Were the Ohio and Arizona payday campaigns too deceptive?

The question posed in this article: “Why do political consultants so often choose a deceptive argument when an honest one would do just as well?”

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but there is something to be said about fanning the flames. You can’t say the campaign failed from a lack of effort. The PDL industry should be commended for their diligence, but they were beaten easily in both states.

I’ve always felt that if the industry just told the public that the majority of the people that use the product do NOT want to see it go. I would love to get out of paying my electric, gas or telephone bill; but it doesn’t mean I don’t want electricity.

One instance that I think was sketchy was the commercial starring the older, farmer with the red pick up bitching about the government. I concede that there is a personal freedom argument here, but getting all libertarian on the general public just doesn’t work that well.

I’ve always felt the power of the industry lies in the numbers. By presenting the shear number of loans, you can make a argument that it’s a very desirable product. The numbers do not lie.

One could also make the argument that it doesn’t trap people into a cycle of debt because borrwers are fully aware of how the product works.

Once you try to hard to sell something, as they did in Ohio and Arizon, it can confuse the general public. I think “choice” was a big part of the campaign and that’s a good thing.

Again, I don’t mean to sound like the Monday morning quarterback or placing blame.

by admin

Bookmark the permalink.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.