On corporate privilege

Needless to say, Susan Delacourt's series on the consumerization of politics is well worth a read. But there are a few points discussed only in passing by Delacourt which deserve plenty more analysis.

While I'll deal with most of them later, it's worth pointing out this observation by Brian Lee Crowley (who's hardly someone I'd normally agree with), while noting that it may offer the seeds of a counter to the Cons' "Tim Hortons" branding:

Crowley says that politics, north and south of the border, actually can be seen on a simple axis—privilege versus opportunity. The first U.S. Tea Party, the revolt against tea taxation, was against privilege as much as it was against taxes. In that way, the anti-elitist symbolism of Tim Hortons follows that theme—it speaks to Canadians' mistrust of people speaking down to them. Tim Hortons is all about skepticism toward privilege, embrace of opportunity. But opportunity to do what?

Now, it's probably true enough that to the extent the Cons have managed to establish a relatively high floor for support since they first took power, that's been based in large part on their ability to portray themselves as speaking for "ordinary Canadians" even while governing in ways that obviously serve other masters. But it's not too late to turn the Cons' tight ties to Tim's into a negative by highlighting the contradiction.

After all, there are different kinds of privilege which can raise public concerns. And it's not hard to see that for all the Cons' efforts to paint Tim's as being all about the customers, there are others who actually benefit directly from their constant stream of advertising.

Take for example Tim Horton's Inc. CEO Don Schroeder, with his total 2009 compensation of $2,788,628 (and over $2 million in outstanding stock options). Or its chairman Paul House, with total 2009 compensation of $1,542,796 (and nearly $3.5 million in outstanding stock options). Or better yet, its Chief Brand and Marketing Officer William Moir, who was paid $1,572,816 to go with over $3 million in stock options for his work in convincing Canadians that Tim's isn't about big-money elitism.

In effect, Tim's can serve as a prime example of how "common-man" branding can be harnessed for the gain of a few people who live at a privileged standard that most Canadians can barely imagine. And pointing out that gap may be the countermessage that best highlights the Cons' own dishonesty in pretending to speak for the little guy even while consistently using the levers of power to toss goodies to their well-connected friends.