Obama's Impact on Marketing
1.26.2009
Some thoughts on the Obama strategy - from a campaign to a presidency and how it contributes to marketing and brand management:
On marketing basics ---
- A Branding exercise: taking advantage of a simplified message and singular purpose!McCain's mixed messages and multiple 'product features'
vs Obama's singular offer: Change - Placement (Segmentation and the proper distribution channels)
- Promotion (Key presence in important segment touch points, managed exposure), Positioning (Change, Owning it first!),
- 'Price' (Just One Vote! Creating a value proposition that is only available 'right now'.)
- Projection and Results-planning for a product mix (Targeted expense and strategy to key states, cities), etc.
As a case study ---
- Excellent example of effective online, viral strategies and PR Management
- Power play. He now controls a huge database of voters - key power item for years to comeand grassroots reach that can be used to pressure Congress and influence public opinion
- 13 Million 'influencers' or started seed for a viral campaign
- Positioning yourself for success - setting expectations properly,
pwned the Clintons without alienating them - Effective fund-raising --- who says marketing is only an expense center???
On Management ---
- Exercise in leadership, seizing the moment, and timely action
(re: clinton and mccain attacks) - Good case for people management and a handling power struggles (re: party politics)
Any books written yet about this? Publishers will capitalize on these for sure!
Labels: Brand Management, Strategy, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 1/26/2009,
,
Obama's team vs Clinton's
5.25.2008
Any election campaign is a mighty beast of a marketing challenge. From mere branding of the main banner campaign, or simply branding of the candidates, to detailed segmentation, profiling of state demographics and ultimately budgeting media buys and strategies vis-a-vis the projections, the whole campaign is a marketing exercise.
This is what got me very interested in the 2008 democractic primary battles between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. It's a battle of wits. A battle of product qualities: on one hand one who is a "fighter" and another, a candidate of "change". These one-word associations that came to define their campaigns are not accidents - they are predetermined modes of character that aim to highlight the product. What's interesting is, as with any battle between competing brands, one will end up a clearer winner in the end.
Somehow, Obama's largely Internet-based and new media campaigns have outpaced Clinton's. Could it be the young demographic that supports him which fueled the quick spread of his videos and speeches? Or is it merely a tactic that was not as exploited by the Clinton campaign?
As it turns out, it's not just strategy but the message, something is new about the campaign, in the way it was managed like a community event, ground-up but on a nationwide scale. Is this success a question of the message (the product as it is 'essentially' placed, that is, "change") or is the success of the Obama campaign really due to the management behind the campaign. It's easy to attribute it to both, but which one has a bigger effect? Is it the money - Obama having more in his war chest? I remember from the book Freakonomics, however, that it isn't decidedly sure that once you have more money - you correlate that to winning an election (that's only half the story).
Nedra Pickler, has an interesting article about the Obama team out-organizing their Clinton counterparts. There it's laid out how the Obama campaign has sustained the campaign (aka managed the funds) while Clinton had to lend her team her own money. The article outlines the people behind the Obama campaign and talks about their key strengths.
We've all come across the claim that a good product will sell itself. Or that one product if good enough will not require a lot of marketing but will largely advertise its own by sheer referral volume or popularity.
Well guess what, I don't buy that. Not all online sensations for instance got big by sheer luck. You think there are no marketing teams behind such viral campaigns? There are companies that capitalize on the initial surges of such phenomena to sustain them and plan how to most efficiently schedule the exposures.
And so I end with Obama's team. Much a great character he is whose message a lot will buy, you got to give it to his staff for making it happen. Certainly, he would have mark his leadership on key points in the campaign, the famous address on the issue of Rev. Jeremiah for instance, wherein he wrote his own speech. But ultimately, without the staff capitalizing on the grassroots movement and the enthusiasm of the supporters, and planning effectively, America would not have known that such a product call "change" was even available.
Labels: Branding, Elections, Marketing, Obama, Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 5/25/2008,
,
Fox News - Faux News
3.13.2007
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/fox_news_crazy_.html
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 3/13/2007,
,
Helen Thomas: What Planet Is Cheney Living On?
3.03.2007
Excert from a Helen Thomas article:
Sometimes you wonder what planet Vice President Dick Cheney is living on.
Last month, speaking of the war in Iraq, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a prickly interview:
"(The) bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes. It is hard. It is difficult."
Anyone keeping up with the daily news from Baghdad knows that few people in the last few months -- especially those in the military -- are bragging about big successes to quell the violence in Iraq.
Even within the White House, Cheney seems like a man lost in his own little world.
- Or interestingly, possibly one who is in control. (jdavies)
via Boston Channel
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 3/03/2007,
,
Gen. Wesley Clark, Iran and Other Secrets
Interesting revelations in this interview. A must read.
If you want to see the underpinnings of US Policy and politics, read this.
Interview excerpt <- this link. Via Democracy now:
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq -- the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry. What did you say his name was?
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I’m not going to give you his name.
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 3/03/2007,
,
Dick Cheney's Google Searches
1.02.2007
Vanity Fair shows Dick's Cheney's google searches in this concise satire:
triglyceride onion rings cholesterol
HDL "good cholesterol"
HDL fried onion rings
HDL freedom fries
osama bin laden pakistan
osama panama
osama yucatan
Google Maps: tora bora
Google Maps: cheney house
Google Maps: cheney maryland
birdshot pellet removal
quail hunting "involuntary manslaughter"
hunting accident manslaughter
hunting accident manslaughter pleas
firearms disposal
smoking gun
smoking gun mushroom cloud
hot lesbos vinyl black boots
Complete list in this link.
Labels: Google, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 1/02/2007,
,
Democrats are back
11.08.2006
Reuters Photo: via Yahoo News - Democrats won control of the House early Wednesday after a dozen years of Republican rule in a resounding repudiation of a war, a president and a scandal-scarred Congress.
Democratic party supporters react as TV news first predict that the Democratic Party will control the U.S. House of Representatives at a mid-term election night party for the Democratic Party in Washington, November 7, 2006. Americans voted on Tuesday in elections for Congress that could curb the power of George W. Bush's Republicans, force a change of direction in Iraq and shape the legacy of a president with two years left in office. REUTERS/Jason Reed.
Shouldn't this have happened 2 years ago?
Labels: Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 11/08/2006,
,
Oh Gizmo's a-Piggin
Andrew of OhGizmo says, "Moving on, this 21st century piggy bank not only has a slick polished silver finish but it will actually keep track of the money that’s been deposited. As you insert coins a running total will be displayed on the LCD screen and the bank will also tell you the total. (Plus many other “fun” voice responses.) To make a withdrawal instead of reaching for your trusty hammer all you have to do is press the pig’s nose to retrieve your coins."
My old piggy bank is a plastic and porcelain, around the 80s days. Incidentally, keeping your lose change in piggy banks or personal vaults is REALLY BAD for the economy.
With less money in circulation, the multiplier effect is lessened by having less savings available to other people.
Labels: Internet, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 11/08/2006,
,
Google Trends II
5.12.2006
More on my previous post.
Google launched yesterday Google Trends , a search tool that allows users to sort through several years of global Google search queries from around the world to "get a general idea of everything from user preferences on ice-cream flavors to the relative popularity of politicians in their respective cities or countries" . (dslreports.com)
Armed with all these information, we have to expect google to continue being that top company that it is. Just make sure they will not be evil. Of course, that's what they say.
Coke vs. Pepsi - Global. Notice the difference per country and per city.Something useless:
Coke vs. Pepsi - Coke vs Pepsi in the Philippines
Windows vs. Mac - Notice the difference between news referrence and actual search volume.Is it largely marketing hype? Try Windows vs Linux.
Democrats vs Republicans - I wonder if they are searching for each other.
Star Trek vs Star Wars - Top searches from Hrvatska, Croatia? Must be the Rebel Alliance home base.
Xbox 360 vs Ps3 - Similar curve for News Release and search volume is evident with Xbox. One could only surmise the search volumes are direct results of the online press release. Expect the marketing war via news release battles for both brands. Will Ps3 use the same online marketing strategy?
Yahoo vs Google - Could it be because users are in google already and will therefore not seach for "google" anymore? Note that Google is all over the news vs Yahoo!
Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan - Oh the controversial blond bond!
Car vs Automobile - Do users prefer one term over another?
Labels: Business, Google, Local, Philippines, Politics, Technology, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 5/12/2006,
,
The K-Street Gang
5.03.2006
"The inside story of how a group of self-styled Republican reformers succumbed to the temptations of power, becoming even worse than the Democrats they had been elected to replace. Now, some of those very reformers, including Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff, are under investigation, their careers and reputations tarnished by the very system they helped to create."
Labels: Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 5/03/2006,
,
Making Sense of Adsense
I have yet to make sense of adsense. In fact, I have not had much time
to fully customize it and implement it in tmy blogs. I think the first
thing one needs to do is give it time. Hopefully I should be able to
do that soon.
Now, if you'll see dieting ads in my site, or sex, or financial scams,
that would be coz I haven't implemented the filters yet. My apologies.
Mean time, let's hope I dont get the Support the war or I love
die-hard George Bush fans ads. * Crossing Fingers!
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 5/03/2006,
,
Lowest of Bush Ratings
4.28.2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 4/28/2006,
,
Vermont lawmakers to call for Bush impeachment
News of the day: Bush impeachement! No this is not John Stuart:
BURLINGTON — A Progressive lawmaker today will introduce a formal resolution in the state Legislature calling on Congress to draft articles of impeachment against Pres. George W. Bush. Rep. Dave Zuckerman, P-Burlington, claims support from at least a dozen lawmakers, including Democrats, Progressives and one independent, and expects to have more co-signers before handing the resolution into the House clerk later today.
Will the republican-controlled congress vote republican or if this prospers, would they vote away from party lines to preserve their grip on their constituents? Big question: how many people want another war, re: Iran, started by the same president?
Labels: Iran, Iraq War, Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 4/28/2006,
,
The Amazing Peso Appreciation - John Mangun
3.13.2006
Following recent events in Manila, which on all indictations were seemingly bad for the peso-dollar, is it not strange to see the peso performing better than usual?
Most people with barely a rudimentary knowledge of economics maybe misled by certain economic claims of the government officials and unfounded analyses on TV, me included.
While it may not be an official policy of the government to create disinformation, shouldn't citizens have right to accurate information?
Unfortunately, diplomats or not have ways to circumvent that by saying half-truths - which while not really true at all, are not exactly false either. I'm posting here an excellently written piece by John Mangun explaining the seemingly amazing gain in value that the Philippines peso has been showing in the past weeks. Superbly written, and yes, most amazing of all, it's purely economics, strictly no politics:
Date: March 13, 2006
Author: John Mangun
BUSINESS MIRROR
From his Column " Outside The Box"
"The Amazing Peso Appreciation"
The Philippine Peso is a very `minor' currency in that there is virtually no trading in the international currency markets. All trading, that is the buying and selling of the Peso that determines the exchange rate, is done right here through the local Philippine dealing system. The free market should price the Peso at a level that would create equilibrium between demand for dollars and desire for Pesos.
A further aspect of a currency exchange rate is that, if the market is relatively free as through the Philippine dealing system, short-term fluctuations mean little in the broad scheme of things. Even what might be considered a trend over several months as we have witnessed, is no indicator of either long-term investor sentiment or of economic growth and stability.
Regarding the thought that investor sentiment is found in the Peso rate, that idea is simply not true. The administration can look to a rising Peso as an indicator of support either personally or of its handling of recent events, however, that idea is false.
While it is true that currency rates can reflect short terms delight or despair over a government and its policies, that does not hold true in the short run. For example, many years ago when George Bush 1, fell sick at a Japanese state dinner, the dollar immediately dropped. When he was found to be healthy, the dollar rose in price and the speculators made a lot of profit. Nothing of economic significance had changed in those few hours. It was only as if some speculators were betting Bush was going to die; others betting he was going to live and the US Dollar market was a place to gamble.
The reason the world currency market can be a type of casino is that a large amount of the trading in major currencies is speculative in that the traders have no desire to take physical possession of or use the foreign money that they purchase.
The same is not true for the Philippines. The amount of speculative purchases in this country is almost non-existent. You do not use the Peso to "bet" on or against the Administration. This is because, essentially, the Bangko Sentral can control all
transactions. In addition, in the international markets, traders can buy and sell directly to each other, whereas here, all transactions are coursed through the banking system. Finally, the market is so small, the BSP so large in comparison, and trading controlled locally, that if, say a George Soros wanted to crush the value of the Peso as he did in Malaysia a decade ago, the BSP could intervene not only through buying Pesos, but by stopping Peso trading, and Soros' trading intentions would be thwarted.
The rise in the value of the Peso in the last quarter of 2005 was caused by legitimate demand for Pesos as increased remittances through the banking system created a true demand for Pesos and free market trading reflected that demand in a higher valued Peso.
However to believe the recent Peso appreciation reflects real Peso demand or,
as the administration tells us, foreign investor confidence is to assume two wildly improbable scenarios.
The first is that a group of foreign investors, in New York or Tokyo, viewed the recent events and concluded that they should immediately buy US$50 million worth of Pesos and open a call center because they are so happy the President is still in power and are pleased with the way that the Administration handled the situation. Sorry, real business life does not work that way.
The other false scenario would be that these same investors, although not wanting to
build a call center, decided to buy US$50 million worth of Pesos as a "sign of support" for the Arroyo administration. I have been involved the foreign currency markets for almost thirty years as a professional trader and currency analyst and I guarantee you both scenarios, as are the administration's pronouncements, pure foreign exchange fantasy.
Understand clearly that I am not making any implication that the BSP is manipulating the value of the Peso. The BSP is not under any circumstances, even trying to control the Peso rate to make it go higher to supposedly make the Arroyo Administration look good. They know better. If the BSP were doing that, then people like Soros could and would come into the market to take advantage of the situation. Currency traders are like large sharks that attack at the first smell of blood. And there is no juicer fresh meat for traders than a central bank, especially a central bank with only US$20 billion in foreign currency reserves, which is trying to control currency prices. Remember Soros took on and beat the Bank of England and Malaysia's Bank Negara. Our central bank would merely be an easily digested finger food if the BSP gave currency traders the signal that they wanted to battle.
What the BSP has done is to use its monopolistic power to force Peso buyers to accept
fewer Pesos for their dollars. Exporters that have received an overseas payment of
US$100,000 are forced to buy Pesos at 51 not 54. They have no other choice. It is not that there is any greater demand for Pesos, which would normally account for an increase in the value of the currency. It is simply that the BSP has temporarily `fixed' or set the price to their desired level.
Isn't this manipulation you might ask? No, because a `stronger' Peso creates demand from the importer side of the economy. Imagine how much the oil companies favor a stronger Peso as it reduces their oil import costs. As they see the Peso rising, they are encouraged to `help' the BSP push the Peso value higher.
Allow me to illustrate this idea by a silly example. You give your driver a P10,000 a month salary increase, but he must pay for the all the gasoline. Give your maid P20,000 but she buys the family's food. Now you can tell everybody how rich you are because you can afford to pay your household employees so much.
The same is true for the Philippine economy. Importers will lose a little; exporters may gain a little. The big winner of a higher Peso is the government is it reduces their obscene debt burden. The idea is that everybody wins, or failing that, maybe at least nobody loses. . . . much. . . . sort of.
---
What's eating Jardine Davies? Hmmm... Get's me to thinking huh! What do you think batinktink? If the last paragraph were true, how much of truth is there in hyper-wage theory as a solution to mystery of the Philippine Economy?
Labels: Economics, Local, Philippines, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 3/13/2006,
,
Funniest Statement Yet
8.12.2005
Yahoo News: CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday he sympathized with a mother who lost a son in Iraq and has been leading a protest vigil near his ranch, but that he would not pull U.S. troops from Iraq now as she has demanded."I grieve for every death," Bush said as Cindy Sheehan remained camped out about five miles away.
Grieve for every death? Why do I find that hard to believe?! Tell me!
"It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place," Bush said.
Ooops wrong. Is there anyone in the Bush family sent to Iraq to die to face his phantom enemy? I'm sure you don't know nothing.
But, he added, "pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy."
Hahahah Yes --- that you lost control. That your intentions in Iraq have been found in malice. Withdrawing will be so similar to Vietnam history will label it as yet another loss for America. So is this just all about pride now? Laying down American lives is about tasting the succulent fruit of your daddy's unfinished war? Last time I heard that argument, someone was building the Tower of Babel. Shakes Head*
"Our sons made the ultimate sacrifice and we want answers. All we're asking is that he sacrifice an hour out of his five-week vacation to talk to us, before the next mother loses her son in Iraq. He says he is spreading peace. How can you spread peace by killing people?" she said in a statement issued through Fenton Communications, a public relations firm.
Oh! So the president is on vacation --- again. Will Bush say, "Boys just shoot anything on sight and report back after five weeks, ok? Nevermind the casualties."
"Listen, I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan," Bush said. "She feels strongly about her position. And she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America."
Yes, it is America, she complains but you call the shots. Same tale since centuries back. Nobody listens to crying mothers. She cries and she can cry all she wants because it is America and it is you who call the shots, not her, not the soldiers. Last time I heard America is a democracy. How can think of a grieving mother in so simplistic a way as that alone? I wonder if he sleeps at night. Oh yes indeed he does. It is just one death.
"Oh, I know it's hard for some Americans to see that progress, but we are making progress. ... Withdrawing before the mission is complete would send a signal to those who wonder about the United States' commitment to spreading freedom," he said.
And exactly what progress Mr. President. What of progress and war? Will it send the wrong signal? No, it will send the precise signal that everyone except you and the republicans are hearing now. Your war, and yes I mean your war, not ours nor mine, nor the American nation's is a pointless, ill-defined, unnecessary exercise.
It's time to admit you were wrong. Err you are wrong. Your error is a continuing offense, err... tense. It's time to admit you are wrong.
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 8/12/2005,
,
Genius Behind the Stupidity
8.07.2005
There apparently is a genius behind the stupidity of the president of the republican portion of America.The satire is an old video from 2004 which, to my surprise didn't get my attention till now.
Check the video in the links below: Link 1 , or through the Main Site .
Meanwhile, in a more updated news a soldier's mom protests near Bush's ranch (via CNN).
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 8/07/2005,
,
Illustrated Couple
8.04.2005
Another illustrator/artist that's eating my time right now is a couple based in Sta. Monica, California. I stumbled into their world via designiskinky when their art was featured as one of the hottest in the world today. If you have done a CD illustration for an EP of an international band it would be something. But if you have done one for Weezer --- hey that must count for a lot! *
Now consider that they have also been on the cover of numerous magazines worldwide. Dan and Kozy together makes up kozyndan.com and while I know I ripped this picture from their website without permission, perhaps I will forgiven as I shove traffic of would be followers of their art.
Their crisp lines and colors make for immediate transfer of their message. Clean sketches will remove any feedback, and while in their paintings that is avoided, they do show a flexibility that does not diminish their effectiveness to present their message as vivid as they want. Of course I love them for the Bush art work shown on the right which they aptly entitled "Bushisms". Notice the excellent use of camouflage green. I urge you to view the piece in full detail to appreciate the sarcasm of the piece.
They have an ongoing show @ sixspace. Check it out.
Labels: Art, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 8/04/2005,
,
Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It'
6.29.2005
FORT BRAGG, N.C. - President Bush on Tuesday appealed for the nation's patience for "difficult and dangerous" work ahead in Iraq, hoping a backdrop of U.S. troops and a reminder of Iraq's revived sovereignty would help him reclaim control of an issue that has eroded his popularity. *
Keyword: Patience. Subjective, demanding, non-specific.
In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable. George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.
George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
George W. Bush, 6/24/05
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”
"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real," Bush said, according to excerpts released ahead of time by the White House. "It is worth it."
Tell that to the mothers.
Labels: US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 6/29/2005,
,
The Politics in the Movie Madagascar
6.06.2005
How rare in a cinema will anyone see an actual film burn on screen in their lifetime? Fans of Cinema Paradiso would know how it would feel seeing the film bubbling away on screen. Not everyone however, would relate to the surprise and the disgust when halfway into enjoying a film comes a sudden stop and one sees the film evaporating before ones eyes. I have that rare priviledge when I watched the animated movie, Madagascar with my girlfriend, Drea.
What makes this burning of the film relevant, to the politics of the movie? I will go to that later.
I considered the first half of the movie flat for failing to elicit any genuine laughter from me, nor from much of the audience. I thought it is just mildly amusing and falls short of my expectations. But...
Just before the film burned however, Drea had a eureka that activated my political eye: A scene where the Statue of Liberty burned, collapsed like the World Trade Center, and ended up like a cutaway from the original Planet of the Apes (1968). The Lady Liberty is halfway buried in the beach (or half-destroyed); herself a silent witness to the destructive nature of man in a previous era.
"The desire for Freedom is a pervasive theme in human history. It is within man's character to desire to be free, because he is free from the onset."
This metaphor could never be more made any better as it was timely. The late sixties and seventies is a time of much troubles in our history. With that as a reminder, we watched the film with a deeper understanding that made us enjoy the movie to its core.If you haven't seen the movie, please be warned of the spoilers below. I suggest you watch first let it reveal itself to you.
I am immediately reminded of George Orwell's Animal Farm and the use of symbolism using animals and the setting itself. It needed to be understood with political symbols, and layers of humor be stripped till the symbolism becomes very clear: The current state of politics in the United States and the world.What is life like in the 'Wild'?
The movie begins quite any normal kiddy movie would: a simple plot. At New York's Central Park Zoo, a lion (Alex), a zebra (Marty), a giraffe (Melman), and a hippo (Gloria) are best friends and stars of the show. But when one of the animals goes missing from their cage, the other three break free to look for him, only to find themselves reunited ... On a ship en route to the island of Madagascar. When their vessel capsizes off the coast, however, the friends, who have all been raised in captivity, learn first-hand what life can be like in the wild. *
The desire for freedom is a pervasive theme in human history. It is within man's character to desire to be free - because he is free from the onset. Any artificial restriction to this inherent freedom invites man's revolting nature. In the movie, Marty, the Zebra, dreams to be free from the confines of the zoo. He wants to enjoy the sprawling green fields and experience nature at its finest! Why the story is set in a New York Zoo is an interesting point. It invites the viewer to see the Zoo as America, and the Wild as everything foreign to the New Yorkers.
In the movie, Marty, the Zebra, dreams to be free from the confines of the zoo. He wants to enjoy the sprawling green fields and experience nature at its finest!
His name seems to be a contraction of the word marty(r). While that cannot be verified, his character is an idealist. He desires to experience a world beyond the monochromatic and restrictive nature that is the New York Central Park Zoo. It would seem that he is the symbol of that portion in the population of America idealist enough to demand a return to the original intention of the Declaration of Independence. In fact he wants more than that. He represents that sector that demands ultimate and absolute freedom.The conflict begins when Alex, the Lion who is the star of the Zoo, questions why there is even a need to see life in the wild. The use of the Lion as a symbol is only the beginning. The Lion is the king of the Zoo; he is Power. He represents the sector of American society that has power. Alex is for Alexander the Great, the leader, and thus the Government.
In the wild their friendship is tested and soon they are divided into factions. This is reminiscent of how America, through the New Yorker animals is divided. Allow me to focus on each character's symbolism.
The use of the Zebra as an idealist is no accident. Marty is described through a historically racist joke as a confused individual, one that is not certain if he is Black animal (tainted) with white stripes --- or a White animal (tainted) with black stripes. This line is a reference to an old academic joke that begins most discourse on racism. When asked whether any zebra is one or the other, the answer depends on who gives you the answer. A black man will give the former, a white man will claim the latter.
The giraffe Melman, a hypochondriac is representative of the paranoid public. The slanky and tall figure of the giraffe is a presence akin to that of the many levels of society from top to bottom. He is afraid to even spot a brown spot in his body even if giraffes are supposed to have that. He needs a constant pill and MRI to keep him sane. He needs to be fed reports (media) that he is not sick, and that everything in society is A-OK. While the idealism of Marty is dangerous, so can be paranoia, as we see during the first part of the movie where the giraffe cannot be his best self.
Gloria, the hippo on the other hand represents the ironic 'glory' of the middle ground, the neutral or undecided, apathetic, I'll-do-what-I-have-to-do crowd of the political spectrum who while posing any danger to society (the Zoo), is a waste of potential. Content in doing the same performance in the Zoo we see that stagnancy of course, is a danger in itself.
"The Four Characters represent the United States as a whole"
This difference in the politics among them foreshadows the ultimate division among the animal friends. In the wild, they encounter a congregation of lemurs partying, only to see them under attack from the Foosa --- radical feline carnivores that threaten the existence of lemur civilization. Alex is declared a savior for attacking the Foosa and saving a baby lemur without his intention to be so. In a way, they find that the wild is not as disorganized as they think it is. It is civilized in its own way. It's that realization that some conservatives have yet to make.
Here already is the parallelism of The US saving the world from the chaos that is Terrorism. The lemurs are banded like the United Nations, with a leader powerless to enact anything to combat the plague of the Foosa, without the US intervention - re: Kofi Annan. Alex's attack through the effort of the used-to-be neutral and apathetic Gloria, now there in no fault of her own. For a moment the Foosa/Terrorists are gone.
The New York "Giants" or "Freaks" as they are called differ significantly in size, as if to highlight the power difference among the lemur nation of the world and the US. While this is true to a political point, it begs the question of the structure of the state in the modern world. But yes, that of course is another discussion.
I am certain the size of the main characters, while needed the movie to highlight the main characters is an industry standard.
We are being warned: Power is dangerous, but so is apathy, paranoia, and even ultra-liberalism or radicalism. Each should remain in check of each other.
However, the fact that the enemy - the Foosa - bad-asses that are often created bigger than the heroes of the movies -- are made significantly smaller than our four New York Animals, yet big enough to attack the lemurs... This begs the question 'Why?'. They are structured to operate in separate disorganized groups as well like terrorists cells do. They do not speak any language in the movie at all, unlike other animals which are metaphors of the nations of the world. The coincidence is unmistakable. It has to mean something.
Going back to the movie, While used to being fed the "steak" in the Zoo, (an incidental play on the word 'stake'), Alex the lion struggles to find food for himself in the Wild and returns to his instinctive carnivorous self. He hallucinates and sees the other animals as food instead of friends. He tries to resist and avoid attacking them. He tries to stop hallucination that will feed him his 'stake'. But he is powerless to the power in his paws (hands). Can I say Pan-Americanism?
In the middle of lemur celebrations he attacks his friend Marty, the Zebra and exposes himself to criticism of the United Lemur Nation. He retreats on his own and finds himself alone. The idealist, rebellious, Zebra does not give up on his friend the President...Err... Lion-king, and tries to sing their favorite song, New York, New York and changing the lyrics from "I want to be a part of it, New York, New York" to a double entendre:
We're all a big part of it, New York, New York... --- as if to hint on America's current state of affairs.
Only till the point when the four animal friends banded together and fight the Foosa together with the United Lemur Nation were they able to quell the enemies of the island.
In the end, Alex is rationed with small portions of fish a la sushi. It's hoped that he will not revert to his corrupting self, and his hunger for power is kept in check. They are ready to go back to the New York when the reality is projected to the audience before the end credits --- the Island is their World, and there is no way back to the comforts of NYC, America.
Do we need animals to remind us about our Freedom?
It's a silent message of the police power that has been granted to America, not by right or manifest destiny, but by the circumstances of World War 2. The world needed his help, but he must not be too hungry to enslave the world. F.D.Roosevelt and the other leaders of the Allies knows that the world need not return to the era of totalitarian Hitler hence the enactment of the Universal Charter on Human Rights, and the creation of Institutions that will safeguard the ideals of the World thru the United Nations --- not the Unite States on its own. The UN was created that there will be no more war in the world. But humanity it seems is a stubborn lot. The same tendency to elect the wrong leaders come up every time...
when the four animal friends
banded together to fight the Foosa
together with the United Lemur Nation were they able to quell the enemies of the Madagascar
interestingly, George Orwell's novel, Animal Farm appeared in stores the same month that the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Orwell made no secret of the fact that his writing, and Animal Farm in particular, was single-mindedly focused on the obliteration of totalitarian regimes. * The creation of political sentiments in art always happen when sentiments to dissent are charged up. Or when a warning is needed, to save us from impending doom.
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism...Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole." He says. *
While I am not certain about the intentions or politics of the two directors and the many writers of Madagascar, I could agree enough that George Orwell's despise of totalitarianism and unchecked superpowers of the world as dangers to humanity IS the same message in the movie Madagascar.
Understanding the movie Madagascar with political eyes thus makes it a more enjoyable film. Far from what critics call as bland or yet another crapper from DreamWorks
passably amusing or presents not much crossover appeal to parents, it is rather an intelligent film. It having been marketed as a funny film is questionable, for it delivers only half of that. But this does not diminish the importance of the concept of power in its plot. It all just makes it a most worthwhile movie to see.
The directors couldn't be more right.
Now about the burning of the film: How cool is it if the film burning itself is actually a part of the movie? Blame me if this is all over reading, but how much of a coincidence do we need to make sense of this film in today's world affairs? If the film burned in the middle and it is part of the screenplay, it will be a far better film --- one that warns us of the troubles of our politics. I guess I'm asking too much from it. But hey!
Acceptance of diversity is a pre-requisite to survival in the wild that is the world. To battle the chaos of Terrorism, a united effort is needed respecting the rights of every nation on earth. The United States finds itself in a position of priviledge and responsibility in the world today, but it does not mean Lady Liberty will be set aside. Power is a dangerous thing, yet it is what is needed to enact change. The world does not need a savior-nation, rather a United Stand --- u-s, us, we, from all nations that rise to the same call to civilize the wild. Even lemurs know how to party, they are civilized in their own ways.
Post script: Democrats, do you hear the lemurs crying Alex is out to eat them? Come on! Do something. There are many more symbols in the movie that need more elaborate explanation like the French Bon Voyage, that could not save the animals, and the British Chimpanzees that could not even help the New Yorkers. But do we really need animals to remind us about our Freedom? I believe that needs no more explanation.
Labels: Art, Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 6/06/2005,
,
There is no United Nations!
6.02.2005
Did you know that there is NO United Nations? Well apparently there is NO United Nations, at least according to this guy: John Robert Bolton.
Check out the video!
A long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away...err, make that - Today. Yet another episode in the saga of the the Bush empire.
War! The Republic is crumbling under attacks by the ruthless Sith Lord, Count Dooku. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere. (hmmm....)
In a stunning move, the fiendish droid leader, General Grievous, has swept into the Republic capital and kidnapped Chancellor Palpatine, leader of the Galactic Senate.
As the Separatist Droid Army attempts to flee the besieged capital with their valuable hostage, two Jedi Knights lead a desperate mission to rescue the captive Chancellor. . . .
PAN DOWN to reveal a REPUBLIC ATTACK CRUISER. Democrats, do something!
Ooops! Wrong Movie... Or is it the right one?
Do you know this guy? John Robert Bolton. A little help from wikipedia:
John Robert Bolton: was nominated by President George W. Bush to become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Bolton was born in Baltimore, Maryland. He received a B.A. in 1970 and a J.D. in 1974 from Yale University. Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the National Guard (and wore his uniform in a 1970 Yale guide book picture * and did not serve in Vietnam.
Remember my "Those who did not serve list" in a previous post? I got that from Moby, yes the artist. Do we have a pattern here?
Bolton wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost," * but at his graduation in 1970, while other "student speakers compared the United States to pre-Nazi Germany" Bolton "sounded a contrarian theme." *
Here's something even more interesting.
On 7 March 2005 he was nominated as US Ambassador to the United Nations, but as of 26 May his nomination has yet to be confirmed by the Senate. After strong
initial support from Republicans but heavy opposition by Democrats, Bolton has steadily lost support from Republicans. In fact, Senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) circulated a letter urging his Republican colleagues not to vote for Bolton. *
Democrats have threatened to filibuster his vote, and the vote has now been delayed until at least May 31, 2005, after the Memorial Day long weekend.
Now the surprise plot!
View of the United Nations
Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his political career. In a 1994 Citizens for Global Solutions forum he stated, "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."*
He also stated that "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." *
When pressed on the statement during the confirmation process, he responded "There's not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn't be made leaner."* Despite these comments, in a paper on US participation in the UN, John Bolton stated "the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy" *
Old American Century has online video footage of some of his comments on the United Nations. (Including one which will irk you!)
If it doesn't work, try this.
A member of the Project for the New American Century, Bolton was also one of the signers of the January 26, 1998 PNAC Letter sent to President Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter also stated "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." *
- From Wikipedia
Allow me to ask: Who is the master and who is the apprentice?
Tan tan tan Tan-tanan Tan-Tanan
Tan tan tan Tan-tanan Tan-Tanan
Labels: Politics, US Politics
posted by Jdavies @ 6/02/2005,
,
The Author
J.Davies
Jdavies lives in Quezon City, Philippines and has been blogging since 2002. A brand manager in a leading technology company and a freelance new media/web strategy consultant, he has refocused his blogging from personal, political & sociological observations, to marketing-related efforts and Internet trends that are relevant to his career and branding advocacies.
About This Blog
This blog is a depot of thoughts and observations on marketing trends which remain personally relevant to the Author as far as his marketing career is concerned. Having evolved from the personal blog of Jdavies, much of the earlier work contained herein are laced with personal speculation, political views, and similar advocacies. These posts are being kept for posterity's sake and for no other reason. No effort is being made to claim that the author will not contradict himself from his previous positions or that such advocacies are absolute.
Contact
Request access to my Linked-in Profile
