{"id":1755,"date":"2008-05-30T17:46:55","date_gmt":"2008-05-30T17:46:55","guid":{"rendered":"0"},"modified":"2008-05-30T17:49:22","modified_gmt":"2008-05-30T17:49:22","slug":"what_if_i_told","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/?p=1755","title":{"rendered":"What If I Told You&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>&#8230;that for a million bucks you could dramatically impact a Presidential campaign?<br \/>\nWould you take the deal? Most likely, yes. Per <a href=\"http:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/pres08\/expenditures.php?cycle=2008\" target=\"browser\">Open Secrets<\/a>, the total spend on the Presidential campaign through May 27 is $877,722,907. Of that, the amount spent on media was $282,796,155.<\/p>\n<p>So my million-dollar spend is .3% &#8211; <b>three-tenths of a percent<\/b> &#8211; of the media spend in the campaign to date.<\/p>\n<p>I noted an interesting thing when I <a href=\"http:\/\/www.windsofchange.net\/archives\/samantha_power.php\" target=\"browser\">wrote about listening to Samantha Power<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><i>And it&#8217;s interesting to me how the media indirectly shape our discourse &#8211; Power could write the book in part because she had a deal to sell the film rights. And George was intimately involved in the process of writing the book &#8211; looking at the drafts as they came off her computer.<\/p>\n<p>\nFor very little money &#8211; in film terms &#8211; but a lot of money &#8211; in journalistic terms &#8211; he managed to have a hand in shaping the story she wrote, and indirectly, shaping the political discourse about the UN and humanitarian aid, and America and Iraq.<\/p>\n<p>\nIn business, I&#8217;m always looking at those discontinuities &#8211; where what would be a small investment in one context becomes a meaningful one in another.<\/p>\n<p>\nAnd I think there is probably a very meaningful one here, as writers about events and politics may have an incentive to shape their stories &#8211; and hence our perceptions &#8211; to meet the worldview and demands of Hollywood.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Of course, I&#8217;m talking about Scott McLellan&#8217;s book, and the furor surrounding it.<\/p>\n<p>From my point of view, there&#8217;s very little shocking in the book. The fact that the decision to go after Saddam was made shortly after 9\/11 is consistent with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.windsofchange.net\/archives\/on_being_a_liberal_hawk.php\" target=\"browser\">my opinion on why we went after Saddam<\/a> &#8211; <i>pour l&#8217;ecourager les autres<\/i>, with the side benefit of stopping Saddam&#8217;s thugs from nailing people&#8217;s ears to walls.<\/p>\n<p>The fact that the runup to the war was accompanied by political maneuvering and publicity would only be shocking to someone who&#8217;s never read a biography of FDR, or to someone like me who is pissed off that Bush did such an inept job of politicking and public salesmanship around the war.<\/p>\n<p>So I don&#8217;t doubt that McLellan saw what he wrote about, and that there is a core of truth to his stories. But I&#8217;ll also suggest that the existence of the book itself is an interesting story, and one that we ought to think about. <\/p>\n<p>I can&#8217;t find the details of his book deal, but George Stephanopoulos got a $2.7 million advance for his tell-all about the Clintons, and it&#8217;s likely that McLellan got something similar. <\/p>\n<p>I don&#8217;t think he lied or had words placed in his mouth. But I&#8217;m willing to bet that his publisher made it clear that unless the book was &#8216;sexy&#8217; in the right ways, there would be no deal, and I don&#8217;t think it was hard for McLellan to find the tone and points he needed to make to sex the story up appropriately. And I&#8217;m willing to bet that &#8211; as a political play &#8211; searching out the people who leave an Administration and trolling them with book deals is both good politics, and potentially &#8211; if you can make the controversy big enough &#8211; good business.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s the perfect marketing campaign. It cuts through the clutter with vast amounts of earned media, it&#8217;s credible at levels no ad campaign costing ten times as much would be, it shapes the dialog in a deeply meaningful way &#8211; and as a bonus, it might just earn back what you invested in it!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Media arbitrage&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1755"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marcdanziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}