Just when you thought their tax burdens couldn’t get any bigger, three Bay Area cities, Chicago and Boulder, Colo., passed soft drink taxes last week.
Soda taxes were sold as anti-obesity measures, but this lightweight argument fails at several levels. Soft drinks account for 7 percent of calories consumed. If they are so toxic, why not tax cookies, cakes, candy and even orange juice? The argument that juice has Vitamin C may be true but that excuse only applies to where malnutrition or scurvy needs a cure. Research shows soda taxes do not reduce calorie consumption. They simply encourage people to substitute to other high-calorie drinks. They also are a regressive tax on the poor, who often favor Coke to Perrier.
The soft drink producers reportedly spent $30 million advancing their position, but their loss reinforces their limited arguments – especially among elites who sacrifice logic at the altar of helping the “uninformed” make the right decisions. Ironically, many of the pro-tax California soda warriors also voted last week to legalize marijuana. Medical research shows that pot diminishes your brain. Dr. Pepper suggests soda avoids that harmful effect.
The soda industry is to be applauded for spending big but despite the dollars, it is beginning to lose the “he said, she said” argument. Might it do better by engaging the public with some humor and personalization? Tapping into people’s emotions rather than intellect elicits a more visceral response.
Scott Adams is the creator of the cartoon “Dilbert.” Adams is a “master persuader,” and one of the first people to predict a Donald Trump victory. He advises two persuasion methods: Tie your argument to your opponents’ physicality (so you are always reminded). And incorporate fresh words you don’t usually hear in the political and policy arena. (“Crooked Hillary” is a recent example.)
This strategy – with an added dose of humor – is how the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group that I manage, helped change minds on soda regulations with its Nanny Bloomberg ad campaign in New York. Rather than engage intellectually, the 2012 ad and argument correctly positioned former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was proposing bans on big drinks, as the big-government Nanny – complete with a periwinkle blue dress. This funny and personalized imagery and evocative word choice touched people’s emotions. It reminded people what they don’t like about overreaching government. It went viral, and helped to shift the conversation.
Remember the Hooters campaign against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was trying to force the restaurant chain to hire male waiters? Showing bearded guys in short skirts was all the company needed to successfully change the debate.
But instead of reincarnating Nanny Bloomberg (the billionaire is still the big money trying to tax you out of your choices) business leaders are generally loathe to use the humor response.
Why? First, it is alien to them. The lawyers and communications people in corporate America are generally excellent at their day jobs but few have the appreciation and comfort level for going at the jugular with humor.
Second, business leaders too often want to “engage” not oppose their opposition. That is the generally failed strategy of negotiating with terrorists. Most don’t like confrontation with the uniquely American “conflict industry.” While engagement often buys time and relieves some of the immediate pain, it has predictable results. Some companies evidence the Stockholm Syndrome where they accommodate the incremental agenda of those trying to put them out of business.
The reasons for that approach vary, but some can be traced to risk adverse executives who are senior enough to be in decision-making roles and coincidently old enough to be on the back side of their careers. They can see the first pension plan payment from their desk on the 26th floor. They assume a little accommodation of the left each year will allow a smooth escape from the policy wars.
So who does the fighting? It comes down to the DNA of the CEO. You can find a higher proportion of these fighters among the entrepreneur class – those who built their business. Those who have their name above the front door. The ones who are offended by the idea that some 24-year-old social justice warrior is determining how they run their business. These executives have a passion for what they built versus those executives whose job it is to manage the business built by others.
Managing your diminishing business or industry footprint is too much in evidence today. While soda is not tobacco, it is being treated as such. It is being linked to early death. No one would have imagined that conversation 20 years ago. Imagine where the conversation and public opinion travels from here.