Chicago Not in Chicago

 A mixture of confusion, revulsion, and embarrassment on this guerrilla marketing campaign [READER]( Have you ever watched Nathan For You? I didn't watch the show during its original four-year run on Comedy Central, but I marathoned it a couple years ago and think of it often. If you're unfamiliar: straight-faced comedian Nathan Fielder hosts a reality program in which he offers to help struggling businesses by coming up with illogical marketing plans and seeing them to fruition. Fielder's commitment to the bit, regardless of the bizarre scope of his plans or how much his concepts burden his clients, makes the show work even when the plans he's hatched have felt like too much for me as a viewer. In one of my favorite episodes, he attempts to help a moving company by providing free labor with the invention of "The Movement," a faux exercise phenomenon built around moving furniture; Fielder's plot involves finding a bodybuilder to pose as "The Movement" guru, hiring a ghostwriter to crank out a fictitious autobiography of said guru, and getting the guru [booked on local TV news]( segments to promote the book and exercise regimen. The Movement book became [an Amazon bestseller](. I'm not sure what happened to the moving company. Celebrated documentarian Errol Morris cogently summed up Fielder's show in [a New Yorker essay]( about its finale: "What makes 'Nathan for You' so heretical is that all of his projects are based on misrepresentation and lying; and yet, not accidentally, they capture something of the essence of American business." My thoughts have drifted back to Nathan for You often since the city of Chicago launched "Chicago Not in Chicago," a new marketing campaign allegedly promoting the city by advertising its historical achievements in places outside this zip code. I haven't gauged every Chicagoan's response to this new endeavor, but what I have seen—on Twitter, [in the Sun-Times opinion section]( a mixture of confusion, revulsion, and embarrassment. The city's chief marketing officer, Michael Fassnacht, wrote a Tribune editorial yesterday explaining and defending the campaign, calling it a ["smart and cheeky guerrilla marketing campaign that is supposed to challenge one's perception of Chicago."]( I think it challenges my perception of grammar. "Chicago Not in Chicago" rolls off the tongue like a drunken figure skater attempting to do a routine to harsh noise. It reads like a "not" joke that forgot where the punchline is supposed to go. It doesn't make me think of Chicago, or what I love about this place; it makes me curious about every step that went into making this campaign a reality. "Chicago Not in Chicago" makes me wonder why the city of Chicago's marketing department needs to exist. Fassnacht wrote that the new campaign is "aimed at starting a conversation about the rich stories we hold near and dear to Chicago." I've infrequently encountered a Chicagoan who needs an excuse to fondly talk about what makes this place special. I don't think a "guerrilla marketing campaign" in which the mayor tweets (and [then deletes]( an unsolicited factoid—which looks like it came from a Snapple bottle-cap—at the governor of Tokyo is much of a genuine conversation starter. OK, that's not entirely true—such a ludicrous idea can certainly generate chatter about the nature of the campaign. I suppose Fassnacht is right about one thing; this campaign did break through the everyday noise rather than quietly fail. Look, I'm writing about it right now! But to what end? What's the point of making a lot of noise when the people receiving it are confused about its purpose, and what its selling—the fact that Fassnacht had to spell out that "Chicago Not in Chicago" is not a tourism campaign makes me wonder how clear this campaign is to anyone. How good or successful can a marketing tactic be when the results make me (briefly) daydream of moving to a place that doesn't feel the need to promote itself via such a convoluted, backasswards marketing stunt. (If I moved, would that make me "Chicago Not in Chicago"?) Who benefits from this campaign except maybe the people who need it to make a certain amount of noise in order to prove its success? I do have one positive thing to say about "Chicago Not in Chicago": it would make a great episode of Nathan For You. Sincerely, 🏆[Sign up for exclusive Best of Chicago updates to be the first to know who wins!]( 🏆 ["A Henry Darger Dispute: Who Inherits the Rights to a Loner's Genius?,"]( by Robin Pogrebin (New York Times) ["On Productivity,"]( by Alicia Kennedy (From the Desk of Alicia Kennedy) ["Hair of the Dog: Meet the Bar Animals of Chicago,"]( by Aimee Levitt (Eater Chicago) ["Pizzaz: South Philly's strange and locally beloved pizza that few outsiders know about (or think is too weird to be good),"]( by Adam Horvath (Billy Penn) Parris LeShun, [Sirrap Series, Vol. 1]( Mohawk Johnson, [Trash]( Pinksqueeze, [Quarter Life Crisis]( Everson Poe, ["The Chamber of Blood"]( We've wrapped up season one of CQN! Listen back on all ten episodes [here]( or wherever you get your podcasts. [Steep plans a big move—just down the street]( The Edgewater company plans to buy its own building; plus a new managing director for Artemisia and the (live) return of Chicago Theatre Week by [Kerry Reid]( [Interview with podcaster Aaron Smith: ‘Get to the root of the person]( ’Season three of “Escaping the Odds,” Smith’s podcast about entrepreneurship for the formerly incarcerated, dropped Tuesday. by [Jim Daley]( [Issue of Feb 3 - Feb 16, 2022 Vol. 51, No.]( [Download Issue]( [View this e-mail as a web page]( [@chicago_reader]( [/chicagoreader]( [@chicago_reader]( [Chicago Reader on LinkedIn]( [/chicagoreader]( [chicagoreader.com]( [Forward this e-mail to a friend](. Want to change how you receive these e-mails? You can [update your preferences]( or [unsubscribe from this list](. Copyright © 2022 Chicago Reader, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Chicago Reader, 2930 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 102, Chicago, IL 60616