Editor’s Note: This is another post in an ongoing series of guest submissions to Idea Peepshow. This one comes from Phil Tippin, a graphic designer and writer in Minneapolis.

If you’ve got an idea for a guest post, we’d love to hear from you. Shoot a note to: info(at)fasthorseinc.com.

By Phil Tippin

When America’s economy hit the skids after the Sept. 11 attacks, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told CNN, “We need to respond quickly so people regain confidence and consider it their patriotic duty to go shopping – ”

He was right. Our system works when people spend money. But back then, just as now, we learned that suggesting that people spend money is tricky business in a bad economy. Bush was widely lampooned for his statement, suggesting that the notion was too simplistic, and the governor was out of touch with the situation.

It is into these waters that the Mall of America wades with their new ad campaign.

The first ad that caught my attention was a bus side. The ad says, “The economy looks better in a new outfit.”

Okay, yes. I do get a little spring in my step when I get some cool new clothes, but that’s not what first occurred to me when I saw the bus side. My first impression was “Let them eat cake.” The image doesn’t feature someone in business clothes, work clothes or anything resembling a roll-up-your-sleeves, can-do attitude. Instead, the model, dressed decidedly upscale, strikes a pose that seems aloof. Curious, and feeling relatively certain that the Mall of America doesn’t intend to offend me with their ads, I gave them a call. I spoke with Jeff Hoke, the mall’s director of marketing, to find out the thinking behind the campaign.

“As we looked ahead at the 2009 season, everything was so somber,” said Hoke. “Our slogan is ‘There’s a place for fun in your life’ and we like to lighten things up whenever we can. The goal for the campaign was to be light, tongue-in-cheek and funny – we like to poke fun at ourselves. As we approached this year’s campaign we got news of a double-dip recession but we decided to roll with it anyway. The campaign gives us all an excuse to laugh.”

Is it working? “The response has been very good,” he says.

This year’s MOA offering, seen on 25 billboards and 300 buses, was the work of the Preston Kelly Agency. Preston Kelly also did last year’s campaign, introducing the overall style that informs this year’s ads and also included one that addressed the economy (“The road to economic recovery may be long. You need shoes.”).

As my attention had been brought to the campaign by the “New Outfit” ad, Hoke was quick to point out that that seen in its entirety, the campaign’s scope is broad, including an ad featuring a male model in business attire applying for a job and another that addresses the issue of thrift.

Still, I can’t help but wince a little when I see the bus side that proclaims, “The housing recovery should start with your closet.” The ad is certainly another clever cheer for shopping, but dances with the sticky subject of home foreclosures to get its point across. For someone reading that who had lost their home, it can only be a bitter reminder. And that’s the challenge of marketing in this economy: Some aspects of the recession are harder to laugh at than others.

Risky? Yes, and it definitely got my attention. Whether funny or provocative, tongue-in-cheek or troubling, the MOA campaign is a definite part of the zeitgeist that is the world we live in now. If shopping is our patriotic duty, then some simply can’t afford to be patriots. For the rest, reaching the reluctant consumer is a tricky and sensitive business.

They’re also stubborn and easy to anger. We’ll hope that only the good qualities apply to the newest member of the Fast Horse family.

Elliott Alexander Pierach was born on Jan. 2. Mom and baby are fine — we believe dad is probably doing all right, too.

It’s likely to require some ox-like persistence to soldier on as 2009 unfolds. The economy hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression; families and companies alike are tightening their belts.

We remain optimistic, however. As I said when the government announced recently that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007: “Great! We’re that much closer to being done with it!”

I went out to grab some soup at One on One, the unusual bike shop/cafe in the North Loop. When I went to put money in the meter, I noticed that the one next to me had 12 minutes still on it.

So I got back in my car and moved it to that meter to save a quarter.

Hmmm. I fear that this sort of behavior could lead to saving one’s toenail clippings and keeping dozens of cats in the house.

Foreclosures and credit card debt are skyrocketing. The savings rate is zero. The jobless rate hasn’t been this high in almost 20 years. Layaway purchases are making a comeback. Economists are making comparisons to 1929. People are running out of money and they’re cutting back.

This situation won’t turn around quickly. Why? Because the workers of America simply aren’t making enough money. This is not a political observation, merely stating a fact. Wages, adjusted for inflation, are flat or even down slightly over the last 30 years. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people in our nation are raking in amazing sums of money — measured not in six figures, but in eight, nine, even 10.

I always look at the example of Dr. William McGuire, the former chief of United Healthcare. McGuire made more than $1 billion in a 10-year span: an average of more than $100 million a year. Was he really worth that much money? Is anyone? I know such compensation has been explained by pointing to growth in the stock price and the value of the company during his tenure. But that ignores the contributions made by all those United Healthcare workers who weren’t making $100 million a year. Didn’t they have anything to do with the company’s growth?

Again, let me stress: I’m not getting political here. But if the American economy is to thrive, the people who do most of the buying and consuming have to get a bigger share of the pie. To see how that can work, look at the example of pioneering American automaker Henry Ford.

One hundred years ago, in 1908, Ford introduced the Model T. At that time, cars were expensive luxury goods for the well-to-do. Many autos cost upwards of $2,000 — more than the average annual wage of a typical worker.

Ford realized that he could sell more cars if the average worker could afford to buy one. In 1914, Ford announced that he would start paying his assembly line workers $5 a day — more than twice as much as the average factory wage. The news caused a sensation. Now an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with about four months’ pay.

By 1916, Model T sales had more than doubled, to nearly 500,000 cars. And the price dropped from $850 to $360. Other factors were at work; the country was prosperous, the farmers were doing well and the car became a must-have gizmo — the iPod of its day.

But if American companies are looking for ways to turn around their sales, they might start by putting more money in the pockets of their consumers.

Zappos.com, an online purveyor of shoes, handbags and more, is always a shining star noted in social media discussions.

However, for the most part, they are transparent about positive aspects of their company. The corporate HQ typically is represented as a caring culture that lives by their tagline of “powered by service.” The company encourages blogging and twittering by its employees. Even the CEO is an active Twitterer.

One could argue that it’s easy to be transparent during smooth sailing; the challenge lies in public scrutiny during dark times.

Yesterday, at about 3:30 p.m. CST, the CEO Tony Hsieh tweeted “Very emotional day for everyone at Zappos. I’ll be sending out an update later today with details of what’s going on.”

An hour later, he shared “Update on today: Here’s the email I just sent to our employees – http://tinyurl.com/5hp9sf.”

An excerpt:

Today has been a tough, emotional day for everyone at Zappos. We made the hard choice of laying off about 8% of our employees. The layoffs will affect almost every single department at Zappos.”

While it’s impressive that Hsieh shared the company memo publicly, it’s also note-worthy that he shared their benefits:

We are offering to pay each laid-off employee through the end of the year (about 2 months), and offering an additional amount for employees that have been with us for 3 or more years.

In addition, because our regular health benefits cover 100% medical, dental, and vision for employees and 50% for spouses and dependents, we decided to offer to reimburse laid-off employees for up to 6 months of COBRA payments.

Finally, he did not shutter twittering.

I’ve been asked by some employees whether it’s okay to twitter about what’s going on. Our Twitter policy remains the same as it’s always been: just be real, and use your best judgement.

The straightforward handling of this difficult economic situation appears to be another case study in transparency for Zappos. Time will tell, but the first steps appear to reflect their core organizational principles.

Obviously, Zappos is not alone. Countless companies will be dealing with layoffs and reductions. If you’re counseling these companies, what’s your recommendation? Is Zappos a model for all or a special case?