It’s presidential election time again in the U.S. The airwaves are deluged by campaign ads, and the media, egged on by the party publicity machines, provide an endless stream of political analysis. But don’t be fooled by the apparent similarity of electioneering and marketing. They are worlds apart. Any marketer seeking to emulate the tactics of the political campaigner will find that they have undermined their brand and lost revenue rather than gained it.
To my mind there are three essential differences between presidential campaigning and brand building.
The first difference has to do with basic objectives. Presidential campaigning is directed to achieving a single transaction: gaining your vote. Little thought seems to be given to what happens after that. If enough votes are “sold” then the election is won. Politicians don’t need to be concerned with the long term because they know that by the time the next election rolls around, things are bound to be different. People’s motivations will have changed: from homeland security to home prices to lost jobs. The next election will be a whole new ballgame.
Brands, on the other hand, want people to make not just one transaction but many, and the needs brands seek to satisfy don’t change on a regular basis. Consumer needs typically change along with life stages, which typically last longer than four years.
The second difference has to do with consistency. The emphasis in political campaigns can shift rapidly and sometimes dramatically over just a few days, while successful brands need to stand for something and to remain consistent over time. Brands that regularly shift their positioning undermine their relationships with existing buyers and confuse prospective ones. But political candidates change their positioning as a campaign wears on, as they seek to maximize their appeal and counter the opposition. That’s why we hear from John McCain that one week the economy is fundamentally sound, the next that he is calling off the debate with Barack Obama because the economy is in crisis, only to participate after all.
Leading on from this is the third key difference between politics and marketing. In politics it is all too easy to put the needs of the candidate – which have to do with winning the election – over the needs of the voter. Promising something that cannot be delivered is an age-old political tactic. A candidate’s stated policy has a habit of evaporating once the election has been won.
But brand marketers who makes promise they can’t keep are in deep trouble. When people buy a brand for the first time and it does not deliver on its promise, they won’t buy it again. Therefore, when building a brand, considerable thought needs to be given to how the brand will serve the needs of the buyer. Misdirection, even if successful, will deliver only a short-lived win, because if the brand does not meet expectations, future transactions are lost. Brand building is a continuing process that aims to create a strong emotional bond between buyer and brand.
Having highlighted these differences, I must admit that there are similarities between presidential campaigns and marketing. For example, if a strategy is failing, practitioners in both fields often resort to short-term tactics to achieve their desired result. Marketers become salesmen and take refuge in price promotion. Politicians take refuge in attack ads. For both it becomes a case of “how low can you go?”
Is it any wonder that the promise of change has had such a salient role in this election? I for one would welcome a change in the way political campaigning is conducted. Maybe it’s time politicians followed the role model of the most successful brands, lived up to their promises, and thought more about the voter’s needs than their own.
So what do you think? Am I being too harsh on politicians? Too naïve when it comes to brand building? Please share your thoughts with us.
(5 votes, average: 4.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
October 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am
In the US, where there is a strong two party system, the marketing effort isn’t about the goodness of a candidate, but the badness of the other one. convince people the other candidate is bad, and it’s a vote for you (it’s almost like watching Pepsi and Coke go at it).
In a democracy with more than either/or, brands become increasingly necessary. This isn’t meant to be a knock on the US system of either/or. The US really has a strong tradition of negative campaign ads that I was wasn’t used to when I moved here. But it makes marketing sense to go negative here.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Nigel,
Great observations. The ‘political’ advertisnig is certainly parallel to what the domestic auto manufactures have been doing with thier price advertising (will say anything to get you into the showroom, tend to put out a new offer every few weeks, and focused on this buy not lifetime oportunities).
Jerry
October 6th, 2008 at 6:47 am
As Matt in toned “in US, where there is a strong two party system” a voter is either a Republican or a Democrat. Either McCain or Obama both are representing a brand. Their policies which they will somehow have the long term effect over the brand (political party).
People invest with the brand which they trust and yes advertising makes a short term effect over it but will stick with the brand they trust. And the same goes with vote.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Nigel,
I’m really pleased that you’ve blogged on this subject, because it’s a comparison that strikes me frequently. But I don’t entirely agree with you.
From several thousand miles away, I wonder whether the reason that the US political scene allows you to make your analysis is that the parties/candidates are not all that well differentiated in a category that voters actually aren’t that interested in. This is a fundamental marketing issue - failing to communicate to punters in their terms on the issues that really matter to them - the isolation of the political class. Extending your analogy to wider economics, it’s also a highly imperfect market - there there is very little choice for voters and massive barriers to market entry.
There’s a difference also in the role of the parties and the candidates as brands. The nature of the executive role creates a tension between the president and the party - the candiates need to differentiate themselves each time around and often to make themselves stand out from their party and/or predecessor (witness Senator McCain). So it’s a tricky communication challenge regardless of the parallel with marketing.
In the UK, there is another parallel with marketing which relates to political ideology. Over the last couple of decades, the main political parties have moved closer together and there is now some debate around how to generate greater clarity about what the differences are in their underlying ideologies that allow them to differentiate more successfully. The parties in the UK have real problems with brnd clarity in this sense.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Hi Owais, thanks for the comment. Of course, most voters do stick with the party they know and trust. The sad thing is that this allegiance is based on the same trivial things that guide brand loyalty, i.e. my mom voted for them, they are against X, Y or Z - single issues that people can get their heads round.
Which leads me to Trevor’s point. I think we may have to agree to disagree. I see a big difference between the two parties, even if the market is highly imperfect - in more ways than just the economic sense! But that said, maybe there are similarities between brand building and presidential campaigns. The fact that Obama is now ahead in the polls suggests that consistency of message is important and that McCain’s vacillating has taken a toll.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:41 am
I see the ‘consistency’ issue rather as the lack of sufficient/reliable polling data which leads to poor strategies development. Or simply, it is just an unwise strategy derived from poor polling data. Similar to a successful brand, a successful politician also needs reliable research/polling data.
But after all, I am totally excited to see that instead of building brands with the philosophies of winning vote (as believed by PSB…), politicians could start taking care of their campaign just as how marketers build a brand.