Post a picture, argue with me!

If Coke beat Pepsi's margins by 2x last quarter, how is pointing out that they had better advertising anything but an observation of a likely truth? You are mixing up observations of the past for advice for the future.

If I had advice for selling it going forward, I would recommend they do exactly what they are doing: Get the law into practice and SHOW the benefits. If we had a time machine that we could go back 6 or 12 months, honestly I'm not sure what I could tell what would have been a better strategy. Probably give the right wing media something else to talk about. The machine is there, it's hard to beat that kind of unity of message when you don't have it yourself.

The administration seems to be doing the best it can for the law. Congress past the law, and has since defunded as many parts of it as possible including all the money needed to inform the public about it. Hold on, let me get the stat. According to Talking Points Memo ad campaigns opposing the law have outspent those defending by 5:1.

And before you call that a failure, the law is still going forward and a large number of people are aware and ready to take advantage of it. The fact that it has been hurt slightly in the public's eye doesn't change that. I'm not sure what you are arguing other than that supporters of the law 'should have done better' to inform people. I think they did a damn fine job considering the circumstances.

So the 400 million dollars in advertising has nothing to do with public perception?

Seriously. I knew by reading analysis of the law how it would benefit the country. Talking heads and special interest groups going nuts with it ten times over is not nothing. To me that is like asking why a small infantry group is not being more successful at stopping stealth bombers in an area.

Tenebrous wrote:

After four years or so you would think Obamacare's supporters would figure out how to sell the thing without resorting to wonky charts (not just referring to Bill here). I mean Obama's address to the nation back in the day had a chart or two that looked like it belonged in some sort of Quarterly meeting, if I remember correctly. Get Donny Deutsch on the case or something.

How is a poll that asks questions about the core provisions of the ACA in an object, non-partisan manner "wonky"? It actually tracks with a poll Fox News just did which showed an eight point increase in Republican support for the law just as long as it was called the ACA and not Obamacare.

Americans like what's in the law. But thanks to four plus years of constant conservative FUD, they're concerned about this thing called "Obamacare."

The chart also tracks with what Cruz said he feared: once Americans got Obamacare they'd realize the sky wasn't going to fall, the earth wasn't going to open up and swallow cities whole, and they wouldn't want the law repealed or even reduced.

As far as "selling" Obamacare is concerned, you might want to consider that 1) you probably aren't the target market for the law since you very likely have health insurance through your employer, and 2) it kinda sells itself to any of the 50 million uninsured Americans who didn't go to the doctor when they really should have because they couldn't afford it or whose finances took a hammering because they--or one of their loved ones--got really sick or injured and they *had* to get medical care.

I think it's contraversial in that at this point, it's almost like Democrats are battling a political force of nature sh*t storm (like Sandy parked over a sewage plant/dump for like a week, and then continued on). $400 million with the Koch brother bankrolling a decent chunk of that is nothing something that can just be fought at least not without some serious donations. And really, how do you fight crazy? Let's face it, the things they are throwing out there about how Obamacare is going to destroy the world... it's starting to remind me of the birther movement. It's ridiculous, half of it is straight up lying, it's trying to get people to change their minds before they experience it because then they'll like it (for good reason)... and I think really the best thing to do at this point is make sure it gets out there, people start reaping the benefits of the program... and then all that talk about how it's going to crack the planet in half becomes clearly stupid and classified as misinformation (which is going to hurt Republicans long term when they start looking like they cried wolf).

Demosthenes wrote:

So the 400 million dollars in advertising has nothing to do with public perception?

No I stated quite the opposite. The plan has not been sold well compared to those who oppose it.

If we had a time machine that we could go back 6 or 12 months, honestly I'm not sure what I could tell what would have been a better strategy.

How about raising more money and putting more advertizing out there? Your own quote:

According to Talking Points Memo ad campaigns opposing the law have outspent those defending by 5:1.

This looks like a definite failure on the side of the Democrats, no? Where is the Democratic support? Somehow you blame the Republicans for this, as if Democrats do not have donors or organizations or media to support their causes?

As someone who has left the Republicans, I have looked again at the Democrats as a party I could support, but it is the attitude that we have no problems and don't bring them up or you are against us (if you are not with us you are against us anyone?), it is all the Republicans fault for being mean, and a kind of fatalistic attitude that Republicans are better at certain kinds of things that allows them to accept some of their own shortcomings instead of rising to the challenge are all off putting to me. Gad, if the Republicans are better at messaging, then learn from what they are doing and do it back to them. If they are raising more money, go out there Democrats and raise more money.

How is the statement "I think supporters of Obamacare could have done a better job of selling the law" in any way controversial?

Slinger, you are making my case for me, if you retitle it and it gets more popular, then you have not done enough to sell it to the public. How is that not a sign of a shortcoming? If Coke was marketing something and it leaped in popularity after you changed the name, would that not indicate a problem?

Americans like what's in the law. But thanks to four plus years of constant conservative FUD, they're concerned about this thing called "Obamacare."

Yeh, where was the effective messaging on the other side?

it kinda sells itself to any of the 50 million uninsured Americans who didn't go to the doctor when they really should have because they couldn't afford it or whose finances took a hammering because they--or one of their loved ones--got really sick or injured and they *had* to get medical care.

Ok, so you have something that should sell itself but remains unpopular, how is that not a screwup in selling it?

Why are Democrats so insistent on the narrative that they are helpless victims of the mean Republicans? It is not even close to true.

I think the problem is that I don't want the Democratic party to compete or emulate the Republican party in that way.

I don't look at "hey, Republicans spent 500 million dollars lying to people, why didn't the Democrats spend a billion dollars telling people the truth?"

I don't want some sort of ridiculous advertising arms race. I want the Republicans to stop lying, and they will never do that if the Democrats take everything they are doing as a challenge (and yes Democrats are politicians too and have lied before, etc etc, but currently the Republicans are being the insane lying party).

The arms race is already here, look at election campaigns. Outrageous lying has been part of the American political scene since the Addams-Jefferson race at least. I understand your idealism, but you play the game as you find it, as it were, and you should play to win because the stakes, if you really believe in what you are doing, are high.

Tenebrous wrote:

The arms race is already here, look at election campaigns. Outrageous lying has been part of the American political scene since the Addams-Jefferson race at least. I understand your idealism, but you play the game as you find it, as it were, and you should play to win because the stakes, if you really believe in what you are doing, are high.

The question being, how well is it really working? Republicans, as noted, have been throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at this... and yet... they failed at the national election level by kind of a lot. Why engage in those tactics when they aren't working in the area that's most important for politicians?

Not everything is about a national election. If the goal is to keep Obamacare unpopular, they have done their job. I half suspect allot of that money is to keep a portion of the Republicans from defecting.

I personally think Mitt Romney lost because he was Mitt Romney and had a staff that was too idelogically incestous/drunk its own cool aid, not because he opposed Obamacare.

Tenebrous wrote:

I understand your idealism, but you play the game as you find it, as it were, and you should play to win because the stakes, if you really believe in what you are doing, are high.

So the ends justify the means.

I think the plan is that, once Obamacare gets rolled out, it'll be enough of a change for the better that it'll sell itself. As of September, it was all just a marketing fight, but now it can start to be marketing vs. personal experience (and marketing).

Yonder wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

I understand your idealism, but you play the game as you find it, as it were, and you should play to win because the stakes, if you really believe in what you are doing, are high.

So the ends justify the means.

More like the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Not everything is about a national election.

I must just be getting more cynical, because all I can think is it certainly seems like politicians have been running around like that was their main concern for a while now.

Demosthenes wrote:
Not everything is about a national election.

I must just be getting more cynical, because all I can think is it certainly seems like politicians have been running around like that was their main concern for a while now.

For the Parties as organizations, yes, but not necessarily for individual members (who want to be reelected in their own district first and foremost) and definitely not for house Republicans.

Tenebrous wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Not everything is about a national election.

I must just be getting more cynical, because all I can think is it certainly seems like politicians have been running around like that was their main concern for a while now.

For the Parties as organizations, yes, but not necessarily for individual members (who want to be reelected in their own district first and foremost) and definitely not for house Republicans.

Oh wait, I was including them, my bad. I recognize their elections are local, but they're still being elected to a national stage, which is what I was going for with my statement.

Tenebrous wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

I understand your idealism, but you play the game as you find it, as it were, and you should play to win because the stakes, if you really believe in what you are doing, are high.

So the ends justify the means.

More like the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Fair enough, and good old fashioned pragmatism is important, but without a core of conscience along for the ride there is no measuring influence on that out of control arms race.

"Your Representatives in a Representative Democracy shouldn't lie to you" isn't an idealistic bonus, it is the absolute minimum requirement for such a government having any measure of success and legitimacy.

Yeah, I'm going to agree with the arms race side of it. If it looked like there would be a large marginal improvement in Democratic poll numbers or success of the ACA due to the increased advertising I would be all for what you suggest. As it is, we're talking about a few poll numbers going into the actual start date of many ACA provisions which people generally support... I'd say the Democrats are doing fine as it is and the Republicans are spending a LOT of money to change those poll numbers.

It's a tough political calculation when you start including strategies like shutting the government down. Would this have been on the table if Obamacare had been 5% more popular? 2.5%? Could we reasonably have predicted that this would have been on the table 6 months ago when increased money might have helped? 12 months ago when we still had time to influence things?

I think the Democrats have failed Tenebrous, but what I think they've failed to do is change the subject. Republicans refuse to move on from repealing Obamacare which not only means they are pumping money into repealing Obamacare, but it means there is so little else being done otherwise. I can't name any strategy that would have worked in the current situation with Congress, but that's been the true failing for the left. We should have been talking about something else years ago.

sometimesdee wrote:

Then there's Food International, which had an aisle for every country (or so it seemed).

There was one of these in Jersey City near where I lived. What an wonderful store.

As a bit of a redirect, for the Democratic cause as a whole is the Republican obsession with ObamaCare a good thing? I have to imagine that if the Republicans had directed this level of effort elsewhere they could have gotten at least a few things done, like the Keystone pipeline for example.

Yonder wrote:

As a bit of a redirect, for the Democratic cause as a whole is the Republican obsession with ObamaCare a good thing? I have to imagine that if the Republicans had directed this level of effort elsewhere they could have gotten at least a few things done, like the Keystone pipeline for example.

In that sense, sure, they probably could have actually accomplished some of their goals if they'd spent a bit more time on those things and a bit less on repealing a law that wasn't going to get repealed. It could still turn out poorly for the Democrats, though. If the ACA is a huge failure -- if people suddenly decide that pre-existing conditions are a-ok and that they'd prefer to negotiate with insurance companies as a market of 1 -- then the Republicans will look like they were trying to save the country from a terrible law. On the other hand, if the law ends up being popular they're going to look like a bunch of jackasses who were wasting time and money trying to repeal something for political reasons rather than doing their jobs and governing. That outcome won't hurt them at the state, local, or even congressional level because of how districts are formed, but it'll just add to the demographic issues they have for president and possibly even senate seats.

Tenebrous wrote:

This looks like a definite failure on the side of the Democrats, no? Where is the Democratic support? Somehow you blame the Republicans for this, as if Democrats do not have donors or organizations or media to support their causes?

Are you seriously trying to say that Democrats and Democratic PACs should have raised money to promote a law they passed three years ago? A law that included federal funds that states can use to help educate their citizens about the ACA as well as promote enrollment because, you know, it's a law and not a political campaign?

Tenebrous wrote:

Slinger, you are making my case for me, if you retitle it and it gets more popular, then you have not done enough to sell it to the public. How is that not a sign of a shortcoming? If Coke was marketing something and it leaped in popularity after you changed the name, would that not indicate a problem?

Except calling it the ACA isn't re-titling the law. It's calling it by its actual name. It's not a sign of a shortcoming of the ACA that Republicans invested heavily to pejoratively rebrand it in to Obamacare.

And your Coke example makes no sense. For it to make sense Pepsi would have had to have spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns designed to rebrand Coca-Cola into "sh*t brown fizzy water" or "diarrhea juice." And then the poll would have simply revealed that people unsurprisingly have a more positive association with a product called Coca-Cola than they do with a product called "diarrhea juice" even though it's the same damn thing.

Tenebrous wrote:

Yeh, where was the effective messaging on the other side?

The ACA is law, right? And Obama is serving his second term, right? Neither would be the case if Democrats failed to have effective messaging.

Tenebrous wrote:

Ok, so you have something that should sell itself but remains unpopular, how is that not a screwup in selling it?

I'll try to answer your question using a work example. I work for a company that sells enterprise software: large, complex software packages that companies use to run their entire operations.

It takes months and months to sell these software packages to other companies. That's because we have to convince the various key influencers within the company that our software delivers tangible business benefits and then we have to convince each department that our software can meet their persnickety requirements.

After we sell our software, we then have to implement it. This involves customizing the software to our client's particular needs and business processes. This also takes months and months. And it never happens cleanly. That's because a myriad of problems crop up: the company can't figure out what its exact requirements are or how we should model its business processes; the software functionality doesn't exactly match the expectations or needs of a particular department; or a vocal user really doesn't like the screen layout or color choice. We then have to work to address each of those concerns or kick the problem down to road so as not to throw off the overall implementation schedule.

Once we get through the implementation process, we then train the end users and go live. For training we literally show each user how they have to do their jobs using the new software. This is also a process that has hiccups and that's because humans really f*cking hate change and will resist it even if the change will benefit them.

So what does all that have to do with Obamacare? Well, America is pretty much going through the same process.

The sale happened years ago. The key influencers--members of Congress and the American public--were sold on the law's bottom-line benefits: 50 million Americans get health insurance and billions of dollars get cut from our deficit. As the law was drafted, the needs of various special interest groups--departments in my example--were addressed. The sale was finalized when the ACA became law.

Since then we've been chugging through the implementation phase: endless meetings of insurers, insurees, and health care experts; numerous administrative rulings to clarify the meaning of the law; and much more. And, much like with software implementations, there have been times when portions of the law couldn't be implemented on time or the underlying issue was more complicated than originally thought so things were reprioritized and some part of the law were kicked down the road to be resolved later.

And, as of yesterday, we finally started end user training and go live for the ACA. For companies, how that training goes depends on how seriously each department approaches training. Some departments understand the value of training and make sure that employees get a lot of it. Other departments like to scrimp on training, so they only send one or two people or reduce the number of days of training they'll get.

This is similar to the different approaches the states are taking with the rollout of their exchanges. Some states--like California--have invested heavily in rolling out their exchanges. They've spent state money to educate their citizens about the exchanges. They've taken millions of federal dollars to do the same. They've expanded various "navigator" groups to help walk citizens through their choices.

Other states have taken the opposite approach. Their state legislatures have sharply limited any funds to educate their population about the exchanges. They've refused federal dollars to do the same. They've passed laws forbidding state employees from answering any questions about Obamacare and barred navigators from doing key elements of their jobs, like helping citizens understand the differences between insurance plans.

So looping back to your question, you can now see that that there really hasn't been any failure to sell the law. The sale happened years ago. We're doing end-user training now.

We also have to remember that it largely doesn't matter what the people who aren't going to use Obamacare think. That's because the law wasn't written for them and they'll largely be unaffected by it. Some of those people will Female Doggo and moan, but as soon as they realize it doesn't actually affect them, they'll quickly forget about it.

Of course, there will always be a segment of the population who will seethe about this law.

Tenebrous wrote:

Why are Democrats so insistent on the narrative that they are helpless victims of the mean Republicans? It is not even close to true.

I don't believe anyone has said that. All we've done is point out that there's been a concerted and organized effort to rollback a law that a tiny portion of the population really doesn't like, a conclusion they reached after having conservative media, think tanks, and PACs lie about it for years.

It's a terribly dangerous precedent that's being established. One that's corrosive to our democracy.

If the Republicans really want to get rid of Obamacare, then they need to do it the proper way, which is to win elections. Unfortunately, when it comes to that, it's the Republicans that have a crippling branding problem that is preventing them from selling their party and its ideas.

OG... do you work for Astute?

Nope. It's an Atlanta-based company that focuses on the legal market. I'm looking to transition to something a bit more local.

Slinger, your response is exactly what I am talking about.

I have looked again at the Democrats as a party I could support, but it is the attitude that we have no problems
Are you seriously trying to say that Democrats and Democratic PACs should have raised money to promote a law they passed three years ago? A law that included federal funds that states can use to help educate their citizens about the ACA as well as promote enrollment because, you know, it's a law and not a political campaign?

Can you not read? That is exactly what I am saying. You can't complain about being outspent on getting your word out if you don't make an effort to match those who are opposing you. People need to stop complaining Democrats are being outspent 5-1 if Democrats do not get out there to raise more money to fight it.

Except calling it the ACA isn't re-titling the law. It's calling it by its actual name. It's not a sign of a shortcoming of the ACA that Republicans invested heavily to pejoratively rebrand it in to Obamacare.

Arguing semantics again, really? would "changing the name" or "calling it by a different name" make it better for you?

As for rebranding, Democrats call it Obamacare both politicians and the media, indeed even media that covers it positively call it Obamacare (.eg), heck, president Obama did not reject the name either. "Obamacare" has been the battleground and the Democrats have lost it.

Heck, Democrats have said what I am saying, but they must be deluded, heh?

I'll try to answer your question using a work example . . . humans really f*cking hate change and will resist it even if the change will benefit them . . .

I was talking about selling things, convincing people. You are talking about implementing things. If you really want to talk about it, managing change is also about managing the opinions of your employees, you always have to sell the change, in work or otherwise.

As for that last bit, people resist change when they are not sold on it, when they have no buy in on the project. I know that from my work doing large scare improvement projects where I work. In a work situation you have to have enough soft skills to convince people, which is usually a failure of management since they are pushing the change.

I do not have time right now to respond to the rest so that will have to do.

You know, everything you have posted has been to defend the Democrats no matter what, even from people, like me, who like the law more or less, but think it has been problems in handling it. It is the "if you are not with me, you are against me" attitude I was talking about. No criticism is valid, and it is blatantly partisan, one sided, and refuses to look at the issue in other ways.

To me, it comes back to fighting crazy. How do fight reports of "Obamacare kills jobs!!!!1!!1 *mouthfoam*" with examples of 8 people-businesses closing/laying off because they believe that taxes that wouldn't affect business twice their size are suddenly going to bankrupt them because they heard so on Fox News?

Honestly, when I see crazy used like you use it it seems to be saying "I do not understand these people and I do not want to understand them."

So how do you fight what you describe? First understand them, then work with them from where they are. I find Democrats blame propiganda for the lack of popularity for Obamacare, but they never ask why is Republican's messaging on this effective or why will someone believe Fox News instead of some other source?

Once you understand then you see if you can work with it or not.

Tenebrous wrote:

Can you not read? That is exactly what I am saying. You can't complain about being outspent on getting your word out if you don't make an effort to match those who are opposing you. People need to stop complaining Democrats are being outspent 5-1 if Democrats do not get out there to raise more money to fight it.

For the umf*ckingteenth time, yes I can read.

I'm not so sure about you because if you did read things you'd know that it's not the Democrats who are being outspent. It's the federal government that's being outspent. Democrats or Democratic PACs didn't buy those pro-ACA ads. The Department of Health and Human Services did. That's because the ACA requires HHS to educate and inform Americans about the law.

Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group[/url]]
The biggest advertisers in opposition to the ACA since its enactment have been Republican outside groups. The biggest advertiser in support of the law has been the US Department of Health and Human Services in a nonpolitical (judging from the buy) education campaign.

It's slightly concerning that groups with extreme political views can attempt to wreck government policy by spending lots of money lying about the effects of said policy.

Tenebrous wrote:

Arguing semantics again, really? would "changing the name" or "calling it by a different name" make it better for you?

I can't help it that you don't understand what that "wonky" chart and the Fox News poll said: people actually like the individual elements of the ACA, even conservatives.

Tenebrous wrote:

As for rebranding, Democrats call it Obamacare both politicians and the media, indeed even media that covers it positively call it Obamacare (.eg), heck, president Obama did not reject the name either. "Obamacare" has been the battleground and the Democrats have lost it.

Obama decided to embrace the name Obamacare during the run up to the 2012 elections. And it was a nice bit of coopting. After all, Republicans and conservative groups had spent millions promoting the name.

Barring something dramatic that comes from the shutdown or the looming debt ceiling fight, the ACA is going to happen. Hell, it's happening right now. And come January 1st it will be in effect and people will be benefitting from the law.

As we approach January 1st, all the things that made conservative FUD about Obamacare so effective over the past three years will become much, much less effective. Once the vast majority of people in America realize that the law won't even apply to them (or that they'll benefit from it through lower insurance premiums), they'll quickly lose interest in the drama.

That will leave tens of millions of people who are personally benefiting from the law and, sadly, likely tens of millions of Americans who will still hate the law because of what Fox News or talk radio told them.

Tenebrous wrote:

I was talking about selling things, convincing people. You are talking about implementing things. If you really want to talk about it, managing change is also about managing the opinions of your employees, you always have to sell the change, in work or otherwise.

What things need to be sold? The ACA is law. It was sold years ago.

Who needs to be convinced? The government doesn't have to convince the majority of Americans who get their insurance through their employers about Obamacare because the law simply doesn't apply to them (and likely won't affect them).

That leaves the 50 million Americans who don't have health insurance. It's a pretty safe bet that they don't need a lot of convincing about the benefits of Obamacare. Perhaps the only people that might need some convincing will be folks in their late 20s who are coming off their parents' policies and who still think they're largely indestructible. All it will take to tip them into the exchanges is getting a bill for an illness or an injury and realizing that it simply costs more to be uninsured.

I'm talking about implementing things because that's exactly what's happening: the government is implementing the ACA. And, continuing my previous example, the opinion of an end-user doesn't f*cking matter by the time we get to training. That's because training happens after the company has spent millions of dollars and thousands of man hours implementing the software. There is no going back. Instead, the effort is spent educating the end-users on how to get the most out of the software that was purchased 18 months ago.

And that's the case for the ACA. Both the federal government and every state government has spent years implementing the law. Now their job is to educate uninsured Americans on how to get the most out of the law that was passed three years ago. They aren't selling anything.

Tenebrous wrote:

So how do you fight what you describe? First understand them, then work with them from where they are. I find Democrats blame propiganda for the lack of popularity for Obamacare, but they never ask why is Republican's messaging on this effective or why will someone believe Fox News instead of some other source?

There's nothing to understand and you can't fight it. People seek out other views that conform to their own. The phenomena is called confirmation bias and it's pretty well known, understood, and basically everyone exhibits the behavior. Show a person facts that prove their view is wrong and they're far more likely to entrench themselves deeper in their preconceived notions than they are to actually change their mind. It sucks that people are stupid, but you can't really do anything about it.

OG_slinger wrote:

...
Barring something dramatic that comes from the shutdown or the looming debt ceiling fight, the ACA is going to happen. Hell, it's happening right now. And come January 1st it will be in effect and people will be benefitting from the law.

As we approach January 1st, all the things that made conservative FUD about Obamacare so effective over the past three years will become much, much less effective. Once the vast majority of people in America realize that the law won't even apply to them (or that they'll benefit from it through lower insurance premiums), they'll quickly lose interest in the drama.
...
Who needs to be convinced? The government doesn't have to convince the majority of Americans who get their insurance through their employers about Obamacare because the law simply doesn't apply to them (and likely won't affect them).

Just wanted to re-raise the "PP" part of the PPACA in peoples' minds. Not only are many provision of this law already in effect and helping people, but there are more slated to come online and help more people. I for one am very much looking forward to January 1, since it's the day that no insurer will be able to blow off paying for the medical bills of people like me because of the "pre-existing condition" of being transgender. (And I'm not talking about trans*-related care, I'm talking about random unrelated things getting denied.)

Getting rid of per-year and per-lifetime coverage limits is also rather a big deal, and forbidding copays for routine checkups (which I'm pretty sure went into effect earlier this year?) is huge for encouraging low-income folks to get preventative care. (It doesn't matter if it's covered if you still have to pay your copay on it and that means less money for food this month.)

People do change their minds on things; it is not all confirmation bias. There is such a thing as persuasion and understanding people helps with that. I have seen it in my life many times.

I was the most conservative in my life when I went to the University of Washington. Why? I w surrounded by people that were actively hostile to me because where I was from and what I believed. I won't go into all the stories but some are pretty bad.

I relaxed more and changed more when I went to business school in another state because my more liberal classmates took the time to understand who I was, what was important to me, and were not hostile to it.