As the Republican primaries are on their way, candidates are fighting for the chance to run against Obama in the general election. Jake Woodson wrote about this topic in his blog when he compared marketing the Republican candidate Mitt Romney to marketing a consumer product. He focused on the similarities between the two, noting the four P’s as well as their use of social media. This, however, led me to think more about the differences.
The largest difference that exists between marketing a candidate and marketing a product, I think, is the use of attack ads. During election campaigns, a politician’s favourite marketing strategy seems to be attacking their rivals, reminding people about their rivals’ past failures and wrongdoings. Rather than focusing on telling their audience why they are better, politicians seem to like telling people why their rivals are worse.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ADNC0wwOQE&feature=relmfu[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZKejP1UOLo&feature=related[/youtube]
And obviously this tactic works. It’s this bombardment of attack ads that allowed Newt Gingrich to defeat Mitt Romney, the frontrunner, in the South Carolina primary. What if this approach was taken by consumer products? Companies could make a commercial that doesn’t even explain why their products are better but one that simply trashes their competitor. After all, a good reputation is difficult to build; whereas, it takes very little to destroy one. This may take the fun out of commercials, but fear is a good motivator of choices.
Today is the Superbowl and I’m curious to see whether the candidates are willing to spend the money to run attack ads during the game. One thing I can predict, though, is that after all these attack ads, Americans will not be able to vote based on trust; they will simply choose the lesser of two evils.
[Go Patriots!!]