Select Page

Before I begin my prose, or should I cite ‘dull expression’, I admit that I’m a great admirer of Seth Godin and his literary compositions, be it within an ebook or a few lines of a blogpost.

With an analytically brilliant marketing brain, Seth churns out opinions and thoughts which tickles, provokes and inspires the mind, and I truly adore his outlook on marketing and advertising.

I serve similar accolades to his latest post where he postulates, on what happens as a result of security theater at the Orlando airport, that it neither increases security nor promotes peace of mind.

And my tiny brain was tickled, provoked and inspired. Okay, maybe not so much as inspired but here goes…

So, according to The Fear Tax, ¬†it’s a pain in the ass for air travel consumers that they have to go through a cloud of security measures, highlighting the pain and plight of the ones who go through it as well as the ones who take care of it.

Valid arguments indeed, especially when he analogises that situation to the assurance that one gets when one goes out to get an MBA credential, that time and money spent, or taxed, are just inadequately justified for a shot at, in this MBA example, a decent journey into entrepreneurship.

Well my thoughts on that MBA situation are like for like, and I totally agree that paper chase, where it’s only in select industries that it is mandatorily necessary, as percepted by society, while it’s merely another badge of honour on the chest for certain industries, where the fear of not having one (MBA) is perceived as lacking, thus initiaiting the chase.

This fear tax, so Seth says and I quote “We pay the tax when we cover our butt instead of doing the right thing, and we pay the tax when we take away someone’s dignity because we’re afraid”.

Yes, in view of the heightened fear against terrorism, much is being done by most governments to curtail the fear, but just how efficient is this ‘fear tax’ really?

It may not be easily quantifiable nor justified, and where some may see it as over the top, I do think that it’s a decently justifiable tax and that one can never be too safe.

Or maybe it’s just my CYA (cover-your-ass) mentality, being brought up on this tiny sunny island, where almost everything you do involves utmost security or a safety first mentality.

I can’t remember who said it or when, but my argument on it being decently justifiable is best summed up by one simple question, rhetorically targeted at whomever¬†thinks that certain security measures at Airports create delays and missed flights, taxing (and reducing) efficiency.

The question:
Imagine there’s 2 airports, Airport A and and Airport B. At Airport A, you go through basic security of metal detectors and bag screeners. At Airport B, you go through all that, as well as searching of bags, personnel that surveys you and much more, as much as they have to, to ensure that the travel is safe and secure. Now this question being, which Airport would you choose?

Of course there are those who just wants to get their flights over and done with, and the notion that ‘accidents happen’, but then again there are some who values security and safety above else.

Now I’m no expert on all this Airport security and Safety issues, but something about “Think about how much you could get done if you didn’t have to pay a tax to amplify or mollify your fear” provokes the thought of ‘How much is too much?’ and ‘What could happen when security lapses or is being taken lightly?’

Hmmm, can there ever be too much safety measures?