Could American Preferences in Casino Design Shed Light on American Politics?
The Political Rise of Ralph Kramden
Many years ago, on a long-haul flight I was seated next to a man who designed casinos for a living. As sometimes happens on such flights we got to talking about the reason for our travel.
I asked him about the differences between European and U.S. casinos.
He explained that Americans don’t like casinos that appear too elegant. He said it isn’t cost that determines whether a casino is designed as “upscale” or “low end.” According to industry research (and they do a lot of it), American consumers feel more comfortable in surroundings that aren’t too “fancy.” Fancy is my word.
American consumers prefer lots of slot machines and noise and lights. They don’t want velvet upholstery and deluxe cuisine. They want to be able to drive up to the casino wearing leisure suits, dine at all-you-can-eat buffets and feel at home in an informal atmosphere. Leatherette seats are just fine.
American consumers don’t like surroundings where they feel intimidated by elegance or sophistication.
When casinos are designed, this fundamental information goes into all decision making.
I got to thinking about this consumer preference conversation in the context of the Presidential election this week and the apparent popularity of Trump over Harris.
Watching one of the news discussion programs after the election, they mentioned the story of a single mother in one of the northeast States. When asked why she was voting for Trump over Harris, she explained “Trump is more like me.”
There’s a lot that should be discussed in the context of how we ended up with a second election of Trump. Racism, sexism and policy and timing of Biden administration decisions all have a big place in that discussion.
But I wonder whether candidate packaging is another part of the explanation.
Harris is poised, well-educated, well-spoken, elegant, sophisticated, experienced and articulate. Despite a humble background, I think many U.S. consumers might conclude Harris is far above them in class (and I use the word “class” in a multi-faceted sense).
By contrast, Trump often comes off as a Ralph Kramden-type (from the “Honeymooners” television series of the 1950s). The Ralph Kramden character, a bus driver, much like Trump, is bellicose, uneducated, speaks off the cuff, is in poor physical condition and makes decisions based on gut reactions. The Archie Bunker character from the TV series “All In The Family” is another familiar character with a similar features.
It doesn’t matter that Trump may (or may not) be worth billions, that he was born into a millionaire family and that he reportedly attended an ivy league school. He happily and consistently plays the loud-mouth uncle at the family holiday dinner.
Trump’s word garbling, his not-from-the-best-part-of-town accent and his guy-on-the-next-barstool mannerisms may make him appear less threatening to U.S voters. Harris may be too “fancy” among voters who are looking for the human equivalent of the low-end casino.
If “packaging” is one of the keys, it doesn’t matter whether Trump’s ideas are consistent, achievable, offensive or even founded in facts.
If voters are bewildered by talk of tariffs, tax fairness and international affairs, the choice with the most basic appeal may be the guy with whom you could play pool or have a beer. Trump never appears too fancy or too smart. No one would accuse Trump as having Cary Grant style, Ralph Lauren elegance or even basic diplomatic skills or good manners.
Keep in mind, when casino owners have their own investment money at risk, they know U.S. consumers generally prefer the choice that appears safe and familiar. You may be offering the finest French merlot from a vintage year on a silver tray, but that doesn’t matter if the consumer is actually looking for domestic beer.
Maybe packaging for the low information voter, when measured against everything else involved, seems trivial. But it might be worth circling back when future candidates are considered by the Democratic Party.
Copyright © 2024 L.E. Langner. All rights reserved. No part of this story may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems.
The difference is that Carroll O'Connor. Bunker, was a man of character who played character
Of course you are correct, but these roles may represent an archetype with which low information voters are familiar and comfortable. The trouble is the outcome gives real and actual power to a candidate grossly ill-suited for the job. We don't have the option to change the channel for four more years.