Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Corporate Influence, Political and Religious Views, and the Manny Pacquiao Story Continued

 

Yesterday, I discussed a billboard, sponsored by Nike, of boxer Manny Pacquiao.   The billboard showed Pacquiao on his knees praying in the corner of the boxing ring.  Underneath the image was the caption, “Just Do It.”

The billboard, I believe, illustrates the extent to which corporations attempt to influence ideological views of the people.  More precisely, as I’ll explain, it illustrates the opposite—how little corporations do to try to influence ideological views.  That is, the billboard shows how, in ideological matters, corporations are more followers of their customers than leaders.  At the end of this post, I’ll describe some academic research, showing how this principle is especially true in the news industry.

On this poster (which I’ve also posted to the side) you can see the image that was on the billboard.  Note, however, that the caption on the poster says “Give Us This Day,” not “Just Do It.”  Despite an extensive search, I cannot find a similar poster with the “Just Do It” caption.

Nike switched captions, I believe, because “Just Do It” would be too controversial with American and European consumers.   Note that such a caption actually urges people to pray.  Imagine the protests, and possibly calls for a boycott, that Nike would face if it did this in the U.S. or Europe.  In contrast, since people in the Philippines tend to be more religious than Americans and Europeans, the “Just Do It” caption, I believe, actually helped sales in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, however, consider how Nike would have acted if its main goal was to influence the religious and political views of people, instead of maximizing profits.  It would have done the opposite, I believe.  That is, it would have emphasized the “Just Do It” caption in the places where people are less inclined to pray—in places like Europe and the U.S., not the Philippines.

This general principle—that corporations tend to follow the ideological sentiment of their customers, rather than lead it—has been illustrated in a recent article by Matt Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, two economists at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business.  Their article, “What Drives Media Slant? Evidence from U.S. Daily Newspapers,” was published in Econometrica, one of the most prestigious academic journals in economics. 

The researchers first measure the slants of media outlets.  (In Chapter 15 of my book, Left Turn, I give more details of their methodology.  I also list the slants that the authors estimate for several media outlets. I also list some of these slants [converted to SQs] on this page of my web site.  Also, see here for more discussion of the influence of corporate bosses on media content.) 

The authors next examine the extent to which these slants are affected by “owner effects” and “consumer effects.”  To analyze consumer effects, the scholars examine the extent to which the slants become more liberal when the market of the newspaper (i.e. the region in which its customers live) votes more Democratic. 

To analyze owner effects, the authors examine a number of companies, such as Gannett, that publish different newspapers in several different areas.  If Gannett’s newspapers tend to have, say, more conservative slants than Gentzkow and Shapiro’s model would otherwise predict, then their analysis concludes that Gannett has a conservative “owner effect.”  

The authors find that owner effects are tiny compared to consumer effects.  For instance, in one thought experiment, the authors suggest that if we moved to a world where all newspaper markets were ideological identical (i.e. all the consumers of the Daily Oklahoman became just as liberal as consumers of the Los Angeles Times, who became just as liberal as consumers of the Dallas Morning News, etc.), then this would reduce the diversity of newspaper slants by 22%.  Meanwhile, if instead we moved to a world where all newspapers reported to the same owner, then this would reduce the diversity of newspaper slants by less than one-tenth of one percent.  That is, consumer effects were approximately 220 times larger than owner effects.

Knowing this, perhaps I should have predicted that, for the praying-Pacquiao image, Nike would use different captions for different markets.

There are 6 comments.

  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Consider the marketing Nike did with LeBron James: WITNESS.

    For those of a religious background that word has a particular connotation and none of it has to do with basketball. While Nike may have deliberately avoided controversy with Pacquiao they have no problem courting with James.

    • #1
    • September 7, 2011, at 1:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Profile Photo Member

    Do you think this is a rebuke of those who claim that t.v. commercials, magazine ads, billboards and the like are the drivers behind the ever-increasing materialism in the U.S.?

    Are advertisers merely filling a void that we have created by defiantly abandoning the values of previous, less materialistic generations?

    • #2
    • September 7, 2011, at 1:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Sisyphus Coolidge
    Sisyphus Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    So the difference between media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch, Arthur Sulzberger, and the Disney Corporation based on ownership is on the order of 0.1%? And how does this study make sense of the wide variety of viewpoints newspapers found in London and New York?

    • #3
    • September 7, 2011, at 2:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member
    Tim Groseclose The authors find that owner effects are tiny compared to consumer effects.

    Tim, you just validated my theory on why the media is liberal. The networks pick employees from a pool that has worked its way through progressively more urban and more left-leaning markets. They reflect the markets they’ve worked in. And then they are based in those large, liberal markets.

    It is also because the media is a business. That’s what causes Rupert Murdoch to own a very conservative cable news network and a progressive, liberal broadcast network and get away with slapping the FOX name on both of them.

    • #4
    • September 7, 2011, at 3:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Profile Photo Member

    Wait a minute.

    Perhaps a shoe company or a steel mill isn’t that interested in trying to influence their political affiliations of their customers.

    But media companies and movie studios are different animals.

    Michael Medved wrote about this in his book “Hollywood versus America”. He had many examples of the Hollywood studios putting their personal ideologies above moneymaking- so much so that the movies they chose to make led some of them to bankruptcy.

    Plus I’ve seen plain and obvious examples of newspapers putting ideology above profits. For example I remember years ago the Detroit News/ Free Press organization fired News editor Thomas Bray. They then claimed Bray had quit, which he denied in a WSJ column. Soon they changed the editorial positions of the conservative- leaning Detroit News to make them more left-friendly. BTW, the Detroit News and Free Press ended up working under a joint operating agreement because the conservative News was bankrupting the liberal Free Press.

    Essentially, the more successful paper was shut down to keep the more leftist organization afloat.

    That isn’t how a non-ideological purely-profit driven organization would behave.

    • #5
    • September 7, 2011, at 4:05 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Profile Photo Member

    Hmmm. Is there a reason you don’t mention the most salient aspects of the image and caption? It is not just a picture of a man praying. Note the lighting, the vertical and horizontal lines, and the symmetry: This is supposed to invoke a crucifixion scene. “Give us this day” are not just “a prayer” — they are well-worn words of Christ.

    The change of caption was obviously (to me) a shift in the nature of the ad. The company felt that appealing to a religious demographic would be more effective with stronger hints in the ad. Perhaps too few in their tests zeroed in on the subliminal cross in the photo.

    Alternatively, perhaps they were being deliberately edgy, and hoping to get a mixture of those who felt it was heartwarming versus those offended. It’s a common tactic among ad makers: make an ad that will split the audience and get people talking. All attention is good attention, and the key to a viral ad is to get buzz, both positive and negative, going.

    • #6
    • September 7, 2011, at 7:08 AM PDT
    • 1 like