Joe McGinnis’ classic study of how the 1968 campaign to reelect Richard Nixon is a landmark book in both contemporary political science and in marketing to a broad audience. The revelations that were introduced by key players such as Roger Ailes, Harry Treleaven, Frank Shakespeare and (of course) President Richard Nixon cast a new light on how to package a candidate for mass public consumption. Among the many “a-ha!” moments of the book was the telling realization that gaining votes in an election had far less to do with issues and policy and more to do with how the candidate looks in front of a camera, how what he or she says is “spun”, and the significance of image (over substance).
What is telling to me is that in re-visiting a time over 40 years ago, not that much has changed. In fact, if anything, the marketing seems to have driven the “lowest common denominator” to an ever sinking standard. By that I mean, if image moved ahead of issues in 1968, then by 2012 image has become pretty much everything, to the point where what I (as a candidate) tell you is my position on an issue is less meaningful that what my opponent tells you my position is.
Have you found yourself longing for a more straightforward, issues-based approach to differentiating candidates? I know I have. And for that reason, I believe that there is a huge disconnect between how voters are “sold” versus how voters would like to “buy”. If you were to view the two most central players in the race for the White House as “category leaders” in a hotly competitive consumer products category, you would likely be pretty unimpressed with the marketing and sales process (we won’t even get into how you might feel about product design).
My question is this: If you couldn’t sell me a can of soda this way, why should I be expected to buy a President of the United States from you?
Imagine if Chevrolet ripped into Toyota by lambasting the heritage, quality and reliability of the Camry, instead of demonstrating the unique product and design attributes of the Impala? How effective would that be in terms of getting traffic into the Chevy dealers’ showrooms?
What if Coca Cola chose to feature innuendo about Pepsi’s corporate finances rather than artfully engaging the public with whimsy as to how delicious Coke is? Would that make you run out and buy more Diet Coke?
Some products (food, fashion, and cosmetics come to mind) are more about the senses than functionality. Other categories (office equipment, air conditioners, and cameras, for instance) are more about engineering and technology. Some (smartphones, airlines and automobiles, as examples) are a combination of both. But none of these categories could ever find success if they were marketed the way major American political parties bring their candidates to market. Is it me or do you find that astounding as well?
If it weren’t for the Olympics, I think I would turn off the tv and not visit upon a network news or sports show until the first Wednesday in November. It’s time for someone to revisit the groundwork laid by Joe McGinnis, to update the marketing of our country’s CEO, and to invigorate the process with something approaching a clear, concise value proposition. Failing that, we will forever be stuck in this rather un-virtuous cycle of incessant hammering as to how poor our next leader is going to be, no matter which side of the proverbial “aisle” on which you choose to reside.
