The Business of Politics: Marketing Marvels

Hi

I know I should be blogging about Vienna right now, but here in my room watching CNN, I feel compelled to write about some thoughts I have on politics in light of the recent issue with Barack and his "elitist" comments.

On some level, you do have to acknowledge that his comments are in fact elitist and a little out of touch with Working America. It's very convenient for someone of an affluent background to posit such a remark without much pause or realization of how it sounds. Of course, Obama's reality and the reality of Working America (and by "Working America" I mean largely blue-collar workers who "cling to guns or religion" because they are poor - apparently) is quite different. When you're in a better economic situation than others, you can fall into the mistake, as Obama did, of making broad, sweeping statements on issues you may not have direct knowledge or experience of. Unfortunately, it's not always that simple or, put more accurately, black and white (you should know that one, right, Barack?). Anyhow, this discussion lends itself towards another debate that deals essentially with the Have's and Have-Not's. Maybe another day for that.

What I want to concentrate on is the business of politics here. By making the controversial statement, Barack Obama Incorporated now has to get its dynamic PR group to devise of new marketing strategies for damage control in order to maintain its otherwise "People Person" image of its beloved CEO, Obama. And like any company with a strong vision and good product, it will bounce back (or so I hope). The avenues for its comeback will take different paths, but chief among them would be to lambaste The Hillary Clinton Corporation as to remove or limit the media slaughter Obama is going through. Hillary was recently seen throwing back some beers and a shot of alcohol to show just how "down" she is with the average consumer - that Working, bitter American.

Says Obama: "'Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and they'll even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer...'" By making this deliberate statement (as opposed to his inadvertent "bitter" statement which probably intended to say that Working Americans are bitter about the economic slump and lack of leadership), Obama Inc. tells us that Hillary Corp. has to make a concerted effort to fit in and be relevant to all demographics; whereas his campaign already provides that and everyone else is trying to catch up.

You can easily substitute Obama's name or Hillary's with competitors like McDonald's and Burger King or BMW and Mercedes. Consider McDonald’s saying "We offer coffee and salad, not just burgers and fries. Now everyone else like Burger King and Wendy’s is trying to catch up." In a way, wouldn’t that sound like Obama effectively saying “We offer change, not more politics. Now everyone else like Hillary Clinton or John McCain is trying to say the same thing after I said it.”

So you have to begin to wonder: How effective are these marketing campaigns? No matter how catchy or hip, is it the marketing efforts that these two entities are pursuing that will win them over with voters? Or will people default to whomever they like based on issues, not how images are leveraged or marketed? Look at it this way: Let's say you're like me and agree that Dunkin Donuts makes the best coffee out there period. Will a catchy new logo, phrase, or wonderfully imaginative commercial for Krispy Kreme change my opinion? Likely not. But what if they claim that they have a new taste for their coffee? Will that at least pry my interests at all? If McCain comes out and says that “Hey, I’ve changed my stance on foreign policy. We won’t stay there for 100 years [note: bad example, but you know what I’m getting at],” will that make me at least think twice about McCain?

I suppose you’re now getting into debates about whether or not the millions spent by a company for marketing a new/existing product will pay off. I’d have to be an experienced market researcher to comment on that definitively (or I’d have to know what the future holds), but from what little I do know, it seems like it can really go either way depending on how something is marketed. And that’s why we will continue to see comical images of Hillary Clinton getting crunked at a bar or Obama talking endlessly about how change is needed (which I happen to agree with).

The simple point(s) I’m making here is that over the past few years in politics, “candidate branding” is becoming more of the norm and I would say with reason, too. In a society where voter turnout and democratic participation is low, candidates need to find ways to stay as relevant as possible and as visible as possible to all demographics, especially younger ones. On that note, I strongly encourage you to read a recent article by Fast Company magazine (one of my favorite magazines) called The Brand Called Obama. The author makes great points about Obama’s phenomenal branding efforts and how businesses should do what they can to mimic his strategies. I mean, for example, Obama has one of Facebook’s founders directing his web image and using other media outlets or marketing tools to reach out to the masses. Anyway, that article and watching the current events in the campaign spurred this entry. It’s really quite impressive and offers new perspective as to the many different aspects of what a well-oiled political machine (or business) should be.


Live from Vienna.