Agreed. I live in a solidly Republican district in a generally Republican state, and some of the students at the university here put together an Occupy "rally", of which there were maybe 20 participants. The way they talked about it after the fact - "We made people notice!", "We were DOING something by being there!" - sounded like those Woodstock-goers of old who cling to this idea that discussion alone equates to a social movement.
If Occupiers had presented themselves in any cohesive way I believe we would have seen a stronger response. The decentralized organization "structure" was their own undoing, and it seemed as though they were trying to build a movement on public sympathy. Obviously they failed the first go around, and I doubt "Occupy2" will receive half as much attention as it's predecessor. That ship has sailed.
Small point... but Ferrari has been advertising since at least 1919. Kirby Vacuums used person-to-person advertising (the best kind) as part of their overall marketing plan. Hershey didn't advertise for decades, until they entered foreign markets. All businesses advertise, or they're out of business.
Small Point, Ferrari was founded in 1929, and didn't make a road car until '47: and between those two dates Scuderia Ferrari drove Alfas until WWII, when they were driven out of business. I'd suggest a revision of dates as your margin of error slip is showing, old thing.
Yes. But does Ferrari advertise? Look at the ads. Ferrari's name, logo and reputation are used to sell champion sparkplugs, etc. But Ferrari has no reason to advertise itself. Ferrai has pre-sold every car it has ever made, and being that their market is so small and exclusive that generally customers are selected. So why would it advertise?
There is no leadership... -- Also wrong. Most of the camps (especially in major cities) have a media team who is in charge of getting info to the media, including interviews.
And what's really frustrating is that when cable news went to the Occupy camps to interview the protesters, the protesters shouted them away and made it impossible to get any decent coverage. -- That's because they want the ability to censor their material to show the American public what they want them to see, not what's actually going on.
Comments 44
(The comment has been removed)
Nah, only you.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I hate to sound like a broken record - but if there is no threat, no action that financially hurts who they are protesting against, there is no point.
Raising awareness isn't a valid goal anymore, if it ever was one.
Reply
If Occupiers had presented themselves in any cohesive way I believe we would have seen a stronger response. The decentralized organization "structure" was their own undoing, and it seemed as though they were trying to build a movement on public sympathy. Obviously they failed the first go around, and I doubt "Occupy2" will receive half as much attention as it's predecessor. That ship has sailed.
Reply
Reply
Legally? Not a thing. That leaves giving up, getting dirty, or refocusing attention away from Wall Street and on the Government instead.
Reply
Reply
But points for trying. [Pats head.]
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://www.ferraristuff.com/contents/en-us/d464_Ferrari_Advertising_Material.html
Reply
Reply
There is no leadership... -- Also wrong. Most of the camps (especially in major cities) have a media team who is in charge of getting info to the media, including interviews.
And what's really frustrating is that when cable news went to the Occupy camps to interview the protesters, the protesters shouted them away and made it impossible to get any decent coverage. -- That's because they want the ability to censor their material to show the American public what they want them to see, not what's actually going on.
Reply
Leave a comment