« George Carlin (1937-2008) - Farewell to a clear-eyed comedian | Main | "The crisis at General Motors is not of its making." »

Bad example

Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. - Franklin P. Adams

In my last article, I stated that political marketing and legal cases should not be used as examplars for marketing products and services.  For an elucidation of precisely why not, read these thoughts culled from a recent Newsweek.com interview with Harvard Business School professor John Quelch, author of "Greater Good:  How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy:"

NEWSWEEK: Why do we see more negative advertising in politics than in the business context?

John Quelch: There is no Election Day deadline in business—it carries on from one day to the next. Businesses worry about growing the size of the overall market to increase sales and shareholder value. For example, Coke and Pepsi both want to increase the amount of carbonated soft drinks that we consume. If Pepsi and Coke go after each other in advertising, they will turn off consumers and reduce demand for both of their brands. Both brands know that they have to live together side by side on supermarket shelves for the long run. For politicians it is different. They don't care about the size of the market [how many people actually vote]. All they care about is winning a plurality on Election Day. So there is a greater sense of urgency for the political candidate.

Is negative advertising a desperate technique or a smart one?

It can be both desperate and smart. It is often used in desperation. Since there is a winner-take-all deadline on Election Day, a candidate trailing in polls is often tempted to pull down the opponent rather than develop a positive case for himself, which usually takes a longer period of time. The objective is to raise doubts about the opponent in minds of the electors—desperate, but often effective against an attractive but relatively unknown candidate such as [Barack] Obama.

Don't you think it's risky to start treating a political candidate as a marketable product?

When you use words like marketing and branding in connection with politics, many people see a red flag and worry about manipulation and the dumbing down of the political process. In fact, marketing is about understanding the needs and aspirations of consumers or citizens, and developing products or policy propositions in response.

Who is the best-marketed political figure?

The politician who does not need to indulge in any marketing because his actions, deeds and words speak volumes. Nelson Mandela is one such person.

Posted June 24, 2008
Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5144/30066922

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bad example:

Comments

You bring up some interesting stuff here about the differences between political marketing and consumer marketing. I like what you’ve said about forced alternatives.

Another interesting difference is that in consumer marketing you need to offer a radically different kind of value and meaning than anyone else in the marketplace. These differences in the consumer arena often times create a polarizing effect – raving fans and those that think you are the devil. But this is okay in consumer marketing. In political marketing, these radical differences can cost you the election. It’s like you almost have to be “plain toast” candidate and appeal to the masses to get elected.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Bill

Posted by: Bill Gammell | June 24, 2008 at 02:30 PM

Post a comment