A couple of weeks ago I was running late for work. It was 7:30 a.m. and I didn't have enough time to make myself breakfast, so I decided I'd stop by Fair Trade Coffee on my way to the Capitol Square.
I was one of only a handful of customers in the store this early on a Friday morning. As I walked up to the counter a smiling man with a navy blue polo and a small card
approached me from his table. Maybe I thought it was someone I knew, or maybe it was just too early for me to
engage in evasive maneuvers, but either way he got to me.
""Hi, I'm from U.S. Cellular, and I'd like to buy your breakfast this morning,"" he said, too genuine for me to laugh in his face.
I asked him if I needed to sign up for anything. Nope, he told me, just take our card and enjoy your coffee.
After looking at the cashier to make sure this whole operation was legit, I got a muffin and a coffee on U.S. Cellular's dime. They were promoting their ""Belief Project,"" according to the card, which I still have. If I hadn't renewed my Verizon Wireless plan days before, I would have seriously considered U.S. Cellular, and I probably will in the future.
What does this say about me as a consumer? Possibly that I'm tired, hungry and susceptible to bribery. But their marketing strategy made me re-evaluate my service provider based solely on a good breakfast experience—something completely unrelated.
With so much money spent on political ads this election, I think a lot of special interest groups could learn something from U.S. Cellular. I've probably seen thousands of cell phone commercials on TV, but until that morning my own mental barrier had prevented any intrusion from wireless providers in my personal decision-making process.
The same goes for political ads. Like most people, I tend to just ignore them or turn the channel. In his Chicago Tribune column on Sunday, Steve Chapman mentioned a campaign spending study conducted by Professor John Coleman from UW-Madison. Coleman concluded that from 2000 to 2008, states with little regulation on campaign spending were not any more likely to see Republican majorities or friendly business policies than states that did clamp down on corporate money.
""What can we conclude from this experience?"" Chapman asked. ""Either businesses don't spend enough money to get their way or haven't found ways to sell their message.""
I think the latter point is critical. For all this money being spent, nearly $1 per voter across the nation, most of us aren't significantly influenced by attack ads played on TV.
I'd like to attribute this point to three factors: Either the electorate doesn't care about elections during Oprah, they can see past blatantly obvious attack ads or they are too set in their ideals to be swayed to the other side. If any of those points are factual, then it's time for special interests to revamp their approach.
I'm not saying buy everyone in Wisconsin breakfast, but I wouldn't mind another corporate muffin. Person-to-person marketing in the election cycle would spark deeper evaluation from voters. Without the ability to change the channel, people would have to face the issues or buy themselves coffee. The electorate might even, dare I say, become more informed about candidates by discussing their beliefs with representatives pushing a specific agenda.
But then again, it is that very agenda that tends to be the problem. Most corporate interests aren't aligned with the vast majority of the voting public, that's why they resort to undisclosed attack ads on TV. A common enemy makes for good friends, CEOs tell themselves as they wastefully dump millions into negative ads hoping to connect with a handful of voters who would rather have free muffins.
In 2010, the corporate attack ad strategy appears to be dated and irrelevant. Even though big business doesn't always share the same viewpoint as the voters it's trying to appeal to, it's obvious that a new approach is necessary. Outside interest groups should redirect their money to engage the voter head on; coffee shops, phone calls, discounts on the very products they're lobbying for.
Is a free meal from an outside interest group trying to buy a vote unethical? Maybe. Illegal? Not if they aren't directly tied to a candidate and they stay within certain dollar amounts. It would be a more effective technique for the corporation trying to break through the selective exposure of the Internet generation. It would make people snap out of the attack ad trance and actually think about the policies they're voting on. And it would make me a lot happier every time I'm running late for work.
Dan Tollefson is a senior majoring in English. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
