Viewing Katrina through a marketer's eye

Let’s leave blame and culpability to the historians and pundits. Instead, let us catalog the images, observations and questions, as unemotionally as we can – as viewed through a marketer’s eyes.

• Why were the American people so slow to comprehend the enormity of the catastrophe, one that will eventually deliver an impact more devastating than Sept. 11 in terms of long-term impact to the economy and psyche of the nation?

• Why was the federal government so slow to respond to the crisis? Conservative writer David Brooks said it best in a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times: “The first rule of the social fabric – that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable – was trampled. Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield.”

• How does one rationally explain the Orwellian disparity between what our eyes were actually witnessing and what the authorities were telling us was happening? How could something so raw, realistic and obvious become so twisted in its interpretation? Was it base political spin at work or a genuine case of customized reality residing in the mind of the beholder? Notes New York-based marketing consultant, Stephen Arbeit, “Our leaders’ desire to create an image of order, responsiveness, decisiveness and action was in sharp contrast to the deeds, what was actually happening in the streets and being shown on global TV. It made a mockery of their verbal posturing.”

• Where was the command and control on the ground? This is a nation that prides itself on organizational efficiency and structure. We do it big, and we always do it best. When at risk, we send in the Marines! But not this time.

• Just how does one relocate more than a million people overnight, many of whom are penniless? And how does one actually help them to rebuild their lives? For that matter, how does one rebuild a whole city or state?

• Why are politicians and career bureaucrats incapable of speaking in plain talk when, like moths drawn to the flame, they parade before the media’s cameras? Why can’t they avoid cant, cliché, circumlocution and currying of favor in response to questions that demand honest, straightforward answers?

• If the cameras proved anything, they gave witness to the fact that, under pressure, the uninspiring performance of our current crop of politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, stands as a testament to decades of political inbreeding and incumbent protection. With few exceptions, their inability to articulate, lead and rally was patently obvious.

• Why was the media unable to present more than just the inflammatory and the visceral? Real analysis was in short supply. Tough questions were rare, with the exception of CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Ted Koppel. And why the excision of footage showing the dead bodies? Are we that delicate a people that we require protection from the gruesome realities of life? Was it not a fundamental element of the story that demanded recognition?

• Was the fact that the victims primarily represent an African-American underclass a contributing factor in the slow reaction to the growing crisis? This, after all, is a nation still racially conflicted beneath the surface veneer. Was it because they didn’t look like us or live as most of us do, in our safe suburban enclaves?

• Will the early absence of authorities and troops have an impact on the nation’s attitude to its involvement in Iraq, given the large number of National Guard soldiers serving in that region and the common belief that their first priority always has been to guard the nation within its internal borders?

• There was the growing feeling in the pit of the stomach that, aside from the immediate devastation of life and property, the long-term ramifications of this disaster have yet to register – stratospheric increases in oil and energy pricing, transportation bottlenecks, interest rate increases, shortages of basic commodities, the bankruptcy of insurance companies, the shortage of building supplies in an environment that is still years from recovery as a result of last year’s hurricane season in Florida and the loss of a tax base for states that relied so much on tourism and gambling. And those are just the obvious disruptions.

• If more than $200 million could be earmarked in a recent federal appropriations bill for a bridge in Alaska to service a town of 8,000, why could funds not be appropriated to counter the acknowledged danger that confronted a city of more than half a million?

These and other observations and questions will linger and no doubt form the basis of much future soul searching, debate and accusation. But there are also equally important marketing issues at play, each with long-term implications.

First, there is the uncertainty surrounding America’s credibility – its brand image – throughout the rest of the world. Marketingwise, the task is now one of re-establishing America’s image of invincibility and global leadership. After all, if we can’t manage New Orleans, is the world ready to believe that we can rebuild Iraq?

Close behind is the question of how the rest of the world will respond to the tragedy, beyond the obvious offers of donations to the Red Cross. How will the press in Europe, the Middle East and the Third World respond to our plight and the statement it makes about our ability to deal with misfortune and the misfortunate on our own shores?

And finally, don’t forget the political battlefield. Overnight, it’s a new playing field where the “marketing” and exploitation of Katrina will affect every significant political decision for years to come, including setting of economic policy, the election of Supreme Court justices, the pull out from Iraq, tax rollbacks, maintenance of the Social Security system and the outcome of government rule itself in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Alf Nucifora is a California-based marketing consultant.

[[In-content Ad]]