“Make America Hate Again” – When Great Marketing Slogans Fail!

Marketing communications is critical to success and organizations are constantly devising strategic marketing communications to capture, grow, keep and translate the attention and perceptions of their prospects and customers into loyalty and profits. Nothing is more useful to powerful branding than a great slogan which becomes a defining hallmark of an individual’s or organization’s value proposition, mission, and vision. We have seen this with ordinary as well as extraordinary brands, and we have seen this in personal and political branding. President Donald J. Trump, the 45^th President of the United States, achieved political victory with a bold and extraordinary slogan, “Make American Great Again”. This slogan was not only catchy to even those opposed to his ideals and ideology, but reflected the hopes, expectations, and the way in which Americans and non-Americans perceive and regard the United States. It communicated mission, vision, and strategy, and made Trump and his campaign exceptional among presidential contenders from campaign right through nomination and election.

Great organizations and brands know how to develop a unique value proposition with the characteristics of being difficult to imitate, credible, consistent, and clear. Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” had these characteristics and gave many Americans the kind of hope that the 44^th President of the United States, Barack Obama, brought with his campaign and eventual success as America’s first Black or African American president. However, there is a striking difference when it comes to actually making their slogans work. Barack Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” was neutral and meant for all Americans and even extended beyond America to embrace and share this hope with the rest of the world. However, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” was only for America, but not all Americans, and this became evident with his keen association with the likes of Steve Bannon and Breitbart News, admiration from White Supremacist groups, his hateful and hostile rhetoric towards immigrants, especially Mexicans, and his economics of ideological exclusion and exclusivism where the world was painted an America only taking – taking back – and not giving to the world. For example, then-candidate Donald Trump, and now President Trump, widely advocates “taking back the jobs” from China, Mexico, etc. The world and many Americans are not used to this type of America, but an America that is kind, humanitarian, charitable, and integrated into global affairs across continents, regions, and economies. These ideological basis of Trump’s American greatness were and are seen as antithetical to the Great America and greatness or strategy that America has used effectively to become the greatest nation of the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Thus, the implementation of “Make America Great Again” has failed as hostile propositions and strategies became the basis for achieving the mission and vision, and delivering the value proposition this slogan emboldens.

Marketers, whether they are in politics or business, must be mindful of how they go about making their slogans work. They must be consistent in the values espoused in these slogans. President Donald Trump had a great slogan which espoused the value of greatness and great works, and which encompassed what many believed was the American Dream, but the negative and hateful rhetoric, divisiveness, and divisions underlying implementation, and the elements of exclusivism and discrimination have made his “Make American Great Again” nothing more than “Make America Hate Again” up to this point in his Administration. As we look to the media and conduct self-evaluation based on our own experiences, observations, and research of what is happening in America today, we can certainly see how many fear that we have returned to the eras of pre-Civil Rights and Civil Rights movements, which were characterized by extreme hostility with racial tensions and dehumanization of others, anti-diversity laws, policies, and processes, and uncertainty about our political, social, and economic futures.

“Make America Great Again” can still work, but it will require a totally new direction by President Trump and his Administration – a turnaround marketing strategy for success!

Donovan A. McFarlane, M.B.A., M.I.B., Ed.D., has taught Marketing to hundreds of MBA and graduate students over the past several years, and is a Business and Political Science educator. He can be reached at drd.a.mcfarlane@gmail.com

Sexual Assault Hysteria as the New “Man-Killer” of the Century!

From the 42^nd U.S. President, William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton to once beloved actor Bill Cosby, known as “America’s Television Father”, and notorious TV-radio commentator and host of bigotry and suppressed racism, Bill O’Reilly, and now, one of Hollywood’s greatest film producer, studio executive and co-founder of Miramax Films, and celebrity/movie-star maker, Harvey Weinstein - sexual assault hysteria is the new “man-killer” of the century!

Hundreds, if not thousands of men across the globe in various industries, institutions, nations, and cultures are shaking in their shoes today as they wonder when that one-night fling, that one moment of weakness, the many instances of tit-for-tat or better yet, “opportunity and success for flesh”, and inappropriate “macho” expressions toward some office girl, some coworker, some long forgotten women, girls, or ladies will surface to undo years of hard work, great accomplishments, and damage and decimate their reputation. It is not only Hollywood producers and directors, but also government officials, corporate executives, fathers, and clergymen, and even ordinary men who must be probing their histories in mind, perhaps wondering if they made any unwanted or otherwise successful or unsuccessful sexual advances – if a rind bitten from an apple that has long ripped and withered – will come knocking on the media’s doors, creating public relations disaster that can drive men to suicide, rip apart friendship, families, and most of all, render their sweat, blood, and tears useless; their art defunct and their once admired philosophy repugnant and refused. It seems as if the new slogan for these men living in fear must now become the famous line: “I did not…have sexual relations….with…that woman!”

One of the most interesting things about the last several sexual assault allegations and accusations we have witnessed in America’s media is the age of these assaults, some decades old, even as much as half-a-century old. A second interesting social phenomenon of sexual assault allegations and accusations against “men of significant capitalist value” (referring to their levels of wealth and/or celebrity-hood) is the chain emergence of so-called assault victims coming forward – it somehow seems that being a victim of sexual assault has become a new American aspiration – a kind of new pride – a new tag – a new decorative value in the realm of human experience. Why is this the case? Is it the attention that comes with it? Are so many desperate to be part of the “victimized in-group” that they are therefore so quick and eager to join the “the line-gang pioneering by”? What offsets this modern sexual assault hysteria? Was it the Catholic Church’s quick diplomacy of admission, penitence, and payment totaling millions of dollars that rendered one of the world’s oldest wealthy institutions bankrupt by the second decade of the new millennium, or is it our society’s yearning for primal sympathy that has long been lost in the lights and glamour of Hollywood, the twists and turns of an increasingly chaotic social disorder, or just the diminutive role that pride now plays in our lives? Whatever it may be, we can now describe sexual assault allegations and accusations as “c'est à la mode!” So, have you gone through your experiences to decide who you will accuse of sexual assault as yet? If not, then you are singing the wrong rhyme and not with the times!

Sexual assault allegations and accusations seem to be characteristic of a “moths-to-a-flame” approach as evidenced from the ‘Bill Cosby Sexual Assault Saga’, and now, the ‘Harvey Weinstein Second-Life Celebrity Showdown’ which is probably best titled, “Who did Harvey Not Touch?” Let’s see who is brave enough to direct this once since Old Heffner kicked the bucket just a few weeks ago! Notwithstanding, both cases beg some very important questions. For example, why did you wait until some decades later? [Waited for the line-gang to come pioneering by?], Why did you continue working with this person despite your claim that such behavior occurred – was it that the perceived benefits outweighed the costs at that time? Oh Yes! There indeed seems to be cost-benefit analysis when it comes to all of these victims of sexual assault – the ‘Economics of Sexual Assault’ is alive and well, and some of these reported and claimed victims certainly seem to know when and how to apply the Lorenz Curve and the Gini Index (inequality of outcome from economic transactions). Who does not know that sex for celebrity-hood has been a longstanding practice in Hollywood and other similar industries – the entertainment industry in general? How many of our highly admired actors and actresses, singers, etc., have shown a boob or two (maybe even three), and a few pecs (pectoral muscles) and other parts for their start in Hollywood and the entertainment industry in order to gain a walk on the red carpet or a star in the concrete? Probably more than we would like to think, and even those whom we could not even begin to imagine!  Since the current Harvey Weinstein sexual assault allegations and accusations aired on the television and appeared in and on modern social media platforms, this author has heard remarks commenting on Harvey Weinstein’s appearance – especially from women. We all know Harvey Weinstein is not the Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, or other men of Hollywood that our media-entrenched culture uses to gauge men’s attractiveness or appeal, but perhaps if Harvey Weinstein looked more like these ‘handsome devils’ he has helped to the peak of fame, he would have lived a full life without us hearing about these allegations.  Obviously, Mr. Weinstein made some bad choices and now even derelict and supposed-to-be-retired politicians are using his downfall to maintain their public presence.

Sexual assault is a very serious matter, and a serious crime when proven concrete by evidence or otherwise. Thus, the author is not taking this issue lightly, but demonstrating how a new and somehow undesirable social phenomenon is sweeping across America. America’s social fabric seems to be unraveling in a truly depressing way, and perhaps it should not be shocking that these allegations are at their height when America for the first in its 250 years of existence has an apparently sexually violent, notorious and egomaniacal “pussy-grabber-in-chief” in the White House.

Let us see how long the sexual assault hysteria will last in this short-term oriented culture and society.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Donovan A. McFarlane, M.B.A., M.I.B., Ed.D., is an educator in Business and Political Science. He can be reached at drd.a.mcfarlane@gmail.com

Can Stereotyping Be Helpful?

Never before has human society exhibited so much diversity as in the 21^st century where we encounter people of different cultures, race and ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, and origins in our everyday tasks, ranging from social interaction and communication to work and play. This opportunity has afforded us a richness that has yielded both positive and negative experiences. Indubitably, it is out of this profusion of diversity or differences that both our conflicts and misunderstandings emerge, and as social beings, in our quest to more fully appreciate and make sense of this, we imitate others, make assumptions, and draw conclusions even from brief and immature encounters thereby giving birth to stereotypes to fill the gaps in our knowledge of each other or each new situation.

Our society is preoccupied with stereotypes and stereotyping when it comes to social interaction and the way we perceive others. This should lead us to some important considerations: In what ways can stereotyping be a helpful process? Can a stereotype be useful, even if it is not entirely accurate? Are we better off by getting rid of our stereotypes or by making them more accurate?

Stereotypes are universal; meaning, they exist in every community, society, and culture. This means that they are socially significant and reflect something about human traits and character. According to Ivancevih, Konopaske, and Matteson (2011), stereotyping refers to a translation step in the perceptual process that people use to classify or categorize people, events, and situations.

Stereotypes are often seen as negative in today’s world. However, they are helpful in guiding us and shaping our attitudes and behaviors toward other peoples, races, and cultures. They provide us with conscious awareness of differences and the need to understand that different norms and values exist regardless of our assumption of the common. In this way, we eventually learn to be anticipative in social interaction and communication and consciously seek to verify our beliefs regarding others.

Stereotyping can be helpful to individuals approaching new cultures because it provides them with a refrained and restrained state of mind that potentially cautions and saves them from making social and cultural blunders. Moreover, stereotypes help us as individuals to organize our social experiences as it helps us to more meaningfully categorize and classify people, events, and situations in ways in which we can best remember them, identify with them and relate to them (Ivancevih, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2011). Thus, while stereotypes are not entirely accurate, they are useful in guiding our social experiences as we enter complex and diverse environments of languages, places, races, and people. While not entirely accurate, stereotypes are not entirely inaccurate either, and even the slight accuracy in some of the stereotypes we hold cautions us in how we regard others and relate to them.

Stereotypes are stereotypes and if they were to become accurate, or more accurate, then they are no longer stereotypes as we use the term negatively. In fact, what many people hold as stereotypes sometimes prove to be social experiences despite them being generalized across entire groups or populations. Stereotypes in many cases are insufficient ideas and beliefs about people and events. However, we would not be better off by getting rid of our stereotypes or by making them more accurate because they are stereotypes by virtue of the fact that they represent something credible and real about us as human beings – we have incomplete knowledge and understanding of people, events, and situations, and must depend on generalizations and assumptions to fill the gap while we seek learning experiences and opportunities to further our knowledge and understanding of things, people, situations and events.

The major negative aspect of stereotypes is when they are persistent despite newly discovered facts, truth, information and knowledge.

When stereotypes persist even after learning has taken place then we enter the territory of prejudice, bias, and discrimination.

What do you think? Is it wrong or unethical to view stereotypes and stereotyping in a positive way?

Reference

Ivancevich, J., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. (2011). Organizational Behavior and Management (9^th Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Donovan A. McFarlane, M.I.B., M.B.A., Ed.D., is an educator in the fields of Business and Political Science. He can be reached at drd.a.mcfarlane@gmail.com