud American why would you vote for someone who keeps a ton of his money in Swiss and Cayman island bank accounts?
Overall: C
So far the convention gets a C from me with regards to PR. I think their messaging strategy is flawed as they are pitching something that people have already bought in to (mostly that Obama is a nice guy).
They need to get to the meat and potatoes of things, which is either 1) why should Obama be re-elected or 2) why shouldn't Romney be elected.
Reid at least was on point in that regard, but one man does not make for a convention.
So we'll see how the next few days go. The GOP convention I gave a C and I think the Dem's have to at least pull off a C or they will find themselves trailing the Republicans in the polls in the coming week.
My overall impression of the GOP convention from a PR perspective was a C. It had been a D, but the final days of the convention bumped it up to a C. The overall theme at the GOP convention was Jobs.
My impression of the Dem convention so far is a C based on the main keynotes. The theme of the Dem convention is clearly Family and Hardship (although the official theme is Forward - which I personally really don't like and blogged about months ago).
This is a tough theme to pull off successfully. Yes, when you talk about family and hardship the crowd obviously warms to you. And in the moment, it resonates strongly.
However, the real question is what 'sticks' with people a day, a week, a month later? Will they still feel that emotion of connecting to you based on what you said in your keynote? Or rather, will they be back in reality and frustrated over a lower standard of living than they had four years ago?
I suspect it will be the later. I suspect what people want in 2012 is action.
Here's the big problem with what the Dems are doing. They are positioning the Democratic party and Obama as the 'nice guy' party, the 'we care' party, the 'ideological high ground' party. The problem is that they are selling milk to the cow! Most people already think Obama is a nice guy, that he cares and that he's ideological. That's doesn't help them put food on the table thought.
Obama will not lose the election because people don't think he came from humble beginnings or is a nice guy. He'll lose because people think he's not up to the job... the job of creating jobs in America. So Family and Hardship may be a theme that tugs at the heart strings, but in my humble PR opinion, it won't win you an election under current circumstances.
Michelle Obama keynote: C
I can see a lot of people liking this speech. She talks a lot about family, of hardship, of character, etc.
The problem I have with this speech is that it's pure fluff / pandering. It does succeed in getting across the message 'We're just an American family just like you', but ultimately, it doesn't excuse the job Obama has done.
She talks about how Obama's decisions were made based on what the 'right thing' to do was. The only problem is that Obama didn't go after the bankers in the least. He let every Wall Street firm and bank that caused this recession walk scot free.
He filled his White House with ex-Goldman Sachs employees and then made every decision to favor the banks at the cost of American tax payers WHILE driving the national debt up over a trillion dollars a year.
I'm sorry, but in no world, this one or any alternate universe version, can what Obama did be seen as the 'right thing' for the middle and lower class.
Just look at the food stamp situation in America.... when he took office 31M people were on foodstamps, now 47M people are. That's insane! Even considering Bush caused this mess, this reality is the result of Obama's economic policies that shovelled trillions in to the banks, of which only a fraction of that money ever made it to the actual economy and real working-class folks.
If we're talking what's 'right'... remember British Petroleum and the deep sea drilling fiasco? They paid a 20B fine, but not a single person went to jail or was held criminally liable.
Remember Fast and Furious (US shipping guns to mexican drug dealers), or Jon Corzine (who stole $1.2B of customer funds and was never charged; and he happens to be a long-time Obama contributor), or passing the NDAA (allowing the gov to arrest anyone without giving them a lawyer or trial) on midnight before Christmas so no one would report on it?
How is any of that stuff 'right' by even the most liberal of moral standards?
So I give Michelle's keynote a C- because she speaks well and tugs at the heart strings well. But the speech itself was total soft-message pandering and does not synch up with the reality of the decisions that Obama has made over the past four years.
Yes, he comes across as a really nice guy, but I'm sorry, he has not made the choices that a 'really nice guy' would make. He's made some very cut-throat decisions over the past four years and the majority of them hurt the middle class and benefited either Wall Street or the Industrial Military Complex.
Rahm Emmanuel keynote: F
Fair disclosure, I think Rahm is a tool, so I'm biased.
But even with that bias, I still give this speech an F for two reasons.
1) Obama is a "once in a generation" president
I'm sorry but Obama does not rank as a once in a generation president. Even for those that love him, they have to admit he is no JFK. Heck, even among Democrats I would argue that Bill Clinton is still more beloved than Obama. So using language like this is nothing but hyperbole and makes you appear as though you engage in magical thinking and are disconnected from reality.
2) Reference to the troops in Iraq coming home
This actually pissed me off, which is hard to do given I'm pretty cynical about speeches given how scripted they tend to be. Right now in Afghanistan soldiers are committing suicide at the rate of one soldier per day. More soldiers are dying from suicide than from combat death.
So to say that Obama is somehow a champion of the troops and got them out of harms way in Iraq is pathetic. Because he's got fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers still at war and breaking down as a result and killing themselves.
Not to mention all the mental and physical injuries the soldiers from the Iraq war are suffering now that they are back home. And let's not even get in to the fact that they can't get jobs.
So overall, Rahm gets an F because the things he is saying are so disconnected with the reality of Obama's first four years.
Harry Reid keynote: C
Harry Reid's keynote was probably the best of the night from a content perspective. Instead of focusing on trying to make Obama sound like the savior he never was, Reid went after the Tea Party and Mitt Romney.
Reid's message was simple: if you want extremists and billionaire-friendly politicians running Washington then that's what you'd get with Mitt Romney and the Tea Party.
The reason this was a good message is, as we've talked about in a previous post, the Democrats will not get elected based on Obama's performance. So it is essential that they paint Romney and the GOP as something to be feared and never ever trusted.
So in terms of Reids content I'd give him an A. The reason I ultimately give him a C though is because of his delivery. Most like due to his age, Reid came off as very weak and fragile. As a result, there was no 'gusto' in any of his words. He came across as someone who had to give a speech, so he gave it, and then got out of there as soon as he could.
It's not really his fault. I've talked about this with regards to Clint Eastwood at the GOP convention, you have to be careful when using folks who are in their 70s and 80s. The mind starts to dull at that age and they rarely make for compelling public speakers.
But having said that, at least the content of Reid's keynote was on point, which is to say he spoke to why you'd want to vote Obama instead of Romney. He makes a good point... if you are a proud American why would you vote for someone who keeps a ton of his money in Swiss and Cayman island bank accounts?
Overall: C
So far the convention gets a C from me with regards to PR. I think their messaging strategy is flawed as they are pitching something that people have already bought in to (mostly that Obama is a nice guy).
They need to get to the meat and potatoes of things, which is either 1) why should Obama be re-elected or 2) why shouldn't Romney be elected.
Reid at least was on point in that regard, but one man does not make for a convention.
So we'll see how the next few days go. The GOP convention I gave a C and I think the Dem's have to at least pull off a C or they will find themselves trailing the Republicans in the polls in the coming week.
Comments
Post a Comment