« A Decent Politician | Main | Open Season »
August 22, 2008
The Wisdom of Negativity
The Democratic and Republican conventions are upon us. In that context, I asked a few political experts about the wisdom of negative marketing, for candidates and for business. I had dinner on Monday night with John Quelch, Professor of Marketing at Harvard Business School. John has just completed a book titled, The Greater Good; How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy. He makes a strong case for “positive high ground marketing as an aid to democracy.” He contends that the recent McCain ad that compares Senator Obama to Paris Hilton is “distraction by juxtaposition, without merit in respect of informing voters on any issue.” He went on to say that any move by Obama to negative campaign ads would “contradict the high ground authentic approach established during the Democratic primaries.“ Quelch does acknowledge that negative ads can work “against new candidates who haven’t yet locked down their supporters firmly enough.” And this morning, Senator Obama is hitting back, noting that Senator McCain owns seven homes, which makes it difficult for him to understand the travails of working class Americans.
Meanwhile, Steve Grove, the director of politics for YouTube, sent me a link to his blog, www.citizentube.com, about John McCain’s sudden rise into “viral video stardom.” Grove said in a post on August 8th that the Republican candidate’s YouTube channel has “taken off,” with view counts on three attack ads on Senator Obama of between 430,000 and 1.9 million. This is a reversal of fortune, as McCain’s channel to that point had languished, with a couple of thousand views a day, compared to Obama’s “YouTube Machine that churns out 2-3 videos a day that draw tens and often hundreds of thousands of views.” But Grove challenges McCain to do even more than posting the negative ads then relying on news networks to multiply the impact. “His videos are clips pulled from TV or heavily produced web ads. He should be uploading direct-to-camera videos from the campaign trail every day…now that he has this new audience, he should seize that opportunity to connect in the genuine straight talking manner he is so well known for,” Grove contends.
What lessons can companies draw from the 2008 political wars? Quelch believes brands are ill-advised to run negative ads against competitors. “A tit for tat war of words would turn off consumers of both brands. Sales growth, not just market share is what puts money in shareholders’ pockets,” he said. The Pepsi Challenge, which gave blindfolded consumers a change to choose between two unlabeled brands, was a direct comparison that worked effectively. Similarly, GM is now running ads under the umbrella GM Truth which point out superior gas mileage and lower price points than key competitors (Chevy versus Honda). Healthcare brands with research on efficacy or side effects are touting comparative advantage. Corporate reputation can be damaged by allegations left unchallenged. But companies risk even more by casting aspersions against tormentors, whether non-governmental organizations or labor unions. It is far better to lay out your own set of facts, supported by third party experts, while creating an open forum for creative contributions from the interested publics. Even better is to acknowledge the need for some improvement, then to change company policy in a way that demonstrates progress against stated objectives.
Business is in the game for the long run, while politicians have a “winner take all mentality” which forces short term behaviors. Quelch has an interesting thesis, “Political brands are works in progress and consistency is not always their strong suit. Nor, based on past evidence, is their ability to deliver on brand promise once elected.” So counter the negative and establish your own narrative, rather than jumping into the mud with the mudslinger.
Posted by Edelman at August 22, 2008 11:06 AM |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.edelman.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/623