Maybe the dogs don’t like it

by Russ Roberts on January 19, 2010

in Health,Politics

Once upon a time a pet food company created a new variety of dog food and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product. Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very disappointing. The agency was fired and a new agency and a new campaign was launched. Sales continued to disappoint. If anything, they fell even further. In desperation, the CEO called in all of the top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns and how a new campaign might revive sales.

The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been messed up. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. Another argued the opposite–not enough sports programming had been targeted. After the debate had raged for hours, the CEO felt they had accomplished very little. He asked if anyone else had any theories that might explain the failure of the new product. Finally, one newly hired employee raised his hand and was recognized. Maybe the dogs don’t like it, she said.

If Brown wins today in Massachusetts, we’re going to hear all kinds of explanations. Misplaced voter anger is already being invoked. Coakley ran a horrible campaign. The incumbent party is unpopular when times are bad. It snowed. Or it didn’t. Whatever. The simplest explanation is that a majority of the citizens of Massachusetts oppose ObamaCare. Maybe they shouldn’t. Maybe they don’t realize how great it will be. But if Brown wins, the simplest explanation is that the most important issue, health care, was decisive. The voters don’t like ObamaCare and this is their chance to say so.

View Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Hedge685
    Good story Russ...I always say there is much more truth than fiction in the daily Dilbert comic.
  • williamparkar
    My 3 or 4 lbs dog actually loves wearing clothes (but NOT hats or shoes)

    She seriously runs over to her basket of stuff

    and throws her arms and head up for me to dress her,

    but not in tutus, or mini hooter uniforms, or anything, something like a comfy fleece hooded sweatshirt or jacket

    I wouldn’t dress her if she didn’t like it

    buy r4
  • Tired of the Bull
    "Maybe they don't like Coakely."

    Sam Grove may be on to something for a change. Obviously, the electorate is mentally ill. It would have re-elected Teddy Kennedy if he was still alive. Perhaps Obamacare didn't offer up enough psychoactive drugs to treat their blatant psychoses. This reality check from the delusional Massachusetts voters is really just another case of cuckoo, pseudo-libertarian hokum buncombe on steroids and Superbowl Sunday jungle juice. Bud is wiser. If the citizens think Brown is the answer to their prayers, they are beyond hope and change. They did worse than waste their vote; they showed the world that the Haitians have more dignity, and savoir faire in their earthquake-crushed little pinkies than they have in their entire brainless bodies. Massachusetts' voodoo politics is in desperate need of a pin-stuck voodoo doll to exorcise their voodoo, doo-doo brand of economics and clinical, untreatable insanity.
  • Good story Russ. I think I've been in that boardroom a few times.

    In a fantasy world, I long for candidates that say straight up, "These are my values, this is what I believe in. If you don't like, don't vote for me." Instead, most of the time, we get to choose between food that even our dogs don't like.
  • LowcountryJoe
    Or maybe Martha Coakley was riding on coattails long enough to go from D.C. to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro!
  • My argument all along has been that neither Coakley or Brown has a high likelihood of being overly influential in the Senate, so a logical voter should choose a candidate more based on how he or she will vote on divisive issues (read, healthcare) rather than on level of competence. This argument would imply that if people are logical then this vote can be taken as a message that people in Massachusetts (Massachusettes?) don't want Obamacare. As a Massachusetts resident, I would like to point out that the problem with that reasoning is that we already have Obamacare, at least roughly speaking. (We have mandatory health insurance and the guarantee of coverage that comes along with that.) Therefore, people in Massachusetts are voting largely based on an issue that doesn't affect them. This is likely why we've seen the backlash against Coakley on the basis of competence.

    To make an analogy, let's pretend that you're a gay person in a state where gay marriage is legal, and you are asked to vote for a candidate that will be the deciding vote on whether gay marriage is legalized on a national level. Unfortunately, the pro-gay marriage candidate is a buffoon on many levels. Would you vote for him or her anyway? You might, just out of principle, but the chance is likely much smaller than it would be if you were personally affected on the issue by your choice. Furthermore, it would be absurd to conclude that you were anti-gay marriage based on your vote in this situation, but that is exactly what you are doing by treating the original situation as a statement on health care reform.

    (Can you tell I am a little cranky about this? I'm from Florida, so apparently political embarrassment just follows me around...)
  • this is their first chance to say so.

    My favorite excuse right now is that everyone that votes for Brown is either racist (for opposing Obamacare and therefore Obama) or sexist (because Coakley is a woman).

    I know most here don't watch Olbermann, but did anyone see or hear the comment he made against Brown, “homophobic racist reactionary” who “supports violence against women.”

    All of that is just a smoke screen for the obvious, that Dr. Roberts points out. The people don't like Obamacare and are going to show it in the only way they can, at the voting booth.

    As much as I dislike Obama's policies, I think in the long run, his presidency will be good for the country because it shows the people that both parties are equally corrupt and misguided. We all knew it during Bush, but here blinded by Hopenchange into thinking it was only a GOP phenomenon. I hope that this will lead to a new level of public awareness at what's going on in DC and a new level of accountability on the political class. Then again I might just be dreaming.
  • yetanotherdave
    If Obama can bring strong disillusionment with government to the vast majority of the population he will have done a good service to the country. If he inspires voters to select divided government in November he will have done another good service. I'm not sure that will be enough to balance the harm done, but that's about the best legacy he can hope for at this point.
  • That was what I was going for. To go back to Munger's podcast, if his horrible presidency helps put the gridlock back in Washington, then he has done a good thing.
  • Better yet...

    if a generation of disillusioned youth learns the lesson that we don't have to buy into the binary Left/Right Red/Blue Conservative/Liberal axis -- and instead views through a liberty/statism lens -- then we are well served.
  • That could happen, especially considering how the public school system is collapsing. More and more kids might start going to private or do home schooling.
  • yetanotherdave
    That's what I thought, and I agree. The bad part is the ratchet effect on freedom - gridlock helps slow down (or even stop) turning the ratchet but we need to reverse it. I wish I had a good idea how that could get done in the real world.
  • I think most of us wish we knew how to get that done. At least with gridlock we have some more time to think of a way.
  • johndewey
    This morning Joe Scarborough had this to say about his fellow MSNBC commentator Olbermann:

    'A certain person on this network, whose name will not be mentioned, went on a tirade the likes of which are sad and pathetic,'
  • jpirving
    intrade.com is reading 84% probability for Brown! Mary Jo's revenge?

    Anyway he too is a politician, but hooray for a little divided government.
  • LowcountryJoe
    Yes! I'm not fond of politcians either but in some cases the lesser of the two evils -- the republican victroy -- makes for a better circumstance. In this circumstance, one step closer in turning healthcare legislation into the 'shovel ready' project it deserves to be buried with.

    The fingerpointing on just what caused this can go to many people. But I'd like to think the finger can be pointed to Rick Santelli exactly 11 months ago while doing a CNBC segment.
  • Maybe they don't like Coakely.
  • BoscoH
    Russ mentioned in the Munger podcast that one of the really great things about young people today is that they are more skeptical and even cynical about just about everything. Maybe it's finally hitting the political sphere as well.

    Tyler hit it on the head today saying that Haiti might indeed be the defining issue of Obama's presidency. Let's hope. Let's also look at it as an opportunity for him to save face on health care and climate fantasies. He gave those the good fight, but there's something much more important now. Whew!
  • ArrowSmith
    Haiti is Katrina x100. If the libs pinned that on Bush, let's pin Haiti on Obama. What's fair is fair!
  • As much as I like to dislike Barry, I think it's wrong to try and pin Haiti on him. For one, it's not "his" country. It's a fully independent and corrupt country all by itself. If you want to blame anyone, blame good intentions. The good intentions of the bleeding hearts that for so long have hamstrung Haiti by making the Haitians relay on dollar imports (Haitians in the US mailing checks to Haiti, I don't know of another better word for it) instead of building factories, capital stocks to promote their own robust growth.
    Global welfare programs did this to Haiti, not Obama. Although, Obama is all for those programs, he didn't set them up. If anything, I have to hand it to him. He did something I never thought he would do, he outsourced it to people better able to do some real relief work, instead of trying to hog all the glory for himself. Naming W and Bill and sending Hillary was the smartest move he has made in his presidency, IMO.
    Sometimes you got to give the devil his due.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: