Islamic Republic and Product Differentiation

So, you thought Islamic clergies don't understand the concept of market engineering? You thought wrong. Let me explain.

In marketing, product differentiation is the modification of a product to make it more attractive to the target market. This involves differentiating it from competitors' products as well as one's own product offerings.

The changes are usually minor; they can be merely a change in packaging or also include a change in advertising theme. The physical product need not change, but it could. The major sources of product differentiation are as follows:

.Differences in quality or design among output (product)
.Ignorance of buyers regarding the essential characteristics and qualities of goods they are purchasing
.Pervasive sales promotion activities of sellers and, in particular, advertising
.Possibility of developing significant product differentiation through advertising is greatly enhanced for so called “gift goods” or “prestige goods”
.Differentiation in the locations of sellers of the same good where the product fills no technical function but rather can satisfy many different sort of personal needs or uses (psychological or physical).

The objective of this strategy is to develop a position that potential customers will see as unique. If your target market sees your product as different from the competitors', you will have more flexibility in developing your marketing mix. (Source Wikipedia)

Islamic (Khomeinists) ideological/political goods are mainly available in two brands (style) in the Islamic Republic: The Reformers and the Hardliners. However, the Islamic republic has launched a new product differentiation campaign outside of its borders and the target audience is mainly the Western Consumers, or more appropriately, the 'useful idiots' in the West. The Islamic Republic has been successful in developing unique product differences with the intent to influence demand in naive democratic societies. One of them is an oxymoron called "Islamic feminism" and the other is "Reza Aslan", theologian turned military strategist and political pundit. His former classmate elaborates on what I'm trying to get across:

Religion is a business whereby they sell you a product. . .describing its features in a language one cannot understand (usually Latin, Arabic, or Hebrew or just poorly written English in some cases). Then they charge you for the "product" now (with all sorts of fine print and restrictions that could give a contracts lawyer a hard-on), and promise delivery after death. . .and they can do all of this without even having a refund policy!

Hell if Nordstrom sold shoes like that it would be out of business in 2 days!

Now that's a true testament to the sales ability of theologians all over the world. In fact I think if Nordstrom hired some theologians in the Salon Shoes Department, Charles David boots would be flying out the door 50 at a time!

I mean look at Reza Aslan as a great example of a theologian turned political pundit (truly a great guy, aside from our differences on religion, his being nice I mean seriously).

One day he is sitting next to me in a class called "The Theology of Marriage" and he can barely speak five words of Persian/Farsi to me (let's not get our collective panties in a bunch on the Persian vs. Farsi argument)... and the next thing I know a few years later (who is counting but around ten) he's in Turkey (the country, not the bird that was on my Thanksgiving table) as an expert on the Middle East!

He's standing next to Anderson Cooper, commenting on Iran's nuclear policy... and exchanging notes with General Marks on American military strategy in Iraq on satellite!

Last I recall his book's title was basically "La Elaha El Allah" in English (that's a phrase you hear frequently when you ask for a price break on gojeh sabz (tasty snack) from a street vendor in Tehran)! (Or when your cat gets on your nerves by meowing too much)

How did he insert the bit on the NPT and military strategy into his religious studies major?!

They weren't teaching military strategy at Bannan Hall on the third floor where the Religious Studies Department was!! Military Strategy was way across the campus by the ROTC area!

Insofar as I know he doesn't even know what zoghal akhteh (delicious snack) is, so how did he become an expert on Iran and its nuclear policies on Anderson Cooper and Bill Maher?

Theologians. . . they're so good at bullshitting -- even we lawyers look at them with awe (only because we thought we had the market monopolized)!

Reza aslan in his latest piece in Los Angeles Time prescribes his pearls of wisdom on how we can make nice with the Islamic colonizers occupying Iran.(Note, he can barely speak Persian) Here are some uninformed tidbits tailor-made for the 'useful idiots':

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. For that to happen, Iran will have to meet certain conditions. It must stop sending arms to Hezbollah. It must cease meddling in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it must pursue a more constructive role in stabilizing Iraq.

Everything he says is true but not the whole truth (lying by omission). He is using 3 propaganda techniques: 1- Half truth 2-euphemism, 3-deception via mislabeling.

The First half-truth appears when he only stresses "Sending Arms to Hezbollah". He selectively decided not to mention the training and social and infrastructural funding that started 25 years ago with no adverse reaction from the west. Then, he uses an innocuous word such as "meddling" in Israeli-Palestinian conflict to substitute that for funding, training, and arming Hamas. This propaganda technique is purely designed to deceive by mislabeling and misinforming. In his last sentence he employs all three mentioned above techniques simultaneously. Using "More constructive" has a positive connotation. Since Iran has been playing a "constructive role" in Iraq 'so far', then all required is to do itsy bitsy more of the same. If you don't call that a lie via mislabeling and misinformation, I don't know what else to call it. He then carefully chooses the word "stabilizing". I guess killing Americans, Kurds, and Iraqis by funding and training Shia militia death squads (and recently Sunni militia) in his Islamic republic's dictionary means "stability-inducing ingredients". Then, he repeats his tired meme like a mindless and dutiful parrot stating some very obvious truths but not the entire truth:

But the U.S. has conditions of its own to meet before it too can be considered a reliable negotiating partner. Most important, it must once and for all abandon its policy of actively pursuing regime change in Iran. This policy has only strengthened the hand of Iran's clerical regime, accelerated its nuclear program, helped justify its repression of political opposition and fostered its paranoia against internal and external threats.

Well, Mr. Aslan thinks the U.S is not a trustworthy negotiating partner. On what criteria does he base this assessment of unreliability? Why does regime change should weigh in at all in negotiating over stopping a terrorist, hostage taking and America-hating nation-state from obtaining the deadliest weapon known to man? Does he think the U.S. is obtuse enough to give life-time warranty to a nation whose very existence depends upon international terrorists production, destruction of the West and "ignorant" modernity? Does he think the Islamic republic is a reliable partner when stoning of women and temporary marriages are referred to as “age of enlightenment and charity” and modernism and human rights as “evils of ignorant West”? Not to mention, the IR has been continuously talking behind close doors with the U.S. for the past 27 years, and contrary to conventional wisdom, the warmongering hardliners (Ahamdinejad and IRGC) are not waiting in the wings to talk. If that were true, Iran would not be imprisoning, forcing false confessions from and otherwise seriously mistreating Iranian American activists, scholars and engagement advocates, all for political effect.

No wonder Sheema declined Fox New's invitation who had previously invited Reza Aslan as an "expert" on Iran.

Source: Propaganda and Debating Techniques