What if the American business community adopted the same advertising approach as politicians? Now, that’s a scenario worth exploring! Philip Barnett, a colleague and fundraising marketer in Phoenix, came up with TV commercials we’d likely hear.
Here’s some of Philip’s take:
Now, I can understand a commercial that says, “Our Chevy gets better gas mileage than similarly priced Fords or Toyotas,” assuming that turns out to be a statement of fact. However, if their advertising director came directly from the political arena, here’s what we might end up hearing.
“Did you know that more than 3,000,000 Fords have been recalled in the last five years, or that every penny of profit that results when you buy a foreign car goes to a foreign country? And Chrysler? Do you really want a three-year warrantee from a company that might go bankrupt in six months? We’re from GM and we approve this message.”
Or, there could be this:
“We just wanted to let you know that most Burger King employees don’t wash their hands after using the rest room. And Taco Bell? With a name like that do you really believe that all of their employees have a green card? We’re McDonald’s and we approve this message.”
The reason this is not done, aside from the fact that the business world has much better taste than those running for office, is that it would drive customers away in droves – not from those being accused, but from the people who were making the claims. If only politicians would understand this and realize how much they are insulting the intelligence of potential voters when they “go negative.”
Of course, it could be worse. After all, there might be ads running in every state, like the one that now appears in Arizona – where a candidate is criticized for having “masturbated on county time.”
As someone recently observed, it’s no wonder that politicians are barely more popular than child predators.
——————-
Just in case you think Philip was joking about the spot, check it out on YouTube. Paid for by Arizonans for Public Safety with funding from the Arizona Republican Party, the spot attempts to discredit Dan Saban, the Democrat running against incumbent Sherriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County.
My understanding is that negative campaign ads work; that’s why political marketers produce them. So, marketers, could businesses adopt this approach successfully? Or should political advertising change its usual tactics?
Tags: Philip Barnett, political advertising, Sherrif Joe Arpaio
Thanks for the morning laugh. However, I’ll argue that political attack ads do seem to work.
We like our commercials for consumer products to be warm and fuzzy, but for whatever the reason, we like our political ads to warn us about the dangers of casting the “wrong” vote-i.e. attacks on opponents.
Maybe the public doesn’t trust it’s own judgment to vote in the right person?
Thanks for the morning laugh. However, I’ll argue that political attack ads do seem to work.
We like our commercials for consumer products to be warm and fuzzy, but for whatever the reason, we like our political ads to warn us about the dangers of casting the “wrong” vote-i.e. attacks on opponents.
Maybe the public doesn’t trust it’s own judgment to vote in the right person?
Christie, I’m not sure what the answer is to the question you pose. It is quite an interesting phenomenon. Maybe it is analagous to gawking at highway accidents, even when we know we shouldn’t be.
Politics is unique in that market share is all that matters. The prize for winning is the same even as total market size (number of votes) declines. Business wants share *and* total market to climb.
Politics is also unique in the sales cycle. The thought may be that almost anything goes in order to “make the sale”/get the vote in November. Attempting to rebut your opponent’s charges distracts from your own message. It’s a very high risk approach but with it’s popularity it has high chances of success.
The hope (and unfortunately truth) is that most people will forget the negativity by the next election and then it is all in the hands of the incumbent.
For some reason there is a very high threshold to get people to switch brands/vote out the incumbent.
It doesn’t appear that this would work in a normal business setting where the competition is greater and the relationship (unfortunately) more valuable.
Thanks for your comments, Nathan and NWGuy. However, if what Nathan says is true – that market share is all that matters – then what happens to the brand promise after the election? How come voters are not always swayed or angered when promises are not kept? Isn’t that the same as a business renegging on what its product or service will do?
Elaine: politics is run on emotion. We elect the people we “trust.” Therefore, it is an extremely important decision factor when “facts” turn up that cause one to doubt a candidate’s “trustworthiness.”
In fairness, it’s extremely important to know these facts, assuming they’re facts at all. But the sprint-like nature of politics means there’s a winner and a loser, and we’re stuck with our choice for at least 4 years. Brands don’t have it so easy. We’re stuck with our choices for the relatively short duration of the purchase cycle, if not sooner.
Comparative advertising is effective — and usually easy to debunk, if too many liberties were taken by the creative director. And there’s nothing wrong with running ads that compare your product with a competitor’s, as long as you’ve pulled them out over the thin ice of your own choosing.
It is sort of like government spending and taxes. Everyone claims to be against it but if you were to name a program that benefits them (or they need) they’d flip out.
Almost everyone claims to hate negative ads but, since they work, politicians respond to this incentive to keep it up.
You change incentives and behavior would change. If people really punished politicians who went negative, you would see that behavior change.
If voters actually made a deal with Congress and the President. Hey, you cut spending even on things I like and closed all the loop holes and tax breaks in return for an overall tax break, then the deal might be struck.
The problem is as it has been said a 1,000 people actively defending a pork barrel project trumps a million who don’t even know the specific item of pork spending exists much less the time to actively oppose it.
It’s time for a new, new deal with Washington…
The new, new deal would be programs we need and all agree are crucial.
The new, new deal would be to punish with our votes politicians who rely on negative ads to get elected.
The new, new deal would be to get serious and stop fucking around with our future and that of future generations. All Americans need to come together on that one.
We need to leave this place better than we found it…
Wow, wonderful and passionate comments here.
Stephen, isn’t marketing’s intention to get customers to make buying decisions based on an emotional reaction, too? If we buy an expensive, brand-name car because we want to look rich, that’s an emotional motive. But if we then hear that our model has had problems with its transmission, we are stuck with it, asking the dealer to repair it as needed, until it’s time to buy a new one.
Neil, couldn’t agree with you more. We DO need a new deal. Wish I could vote, but I have to wait for citizenship.
BTW, did you all know that Canada called a federal election on September 7, six weeks in advance of its election on Tuesday, Oct. 14? Stephen, how’s that for a “sprint-like nature?”
Well, the New Deal is taken by FDR.
We’d have to call it the New, New Deal or perhaps the New and Improved Deal. Probably, it needs a new name altogether without the word deal at all.
It would go something like this: We are all in this together so let’s focus on cleaning the corruption that characterizes our political system and start acting out of enlightened self-interest.
Enlightened self-interest is a recognition we are all in this together. Right now, the system seems to be driven by raw self-interest sans the enlightened part.
Part of the appeal for negative campaigning is to reduce overall voter participation amongst the swing and undecided voting populations who wouldn’t vote for Candidate A, and would rather not vote at all if Candidate B turns out to be less than ideal.
Plus, there’s a mythology surrounding the negative campaigning in the political sphere. It’s credited for wins and losses where other factors were more important, but less visible eg poor policy products, bad candidate choice, poor distribution of voters in safe versus marginal electorates).
Colleague and coauthor of mine, Andrew Hughes, has done a piece on negative advertising if you’re interested – http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2003/papers/ADV21_hughesa.pdf – which talks about the different types of negative ads and reasons for their possible successes
Thanks, Stephen. I’ll check it out.
I look forward to reading the article.
It does seem that turnout is key. Whatever the opinion polls say, if you do not get people excited enough to actually vote for you, you lose.
McCain chose Palin to get the base excited enough to show up on election day and a bid to capture working class (Reagan) Democrats.
Obama chose Biden to go for those same working class, Reagan Democrats. Obama already had blacks, the young, and many upper-middle class voters excited enough to show up en mass. He needed to broaden his coaltion, which is part of the reason he chose Biden (in addition to Biden’s foreign policy gravitas).
When politicians start to lose they feel the need to sow enough fear and doubt to get some supporters of their opponents to switch or just stay home.
What If Politicians Adopted the Same Advertising Approach as Businesses?