Like it or not, the United States is in the midst of a 2-year political campaign to determine a 4-year Presidency. Such a long, drawn-out campaign cycle has afforded many groups a unique opportunity to expand awareness of issues and their influence on the debate. The Ed in ‘08 campaign has taken advantage of this singular chance to occupy time and relevance.
The Ed in ‘08 campaign is a project of Strong American Schools who, by their admission:
“… is a nonpartisan public awareness and action campaign offering a voice to every American who supports “ED in 08.†Our goal is to ensure that the nation engages in a rigorous debate and to make education a top priority in the 2008 presidential election. We hope that candidates will offer genuine leadership rather than empty rhetoric and tell voters how they intend to strengthen America’s schools so all students receive the education they deserve.”
Non-partisan awareness is a reasonable thing to advocate; public education is one of the few issues where radically different perspectives generally have the same goal: the well-being of our children and the institutions that educate them. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Broad Foundation have provided financial backing for Strong American Schools/Ed in ‘08 and, even though these Foundations have pushed for specific education reforms in the past, the campaign appears to be committed to awareness, straight questions and straight answers.
Roy Romer, former governor of Colorado and former Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, is the face of the Ed in ‘08 campaign. So far he has blogged extensively about the campaign’s efforts and encouraged the public to treat education with the urgency it deserves.
Like many education bloggers, I supported Ed in ‘08 - and the broadening of the education debate as a whole - and displayed their campaign graphic in my sidebar. Based on heatmap analysis, a surprising number of readers of this site show an interest in the ad. I decided to contact Ed in ‘08 to find out some details about the campaign so I could write up a bit to put on my site.
On Wednesday, September 5, I called the Ed in ‘08 campaign to ask questions about education bloggers’ responses and support. After a short game of phone tag, I spoke with a member of Ed in ’08’s Press Room. They confirmed Ed in ’08’s penetration of the blogosphere and cited writeups on popular edblogs like EduWonk, Democrats for Education Reform and NYC Educator; they confirmed that over 70,000 had signed up to receive e-mail updates, 25,000+ had requested endorsement kits and petition signatures were piling up at live events. I asked about advertising on blogs and was told that ads had been placed on sites from DailyKos to BoingBoing and across advertising networks.
But the more I thought about Ed in ‘08 and poked around the web, the more I was dissatisfied with some of what I saw.
Most disturbing was Ed in 08’s decision to use Kanye West as spokesperson in their latest advertising campaign. West, the college dropout turned rapper, created The Kanye West Foundation which, according to its website, focuses on discouraging high school students from dropping out. This is a noble goal.
Unfortunately, West’s nobility ends with the rhetoric on his site. He is a notoriously inflammatory social critic who has:
- Suggested that HIV/AIDS was deliberately created and introduced into the African-American community; [”man-made diseases placed in African communities,” Live 8, July 2, 2005]
- Blamed the spread and use of crack cocaine in urban centers on Ronald Reagan; [”How [did] we stop the Black Panthers?/Ronald Reagan cooked up an answer,” lyrics from his song “Crack Music]
- Declared that, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” [September 2, 2005 during NBC’s televised Concert for Hurricane Relief]
- Claimed racial discrimination for not receiving music awards, most recently on Sunday, September 9, 2007; “That’s two years in a row, man … give a black man a chance,” after being passed over for an award, as well as rapping, “I gotta get my money right/ Or maybe I gotta get my skin white” in regards to Justin Timberlake opening the MTV Video Music Awards in lieu of West.
Ed in ‘08 seems to think that West is a fine representative of their campaign; I don’t. I find their decision offensive to education professionals - public school teachers, employees, administrators, researchers and private advocates - and a blow to the dignity of public education, all for the sake of unhinged, unstructured awareness. Ed in ‘08 may think that all publicity is good publicity, but such a move can’t be at the expense of the professionals who dedicate their lives to delivering quality education.
I wasn’t surprised to find a lack of scruples in Ed in ’08’s advertising outlets. Ms. Brown from Ed in ‘08 did some research within 2 hours of our phone conversation and relayed via e-mail the following:
“I spoke with a couple members of our web team regarding your inquiry. We advertised on a long list of political sites in August, mostly through blog ad networks, so it’s hard to pull an exact list. I know we did have a prominent spot on Daily Kos that did very well, but mostly we run on a variety of conservative and liberal blogs. I know that’s not detailed info, but hopefully it gives you a better picture.”
She neglected to detail that Ed in ‘08 paid $399 per week to advertise on Amanda Marcotte’s pandagon.net, likely via the BlogAds network. Marcotte, an unyielding feminist blogger, gained notoriety in February, 2007 when she was hired to blog for John Edwards’ presidential campaign - and then fired before the sun set. Some of her offensive comments include [via her Wikipedia page]:
- “Also, EC is necessary for rape victims, and god forbid a teenage rape victim get hung up trying to get permission to use EC from parents when time is critical. Needless to say, if the rapist is a parent, this becomes even more desperate. And, needless to say, the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.”
- In a post about Catholic theology on Limbo (October 9, 2006), Marcotte wrote: ‘But it’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So it’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So that’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesn’t suck so much as to run people off. I suspect Pope Ratz will give into the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’
- In a post describing a Catholic seminar presenting inaccurate information on birth control (June 14, 2006) she used as a caption to the photo illustrating the article: ‘Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’
- In another post that gained her notoriety, about the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, Marcotte wrote: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
You can view a screenshot of the ad on Marcotte’s site which has since either been taken down or run its course.
When it settled that Ed in ‘08 is comfortable touting West as spokesperson and paying offensive personalities like Marcotte to represent them, I returned correspondence with Ms. Brown at Ed in ‘08.
I sent the following letter on September 10, 2007:
Rachael,
Thanks for the candid chat the other week - you answered my questions as directly as possible and I appreciate that you followed up.
I haven’t published my take on Ed in ‘08 yet because, unfortunately, there are some things that I find distasteful about the campaign and I am thinking that over. The first is Ed in ’08’s willingness to bring on board as spokesman Kanye West, a man who is everything but a gentleman, and has on several occasions - yet another one yesterday - made unnecessarily inflammatory comments about race.
I take education seriously and regard myself as a professional as I’m sure you, Gov. Romer and the rest of Strong American Schools do, too [my observations/experiences would back up any such claims about the Ed in ‘08 campaign]. And while non-partisan awareness is the goal of the campaign, I lament that we would rely on the advocacy of such an abhorrent, offensive personality as West’s - a man whose popular art includes a propensity for variants of ‘fuck’ and ‘nigga,’ a man whose view of democratic participation includes disrupting ceremonies to parade his dissatisfaction at not receiving awards and, most disturbingly, a man who continually blames problems on racism and points fingers inappropriately at everyone from the President to, as we saw on Sunday, those rabid racists who schedule the MTV Video Music Awards. If you’d like me to detail West’s outrageous history, let me know.
And this is in conjunction with Ed in ‘08 paying $399/week to place an ad on Amanda Marcotte’s website, an inflammatory blogger who, as we saw many months ago, shamelessly pushed herself out of the Edwards campaign when several authorities published litanies of her gaffes which included, “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”
These offensive personalities are exceedingly poor choices to advocate such an important issue. My dissatisfaction with the Ed in ’08’s PR campaign stems from the regard in which I hold its members; I know that all involved are aware enough to consider these factors and yet they still chose to move ahead. It is sad commentary on the state of the debate when one needs awareness so badly that one is willing to enlist abhorrent individuals as advocates. Seeing this makes it very difficult to take Ed in ‘08 seriously when the related PR campaign shows so little respect for the issue and the professionals who dedicate their lives to advancing it.
I am more than willing to lend my time and services to a campaign that upholds basic values of non-partisan respect. Though Ed in ‘08 has committed a serious gaffe, there’s still time. I have not published the views I just shared with you because I don’t want to damage the potential value that Ed in ‘08 can deliver throughout this political cycle. If the campaign is to reach this potential, it will have to take a hard look at how it represents itself to the public eye and especially to education professionals.
If a representative from Ed in ‘08 would like to discuss this further, my contact information is listed on my website and in my signature. Thanks again, Rachael and others, for the time you’ve put in so far. I hope sincerely that you continue to make progress and do so with a commitment to professionalism and dignity.
Best,
Matthew K. Tabor
mktabor@gmail.com
607.435.8354
www.matthewktabor.com
I was - and still am - more than willing to discuss these issues with anyone at Ed in ‘08. It is imperative that we make progress in education without spurning the dignity of those who work tirelessly. Ed in ‘08 doesn’t seem to understand that dignity, respect and professionalism make a solid foundation on which progress is built.
Despite their willingness to return my calls, do some research and get back to me with all deliberate speed on September 5, I didn’t get a response to my e-mail.
I did, however, see in my Inbox this morning a press release from Ed in ‘08 in which Mark Lampkin touts proudly that Kanye West “Gets it”:
Kanye Gets It (Mark Lampkin on Kanye West)
Sunday night I watched Kanye West’s killer performance on the MTV video music awards, and now I’m watching the number of views climb for his new public service announcement for us here at the ED in 08 campaign.
Kanye West has made it. He has achieved the kind of success in his chosen field that we all wish we could achieve, and with a new album dropping today, he isn’t showing any sign of slowing down.
So he could spend his time, his money, his effort any way he wants, and yet he’s choosing to put his name behind a great cause – getting kids to stay in school, to get an education, to prepare themselves for whatever next step they choose in life … whether it’s more schooling, a job, whatever. The important part is making sure teens get to make that choice.
Half of all black and Latino high school students never finish school. Kanye can speak to those kids … and because of his fame, he can speak to a much broader audience, including the presidential candidates who can make something happen. They can make our schools an issue … just like Kanye is making an issue of staying in school.
He’s putting his name and his image behind ED in ‘08 – helping to make our schools and America’s students an issue in the 2008 presidential election. Kanye gets it – I just hope the presidential candidates (and voters) do too.
To learn more about the Kanye West Foundation, visit www.kanyewestfoundation.org. To learn more about Strong American Schools, log onto www.edin08.com.
Ed in ‘08 should be ashamed of itself for ignoring the dignity of education professionals, not responding to or recognizing concerns and then following up that intellectual and moral malfeasance with a preemptive strike on potential criticism. It is unlikely, though, that the PR darlings at Ed in ‘08 - who are comfortable with purveyors of racist and religious hatred to represent their campaign - are capable of such shame.
Though Ed in ‘08 claims to advocate non-partisan awareness, they’re awfully adept at playing politics. Let’s hope - for the sake of education in the 2008 campaigns and for the sake of all involved in education - that Ed in ‘08 changes its priorities.
UPDATE at 8.14.07, 6.45am:
Shakira might’ve been a better choice, but she was too busy taking classes at UCLA.
At District Administration, Gary Stager has weighed in as well: Bill Gates and Eli Broad Go Gangsta.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Excellent post Matthew. The tone of your post is one of withdrawal of support for the official Ed in ‘08 campaign. However, I see you still have their graphic.
I saw that graphic on your website a while ago and saw that West was a spokesman for it and that gave me a bad feeling about it without looking further into it. Thanks for doing the research. I had no idea they had engaged Marcotte with advertising. This makes me believe they have a definite political agenda and it isn’t bi-partisan or non-partisan.
I’m all in favor of a non-partisan campaign to place education as a top priority for the ‘08 campaign, but not with this organization. Show me one that’s not Matthew and I’ll be the first one to place their graphic on my blog and blog about ‘em.
Again, thanks for a great post.
[…] by ET on September 13th, 2007 Read Matthew’s excellent post and I shouldn’t have to explain it afterwards. I think Matthew does a fine enough […]
Eric,
It’s a withdrawal of support until they can right the ship. The ad is gone now - I had a dinner appointment at 7pm and had to scramble before I could change the sidebar code. I deleted it as I digested.
I understand that David Duke and Michael Vick were both too busy to serve as the celebrity faces of the Ed in ‘08 campaign, but I find Kanye West to be a distasteful alternative. The only thing worse than choosing him in the first place was Lampkin’s disgusting endorsement that followed my complaint.
As we all know, a responsible organization - especially a non-profit whose mission is so pervasive and benevolent - needs to communicate well. I waited patiently to receive an e-mail or call from the Ed in ‘08 campaign acknowledging the receipt of my correspondence [even a dismissive form letter would’ve been preferable to nothing].
My call to Ed in ‘08 was jovial and candid. I appreciated not just the willingness of the Press Room member to answer questions, but also the honesty with which she did it. My letter was a serious attempt to work out a perceived kink in the campaign, as I’m sure I’m not the only one involved in education who feels that West and some of the advertising is disrespectful to education professionals.
It’s important to note that Ed in ‘08 did not specifically seek out Marcotte’s site for advertising; they went with the popular BlogAds network that delivers advertising to sites on both the left, right and middle. However, a responsible organization has a keen eye for what’s appropriate and what isn’t; I certainly didn’t dredge up obscure examples from West and Marcotte. Their transgressions are well-known.
Their expression of support for West and their failure to respond to concerns [after pleasant communication, nonetheless] make me wonder to what extent they’re committed to legitimate, open, non-partisan debate about public education.
I do hope this turns around.
Very informative and well-developed commentary; if only our local newspaper reporters would do half the research you did for this piece, we would be a far better informed community.
Goader,
I appreciate the sentiment - I especially find topics worth considering thoroughly when such sums of money and significance to public opinion are involved. Something tells me those Tampa newspapers pay better than this site, though…
Matthew,
I don’t disagree with your comments regarding the inappropriate placement of endorsement dollars by the Ed in -08 campaign. I too find the examples you’ve cited as terrible examples of what an educated person is capable of doing with their life.
I am confused about one thing however: In your post, you write
“I find their decision offensive to education professionals - public school teachers, employees, administrators, researchers and private advocates - and a blow to the dignity of public education, all for the sake of unhinged, unstructured awareness. Ed in ‘08 may think that all publicity is good publicity, but such a move can’t be at the expense of the professionals who dedicate their lives to delivering quality education.”
and
“Ed in ‘08 should be ashamed of itself for ignoring the dignity of education professionals”
How are the decisions and actions of the Ed in ‘08 group specifically offensive to education professionals? the tone of you post is such that you and your colleagues have been personally insulted, affronted, and assaulted, yet I don’t see where that’s happened - unless I’m missing something (in the spirit of full-disclosure I must reveal that my wife does tell me several times that I miss things!)
Seriously though, these misplaced endorsement and marketing spots seem more the result of just plain bad decisions than insult to any particular potential constituency. Again, I don’t disagree with your attempts to have them dump the two specific examples you cite above, but it seems a stretch to say that their actions are “at the expense of the professionals who dedicate their lives to delivering quality education.”
Troy,
Thanks for the comment - I apologize if I wasn’t very clear.
A campaign with a purpose as serious as advancing public education should have as its spokesmen a personality that upholds the tenets of that campaign and those it serves. I think that few education professionals would agree that Kanye West stands for - or even appears to stand for - the ideals to which they’ve committed the bulk of their adult lives.
Ed in ‘08 doesn’t seem to have asked the question, “Would teachers approve of West’s advocacy?” In no way do I think that Ed in ‘08 did this maliciously; as you said, I attribute this to bad decision-making and a lack of oversight. But I think the collateral damage to the image of public education is not worth assuming for the sake of the star-power that West brings to the campaign.
We all know that public education in the United States is generally seen as a mess in need of reform. Poll after poll identifies education as a major issue in the minds of the public and shows serious dissonance regarding the appropriateness of the path we’re on.
And this is a path wrought with frustration, difficulty and not much reward for its practitioners, yet many choose to navigate it every day. Quite a few more are in school now with plans to jump head-first into the fight as soon as they’re able. Do we want to undermine the seriousness of their efforts and the dignity of their profession by choosing a racist clown to serve as the public face of the cause?
I find Ed in ’08’s failure to ask, “Does West enhance the image of public education?” neglectful of the image of public education - and that neglect constitutes the offense. The effects of Ed in ’08’s West-led campaign won’t be clear for a long while and its harm/good will likely be impossible to measure. The safe money, however, is on West’s persona not adding integrity to the debate.
Teachers - and really all in education - struggle to be seen as professionals and treated accordingly. They want, rightly, everyone to take public education as seriously as they do. Ed in ‘08 certainly didn’t do them a favor here and likely undermined their work further.
Thanks for the quick note back Matt, and I appreciate the clarification.
However, I have to disagree with you that the Ed in’08 failure to select an appropriate spokesperson constitutes the offense. I just don’t think that connection exists, nor is that connection likely to be drawn by the general viewing public.
I am not a professional teacher, but I am keenly interested in education, primarily that of my own children. My wife & I are both products of public education, both work in professional full time jobs outside the home, and both have advanced degrees. We maintain that the education of our children is our responsibility alone, and that we have chosen to leverage our tax dollars, and “subcontract” the daily lessons portion of that education to the public schools in our area. We follow this up every day with our children. It’s not unusual for us to assign additional homework, projects, etc. as we see the need. We realize that this is not the norm, and that there are definitely people “out there” that blame the schools & teachers when “Johnny can’t read”.
Ed in’08 is not the Dept. of Education, it is not a state or municipal government or agency that pays for or sets public education policy. It is a private, although very well financed organization, whose intents and actions neither reflects upon, nor denigrates teachers or the teaching profession. I do not think that less engaged parents than I, nor the public in general will draw this connection.
Is it offensive? Yes, and it should not go unnoticed, but I don’t think these bad decisions constitute an offense at which any specific group or another should interpret with heightened sensitivity.
Troy,
Ed in ‘08 is free to do as they please - you’re quite right that they aren’t a government agency and have plenty more freedom. Though they don’t have a legal responsibility to any segment of the population, I find it odd that they don’t feel a moral responsibility to put public education in the best possible light. After all, that specific group I referenced - education professionals - adds up to millions and millions of people.
Thank you for your commentary on this issue. Although, I don’t agree with everything you have cited here, particularly some of your perceptions of Kanye West. I do appreciate the fact that you have taken the time recognize issues with this organization. It has given me a lot to think about.
Bullseye
As a person I find Mr. West irrelevant.
As a teacher, I find him (representing Ed in ‘08) repulsive.
What’s next, Brittany Spears being appointed the Head Start spokesperson?
Now if Ed in ‘08 choose someone like Dr. Thomas Sowell I’m on board.
This kind of behavior and decision making is common in high school so I doubt they will do anything.
Loss of potential is always sad.
The audience upon which the Ed in ‘08 campaign focuses is comprised of neither teaching professionals, nor dedicated parents, nor students in the top 50 or 60% of their class.
It might be tough to swallow, but put bluntly, what we think of the spokesman is irrelevant, as is whether or not those included in this group approve or complain.
To reach the target audience, the campaign must have a “face” that is of that audience. What I, we, “you”, anyone in academia, or anyone who is any sort of so-called expert thinks is of zero importance or consequence. In fact, if the target audience perceives that “the establishment” is “diss-ing” a spokesman that they see as one of their own, they will be driven further away. I’m not supporting Kanye West, but I do not think that these efforts should be dismissed, even if it does include Kanye West: just because it doesn’t fit “the establishments mold”, doesn’t make it wrong. To reach the people, we have to go to the people, not simply beckon them come hither unto our ivory towers.
Troy,
You’ve explained the situation well. Ed in ‘08 has chosen to pander rather than reinforce a solid image and draw people to that image.
I am not a proponent of the ivory tower - poke around this site and you’ll see plenty of evidence of that. Even so, one need not slum in the gutter to avoid professing from the tower’s penthouse.
Matt,
I thoroughly enjoy your passion. I very much appreciate and am in unison with your views on ivory towers as well as the value of the input of non-teaching professionals. And while I hate to belabor a point, since they’re only electrons, what the heck…
You’re inferring that which was not implied. Not only did I not imply that Ed in ‘08 was “pandering”, but I believe that to be an unfair characterization. I’m not even sure to whom they would be pandering, unless they are pandering to their target audience, in which case I’m not sure it’s pandering as opposed to an effective strategy.
Kanye West may not share our morals or ethical standards, but I suspect he has more in common with those the program is trying to reach than either us, or even the doormen of Ivory Towers, not to mention those in the penthouse. However, this doesn’t mean that he’s being disingenuous about trying to get kids to stay in school however. I believe only he and God can truly judge what’s in his heart.
In your original post, you wrote that the selection of Kanye West was offensive to education professionals. I would certainly hope so. Indeed, most of what I know about this performer and many of his contemporaries offends me, but does it offend those whom the program is trying to reach? In fact, that’s the only relevant question. If any of this audience is persuaded to stay in school and graduate, it’s proven that their chances in life go up dramatically, and isn’t that the point?
As the saying goes “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” There is no reason to advocate throwing out an entire program just because there’s one relatively small thing about it with which we disagree and that the program apparently refuses to change.
I realize that my comments here may make me appear to be a Kanye West or Ed in ‘08 apologist. I am neither; I simply question the logic supporting your assertions above. Since I am not, nor do I want to be seen as a fan or apologist for these folks, I now have to question the logic of me continuing in this thread. So because of that, I’ll step back and out.
Thanks for the time you spend on your blog, and for the valuable information and thoughts you provide. I will say that as the parent of two G&T students, including one in high school, I am enjoying your postings and comments about AP, and other topics regarding getting these kids into colleges and beyond.
Best Regards & Keep up the Good Work!- Troy.
Matthew, You really nailed this one. I can’t stand how some people who claim to be “non-partisan” are actually partisan. Kanye West is a horrible choice for anything as far as I’m concerned.
I can’t wait to hear what the follow-up is on this continuing saga.
Regards,
Michelle
beartwinsmom.wordpress.com
I’d like to see a debate between Roy Romer and presidential candidate Ron Paul. (Paul wants to abolish the Department of Education)
I don’t have much interest in hearing Roy Romer debate anyone, but if he did, I can think of ~10,000 people I’d rather pair him with than Ron Paul.
A bit of follow up…
The Direct Marketing Association of Washington (www.dmaw.org) is holding a conference in the coming weeks surrounding the subject of marketing in the era of “New Media” (e.g., blogging, social networks, wikis’s, user-generated video, twiiter, etc.) one of their speakers is Colin Moffet of Mindshare (www.mindshare.net), the Marketing/PR firm behind the Ed in ‘08 campaign.
Geoff Livingston’s blog “The Buzz Bin” (www.livingstonbuzz.com), posted this (http://tinyurl.com/2cm66e) information today as a case study on the effectiveness of using social media as a marketing tool. Geoff is neither advocate, nor detractor of Ed in ‘08, but merely presents it as a case study.
While I see your point about the problems with Kanye, I still see him as someone politically conscious and appropriate for the position. As a former teacher in a high-need, low-income school, I really think that attacking Kanye is missing the larger point.
Here’s my reasoning:
1) At least Kanye talks about George Bush. Regardless of what he says, at least it is on his radar. Isn’t there some value in this? Especially when his audience base probably consists of many people out of touch with politics at all? And it’s not like Bush shouldn’t be criticized…
2) The objectionable lyrics in his songs shouldn’t be used against him. He’s a rapper. That’s how he makes his money. So if he swears or is degrading, just don’t listen. I’m pretty sure a fair amount of his lines are meant to be ironic - similar to someone like Eminem. We don’t judge film actors based on what they say during a movie - should we be so quick to judge rappers?
3) He is a role-model. You can argue about whether he should be or not, but the fact remains that he definitely is. He will make people listen better than Dr. Thomas Sowell.
Regardless, I enjoyed your thoughts and attention to the issue. I think it deserves debate; I just come out on the other side, I think. At least for now.
Troy,
Thanks for the follow up - interesting marketing analysis.
The analysis is simple tallying, though. Myspace friends, youtube views, etc. measure nothing of the penetration of the Ed in ‘08 campaign. Admittedly, this isn’t easy to measure, but newsletter signups, orders for kits, myspace friends, etc. don’t show that Ed in ‘08 has had any impact whatsoever. They just show that the social media campaign has garnered a click and 15 seconds of a user’s time.
Statistics from digg and other social media sites tend to show that an ‘action-rate’ is very, very low with social media and there’s nothing to suggest that Ed in ’08s penetration is any better.
The case study’s commentary on the Ed in ‘08 logo design is right on - it’s an excellent logo to go along with an attractive design theme. Whoever put that element together deserves some praise.
Zach,
I’ll address your points with the numbers you used.
1) The simple fact that Kanye West addresses an issue shouldn’t garner praise. When you ask, “Isn’t there some value in this?” my answer is a simple, “No.”
To be blunt, you know the old saying about opinions - it’s applicable here.
Just because someone has chosen to speak about an issue doesn’t mean that their commentary is relevant, accurate, appropriate, etc. We listen to what they say and judge them on the merits of their argument; we don’t give them participation or attendance awards. I have a hard time thinking that most educators [or the larger population] weighs the merits of West’s arguments and doesn’t find them lacking.
Your point that the intended population - which hasn’t been clearly defined by Ed in ‘08 or anyone else [and they can’t because it would seriously damage their image] - is largely ignorant/out of touch is accurate. And that’s even more reason to insist on a responsible spokesperson.
Keep in mind, Ed in ‘08 is a non-partisan entity. West’s criticisms are not only offensive and off-base, but to suggest they’re anything close to non-partisan is a mistake.
2) I don’t listen to Kanye West. I don’t like his music. That doesn’t mean he’s not a talented artist - he is, it’s just not art that I respect or enjoy.
I don’t listen to classical music regularly, but in no way would I suggest that its practitioners past and present aren’t incredible artists. Same with The Beatles - they aren’t for me, but to say their music isn’t seminal or hugely important to the development of popular culture would be absurd.
I do listen to Southern rock frequently [ie. Lynyrd Skynyrd] - and I’d never suggest that they’re practitioners of high art. They aren’t, but it’s music I like. My writeup had nothing to do with evaluating West as an artist.
And, if you don’t think we judge actors by what they say or do in movies, take a look at Mary Carey’s gubernatorial campaign. Her CV popped up frequently as did Jesse Ventura’s - sometimes the CV is too much, in Ventura’s case it didn’t factor in too strongly because he overshadowed it with merit-based policy arguments that appealed to voters.
3) It’s a sad state of affairs when we’re complacent with this type of equivalence defining public policy.
[…] Ed in ‘08 Makes Strange Bedfellows […]
Well, he seems to have gotten one right.
Apologies, Ed, but I don’t quite understand what you mean.
I suspected that you wouldn’t elaborate on that one.