The Science of Communicating & Marketing Your Business

Not sure if everybody sees this, but the top left quadrant is covered by 'ads by Google' for me.

'Killer, I've turned the image into a link that downloads a larger image (you may need to force a reload of the page in order for the image to appear as a link in your browser). Let me know if this works better for you and thanks for the catch.
Joseph

This post strikes me as an invitation/demand for comment, sort of like coming home to your wife staring you straight in the eye and not saying a word. You may not know right away what you've done, but you know you better start apologizing for it. Doesn't hurt to mention 'several regular readers have emailed', implying you are outside of my ring of regular readers if you don't comment here and/or if you do respond, you are not alone.

And with an intro like that, you know my analysis is going to be long winded. Lets look at the headline "Now, unite us". The 'unite us' phrase strikes me as having US overtones, containing both a portion of 'United States' and the abbreviation thereof. That said, this is a European publication and I am not sure if the 'us' is intended to be the world or is limited to the US issues.

The comma in the headline separates 'now' and 'unite us', which disconnects the two statements (compared with a more unified 'Unite us now' statement). The separation implies 'uniting us' is going to be a job that cannot be completed now, but must be completed in the future (a week, a month, a year is unclear, but for the person pictured). It also seems to be something of a reprimand or reproach, like a 'now, fix it' that might be delivered to a child who just broke something. Again, it isn't entirely clear from the title, but I'd suspect the article suggests the administration is responsible for something that 'divided us'.

We all know who is pictured and when his term is up. Clearly, The Economist believes 'uniting us' is a task that will be completed after 'now' and before the end of Bush's term in office. If it were more of a long-term process, we'd see pictures of Obama and McCain. Bush is shown with a look of satisfaction. Obviously Bush did not pose for this picture, but the publisher used a picture of Bush having satisfaction to represent this article. We can assume The Economist does not believe Bush is satisfied with the problems with the economy, but with the economic bailout.

Here's where my analysis takes a right turn. The title does not resonate with the bailout. In the end, we did not have two sides clamoring for two starkly different approaches - the bailout was not a divisive issue (in part because everyone got enough pork they are still enjoying a post-Thanksgiving nap). The superscripted headline "What next for the Democrats?" also fails to resonate, which implies this magazine is not current.

The date of the article is not clear, but Googling it reveals this headline was from November 2004, following Bush's defeat of Kerry. The election was closely divided between the two candidates. Bush's satisfaction is representative of his successful reelection. The Democrats needed to regroup after failing to unseat a President that was not well-liked four years ago. After alienating many, Bush needed to find a way to regain some of his lost support to accomplish more of his goals in the second term. Instead, his support only receded further. And now we are left with one Presidential candidate that has been trying and failing to win his party ticket since Reagan was in office and another that has yet to complete a full term in office above the State Senate level. I fear the next four years could make Bush look good and Kerry look electable.

Not what, if any, further comment is warranted. Bush's head is turned toward the 'now' of the divided headline, suggesting he is in that 'now', but his eyes are directed more toward the center of the headline, emphasizing the headline, but also suggesting he is directed at that goal (which, based on the year, is more clearly directed at uniting the US). Coming on the heels of the election, the reproach may also be the publisher speaking with the voters' voices (as in "we brought you back, now reward us").

I may be providing far more comment and overstaying the invite, but once I get going it is hard to stop.