"Fox Opinion chose to reflect Trump, the person."
Brand expert Tony Farrell says this was a mistake. He says Trump-the-person is a fad.
A stronger Fox brand is to be the "anti-woke warrior voice for the overlooked American,” without Trump.
Americans who monitor Fox to understand its influence on GOP voters and officeholders are seeing an organization in quiet crisis. Fox's problem isn't the revelations that Fox voices lied to their viewers. Fox viewers don't hear a word of that. The crisis is that they are attempting, as Abraham Lincoln put it, to change horses in the middle of a stream. They are switching from Trump to Trumpism-without-Trump. Yet Trump himself isn't going away. Indeed he is a very visible candidate for president, saying things Fox viewers like. No one does Trumpism quite like Trump, and viewers still like to see the man himself.
Tony Farrell is a college classmate. He had a long career as a brand strategist at The Gap, Sharper Image, and The Nature Company. He handled the marketing for Trump Steaks. He finished his career in the toughest of big leagues in marketing, the direct-to-consumer space, i.e. infomercials.
 |
| Tony Farrell with Robbie the Robot at The Sharper Image |
Farrell's comment below distinguishes "Fox News" from "Fox Opinion." My own observation is that, especially now with the departure of Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith, the two voices of Fox have merged. It is all opinion consistent with the central Fox narrative. The news hosts can no more offend their audience than can the opinion hosts. So they don't. If the news on January 6 or the Dominion lawsuit or anything else contradicts the Fox narrative, the news people simply don't cover it. They just double up with another story about Hunter Biden.
Guest Post by Tony Farrell
Commenting on Dominion’s lawsuit that exposed private communication among Fox hosts and executives, Peter wrote (on March 8) that Fox’s apparently hypocritical behavior (broadcasting false claims of a stolen election despite their personal disbelief) was “cynical, immoral, dishonest but good business” as Fox strived to protect its brand as a “cheerleader” for Trump.
Peter asked me to think about aspects of this.
Let’s start with a basic question: What is a brand? Its many definitions can be long, multifaceted and confusing if not impractical. I’ve found the most useful definition to be the simplest: A brand is a promise.
A promise that depends on trust and, ultimately, the consistent truth of the promise made.
One example: Apple promises elegant design in service of ease-of-use. For many, this was embodied in the person of Steve Jobs; he was the brand. But Apple products continue to deliver what Jobs imagined and created. Ultimately, a strong brand must stand on its own legs, and not that of a single person.
Another: Disney promises superior storytelling and family-friendly entertainment. For many, this was embodied in the person of Walt Disney (as the company lost its way after Walt’s passing, that seemed to be the case). But ultimately Disney rebounded to deliver on its brand’s promise. Disney’s brand remains strong without Disney himself.
I mention those two specific examples because both individuals and companies can have brands; no one disputes Donald Trump is a brand—let’s say he promises to be the “anti-woke warrior voice for overlooked Americans.”
But Trump, the person and the brand, is not the Republican Party. One result, now, is a GOP with no brand; no promise; no consistent truth. And Fox failed to create a brand apart from Trump, the person.
(For this, I separate Fox News from Fox Opinion. If this is a story of hypocrisy, Fox News is practically innocent; the firing of Fox News truth-tellers—such as its election forecaster—validates that.)
The exposed hypocrisy hits only the Fox Opinion hosts, but I do not think it’s the hypocrisy that hurts them. (Many brands, such as JFK’s, can pretty much survive private revelations.) And as Peter highlighted, the Fox audience will be largely misinformed and uninformed about the Dominion exposures. The serious sin against “brand” for Fox Opinion was their loyal devotion to Trump as a person—comparable to the loyalty demonstrated at his rallies—in a way that was unprincipled and short-sighted. (Only on the rarest occasions was Trump ever criticized by any Fox Opinion host.)
It was this loyalty that forced Fox Opinion to follow Trump down the stolen-election rabbit hole. So, I would not call their loyalty to Trump “cynical, immoral, dishonest” (or even hypocritical) because Fox Opinion was always nothing but a mirror of Trump’s followers; a cult of personality.
The fact that Fox garners more viewers than all its competitors combined also argues for thinking this strategy was good business in the short term. Trump was a singular phenomenon—akin to a runaway bestseller for a publisher; a mega-hit movie for a Hollywood studio; a Razor Scooter fad (which I enjoyed when at The Sharper Image). Phenomena like these have nothing to do with “brand.” But for Fox Opinion for the last five years, Trump (the person) was the pseudo-brand they adopted. Otherwise, Fox did not have a brand.
From a marketing point of view (and I do regard Fox as an entertainment enterprise when discussing its business), one of the sagest marketers I respect advised marketers to “not attempt to change minds, convert the ignorant, resistant, disagreeing people; that’s a fool’s mission.” Instead, “say things to people that reinforce and validate what they already believe.” Another marketing guru, Al Ries, wrote “Changing minds in our over-communicated society is an extremely difficult task. It is much easier to work with what’s already there.” Fox Opinion, realizing how their audience grew along with Trump, decided simply to ride that wave and not spend any effort to change any minds, no matter what. Trump’s the brand; let’s go with it.
Fox Opinion chose to reflect Trump, the person, back to his huge audience of followers; all those anti-woke disaffected ones; all those aggrieved and overlooked Americans. In this sense, Fox Opinion was not a brand apart from Trump, the person. And when Trump veered into crazy fantasy (as Fox hosts saw his stolen election claims), they were correct to say they had to follow him, or else pay a huge penalty in share and profits and (let’s say it) their own employment!
Fox News and Fox Opinion must find a way to establish their own brand, and it won’t be far from where they imagined they were, in mirroring Trump and his cult followers. Fox can adopt the role of “anti-woke warrior voice for the overlooked American” without Trump. As Trump fades and others assume his role in the political sphere, Fox can be there.
There’s plenty to hate about wokeness; huge audience there! Fox just needs to establish a brand that is independent of any personality. That all said, it is very unlikely they will ever return to the glory days of Trump. Enjoy the fads when they happen! But you can’t just create them.
[Note: For daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. The blog is free and always will be.]
14 comments:
Another great post by Tony Farrell! "A brand is a promise",indeed.
Astute. But I think analyzing FOX from a marketing perspective doesn't take into account what it actually provides its viewers which is somewhat apart from its brand.
FOX lies. That in fact is its function, kind of the same way that religion provides an alternate reality for those disconnected from the actual thing. It's like children's programs, or as Jack yelled "You can't handle the truth". Sometimes the lies are blatant and obvious, as mentioned, but most of the time they are embedded in comfortable narratives that simply reinforce the ugly stereotypes and prejudices of its audience.
Another aspect of the marketing is the nasty partnership with its advertisers. I'm sure they know how despicable the network is, but I guess greed overcomes morality.
Fox “News” truth-tellers may be innocent, but Fox “News” as a brand is not. The precedent for the Dominion lawsuit has already been set by Fox lawyers and the judge in the Karen McDougal slander case: Knowing their reputation, no reasonable viewer would believe what is said on Fox. They may not be reasonable, but millions believe it because it follows that marketing model of reinforcing and validating the pre-existing beliefs of ignorant, resistant, disagreeable people. Unfortunately, they have become the Republican Party’s mouthpiece, which is why we now have “a GOP with no brand; no promise; no consistent truth.”
Sorry, but I agree with Peter that it’s cynical, immoral and dishonest. Let’s not forget, political parties are supposed to be about governance – producing legislation that will form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Trumpism and the GOP marketing model threaten to do for the U.S. what Sharper Image did for Trump Steaks - turn it into another business failure.
Disaffected Americans are disaffected for a reason. Neither major party was taking their concerns seriously, and this led to the rise of Donald Trump. Calling those people “ignorant, resistant, and disagreeable” is politically self-destructive; you might as well just call them “deplorable”, which worked out so well for Hillary.
Democrats are supposedly the party of empathy. There isn’t much empathy in remarks like this, just hatred of “the other”.
Newsflash: it was Tony Farrell who called them “ignorant, resistant, disagreeing people,” and he has a good point. Those who claim the election was “stolen” and minimize Trump’s coup attempt are indeed deplorable. Electing Trump was their peculiar way of giving the middle finger to their own best interests.
Tony was quoting a marketing consultant, and the quote is more than a decade old. It is a generic and nonjudgmental statement, specifically regarding selling a product.
Well, surely it’s obvious to people living on this planet that it’s spot on calling trumpites “deplorable” . Who cares about Hillary's deplorable comment? You can’t reasonably blame her one (true) statement for her loss!
Who cares about Hillary's deplorable comment? You can’t reasonably blame her one (true) statement for her loss!
It wasn’t just Hillary's “one true statement”; that statement was emblematic of her arrogant attitude, which came across constantly and consistently.
Mr. Farrell was discussing Fox and its viewers when he said: “one of the sagest marketers I respect advised marketers to “not attempt to change minds, convert the ignorant, resistant, disagreeing people; that’s a fool’s mission.” Instead, “say things to people that reinforce and validate what they already believe.””
And: “A brand is a promise. A promise that depends on trust and, ultimately, the consistent truth of the promise made.”
The Trump brand could be summed up as the promise to build the Great Wall of Trump and make Mexico pay for it. His cult swallowed his BS because they’re as crazy as he is. Now we’re all paying for it.
Trump’s brand was to personify populist rage at the elites who had showed such contempt for his followers’ lives and culture. He totally fulfilled that promise.
During Trump’s 2016 campaign, he gave every indication of being a narcissist, a psychopath and a compulsive liar. As POTUS, asinine lies and stupid name-calling became the presidential standard, he promoted crackpot conspiracy theories like QAnon, White supremacy crawled out of the woodwork, there was a surge in hate crimes and according to Dr. Birx, coordinator of Trump’s coronavirus task force, his incompetent management of the pandemic is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. So yes, I have to agree, he certainly did live up to our expectations.
But just to make sure, he tried to overturn a free and fair election: promises kept.
You can denounce Trump’s character and sanity all you want, but that doesn’t explain why Trump appealed to such a large proportion of the American people. There are two ways to explain that appeal:
* America is full of deplorable racist morons.
* This country’s elites of both parties abandoned the interests of working class Americans, and Trump spoke up against those elites.
I personally don’t look down my nose at most of my fellow Americans; I believe the second explanation.
I suggest the first. The election of President Obama brought them all, Trump included, out of the woodwork.
Speaking of brands, your guest took money to shill Trump steaks.
I skipped over all he had to say.
His brand is garbage.
Post a Comment