I wish I had U$S 20 per effective contact as my campaign budget.

And that is only for next presidential election.
How much is spent on the 18 to 75 years old voting span of a "consumer": 20 Elections? 40? If as Chief Marketer I proposed a plan where a 400 to 800 dollars per Lifetime customer will get us 42 to 48% market share; would I get it? Probably not.
CEO's are then much more responsible on where to burn away good money other than this.
So, how come Politicians can get away with it?
Money comes in mainly from campaign contributions decided by the same CEO's (as well as my Granny's 2 dollars!!)
Political friendship can be much more important than an innovative product or than a good, honest, captivating marketing strategy.
Sad.

Best regards,

Good stuff. Couple things...

One. Personally, I find politics to be a great way to observe differentiation at hyper-speed (as compared to commercial standards). Candidate Q sez "blah blah blah" and almost immediately Candidate Z tells why that's a bad idea and what makes Z better. Granted, there is often a quality issue but then again P&G et al don't have to respond in minutes/hours to their competition. Therefore, it's really hard to compare. The discontent of the masses is more a function of bad customer service than marginal marketing. At this point only the naive seem to believe that our votes REALLY count. Then of course there's the conspiracy theorists' agruement that the system really doesn't want us to vote, or at the very least wants us to believe in the illusion of democracy. And thus is designed and implemented to be what it is. Does anyone REALLY believe that this is the best we can do? But that's another discussion for another day, eh?

Two. One of the most fascinating things about day to day life is the fact that we are all customers of each other in some way. My boss is a customer of my services, and I a customer of his guidance , support, etc. Wife. Kids. You name it. If you begin to look at your relationships/interactions in this sense then decisions (read: choosing your battles, if you will) becomes not only very easy but also very effective as well. What do have to sell? And how can that help you to barter for what you want to buy? Think about it :)

Ok John... What do you think now?

Good stuff. Couple things...

One. Personally, I find politics to be a great way to observe differentiation at hyper-speed (as compared to commercial standards). Candidate Q sez "blah blah blah" and almost immediately Candidate Z tells why that's a bad idea and what makes Z better. Granted, there is often a quality issue but then again P&G et al don't have to respond in minutes/hours to their competition. Therefore, it's really hard to compare. The discontent of the masses is more a function of bad customer service than marginal marketing. At this point only the naive seem to believe that our votes REALLY count. Then of course there's the conspiracy theorists' agruement that the system really doesn't want us to vote, or at the very least wants us to believe in the illusion of democracy. And thus is designed and implemented to be what it is. Does anyone REALLY believe that this is the best we can do? But that's another discussion for another day, eh?

Two. One of the most fascinating things about day to day life is the fact that we are all customers of each other in some way. My boss is a customer of my services, and I a customer of his guidance , support, etc. Wife. Kids. You name it. If you begin to look at your relationships/interactions in this sense then decisions (read: choosing your battles, if you will) becomes not only very easy but also very effective as well. What do have to sell? And how can that help you to barter for what you want to buy? Think about it :)

Ok John... What do you think now? Maybe these ideas are too long winded to stick ;)

Sir,

I do not wish to comment on the US Presidential election but would like to offer some perspectives from the largest democracy in the world.

From the euphoria following independence in 1947, we have come a long way. Thanks to our population, and the parliamentary system of democracy, in many cases, we have too many choices. You may find this odd - in the last general elections, we had some ballot papers larger than a newspaper. How do illiterate voters make choices in this scenario? Only by looking at the symbols. Thus, symbols become more important than names or even personalities.

On more than one occasion, we have had parties getting 25% of the popular vote and yet getting a majority in parliament / state legislatures. The winner takes all phenomenon has increased the cynicism of the ordinary voter.

Despite significant improvements brought about by one of the few constitutional functionaries we can take pride in, the Election Commission, thousands of names are routinely omitted. And thousands of names are duplicated. Proxy voting and polling station capturing are rampant in some states. No wonder, voter apathy is also very high.

We have realized that every five years, politicians make tall promises. Even if 50% of the promises are turned into reality, we would be an economic superpower before anyone realizes it. Unfortunately, we have also realized that the promises are conveniently forgotten for five years.

The growth of regional parties is another cause for apathy. The previous federal government as well as the present one is a coalition of over 20 parties, many of them with diametrically opposite ideologies and a very narrow outlook that focuses primarily on their vote-banks. Negativity works differently here. You join hands with someone not because you share anything in common but only to keep someone else away from the seat of power.

The increasing trend towards criminalization in politics is a major cause for concern. People facing serious charges of heinous crimes can still participate. Many have won elections even while being in prison. That is money and muscle power for you.

And yet, we are a functioning democracy. That in itself is a miracle in a region where democracy has barely managed to survive.

Warm regards

A simple solution. Give me a real choice on the ballot. Let me vote for "none of the above". If say 40% vote for none, then we have another election.

Great post, John! Hope you're well, it's been a while.

I published something today which I think is on topic, I hope you don't mind the plug:

http://www.adotas.com/2008/01/target-marketing-changed-politics/

Have a look, welcome your thoughts.

Cheers -

Mike

Yikes. We are citizens not consumers. We pay taxes to support programs whether as individuals we use or need the services because we are a democracy.

I cannot determine is this essay is deliberatively provocative or naïve. Either way it is disappointing to have this be the topic of discussion when there are so many important topics to cover during such an historic election season.

Best of luck with the next installment.

Please excuse this second post but I was giving this a bit more thought over the weekend... This might sound a bit odd but it's actually good/great marketing that makes it look like bad marketing. Again, it's rapid fire real time action with the sole purpose of making one candidate/politician better (or worst) than the others. (The bit about serving the public good aside.) Everyone is always on their heels. Everyone is always toe to toe. No one really looks good and/or effective is actually a byproduct of every side doing their (marketing) job.

The question then seems to be... Does good/great marketing make ineffective politicians? Or does ineffective politicians make for good/great marketing?

Great material for marketing types. Public be damned?

Lobbyists work the political process every day with relentless focus on pet issues whereas citizens get to rarely be heard and then through the filmy gauze of an election.

Elections seems to be a disconnected event unlike the good argument you make for selecting a brand or a product in the marketplace with the right balance of price and appeal.

Glad to see someone is looking at the question other than political scientists whose "science" seems shaky to me at best.

I have always maintained that the relationship between citizens and their government is NOT analogous to the Company/Customer relationship. Citizens are Shareholders!

Does that change the marketing formula?

It seems to me that one of the reasons why there appears to be voter apathy is because marketing is actually working very well, perhaps too well.

With all of the candidates doing continual market research (both when campaigning and when in office), they know what the majority of the people want. Then they deliver on what the research tells them, regardless of party affiliation. Therefore, in the broadest sense, the people are getting what the majority desire, whether they vote or not.

If you don't like what the current political system is delivering, blame the comments from political consumer research...in other words, blame us.

The problem with most political campaigns is accountability. If I buy an advertised product, I can usually hold the manufacturer accountable that the product will live up to actual and implied warranties.

Politicians make no such warranties and the result is that they can "promise" almost anything they like and not have to deliver. It is too easy for them to change their mind once in office and then start asking..."well that depends on what your definition of a tax cut is?"

Stewart Nelson
candidate for Ann Arbor City Council

Good thoughts but aspect that concerns me is the following:

I’m getting frustrated and tired of politicians and newspaper editors complaining about “mega-bucks” in American politics. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. What don’t they understand about my right to spend my money to run for office or complain about the job office holders are doing? As a candidate I’m afraid to raise money. As a supporter of candidates I’m sick of providing private information and having it published. I should feel free to give money knowing that if my candidate loses, I will not have to worry that the winner can review the contribution list and retaliate. What is the problem with spending money to inform citizens about their government and the people hoping to become elected officials? If billions are needed so that we can make informed decisions about soda, beer, cars, and drugs why should we be restricting the funds to inform us about elections? Are not good election decisions as important as soda, beer, cars, and drugs? I think we all know why politicians what restrictions, but why don't citizens want to be more informed?

Marketing experts cannot run elections because there are rules and regulations for marketers but practically none for elections barring of course some broader guidelines. In marketing there is a plethora of choices but has to willy nilly tick a candidate despite he/she being no better than the other. Judging the end product is very ticklish for the product is a human being and not a
direct quality linked item where the features are fixed and can be guaged.
The voter is not interested to cast his franchise as he is losing faith in the system. For the common people, the candidates are similar and anyone could be thrust upon them. It is not like choosing a company for investment where lot of data/information is made available and could be analysed.
Question of transparency !!!
No tailor made solution seems to be in sight yet.

Sir:
If marketing experts were subject to the rules of competitive markets, we wouldn't get any one elected. Imagine a campaign without exagerated promises since failure to deliver could be consumer fraud.[Look at the pulling of the Vytorin adds by Merck]. Imagine no false advertising since law suits could follow [remember Coors being sued over using other than Rocky Mountain clear water]. Imagine no more deals in back rooms for that would be antitrust violations.

That said, campaigns do rely on marketing techniques ie. multi-level marketing. The campaign establishes a heirarchy of fund raisers. Certain levels get potential appointments if the candidate prevails. This goes down to the $100,000.00 level at the presidential level where dinner at the Whitehouse is the prize. Those who vie for the prizes, call on their friends and business associates for contributions to attend a meet the candidate.

Glad to note the book is available.

In complete agreement regarding the outdated notion of a single voting moment, i.e. day. An incremental structural improvement could be a voting *week*, in conjunction with supportive laws protecting the secrecy of the balloting process.

The problem with "Leading in the polls..."

Popularity and critical mass are realities of human nature that our designed system needs to consider and mitigate against in order to ensure the best possible fact-based decision-making by individuals for our collective well being.

Structure

We have a strong base upon which we need to continue to build and refine. We need to properly identify the core, unchanging, guiding principles, and continue to modify, refine, and sometimes revolutionize the rest. The "American Revolution" in some ways was based, at the core, on pre-existing proven concepts, upon which, newer concepts were added.

I am intrigued by the comments that contrast customer and citizen and think there could be a 'best of both worlds' scenario here. For companies and brands that are valued and meaningful, their approach to customer can be a great point of departure for political candidates - understanding consumer needs and wants, finding ways to build authentic and meaningful relationships, and developing points to engage on the cross-section of personal and 'product' aspirations to develop a better and more comprehensive offer. What this does not account for is the responsibility of the customer - because there is none. (e.g., Purchase today, do not purchase tomorrow.) A citizen, however, not only has the right to be served by his/her government, but the responsibility to learn about, understand and participate in the society and its operation. If one could be viewed as a customer and act like a citizen, perhaps that would create a better dynamic? Naive or too optimistic?

A new look at the election process. However:

If you were to compare the US political process with the one in India, what you get is:

"First, in U.S. general elections, voters usually see only two viable candidates on the ballot. That’s one reason turnout is low. In any other product category, there are many more choices. As a result, consumer interest – and consumption – is higher."

In India, the election process sees a plethora of candidates offering a wide spectrum of promises. However, in spite of the "choice" available, the turnout is meagre.

I believe that we need to look at this at a deeper level. If my experiences have taught me anything, it is that marketing is only as good as the product on offer and in the political process, we have too often elected candidates on the strength of promises only to see our dreams come crashing down as soon as they assume power.

Possibly this has led to a level of national cynicism that an exercise in marketing might not be able to resolve. The challenge today, lies in using our corporate S&M techniques to restore faith in the concept of elections in the first place and then (and only then) in the candidature.

As co-author with John Quelch of the new book Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy, I appreciate the thoughtful comments posted so far.

Several posts make the point that political marketing may be working too well: the differentiation of candidates at hyper speed, with the by-product that no one looks good; the tiered-reward system for campaign contributors; the changing promises derived from continual market research to discern what the majority of people want.

However, consumer marketers are concerned with what happens after the sale is made. The product must perform as promised. Consumers hold marketers accountable. In politics, as Bradburne Millet says, elections seem to be disconnected events. Unlike consumer marketers, most political marketers don’t seem to care about delivering long-term value to voters. As Mark asks, is this the best we can do in politics?

John’s blog commented on the lack of real choice in US presidential elections. Posters from India noted that there the problem is too much choice. What is the right balance?
The points by Mary, Julie, and Melanie about the differences between being a customer and being a citizen are well taken. But can marketing play a role in fostering engaged, informed, citizen behaviors?

Keep your comments coming. Thanks.
Katherine

There's actually quite a bit of accountability in political marketing, and it comes from negative ads. If a candidate lies, they've handed their opponent a great weapon that a smart campaign will use against them. Also, if a candidate breaks their promises, it can become great fodder for their opponent the next time around. The classic formula literally includes playing a clip from the opponents previous ads and calling them a liar. It's a great tactic, leaves their credibility in tatters. The more specific the better.

I'd disagree with the author's contention that negative advertising is a desperate tactic. In fact, any smart campaign should be doing it and it's by far the most informative aspect of campaign communications. The positive stuff is largely feel good branding but negatives need to be based on facts to be credible. Often, the candidates who want to stay "above politics" and refuse the negative the pros say they should be running end up regretting their decision on election day.

It's inherent to the zero sum system that elections are. If Coke and Pepsi were competing for a winner take all vote to see who would take over the soda market for the year, I bed you'd be seeing stories planted about rat hair in Coke and "very serious" studies about Pepsi's effects on erectile dysfunction. It would make campaigns look clean. There's already a bit of this out there. Anyone ever heard of FUD?

Thought-provoking article. Why indeed would a customer put up with all the marketing obstacles so well outlined in this piece?

No mention is made of one of the biggest obstacles, however -- the party delegate system and electoral college. Both were designed for a bygone era when communication and travel were difficult. A marketplace doesn't expect customers to rely on surrogates they don't know (party delegates + the electoral college) who may not bring them the product or service they need. The last two presidential elections (and some of the early caucuses and primaries) have produced results that ignored voter majorities. Have you ever given a requested wish list to someone at Christmas and then wondered why you bothered, since you just got another red tie anyway, or an obscure but cleverly-marketed appliance the gift-giver saw on an infomercial? If we're comparing democracy to the marketplace, it's time for serious election reform. Consumers want to buy directly. Voters want our individual votes to count.

I disagree with Gerald (1/22 post) who says we only have ourselves to blame for the quality of candidates and office holders. Yes, they do continual market research; but they seem to respond to those who already have brand-loyalty. We all know it's easier and less expensive to sell to an existing customer than create new ones.

I agree with Mark (1/17 post) that,"The discontent of the masses is more a function of bad customer service than marginal marketing." Successful customer service means listening, then designing or adjusting one's product or service to meet the needs expressed by a broad customer base, not a few brand-loyal customers or those with special interests. Have you ever asked your spouse to run by the grocery store then wondered how a gallon of milk and loaf of bread turned into $90 worth of junk food?

Melanie wondered (1/23 post) if we would create a better dynamic if we could be viewed as customers and act like citizens. "Naive or too optimistic?" she asked. I fear, Melanie, that appealing to the perhaps-loftier concept of the responsibilities of citizenship has become a quaint notion in a nation and era in which most things in life have devolved to marketplace issues.

I have certainly enjoyed reading through your article. However, the more I read the more I have developed this strong opinion, that it is wrong to link between marketing and candidates.

Marketing is sometimes deciving, it is about perception not reality in most of the cases.

Do you really want to put the whole nation fate in the hands of some clever yet deciving marketing campiagns...

How Political Marketing Can Learn from Consumer Marketing
Sir
• I do not understand the topic. I find that the politics rules the marketing of the consumers whether we like this or not. Why do I say this? I have yet to see the shareholders who are divided in the corporations and who are not in the political fields. The direct connections of selling strategies are in the solid hands of the politicians. Have you read the book “Shopped”, by Joanna Blythman. The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets: Books. Paperback: 400 pages
Publisher: HarperPerennial; New Ed edition (February 7, 2005)
ISBN-10: 0007158041
ISBN-13: 978-0007158041
This book goes on telling how the politicians rule the laws of the every super markets that have swallowed the grocers, bakers, fish mongers, butchers , family hardware shops, wood traders as everything is in the supermarkets
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 421
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

How Political Marketing Can Learn from Consumer Marketing
Sir
The hidden fact?
You may have noticed going to coffee stores or to the supermarket coffee products labelled as free trade coffee. These coffee products refer to a rising ...
www.ringsurf.com/online/2073-fair_trade_coffee.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Today 27th January 2008
I see in the TV the free trade coffee is about 7% only and the coffee restaurants employees state that the only way to ell is to brand this for the sake of selling but cut a huge margin with selling the cheap coffee from any sources any way. This is the reality. The bottom-line is cash if you want to have the HR and the employees if you want to stay in the seat of the BOSS.
NEWSFLASH:
OCA DECLARES VICTORY IN ITS "FRANKENBUCKS" CAMPAIGN
The OCA launched its Starbucks campaign nearly seven years ago. One of the main demands of this campaign has been to force the world's #1 coffee purveyor to stop using rBGH-laced milk in its products. Due to health concerns, rBGH, a genetically engineered cow hormone, is banned in most of the world, but is legal in the U.S.
After hundreds of OCA organized rallies at Starbucks around the world, and years of grassroots pressure, Starbucks announced, as of January 1, 2008, all of Starbucks products will be rBGH-free. The OCA will continue to pressure Starbucks to increase its sales of organic and Fair Trade coffee and start selling Fair Trade chocolate.
Do you see what is labeled and what is pushed in the shelves anyway?
... Unfortunately the supply of fair trade far outstrips the demand. Of the 170 million pounds of fair trade coffee produced globally only 35 million pounds are sold on the fair trade market. Coffee companies need to aggressively promote fair trade coffee.
I thank you

P.O.Box 421
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

we are alll as consumers, or as marketers. as marketers we are trying to affect consumer behavior, by inducing them and changing their attitudes, creatin a superior value or image toward the object.
first of all create a wareness then persuading customersthat this object more suitable, and satisfying their needs and wants more than competitor offers.
so political marketing as i think a part or a field of consumer marketing, any candidates needs campaign tactics to maintain current and prospective voters by persuading them and changing their attitudes toward the target candidate by successful campaign by making a high light or conentrating in some aspects which affect positively both sides the marketers and consumers.
so there is no difference between political and consumer marketing . the two concepts are using interchangeably concentrating on human behavior.

pls add my address
Dr. Shaker Ismail
Jordan- Philadelphia University

"Most consumers have stronger relationships with brands like Starbucks (the “third place” after home and work) than with their elected representatives or the umbrella political brands, Democrat or Republican." This data suggests that if political candidates want to have a relationship with their voters, they do need to look more to commercial marketing for expertise on how to reach their audience in a meaningful way.
Does this cheapen politics?
I believe it strengthens it as those 20% of hard core voters will still read the New York Times tables of comparisons on each position and cast their vote. But what about those apathetic voters who just don't think their vote matters? If there's a simple, fast quick way to make a much more meaningful decision, will they be more likely to vote? Probably. So they might not be more informed on the details but at least their attention is being attracted, even if it's superficial.
I suppose the worry is that someone like an Arnold Schwarzenneger could thrill and entrap a mass, dumb electorate with a flashy, "I'll be back" type of message that draws in the fools who do not "get" how hard running a goverment can be. I think people are smarter than that - even those who are not educated past Grade 5.
Watching the Democratic race, you can see that Clinton wants voters to understand that she gets the work done. Her true core competence is managing the process of politics - administering the nation. Marketing the Democratic vision is not her strength - getting it achieved is much more her strong suit. Just as Starbucks is about giving you an interesting cup of coffee - it has to weave an entire story around what buying that coffee also brings. They have done that very well which is why the brand endures and is accepted even at The Great Wall of China. Hilary needs to create her surrounding story as we experience a Clinton administration. Her Youtube ad with Bill and her doing a Soprano was a good start but it needs to be more than about her, more than about the coffee.
Marketing like Starbucks is tough to achieve because commercial marketing brings complex back stories to consumers' short attention spans in a two minute commercial of great wit.
The Microsoft Apple ads come to mind with the two characters creating an image of the products. Clinton and Obama are also two characters.
As a side note, Hilary is smiling and being vivacious but someone tell her to lower her chin as she spends too much time looking down her nose.
Here in Canada, we enjoy your USA politics. For me, the marketing on Youtube is useful. Also getting space on TV that goes to Canada; CNN Anderson Cooper is doing a great job with his candidates' public forums and this is the right direction. I have got to know more about your politicians than my own here in Canada and both Hilary and Obama are brand favourites for me even though I would be probably be more for smaller government, less taxes. I am watching their many victory speeches and that is probably the best marketing opportunity. So America actually markets its new presidents to the world far better than any other country, even France with its super model first lady!
Commercial marketing of politicians with strong branding support like Starbucks, has other benefits.
Audiences in other countries such as Canada or India get to learn more about America. We get past the stereotypes and get to see you are a complex, thoughtful nation of debaters not afraid to stand up and confront each other. It's inspiring so keep on sharing with the world.

Citizen first, consumer second. Indeed, very much like shareholders. Anyone who disagrees with that is entitled to out-bid me for first rate consumer products -- but please stay AWAY from the polls on voting day.

BTW, the biggest campaign expenses for most candidates for Congress and the presidency are air travel and television air time. Both of these are PUBLIC. Why not require that the cost of a license for either, to a for-profit business, include vouchers for candidates? That certainly beats giving the CEOs and owners of those businesses voices that are 1000 TIMES as loud as mine, simply because they can afford to donate 1000 times as much personal money to their favored candidates.

Better marketing isn't the answer. Better education is. An under-educated public swallows political promises with less skepticism and is less inclined to invest the time to look beyond the media sound bites and dig for real information in order to make informed choices. Until the average American is less of a moron, low turnout may be to our benefit.

Do people want a candidate who's saying what the polls are telling him?
Or do they prefer a leader who can make up his own mind, has a vision and a mission to better the world we live in?

sir,

It all boils down to this: marketing has standards and the product's advert must indicate the purposes and usefulness of the product and it would be held accountable to it on the other hand politics has no scruples and whatever scandals that emanate from the indiscretion of politicians is blame on the other party, a terrorist nation or at times forces of nature.

Nothing, not even marketing can beat politics regardless of the brand. If you doubt this, let marketing use same indices as politics and let's see how far it can go.

Politics is king!

balogun

While commercial marketing continues to bludgeon the consumer with traditional advetising ,the effectiveness of the majority of marketing's efforts are questionable long-term as marketing management is defined today. Even Starbucks is rethinking its approach to a market where its branding is ubiquitous.

Marketing democracy, political marketing and especially public sector marketing is the sleeping giant of marketing's future. The public hungers for change in behavior for the common and individula good. This might be better health care, better use of government resources locally and nationally or an understanding of how energy can be used more efficiently.

We can call this public service marketing and its really in its infancy. The market is every citizen. Needs can be segmented for proper tailoring of messages, and eventual actions to improve the social condition. This is a worthy mission for our country and for marketing professionals instead of how to create a need for a product nobody needs.

As one of the readers rightly pointed out, it is not so much about bad marketing as it is about bad customer service. The apathy towards politics is not one which raises it head once in 5 years but one which is deep-seated and developed and reinforced over a period time. For this to change, good marketing is necessary, I agree but performance is a pre-condition.

Can I please have more than two choices in this election?

I personally think that elections are way out of control. I would refer to the candiates as children on a play ground. Children will tattletale and make up lies. The only difference is they are usually to young to know they are hurting someone with their lies.
Canidates will do whatever it takes to discredit one another. They need to wake up and see that the people would rather have them prove that they can run the country. We need someone with the courage to stand up for their beliefs and how they could work with the people to bring this country back to where our forefathers had us.
I have yet to see anyone with an education that can run this country better than any past president that had no education. They were the backbone of this country and it sure ran alot better than these educated name slamming lieing politcians we have now.
Way to go to our forefathers and shame on the highly educated canidates that doesn't know what it takes to run a country. I am not highly educated, but I do know that we need someone who puts the people of THIS COUNTRY FIRST. If you cannot win an election on your own merrits and beliefs without the name calling and slanderous remarks then I say head to the playgrounds where you belong.
I also say BRING GOD BACK HE NEVER ABANDED YOU AS YOU HAVE DONE HIM!