wenBLOG

Over the weekend I was one of the many parents (according to today’s news) who doled out cash and time to spend a little over and hour and a half sitting in a movie theater with their child. The catalyst that caused this to happen was the opening weekend of the much awaited (at least by my four year-old) release of Shrek the Third in all of its newfangled animated goodness. The film was fine (although due to it’s much-hyped launch we sat way too close to the screen - my daughter thought that was great - my wife and I both had headaches), but that’s not what this post is about.

The movie reference provides a nice segue to what I really wanted to talk about - the similarities between early box office returns in the film industry and the money primary in politics.

Recently at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, a panel was discussing the lengthening cycle of political campaigning. The panel titled ‘Always Running: The 2008 Election’ included authors Hugh Hewitt (A Mormon in the White House?), John Powers (Sore Winners), Peter Wallsten (One Party Country), and was moderated by L.A. Times columnist Patt Morrison. During the discussion, Powers made an interesting comment about how the candidates’ money primary is very similar to a film’s opening weekend. Neither is based on anything more than hype and good advertising , and in the end are not clear barometers of who will win.

In the case of the movie business, we the public are innundated with advertising and complimentary messaging leading up to a movie’s launch. With Shrek 3, my daughter had already procured the “Build-A-Bear” Shrek doll (and his babies) weeks ago, wants to go to McDonald’s everyday for a Shrek Happy Meal and of course, see the movie. In our house it’s been wall-to-wall Shrek since she was exposed to that first “Coming soon to theaters…” message at the beginning of one of her DVDs. We went to the film on Saturday night and I’m certain that she’ll spend a good portion of her day today telling her chums at daycare that Shrek was AWWWWESUMMMM! (one of her new “big” words). Which is her endorsement of the film and that all of her friends should (if they haven’t already) strong arm their parents into taking them.

As it relates to politics, the money primary is driven by hype and a more subtle form of advertising - “the good old boy (or girl, since we must be PC) network”. Barack Obama raised a ton of money mostly on hype, and Mitt Romney did it through his network. Folks that gave the Illinois senator a contribution may have done so thanks in no small part to the media attention Obama received. Romney’s support (especially from large donors) came because somebody else in the big check club wrote him a check and suggested to a colleague that they should do the same. Now that the donors have made the commitment, they’re more than likely to tell their chums at daycare (err… the office) that Obama or Romney is AWWWWESUMMMM! A friend to friend (or neighbor to neighbor) endorsement is by far the most powerful (that’s why lawn signs work).

While either vehicle (the film or the candidate) may suck, my daughter (or a donor) is now invested in that vehicle so they’ll promote it. In the case of movies, it’s not very often that the highest grossing film of the year is considered to be the best film of the year. And in politics, the best fundraiser doesn’t always win - just ask Howard Dean and John Kerry. The money primary is important, but only as a preliminary way of keeping score.

My suspicion is that Shrek the Third will not win an Oscar and neither will Obama or Romney be our next president.