liberal hipster snowmen

I am an advisor for a high-growth, direct to consumer brand.

The team is incredibly talented and creative (my favorite varietal of team), the product is on a freaking rocket ship (my favorite varietal of growth curve) and the brand is ultra-empowered-sass (my favorite varietal of sass). 

It is an incredible crew to be a part of.

We spend a lot of time learning about our market dynamics, understanding our positioning within it and what competition makes up our ecosystem.

We send each other emails we like (or don’t like) from competitors and businesses other industries. We are always using other companies to help inform our position and voice in our slice of the market.

This impacts things like messaging, product development, target demographics, sass-to-swagger ratio, etc.

It is categorically not what we talk about to our customers.

What if our emails read…

Subject line: OUR COMPETITOR JUST LAUNCHED A COMPETING PRODUCT AND WE ARE FURIOUS!!!

Preview text: Buy our product now to show this competitor we are superior and they suck total ass.

Body: We urgently need you to buy our product. We can’t let our competitors win. Our product is better. You know it is better. Buy it now before it is too laaaaaaaate.

***Followed by 10,000 flashing light emojis.***

Of course not! 

It seems obvious when you put it that way. 

Brands of any size very rarely call out competitors directly. They use competition to inform strategy behind the scenes but it is never their actual message to consumers.

Political Messaging’s response to that statement? Hold my mother fucking beer.

I did a little experiment over the last 24 hours and analyzed the political emails I received.

A small sampling.

A few highlights:

• The name of one sender was SORRY SORRY SORRY. An odd choice for a mother to make when tasked with naming their child, but at least it is easy to remember.

• Two Flashing-Red-Light emojis were used to tell me there were only 71 inaugural mugs left and mine is [UNCLAIMED].

• One used the word “mandatory” to describe a poll they had included in their note. I’m curious on the enforcement strategy. Obviously I took it just to be safe.

The final tally?

• 26 emails from 9 organizations.

• 3 of the 9 sent me more than 3 emails each during the window in question.

• Of the 9 organizations who sent me a note, I have actually donated - and therefore opted in - to 3.

Holy shit, guys.

I recognize there is email list sharing/buying going on - but if we are all pushing for the same goals maybe we could invest in resources to help these organizations get their email game in check.

What if, in exchange for financial resources from the DNC (using DNC as a placeholder here - no clue where these funds eventually land), these PAC’s and non-profits committed to a few basic standards of behavior.

• Shared their list to a neutral third party who analyzed it for overlap. 

• Used this information to strategize send times/day/frequency for maximum impact.

• Adhered to a basic Democratic Party Brand Bible.

  • Including do’s (simple messages or empowered-sass).

  • And don’ts (all caps, more than four exclamation points, flashing light emojis, the word “dire”, “death”, “furious” or “open immediately” - and that’s just for subject lines).

• The DNC could send out a weekly messaging memo capturing the priority of the party that week. The orgs could put their own spin on it but we know that disciplined messaging wins in the end.

• Potentially DNC could deploy interns or associates that helped design, craft and send emails, letting these organizations focus on what they are good at. The DNC (or whoever these dollars end up going to) would get more out of these organizations’ efforts, and we all would not want to poke our fucking eyeballs out.

I know we couldn’t make this mandatory (unlike the poll SORRY SORRY SORRY required me to take) but my guess is that these orgs might be receptive to support.

You know who else would be very fucking receptive? 

Every person who has ever received an email.

And reading through these emails also spurred a second thought. 

Even beyond our email mayhem, so much of how we position why we are good is by reinforcing why the alternative is bad. 

And look, I get it! I know I need to know what we are up against and why what we are working on is important in a broader context, but honestly sometimes I think I know more about why I oppose the Republican position than I do the details and merits of our position.

This goes back to my earlier posts about the efficacy of fear and hate. And I know that we can’t just only Michelle-Obama-We-Go-High ourselves to the midterms, but I think (especially off-cycle) there may be value in balancing this out.

What if major media outlets, political personalities, podcasts, blogs, and/or pundits signed on to a “Bullshit Break” (name still in workshop) challenge where they committed to one post/blog/piece/segment that did not talk about Republicans at all. 

Think about what a shift that would be!

We would have to flex our brains in such a healthy way to fill that time with only the merits of our position and not dunking on the other side. And if you want to contrast us with them, think about how powerful the optics on this would be.

They are like “Um, but the snowy, little snowflakes are all snowflakies and cold and crystalie and their snowflakes clumped together and built some liberal snowmen dressed like hipsters and they are crying icicles like snowflake babies!”

And we are like, “Here is how we are addressing climate change. Questions?”

I honestly think there is an audience and appetite for it too. I would absolutely seek out this content, especially if was easily searchable. It could even turn into a marketing avenue for these outlets for folks who have historically been turned off by liberal messaging.

I just wish there was a way to install a giant Taboo buzzer that automatically zapped people when they inevitably said “McConnell is an asshat”.

I know we are up against a gigantic right-wing media machine. And I’m not saying this would be all - or even a majority - of our messaging. 

I’m saying surprising people is memorable, impactful and powerful.

And nothing would surprise the weary political masses more than if we quit shouting at them in subject lines and we voluntarily opted into a voluntary, public political messaging cease fire.

I’m telling you. We should do it.