Are you tired of the ads, direct mail and phone calls from
the political candidates yet? Sometimes it feels like the elections never stop;
we just roll from one right into the next. At what point do viewers simply tune
out the message?
Major political campaigns are big business. The candidates
are marketing themselves to the voters, and they spend a big chunk of change
doing it. Those candidates without deep pockets must get creative, taking
advantage of free press through debates, town hall meetings and the creative
use of social media. Candidates with more money rely heavily on TV and radio
ads in the major markets, hire services to call voters to encourage them to get
out on election day, send direct mail, etc., etc., etc.
If we add to this money spent by special interest groups and
Super PACs in support of their candidates (just under half a billion dollars in
2011[i]),
marketing essentially becomes a free-for-all. And because these groups aren’t
directly linked to the candidates, the ads and approach can be down and
dirty—in some cases influencing viewers and in others causing them to tune out
all political ads.
Statistics are out on the amount of money spent on TV ads by
each Republican candidate leading up to Saturday’s South Carolina primary. A
combined total of $13.2 million was spent on TV ads alone, with Mitt Romney
shelling out $4.7 million, Newt Gingrich spending $2.4 million and Rick
Santorum $1.7 million[ii].
Yet, spending more than the second and third place finishers combined on TV ads
did not guarantee Romney a win.
A political consultant referenced in The Charlotte Observer article
(see end note below) believes that there were so many ads being shown that they
simply lost effectiveness. Is this a case of too much marketing? And what do
you risk if your competitor has a huge presence and you don’t?
One of the basic tenets of marketing is to know your
audience and reach them via the channels they use. This is more
than TV and radio, it includes online options and social media. Candidates are
still figuring out how best to connect on these channels. When the competition
is fierce, however, it’s important to see if you can find creative options to
reach your viewers and catch their attention. One opportunity is to make sure
your ads are not “typical fare” – make them stand out from the competition. Extremely
tough—especially in a political campaign—but sometimes your best option to make
marketing work for you. We’d love to hear your thoughts on how you would market
yourself if you were running for office. Comment below and let us know!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post! It reminds me of this story that's been circulating since 2007. Joshua Bell, who is among the world's top five living violinists, disguised himself as a street performer and played in a DC subway. He received indubitable feedback that his audience of passers by was absolutely and consistently unresponsive to his gift of free music. Presumably, their receptivity to the free music had nothing to do with the content or the quality of the music. They were just in their rush to work. Now, I think of how the average ad agency would have responded to the lack of attention--they would have misdiagnosed this as a problem with the quality of the content, and they would have thrown more money behind it, hoping that a more outstanding message would more effectively interrupt people. Even worse, they might not have a feedback loop in place allowing them to assess how many people are reached by the message or ad.
ReplyDeleteAs the story goes, 7 individuals were willing to be interrupted. An estimated 4000 walked past Joshua Bell and ignored him.
This story scares me as an artist trying to distribute my art and my ideas. It would also scare me if I were a politician. In PERMISSION MARKETING, Seth Godin thoroughly explores strategies for finding those 7 out of 4000 receptive individuals and reaching out to only them.
Obama's website that let you see how much you'd pay in taxes was effective, and its effectiveness was inexpensively measurable. I can't think of a better idea for a campaign ad. Suppose Romney spent his campaign budget marketing only to moderates and conservatives (because liberals don't want to hear it). Suppose he'd asked his team to craft a website to let customers find out which candidate's policies are right for them by inputting data about themselves (as Progressive claims to do for those reluctant car insurance seekers). Finally, suppose he'd give visitors to his website as much detail or as little detail as they wanted. This is an alternative to the theory that a voter blindly trusts that candidate whose background and circumstances most closely match those of the voter.