But there are no distinct choices - either on the shelf or in politics. Rivals marketing themselves today converge on the same positions simply saying the same things differently. Commodities differing little save price and brand name. That does not differentiate you, or give buyers a choice. Given the current Presidential Choices, a campaign that is more reality than actuality, infotainment rather than sincerity I believe we should do away with the electoral process and pick Presidents American Idol style. Let's just text in our votes and have the candidates do their song and dance, eliminating one candidate after another for 16 weeks. No one but the party infrastructure cares about delegates and superdelegates. Like most consumer products today, they have no truly important reasons-for-being. After being both shocked (at President Bush's inability to inspire world confidence) and awed (at the fact that American's are passive enough to wait four years for a change), I submit that perhaps I should move to my own darn island and drive a burro.

In India the Pepsi and Coca-cola Ad war is not a direct one.

Both attack each other using their subsidiary brand...Sprite(Coke) and Thumbs-up(Pepsi).The fight is full on and in a way funny...

It seems natural that companies do align marketing strategies to consumers with what presidential candidates envision.Staying focused, playing by the rules and political correctness is the key. Democrats have the functional ability to draw in the best possible minds to carry trade a new era of the US Presidential campaign.

The Republicans have never been greater, only my wish if the current President would opt for a third term, it looks to me that not only US but the world still needs his energy, vision,wisdom and leadership.

i would say its like a difference between competitors who are more or less the same (competitive advantage differentiation relates to "what i am so much better at") and oponents (or.. enemies..:-).. different political views ..) maybe its just about parties with of different/opposite political views?

moreover in politics it gets stronger when itis just a either win or loose game.. like presidential election (not just fight for market share).

in states - i noticed - its the presidents who go for this blaming campaigns using moreover "personal insults" when it comes to trust.. in poland we have it more or less the same.. this fight is based on some assumption that a politician is not a capable person with a clever program but its himself. he must be trusted.. so negative campaigns are aiming at showing where/why he cannot be trusted.. in the us you had spitzer affair recently. did it really prove he wasnt capable person or simply distrustful, unreliable as himself for the people..(personal trust, well its a statesman)

i actually do not like political marketing - i mean campaigns, not just branding and good communication with the society that is a very difficult task. they very often go for "fear" based marketing.. "What are you scared of" and "how i will help you to reduce this stress..".. they go so often at demonstrating explicitly where you can find another souce of fear (in some cases using horrible stereotypes, social fears) indicating some groups of people who can be related to their opponents

maybe the conclusion is that unfortunatelly politics is too much about marketing people not their programs?? therefore they must create brand images that are more appealing to personal trust than to programs and meritoric capabilities.. it can therefore move this marketing towards speaking like of people in a negative or a positive manner i would say (like in a gossip) - shes like that and like that (tabloid big stars all have these features, this one gets drunk and dirty etc). i wouldnt trust him, he is nt ok.. what leads to personal liking and disliking??

An interesting ad by Pepsi within the past few years as Coke explored new diet drinks showed a Diet Pepsi machine next to a Diet Coke machine.

A consumer comes and chooses the Diet Pepsi machine, and shortly thereafter, a forklift comes and replaces the Diet Coke with a Diet Coke with another diet cola product from Coke.

This processes repeats a few times, and the tag line says something to the effect of, "We got it right the first time."

Perhaps Pepsi saw an opportunity to capitalize on the sort of brand flux/inconsistency you point to in politics.

I think that the key here is this:
"Unlike politicians, companies hardly ever run negative ads. Pepsi ads don’t tear down Coke; they build the brand image of Pepsi. Why? Because a tit-for-tat war of words would turn off consumers of both brands. And sales growth, not just market share, is what puts money in shareholders’ pockets."

David Foster Wallace wrote an essay included in "Consider the Lobster" that is about to be reissued as a book called "McCain's Promise" in which he talked at length about the impetus for political incumbents to go negative - going negative effectively turns off voters, shrinking the potential voter pool and favoring the candidate with a strong brand and deep coffers. Since new voters generally support the 'outsider' candidate, going negative usually starts with the incumbent, putting the challenger in a lose/lose (look weak by not fighting back, or fight back and open yourself up to charges of having gone negative yourself).

Thus generally creating the 'better of two evils' situation in which people choose not to vote as a form of protest. Which generally favors the incumbent, and allows even more money and effort to be spent on getting the party faithful out to the polls, because the undecided have been neutralized/disenfranchised/exhausted by the negative tedium of the campaign. Which explains why the far right and far left hold so much sway in the political process despite most Americans self-identifying as moderate - most Americans also don't vote, and those that can be counted on to vote are at the poles (pun half-intended).

As Professor Quelch notes, Coke and Pepsi would prefer to grow the market, not shrink it in order to destroy competitors and gain market share. Even the Pepsi Challenge must have been somewhat welcomed by Coke, as its underlying message was "drink cola and find the one you like."

One final sidenote - the Democratic primary this year is particularly interesting, as the 'outsider' candidate with less name/brand recognition has become the candidate with much deeper pockets.

RE: the use of negative ads / strategies / tactics in politics. Abraham Lincoln said, "When you raise your voice, you've lost the argument." That said, when politicians, of any stripe or party, move to a negative approach; they embed negativism in their message. When done (ala "Swift-boating") by surrogates, they buy some distance from it, but the implicit connection of a campaign/candidate remains explicit in most minds. By raising the negative (e.g.: most recently - "Working class, white, voters"), a campaign/candidate telegraphs that he or she is insecure about their position. The "Rove" approach is scorched earth (as was Atwater's) and they have succeeded only through high-cost ad placement persistence and other "manipulations" of the electoral process. However, Republicans do not have a monopoly on negative political advertise to wit: LBJ's daisy / countdown ad in 1964, which ran only a time or two but had a profound impact then and is oft discussed today.

The article mentions the commonality between pepsi and coke's brand and marketing strategy. However, a question that comes to mind in this respect is the divergence in basic policy in India. In India, these companies are almost at war in the market. There have been several price wars followed by negative advertisement campaigns etc. How does this tie in with the comments made in the article. Is it to do with the maturity in the consumer market. I.e. US consumer is more aware (though i wouldnt like to believe so as the indian consumer is more price conscious).

How Negative Advertising Works (And When it Doesn't)
John Quelch
Gillette has done very well with Schick. One came with the roller blade lifter and one came with the direct injection blade
We saw many until the time came with twin blades, three blades in plastic, disposables, and this was not enough Schick came up with four blades Quattro. To beat these Gillette having said that the four blades would be a heavy machine came with the Fusion five blades. At times, we need not loo at the negative or positive advertisements. We just look at how much the youths have to spend, as everything is disposable when you have more cash. Chuck out one; keep the other to keep the girlfriend happy.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

I agree with John on the general point that companies limited use of negative ads. This practice is not unprecedented. One can say we'll see more of it given our fragmented society and the effectiveness of such ads.

The Pepsi Challenge implied or otherwise is understood by consumers as Coke vs. Pepsi.

The current version of the challenge is PC vs MAC. It is blatant and derogatory toward PCs and PC users.

Your opening point is spot on, "Choice sells, in politics and in the supermarket. Distinct choices on the shelf attract our attention to a product category, engage and involve us, and increase the chances that we’ll make a purchase. In other words, choice drives consumption."

Having been in or around politics for 25 years, I believe we have developed into an "either - or" society. It is driven by the dominance of entertainment which thrives on conflict and the easy to understand good vs evil plot line. From this foundation, our messages are about contrast not consensus. Unfortunately, successful governing is more about the latter which in large part explains our current domestic situation in the United States.

About negative pulicity I have a real story of a village election in Pakistan, told by the son of a candidate.
The candidate time & again reminded his wife not to stamp on the election symbol of bi-cycle, as it was alloted to his rival candidate. When she came back after casting her vote, her husband inquired whom did she vote. She replied to the utter shock of her husband, obviously I stamped on the bi-cycle, as constantly hammered by you in my mind.
Moral: Always be positive, because even in negativity you want a positive outcome for you.

While it is true that choice sells in politics and in the supermarket, politics is indeed about marketing people and the sad part is that sometimes the winner is the best liar.

While we all may hate negative advertising in political campaigns, it is done because to some degree it works. While the canidates themselves may not participate, the ever famous "527's" do. Sometimes it is just a matter of who does the least of "bashing" that leads to a decision. In Florida there was no campaigning for the democratic nomination - therefore not ads either way. Ideally all advertising for president would be elimated and we would just have to make up our own minds based on town meetings, debates, etc.

Marketing in politics goes way back. They use to call it propaganda. Hitler used it when he placed poster around showing how the Jews looked like rats. We used it when we put Uncle Sam on a poster or when we used the phrase "Loose lips sinks ships". Marketing is ok, when it serves the people, but when used against them, it can be an aweful thing, like when marketing determines the issues, or side steps them. Today it seems that marketing and legalese have blended into the same entity. People can't seem to think for themselves anymore. Everyone has sound bites "marketed" at them by the media. Sure, market is good when it helps me keep my whites whiter or my colors brighter, but that's not really what we're talking about here. What marketing has learned from "The Pepsi challenge" is now used by politicians and high priced lawyers to help pick jurers for trials. Why do you suppose they want these marketers to assist them? Because noone can stand on their record anymore. They don't want you to see what they do, but hear what they say. A man's mouth will lie to you all day, but his actions never will.

Isn't it sad that human nature, not human intelligence, rules our actions, whether it be selecting an item from a shelf or a political candidate? I found that the author's comments are and observations are much the same as the rules of selection have been throughout the history of my political observations........that being that people are ruled by their emotions, not by their intellect.