Boston: The Vietnam Re-education Camp
: As a (graying, middle-aged) child of the '60s, I'm amazed that Vietnam became a key campaign bragging point in Kerry's acceptance speech.
Vietnam had become such a dirty word to both sides. To the antiwar side, it represented a wrong; to the prowar side, it represented failure; to both, it came to mean shame. And today, in Iraq, Vietnam came to mean quagmire to the antiwar side. The word was as loaded as a bomber headed for Hanoi Harbor.
Yet here was John Kerry -- ten-hut! reporting for duty! -- masterfully playing every side to his favor: He fought in Vietnam, so he can run an army. He fought against Vietnam, so he can keep us out of a quagmire.
Vietnam, the word, had been rehabilitated before our eyes. There was not a moment's hesitation, not a decibel's hush surrounding the word in Boston. Vietnam suddenly became a happy word, something to brag about: Mom, apple pie, and Tet.
I never thought I'd live to see this day. Vietnam, the word, truly divided this nation -- nothing like red-state-blue-state hype we endure from talk-show twits these days. Vietnam brought war to the streets around that Democratic convention. Vietnam divided families (almost mine). Vietnam ousted a President.
Clearly, Kerry is counting on Vietnam ousting another President. He hopes the doves ('60s word) will see him as the guy to avoid fighting another Vietnam. He hopes the hawks will see him as the guy to avoid losing another Vietnam.
And so, he surrounds himself with vets and pictures of war and pictures of protest and he salutes and we are all re-educated like ARVN officers let out of camp in Hanoi. Vietnam is now a happy word, an honorable word, a word that means success by avoiding failure. Vietnam is frigging nostalgia. Vietnam is a word meant to unite, not divide.
Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh.
Media explodes
: Seth Godin has words of great wisdom for media and advertising machers (and it's not even a manifesto):
According to MarketingVOX, online media accounts for 12% of media consumption. That's a stunning rise: one out of eight, up from zero in just ten or so years.
At the same time, though, they report that online media accounts for just 2% of ad spending.
This could be because online media doesn't work (but it does)
or that it's hard to buy advertising in it (but it isn't)
or that it's radically underpriced and a bargain (which may be true).
The real reason is pretty obvious: organizations hate to change. (so do people, but that's a different story).
Whenever you are faced with a situation where your competition is afraid to change but you can see the reality of the situation, you have a huge opportunity. This is the biggest growth and market share opportunity in at least a decade.
Short version: corporations, politicians, non-profits and even individuals who overinvest in online will see the same spectacular bounce that companies saw from TV in the fifties and sixties.
: Add to this Barrons practically writing
print's obit. Add to that Jupiter's
contention that online ad spending will exceed magazine ad spending by 2008. Now subtract half of all that because of (a) hype, (b) experience, (c) prudence... and you
still have an upheaval in the media and marketing industries. And it has just begun.
...
