Lounsbury: Americans: Bad at Propaganda?

« Cole Roundup and a comment or two | Incestuous citations - but a nice quick overview to read »

December 29, 2004

Americans: Bad at Propaganda?

Zenpundit had a comment here that I thought was both true and not true. If I may, the comment was that " [exact quote here] "

I think this is probably, in large part, true. But the intriguing question is why? My answer is that it is not so much that Americans per se are bad at propaganda -which in a sense is merely marketing in its wide sense - but rather American institutions that engage in propaganda are bad at it. And I do not think that the perhaps immediate and standard answer that "Free Institutions" are not good at propaganda - that is both a pomposity and a falsity. One can look to Great Britain which can turn out decent agitprop when it wants to, as can France. Nor do I think merely looking to European cynicism counts either. At least not in its simple sense.

What do I see then? First, Americans are rather full of an inflated sense of goodness on a national level(*). This is charming at one level, and good at another. However, one can easily be blinded by it. A bit of cynicism, detachment even, is useful. One of the Neocons own, by the way, is fond of quoting Tallyrand: "Above all, not too much zeal." Now, the issue in regards to agitprop I think arises from the following: (a) instutionally, agitprop is indeed largely discouraged, (b) when it occurs it is often naive, and self-believing - we are truly and genuinely good, we must convey this , (c) outside certain restricted circles, Americans by virtue of the size of the country, its insulation from the rest of the word, the ability bumble around speaking English, the certain messianism in American thinking (the fault of my insufferable ancestors), a certain disregard and even hostility for the detachment and self criticism as well as engagement with other points of view necessary for really reaching other ideological markets, are not well prepared to do proparanda.

Now, at its heart, the act of good propaganda aimed at others is not really any different than marketing to a foreign market, except the barrier to penetration is higher. First, one has to understand the customers' real interests - not the marketeers perceptions of them, but knowing the real consumer. Second, one has to find a profitable (read effective) nexus of the consumers' interests and what the marketeer can promote. Very clearly unlike perhaps a strategic marketing executive in an innovative firm, one can not retool solely on the basis of the consumers' desires, as in the end state interest trumps this set of consumers. However, neither can one simply sell self-vision (which is what Americans tend to want to do - indeed the agitprop aimed at Iraq was painful in this sense, for all that it was easy to understand a good portion was domestic market aimed - one of the most painful and gross errors that continues to burn my stomach - although the football distribution agitprop could be amusing - as another aside when I met a mate of my up in London who happened to have been in Iraq for UK Treasury at the same time, although we did not know that at the time, we both independantly brought up the fucking footballs. His funny obs was they'd announce these things as if they were completed, which in the context of the near termism ongoing in CPA led to the project then languishing) for self-vision, if it were convincing would have already sold. There is already enough American media out there that if it were simply a matter of self-vision, everyone would be sold.

No, American self-vision can be actually quite irritating. Rather like my arrogance. It's well founded, it is not without reason, but too much, all the time leads to hostility and backlash.

Now, returning to the point, the key issue for American agitprop efforts is not to pimp their self image. (e.g. al-Hurra, Hi!) No, it is to treat the issue like a cold strategic marketing problem, when stuck with a certain set of unchangeable product parameters (US policy). There are numerous marketing strategies for this - earnestness is not one of them. Perhaps a bit of self mockery in product placement, self-depreciation. Certainly product placement and explanation has to respond to the regional markets' individual concerns and tastes. Detachment, as well, from the product is necessary. That does not mean hiring an outside agency - hiring a bunch of American ad executives or even western ad exs is not ipso facto hiring detachment, indeed quite likely the contrary. It means engaging someone... well like me but truly skilled in marketing, above all at a strategic level... to sit down with the problem. A team certainly as this type of effort requires at once localization and multiple views.

The second problem is political interference. I can easily imagine the cold blooded approach (and I am not even speaking to ... underhandedness and dark propaganda) getting shot down by Congress and at once Conservo ideologues and Antiglobo morons - a Popular Front of Know Nothingism.

Nevertheless, the issue at its heart is not an inherent American incapacity to engage in really good agitprop (although some things like Peace Corps are damned good agitprop, while idealistic at the same time) but rather a lack of will to clearly grapple with issue, from a rather sad combo of hard right pious righteousness and hard left self-contempt.

But perhaps I am fooled by my prediliction for ... what did someone here say, extreme pragmatism and cynicism?

(*: I remind everyone I am an American by birth and in part upbringing. However, too much time overseas immersed in others has rendered me an ambiguous person in perspective at times)

December 29, 2004

Americans: Bad at Propaganda?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription