Thursday, May 24, 2007
“Single Anxious Females”
Our last presidential election recognized the power of the internet, will this election harness the power to pinpoint a specific demographic?
An interesting piece in New York magazine today identifies the ’08 election power demographic as “Single Anxious Females”.
“She’s youngish (between 18 and 44), white (64%), unanchored (36% move every two years), unaffluent (earning $30,000 or less a year), relatively uneducated (only 14% are college grads), and thoroughly pissed off about the direction of America (Iraq, health care, equal pay, and education are top issues).”
Well look at that! This demographic description draws a similarity to the most frequent readers of “She” blogs. You know, blogs written by women for women that have been growing in numbers and intensity in the last few years. Not the typical political blogs like Wonkette, but the personal Chick Lit blogs like This Fish Needs a Bicycle or Belle in the Big Apple. These are the new battlegrounds for politics. So how long will it take for these “She” blogs to be exploited in the upcoming race for the White House?”
Infiltrating blogs with paid marketing messages is the next wave of subliminal advertising. What started with Reese’s Pieces in the movie ET led to a major product placement industry in Hollywood. It followed naturally for marketers to begin their assault on the blogoshpere by getting away from paid advertising in exchange for strategically placed puff pieces and more obvious hawking of products and clients on blogs such as Perezhilton.com.
And who does Perezhilton.com appeal to with his five million hits a day?
She’s youngish (between 18 and 44), white (64%), unanchored (36% move every two years), unaffluent (earning $30,000 or less a year), relatively uneducated (only 14% are college grads), and thoroughly pissed off about the direction of America (fashion, the ever-fluctuating weight of Nicole Ritchie, the latest sale at Barneys, which Hollywood hunk is Lindsay Lohan hooking up with and what happened last night on the American Idol finale are top issues).
If only Hilary Clinton, the Economist pick for the Democratic nomination, could be sexed up and packaged in a YouTube video link, pre-HTML coded for wide blog release, then perhaps the SAF demographic could be motivated to vote in the next election.
Hey, I’m just glad that young single women will finally be courted to get out and vote. And I can’t wait to see what kind of tricks those marketing geniuses are hiding up their sleeves to capture the attention of SAF’s everywhere.
Labels: New York Magazine, Pop Culture Casualty, Sober, Sober Politics
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
A Double Standard of Democracy
An article ran in the Metro this morning that criticized Iran for hosting a gathering of "Holocaust deniers".
The EU's top justice official yesterday condemned the conference as 'an unacceptable affront' to victims of the World War II genocide. British Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced it as "shocking beyond belief" and proof of Iranian President Mahmous Admadinejad's extremism....
Although organizers touted it as a scholarly gathering, the meeting angered many in countries such as Austria, Germany and France, where it is illegal to deny aspects of the Nazis' '"Final Solution".
In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called "an affront to the entire civilized world."
Any one who reads this blog knows that I do not support the beliefs presented at these gatherings. But this latest controversy targeting an Islam country has me slightly confused.
Isn't the 'right to gather' protected under the tenets of freedom? Does the government really have the ability to make laws about what people are allowed to believe? We are willing to risk the lives of Americans to bring freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Middle East, but isn't the freedom of speech - no matter the horrors of its subject manner - protected in those rights?
The idea of legalizing a march of the KKK through the streets of Alabama disturbs me, but I also know that the laws that give them these rights are the same laws that allow me to gather at the foot of the Washington Monument in the name of women's emancipation.
Isn't anyone else afraid that extending the arm of the international moral police may swing back to hit us in the face?
The EU's top justice official yesterday condemned the conference as 'an unacceptable affront' to victims of the World War II genocide. British Prime Minister Tony Blair denounced it as "shocking beyond belief" and proof of Iranian President Mahmous Admadinejad's extremism....
Although organizers touted it as a scholarly gathering, the meeting angered many in countries such as Austria, Germany and France, where it is illegal to deny aspects of the Nazis' '"Final Solution".
In Washington, the White House condemned Iran for convening a conference it called "an affront to the entire civilized world."
Any one who reads this blog knows that I do not support the beliefs presented at these gatherings. But this latest controversy targeting an Islam country has me slightly confused.
Isn't the 'right to gather' protected under the tenets of freedom? Does the government really have the ability to make laws about what people are allowed to believe? We are willing to risk the lives of Americans to bring freedom and democracy to the citizens of the Middle East, but isn't the freedom of speech - no matter the horrors of its subject manner - protected in those rights?
The idea of legalizing a march of the KKK through the streets of Alabama disturbs me, but I also know that the laws that give them these rights are the same laws that allow me to gather at the foot of the Washington Monument in the name of women's emancipation.
Isn't anyone else afraid that extending the arm of the international moral police may swing back to hit us in the face?
Labels: Pop Culture Casualty, Sober, Sober Politics