Comments on: Conventions ‘08: Come Chat It Up, Marketers

By: Fort Worth Texas Ranger

Fort Worth Texas Ranger — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:23:58 +0000

Our country is so divided. Everyone I know either hates Obama or loves him. There are rarely any that are in between. Can’t we disagree with some of his policies but still support him as our President?

By: diane

diane — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:01:07 +0000

First i have to say thanks. This
is topic very usefull to politics.

By: Alarm system Phoenix Arizona Guy

Alarm system Phoenix Arizona Guy — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:09:35 +0000

I think it was very smart for Rebublicans to have Palin be the VP. I have listened to many news/ talk radio shows lately and am convinced that no one has any dirt on her. Sign me up!

By: CK

CK — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:49:53 +0000

Folks I'm adding these to BOTH the candidate discussion threads in the comments because I added the text from each of the speeches to both the discussions. It's just nice to keep a record of all–if for nothing but posterity's sake– Here's what McCain's speech promised: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/mccain.highlights/index.html Here's what Obama's speech promised: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/obama.promises/index.html (that's it, just wanted us to have them)

By: reinkefj

reinkefj — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:50:50 +0000

I think, … and I’m no marketing pro, I’m a Libertarian with no use for either party, … that I’d score his effort a four point nine five.
They say the VP is the first Presidential decision the candidate makes. If so, wow. All he had to do was not screw it up.
I think every time he wanted raise his arms to wave and couldn’t, communicated a visceral message of his sacrifice. I think there was a TON of non-verbal communication there. Also, he even managed to scoop O on the war issue, with “the soldier hates war”.
Authentic, honest, tough old bird!
I think, and have blogged about, the whole convention, the Palin pick, and McC’s speech was a sales pitch to the self-disenfanchised women.
Basically half don’t vote. Of that half, half are women. The race assuming that the faithful all vote is probably 25-24 coin flip. I think the crafty old warrior took a page from Sun Tzu. It’s all about getting that 25% of women who don’t vote to come vote for Maverick McCain & Baracuda Sarah. I think his speech was aimed at them.
If they come out, as they might after that show, the race IS OVER.
Instead of fighting for the party faithful or the swing vote, I think he was trying to get say 40% of those women who don’t even bother to register to vote to come vote for him.
Bring in the reinforcements.
Think of every state that was close in the last Prez election and mark it in McC column.
If that happens, big ‘if’, this could be the biggest landslide since Ronald. If that 40% is 60-75%, then you could have the first sweep of the Electoral College since George Washington. What a mandate for change that would be!
I think that was the true purpose of a very low key, almost neighborly, speech.
For that reason, I think it’s a 4.95. If it works, it’s a 6 on a 5 scale.
IMHO,
Now let me go adjust my tin foil hat. I need to get better reception.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:27:16 +0000

He self identifies himself as black even though he bi-racial so it is natural the media would follow his lead there.
I have heard him call himself a black man in speeches but it is rare enough to make me think he does take up the mantle of MLK who dreamed of color blind society.
However, since the nomination of a black man for President is so monumentally historic, it is impossible not to have some discussion of his race.
Your grand parents could have known someone who was alive during the Civil War and when Lincoln manumitted the slaves. It was not that long ago. It was even closer in history where MLK rode and marched for freedom.
Now, we have a black man nominated for President. Even though he is not descended from slaves, having him rise to such heights (even if he loses the election itself) provides some absolution from the great original sin of America: Slavery.
It also shows we practice what we preach: You can be President some day.

By: CK

CK — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:25:27 +0000

I too am tired of labels. And we’ve come much further. Still have a ways to go but progress is all around us.
But the media is still getting it wrong in referring to Obama as black. He’s biracial–which, in a diverse country, is truly reflective of our diverse culture. I like to focus on the issues and the platform, not race. But it’s peculiar to me how much they get it wrong when he’s been upfront about having a white mother and black father. It was a moving part of his “American Story” speech back in March. But that’s a subject for a whole different post…that’s coming soon.
And yes, the election is a fight for, as Cam said, the mushy middle.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:36:26 +0000

With Bush’s popularity at Nixon levels, the McSame label is an Achilles’ heal. The other is how the Sarah Palin move works out. Does she do well on the campaign stump? And because the McCain camp made the decision very quickly will some things come back to haunt them? Time will tell.
Obama has absolutely inspired many, many people, including a lot of young people. The fact that he won the nomination and is running as the “Democratic” nominee not the “black” candidate shows we have come a long way from Jim Crow and even a long way from the last time Jesse Jackson ran.
The fact that Obama is not running as the black candidate brings us one step closer to MLK’s dream of a color blind society. We need many more steps in that direction. I am tired of labels.
Obama swung left to pick up the base and the nomination and now he will tack toward the center to win the general election. Expect to see McCain tack toward the center, too.
The candidates have a delicate game to play: they have to get their respective bases to the poll in mass, while capturing as much of the middle as they possibly can.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:48:21 +0000

@John: Thanks for posting this, and for coming back with some numbers.
@Stephen: You are 100% correct.
Now, flip it, and you’d be 100% correct again.
Objectively speaking there’s a mass of people who feel Obama inspired and made history and have lifted so many people that, well, only a stadium would fit them. Then there’s a mass of people who felt that only a stadium was large enough to fit his ego.
Then we have those that are heartened by McCain’s acts of Gustav support and others who feel he’s exploiting the photo opportunity–and feel that by Bush and Cheney staying in the White House is only a strategy to distance themselves from McCain. Because McCain needs distance to prove he’s not McSame.
And thus, through the polls, they are neck-and-neck. But AT the polls is the BIG question.

By: John Rosen

John Rosen — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:10:49 +0000

Here's the link to the proper Gallup polling data, AFTER the speech: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109954/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-6Point-Lead-49-43.aspx

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:29:43 +0000

The backdrop question is a fascinating glimpse into these two characters:
Obama puts himself in front of 75,000 Democrats in what can only be described as the most pompous and self-indulgent display of political theater in our lifetimes.
McCain cuts his convention short because Gustav is bearing down on New Orleans.
One says, “This was never about me…” and clearly doesn’t mean it.
The other says, “America First,” and evidently, does mean it.
This is a nuance, but a very telling one.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:59:57 +0000

@Neil: I don’t know why that didn’t work. (Geez I get my own blog wrong, ha!). It’s at: http://www.ck-blog.com
Oh yes, this is one for the books. And while I know which way I’m voting, I’m really (truly!) enjoying vetting the strategy, the speeches and the upcoming debates with all of you. And both sides continue to inspire and baffle. Ain’t that grand?
McCain will be next up so be ready for Friday…although I have one post on Obama in-between (well, it’s not just about Obama but he’s helped to inspire the thought).

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:26:38 +0000

BTW, CK, the link to your blog does not work because you put some extra characters into the URL itself at the end. Easy enough to fix.
And yes this is turning out to be a very interesting election. If McCain had picked some of the others on his short list it would have been yawn, yawn, yawn all the way to November at least on the Republican side.
If nothing else, we have to give McCain some credit for stirring things up a bit!

By: CK

CK — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:25:05 +0000

@Neil: here is CNN’s latest on what McCain has to accomplish this week: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/rnc.analysis/index.html
I believe tonight will be when the GOP convention gets underway since Laura Bush and Cindy only spoke briefly last night due to Gustav (and I’ll be watching all week, just like w/ the DNC last week).
And, yes, NYT is part-and-parcel to the liberal elite. That’s why People Magazine was oh so smart.
Lastly, Palin’s experience is a tough one to touch due to Obama’s. Perhaps both sides will have to agree (somewhat) that experience isn’t the only essential for the White House. I took a step back this week and wrote on all the “firsts” happening in this election (over at my blog: http://www.ck-blog.com). Whatever ends up happening, it truly is a remarkable election.
And. Oh. So. Much. Fun. (tho’ I’m glad we only have 9 more weeks of it

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:47:29 +0000

McCain’s political instincts are not tin ear — or at least he is getting good advice.
He is now attacking the media for their coverage of Palin. Brilliant to go after the NYT et al as many Americans think of those as the house papers of the so-called liberal elite.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080902/pl_bloomberg/as77ueg2jfbq;_ylt=Aiqol5FgkOGkFk2wZ0KSrdKs0NUE

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:44:09 +0000

I meant to say that social conservatives are crying tears of joy over the Palin pick. Typo above.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:27:29 +0000

Yes, it was a brilliant marketing move. Yes, you are right, we do need more signal and less noise on her readiness for the job.
Her resume is a bit thin, which clearly weakens brand McCain being about “experience.” Now, it seems to be evolving into “Country First” and I suspect they will downplay the whole experience thing quite a bit. The Democrats had better be careful about going after her on experience as Obama’s resume is a bit thin, too, and he is the top of that ticket.
Ironically, her trials and tribulations are going to make many people like her more. For example, that prenatel tests showed problems, she opted to have the Down’s syndrome child. That has the social conservative community in tears of job as they think of her as someone who “lives” pro life and does not just take it as a political position.
The social conservatives will come out in mass on election day, which is a crucial part of the Republican electoral coalition.
Photos of a strong woman looking through the scope of an AR-15 will excite more than just NRA members. A lot of working moms will say there is a woman who gets what she wants out of life.
Obama/Biden will still get a lot of the left and part of the middle but with Bush’s popularity at about Nixon levels, it is amazing that the Republicans have managed to be so competitive.
On a purely marketing point of view, they have put forth two maverics who have fought their own party. Palin has fought corruption (though she has a bit of her own). That is going to play well.
This is going to be a real horse race. Let’s see how the Democrats respond. They are going to have to run a tight ship on the campaign trail and move sharply to the center.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:54:53 +0000

@Neil: Ah, the Sarah move. It was quite bold and strategically brilliant. But risky for the American public. At the moment of writing this I have had so much Sarah Palin overload that I'm in need of more signal and less noise on her (today was the baby news on top of "troopegate"). But a terrific discussion I'd like to point you to on her is right here with a ton of great commentary and views: http://tangerinetoad.blogspot.com/2008/08/mccains-brilliant-maneuver.html PS: And having her debut interview in "People Magazine" was brilliant, too. Now she's an 'accessible celebrity' (vs. being in "Time") to a very important segment. And the Evangelicals love her now too, as per this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.evangelicals/index.html

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:29:12 +0000

I have to say that MCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate was a bold move. He excited the conservative base, and put moderates (and probably some former Hillary Clinton supporters) back in play. In addition, she clearly appeals to Reagan Democrats.
Some might call it a cynical attempt to woo the bitter Hillary Clinton voter (and that was part of it) but he was largely playing an aggressive offense here not defense.
It was a bold, risky move but that is what McCain had to do. An establishment Republican would not have done it.

By: CK

CK — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:43:54 +0000

@Neil: Just watched some of the convention again and, yes, they did have anti-McCain signs (I was watching part of Hillary’s speech where she did the “No How, No Way, No McCain” bit). I would not have suggested that as I agree it got his brand in front of the cameras too much. Granted, they were saying McCain a lot but I wouldn’t have added unnecessary visuals.
Thanks for pointing that out–good brand lesson there
@John: Good point about tactics–really good point. We’ve moved from the sky-high to in the trenches; that makes a lot of sense.
And I’m sure the historians will obsess–and I’ve got a feeling we’re gonna see A LOT of made-for-TV and silver screen movies about this election. And now we move to the GOP…which I’ll be watching as faithfully as the DNC.

By: John Rosen

John Rosen — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:20:43 +0000

CK:
On your first point, you are, of course, correct. Having now read through the Gallup article with greater diligence, I can see it clearly states that the data precedes the big speech, but takes account of Hillary’s and Bill’s. A lesson to us all …. or at least, me …. to get the facts straight before I go around pontificating about them!
On the second point (will voters choose change and youth versus age, experience, and “Country First”) I’ll make the following prediction: Most of the commentary and analysis from here on in will be about tactics, not big themes. Who is up in Ohio? Florida? Colorado? Why? Who won the week? Why is Obama losing support among left-handed Arabic-speaking Latinos in Grand Fork, Nebraska? Why is McCain losing among realistic young conservative mature risk-taking idealists? Etc. Actually, I expect this is the correct thing to focus on right now. Anyone who was going to be swayed by the big themes has made up his/her mind–everyone KNOWS that Obama is about “change” and McCain is about “experience.” So, the remaining undecided swing voters will likely be swung by last minute, grass roots efforts. Or, as we marketers refer to it, “guerilla marketing.”
I do believe, in all seriousness, that the issue you raised will obsess future historians for a very long time: What was it about America and the world that led US voters way back in 2008 to choose A) youth, energy, and change or B) age, experience, and war-hero status? The importance and implications of that choice, of course, can only be judged in light of ensuing events–I don’t think voters expected either FDR or W to being remembered as wartime presidents.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:24:35 +0000

@Thanks so much John. I read through the piece and it appears that it doesn’t yet reflect feedback from the night of the “big” speech (by Obama), but does for the 3 nights’ prior.
Now, that said, we had a big event on the GOP side occur the following day (with McCain selecting Palin) and I personally saw many more articles and buzz on that then I saw of articles discussing O’s speech. It was one of the quickest moves to redirect buzz that I’ve ever seen in politics.
But then again, as we’ve learned, buzz doesn’t always lead to votes (be it buzz for the left or right). One thing seems clear: it’s gonna be a very close race. Will people vote for platform or for the person they most relate to? Will people vote for “change” or for “country first”? What will people find to be most symbolic of America–a man who has served for the United States during war time or one who wants to re-unite the United States during one if its most divided times? Will they favor the change/experience ticket (Obama-Biden) or the experience/change one (McCain-Palin)? And the questions go on and on and on…and that’s just in my head

By: John Rosen

John Rosen — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:36:11 +0000

As requested by more than one commenter, let’s get back to CK’s original question about the speech from a marketer’s perspective. In that spirit, I would offer that Obama’s post-convention poll “bounce” appears to be about 6 to 8 points. Here’s a link to the Gallup report:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx
The average bounce over the past several years has been, as I understand it, from 8 to 12 points. So, Obama came in at the low end of the average performance. On the other hand, that average is just that …. an average. The trend has been down. My recollection is that Kerry got virtually ZERO bounce, so Obama clearly beat Kerry and other recent Democrat performance.
So, remembering Harry Truman’s primal scream of a request that someone please send him a one-handed economist, we can flatly state that the strength of Obama’s performance depends on how you look at it: he beat the most recent tracking data (Kerry) but was below the long-term average.

By: Alan Wolk

Alan Wolk — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:21:44 +0000

@CK: Backdrop, oddly enough, proved sort of irrelevant. Most of the networks were close up on Obama’s face during the speech, with cutaways to close-ups of audience members (with emphasis on the Black audience members, at least on CNN.)
Point being that we really didn’t see the background at all, except at the very end. No sense of the size of the audience either, thanks to the camerawork.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:43:35 +0000

Cam, that people fall for mush is absolutely correct. That mush is the province of the middle is where you go off the rails.
In fact, the hard left and hard right seem more taken in by symbols, slogans, empty rhetoric, and broken promises. Blind ideology, without much thought, is what makes it hard to get things done in Washington.
Ideology creates enough hot air to solve our energy crisis…

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:34:26 +0000

CK, it was not so much during his speech at the stadium as during the regular convention. There were a sea of McCain signs. They had some sort of rhyming anti-McCain slogan but that was sort of lost in brand McCain on the signs.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:51:50 +0000

My personal favorite was the disconnect between “I am my brother’s keeper” standard and the fact that his brother subsists on less than $1 per month.
What he REALLY meant was, from all his proposals, “YOU are my brother’s keeper.”
What a swell guy.

By: CK

CK — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:41:07 +0000

@Neil: very good point; I honestly didn’t catch any of the McCain signs at O’s speech but I’ll review the recording. If the crowd did it (vs. the organizers) then they just weren’t thinking of their branding implications, unlike we marketers
I just found that background against brand. He’s uplifting and it felt forced–plus the LED sign behind him could have shown powerful images of patriotism and people.
Btw, of all his speech’s gems I most appreciated “We are a better country than the last 8 years.” Many liked “My campaign has never been about me. It’s been about You.” Very good, too.

By: Cam Beck

Cam Beck — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:38:31 +0000

“Think back about all the broken promises made to either the left or right. You do not have to think back very far at all, Cam.”
Oh, I do, which is why, by the way, I expressed to CK that while I couldn’t be objective, “I’d hate everyone more or less equally.”
But the mushy middle is a special bunch of people receptive to populist politics. Their favored politicians will often switch positions because they find it’s has become unpopular to hold a position (not because he’s had a change of heart, mind you).
They fall for it constantly because they don’t want think about it. It’s a conscious decision they make to not care.
I prefer these people stay home on election day, but that’s become more and more rare as the media makes people feel guilty if they don’t vote (not if they don’t do the appropriate research).
I never said to ignore the mushy middle, by the way. The statesman’s job is to communicate with them. To connect with them on a level that they can understand and, hopefully foster a spirit of involvement that was heretofore unknown to them.
But that’s hard work. It often doesn’t work. Which is why we have the he said/she said of meta political electioneering. Pretty soon it will all be about whose ads are the most disrespectful, not about the issues they address.
In fact, that’s already started, so it’s not so much a prediction as it is an observation.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:31:54 +0000

CK, good points all on the back drop but perhaps they were going for the raw patriotism that the Republicans seem to have owned in recent election cycles.
Back to the convention itself, I think it was strange that half the people in the audience had McCain signs. They had some sort of anti-McCain slogan but they still they got the McCain brand in front of the cameras a LOT.
And Clintons on two nights. Jeesh. Brand Clinton got a lot of time on stage but I guess it was needed to help win back the Hillary Clinton voters.