Getting Out The Votes (Dollars) For Your Brand

How Marketers Can Learn From Politics

By David Miranda

Marketers can learn a lot from their political campaign colleagues i.e. knowing one's constituencies, packaging the candidate, getting out the vote, and employing effective media to name a few.

The political campaign objective? Get your candidate more votes than the others on the ballot. The marketing campaign objective? Get more dollars than the others in the register.

Smart political campaign managers know the landscape. They know that the voters can be looked at as a spectrum from "strongly for" to "softly for" to "undecideds" to "softy against" to "strongly against". Where, therefore, should they wisely invest their limited resources? Logically it would be to convert the "softly for" to the "strongly for" and the "undecideds" to the "softly for". Next, albeit, a tougher task, to convert the "softly against" to "undecideds" and then have a shot at luring them to the "softly for". This is based on the premise that it is highly improbable to poach votes from another candidate's "strongly for" base.

The same can be said in today's consumer democracy where consumers vote with their dollars. When developing a marketing plan with limited resources, it is important to first define and understand the brand preference spectrum. One is more likely to have a better R.O.M.I. (return on marketing investment) with those consumers with a strong and soft preference for the brand. Next target - those consumers with no brand preference, followed by those who have a soft preference for competitors. The likely success of trying to convert consumers with a strong preference for your competitors is highly doubtful. It is also true that the stronger the consumer preference for your brand, the less marketing investment is required to retain their repeat business. Conversely, the stronger the preference for your competitor, the greater the marketing investment required for the benefit derived.

Know your brand preference spectrum, invest accordingly, and get out the vote for your brand.

Finally! Somebody In Politics That Tells It Like It Is

Marketing Lessons From Politics - "I" versus "We" Messages

The Historical Contest Between Barack and Hillary

By David Miranda

We are witnessing a historic political contest between Democratic Presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It not just that one is an African-American and the other a woman. It is about the differences in their messages -Sen. Clinton's "I" versus Sen. Obama's "We".

Sen. Clinton's speeches are filled with statements beginning with "I" as in "I am the most experienced." "I am ready to lead the country on Day One". "I am the best person to take on the Republicans in the general election." As the frontrunner since declaring, she seemed to be the inevitable nominee of the party." (and still might be).

Sen. Obama's speeches, on the other hand, are filled with statements that embrace "We", as in, "We can do this together". "We can and must do better". "We can be a better America" He concludes his speeches by getting his audience to chant. "Yes, we can" which has become his campaign slogan.

Who will win the Democratic nomination? At this point, it is still a horse race, but one thing is clear, Sen. Obama's "we" messaging has resounded with many people and the once long shot has gained momentum and audience. His "we" messaging is working and working well forcing Sen. Clinton to recently retool her own messaging along the lines of Sen. Obama.

What is the marketing lesson here?

The lesson is that it's not about you. It's about your clients and customers. What is it that you, your products and services can do for them - to make their life better? People respond to sincere, empathic messaging and will generally reward you with the ultimate consideration - "votes" in the cash register.

While your competitors are touting their own importance, let your customers know that "we" are here for you.