Category: Articles

Sharing Something Online Doesn’t Mean I Would Pay For It

Two weeks ago the world got to read a European Union report on online piracy and copyright material from 2015. The report was 304 pages long and cost about USD$428,000. Its authors likely thought it would never see the light of day. Except, Julia Reda, a member of the European Parliament from the German Pirate Party, got her hands on a copy and shared its contents on social media. The report’s bombshell conclusion? “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements”.

The report does qualify this statement, however, by saying it “does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect [on sales] but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.” Specifically, the study found some limited effects on sales numbers for “blockbuster films.” 

Intuitively, online piracy — the act of taking something without paying for it — means less money for whoever is selling that which is pirated. However, this is not the only lens through which to look at this issue. 

There are two notable aspects of the report:

1. Why the study could not quantify online piracy’s effect on artists’ bank accounts
2. The importance its findings hold for content producers.

First the data.

It is impossible to compare the world before and after illegal downloading. The popularization of online piracy is a watershed, fundamentally changing the relationship between patrons buying art and artists creating it.

We cannot compare a purchase made in a world where piracy exists with the same purchase in a world before mainstream piracy.  There is no way to use totals from one era to extrapolate behavior in another. The numbers cannot prove with sufficient reliability the impact piracy has on sales. Which explains why the study was inconclusive.  

The study looks at the entirety of art being consumed and assumes everybody downloading content illegally would have paid for that material if not for online piracy. Colloquially, when we speak about shows that are not worth watching, we say they are “not worth the download.” It’s an expression that illustrates how my generation’s cultural industries have been shaped by piracy. Piracy breaks the connection between paying for art and experiencing it. This is acute in the age of social media, when fandom is celebrated like never before and when we can measure how many people are talking about a particular piece of art. But today, an artist who creates trending content is not necessarily compensated for making it to the charts. 

Art is an experience. The act of sharing that experience provides a way to measure its value. You pay for access. It is impossible to separate how people pay for art with how they talk about it, which means it’s impossible to look at online piracy without considering social media. Illegal downloading makes it possible to share the experience or talk about it without paying for access, while the explosion of social media conversations reveal the extent to which a piece of art captures attention. It is perfectly reasonable for artists and publishers to see significant engagement with their content on social media and wonder if those people ever paid to experience their art.  The answer is, almost certainly, no.

Illegal downloading lets people who would not otherwise pay for art still experience it. The study confirmed that this group of people represents an entirely separate audience from those that pay the full price for the same piece of art. In fact, there are cases where online piracy actually raises overall revenue by exposing more people to content and creating merchandising or licensing opportunities that would not have been available without free access to that original content.  

This is not to suggest that the combined rise of illegal downloading and social media did not fundamentally change how people buy and sell content. Though it makes intuitive sense to blame declines in publishers’ and creators’ revenues on online piracy, this study—while flawed—suggests that there are other factors. An obvious one is competition. File-sharing technology removes barriers to publishing and lets more artists reach more people than ever before. Consumers have more choice, so it stands to reason that established players would see some losses in a more crowded market.

So what are creators to do? How can they succeed in a world where some pay for content and others don’t? Maybe it doesn’t matter. The payers and non-payers collectively contribute to the online discussion, helping others discover the creative work.

Of course, it is natural for creators to consider the increased number of people accessing their work when taking into account lost revenue. The study suggests that these people are really a bonus audience, existing in addition to the core fans who will consistently pay for content. This turns online piracy into an opportunity for content producers. Rather than stealing customers, online pirates remove barriers to access. The net outcome is a larger pool of people familiar with the work, which means a larger pool of people who are potentially interested in tie-in products. It also means a larger pool of people generating more exposure through the simple act of talking about it online and offline. This is most obvious in situations where individuals who have downloaded an album pay to see the performer live in concert. 

More people engaging with your work is always a positive. Illegal downloading is not going away. While it may be hard to accept, “free” movies, music, and books should be looked at as loss-leaders instead of the core product. With online piracy removing the connection between accessing and discussing art, the burden is on publishers to distinguish between core fans who pay for art and those who download it illegally. Publishers need to convert pirates into payers through merchandise, licensing, and other revenue streams. 

This is not to say that piracy is right. But, we live in a world where online piracy is the reality, and we need to deal with that world as it exists. Campaigning against piracy risks alienating an entire generation and will likely shrink secondary audiences rather than turning them into additional revenue streams.

As fans, it is important to support our favourite creators by paying for work we enjoy. It is equally important for creators to recognize that—more and more—being a fan of someone’s work does not always mean being a paying customer.    

Donald Trump has thrown American politics for a loop. With the success of the former Apprentice host, popular entertainers are hinting at—or even declaring their intentions—to run for office. Caitlyn Jenner has suggested she may run for Senate in California, a race for which George Clooney’s name has also been floated. Current and former WWE wrestlers are also throwing their names into the proverbial ring as Kane and Booker T announced plans to seek the mayoralties of their respective hometowns: Knox County, Tennessee, and Houston, Texas. Even aging rockers like Ted Nugent and Kid Rock have expressed their desire to run for US Senate.

Of course, this is not the first time this has happened. Shortly after pro wrestler Jesse Ventura’s electoral success to become Governor of Minnesota in 1999, two of his Predator co-stars (Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Sonny Landham of Kentucky) sought gubernatorial office. While only Schwarzenegger succeeded in being elected, the entry of entertainers into American politics has tended towards success and away from failure.

The reason, to paraphrase comedian Joe Rogan, is that politics is a popularity contest and someone who was actually popular finally entered the race.

A particularly intriguing candidate is the rap-rocker and ‘90s icon, Kid Rock. Rock — real name Robert Ritchie — has all but officially announced his campaign for U.S. Senate in Michigan. Rock has used a recent concert tour of the state to boost media coverage of his run. For the past several weeks, Rock has been starting his concerts with political speeches outlining his belief system. Taking a page out of former-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson’s playbook, Rock’s speeches usually rhyme. Giving them his own rock ‘n’ roll flair, his statements are accompanied by an emphatic backing band and light show.

The former headliner of MTV’s Spring Break outlined his support for universal health care, but opposition to Obamacare; his support for gay marriage, but opposition to transgender bathroom rights; and his desire to get “those who can’t even take care of themselves, but keep having kid after [expletive] kid” off of welfare. He also condemned variously deadbeat dads, Black Lives Matter activists, and members of the KKK and Neo-Nazi organizations.

While Rock’s style of politics is certainly over-the-top and unusually theatrical, in the time of such political upsets as Trump and Brexit, his unique campaign style may surprise observers with its effectiveness. With the announcement of his exploration of a senate candidacy, Rock also announced he was founding a 501(C)(3) non-profit with the express purpose of registering attendees at his rock concerts to vote.

A survey of Rock’s concerts in Michigan over the past month show that the average arena could hold 21,000 people. If Rock is able to register even 10% of those in attendance, he would get 2,100 likely supporters per night. His six-night stop in Detroit alone could leave him with 12,600 newly registered supporters. In a state where the GOP primary has garnered an average of 661,000 voters over the past two elections, Rock’s ability to organize could surprise. Rock has further declared his intention to dovetail any potential run with a concert tour of Michigan, equating his decision with that of presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who coupled their presidential campaigns in 2007 with book tours.

It’s insufficient to chalk up the potential political success of entertainers to “living in the time of Trump,” however. Simply believing that public individuals can successfully make the transition to politics because of their popular appeal ignores many of the reasons President Trump won both the most competitive Republican primary in the past 50 years and an historic U.S. presidential race.

Subsequent analysis of the 2017 presidential election has affirmed what many early observers noticed: Trump’s success was due in large part to his appeal among white, working-class Americans in rust-belt states like Kid Rock’s own Michigan. This is a voting bloc that has not coalesced definitively behind a Republican candidate since the Reagan Democrats in 1980. Trump was the first Republican to win the Great Lakes State since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Likewise, Trump’s success in winning the Midwest states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio was unprecedented since Ronald Reagan’s near-sweep of the electoral college in 1984.

Kid Rock’s road to electoral success lies in his appeal to this voter group as well. But while Donald Trump appealed to these folks as a straight-talking and financially successful outsider who could fix a corrupt political system, Rock appeals to them as one of their own. A Michigan boy raised in Detroit who grew up alongside the Motor City’s rougher elements. Rock’s music signifies this similarly broad appeal. While regularly panned by critics, Rock has consistently maintained high record sales (breaking platinum numerous times) by marketing primarily to rural and working-class Americans.

Rock’s music — a mix of rock ‘n’ roll, heavy metal, hip-hop, and country — helped to establish his success early in the ‘90s. His combination of divergent sounds, garish outfits, and outlandish performances drew crowds of Americans to his concerts who saw him as speaking to their personal experience in a way that both entertained and excited. With all the lamentations of lovers leaving “on the midnight train to Memphis” and the braggadocious self-styling as “Pimp of the Nation,” Rock’s oftentimes ridiculous lyrics and driving guitar riffs helped to guide the vastly different life journeys of working-class Americans from coast to coast.

Rock’s unique emotional connection with working-class voters would put him in a particularly advantageous position. Cults of personality often lead to political success. Canada’s own Justin Trudeau would likely be an unknown were it not for the success of his father Pierre. Ditto George W. Bush. Rock has been able to establish goodwill after decades of performance, and his commitment to establish numerous local businesses in Michigan. This is particularly evident by the fact that Rock is far out-polling his potential competitors in the Republican primary. Recent polling puts him up around 50% support among Republican voters — with his closest competitor trailing 41 points behind.

Rock is offering traditional Republican talking points in a style that (to put it mildly) is uncharacteristic of American politics. He is the opposite of staid Democrat incumbent Debbie Stabenow. His combination of eye-catching performance and meat-and-potatoes “cultural conservative” stylings could lead him to the U.S. Senate, a win the GOP has not experienced since 1994. If Kid Rock’s intentions are serious, he may have created a new form of campaigning that could blow his opposition out of the water.

The informed observer would do well not to take his candidacy lightly and to take Kid Rock at his word when he says:

And if Kid Rock for Senate/

Has some folks in disarray/

Wait until they hear Kid Rock/

For President of the USA!/

‘Cause wouldn’t it be a sight to see/

President Kid Rock in Washington DC/

Standing on the desk/

In the Oval Office like a G?/

You’ve never seen a [expletive]/

Quite like me!

What Behavioural Science Can Teach Us About High-Stakes Communications

I may be a behavioural scientist by training, but I did minor in communications way back in my undergrad days. And if there is one thing I learned in all my communications courses, it’s that communication is a two-way process in which a message is delivered AND received. Key in this equation is that the message is received.

Even if a message is delivered, without message reception, communication has not taken place.  When a message is not received it is a failure on the part of the communicator to tailor their message to the audience in question. There are many ways a message can miss its intended target. Some of the most common reasons have to do with demographics. Messages tailored for women may not reach women. Messages tailored for Torontonians may not reach Torontonians. Messages for Millennials may not reach Millennials — you get the point. Often times you have a good message but it’s not hitting the right audience and goes unreceived.

One of the less commonly understood reasons for communication failure is a mismatch between the message and the psychological makeup of the audience. The number of potential mismatches between a message and an audience, on a psychological level, is vast. And of course not all of these potential problems can be accounted for. However, the watchful eye of a trained behavioural scientist can mean the difference between successful communication and communication failure.

For example, take one small slice of behavioural science—the field of self-regulation. For our purposes, self-regulation refers to how individuals moderate their behaviour in response to the environment, based on predispositions or external factors.

Many years ago, my mentor at Columbia University, Tory Higgins, developed an influential theory of self-regulation called Regulatory Focus Theory. Now, after a couple of decades and many thousands of studies later, the theory is a validated framework that people continue to use. It is widely used in the seemingly esoteric world of scientific-academia but also in the “real-world” like business schools, advertising firms, and communications agencies.

Here is a very simplified explanation of how Regulatory Focus Theory would work within the context of communications: When communication is framed to match psychological states (i.e., ensuring the communication has the proper ‘fit’) people tend to feel more positively about the things that they are judging than when there is a mismatch (i.e., the psychological state does not match how the communication is framed).

Although there was a long history of using fit in the study of communications, my own academic research was among the first published work to apply fit to the study of forgiveness.1  

What I found back then was that after an interpersonal transgression had taken place (e.g. an argument), apologies that communicate a psychological state that is consistent with the recipient’s psychological state tend to elicit more forgiveness. Conversely, apologies that communicate a psychological state that is inconsistent with that of the recipient tend to elicit less forgiveness. Essentially, if your response fits the individual you have wronged, they will receive your apology more readily.

Recently, fellow researchers have taken things one step further and applied these findings to crisis communication to achieve greater consumer forgiveness. 2 In a series of thoughtfully designed experiments, these researchers found that “Guilt-framing communication results in higher forgiveness than shame-framing for angry consumers, whereas shame-framing communication results in higher forgiveness than guilt-framing for fearful consumers.”3 What this means is that it may be beneficial for communications to be crafted in a manner that conforms to the aforementioned pairing of emotions (i.e., guilt with anger/shame with fear). However, the results of early-stage research should always be approached with caution until they are replicated by other independent researchers.

But this doesn’t mean that some of the insights from this research can’t immediately be leveraged. In fact, I would argue, there is opportunity to at least reduce the potential for negative outcomes by simply keeping these findings in mind. For instance, when crafting communications for consumers who are feeling angry, avoid communicating shame or using phrases associated with it. And when crafting communications for consumers who are feeling fearful, avoid communicating guilt. The early research shows this could be a far more effective way of communicating with consumers.

This is but one small example of how communications can go wrong without an understanding of and ongoing relationship with behavioural science. I wouldn’t go so far as to say  that without a behavioural scientist on staff you are unlikely to ever know something like this, but having us around certainly helps. At the very least, we can provide you with data-driven rules of thumb for communications. For example, when a message does not fit, you must resubmit.

Knowledge of behavioural science and current findings within the academic/scientific literature can mitigate risks associated with mismatched messages and the unintended consequences that follow. This is why the very best communications are guided by research and have a deep understanding of behavioural science.

 

Navigator has a team of dedicated, Ph.D.-level behavioural scientists on staff who regularly conduct research and assist clients with crafting communications that not only hit the mark but avoid rubbing people the wrong way.

 

References

1 – Santelli, Alexander G.; Struthers, C. Ward; Eaton, Judy. Fit to forgive: Exploring the interaction between regulatory focus, repentance, and forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 96(2), Feb 2009, 381-394.

2, 3 – Yaxuan, Ran; Haiying, Wei, Qing, Li. Forgiveness from Emotion Fit: Emotional Frame, Consumer Emotion, and Feeling-Right in Consumer Decision to Forgive. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 7, Nov 2016, 1-16.

 

As part of its internship program, Navigator asks its interns to write a blog post about the intersection of communications and an area of personal interest. This week, Meredith Wilson-Smith examines the interplay of art, politics, and marginalization.

Intersectionality, systemic oppression, internalized misogyny: what do these terms have in common?

Maybe they all made you roll your eyes and write this article off as pedantic. But their shared application to marginalized communities relates to one central question: who do you support? As technology develops and expands, this question becomes increasingly relevant.

Politics worldwide have polarized. It takes a couple of clicks to directly contact a politician, and debates are radicalized as people quickly and anonymously spread oftentimes discriminatory viewpoints. We’ve seen this throughout the past year, during the 2016 US presidential election and the 2017 French presidential election. Though these events have inured us to radicalization, they’ve revealed a lesson: dichotomy insulates communities. People are increasingly discouraged from communicating or empathizing with communities outside their own. To express this, they turn to the Internet.

Freedom of speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Politically-engaged people seek accessible platforms to express their opinions. Social media is malleable and easily connects like-minded individuals. But it’s dangerous to cloister yourself. As similar viewpoints stoke one another, the buildup of increasingly inflammatory opinions can fuel a harmful collective rage.

Sociologist Alberto Melucci used the term “cognitive liberation” to describe the “awakening of an individual’s awareness of the issues surrounding a movement and a reframing of the world through that issue.” The knowledge that one is not alone inspires a collective demand for solidarity and mobilization in the face of subjugation. Online communities turn otherwise marginalized experiences into a collective narrative that propagates action among group members. As individuals are inspired by peers, they’re initiated into the same movement and gain a link to thousands of others. This is happening on both the left and the right among groups who are confronting both real and perceived subjugation.

One of the darker elements of this mobilization is the ease with which hate crimes can easily be organized online. Canadian anti-Islam group III% found its roots in a Facebook group. Since their founding, members in the U.S. and Canada have been arrested for numerous offenses. These include shootings at Black Lives Matter rallies and an assault at a Canadian Journalists for Free Expression event. During the US election, several pro-Trump rallies were organized through Facebook events, with attendees such as Internet-famous Kyle Chapman (known amongst the alt-right as “Based Stickman”) urging followers to “smash [protestors] on sight”. Arguably most significantly, the “Unite the Right” Rally recently took place in Charlottesville. The far-right gathering in Virginia killed three people, injured at least 38, and, critically, was largely organized online.

Not all Internet-organized protests are prejudiced and violent. The 2017 Women’s March to advocate for gender equality and human rights was planned over Facebook. An estimated five million people participated worldwide. No arrests were made. And the fact that this protest immediately followed Donald Trump’s inauguration raised an interesting point about the increasingly gendered nature of partisanship.

The Week columnist Ed West makes the point that the difference between the social justice left and the alt-right is one of the most gendered divides possible. As 53% of men dominated Trump’s voter base and women voted overwhelmingly to elect Hillary Clinton, the candidates’ disparate views drove their supporters’ gendered radicalization.

Clinton’s female supporters rallied out of fear of Trump’s anti-female braggadocio, as he undermined women’s legal, healthcare, and employment rights. They found solace in the accessible feminist communities of the left online. Similarly, Clinton’s achievements threatened many of Trump’s white, male voters. Her gender, ambition, and socioeconomic class represented a voice they couldn’t relate to at a time when they already feared change. Thus, many Trump supporters united to blame those races, sexual orientations, and religions unfamiliar to them. They hid their fears with a username as alt-right forums assuaged their insecurities with reassuringly homogenous faces and viewpoints.

Trump’s supporters respond to directness and uniformity. This is reflected in the political right’s passionate yet plainspoken statements and calls to action. Trump’s blunt threats towards North Korea, such as a promise to bring “fire and fury” via nuclear bombs are the new normal in politics. When President Trump banned foreign aid for groups abroad that provide abortion counselling (or those that so much as mention the word “abortion”), he did so surrounded by six smiling men in suits. Photo ops with Trump’s all-male staff strategically bank on the support of his largely homogenous voter base as evidence of the fulfillment of the president’s male-centric promises.

As “social justice warriors” (as Trump’s supporters derisively call those on the left) represent a more vocal and diverse community, their online manifestations take different forms. The female existence was politicized long before the Internet, but recent Internet art culture is allowing those ideas to spread like wildfire. The social left — particularly established feminist groups — are using the same platforms as the alt-right in order to express and distribute their thoughts in ways that respond to and resist the oppressive climate within which they live.

At a time of international political instability, women aren’t guaranteed safety. When left-wing and feminist groups have attempted to counter alt-right protests with their own, women were openly attacked by male alt-right protesters.  The Internet has become a place for women to carve out the autonomous spaces that aren’t otherwise available to them in the public sphere.

Consider Cindy Sherman, the American artist who photographs women in common female personas, from middle-class housewives to sullen teenagers. The artist emphasizes femininity to the point of absurdity, alienating viewers by distorting the familiar. Sherman’s art proves the fruitlessness of crafting a false identity despite the expectation for women to appeal by doing so. It’s fitting, then, that Sherman made an Instagram account this year, as women have been forced online to defend their self-identity and find community. Using face-editing apps that women often use to improve their appearances, Sherman distorts her face grotesquely. Posting these pictures publicly in a culture where the US President casually calls women “fat”, “flat-chested”, “unattractive”, and “crazy” is defiant. As Sherman shares that defiance with thousands of followers, she makes a statement against the culture that diminishes women by politicizing their appearance.

      The Guerrilla Girls are another example. The anonymous group of feminist artists has fought sexism and racism in the art world for over 30 years. When they began in 1985, the group collected data about female representation in museums and made posters reflecting their discontent. Their discussion of issues such as tokenism and the wage gap in the art world reflected the attitude towards women in the larger sphere of employment. With the advent of the Internet, the group has been able to recruit new members, connect with museums, and host workshops and exhibitions to continue to fund and publicize their activist efforts.

      Radicalization is common today. Female artists such as Sherman and the Guerrilla Girls are viewed as “radical” because they challenge existing social norms and institutions that hurt women from outside the political process. Their digital communication has personalized and politicized the consumption of and response to feminist art. Even if art isn’t explicitly feminist, it’s being increasingly consumed through a political lens as feminism proliferates online through left-wing activism.

      It’s arguably dangerous that individuals are radicalizing as politics radicalize. The Internet surrounds them with communities eager for their opinions. Art expresses emotion – it incites and mobilizes. In that case, it could be argued that feminist art online perpetuates the emotionally-motivated culture of violence. The dissemination of accessible and political art is powerful. But a potential threat doesn’t equate evil. Art is also often opaque in its intent, leaving interpretation up to the viewer. This means that one art piece online can bring together communities with vastly varied knowledge and experiences. Those people have the capacity to engage with, learn from, and listen to one another. In that way, art reduces radicalism.  

Art should be encouraged to thrive online. The Internet is an egalitarian aggregator of voices, which gives it limitless political weight for candidates and protestors alike. Individual works of art don’t reduce misogynistic behavior. But thanks to the online networks we use daily, the social awareness of art-centric communities does make a difference. They educate and unite. In a culture where the new normal is nuclear threats and neo-Nazi rallies, there’s comfort in that connectivity.

 

As part of its internship program, Navigator asks its interns to write a blog post about the intersection of communications and an area of personal interest. This week, political junkie Max Ledger.

Words matter. Especially when they are expressed by the President of the United States.

Last week, U.S. intelligence revealed that North Korea has produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead. President Trump responded by issuing a threat, suggesting that the U.S. military would unleash “fire and fury” against the rogue state if it continues to threaten the U.S. He added that the U.S. is “locked and loaded.” North Korea, on the other hand, called Trump’s threats “a load of nonsense”. Trump then took to Twitter:

“Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!”

It goes without saying that Trump is known for his unscripted extemporaneous comments. Both his campaign and his presidency have been littered with examples. One need only scroll through his Twitter feed to find a slew of careless and unscripted commentary.  Trump’s declaration that he was going to “bomb the s**t out of [Isis]” was not the end product of a meticulously crafted communications strategy.

Trump is less known, however, for carefully calculated statements aimed at influencing the decisions of opponents, both domestically and on the international stage. Trump’s rhetoric, to a certain extent, has become normalized. It is no longer surprising to hear the President of the free world threatening nuclear war. Many dismiss these statements as “typical Trumpisms” which are unlikely to be part of a broader strategy.

But is it possible that Trump’s most recent message to North Korea—despite its appearance as a typical Trumpism—was in fact a chess maneuver? Perhaps Trump’s blunt and hyper-aggressive rhetoric was a calculated move to communicate a tough message, not only to North Korea, but also to China.

The Trump White House may well have concluded that civil discussion and polite phone calls to China asking them to take action against North Korea were not having the desired outcome. Seeing China drag its feet on trade sanctions, the U.S. government may have decided to intentionally ramp up the rhetoric. The result being not only to deter Kim Jong-un, but also to raise China’s concerns about its own security. After all, the war currently being vociferously threatened would be on China’s doorstep.

Beyond the geopolitical outcome, what do we learn about communications strategies from the path Trump took to get here? One perspective is that Trump just got lucky—his spontaneous and potentially dangerous rhetoric didn’t provoke war in the region, but rather a diplomatic response from China’s Xi Jinping.

But it may be that the Trump team deployed a carefully crafted strategy under the guise of “just another outburst.” It is possible that Trump’s rhetoric was designed to put pressure on China to enforce sanctions against North Korea. While the “fire and fury” comment was in response to a question, the words themselves (like “locked and loaded”) have an air of pre-selection to them. Their alliterative ring does not sound like Trump speaking off-the-cuff.

It might even have been the case that the contradictory statements made by Trump’s advisors Rex Tillerson and James Mattis were part of a scripted plan to sow confusion and at the same time signal openness to a diplomatic solution without diluting the President’s threat.

When asked by the media for clarification of his North Korea threats, President Trump responded by saying “what I said is what I mean” and “I think you know that I mean”.  But of course, no one really knew what he meant.  Sometimes, a well-crafted communications strategy involves a complex multi-layered message delivered simultaneously to multiple audiences, intended to be read differently by different audiences. And sometimes a good communications strategy involves an element of misdirection – like apparently speaking to North Korea when actually speaking to China.

Whether it was an intentional strategy, or yet another emotional outburst from the President, it appears, for the moment, to have achieved a desirable result. China announced Monday that it would implement a ban on imports of North Korean iron ore, iron, lead and coal and North Korea has, at least temporarily, backed away from its threat to attack Guam.

Forcing China to step up and bear some of the burden of disciplining North Korea is a diplomatic coup for the U.S., and could bode well for greater stability in the region. CNBC predicted that what many viewed initially as a “massive fumble” by the Trump administration could easily become its “biggest triumph of the year”.

If any of this was actually the case – and leaving aside the idiocy of threatening nuclear war – it could be in fact be an effective, if unconventional communications strategy. But that probably gives this administration too much credit.