Jonathan Salem Baskin's Dim Bulb

Bright Lights Project - 2012

Do you make New Year resolutions? I do, and I generally stick to a good number of them, though never completely or consistently. Being an irritatingly hopeful person on most days during the year, this Sunday is my chance to shift my natural inclinations into overdrive. I’m going to drink less alcohol, eat more fruit and vegetables, be a better husband and dad, finish the play I’ve been writing for the past decade, do great work for clients and, well, generally strive to do everything next year I’ve been striving to do this year, only with enhanced strivation.

Maybe I’m missing something by being so self-centered? Maybe all of us should look beyond the comfortable confines of our bathroom mirrors and contemplate what we hope everyone else will resolve to do in 2012? Perhaps if we all think somewhat similar things, the collective force of our hopes for one another will actually prompt action (a sort of force in numbers kind of thing, a la morphic resonance).

Or it’ll just feel good to do.

So what would you propose the rest of humanity use as resolutions for 2012? Here are my three thought-starters:

• Be nicer. Perhaps this is my advancing decrepitude talking but don’t people seem more rude, hurried, or downright unpleasant than they used to be? I’m talking about all the small interactions that shouldn’t mean anything -- folks in line at Starbuck’s, driving on the freeway, sitting behind you at a movie theatre -- that now seem to be a drag, as if they’re meant to be constant reminders that we’ve surpassed the limitations of courtesy and the artificialities of good manners. We’re all the worse for it. I wish that everyone would resolve to show the slightest regard for strangers, not just reserving it for their immediate family and friends. Chew gum with their mouths closed. Close their cell phones when walking down grocery store aisles. Hold doors open for one another. Add up a zillion of such little gestures and you get a big improvement in the quality of our lives.

• Tuck in your shirts. I know it’s fashionable to dress like a human Weeble these days, but long, oversized, untucked shirts allow millions of Americans to overlook the fact that not being able to see their toes is a bad thing. Ditto for the many midriffs that should never be allowed to see the light of day. So one of my resolutions would be for everyone to tuck in their shirts. It would force some to realize just how overweight they are, and maybe inspire them to do something about it (which would remedy our collective financial responsibility for helping fund their individual lifestyle choices of fatness). I’d add my hope that those doofy pants that aren’t shorts or long pants (but something uncomfortably between the two lengths) would go away altogether, but the shirt thing would yield more immediate and visually apparent benefits.

• Say we more than me. The social media technology revolution has empowered all of us to declare our tastes, interests, and opinions on anything and everything. The ether is filled with what each of us wants to fill it with, creating an infinite number of shared spaces in which we express our individuality. But there’s a reason why Time magazine declared 2011 the year of protest...it’s easier to hold up our opinions or anger for concurrent comparison than it is to engage one another on issues on which we disagree, or which require collaborative action other than a complaint or mutual clicking of a “like” button. The rare times we learn of shared, proactive opinions is when mainstream journalists or politicians reference a generic “Americans” or “people” in order to make their own excruciatingly individual, personal points. We need less imaginary community and more real ones, so I say everyone resolve to stop griping and start cooperating.

It doesn’t have to be complicated. New Year’s resolutions have a far higher likelihood of coming true if they’re simple goals, not some stretch goals that have eluded our grasp in years prior. I think the three I’ve proposed for the entire human race are quite sensible.

Come to think of it, I'm going to add them to my own list. So if you run into an old guy smiling as he holds the door open for you (while he's wearing his shirt tucked in), it might be me.

Happy New Year!

(Image credit: resolutions, resolutions)

What Happened to the War on Christmas?

Well, Christmas came and went yesterday in the United States of America, with nary a shot fired (well, except for that horrible shooting in Dallas, and violence in Nigeria and other places that marred the holiday). I’m not aware of any of the faithful here who were denied their rights to celebrate it openly (we attended a Catholic mass Saturday afternoon and it was standing-room only), and the far larger legions of folks committed to junking up the outsides of their houses with lights seemed undaunted. Anybody who wanted simply to swap gifts on Christmas morning without any conscious reference to religion was free to do so.

So what happened to the War on Christmas?

There never was one, of course. It was the invention of a few Christian activist groups and Fox News, mostly, living up (or down) to the adage that nothing rallies the troops more than the threat of immediate danger. The conceit was that there’s a widespread and loosely organized conspiracy of atheists, pagans, anti-consumerists and political democrats intent on denying public acknowledgment of the holiday, and thereby ruining its private celebration. It fit into a larger narrative of an attack on Christian values overall, as if the occasional spat over nativity scenes or decorated trees on public grounds meant that the faithful were suppressed and their beliefs in danger.

It might have been good for fundraising and viewership, but nothing could be further from the truth. And we should be thankful for the facts that back it up.

First, separation of church and state works and is particularly friendly to the religious. America is the most overtly religious nation on the planet, and by a long shot: a whopping 83% belong to a religious denomination and the lion’s share are Christians. 40% go to a church service every day and more than half say that they pray weekly. One poll has nearly 8 in 10 Americans believing that angels walk among us, and a recent Baylor University survey said that almost three-fourths of its respondents believed that God not only has a personal plan for them, but takes an active role in guiding the future of the country.

Talk about fixing something that isn’t broken.

Many theories have been offered for why the U.S. has vastly more religious citizens than any other country, including those that mandate membership in a state religion upon birth (Brits and Swedes belong to a church by default). Choice is one of them, in that Americans are free to shop around for a religion they prefer, which makes them better “consumers.” Another possibility is that the utter absence of religiously-related actions by our government means that our religions stay untainted by the temporal machinations of our best and worst inclinations. Governments have the strange ability to sap the spirit out of everything they touch.

In other words, we’re religious because our public institutions assiduously avoid being so.

Second, if there ever was a War on Christmas, the Christians were the ones fighting it with one another. The issues were cultural, with Catholics choosing to sing carols and exchange gifts while Protestants chose to be a bit more somber about the whole affair, but things got pretty serious for long stretches of time. In fact, Oliver Cromwell’s Puritans cancelled Christmas when they came to power in England in 1645 (fining people for singing and gift-giving), and Pilgrims who settled America felt the same way. Christmas wasn’t celebrated in Boston from 1659 to 1681. Many “English” customs fell out of favor after the Revolution, including Christmas, so Congress met on the 25th like any other day once the Constitution was created in 1789. Christmas wasn’t even made a federal holiday until 1870. Non-believers had nothing to do with these battles.

Thankfully, the faithful no longer bicker over the appropriateness of decorated trees or the proper order of church services. They don't throw each other into prison, either. Yesterday, Americans were utterly free to commemorate the day in any way they chose, which included not commemorating it at all (going to see a movie instead, getting a jump on today’s work). We’ve had great divisions in our country that have often arose along religious dividing lines -- for centuries, the issues over which Protestants and Catholics were at bitter odds with one another spilled into economics and culture -- and we have them still.

But American Christians no longer fight over Christmas. I say that’s not just a cessation of hostilities but a true peace befitting the day’s meaning.

Third, how could there be a War on Christmas when so many of us depend on it? The American economy is dependent on consumers buying stuff, and there’s no more reliable time for them to do it than in anticipation of Christmas Day. Most retailers rely on holiday gift-buying to make their annual numbers -- the “Black Friday” sales day is named because it’s when they hope to shift their accounting ledgers from the red of losses to the black of profits -- just as most school kids and their families rely on two-weeks’ worth of mid-winter vacation to recharge their batteries.

So all Americans “celebrate” Christmas even if they do so begrudgingly or otherwise unconsciously. It doesn’t matter what the store signs say, or whether we choose to wish one another “merry Christmas,” “happy holidays,” or “glorious Festivus.” The outcome is the same and stays so year after year, probably because of the very facts that we don’t reply on official or overt recognition of the event, whether dictated by government or religious institution.

Yesterday was a chance to skip all the noise that sets we Americans at odds with one another, and overcome our fears of being embattled or disenfranchised. There are many wars underway in the world, and many of them affect us here at home in ways that are truly dangerous and frightening.

A War on Christmas isn’t one of them, and we sure don’t need to invent one. I hope everyone was able to see that yesterday, and perhaps enjoy at least one day of peace.

(Image credit: Back when the war was real)

Bright Lights Project - Ron Paul

Ron Paul is crazy. He’s also been consistently crazy for many decades, and he’s sincere. He believes in Libertarianism, which is sorta like the Objectivism that inspires Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan only without the teenage wet dream empowerment nonsense. This means voters can not only tell from where his opinions derive but, when he says something that sounds nutty, it’s not particularly surprising.

And it's why he might win the Iowa Republican caucuses. While the news media focus on why he can’t be President, I think the real story is about how he might be a role model for other Republican candidates who could be. And I think everyone underestimates him, because they miss the inherent strengths of his brand.

Consider these qualities worth emulating:

• His philosophy and values are transparent, so we know how he gets to his positions. Contrast that with what we suspect (or worry) that Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry believes, or the fact that we really don’t know what Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich believe. There’s almost this cat-and-mouse routine underway that involves vague references and code words when Bachmann or Perry talks about their policies, as if they know that mainstream voters would be shocked by their theocratic beliefs. Conversely, without a basis in established beliefs other than political necessity, we’re always left missing something from Romney or Gingrich. Rick Santorum comes the closest to Paul in the transparency department. I think every candidate would benefit from full disclosure of their guiding beliefs, however nutty. Think about it...do we know President Obama’s? As he has ‘found his voice’ these past few months, he’s been articulating a strident, progressive government principles that one wonders were hidden all along behind his timidity.

• His statements are consistent, even when they are wacky. Because we all know that Paul believes in government the size of a pea (and societies run on so few rules that they border on anarchy), what he says makes sense even when he’s spewing nonsense. The other candidates’ comments fail to fit into patterns similarly determined by substance, so they come across as one-offs and often times get cited for their inaccuracies. Ron Paul can’t make a gaff even when he spouts off that we should have multiple forms of currency (not just legal tender issued by the government), or that people who choose to skip health insurance should be denied emergency care. The rest of them seem pretty garbled, which rightly translates into perceptions of inauthenticity. Paul is also able to deliver statements that are surefire vote killers, like ending Social Security and Medicare, which means he’s willing and able to talk about them when the others can’t (or won’t). This gets the entire pack somewhat closer to addressing the real issues that face our country, if only momentarily. Again, imagine if they all did that (or if President Obama didn’t speak in such measured and sometimes guarded tones).

• He doesn’t have to be scripted. They guy wouldn’t know an applause line if he coughed one up unexpectedly, and it’s obvious that he thinks about questions and then answers them sincerely. Nobody else does that, Republican or Democrat, except perhaps Gingrich, and his pauses of contemplation are frighteningly brief, and only seem to allow him to dip into his vat of scapegoats or victims to focus his next statement. This quality can backfire, as Herman Cain’s ill-fated run evidenced, but Cain’s deal didn’t work out because he had no underlying coherent philosophy (see above). The script the candidates should be following is their beliefs, not some plan that calls for delivering practiced zingers or attacks intended to obfuscate those principles (or lack thereof).

It isn’t a great leap to apply these qualities to brands, is it? Can you name one that is transparent about its principles and purposes, consistent in its communication, and authentic in its participation in conversation?

I can’t. No wonder politicians don’t have a clue. Except for Ron Paul, who is cluelessly clued in. Or something like that. Come to think of it, why couldn't he be a viable candidate for President (and why is the Republican establishment trying to blow him up in favor of Mitt Romney, who lacks everything Paul possesses)?

What do you think?

(Image credit: the most authentic candidate in the race)

Faux Conversation

Do you remember a time when conversation was a means to an end? Sure, it was fun to chat and we’d often do it somewhat aimlessly, but there was usually a point to it, whether entertainment or making a decision of some sort or another. The conversations that businesses had with consumers about brands were intended for a sole purpose -- selling stuff -- so they were less like dialogues and more like linear verses, with pitches thrown at people in hopes they’d internalize and then use them. They always had a point.

All that has changed now, thanks to the availability of technology that makes it easy for people to share information with one another and, coupled with their willingness to do so, engage in actual conversations in place of the ones that businesses used to sponsor. The Internet is a peer-to-peer medium, not a broadcast channel.

Most companies and institutions are still struggling to come to terms with this new reality. Many of them mistakenly think that their brands are participants in these conversations, when in truth they are the subjects of dialogue. The very premise that a brand could have a voice like a person, or is a thing that has attitudes and attributes, is quite silly, and no self-respecting consumer believes it anymore. Brands are the constructs of people who work at and for companies, and what consumers know and trust about them.

Other companies think that they’re supposed to host these new conversations, as if defining the ground rules (and funding the infrastructure) will somehow deliver a net good to the brand. This is also silly, even as it’s elevated in importance with the use of such terms as “curating content.” Marketers paying for a two-way conversation is no different than them funding a one-way announcement; the content is valid only if it evidences transparent qualities of credibility and authenticity (qualities that no marketing department possesses, no matter how earnest they might wish otherwise), and only if the conversations consist of substantive information about brands, not in imaginary discourse with them (see above).

But some of the wackiest and worst misuses of the whole “conversation” approach come from businesses that have the greatest to gain and fear from them. Some notable energy industry brands have engaged in creating campaigns claiming that real conversing is going on when no such thing is happening. These faux conversations have been claimed by Chevon with it’s “We Agree” campaign, which features “real” people (employees, educators, whomever) talking about how important oil is to our world (it was jammed brilliantly with ads noting what any real convo about its role in the world would involve). ExxonMobil has done something similar, running ads and hosting a blog that offers all the trappings of a conversation without any of the messy substance of one.

The American Petroleum Institute (“API”) decided to get in on the game, having already produced a series of TV commercials through its ersatz “Energy Tomorrow” front group. The latest spots would feature “real people” saying what they “really felt” about America’s need for American-made energy. An activist showed up for the tryouts, captured the producers scripting him to do what they wanted, and then blasted API on the web. Then API blasted him as a grandstanding activist and made insulting references to the fact that he’d mooched a cup of coffee.

You realize that tit-for-tat is the real conversation going on about energy these days, don’t you?

Vested corporate interests valiantly defending their right to engage in legitimate, legal business practices, feeling under siege by a small group of interested people who want to deny them their rights...motivated to promote their perspectives in any and every way possible, even if it means aggrandizing slivers of truth (like minuscule investments in alternate energy), pretending that they’re engaged in a conversation with the public about a future without oil (in order to keep real conversation at bay), and viciously attacking anybody who dares suggest otherwise. It’s Orwellian.

And it’s so unnecessary.

Imagine if API was willing to have those real conversations? It could dial back the propaganda and instead engage in substantive dialogue with people about America’s energy needs and how to best meet them. What are they so scared of? For that matter, why couldn’t the Chevrons of the world tell everyone the truth -- that we all need oil, we’re going to need it for a good while, and that there’s nothing wrong with conserving it -- and do so in meaningful and compelling ways? It would be a hard creative challenge, perhaps lots harder than coming up with all the ersatz hype that they produce instead (can anybody say beyond petroleum?).

It’s old-fashioned thinking, presuming that a brand -- be it corporate, institutional, or association -- is supposed to promote its POV into the ether. It’s not. Brands are supposed to promote facts and facilitate conversation between people who can distill and use that content. API is just wasting its time, money, and what little credibility it might have once possessed trying to do anything else.

Truth isn’t a point of view, belief, or opinion. Its latest commercials won’t get anybody any closer to it.

AFI and the other energy industry companies producing this dreck aren’t even a part of the real conversation.

(Image credit: API web site)

Bright Lights Project: TLC

While the news buzz has focused on advertisers Lowe and now kayak.com pulling their ads from a cable TV show called “All-American Muslim” after some public blather from a right-wing pressure group, the real story has two other headlines: “The show stinks,” and “What is TLC doing?”

The buzz is easier to grasp, though. Florida Family Association, the pressure group that has complained that the show fails to portray the other Muslims who wish ill on America and, thus, qualifies the program as propaganda. They’re either stupid or nuts (or both). That’s like complaining that a show about sober characters doesn’t include drunks, or a comedy doesn’t include drama. How about including all the mean bears in a family show about a nice one? Since the FFA aligns itself with the Evangelical Right, I wonder where were its complaints about Sarah Palin’s TV show because it didn't provide equal time for non-hunters and people who gladly read daily newspapers. Propaganda is not a synonym for a topic or plot.

One of the real stories is that the show is losing viewers like a sieve. I’ve not watched it, but it ranked 78th among Sunday cable shows on December 11. That’s no great accomplishment and gives some credence to kayak.com’s public statement about why it withdrew its ad buy (I think the exec said that the show sucks). There’s some credence to the argument that the row will drive viewership, but it can’t make a boring show interesting. Notable supporters declaring that the show is all but a public good in service of tolerance and understanding are, well, not understanding the nature of TV entertainment. Their horses are too high for them to see just how low the ground is on which the rest of us look for yucks.

The other real story is the biggie, I think: What the hell Is TLC doing?

Have you looked at its programming lineup lately? “All-American Muslim” was actually a move to go upscale; “Extreme Couponing,” “My Strange Addiction,” “Sister Wives” and, one of my favorites, “Hoarding: Buried Alive” are all part of a roster that gave us Jon and Kate Gosselin. Oh, I almost forgot “Toddlers & Tiaras,” which is a program about those sick moms who dress up their little girls like adults and put them into competitions.

Didn’t “TLC” once stand for “The Learning Channel?” It says “Family, Home, Style, Cooking” above its web site. Huh? The words have no meaning. No, this channel is all about finding the most inane, lowest-common-denominator programming in a frenzied, classless race to try and catch viewers who are busy getting their news from The National Enquirer. The site header should read “Sleaze, Stupidity, Disposable Content, And Worse.” Why should “All-American Muslim” be any more socially redeeming than “Say Yes To The Dress?” In this context, its only failing is that it isn’t snarky enough to get viewers.

So what could TLC do to get out of the business of stupidity and, if the effort was purposeful, creating controversy to attract viewers? Here are three thought-starters:

• Find a purpose. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest learning. I’m not implying that TLC become boring but rather find ways to make learning entertaining and engaging. It could lead the nation in helping people get smarter, better, and faster at stuff (it's a national priority, last time I checked). I bet there are oodles of partnerships out there that would jump at joining in on such a mission. It would be cool if its programs had some unifying purpose other that base drivel.

• Use the Internet. TLC’s web site is no different than that of any other media outlet, which means it’s mostly a promotional tool to talk about its programs. This is cutting-edge thinking circa 2000 or so. Again, a simple riff on the learning theme would suggest a number of new/other things it could do with the technology in terms of courses, added content, etc. My teenage daughter gets more from the Blackboard site her school uses. TLC should copy it, only make it better.

• Invent a new genre. I don’t know about you, but hasn’t the whole Reality TV thing gotten a little old?  I find it about as compelling as one of the endless contest shows that start with “America’s Next/Best/Idol” or whatever. Maybe there’s a new, truly inventive way to produce programming...something that involved screens and sounds and images and other media, all mixed up together...that would distinguish TLC as not just another wanna-be TMZ, but a real platform making a real difference.

Or maybe I’ve got it all wrong, and all the other inane shows on TLC are doing just fine, thank you very much. If that’s the case, “All-American Muslim” should get cancelled in a few weeks once its ratings drop below the second digit after the decimal point, and the brilliant programmers can get to work doing some world-class exploiting of a new, stupider, more entertaining group of characters.

What do you think?

(Image credit: not a compelling bunch?)

Medium or Message?

Republican voters are having a tough go of it this Presidential election cycle. They keep getting too much information from candidates like Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and, oh, in about three weeks, Newt Gingrich (again), and they aren’t hearing enough from Mitt Romney. I wonder how much of the conundrum is the result of the media through which they’re communicating, and not necessarily what they’re saying.

No, they’re not victims of liberal bias, or even the tendency of media of any political stripe to trend down toward the lowest, most inane conversations (leading questions, focus on trivialities, and that all-encompassing totalitarian-like “Americans are…” format). It simply could be the nature of the beast, and by that I mean the fantasy world in which today’s media have us wrapped. Or to which we’ve willingly moved. The same situation impacts President Obama just as much as it does his would-be opponents.

For a while now -- I’d say ever since the late 60s -- the news media have presented a view of the world that is bifurcated; there are two “sides” to every story or event, and those points-of-view fall broadly into categories of “left” or Democratic, and “right” or Republican. These perspectives have become all-encompassing filters through which the world is perceived, so that people no longer debate issues as much as reaffirm their belief in one version over another. Only one can be right.

Much has been written about this fantasy republic of ours. You can call the themes “values” or label them conservative or progressive. It doesn’t matter. The result is that the media have wrapped us in these closed, comfortable cocoons of ideas about which we are absolutely certain, in which we choose to live, and by which we define ourselves. “New” media have simply accentuated this migration to a virtual world, feeding us ever-more refined and powerful content to substantiate our most virulent one-sided opinions.

Again, it’s not the media’s fault, but rather our own. We’re lazy. What it presents to us is easier to consume (we can do it whenever and wherever we want by simply pushing a button) and easier to understand (it translates complex things into a running narrative that we can follow, like the plot of a movie). We prefer it to the messy real world in which we are forced to live with people we may not like, let alone agree with.

Now, back to the Republican candidates.

The fantasy media world requires that they hold true to the story line that viewers, not voters or citizens generally, have decided matters most: consistency in the face of changing facts or circumstances; insistence on issues and actions that are unconnected to what they claim to produce; and a prioritization of intentions that elevates simple headlines over complicated governance solutions. So we get spectator-sport attention to taxes, immigration, marriage, creationism, whatever. It’s as if the candidates aren’t living in the real world which, of course, is exactly the problem. They’re not. President Obama has the same problem (I’m convinced his disconnect between his focus on fantasy declarations and the real world is why most voters have simply tuned him out altogether).

But the real world isn’t going away for the rest of us. While the candidates are fighting fantasy battles against big government and union handouts, our country is crumbling. Gays in the military? There are two wars still underway, and more in the offing. Immigration isn’t taking away jobs or costing taxpayers anything compared to what we pay to keep the uninsured healthy. The Do Nothing Congress might make for great soundbites on TV but the lack of action for over a year has been just slightly more ruinous to our country than had it actually done things and failed (though it also missed any chance of success).

It’s not just that the real world isn’t going away, it’s problems are becoming more present in our lives, and therefore harder to ignore. So it takes evermore effort from the candidates in the fantasy republic to keep up their hype, repeat their positions, and declare their beliefs in spite of whatever is thrown at them in challenge. They need to try and keep the fantasy participants in the media world focused on their narrative, not the one that keeps vying for their attention.

It just can’t hold up. You can only repeat the same nonsense so many times before the script calls for a new situation. The characters the candidates play on TV and online just get boring. So the media tee-up new tidbits, unearth more dirt, and find fault in the consistency of the candidates’ comments over time.

This is what causes the average half-life of a Republican candidate to be about a few weeks. I think Gingrich’s return is simply the process going back on itself (look for Ron Paul to interrupt the regurgitation and have his brief fame as front-runner before the first primary votes are cast). In light of these circumstances, perhaps Romney’s strategy of saying as little as possible is the smartest strategy of them all; he can simply let the other candidates flame out, and save his exposure for when it’s a committed contest with the President.

But for now, the messages don’t matter because the medium values volume over substance, shock over reason, and conflict over consensus. And as long as citizens think and act like spectators, we’re going to get to watch the same meaningless junk, from both parties.

Great television and blogging. Horrible politics. And the country keeps on crumbling…

(Image credit: our favorite characters)

Bright Lights Project: American Airlines

It is only fitting that I am flying on American as I write this (37,000 feet over Ohio, I think). The company has declared bankruptcy -- which amounts to an admission that it cannot function -- yet here I am. The plane is full, actually, and everything appears normal when, of course, things are not.

Lots has been written and said about the challenges facing the airline industry. They track back to deregulation, when Free Marketers successfully argued that competition would lower prices. It did, but it did so while leaving the airlines to contend with all of the fixed and structural costs that they could not change to keep pace with those cuts to ticket prices.

Some costs cannot be consistently controlled, like fuel, safety, and weather, and those that are elastic have breaking points; you can only squeeze so much cost out of services, employees, and operations overall. Southwest has done a great job of it, as have Jet Blue and, more recently, Virgin America. But I would argue these are tenuous, impermanent accomplishments or, worse, to keep finding areas for improvement they will eventually buy up one another, and those competitive prices will go POOF! once we all are forced to fly the only airline in existence.

American cannot cut its way to profitability, or will not be able to do so for long, yet that is the takeaway message from its bankruptcy filing. It will be all but invisible to we fliers unless we read about the onerous concessions AA tries to get from its unions, or when it slashes the pensions it promised to past employees in exchange fora a lifetime of service. We have seen this story before, and the airline industry is goings to tell it to us again and again.

So could American do something different? Could marketing play a more strategic role ins what comes next (other then reassuring us that nothing has changed when we know it has, must, and will)? Here are three thought-starter ideas:

Find a greater purpose. Emerging from bankruptcy is not a goal, it is a description. If ever there were a time for AA to contemplate its very reason for existence, it is now. Why does the world need it? What does it do uniquely, and uniquely well? This is what branding is supposed to reveal, not obscure or ignore the lack of answers to those questions. The executive braintrust should temper every cost-cutting conversation with a discussion about what kind of company does this make us? It should consider making the answer, or the search for answers, its public position. Give us a reason why we (and employees) should care about what American could become.

Involve everyone in finding solutions. This the perfect time for AA to initiate real, meaningful, outcome-yielding engagement with its various stakeholder groups via social media? Imagine a flier community brainstorming ways to improve experience, or airport station personnel collaborating on process improvements. Giving everyone a purpose to work toward would imbue company social platforms with newfound legitimacy, and it would transform many of us from disinterested spectators and angry negotiators into partners in a cause? Sure beats posting promos on a Facebook page.

Tell the truth. The airline business will still suck, no matter how creative or transparent AA chooses to be. A purposeful social engagement strategy could yield real ideas for changing fundamental components and givens of its operational model, but many proposals will not work (I already know that my idea free warm nuts in coach will not fly). American could institute a policy of honest, direct corporate speech, telling its stakeholder communities facts as a collaborator, not a negotiator. Truth telling is the best and only way to manage expectations, and everyone needs to legitimately expect something more than cost-cutting.

It will not be easy for American to do any if this, but it will not be easy pulling off what I suspect it intends to do instead.

What do you think?

PS: Typepad edit controls are missing on my iPad, and it will not let me us apostrophes or quotation marks. iPad will not let me copy an image into this post. Ah, the glories of technology...but then again, I am flying over Illinois now. How cool is that!?

A Case For Social Media

Although AT&T stuffed the announcement of its intention to takeover rival T-Mobile with all of the usual claptrap about improving the service its customers got, it was clear -- like most big ticket financial deals -- that it would most likely only pay rich benefits to the senior execs at both companies and their strategic advisors through layoffs and other "economies of scale."

Now that the deal seems stuck in regulatory purgatory, the only advocates for the deal are the selfsame execs who stand to make out like bandits if it goes through.

Imagine if its customers actually supported the deal? My bet is that the transaction would seem far more certain, and it might even be better destined to actually strengthen the new company. (disclosure: I'm an AT&T customer).

My logic is simple: To gain widespread public support, the proposed deal would have to offer widespread customer benefits, not just enrich a few fat cats. Real improvements in business performance that benefitted customers would, by definition, be good business strategy, ergo a stronger company post-merger.

I'm a big fan of alternate histories, so what if the AT&T in my imagined bizzaro world had done the following:

• Decided to be the best teleco in the world. The execs and company board make a commitment that amounts to a declaration, requiring the shredding of those stupid and  selectively parsed vision statements, corporate missions, and brand positionings that have led AT&T down so many blind alleys.

• Started conversations about it. It starts with its own employees, gathering ideas and encouraging DIY invention wherever it occurs. Then vendors are invited into a conversation, followed by customers. The campaign -- called "A Better Tomorrow" --- starts throwing off actionable concepts almost immediately.

• Incentivized the communities. AT&T puts its money where its eyes, ears, and mouths are, rewriting its employee compensation and customer usage contracts to recognize and reward participation in the Better Tomorrow program. Its best deals are given to people who best help improve the overall health of its business. No customers or employees anymore, just partners.

• Asked the communities to support the deal. The company posted its top ten reasons why a merger with T-Mobile would provide demonstrably real benefits to customers of both companies, and then asked its communities to weigh in. A majority of partners agreed and actively supported the deal and wrote to their congresspeople telling them so. The deal was subsequently approved.

In an alternate alternate world, AT&T just leapfrogged to the last bullet and created the most engaging social media network to build consensus support for its planned corporate moves.

Talk about a great case for social media. It would put to shame a Facebook fan page or silly YouTube video. It would also require real conversation about real issues, which is actually happening within communities that have formed to oppose the merger in the real world

AT&T isn't trying to sell the world a Better Tomorrow. It's just another corporate shenanigans move from the worst of our past.

(Image credit: merger graphic)

Bright Lights Project: Maybach

Download Bright Lights - Maybach

The cars look like something out of a fascist sci-fi world, with their advanced technology  and unnecessarily immense power buried beneath leather and wood rounded by deco lines. The entry-level Maybach could be yours for a cool $400,000, with versions tricked out with more of anything imaginable costing something north of a million.

Not surprisingly, about 200 units were sold in the United States so far in 2011 so, after ten years and a billion Euros invested in the brand, Daimler announced this week that it would shutter Maybach after the 2013 model year.

Was it the only and best answer? Granted, Daimler is in the business of making money from selling cars, and Rolls Royce seems to control a large share of that small uber-show-the-world-I’m-rich market. Like Maybach belongs to the folks who give us Mercedes Benz vehicles, Rolls Royce comes from BMW, and just like the Maybach, Rolls Royces seem to take their design cues from the art direction in Sly Stallone’s 1995 visionary movie epic Judge Dredd.

But leaving design and profitability aside for a moment, I wonder if the braintrust at Daimler could have considered a few other options:

• Make it the safest car in the world. I’m talking bulletproof windows equipped with Sarin sensors (along with an internal oxygen supply, and food, of course) and an undercarriage that can withstand IEDs and jump curbs and cracks in the pavement. Put machine guns and rocket launchers in the fenders, and maybe an escape pod (with parachute) in the trunk. In other words, make it the car of choice for every world leader, whether legitimately elected or not. Being so embraced would make it appealing to the super-rich as well, not to mention create a functional product space that is ownable. Just being a somewhat different expensive choice isn’t very productive, as sales have demonstrated.

• Make it a benefit available only to Mercedes Benz customers. How about forsaking the  traditional strategy of selling cars to customers (OK, that sounded weird, but give me a another minute), and instead reserving the vehicles as special benefits for its committed and best Mercedes customers? Talk about the ultimate reward for accruing loyalty points! Perhaps the brand could become the first-ever private brand that the regular folk like us don’t even know how they end up on city streets...sort of a black card rumored to have no limits, live secretaries ready to feed you peeled grapes, and whatever other benefits seem tantalizing when we don’t know if they’re real or not. It would be an ongoing conversation machine, not just a car, and its every appearance would prompt inquiries and interest. How about swearing all the owners to an oath of silence?

• Make it a Mercedes model, sort of the Mercedes Benz Maybach, so it would be the name of a car, not a car line. Maybachs sort of look like they could be related to Mercedes Benz anyway, and it would be a great conversation starter to put one on display on the floor of every dealership. Perhaps it could be positioned as a drivable concept car into which Daimler puts all the latest wacky mechanical and electronics thinking for early-adopters to put to the test? Rich people want to be considered brave and daring even if they’re not. Better yet, come up with a novel ownership plan for these ultimate beta-tester cars that lets people opt-in over the course of successive editions (they buy into the Discerning Tester Plan and pay for membership that gets them new vehicles every so-many months). Date the models so the Mercedes Benz Maybach 2014s can be distinguished from the 2012s.

It just seems to me that a grand ‘old marque like Maybach (along with those billion Euros invested in it recently) is a terrible thing to waste.

What do you think?

(Image credit: the cushy interior of a Maybach 62 S)