What’s In A Name?

George Bush’s lot apparently got it wrong again.

It’s no wonder Congress ditched his “bail-out” bill, say advertising execs, he named it inappropriately. It should have been called a “rescue” package, not a “bail-out”, which carries implications of failure; the antithesis of the American Dream.

Alternatively, it called have been sold as an “act of selfless heroism”, reminiscent of the New York firefighters and police officers on 9/11, or, as the BBC report states:

“Alternatively branding people could have re-pitched the crisis in terms of a David versus Goliath battle. Here, outrage is expressed against the giant “wicked warlocks of Wall Street” in need of a sharp lesson meted out by the simple community of god-fearing Americans (the “Davids”) inspired by their leader George – the dragon slayer. (A subtle homage to the special UK/US relationship.)”^[1]

(Sorry, after writing that I just had to go to the bathroom.)

But, no, it was branded a “bail-out”, thus damning it to failure in Congress and raising the ire of the gullible US public, who would undoubtedly have rallied to the flag if the advertising execs of America had first been summoned to package the deal correctly.

The saddest fact of all is that they’re probably right.

^{[1] “If only the bail-out had been called a rescue” BBC, October 3rd 2008}

Filed under: Shoot the spin doctors