A work colleague and I got into a conversation last week about what gives a person the credibility to endorse a person, product, organization, etc. We've seen celebrities, athletes, and other famous people endorse products and organizations with great effect. However, in these, I usually see athletes hocking products related to athletics, actresses/models hocking beauty products, etc. And often, we see celebrities endorsing organizations and causes they are passionate about like PETA, ASPCA, etc. and often becoming celebrity spokespersons for them.
This time of the year, we see famous people endorsing people and their causes. While I know this works, what really gives these folks any credibility to endorse these people running for office? For instance, does earning a valorous award in combat give a person credibility in endorsing someone for their ability to be good government leaders, especially when the endorser brings no background in government or even national security? My colleague thinks it definitely does. I personally think it's just a big popularity contest with little to no value of substance, sort of like when an actors do the same. At least when an athlete endorses a product, he/she gives an impression that their athletic success may be tied to those products.
This thread isn't meant to be about any particular individual but more about the concept of endorsement and what gives legitimacy to these endorsements. And while I can ask people not to make this political, I'm sure some people won't be able to help themselves. So before this thread gets deleted, it may be a decent topic of discussion on this crummy Monday.
I think political endorsements are 100% self-serving. People do them in a sort of quid pro quo type of agreement where they expect or even negotiate something in return.
Product endorsements I believe are 100% bought and paid for, I trust none of them.
the non-profit endorsements like PETA might have some merit, but only if you are narrowly focused on their lone specific issue, but I usually discount them.
That isn't to say there aren't legitimate endorsements, but I think they are much less numerous.
Lena Dunham for you?
There are some actual quality based endorsements that matter. For example, a celebrity chef speaking up for an ingredient or cooking tool would matter. Similarly, beloved political figures (particularly ideologues) vouching for someone matters. You may not say "I'll now vote for Obama because Ted Kennedy endorses him" (or substitute similar conservatives), but the fact of the matter is that a big endorsement normalizes the politician. If you like Ted Kennedy, he's saying Obama will support things Ted Kennedy likes. I think political endorsements mostly only matter for the primary. Although cross-party and non-endorsements may matter in the general.
538.com uses endorsements in its prediction tools, based on evidence that they matter in the primaries.
I disagree...I care about Ronnie s endorsement because quite frankly I don't want him to burn my house down
One of the classic examples I remember was Lee Trevino hawking Bridgestone tires. Trevino was a pretty good golfer and had a winning personality, but he didn't know squat about tires.
I don't even pay attention to restaurant recommendations because my expectations/experience/tastes are going to be substantially different than theirs; not better...different.
A classic - ( New Window )
And while not trying to take anything away from these brave men and women, what gives a Sergeant or Captain, who had earned the MOH with little background in national security studies/experience any more credibility than a grad student, who did study national security issues? That was one of the big things that my colleague and I got into a conversation about. If it came down to tactical issues, I can see the legitimacy but when it comes to something like countering ISIS or Chinese military encroachment into South China Sea, why would I listen to someone, who doesn't have experience or has never studied those issues?
Haha...I should have read this before I typed my response to njm...much better stated than mine...:)
One of the classic examples I remember was Lee Trevino hawking Bridgestone tires. Trevino was a pretty good golfer and had a winning personality, but he didn't know squat about tires.
I don't even pay attention to restaurant recommendations because my expectations/experience/tastes are going to be substantially different than theirs; not better...different.
Haha...thanks for the correction.
Or the more current, "I'm not a scientist, but (verboten subject) is a bunch of crapola!"
Quote:
with due respect to the service members who get the very top medals, I dont really care about their endorsements. A really, really brave lieutenant doesnt know much about how to prevent or win a war and secure a peace on the grand scale. I'd rather hear from people who were in leadership positions in the past. Sec of State, Sec of Defense, Joint Chiefs and maybe a few others. Though with generals you always have to worry whether they're loons who were just really good at narrow jobs/service politics.
Haha...I should have read this before I typed my response to njm...much better stated than mine...:)
With respect to grand global strategy you're right. With respect, i.e., to the strategy of "the surge" in Iraq rather than prior policy I believe that "on the ground" experience is relevant.
Quote:
...not hocking. Moondawg is spot on with the Appeal to Authority angle. People hear what they're predisposed to hear and trust such statements on anything but a factual basis.
One of the classic examples I remember was Lee Trevino hawking Bridgestone tires. Trevino was a pretty good golfer and had a winning personality, but he didn't know squat about tires.
I don't even pay attention to restaurant recommendations because my expectations/experience/tastes are going to be substantially different than theirs; not better...different.
Haha...thanks for the correction.
Not trying to be a smartass; it's just that it's my normal condition!
Quote:
In comment 13043988 Deej said:
Quote:
with due respect to the service members who get the very top medals, I dont really care about their endorsements. A really, really brave lieutenant doesnt know much about how to prevent or win a war and secure a peace on the grand scale. I'd rather hear from people who were in leadership positions in the past. Sec of State, Sec of Defense, Joint Chiefs and maybe a few others. Though with generals you always have to worry whether they're loons who were just really good at narrow jobs/service politics.
Haha...I should have read this before I typed my response to njm...much better stated than mine...:)
With respect to grand global strategy you're right. With respect, i.e., to the strategy of "the surge" in Iraq rather than prior policy I believe that "on the ground" experience is relevant.
If I have my terms correct, you're applying the knowledge of someone who may have a limited tactical viewpoint to a strategic problem. Same problem as has been stated by Deej asnd Ronnie above.
OK, Ronnie, now's your chance to settle my hash if I got tactical and strategic confused ;).
If you're talking about some General or Admiral's books and papers, sure. They bring the appropriate level of understanding of the issue at a strategic and national level, which is where our elected leaders focus on. And while I've read and seen many books and papers written by those at the tactical and operational levels, which were very well written and informative, they still don't give these writers any credibility as to their understanding of strategic or national level decision making.
Also, I've known many junior officers and junior enlisted bitch and whine about how shitty the upper echelon leaders are messing up the war with their political decisions, and while they often have legitimate gripes, they are also not privy to the complexity of the situations well beyond the battlefield that they are in.
It's worked out well so far.
With respect to grand global strategy you're right. With respect, i.e., to the strategy of "the surge" in Iraq rather than prior policy I believe that "on the ground" experience is relevant.
Maybe...but even at that level, more often than not, the assessments of a Lieutenant (even a First) or Staff Sergeant fall far short of an experienced Captain or a Lieutenant Colonel, who understand the complex nature of conducting ground combat beyond the platoon level. Not all "on the ground" experience is relevant (or better yet, complete enough) when impacting operational plan.
Quote:
some of the endorsing military professionals have written books or position papers that resonate with certain schools of thought -- and those type of endorsements can break through some candidate perceptions or at least legitimize them
If you're talking about some General or Admiral's books and papers, sure. They bring the appropriate level of understanding of the issue at a strategic and national level, which is where our elected leaders focus on. And while I've read and seen many books and papers written by those at the tactical and operational levels, which were very well written and informative, they still don't give these writers any credibility as to their understanding of strategic or national level decision making.
Also, I've known many junior officers and junior enlisted bitch and whine about how shitty the upper echelon leaders are messing up the war with their political decisions, and while they often have legitimate gripes, they are also not privy to the complexity of the situations well beyond the battlefield that they are in.
This may be true -- but you have to also realize that the mentality of the receiver (or viewer) of information is different according to who they are.
Generally there is a dumbing down effect depending on reach --
Generally there is a dumbing down effect depending on reach --
Oh...I completely agree, and that's why I think that for the most part, these endorsements work. Bringing out a war hero to endorse you does wonders for your image as a good martial leader. It's just not the way I see things.
OK, Ronnie, now's your chance to settle my hash if I got tactical and strategic confused ;).
Sir...you done good...you done good.
Quote:
. A classic - ( New Window )
Or the more current, "I'm not a scientist, but (verboten subject) is a bunch of crapola!"
Well, to be fair, there is just as much "I'm not a scientist, but xyz is true!"
2. Do such endorsements work? That is, do them motivate people to think differently. And I'm not sure about it, but people in general here have a more affirmative answer to this question than the first. People are motivated by fallacies and group loyalties, so it would make sense.
Quote:
In comment 13043988 Deej said:
Quote:
with due respect to the service members who get the very top medals, I dont really care about their endorsements. A really, really brave lieutenant doesnt know much about how to prevent or win a war and secure a peace on the grand scale. I'd rather hear from people who were in leadership positions in the past. Sec of State, Sec of Defense, Joint Chiefs and maybe a few others. Though with generals you always have to worry whether they're loons who were just really good at narrow jobs/service politics.
Haha...I should have read this before I typed my response to njm...much better stated than mine...:)
With respect to grand global strategy you're right. With respect, i.e., to the strategy of "the surge" in Iraq rather than prior policy I believe that "on the ground" experience is relevant.
Actually, that's a bad example. People on the ground would tell you that the surge was working because it was making things relatively safer, while ignoring 1) it was planned for as a temporary move (not necessarily sustainable at contemplated troop and funding levels, and 2) the stated purpose for the surge was not safety, but to create room for political reconciliation that failed because, among a lot of reasons, Maliki went after the Sunnis, driving that group to embrace ISIS. If Lt. MOH winner has an opinion on that stuff, it comes from reading magazines etc.
There is a counterfactual legend surrounding the surge that is mostly political in nature, passing the blame from one administration to the other (when the reality is that neither is covered in glory, although it remains to be seen how much America could have realistically done to secure the peace). The people who could best endorse on these issues are not the boots on the ground IMO, but rather the people who were at the table. Including people who made mistakes or (in many cases more accurately) made the calls that proved not to work.
Quote:
In comment 13044012 Moondawg said:
Quote:
. A classic - ( New Window )
Or the more current, "I'm not a scientist, but (verboten subject) is a bunch of crapola!"
Well, to be fair, there is just as much "I'm not a scientist, but xyz is true!"
Same difference, no?
Consider this scenario, and whether its true or not:
You're taking a train into NYC for an evening of fun. You meet a guy from Boston who strongly recommends a restaurant. Would any local guy listen to somebody from Boston about a restaurant in New York?
Now you're in China going into Bejing for fun, and you meet an American on the train who strongly recommends a restaurant. Would you be more likely to listen to him? (Its the same guy from Boston)
Consider this scenario, and whether its true or not:
You're taking a train into NYC for an evening of fun. You meet a guy from Boston who strongly recommends a restaurant. Would any local guy listen to somebody from Boston about a restaurant in New York?
Now you're in China going into Bejing for fun, and you meet an American on the train who strongly recommends a restaurant. Would you be more likely to listen to him? (Its the same guy from Boston)
I thought the context was celebrity endorsements and the like. What you describe is something different, I think, and is just good sense.
Seriously, if I give an endorsement any attention at all, I try to consider two things:
1) Does the endorser have any real knowledege of the relevant subject matter?
2) What ulterior motives(s) might be involved, including - but not limited to - direct compensation.
Seriously, if I give an endorsement any attention at all, I try to consider two things:
1) Does the endorser have any real knowledege of the relevant subject matter?
2) What ulterior motives(s) might be involved, including - but not limited to - direct compensation.
Since you mentioned two specific names, I'll mention Marcus Luttrell and his endorsement. While he's a pretty famous military figure, I've been more than dubious about his memoir and exploits during Operation Red Wings, basis of Lone Survivor. So his endorsement rank totally hollow to me unlike for my colleague, which was the beginning of our conversation.
And speaking of Luttrell, if you want an interesting read, read about his falling out with his Afghan savior, Mohammad Gulab from Newsweek.
Link - ( New Window )
I dont think people were making fun of the quality of his acting. Rather, the fact that the convention was promised to be a celebrity affair and all they got was a few washed up, out of work actors.
If you're going to go with a celebrity, make it either a huge one or one with a constituency.