 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Marketing Obama
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Marketing Obama |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Obama v Clinton or Coke v Pepsi? From: GUEST,Guest Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:57 AM The guy who did this report for MN Public Radio is a former neighbor of mine (ed note: I didn't think much of him either, but the story is interesting nonetheless). U of M research explains Obama's marketing savvy by Curtis Gilbert, Minnesota Public Radio February 26, 2008 Listen to feature audio Barack Obama's rivals have criticized his stump speeches for emphasizing sweeping rhetoric over policy specifics. But new research from the University of Minnesota suggests that relative lack of detail may be a savvy marketing ploy. St. Paul, Minn. — Akshay Rao is not a political scientist. He is a marketing professor at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management. "Most of my research has been on how consumers interpret price information, how firms use that information," Rao said. But four years ago he had a thought: Maybe candidates could learn something from corporations. "The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are in a duopoly, fairly similar to Coke and Pepsi," Rao explained. "But if you look at the sophistication that Coca-Cola and Pepsi bring to their task, it is far superior to that that the Democrats and Republicans bring to their task." So he started doing some experiments. And one marketing principle Rao found that campaigns should study is something called "temporal construal." The key word is temporal, like time. The idea is that when you want to buy something soon, that's when you are interested in the nitty-gritty details of a product. When you're thinking of buying something in the distant future, you're not. "Imagine you're coming to Cancun for spring break next year," Rao said. "You're probably thinking of warm, sunny beaches and margaritas. You're thinking of abstract ideas. Then imagine that you're going to Cancun to tomorrow. Now, you're probably thinking about taxi cabs and plane tickets and passports. You're thinking about very concrete information." So when your Cancun vacation is off in the future, you're not going to be terribly receptive to ads about taxi fares. But as the vacation date draws near, suddenly you'll find yourself keenly interested in those kinds of ads. So, with election day more than seven months away, the message for political campaigns is clear: "Talking about policy issues and plans and initiatives -- very concrete issues -- is less likely to be persuasive than if you are talking about abstract notions such as strength and security and so on and so forth," Rao said. Or to draw the obvious connection to the current presidential race, when Barack Obama talks about broad, emotional themes like hope or change, that's going to be more persuasive right now than a more detailed discourse on energy policy, like the one Hillary Clinton gave in Iowa last year. It included passages on "green vehicle bonds," "a rigorous implementation plan," "lithium ion batteries" and something called "decoupling." Lately, Obama has added some detail to his stump speech, but it's not on the level of decoupling and lithium ion batteries. Prof. Rao admits that talking about what you're going to do, while de-emphasizing the specifics of how you're going to do it, isn't going to appeal to every voter. But Rao's research shows it's especially effective with two key segments of the electorate. "People who are uninvolved -- that is people who are likely to vote, but are not thinking about the election, because it's still a decision far in the distant future -- and people who are uninformed," he said. Plus, just like a corporation, a campaign can have multiple communication strategies aimed at different segments of a market. "If you have undecided voters who are interested in your position on health care, they can go to your Web site and find out," Rao says. "But that's not what you're talking about on the stump every day." But doesn't it cheapen democracy to just equate it with commerce? At least a little? "No, I don't think it cheapens it," Rao said. "I think it elevates it to bring the science of my discipline, which is: We view consumers the way marine biologists view fish, not the way fishermen view fish." Akshay Rao said at its core marketing is about figuring out what people want and how to deliver it to them. And what could be more democratic than giving the people what they want? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: DannyC Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:37 AM This post is utter nonsense. There are waves of people presenting themselves daily for service to the Obama campaign on the streets (per my experience in, first, South Carolina and now Ohio). A significant number of these folks have never priorly participated in political action work. The campaign provides a one page 'talking points' summary to each newbie --- but then asks each volunteer - when reaching the doorstep of a potential voter -- to simply tell the vote prospect why they are here - to state from their heart what has induced them to act at this time for this man. The campaign on the streets is basically the people speaking to the people - it must be extremely unsettling for the fearmongers who have held a grip on the American nation - with little interruption -for the past few decades. This past Saturday was particularly poignant for me, as I was asked to carry an African-American couple and an erstwhile Nader voter (2000) out to a canvassing location. It turns out that one of the couple had been part of the 'first-in' team setting up a logistics airbase in Pakistan in 2001. His wife had been trained by the Air Force in mortuary work and she had, in fact, dressed the dead being sent home from Iraq. It took litle time for my 'team' to find their voice. This scenario is being replicated around the country a thousand thousand times. The fervor in the people's hearts is what drives the Obama campaign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: pdq Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:40 AM The Clintons have been doing this for their entire careers. They take polls, find what the public wants, then claim the results as as core beliefs. Seems to have worked quite well. As soon as a politician takes a firm stand on a difficult issue, he gives his opposition something solid to criticize. That is why Nader, Huckabee and Ron Paul are still in the current race. They want to keep theri favorite issues before the public, something that our Oprah-fied media will not do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: Wesley S Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:38 AM ALL politicians are doing this. It's the name of the game. So what's the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: irishenglish Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:55 AM Yes exactly, Obama is doing nothing different than other politicians, and even in so doing, does not mean I'm going to vote for Nader Gigi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: GUEST,Guest Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:06 PM irishenglish, I don't give a shit who you vote for. I didn't post it to convert anyone. I posted it because the campaign news is so bloody dull, there is nothing else to talk about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:08 AM Since the function of "marketing" is to persuade people to spend money they have not got on things they neither want nor need, I do indeed think it is a concern to see "marketing experts" involved in politics. Marketing, incidentally, undercuts one of the prime posits of capitalist economics, informed consumer choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Marketing Obama From: GUEST,Guest Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:49 AM Indeed. However, I believe today's presidential candidates still play the "branding" game, don't they? I mean, according to the so-called expert in the article, they are doing it badly. And certainly the 'product' being our current crop of candidates would suggest we need a government oversight agency for contaminated products. |
