This technique has been in use for thousands of years.  The ancient Greeks wrote about this technique and even identified the logical fallacy at play—the straw man argument.  However, just because it’s a logical fallacy doesn’t make it a bad technique.  On the contrary, since as we’ve already discussed people make decisions in the reptilian brain (amygdale) on an emotional basis, the decision has already been made before the logical brain (frontal cortex) becomes activated.  Since people decide based upon emotions and not logic, they fail to recognize logical fallacies.  

I. Case Study: Healthcare Reform

A perfect example of this technique in action is the recent response to the health care reform legislation.  Without discussing the merits of the legislation itself, I can identify two incontrovertible facts:

1) Before the legislation was introduced, the American public overwhelmingly supported healthcare reform.  In poll after poll, the American public wanted to see some form of healthcare reform.  President Obama campaigned heavily on this issue and it was a very effective talking point. 

2) The legislation that was actually introduced was a compromise.  Many, if not most, liberals felt the legislation because it did not go far enough.  In fact, the legislation most closely approximates the legislation Senator Bob Dole sponsored in 1993 in response to the Clinton healthcare plan.

So, the opponents of healthcare reform faced a climate where the public overwhelmingly supported reform and the legislation itself would be acceptable to the majority of people (if they properly understood it).  These forces realized this and utilized a straw man attack to reframe the debate.  Instead of attacking the plan itself, they accused the plan of being a socialist takeover of healthcare.  They asserted the plan would destroy the private sector and would turn America into France.  They then used every attack against socialized medicine to attack the healthcare reform legislation… even if those attacks didn’t apply at all! 

For instance, in single payer systems, the government does ultimately approve or reject claims for treatment.  Under the healthcare reform legislation, private insurance companies will still cover individuals and will ultimately approve or reject claims for treatment (with new limits on what these companies can reject).  The opposition to healthcare reform claimed the government would convene “death panels” to “ration care” and decide who would and would not receive treatment. 

Although this claim is patently false, people believed it… because under the straw man they set up it was true.

Ultimately, even though the healthcare reform law was passed and signed into law, the opponents still won in the public square.  People believed the straw man attack and believe the legislation was something it was not.  The ramifications of this are clear… the Democratic Party faces a massively uphill battle in defending elected officeholders during the midterm election and could face significant losses in November. 

II. Profiles in Spin: Rick Berman

One individual who has been highly successful in employing this form of attack is lobbyist Rick Berman.  The lobbyist Nick Naylor in Thank You for Smoking is said to be a “pale imitation of the reality of the Beltway’s most outrageous advocate.” A 60 Minutes profile says he takes pride in the nickname “Dr. Evil.”  Berman’s clients include a who’s who list of companies that are under constant attack by issue advocacy groups with poll numbers showing the public supports their positions.

In order to shift public opinion, Rick Berman has become a master at the straw man argument.  The American Prospect reports,

“Our offensive strategy is to shoot the messenger,” he once told Chain Leader Magazine, a trade publication for restaurant chains (whose readership presumably doesn’t include too many ordinary consumers). “We’ve got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons.”

One tactic he uses is to attack the messenger is to portray the groups as having an extremist agenda.  From labor unions to teachers unions to issue advocacy groups like MADD, PETA and the Humane Society, Rick Berman has taken them on by creating a straw man argument that their group is out to impose an extremist agenda on society.

For instance, the majority of people (53%) supported the Employee Free Choice Act when polled by Gallup.  Proponents claim it will prevent employer retribution and streamline the process to create a union. To combat it, Rick Berman’s group UnionFacts.Com has run ads attacking a straw man version of the legislation that claims the employees would be forced to vote a certain way by “thugs.” 

This technique has been very effective at reframing the debate.  This orchestrated campaign has helped keep the bill from becoming law.

The human brain is wired to think in terms of stories.  The Ancient Greeks realized this when they created their myths.  Even the Bible is written to take this into account, with Jesus using parables as his most effective teaching device.  A myth or parable takes abstract concepts, usually moral in nature, and puts them into a concrete context.  The human brain can then internalize them for later use.  Within any given culture, including the American culture, a group of these myths become the common basis for morality.

Americans are exposed to thousands upon thousands of messages every day.  In order for a political or public affairs campaign to break through this clutter and create an effective message, they have to use shortcuts.  That’s where the campaign narrative comes into play.  A campaign narrative is the overall story of the campaign.  It must tie into a preexisting narrative framework (one of the common myths that almost all Americans already know). 

I’ve previously discussed the importance of building a strong brand for political campaigns as well as for issue advocacy and corporate brands.  In terms of the campaign narrative, this brand becomes all the more important.  This brand becomes the character development of the hero.  I have also discussed previously the importance of going negative on the opposition.  In terms of the campaign narrative, this negative framework becomes the character development for the villain.

Creating the campaign narrative simply requires one take the hero and the villain and give them context.  This context should tie in to one of the hundreds of myths that taken together compose the American myth collection (which is a “common” shared by almost all of the public).  The choice of which myth to tie into relies heavily on what kind of hero/villain you are dealing with, but it should also take into consideration the public’s mood and the aspirations.  If the public believes things are on the “right track” you will chose a different myth than if people believe the country is headed in the “wrong direction.” 

Without a context, you are either a) allowing your opponent to write the narrative, which will naturally paint your side as the villain; b) trusting the media to decide who is the villain and who is the hero, which is always risky; or c) being ignored completely because the public won’t have a context to understand the issue or race and thus will simply ignore it. 

Research shows that people use the part of their brain tied to emotional memories when making decisions on who to vote for or what cause to support.  Since myths are devices used to instill values, a narrative enables your message to engage with this part of the brain and as a result your message sticks where it matters the most.

Will issue advocacy groups emerge to lead the charge against obesity?  If so, will they succeed in creating strategic partnerships with corporate donors?  Will they push through legislation? We’ve already seen some movement on banning trans fatty acids and displaying nutritional information on menus, but clearly this is the tip of the iceberg of what could be done.  Will candidates for public office start campaigning on this issue?  Will ambitious trial lawyers see the public turn against corporate food interests and file class action lawsuits?  Will legislation pass that allows these lawsuits to proceed?  Will Attorneys General from states file lawsuits over Medicaid costs? More importantly, will the combined industries that are at risk—fast food, snack foods, processed foods, agricultural business, soft drinks, casual dining restaurants, etc—finally wake up and realize the threat this debate poses to their very existence? 

It’s hard to remember, but at one point tobacco was not just unrestricted, it was actually subsidized by the government.  Then, the tobacco wars started and, much like what we’re seeing here, a prolonged public affairs war commenced that ultimately led to the end of tobacco as we knew it.

If this is going to parallel the tobacco wars, have the combined industries learned the lesson that fighting back at every step might not be the best approach?  Certainly if litigation emerges (and with recent news articles pointing to foods creating a chemical dependence/addiction litigation over marketing to children most certainly will emerge), the companies do have to be careful not to publicly admit culpability. 

However, the soft drink industry is currently running an effective ad campaign concerning removing sugar-based (and, one must assume, high fructose corn syrup based) drinks from schools. 

This campaign does not accept blame for putting the drinks into schools in the first place, yet at least it shows them caring enough to “do the right thing” now.  Additionally, they are marketing full cane sugar drinks that eliminate high fructose corn syrup altogether.  How long before they replace high fructose corn syrup with either sugar or Splenda and throw the big four agriculture business companies (Archers Daniels Midland, Midland, Cargill and Stanley Manufacturing which account for 85% of the $2.6 billion dollar a year high fructose corn syrup industry) under the bus?

Ultimately, time will tell if the issue has reached a tipping point and, if so, how this plays out.  Will the corporate food interests all stick together or will infighting create battles amongst the food corporations?  Will issue advocacy groups emerge to take advantage of the charged political climate?  However, this much is clear… it’s time for both sides to build up their public affairs armies and prepare to launch their missiles.

Issue Advocacy Groups

Issue advocacy groups are organizations that are established to advance a particular cause or issue.  Some of the largest examples of issue advocacy groups include: NRA  (gun owner’s rights), National Right to Life  (opposition to abortion), Planned Parenthood  (support of abortion), Focus on the Family (opposition to abortion, gay marriage and promotion of a “Christian agenda”), Sierra Club (environmental issues), Susan G. Komen for the Cure (breast cancer awareness), American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (pet rescue), American Civil Liberties Union (Libertarian social issues), and literally thousands of others. 

A key difference between issue advocacy groups and political campaigns is their target audience.  In a political campaign, one needs to win a plurality (and usually a majority) of voters.  In a competitive district, the audience the brand ought to focus on is swing voters, who by definition tend to be less politically informed.  A successful issue advocacy group, in contrast, needs to focus on a far smaller group of people—those people most likely to be receptive to their message.  Furthermore, an issue advocacy group needs to create an intensity level far higher than a political campaign, since the ultimate goal is to create donors and volunteers and not merely to convince someone to vote for your candidate.

Thus, in building a brand, a successful issue advocacy group needs to avoid moderation at all costs.  It’s not enough for the public to merely agree with the organization’s goals.  It must find a way to make donating/volunteering an absolute imperative.  The three components of a successful brand come into play in achieving this goal.

Experience:

An organization’s experience lies in the story why the founders created the organization, the organization’s success in enacting change thus far, stories involving the issue and membership, third party validation (celebrity endorsements), and anything else that can be used to help give the organization a “life of its own.”  This is a very broad category for issue advocacy groups and varies significantly based upon the issue and group involved. 

Values:

For many groups, there is already a pre-existing values framework to tie into.  Right to life groups can tie into the Christian values framework.  Gun owner’s rights groups can tie into the libertarian values framework.  Environmental groups have created their own values framework.  For others, without a pre-existing framework, they need to tie into a societal value like justice, patriotism, or compassion. The key here is simple; the change the organization is advocating for is a moral imperative.

Policy:

Issue advocacy groups are primarily established with a policy goal in mind.  Thus, creating the policy for these sorts of groups normally comes first.  With that in mind, the organization should always focus their policy initiatives on the hard core donor/volunteer base and should not attempt to moderate it for public consumption.

Ultimately, issue advocacy groups accomplish their goals primarily by their perceived power.  This power comes from the amount of money they have (through fundraising) and the amount of volunteers they can employee to lobby legislators.  Issue advocacy groups should reject the impulse to become a part of the establishment and instead should cater to their core audience.  Ultimately, having a group of extremely intense supporters representing 10% of the population is far more powerful than having far less engaged supporters representing 50% of the population.

Corporations and Trade Associations

Corporations and trade associations established by corporations are completely different animals.  Many corporations spend millions of dollars a year on promoting their consumer brand to customers.  Most publically traded companies have teams who protect the company’s investment brand to help aid the share price.  The smartest companies also have teams who focus solely on public affairs and attempt to build a public affairs brand for the company. 

The primary objective of a public affairs brand is to help inoculate the company and industry from outside public relations attacks.  Secondary objectives can include helping preserve the stock price in times of crisis, increasing consumption (especially through “cause” based marketing), and even engaging other corporations/trade associations in public affairs wars over impending legislation and regulatory agency hearings.  Since they are funded by the corporation and/or corporate interests composing the trade association, they do not have to engage donors and can afford to hire field operatives to create the appearance of a grassroots campaign (Astroturfing).  

Thus, the audience for a corporate/trade association branding campaign is by its very nature the public as a whole.  It is the polar opposite of an issue advocacy campaign that caters to a small audience and is even far broader than a political campaign, which focuses on swing voters.  However most smart campaigns realize their greatest return on investment comes by winning over the influentials: the media, legislators, politically engaged citizens, and key leading figures in the industry the corporation/trade association does business.  These opinion leaders will be the people most involved in framing any crisis that unfolds for the industry/company and will be the people most involved or even aware of the legislative/regulatory processes the company/industry would like to influence.

Some companies/industries are by their very nature controversial.  Energy companies, tobacco, Wal-Mart, defense contractors, and countless others are constantly under attack from issue advocacy groups established to destroy them.  Yet, as recent history has shown us with mortgage companies and banks, events can quickly turn against any company and industry.  That is why it’s so important for every company to preemptively engage in positive branding to help inoculate against the attacks and aid the crisis communications.  Every corporation/trade association must remember that the public has a preexisting frame that corporations/big business is bad and this frame must be overcome through an effective brand that positions that company/industry as something “different.”

The components in a corporate/trade association public affairs brand are the same three I have discussed at length before. 

 Experience:

Experience starts with the company’s founders.  The story of how the company began and what it was like as a small business and how it “overcame the odds” to become what it is today is a powerful narrative.  Additionally, experience includes how it treats its employees, any philanthropic missions the company undertakes, how the company treats its customers, and in general anything in the company’s past or present that portrays the company in a favorable light. 

Values:

A successful brand ties the company/industry into a higher purpose for existing beyond merely making profits for the shareholders.  Progress, saving consumers money, decreasing dependence on foreign oil, saving lives, feeding the world, defending individual’s liberties… the options for values are limitless and no corporation/industry trade association should feel their company/industry is too “evil” to discuss values.  Even Larry Flynt was able to turn his pornographic empire into a defender of the First Amendment! 

Policy:

For the most part, corporations and industry groups should be very careful in articulating specific policies, since most of them will include items that divide their very broad audience.  However, examples like the Pickens Plan from the natural gas industry show it can be useful to actually articulate an overarching plan for the future.  Furthermore, if you are a very controversial corporation/industry, it can be very effective to introduce a plan that co-opts your opponent’s goals and makes the public believe you have a plan to solve their problem.  One example of this is Exxon Mobil’s current advertising:

Far too often, corporations engage in messaging only once they have come under attack.  The fundamental key to crisis communications is to have already established a brand.  This brand will not inoculate the company from attack nor will it replace effective crisis communications, but it will give the company credibility in their response communications.

An effective political brand is composed of three equally important parts: experience, values and policy.  These three components do not exist separate from each other; in fact, they must work in concert to effectively build an effective brand.  That is why cookie cutter campaigns that we see far too often, where consultants will build essentially the same commercials and give candidates essentially the same talking points, are not the most effective, since no two candidates are exactly the same.  

Experience

A candidate’s experience is composed of every single event that has happened in their life that brings them to this point… running for the office they are running for.  It includes the obvious “big things” like education, work history, previous elected office, etc.  It also includes the far more nuanced “life changing events” like having children, struggles they have overcome in order to get where they are today, and even people who have influenced them along the way.  A good political consultant will spend hours interviewing the candidate to mine the candidate’s past to discover the nuggets of information that will help build this leg of the stool.

Values

A candidate’s values are those guiding principles that influence how they see the world.  Some of these values have ideological underpinnings; however, even these are more nuanced than they initially might appear.  Amongst Republicans (the party that utilizes values in campaigns far more effectively than Democrats) you have:

Social Values: Social values are Judeo-Christian values like being pro-life, for prayer in school, and opposing gay rights.  At their core, social values invoke a feeling in the mind that America was established as a Christian nation (which, clearly, the historical record disputes) and we ought to return to that place.

Populist Values: Populist values include being against immigration reform (usually opposing “amnesty”), pro gun, racist undertones, and extreme patriotism.  At their core, populist values invoke a feeling that “the other” is threatening America and the “elites” are aiding and abetting that other. 

Business Values: Business values all center around radical conceptions of capitalism (usually backed by economists like Milton Friedman) that urge the government to lower taxes, eliminate regulation, and allow business to function “independent” of Government restraint.

As you can see, these Republican values, if one actually examines them in nuance, will come into conflict with one another.  However, this is rarely a problem, as people do not analyze them in depth; they merely listen for key “code words” and don’t examine any philosophical underpinnings. 

Democrats have very recently attempted to reclaim the values mantel.  They’ve reframed liberalism and are now talking about a “progressive” agenda.  This progressive agenda shares little in common with the earlier “progressive” era (of the early 1900’s) and instead speaks of scientific progress, economic fairness, and social justice. 

In terms of conveying values, Republicans can use a few keywords to invoke an entire values platform.  Democrats have yet to effectively convey an overarching values structure, thus they are not able to as easily rely on keywords to invoke a progressive values message.  However, values don’t necessarily have to be ideological.  One can merely talk in terms of “right and wrong” to really key in on the values realm in voters’ minds.

Policy

Democrats have typically run campaigns focused on identifying the issues the public wants to hear and advocating policies that “fix” them.  How many campaigns center around “healthcare,” “education,” and the “economy?”  Democratic campaigns will regularly issue multi-page plans to address these issues and the press will laude the campaigns for their substance.  Republicans, in contrast, rarely speak about issues except as keywords to invoke their governing values.  They say they oppose abortion, for instance, but they don’t put forth any substantive plans to lower the amount of abortions is our country… they merely want to “end” it and “overturn Roe V. Wade.” 

The Political Brand = Experience + Values + Policy

An effective political brand positions the candidate above any and all partisan labels and allows the candidate to win election based on their own merits regardless of what political climate they are running in.  This brand is unique to the candidate and crafted based upon poll results, focus group results, the candidate’s own background, and the demographics of the electorate. 

To build a brand, the campaign must first poll test the electorate to discover what issues are most important.  Once they have this information, they ought to use additional polls and focus groups to ascertain how voters feel about the issue, what words they use to describe it and how they want to see it tackled.  Next, the campaign must analyze the entire history of the candidate in relation to this issue.  What experience does the candidate have involving the issue?  What struggles in relation to the issue?  How has this issue personally affected the candidate’s life?  The next step is to explore how the candidate’s experience and struggles involving this issue have created values and moral sentiments about the issue.  Finally, the candidate will unveil a comprehensive plan to solve the issue.

In speaking in the abstract and in academic terms, it’s easy to wonder how one can possibly achieve all of this in a ten second sound bite that is digestible by the common voter.  However, not only is it possible, it’s the only way a brand can ever be achieved. 

Here’s an example to show how these three legs work in concert to support a brand.

Example: President Bill Clinton’s 1992 Election

Many Democrats look upon the success of President Bill Clinton in 1992 as a policy success of focusing in on the economy.  This ignores the political brand President Clinton was able to build.  He pulled from his experience as someone who came from poverty to become the Governor of Arkansas.  With one line, “I come from a place called Hope” he was able to tie that experience to a value: hope.  He was also able to embody the Horatio Alger story arc of overcoming obstacles to be a self-made person.  The link from values to policies was embodied in the famous formulation “change verses more of the same; it’s the economy; and healthcare too.”  And rather than simply relying on keywords, he released comprehensive policies to stimulate economic growth and completely reform the healthcare system.  By combining experience, values and policy he was able to become a brand that resonated with the populace and led to his success. 

Conclusion

We can all think of candidates who continually defy the odds and win in districts they should not win.  State Representative Chuck Hopson and US Congressional Representative Chet Edwards are two examples in Texas.  These candidates win because they have created their own brand and are seen as above politics as usual.

Who can we blame for this disaster?  Comptroller Susan Combs, whose office oversees the program.  What an AMAZING PR disaster that her opponent could take advantage of and make a major campaign issue in the fall.  If only… SHE HAD AN OPPONENT!  Because we didn’t run a candidate against her, we have no chance of capitalizing on this.

So, here’s the takeaway lesson.  No matter WHAT, lightening CAN strike.  Politics is a good part luck and you have to be ready to take advantage of luck once it presents itself.  We failed to do that and thus we won’t capitalize on this.

Most first time candidates and corporate executives whose area of expertise is not public affairs instinctually believe attacking their opponent’s weaknesses damages them the most.  However, contrary to what most people would assume, destroying a soldier’s Achilles’ heel isn’t always the best attack strategy.  In fact, on some occasions, the most damaging attacks actually come from going after your opponent’s greatest strength. 

The power of attacking your opponent’s strength lies in the fact you’re attacking on two levels.  The first level is the power of the negative messaging itself.  The other level is that it chips away at a strength the opponent had been attempting to deliver.  In an ideal implementation of this style of attack, the opposition will lose credibility since the public will perceive they were caught in a lie regarding their strength.

Two examples illustrate this style of attack. 

• Example One: Swiftboat Veterans for Truth

The first example is one of the most famous political attacks of all time, the 2004 Swiftboat Veterans for Truth attack against presidential candidate Senator John Kerry.

As you might remember, Senator John Kerry ran throughout the primary as a military hero who was decorated for valor in combat yet had the judgment to oppose the Iraq War.  On its face, this strength was extraordinarily powerful in a time of war when most people in the country questioned the wisdom of going into the Iraq War and questioned the leadership of how the war was being carried out.  The public did not feel any safer and wanted a leader who had strong military credentials.  Clearly this unique combination polled well and presented a path to victory over George W. Bush. 

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were created and funded by leading Republicans to directly attack this strength.  They attacked Senator John Kerry’s patriotism and military record.  They accused him of cowardice on the battlefield and dishonesty concerning his military record.

(Click Here to See More Ads in this Series.)

These ads ran in the time period directly preceding the party conventions.  They managed to damage Senator John Kerry’s reputation enough that when he announced he was “reporting for duty” during his convention speech, the average viewer saw that statement as an insult to “real” military personnel. 

As a result, the campaign managed to:

1. Launch a negative message. The Swift Boat Veterans used the preexisting “liberal anti-war activist” frame to persuade voters Senator John Kerry was weak.  This attack has been used many times in the past, including against President Clinton.  It is a relatively effective attack, but as President Clinton’s election proves, it’s not devastating by itself;
2. Discredit the Senator John Kerry’s strength.  Senator John Kerry had used his military background as the primary reason voters should chose him over President Bush.  This attack completely nullified his military service, as voters no longer saw this as a strength.
3. Make Senator John Kerry seem like he’s caught in a lie.  Most importantly, these attacks made voters feel like Senator John Kerry was lying about his military background and thus every time he reiterated his military strength message it seemed like he was lying once again.  Thus, his positive message wasn’t just nullified; it actually became an albatross hanging around his neck. 

This attack was a textbook example of how to take your opponent’s strength and turn it against them using negative messaging.  Senator Kerry’s team failed to adequately respond to this attack and thus this attack became the defining message in the race, allowing an unpopular President Bush to win reelection. 

• Example Two: Barnett Shale

Another example, this one in the public affairs arena, is currently unfolding in the DFW metroplex and involves drilling in the Barnett Shale.

Natural gas companies and their lobbying groups have centered their messaging on the fact that natural gas is a clean burning fuel.  They have spent millions of dollars on coordinated messaging campaigns, including the award winning “Pickens Plan” campaign.  This messaging strategy creates a villain—coal fired power plants—and paints natural gas as the solution/hero that will clean up the air and will make life better for all Americans. 

The Barnett Shale is a large natural gas deposit that lies beneath Fort Worth and areas directly west of the DFW metroplex.  Over the past ten years, natural gas companies have researched ways to tap into these deposits to economically extract the gas from the shale.  This deposit has become one of the most important deposits in North America. 

Environmental groups in the region have launched a public affairs campaign to oppose this drilling.  The centerpiece of their attack goes directly the strength natural gas has been pushing: that natural gas is a clean fuel.  They are attacking it by pointing out the wellheads are emitting benzene, which they assert is a dangerous carcinogen.  They directly tie this attack into a public health argument and reframe natural gas as just another “polluting” energy source.  Thus, the environmental groups are attempting to:

1. Launch a negative message.  People inherently believe energy production companies pollute.  The environmental groups are playing to this preexisting frame to paint natural gas as a “dirty” fossil fuel. 
2. Discredit the natural gas industry’s strength.  Natural gas producers have spent millions of dollars attempting to paint themselves as a clean alternative to coal.  These attacks, if they are allowed to stand, will nullify that entire investment.
3. Make the natural gas industry seem like they’re caught in a lie.  The ultimate goal of this campaign is to make the public feel like natural gas is “greenwashing” their product and lying about it’s polluting effects.  If the environmental groups succeed, then any time the public hears about how natural gas is non-polluting they will feel like the industry is merely trying to pull one over on them once again. 

This campaign is not yet over, so there is still hope for the natural gas producers.  The good news for them is the environmental groups have limited economic resources to carry out this campaign.  Plus, there is still time to respond to these attacks before it is too late.  The bad news is that the environmental groups have launched a very effective attack and it will take a masterful response to outflank it. 

The answer is easy.  It works.

Every election cycle, I have clients come to me and say they want to run a positive race.  Those candidates that remain firmly committed to running a positive race figure out just how powerful negative messaging is on Election Day when the results come in and they fail to secure victory.

Running for office isn’t just an art … it’s an actual science.    People are inundated with messaging every day and cannot possibly critically analyze all of it.  Thus, throughout years of evolution, our brains have developed the ability to quickly assimilate information to make judgements.  Our brains rely on certain frameworks based upon patterns of events and “myths” they learned as children (for more in-depth study see the linguistics work of George Lakoff ). 

These frameworks vary based upon the generation a person is a member of, the person’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic status, geographic location and a multitude of other factors.  However, there are certain unifying “myths” that transcend almost all barriers in the United States.  One of these is the “myth” of the corrupt politician.  This myth is a stereotype that is not an accurate portrayal of all politicians… or even the majority.  However, like it or not, every time a person hears about a politician they will instantly assume they’re all the same–corrupt. 

Since people begin by assuming a politician is corrupt, it takes a lot to dissuade them from this view.  It is possible to create messaging that breaks through this mental clutter and creates a gut values connection, but it’s not easy.  On the other hand, creating messaging that reinforces the belief that X is a corrupt politician is relatively easy and usually very effective, since you’re merely telling a person something they’re predisposed to believe. 

Working on a public affairs or issue campaign isn’t as clear-cut as a political candidate campaign where you know you are operating under the corrupt politician frame.  One must ascertain the goals of the messaging campaign, the public’s current perception of the issue and/or company, and analyze the most effective mechanism to achieve the messaging goals.  In some instances, negative campaigning will naturally resonate because the public already dislikes your opponent.  In other instances, when your opponent has greater credibility than you do, negative campaigning will merely make the public dislike you more.  It all goes back to one thing: the stereotype people have of your group and your opposition.

Now, don’t get me wrong, not all negative ads work.  They can create a backlash, so one has to be artful in how to pull the trigger.  Being artful does not mean withholding an attack, it merely means choosing the correct messaging tool (for example: surrogate, direct mail, TV, online, robo-calls, amongst many others) to ensure maximum effect with minimum risk.  However, I can not over emphasize this point: effective messaging is a science and is based upon years of research into propaganda techniques. 

NOTE: This is a very long blog entry, but I felt the narrative experience shows how this scam is carried out every day in dentist offices across the country and might help you recognize the signs before it’s too late.

This past week I went to the dentist for the first time in… well, far too long.  It wasn’t exactly my decision; my fiancée finally had enough of my excuses and bought a prepaid “cleaning with x-rays.”  After getting lost several times on the way to the dentist (even while using GPS!), I finally found the location.  I slowly got out of my car absolutely dreading what was going to come.  

Upon walking into the dentist’s office, I was greeted by a plush waiting room with a relaxing fountain that reminded me of a spa more than a doctor’s office.  While filling out the paperwork, I found some odd questions mixed in with the traditional medical questions.  These included preference for television channels, music preferences and whether I would like a massage pillow for my neck.  At this point my trepidation started to lift and I started to relax.

I was quickly escorted to the back by a very friendly dental hygienist.  She took an interest in my choice of careers and asked numerous questions.  She took x-rays of my complete mouth and then of each of the teeth.  The entire time she was beyond polite and complimentary; it was starting to feel a tad fake.  Oh well, I thought in my head, maybe she just has one of those ultra perky personalities.  The next step involved bringing in a camera to take pictures of every one of my teeth. 

This is where the problems started.  She put these pictures on a large LCD screen and started talking about how she could tell how well I flossed and brushed my teeth.  I thought to myself, “Hey, maybe I was too hard on myself, I do brush twice a day and floss MOST days… maybe I had nothing to fear at all by coming in.”  However, she continued, there are some… problems.  She instantly went into technical jargon and explained that they would need to do a much more intensive cleaning and it was best if I started it as soon as possible.  She handed me a form and asked me to consent to treatment.

At this point, I asked her how much this would cost.  She said, “Well, we don’t talk about prices back here; you’ll have to talk about that up front because people want privacy when they talk about cost.”  I thought to myself, “I’d never heard of this part of HIPAA (the health information privacy law), but I’m not the lawyer in this relationship and certainly don’t fully understand all of the intricacies of that law.”  So, I gave her the benefit of the doubt, most likely because she had been so nice up to that point.  I did, however, know I was not going to sign a paper consenting to treatment without knowing how much it cost in advance.  When I told her this, she smiled and said of course and then went to the interoffice computer system that (she explained later) alerted everyone when a patient was ready to be moved and told every person when they needed to enter a room.

At this point, the dentist herself came in.  She was certainly polite enough, but she maintained a certain distance.  The dental hygienist went through the jargon again in great detail.  The dentist kept nodding and looking at the x-rays and pictures the entire time looking more and more concerned.  Finally, when the hygienist completed her recommended course of treatment, the dentist quickly concurred and added how this could not wait and we must address this immediately.  Then, she quickly left the room.

The hygienist started putting away her supplies and I asked, “So when does the cleaning start?”  She replied that they could not do a cleaning until the situation was taken care of, or it could make things significantly worse.  So she then proceeded to do a quick brushing of my teeth and then escort me to the final office.

When I entered this office, another very friendly person started discussing all of the amazing financing options they have available.  I replied that I wouldn’t need those and she kept pushing them as an alternative that would spread the payments out over a longer period of time.  Finally, I asked if they would involve an outside financing company and she replied they would.   I replied I’d rather pay cash, which noticeably disappointed her. 

She then passed along the form showing how much the first round (no clue how many rounds this would entail) would cost and let me know if I signed up for their private insurance I could get 30% off of the several thousand dollar estimate.  I then mentioned given the cost, I would want to get a second opinion from a dentist who was a close friend of the family and I wanted a copy of the x-rays.  This clearly bothered her and she replied the x-rays would cost $25 to email to the dentist and that I should make sure he knows what he’s doing and is up to date on the newest and best practices and treatments. 

Driving away initially I felt scared.  Perhaps there were right and I really would need to spend this much to get it fixed.  However, something didn’t sit right with me.  The entire process felt far less like any medical experience I’d ever had and far more like when I bought my car.  From the ultra friendly sales associate to the “big boss” they must consult to get approval to the high pressure techniques in the finance office… it just all felt staged.  Yet, obviously, it was a serious issue and one I would have to follow up on.

The next day I went to see our friend who was a dentist.  He has been in business for countless years, has taught at dental school and regularly reads and even contributes to the leading dental journals.  So, suffice to say, I trust him and know his knowledge is top notch.  After explaining I had been to another dentist and felt like something wasn’t right he was able to guess precisely what they had said I needed done.  Then, he explained how these items were the highest profit margin items they could sell.  When I told him the specifics, he told me that even if they were necessary (they are not) the treatment they recommended doesn’t even treat the cause and only makes the symptoms go away.  He was most offended when I told him they refused the cleaning, as he said that was the first step to any successful treatment.

The dentist I was talking with then went on to explain how over the years he has seen more and more of these type of clinics move into town and how even some “good” dentists he had graduated with have succumbed and now run these type of operations.  Sadly, he noted, the increased profits outweigh any sense of ethical obligation to treat the patients fairly… and economically.

Poll after poll shows medical professionals are amongst the highest regarded and most trusted people in our society.  These scammers know that too and know that when we go into the clinic we will trust what they tell us because we already trust them as individuals.  They also know that if anyone discovers it’s a scam they likely won’t speak out because of embarrassment (who wants to talk about dental problems in public??). 

We have to break this cycle and end this type of waste and abuse in order to keep medical costs under control.  Legislators across the country have the opportunity to pass laws to put an end to these practices.  Journalists across the country have a duty to go undercover and bring these scams to light.  And individuals have an obligation to take responsibility for their own care so they can be educated consumers of health care.

Signs Your Dentist Might Be Pulling a Scam

1. Remember, ultimately you are paying for all of the overhead in the office.  So be wary if they mention massage pillows!
2. Cheap first time visits probably mean they’re bringing you in for a “test drive” to try to convince you to buy a massively overpriced product.  A good dentist charges a set fee.
3. Avoid offices that advertise.  Again, you’re paying for those advertising dollars.  The best dentists don’t need to advertise because they receive patients via word of mouth.
4. Any time they recommend one path without giving options they are probably omitting a more cost-effective option. 
5. If they start using technical jargon and cannot explain it in normal English terminology, they’re trying to scare you. 
6. Ultimately, if it feels like you’re being scammed, you’re being scammed.  Research!  Get second opinions! 

Ultimately, there still are many good dentists out there.  Take time to find one and don’t fall for the tricks of those who are just trying to take your money!