Marketing Analogies and the Political Consumer

Nick Robinson creates some interesting analogies in his post of 8.30 this morning. Entitled the political marketplace he firstly links popularity with share value, so arguing that if Gordon Brown was a plc we would now be selling his shares and his value in the marketplace would be in free fall. He then moves on to suggest that the voters are buyers and sellers, and elections are a little like trading stock; is this an accurate reflection of the way the electors view democracy or is it a disservice to civic duty in Britain?

There are perhaps two issues here, one is the treatment of citizens as consumers by the parties and the media. While interesting and not for the consumption by the news audiences, Nick's metaphors seem to reflect observations that voters/citizens are passive, reactive and contributing to politics only through polling data and the ballot box. This can reinforce this behaviour and maintain audiences and reactors rather than participants. More importantly perhaps is the nature of democracy in Britain. While we can all say that participation is facilitated more than it ever was it reaches a small minority, few seem to be part of the new Web 2.0 democracy in reality. So the only chance to participate is a vote that may have little effect on the outcome and is unlikely to because at the local elections seats remain uncontested or so safe there is little point in making the effort.

But that does not make us consumers as consumers have choice. Perhaps what we are witnessing is not the rules of the marketplace filtering into politics but some of the attitudes, when there is no choice but two or three tarnished brands the product sector is ignored and alternative purchases are made: hence the shift from party politics to issue and cause based activism or transferring political ideologies to the consumer marketplace where we are seen to have power. When there is no perceiving benefit from participating, or from government actions, the voice of the dissatisfied consumer emerges: especially when high taxes do not equate to value for money. But there are citizens out there, it is not the case that we have a consumer society that wants individual benefits from market-oriented parties, they want that as well as the best politics for society (this is based on research findings); but they do not find that so become spectators of the political marketplace, where support goes up and down, but unsure who is setting the prices.

Hillary's last push

With a matter of 100 delegates between them and many super-delegates still in need of convincing, Hillary Clinton has launched her push to win Pennsylvania. One thing of benefit to her cause was a gig by Elton John that raised $2.5 million, but what is more important; his endorsement of the cash? Clearly there is a degree of synergy between his appearance and her use of the I'm still standing line. But perhaps of more help has been a gaffe, well perhaps an ill-judged line, from Obama. His statement about the disillusioned working class has been spun by opponents to make him appear patronising. His observations was: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations". Interestingly attacks have come from both Clinton and McCain, which suggests that not only does Clinton see him as the main rival but so does McCain. The big questions is will either his comments or Elton's appearance have an impact on the contest? With 10days still to go to the Pennsylvania primary he has time to recoup as does Clinton to drive public opinion against him; so who will the voter believe. If the voters in Pennsylvania did not "need a president who looks down on them", as Hillary claims, and Obama becomes linked with looking down on them as opposed to being one of them it could be quite damaging.

Mud & Pledges

Boris Johnson has utilised the favourite the pledge card (above), standard fair: I promise to solve the issues Londoners say are most important - a typical marketing tool. However Labour must be worried as they, well Tessa Jowell is the name on the email, have countered each of his pledges thus: "Boris Johnson can make promises now but the reality is that he:

• voted against automatic five year sentences for people caught carrying illegal guns
• failed to support measures to take tough action on crime

• would deny young couples the opportunity of owning their own homes by scrapping affordable housing policies

• would make transport more expensive by pushing up bus and tube fares

• is making uncosted campaign promises that he would not be able to keep - a cynical move that will let down Londoners.

There is also the competence issues, something which both sides are asking voters to consider. Boris stresses the failures of the Livingstone administration (an example of this is left), Labour meanwhile seem to be playing on a belief that everyone already suspects Johnson's ability so we will repeat and remind phrases such as "incompetent Boris Johnson in City Hall taking risks with their cost of living.". So it seems this close contest may come down to a contest over credibility, who do Londoners believe will do the job best, secondary trends my be whether there a significant interest in change and how Londoners assess Livingstone's performance. It could be interesting to see whose mud sticks and whose pledges are believed.

Scarred of the headlines

Responsible parenting has been the subject on ITV's This Morning and David Cameron weighed in to declare himself as a disciplinarian. Well almost,. He stressed the importance that "kids grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong" (blamed on "breakdown in society and the family unit"), he favours the naughty step and admitted "sometimes you have to grab them - and that happens quite a lot" but he was less than equivocal on whether he did smack his children more that he could see when it may be necessary. Tony Blair did admit to smacking all children apart from the youngest, is that because he had become PM, or Leo was a saint, too young or just that he didn't want to say anything about now in the same way as Cameron seemed uneasy. Perhaps the same thought entered both minds when considering their words, the headline 'Conservative leader beats his children' screaming out of the news stand. As Nick Clegg discovered an honest admission or guess-timate can be a dangerous thing if a journalist is looking for a hook on which to hang a story. Perhaps what every politician should do is fill out a questionnaire, prepared with public input, they would be forced to be totally honest, and the purpose would be 'How average are you'; that it seems is the point underlining many of the statements politicians make and if all answer truthfully it would take the wind out of the sails of the journalist looking for sleaze to hype up.

Engagement via Youtube

Every election campaign now involves Youtube, it seems almost de rigeur and normal. There are not many questions uploaded yet and not much activity but as the contest moves towards a conclusion it could be interesting to see how many engage with the three main candidates and want to talk about issues. Currently it is just the 'wall' that is gaining attention, here we find issue based questions some of which border on the philosophical to some extent i.e.: "Is it right that an indigenous population should be allowed to become an ethnic minority in their own city without even being consulted?" but then we have social media graffiti a la: 'BORIS IS A CUNT' a weighty contribution from someone called Pete. But, that aside, is Youtube offering a real potential for a new level of engagement or is it just a passing fad that only a few will bother with - an interesting question!!

Charity Idol

Gordon Brown as made an appearance on American idol by way of a pre-recorded video that asks the audience to donate money to an appeal to supply mosquito nets in a bid to stamp out unnecessary deaths from malaria. Opening with "All year on Idol, it's the talent of the American people we admire. But tonight, it's your generosity" and telling the 30 million strong audience that there is "nothing more amazing than saving a life" he then signed off with a very American blessing: "Thank you and God bless you all." The media seem a little critical of this as a stunt, and certainly it ties him to the uber-cool show that seems to have global popularity; but is the most important point of this actually getting the message across to, and money out of, this huge audience? Are Brown's motives all good, is he seeking to enhance his poor image, are people just cynical to suspect the latter?

is this interaction?

In a party political broadcast tonight PM Gordon Brown invited viewers to text Gordon to 60022 and send a question that he would then answer via the Labour website. The answers are by way of a badly produced video where sound is a little all over the place but who cares about those fine details.

The key question is, are these real viewer questions or the ones GB wanted to answer? Is this an opportunity to appear to speak to viewers while answering the questions he wants to answer, so making statements by the back door? Or is this real interaction between the nation's leader and its people on the issues that concern the latter? Finally why is GBs mike so far away???

P.S. love the way the 'tough', 'people's' interviewer backs up GB, especially on how good policing is in her area under Labour!!

An aide to engagement or indecision

It claims to "help you to determine your preference for the London mayoral and Assembly elections", whether it does is more questionable. Vote Match London 2008 offers 25 statements which which you can agree, disagree or neither, you can then match yourself against the candidates on all the topics. While it aids you to see who is closest on the issues that are of most concern, so if you agree that "The 'stop and account' form that the police have to fill in when they use stop and search powers should be scrapped" you find both Boris Johnson and Brian Paddick agree while all the rest do not. If this was the single issue that concerned you then you could use the proximity theory of voting and assume that the candidates closest to you on that single issue should get you votes (1st and 2nd preference) with the order chosen by other cues perhaps.

But it is slightly more complicated over the whole 25 issues. Though not a Londoner, so ineligible to vote, I found that I was tied with three candidates, Paddick, Johnson and Damien Hockney the leader of One London who I confess to not having heard of; close runners up were the Green Party and Ken Livingstone. That either makes me seriously weird and having various incompatible views that cross party divisions or normal and actually the candidates themselves overlap considerably on many key issues. If the latter, and I like to think of myself as normal even if others do not, I could do one of two things: I could find out more about all three and narrow it down to two and place them in order; or I could think the whole thing is far too difficult and give up. Hopefully this idea will make more Londoners engage on the issues, and elaborate on these simple cues due to becoming interested in the campaign and the candidates (as some academics would predict could happen); but....

The unprofessional professional?

Mark Penn (left) has been a trusted adviser and aide to the Clintons since the mid 1990s, it has been a sideline alongside to his proper job of running public relations company Burson-Marsteller, a global giant in the sector who has the mission statement of providing a 'gold standard' to clients. But will Penn's credibility be damaged by his performance serving Hillary Clinton? There are a number of areas of the campaign where the "Monday-morning quarterbackers" (media pundits that dissect campaigns) have found Penn at fault: his over confidence in her as the obvious winner, the reliance on the Clinton name and lack of understanding of the public mood and desire for change being the major areas. It was a conflict of interests that sealed his fate, he was negotiating a free trade agreement with Columbia that Bush is trying to drive through Congress that the Democrats and Clinton in particular oppose wholeheartedly; hence Bush's urgency. Its seems the PR man got it wrong on a number of counts; is this surprising.

Well maybe and maybe not. While Penn may have the experience of managing the communication and reputation of millions of household brands (be they consumer goods or nations) he may not fully understand public engagement with politics. We do not get bored of all brands in a product sector, maybe one brand, but not them all. We do not desire new brands to appear that offer something totally different. Importantly we also are likely to trust most high street brands. These things are different in politics and in the US in particular at the moment. The polls seem to show a boredom with the brands and what they represent, thus much is focused on the character and persona of the candidate for presidency. Second the reason for Obama's success is the desire for systemic change by a significant amount of voters; the only question they face is whether Obama is the right man to change the system. And trust, well who trusts politicians? PR does not normally face such a complex and hostile environment, also it does no normally overtly play with negative messages, and you can have as many clients at the same time as you can handle and there are rarely conflicts of interests, especially not on ideological grounds.

All this raises an interesting question are the communications, marketing and public relations professionals really equipped to work within modern political campaigning? Do they really have the skills and knowledge required and are they able to transfer and adapt their skills to suit the context of politics? A big question!

The Obama Fellowship

Here's an odd one;

But I also want to let you know about an exciting project that we'll be kicking off in all 50 states this summer. It's called the Obama Organizing Fellowship. When I was a young man, I was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement and the idea of people working at a grassroots level to bring about change. I got my chance on the South Side of Chicago, as a community organizer, and it was the transformative experience of my career. It allowed me to put my values to work and to see that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, when ordinary people come together around a common purpose. The experience changed the course of my life -- and I want to share that kind of opportunity with you. That's why we're introducing a program that's going to train a new generation of leaders -- not only to help us win this election, but to help strengthen our democracy in communities across the country. If you apply and are selected, you'll be trained in the basic organizing principles that this campaign and our movement for change are built on. You will be assigned to a community where you'll organize supporters. Assignments will begin in June, and you'll be required to work a minimum of six weeks over the summer. This program is designed to give you real world organizing experience that will have a concrete impact on this election.

The big question is whether this is simply about mobilising people to campaign for Obama, or is it genuinely about building a new progressive generation of politicians? A bigger question, is all of this community work sustainable should Obama win the Presidency and if not what will the impact be on engagement in US politics?