Why democracy is a poor man's marketing
Share
With three weeks to go before the general election, the media seems to have gone politically bonkers. You can’t turn a page or switch on the TV without an immediate update on the upcoming election. Marketers are not exempt from all this either.
Mark Ritson is an associate professor of marketing, an award winning columnist, and a consultant to some of the world’s biggest brands
We suddenly seem obsessed with the different marketing strategies being applied by the three major political parties. The Lib Dems have gone guerrilla. Labour is relying on user-generated content. And the Tories are using traditional, above-the-line media.
It’s all very odd because, when you step back from all the rhetoric and look hard at the big parties, it’s clear that by any decent marketing standard, all three are hopelessly inept. Just because there is a ton of money, acres of media coverage and huge national importance associated with the upcoming election does not necessarily mean that the marketing strategies involved are actually any good.
Take the three brands on offer to the electorate, for example. Are they really differentiated in any meaningful way? If you jotted down all the major policy differences between the three parties, what would you write?
Compare that to our world of marketing. A decent marketer will always distinguish their brand from the other major competitors. It’s basic stuff. You may not love Tesco, Waitrose or Marks & Spencer - but you know what they stand for and how they differ from each other.
This apparent lack of differentiation is made worse by another weakness of political marketing: these parties never actually deliver on anything. Any well-managed brand turns positioning into action on a daily basis. The idea of paying for a piss on a Ryanair flight may strike you as unfair, for example, but this “toilet tax” is exactly in line with Michael O’Leary’s positioning of Ryanair as “the low fares airline” that charges for every additional service to keep ticket costs down.
Compare that consistency of delivery with the current Labour government, which was elected in 1997 on a manifesto that promised to lower inflation, reduce unemployment, safeguard the environment and clean up politics.
Thirteen years later, the result is a horrendous record of inconsistency and contradiction that any decent brand manager would be thoroughly ashamed of. Yet this is the record that Gordon Brown is using to justify another four years.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going all Tory on you. David Cameron’s mob would have been equally indistinct and contradictory by now after 13 years in charge. And the other bloke with the Spanish wife too.
Perhaps it’s hardly surprising that the political alternatives being offered to us are so generic and unreliable when you consider the weak competitive forces within politics. The same three parties have been competing against each other for over a century. Name me a single consumer market where that is true.
In the 13 yearssince Labour came to power, for example, the social media industry has witnessed repeated change: SixDegrees was supplanted by Friendster, which lost out to Bebo, which was beaten by MySpace, which is now losing out to Facebook.
Any well-managed brand turns positioning into action on a daily basis.
Competition creates consumer orientation, which in turn makes marketers work harder to ensure their products deliver more. A century of the same old brands bereft of new competition explains why our political parties are so lacklustre and why their marketing strategies are so poor.
If you want evidence of that, look at Phillip Gould - the man widely touted as the greatest political marketer of his generation. What is the reason for Gould’s storied reputation around Westminster? Er, he ran a few focus groups and fed the results back to Downing Street. Not exactly rocket science, but for politicians used to waging spin rather than engaging in real marketing, it was deemed revolutionary.
The crappy state of modern political marketing is also a result of the inefficient nature of the British political system. While supermarkets battle weekly for the affections and loyalty of their target consumers, political parties need only to win once every four years to take absolute control of the country and run it with zero consumer orientation for the rest of that period.
There are numerous beverage alternatives available to you when you visit a Starbucks. But when it comes to who rules your country and what they do while they are in charge, you are restricted to three options and one purchase decision every four years. Democracy is a poor man’s marketing.
The reason why British voters are apathetic about the upcoming election is not because of the recession or post-modern cynicism, it’s because they are disappointed with the goods on offer. As consumers they have got used to genuine choice, branded differentiation and consumer focus. So this year I am voting Tesco, Ryanair, Starbucks or Facebook. Stuff the election.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (24)
Rikki | Wed, 14 Apr 2010 5:56 pm
I certainly agree with Mark's sentiments, I feel so let down by the marketing of each party it actually make me think that no one wants my vote.
TV and newspaper aside, there is very little media being used effectively by the parties in my area despite the having ample time to prepare. For example: Outdoor - Labour and Liberal Democrats are none existent while Conservative have purchased a lot of space but used it to tell me why I shouldn't vote for Labour and not why I should vote for them. Local level direct mail - seems to be used as a major tool by Liberal Democrats but not so much to other two, it doesn't matter that much anyway because they all read like high school newsletters.
I'm sure it's different depending where you live but equally as uninspiring.
Rikki,
Lear Marketing
W: www.learmarketing.co.uk
T: twitter.com/lm_rikki
B: www.learmarketing.co.uk/marketing-blog
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick Cloke | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:34 pm
Ryanair is not consistent as a 'low fares airline'. It costs considerably more to fly with it than with easyJet. Michael O'Leary is completely consistent in one area, making profits, which is fine since he's running a business. However, let's be clear, he couldn't give a stuff for brand strategy and even less for the consultants who advocate it. Mark Ritson should avoid trotting out comforting examples and, instead, stir himself by checking facts.
Using Starbuck's as an example of exemplary consumer choice (versus that offered by the 3 main political parties) is wholly unconvincing. We're really only talking about different shades of brown. Sure there's a variation on delivery, but it's the same basic ingredient, the coffee bean. So, how is that so much more differentiated than the small policy tweaks between the main parties?
Come on Ritson, stir yourself. Complacency is never pretty in middle age.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stephen fox | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 1:40 pm
I though all three parties had hired advertising/marketing agency professionals for advice and guidance?
Probably not the best endorsement for our industry either.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 1:45 pm
pretty certain the last time i went into starbucks i could have ordered tea, iced fruit drinks, fizzy water and various other beverages.....mr cloke's comments are a little harsh methinks...perhaps he could enlighten us with some positive thoughts of his own
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sally Fearfield | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 1:46 pm
There is something else. None of the three main party leaders have strong or charismatic enough personalities to inspire people to vote. Apathy in the most important General Election for decades is embarrassing for everyone.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 1:58 pm
If they're doing it all wrong then what should they be doing? Examples please!
So easy to say what should be done, the hardest part is coming up with the clever idea under pressure and taking a risk from being that bit different as there's a lot to lose.
Also, by being different with alternative approaches you may end up alienating generations, ethnics or even genders.
Keep your marketing simple and get your messages across!! Simple!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Katie Briggs | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 1:59 pm
I feel that this bland approach is reflective of the bland response received in recent years, to what should be major events in our democratic lives.
Political parties seemingly do not appear to see this reaction as a fitting challenge to re-engage their audience as indeed retail brands have to do on a daily basis.
Wheeling out their pretty wives is incredibly shallow and a meaningless tactic. Please don't let this be the way we take politics forward?
Disappointing...
Katie
www.katiebriggs.co.uk
twitter.com/katiebriggs10
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
AdMaven | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 2:22 pm
When H G Wells once opined that 'advertising is a legalised form of lying' he wasn't too far off the mark. Which of course is what used to make (some) of our past political advertising all the more enjoyable. Unfortunately our tighter-than-a-ducks-arse PC nanny-ness and various adcoms regulations make it nigh on impossible to say much about anything at all nowadays - even if any of the parties actually had anything worthwhile to say.
We all know that election manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on, as once in power those air-punching square-jawed politicos all turn into soggy City-puppets. Do agree with Mr Ritson though that clear messages are lacking. If we can't get a fag-paper between the parties' policies why bother voting for any of them. Best of a bad bunch? Not as ghastly as the others? Better hair?
Time for election madness and utter hyperbole I reckon. I want to see some really outrageous claims - ''50% tax cuts for middle earners'', and ''all benefits cancelled with immediate effect'' and ''COI marketing budget to be cut by 75%'', and ''5-year plan to reduce £1.3trillion national debt' and ''national service to be compulsory''. Now that's the kind of stuff to get me down to the Vauxhall polling shed on 6th May!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 2:25 pm
Mark misses the point. Brand building is intended to be a long term process.
The current round of political markeing is a six week blitz measured only by market share on the final day. It should be no surprise that the focus is all on 'the middle ground' and that the 'brands' do not seek much differentiation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Justin Basini | Thu, 15 Apr 2010 2:50 pm
Right diagnosis but wrong treatment. Mark your suggestion is wrong and dangerous.
Read why here:
http://www.blog.basini.com/2010/04/uk-general-election-brand-analysis-week_15.html
Thanks
Justin Basini
www.basini.com
www.blog.basini.com
www.twitter.com/justinbasini
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment