The necessity of marketing in public education



Well, the dream for sensibility among certain Greater Clark County Schools Board members appears to be an unreasonable fantasy that will never be realized.

Given that state funding now follows students wherever they attend school, it would seem rational for a school system to do everything it can to first retain its current students and further attract additional students. More students, more funding.

As Greater Clark makes its first modest foray into marketing itself, two board members would appear to prefer ignoring the importance of marketing. If they would consider students as customers, and state funding as the revenues earned for having customers, perhaps it would be clearer. A florist would not invest in extra seeds, fertilizer, ribbons, containers, etc., without anticipating an increase in sales (more customers). Similarly, a transportation company would not invest in more buses, replacement parts or fuel reserves without expecting more passengers. But perhaps, surely, either of those enterprises would deem it worthwhile to invest a nearly imperceptible fraction of its annual budget to try to defend and hopefully grow its customer base. Of course that assumes long-term viability is a goal of the proprietors.

Will Greater Clark’s billboard advertising pay off? I hope so. The fact of the matter is that marketing can be effective. And more of it will be necessary. Since the state of Indiana made kindergarten through 12th grade education a competitive economic market, we are just scratching the surface of public school advertising.

— Terry Griffis, Jeffersonville





Tell Hollywood enough with the violence

When there is a tragedy like the shooting in Colorado, people ask, “How did this happen again?”

There’s talk about gun control, but there’s plenty of blame to go around for our violent culture. I’d like to point to a source that never seems to improve — Hollywood. Not only Hollywood, because it couldn’t succeed without the billions of dollars it receives every year.

Why is Hollywood allowed to peddle its violence to every corner of the world, giving our enemies more reason to hate us and new ideas on how to kill us? They export the very worst we have to offer. Not only do they dish out their garbage to adults, they feed a more decadent version of the same to our children in the form of video games. Doomsday, blood and guts, killing, shooting, terror and death. There is more daily violence because we not only accept it, we’ve been paying for it. We’re buying what they’re selling. It’s just business, supply and demand.

I’ve only seen about 10 really good movies in the past 20 years. Does Hollywood even make very good movies anymore? If we told them “no” by withholding our financial support, they’d listen. If there was a town in our country that was spewing toxic gas all over the globe, America would shut it down. You don’t give an enemy aid and comfort during a war, you cut off their supplies to drive them out.

The only way to combat evil is with good. Good is a genuine choice, just as evil is a reality. Make a good choice, and don’t pay them for their sloppy work. We gave them their power and influence. These are the same people responsible for making television virtually unwatchable.

Hollywood: A place of make believe filled with pretty people, pretending to be ordinary people, pretending to kill each other, really destroying our world and charging us a hefty sum for the privilege. They should be stopped. Not by an action hero, but by ordinary people who dislike real violence and greed at any cost.

Maybe I’m dreaming, because the reality is that Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant are dead. Remember the movies you’ve seen that inspired you, made you happy or even a better person? Let Hollywood make one again and perhaps they’ll earn a paycheck. One solution is to not give them any of your paycheck.

— S. D. Bottom, Jeffersonville



Reader doesn’t care for Young’s debate-challenge response



Let me start with a disclaimer: I am an “independent” voter who voted for Todd Young in 2010. I liked his message of working for fiscal responsibility in a badly damaged economy, and he seemed honest.

I’m already considering voting against Young this year, though, because of his campaign manager’s response to their challenger Shelli Yoder’s proposal for a series of town hall style debates. The campaign manager reportedly said, “Hoosiers deserve leaders who are willing to engage on real issues, not political candidates grasping for headlines.”

Um, excuse me, what better way is there to “engage on real issues” than to debate them in public? To speak of “what Hoosiers deserve,” how about an honest yes or no? What is Todd Young’s campaign afraid of?

So based on this exchange, here’s my score so far: Yoder  — willing to engage on issues; Young — would rather divert attention by complaining about technicalities.

— Sam Johnson, New Albany