What happens when you market-test the nation’s most famous state motto?
In [a few] days, New Hampshire’s state motto will turn 200 years old. It was July 31, 1809, when Gen. John Stark wrote to his comrades from the Battle of Bennington to offer this toast: “Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.”
It is a horrible irony that weeks before this historic anniversary, “The Governor’s Task Force for the Recruitment and Retention of a Young Workforce for the State of New Hampshire” stated in its official report: “Our State portrays an unfriendly message that every individual has to succeed on their own, rather than count on a support system for assistance (Live Free or Die is not a friendly, supporting message that appeals to young people).”
The commission reported this recommendation from people interviewed: “Rebrand NH and make it more appealing; the Live Free Or Die motto is prohibitive to what young people are looking for in their home community.”
What’s really troubling is the sense I get that the issue young people have with the motto is not the “…or die” part.
In other news, the Gadsden flag has also been re-tooled:
Have a Nice Day!
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
From the comments section of the article:
I saw that, David, but it doesn’t change the fact that young people are, shall we say, uncomfortable with the motto.
Duh. Okay, so it’s the boomers who are uncomfortable with it.
Mike:
1. Those aren’t young people.
2. It’s two responses. That’s hardly enough to identify a pattern.
3. The article doesn’t indicate what everyone said or even what the general tone of the responses were.
4. The recommendation of the committee didn’t follow those lines.
David:
I’d like to thank you for challenging me on this one. I had meant it as something light-hearted in tone, a “kids these days” kind of head-shaking post. (By the way, before you fire off another numbered response, the Gadsden flag has not actually been re-tooled. That was meant as a wry commentary.) But going to the link you provided shows me that it’s a bit more serious than that. (It always pays to check the original source.)
Regarding your second and third points:
Not only does the article not “indicate what everyone said or even what the general tone of the responses were,” neither does the published study. But here are some relevant quotes:
From page 13 (Perceived Weakness as seen by the authors of the report):
From Attachment 2: (A series of roundtable discussions with a variety of groups represented):
That response was one out of seven mentioned. (14%)
That response was one out of four mentioned. (25%)
That response was one out of five mentioned. (20%)
As you can see, the comments by the Co-Chairmen of the Governor’s Task Force were self-serving, if not misleading.
Regarding your first point, as you can now see for yourself, some of them were young. (And besides, I had already acknowledged that after you first brought up that point, thank you.)
And as to your fourth point, I was talking about people’s attitudes towards the slogan, not any plan on changing it. (Again, don’t panic about the Gadsden flag. I was joking.) But now that I’ve actually read the (59 page) report, I can see that they may be moving in that direction. Again:
(That’s the authors of the report speaking, and yes they are summarizing the views of the people they spoke with. That was the purpose of this report.)
Mike, I feel as though the brand they are looking for exists, if they would come to realize it is a patriotic thing and not something to be sneered at as “old thinking” and no longer relevant in our modern society. I somehow feel the whole idea of patriotism and one actually loving their country is going down the tubes because of revisionist history, etc. No one seems to actually know or care why mottos like this exist or came into being in the first place. What’s needed is an honest teaching of the true history of our land, and this is sorely lacking.
These people proposing this change need change only their outlook, not their motto.
Mike:
1. The sample groups are too small to establish reliable statistics where public opinion is concerned. Yes, it might be focus-grouping, but even focus-grouping usually uses more groups.
2. For what it’s worth, the ratios of those small groups are still minorities.
3. The groups they sampled read like a who’s who of liberal/left demographics; education administrators, municipal officials, nonprofit directors, state officials; Nashua’s Young Professionals group and Manchester Young Professionals Network (yuppies); representatives from nonprofit and charitable organizations across NH. The specific details of which groups were present aren’t mentioned (perhaps they should have been; something tells me they were a little vague on the details intentionally), but you can see they sampled certain groups to try and get certain responses. Yet, they still wouldn’t come out in favor of changing the state’s motto AND they kicked up controversy in the process.
Maybe if they rebranded as “New Hempshire” the kids would come and stay and eat and eat and eat.
David, I happen to think it’s odd (and sad) that even a sizable minority of New Hampshire’s citizens think there’s a problem with the state motto. (I did notice that all the percentage were below 50.)
But I guess we’re going to disagree on this one. I think we’ll have to, because I’m not really sure about what your objections are in regards to what I’ve written.
And NH isn’t that soft…yet. Lest anyone forget, it was only two years ago that Die Hard 4 came out with the widely touted subtitle, “Live Free or Die Hard.” Clearly, if a Hollywood marketing department gave it the all clear, then my bet is that still plays pretty well with the public.
“Live Free Or Die”, that was also the motto of those Branch Davidians who died at the Battle of the Alamo II, Waco, Texas.
One could best call that a misuse of said quote.
I would have to dispute the inherent meaning of “live free” as it is inscribed to allowing a maniac sleep with your wife and burn down your compound while you’re in it. But they did hand the ATF a butt whipping.
John, read Cold Zero: Inside the FBI Hostage Rescue Team. Besides the pre-9/11 bureaucratic nightmare of indecision, the place was an armed fortress AND they had children inside (both of which you knew, but maybe not the whole extent of the problem). The subsequent f**k up at Ruby Ridge was more the same problems caused by suits at the top.
Taking the line from “Catch 22,” New Hampshire’s new motto should be “Better to live on your knees than die on your feet.”
David, I happen to think it’s odd (and sad) that even a sizable minority of New Hampshire’s citizens think there’s a problem with the state motto. (I did notice that all the percentage were below 50.)
Agreed.
But I guess we’re going to disagree on this one. I think we’ll have to, because I’m not really sure about what your objections are in regards to what I’ve written.
It’s not a disagreement over the basic situation, but simply how bad the problem really is. My contention is this: the situation is not as gloomy as the article makes it out to be. I think, from the scant evidence we have to review, it’s possible to make a cogent case that the task force was going out of its way to find opinions that would confirm its biases, sticking to small samples and demographics that would yield higher percentages of certain opinion groups. Even then, it seems that had to be selective in their quotations and somewhat cautious in their suggestions, as they knew where the opinion of most stood. In short, the report is more indicative of the biases of the task force than of public opinion on the whole.
Ok, so does state motto always reflect population?
South Dakota: Under God, the people rule.
Wyoming: Equal rights.
Alaska: North to the future.
Hmmmm.
New Hampshire doesn’t really have an identity like MA, ME and VT, do. It’s not really known for any signature product. Maine has its lobster, blueberries and potatoes (and the red hotdogs). Vermont has its maple syrup. MA has its fishing industry, clams, sports, cranberries and other produce, and rich history. Its once useful purpose was that it’s where you went to buy beer on Sundays if you lived in MA. But now that you can do that in MA, I’m surprised the state isn’t a ghost town. Maybe New Hampshire’s new motto should be, “New Hampshire: That place you drive through between Maine and Massachusetts.”
One note New Hampshire may want to ponder in its quest for a younger, more hip, workforce is that those numbers are driving downward. There are fewer of that crowd out there. Attracting them isn’t so much a problem of practice as it is of supply.
I understand the importance of keeping the recently college educated at home, but New Hampshire’s biggest problem isn’t its motto. It’s a cultural obsession that life doesn’t start until you live in some swank metropolitan area, paying $2000 a month for an apartment while sipping lattes and checking your iPhone at the Starbucks at the corner. I’d love to have a go of it in New York, working for the Journal, Times or Post, while living it up in the big city. I know a myriad of factors will keep that from every happening, precluding talent. At the same time, I know there are trade offs and I can still get as much or even more out of life living in rural Ohio, where I can get lattes and iPhone access a lot cheaper if I wanted an iPhone or liked shitty coffee.
In Alabama “we dare defend our rights.”