Rush, rush!

Attacking brands that have sealed their fan base's loyalty may not be a good idea. In fact such attacks only strengthen the resolve of that brand's followers to stay put, stay loyal.

Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Rush's fan base is deeply loyal to him. This loyalty has been earned over the years by Rush, by being an original and not caving to any establishment's overtures. Fans like that. They like the fact that he can't be 'bought', that he would speak his mind and not bother about consequences. Barack Obama and his acolytes didn't get that and so they lunged at him only to have disastrous consequences.

Note Camille Paglia: 'Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.'

It would do a world of good for Barack and his team to lay off Rush. Because in the end the best way to deal with a cult brand is to sidestep and go after an altogether different consumer segment.


Popular Posts