Donny Deutsch Explains Sarah Palin

It’s clear that Deutsch has transitioned from adman to TV celebrity (at least in his own mind). Yet you can’t help but wonder how much he still represents Madison Avenue, particularly the industry’s male leaders. AMC series Mad Men quite clearly presents the sexism and misogyny rooted in our ranks. And others have argued the bias continues, despite the progress women have made. As an industry, should we officially condemn Deutsch, or at least try to distance ourselves from his ignorance? Or will we allow him—as a prominent ex-adman—to continue to define us as narrow-minded, discriminatory, rude pigs? Should we also take a closer look at the corner offices of Madison Avenue to see how many leaders still reflect and/or share Deutsch’s primitive perspectives? More likely, the introspective examination will never even begin.

David,
I might argue that it’s no longer proper to refer to an “American mainstream.” Contrary to definitions created by the ad industry, America has always been very diverse (and I just don’t mean that from just a racial and ethnic standpoint). That’s why so many ads lately have managed to entertain one group while outraging or alienating another. The Republicans are not better at selling to any “mainstream”—rather, they’re better at selling to their fan base within the overall “mainstream,” just as the Democrats are better at selling to their enthusiasts. After all, John McCain probably drafted Palin to counter his own polarizing inability to know how many homes he owns. In this election, the deciding factors will be the outsiders and fence-straddling groups. But there certainly are implications for the ad industry, as we are coming to see the impossibility of addressing a mass market audience.

@PoliticalPundit – on ethnic and economic diversity and it’s place in American culture and history, i agree completely. however, i think there is still such a thing as “mainstream America.” it is populated by the diverse people you speak of. you also mention “fence-sitters” which is what i’m getting at. the Clinton supporters who don’t care for Obama could throw this election to McCain and I believe that’s what Palin on the Rep. ticket is all about–appealing to this specific group of “mainstream” American working women. we all know how the people entrenched on the left and on the right will vote. but we don’t know how the middle is going to vote. in 2000 and 2004 they clearly voted against their own interests. what’s to say they won’t do so again?

Agree with everyone to certain extents. But if the Republicans really understand the mythical “mainstream,” why didn’t someone like Sarah Palin show up until now? Were the candidates who lost to McCain really touching the “mainstream”—even Huckabee? Would Obama be a viable candidate at all if Bush and his crew hadn’t completely alienated the average citizen? I continue to believe the new “mainstream” is comprised of multiple groups segmented by things like spirituality, conservatism, liberalism, etc. One important thing dividing this “mainstream” is the way they make a living. The Republican “mainstream” has more blue-collar laborers—factory workers, etc. The Democratic “mainstream” has more blue-collar creative class, for lack of a better term. Both these groups are making roughly the same amount of money these days. If the Democrats are intellectualizing, it’s because their “mainstream” can handle such communications. Deutsch actually comes off like a Republican in his old-school dumbing down of Palin.
@David: I think the 2000 and 2004 elections had to do with another important factor: the fickleness (for lack of a better term) of the American public. It seems like it’s impossible for a party to maintain power for more than 8 years. People weren’t embracing Bush in 2000, so much as they were rejecting Clinton. And some would argue that Bush technically didn’t beat Gore. Bush benefited from his military actions in 2004. He convinced everyone it was dangerous to veer from the (military) course he had set. It isn’t hard to argue that Obama is benefiting from the public rejection of Bush—even McCain is careful to distance himself from his own party (just as Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton).

Donny is the epitome of what is wrong with our industry. Shallow, glib and trying too hard to be hip: ie, the blue jeans and sports coat look. And please folks, stop saying that people have brand attributes–iit sounds so fucking dumb. Long before there were “brands” there were people. And those people had personalities.

I’m sorry, I just read my comment and it’s completely off topic. Deutsch reflects on me as someone in the biz as much as Palin symbolizes my Alaskan born and raised wife.
Unfortunately, we cannot help who pushes their way to the front of the crowd, or camera.

But even here, we’ve got admen agreeing with Donny.
No one’s agreeing with The Donny’s male chauvinist pigness. Just pieces of his ad guy’s assessment of the Palin brand, and what it might do for McCain.

pundit, alas martin sorrell and maurice levy officially “represent” our biz these days.
love him or hate him, at least donny was a real ad guy. yes he’s loud, brash and a bit shallow. and from new york. but then so are a lot of the most successful in the ad game. so maybe he’s just a more accurate representation than we’d like. where are all the quiet, introspective and timid ad whizzes when you need them?
and though his analysis is made-for-talk-tv crude, he does have a point about Gov.Palin’s broad appeal. In case you hadn’t noticed, she’s a lot hotter than Cheney. A lot.
and having five kids automatically means moms will identify with her to a greater extent than if she just had one or two children.

See, I wonder if Palin’s positive attributes are only on the surface and the constant scratching and digging that will occur in the next two months will reveal some ugly lumps. So far, we’ve had a one way discussion with her as a nation. Eventually,she’ll have to have interaction with the media, and more than just Foxnews. And her being sheltered cannot last forever. She may crack.
I mean, does anyone remember the Dean campaign before the moment which will remain nameless?
Maybe Palin is due for one of her own. Maybe she isn’t. Right now, all we have are superficial ideas of who this woman is, and maybe that just creates superficial commentary.

Adweek’s Barabara Lippert also tackles the hot topic of the day/week/month.

From the moment she first appeared with McCain, in Ohio, Sarah Palin has proved to be a force of nature. For the GOP, she’s become an Obama-like energy source, and her entrance has transformed the race. The idea of a fresh “narrative” has become a political buzzword lately, and boy did she deliver a bonanza of a story: She’s an icon, an archetype and an instant brand.

Lippert also argues that the Pale One is a feminist.

Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women’s movement, while remaining the embodiment of patriotic, religious, small-town values.

But that’s not how Feministing sees it.