Is security so boring that vendors have to resort to gimmicks?

OK, I was never a big fan of the Wall Street Journal.  I know some people consider it the bible of the business world, but personally I was more of a NY Times as the official word. nevertheless I respected what the Journal had to say. Since the WSJ was recently sold, I had serious misgivings that it would retain its objectivity. My friend Dr. Stanley Feld in discussing their recent writing on healthcare insurance coverage calls their objectivity into question.

All in all though, an article I read today is I have to admit right on.  The article says that tech security companies are resorting to gimmicks to get people aware and moving on security issues.  They give a few examples.  F-Secure calling for an international cyber-security police force, Panda making a connection between cyber attacks and stock market crash and the most gimmicky of all, McAfee appointing a chief cyber security Mom.  That's right a mother.

Agree or disagree with the gimmicks. You have to ask yourself why.  With all that we read and see about data breaches, with all of these compliance regulations and rules around, why can't people take security seriously enough? Here is one mans opinion.  Security is a bad news generator of an industry.  We focus on what happens when things go wrong. We focus on adding to the process.  We don't focus on the positive and the profitable.  There is enough bad news in the world for people to focus on right now.  They don't want the bad news that security makes them confront.  If we can figure out how to make security a way of bringing a message of good news, we wouldn't need to resort to gimmicks.