In one of the more unlikely things I’ll write here, Rush Limbaugh broke eBay auction records today for a charitable item with a final bid of $2.1 million on a letter condemning him. (If you’ve been following the debacle, Limbaugh auctioned off Harry Reid’s letter condemning him for his remarks concerning American military personnel.) This may turn out to be nothing, but I don’t know. There are a few implications worth mentioning here regarding politics, brands and the internet.First of all, eBay just got thrown into the political arena whether it wanted to or not. Secondly, if the lines between new media, marketing and politics weren’t blurred before, they sure are now.
I know, religion and politics. Lousy subjects to discuss because someone always leaves pissed off. Otherwise, go scan Perez for some money shots of Britney.
For the first time I can recall, you have a major brand like eBay being thrown into the political arena without asking, almost like sponsorship in reverse. Typically, every sponsorship is carefully thought out, whether it’s Gordon’s left rear quarter panel or Bono’s (RED). But this? I’m sure someone at eBay scanned this auction listing early on and thought nothing of it, if it even showed up on their radar at all.
Just another DJ prank attempting a ratings boost, right?
But then Rush started pushing the story on his nationally syndicated talk show that reaches 22 million listeners every day–via radio and the internet. Cha-ching. (That he agreed to match the final total raised is probably bugging him because early in the week, the total was only in the very low five figure range.)
Politicians from both sides should take note though. Like the apes from 2001 discovering that bones also double as weapons, Repubs and Dems were just shown another use for the internet beyond misleading Harold Ford videos.
So not only is eBay an effective way to get your charity talked about, it just became a lobbyist for your political message that can reach a far larger audience. A very public audience. Out on the open and right next to the guy selling The Hoff t-shirt.
Can brands throwing their support blatantly behind a candidate be too far behind?
Hey, whatta ya know. Pepsi just happened to sponsor an event that Hillary was at. Maybe even “This campaign stop brought you by Tums–when you want to stop heartburn in its tracks.”
Typical ad puns aside, never happen, right?
Wrong. Today’s ‘synergistic’ merger* of brands and politics isn’t a first by any means. It’s been happening indirectly for years under the guise of the food, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries pushing their agenda in DC. A lotta brands in those collective industries pay a lotta lobbyists to make sure a lotta ads keep rolling. (And in that regard, only tobacco is getting its ass kicked as of late.)
More recently, YouTube or Yahoo! debate contests are now gateway moves to the outright brand sponsorships of candidates that will inevitably happen.
Yes, individual donations to campaigns are limited. But there’s always a way around checks and balances–with balanced checkbooks. What’s to prevent though another major brand from inviting a few hundred brand loyalists to attend a $250 per plate event? If you say zero, then ask yourself what were the odds one week ago that Rush Limbaugh and eBay would be making national headlines today as part of some far-fetched consumer/political/new media cocktail.
Zero.
The remaining lines that previously separated media aren’t just blurred, they’re gone. That’s a problem not because people can’t multitask,** they can. Not because it served the greater good, because it did. (The final donation will help the sons and daughters of fallen American soldiers and police officers.) It’s that the means by which he did it were politically motivated, and that just somehow feels wrong.
Ironically, he used both the new and traditional media he complains so much about to do it.
Obama? Now it’s your turn. Home Depot awaits for you to build a Home For Everyone in America.™
*Sexy marketing speak.
**Retro marketing speak. (Retro as in, like, fours year old retro–in internet years.)
Tags: Harry Reid, Rush Limbaugh eBay auction
4 comments:
Sooo, that means she won’t be up for a Pepsi tie-in, or...?
methinks mcthorogood needs to switch to caffeine-free pepsi...
Back to eBay though -- I'm not sure they can be seen as endorsing any political side simply by hosting the auction. When TV stations run a candidate's political ad, they aren't necessarily endorsing that candidate. Newspapers, TV stations, eBay and youtube only get into trouble when they ban messages -- like when Google was accused of banning anti-moveon.org ads -- or when they give preferential pricing to political groups -- like the NYTimes and the General Betray Us ad. Then, the speculation and even the conspiracy theories begin. In the Rush case, I think eBay is seen as simply a neutral venue.
That's the thing though Irene. I agree. I'm sure they wouldn't want to take sides in any political fray, but Rush's little stunt threw them into the arena unwittingly. They have the attention now whether they ever wanted it or not. (Wonder if eBay will issue a statement about it or just let it die.)
Post a Comment