Politics meets marketing

At just the moment when many Americans say they have finally had enough of politics, political fighting, the constant bombardment of campaigning and are ready for a rest, it is about to heat up all over again. Just a few hours after the last New Year’s fireworks went off, the first presidential candidate announcement was already made. That is a mere 25 months, or about 54 pay periods, since the current president was elected. Prepare to again be solicited (or targeted) for another round of campaign contributions. The biggest marketing campaign in the world has begun anew.

And big means BIG. There have been 11 different people sitting in the White House since 1960, an average of 5.1 years in office per president. While length of time by President in office varies, the underlying message is consistent — there will always be someone running for, or marketed to be, President. This may sound excessive. Has it always been like this in America?

The American culture of marketing candidates can be traced as far back as 1758, with George Washington’s second run for the Frederick County, Virginia’s House of Burgesses (he lost his first bid just two years earlier). The election occurred on July 24th with the future president getting 310 out of 794, or 39 percent, of votes cast among four candidates. Such a low percentage would not win today, and even then George needed a marketing gimmick. He made himself popular that election day, not necessarily because his views were respected, but because he ran an open bar at the polling place. When asked what he was doing, he replied, “Swilling the planters with Bumbo.” A record of his bar bill still exists. Washington waited only two years between losing and winning campaigns.

Heavily advertising political positions is certainly not new, either. The first political cartoon in America was published by no less than Benjamin Franklin on May 9, 1754 in the Pennsylvania Gazette. This now iconic ad illustrated a snake cut into eight pieces, each representing a colonial region, with the headline “Join, or Die” boldly displayed. Such campaign ad headers are still as important as ever, such as “Happy days are Here Again” (F.D. Roosevelt ), “I Like Ike” (Eisenhower), “A leader, for a Change” (Carter), “Yes We Can” (Obama), and “Make America Great Again” (Trump). Each was a winning ad campaign. Illustrations continued to evolve too, such as with Thomas Nast’s characterizations of the donkey for Democrats (1870) and elephant for Republications (1874) in Harpers Weekly, and still used today. Advertising works, no matter what, or who, the product is.

Then there’s the spending. Lincoln’s campaign in 1860 spent about $2.8 million in today’s dollars. Obama spent $737.1 million in 2012. Between the years 1908 and 2000, presidential campaign spending has increased over 2,000 percent. And this is just for presidential elections. Who says there is no money in politics?

Besides ads and gimmicks, what else is the money spent on? Consultants and researchers who try to predict what likely voters are thinking and feeling. Using modern techniques such as surveys (quantitative methods) and focus groups (qualitative methods), they use psychographic segmentation techniques, which analyze people’s thoughts and feelings to predict behavior, just like marketers do. These techniques can identify people with common characteristics so that they can then be targeted as a group. One such group marketers have identified for years, and political campaigns have more recently discovered, is commonly called “Soccer Moms.”

While many similarities exist between politics and marketing activities, one key distinction exists. In marketing, companies spend their own money to attract consumers. In politics, candidates and political parties (the “companies”) spend other people’s money to attract voters. Which do we suppose is more legitimate, risking one’s own money or someone else’s? We know what consumers expect for their spending. What do donors expect for their donations? Promises kept? A look at polling numbers will suggest how well the voting public “customers” think the “product” is performing. How many would ask for their money back?

Maybe we should be asking who is best for the job, not merely looking at who wants the job. Perhaps parties and citizen groups should recruit candidates rather than pick only from those who are ambitious and aggressive enough to work for two years to gather enough of other people’s money to run.