What did you learn from the US Presidential campaign?
Just what the title asks… what lessons did you take away from the campaign of 2008?
To start it off: I was reminded that optimism is a much more powerful force in American psychology than fear.
Note: Posts that insult either candidate will be deleted.
9 Comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RSS - Other feedreader links at the bottom of the page. Please note that these are for personal use only. You may not republish this material without express permission.
Members
Search The Blog
Subscribe to TalkBiz News
To get the newsletter, along with updates of new blog entries, just enter your email address below and click the button that says, "Sign Me Up!"
Don't forget to look for the confirmation email and click the link in it to make sure you complete your subscription.Pages
Archives
Categories
- General (5)
- Getting Started (1)
- Questions (1)
- Spam and Cyber-Crime (1)
I asked this on Twitter, with a pointer to this post, and DocYankee replied: “Political ad hacks should realize there’s usually a huge backlash to mudslinging ads. Alas, they remain clueless.”
Your offer, and bonuses, must appeal to your target market.
For example President Elect Obama promised voters with incomes of less than $250K(this number varied over the course of the campaign)per year that they would not receive a tax increase if he was elected.
According to the 2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States 231,860,000 families met that criteria. 1,334,000 (~.5%–1/2 of 1%) families had income above that level.
This was a broad, yet targeted, offer.
Additionally Sen. Obama capitalized on the “Kennedy effect” during public appearances. Just as the late President Kennedy “looked” better than Richard Nixon in that race Sen. Obama “looked” better than Sen. McCain.
Although the actual physical vote disparity is not particularly lopsided Sen. Obama converted the most rewarding section of his target market–those which would return the greatest number of electoral votes.
Elmer Hurlstone
http://elmerhurlstone.com
While certainly optimism is a huge force, there was far more at play here than that. Determination, by both parties kept the race close, closer than the electoral college would lead you to believe. But their determination alone would not sway this election.
I believe the answer here was not only the immense amount of marketing, but the stories in the press. Not the stories of the candidates themselves, the stories of the issues we all, as Americans, are living. Financial problems being on the forefront. Indeed the candidates used those reports to their own respective advantage. Sometimes as “mudslinging” as noted above but also as self-aggrandizement in their proposed policies. Why they would be better and why the other would be lame. Is ‘that’ a “political hack ad”? I am not so sure. The ads bashing one another, pointing out past failures and poor associations, inflating the truth until it verges on a bold-faced lie, THAT is a “political hack ad”!
But I stray from the original question. What did I learn or better yet, what was reinforced in my thinking.
While sensationalism draws a big crowd it is short-lived. I must become more attune to the real issues people have and need solved. Issues that are not necessarily short-lived and definately focus on causes and not symptoms.
If we as marketers/salesmen (and we ALL are whether we want to believe it or not) want to increase our business, become an authority, be trusted and show a profit …. yada yada yada, we must search for, find and promote solutions geared towards and focused on the real problem, not the symptom.
Deana, November 6, 2008
My lessons I take away from the US Presidential Campaign is that what happens in the USA on this subject has much more impact on us in Europe (and I can speak for The Netherlands, where I live, than one would expect.
The whole night the TV stations and radios had special programs about the election and for days and weeks have had people following what happened in the US.
I don’t know much about marketing but I do like the way you explain marketing compaired with the US Presidential Campaign,Paul.
Deana Wilmink-Martina
The whole night
People are becoming smarter. They voted a man with integrity - one that had a plan rather than promises.
Other politicians, made the promise and made the call to action.
Obama, acknowledged the problem, told how he would solve it and made the call to action. No wonder he won.
I’d like to comment on DocYankee’s thoughts on attack ads.
Yes, there is sometimes a nasty backlash over political attack ads. It’s usually not coming from the targets of those ads, however. (In this case, the voters the campaign believes will accept the premise of the ad and act in their favor.)
Attack ads work.
Yes, most of us say we hate them. And we’re telling the truth. The problem is, if we accept the premise of an ad, we don’t see it as an attack. We see it as a legitimate issue or, at worst, an irrelevant fact.
If we agree with the emotional significance of the content of the ad, we don’t react to it as being over the top. We feel what we’re intended to feel, and we see that as being appropriate.
That last part is where some ads get the campaign into trouble. If the viewer perceives it as being excessively emotional, making a bigger deal of a thing than it warrants, they will question the ad. If they reject the premise, they will tend to reject future statements by the same candidate until that disconnect is resolved.
That can get tough to do if the person was not already a supporter, since people tend to interpret thing in ways that agree with their preconceptions and preferences.
That is why momentum is such a big factor in any persuasion effort.
There’s another interesting factor at work here. If someone believes an attack ad, they experience a negative feeling toward the object of the ad. That feeling is in direct proportion to the significance of the issue to the person believing it.
If you later demonstrate that the ad was false, the people who believed it lose some - but not all - of that negative feeling.
You keep part of that momentum.
Pile on enough false attacks and, eventually, the folks who believed the early ones will cease to believe the corrections, no matter how credible they may be.
And, of course, not everyone who sees the attacks will see, or believe, the early corrections.
This is the primary reason I am so strongly against allowing attacks of people on discussion forums. Even if the attacks are proved false, and even if everyone who sees the attack also sees the correction (impossible to guarantee), there is still damage done. Given that so many of these attacks are untrue, allowing them is simply an irresponsible policy on the part of the people running the forums.
Another lesson from campaigns that relates to everyday life and marketing.
Paul
Elmer… I agree that the “targeted” offer (tax reductions) was a help. It was just part of that promise, though, as he also talked about jobs and mortgages and related “you’re hurting because of the economy” issues.
The thing that made those promises effective isn’t just the targeting. It’s that people believed Obama’s message on the economy more than they believed McCain’s.
A substantially larger number believed that he’d be better for the economy than voted for him. The folks who believed that and voted for McCain anyway did so because they trusted McCain more on other issues that were more important to them.
That’s why it’s so important, in an “either/or” situation, to know the most important benefits your market is seeking, and to be able to convince your prospects that you can deliver.
Bill’s point about the stories is critical to this. By showing that you empathize with their situation, that you understand them, you show that you have a perspective that tends toward helping them.
As far as the difference in vote totals, that a much bigger thing than you appear to believe.
Right now, CNN shows the percentages as 53% for Obama and 46% for McCain. 7% is big by any standard. Here’s why:
There’s a large chunk of the electorate that is going to vote for a specific party no matter what. Some of them just say so outright. Others will talk about being open to either candidate, but have such strong tendencies that you can count on their votes anyway.
Those people are largely irrelevant to the campaigns, other than being sure to avoid alienating them and to get them to the polls. They don’t otherwise have any impact on the outcome at all.
Let’s assume the number is 30% on each side, just to make the point. Removing them from the totals you’d see that, of the undecides and convinceable voters, Obama got 57.5% and McCain got 40%.
If the base were closer to 35%, which a number of people have correctly pointed out as being more likely, that margin widens even more in Obama’s favor. 60% to 37%.
These are just general numbers, mind you. Hardly scientific. But they illustrate the point and aren’t all that far off of reality.
That’s how it would work in a traditional campaign. The flaw in that argument, when applied to Campaign 2008, is that Obama didn’t just work with the existing base. He expanded his base, by recruiting (registering) voters from groups that were sympathetic to his message.
To say that they subscribed to his beliefs would be accurate, and would make the marketing point at the same time.
He built his base, solidified the relationship, and made sure they got a strong call to action.
Dean’s comments on how action in the US affects the rest of the world are particularly apt for the Internet marketing field. What we do sets the example and tone for much of the rest of the online business world.
Raja’s point is especially important. A lot of people make promises and ask for a decision. The ones that sell are the ones that identify the important problems and establish credibility for their ability to deliver.
When a site isn’t selling, the problem is usually one of those two: Unimportant promise or lack of credibility.
Paul
The big thing I found from the election was the lack of anything real and the sale of the promise. Now what the promise will ultimately be I think every party has a different perspective on what that is and truthfully don’t think anyone knows for sure. But it was sold well.
More importantly looking forward to see how the social media structure that was built will be used to circumvent the current media structure as that seemed to be what worked so well to win the election.
Hope vs. Fear — which wins? I’m pushing for Hope, but there are lots of folks pushing for Fear, too. It’s not so much a “battle” as it’s just “energy,” I think.
Life unfolds to the better way. From my perspective, the “leader with aloha” Obama would never have been elected if we’d not endured eight years of BushCo. I’m willing to process that as life unfolding…
I remain hopeful.
Aloha,
Debi