The Marketing of Fear

The concept of marketing fear, at first glance, may seem, to most onlookers, reprehensible. The idea of selling a concept, product, or idea by instilling any degree of alarm, whether real or imagined, simply for personal gain can carry with it many ethical, if not legal, consequences. However, applying the simple “chicken or egg” principle allows just a singular conclusion: nothing is successfully marketed without first having a market for it.
From something as simple as “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” as a means of increasing sales for fruit vendors, to unnerving commercials detailing home damage and even physical attacks following a potential break in to boost alarm sales; fear has long been a successful marketing ploy. The goal of most marketing is to manipulate instincts as opposed to reasoned decision making, and nothing does this more than fear. The advertising firm’s greatest nightmare is a reasoning, methodical consumer. Salesmen have mastered the “one meeting” close, so much so that most states have enacted a version of the “Right of Recision” law, enabling homeowners that were manipulated by fear to cancel a quickly signed contract. But while money is often at stake in marketing campaigns, the marketing of fear extends even more into the concept market. And nowhere is this more evident than the current war in Iraq.
It is interesting to look back on exactly how this war was marketed. On March 17, 2003, President Bush, while addressing the nation and laying out his reasons for attacking Iraq, emphatically stated the following:

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.”

Following this, he gave the then president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, 48 hours to either surrender or be invaded. This power had been granted by both the House of Representatives, where 77 of 100 voted for the war, and the Senate, in which 296 of 429 members agreed to giving the President this power. It goes without saying that those vote totals would be different if taken today.
But while hindsight is 20/20 looking back on a specific moment, the market of fear continues. Imagine for a moment if the American public and its representatives were not susceptible to such deceptive tactics. What if we as a nation had taken some time to confirm the statements we had heard? Support for the war swelled after Colin Powell a speech to the U.N. detailing firsthand accounts of Hussein developing biological weaponry and WMD’s. But where did this come from?
Accounts point, oddly enough, to a single source, codenamed “Curveball.” His real name, as we now know, is Rafid Alwan, an Iraqi national now living in Germany. Powell referred to him in that same speech to the U.N., as slides flashed behind him of satellite photos depicting the supposed locations of the weaponry. “The source is an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer, who supervised one of these facilities,” Powell stated to an enraptured audience. This speech, combined with a few nations vehement dissent (remember freedom fries?) polarized the nation, drawing it closer as a united voice behind the war. We failed to acknowledge the small voices in the crowd telling us to slow down and take a better look, and forged straight ahead into an insane conflict with no end in sight.
“Curveball,” however, was a fluke. In his book “Curveball: Lies, Spies, and a Con Man Who Caused a War,” Bob Drogin calls this “arguably the biggest intelligence failure in history.” Not only had much of the account been fabricated, but it was obtained by the U.S. through German intelligence, and not once had an American intelligence officer so much as even interviewed Alwan. All of the locations shown by Powell at that U.N. speech were ultimately inspected and turned up nothing. It all turned out to be an utter fraud. “After 9/11,” Drogin concludes, “what we heard from the authorities was that they had failed to connect the dots that led to that scandal. In this case, they made up the dots.”
Thus the question remains, who really is to blame? Is it really those that duped us, or did we allow it happen, perhaps even welcome it? What excuse can we as a nation possibly have for not asking questions? Put simply, fear. Fear causes simple logic, and even the most basic of queries, to be ignored. We were asked to ignore common sense, and willingly complied. And every business, organization, and politician will continue to do so, as long as we continue to welcome it.