Sarah Palin's one-finger salute

Sarah Palin is having a good laugh at the expense of the media, and the New York Times' Mark Leibovich is laughing with her:

I’m all for political people extending every courtesy to us poor, pampered media types. The predictability afforded by such courtesies is often our friend, especially with a deadline looming. But as someone who has consumed —and contributed to — a massive body of predictable campaign coverage over the years, I find something refreshing about the “winging it” approach. And it was instructive to see the media so disoriented upon being deprived of the familiar setups, set-pieces and bubble-like environments of a modern presidential campaign.

I'm no fan of Palin, and I don't share her apparent contempt for the mainstream media. (I say "apparent" because much of her barbs at the "lamestream" media are simply political theater.) But I can see where she's coming from. She's taking a swipe at the sense of entitlment that some reporters and news outlets have regarding the way that large organizations and public figures share information with the public.

Last year I attended a presentation by Tom McMillan, vice president for communications with the Pittsburgh Penguins. He recounted with some amusement how a reporter once complained to the Professional Hockey Writers Association that the Penguins had broken news on the team's own blog rather than feeding it first to the media. The Pens have a devoted and plugged-in fanbase that doesn't care whether it gets news about the team from the source or from the filter or sports writers. In fact, many hockey fans probably prefer getting news straight from the team. A failure to understand that reality is why the media has been slow to adjust to the changes wrought by the Internet and social media.

And guess what? Tom McMillan knows that, aggrieved or not, hockey writers aren't going to stop covering the Penguins just because they now have to compete with the team's own PR operation. So it is with Sarah Palin. Despite all the media's kvetching, they still end up covering her, and she's probably banking on it, as Leibovich notes. The rest of us aren't so lucky. We have to play by the rules if we want our clients and employers to get covered by the mainstream media, and most of us still value that coverage. Many of us cling to those rules as much as reporters and editors do. They bring order and predictability to what we do.

As Leibovich explains, Mitt Romney is clearly in this camp. His team orchestrated a classic campaign kick-off announcement, and it seemed to achieve the desired results. I'd go so far as to say that Palin's ham-fisted attempt to upstage him worked in Romney's favor. Yes, it was a reminder that he doesn't possess her outsized influence, but it also made him seem sympathetic. For a guy who seems so blow-dried and calculating, he seemed human for an instant.

The dilemma that Palin faces is the same one I described in this blog last year. She's still a cult brand, and she hasn't seemed to figure out how to expand her appeal without alienating her base -- or else has no interesting in doing so, something that conservatives are taking note of disapprovingly. It's only a few months to the first primaries. Rivals like Romney soon will figure out they don't have to worry about being upstaged by Palin. All they'll have to do is run out the clock.

Cult brands, Facebook and Sarah Palin

I don't plan to spend much time discussing politics on this blog. If you want evidence of my political beliefs, it's not hard to find. But political campaigns and policy debates often provide useful public relations and marketing case studies, and Sarah Palin's decision to scrub her Facebook page of negative comments is one example.

Let me state a bias up front: I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. Furthermore, I'm an advocate of online transparency who recently has counseled his own employer to let stand harshly negative comments on a Facebook page. That said, from the point of view of enhancing her brand, Palin is probably smart to stifle dissent on her Facebook page.

Think of Palin as a cult brand, with a relatively small but highly devoted following -- much like Apple was in the 1990s. Every cult brand eventually faces the same dilemma: Continue to cater exclusively to a small but loyal customer base, or try to branch out and risk alienating your original customers. Apple solved this dilemma with the iPod. The company created a device consistent with its brand -- favoring ease of use and elegance of design -- without requiring iPod buyers to switch to the Macintosh computer operating system.

But a politician as divisive and radical as Palin doesn't have an equivalent option. She can't lurch to the center without alienating her rabid right-wing followers. Instead, she needs to convince mainstream Americans -- for lack of a better term -- that their values are actually not so different from her values, or from those of her devotees. Hence Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" metaphor; she's appealing to motherhood, one of the most common values Americans share.

Allowing her critics to skewer her on Facebook isn't going to help Palin broaden her appeal. Some of those comments may actually remind people there are good reasons not to like Palin. And from Palin's perspective, responding to all those negative comments, which her followers are bound to do, is not a good use of their time. She'd much rather have them reading her books, listening to her speeches, and supporting the candidates she endorses. Facebook is a one-way channel for Palin, and while that may contradict the ethos of social media, it seems to be working quite well for her. Bottom line, the only people she alienates by deleting negative comments are people she'll never win over anyway.

The problem with this strategy is that it may limit what Palin can achieve. It's perfect for someone who wants to be a political kingmaker, reliably delivering votes for the candidates of her choosing. What she's saying is, "I'm the head of a private club. Anyone can join, but only on my terms, and on the terms of the other members." That is not a winning message for a presidential candidate.