Marketing a political candidate

By Rohantha Athukorala

The weekend media highlights the changing dynamics of the local political arena with many actresses coming to the fray at the upcoming local elections.

It is an interesting dimension purely from a marketing perspective given that the discipline of marketing is all about giving the consumer reasons to buy a particular brand. In the game of political marketing too this same process comes to play with the voters being given a strong reason why they need to vote for a particular candidate.

In absolute ruthlessness of the marketing ethos, the new products that have entered the political arena will increase the awareness of the voter and drive them towards high involvement in the decision-making process.

My father who hails from the tea industry keeps saying that to market a political candidate to high office, like marketing washing powder and milk powder is an insult to the democratic process of a country. This is an interesting argument from an ethical perspective.

Let me begin by describing what the discipline of marketing means. In simple words it means identifying what a customer wants and, thereafter, developing a solution to meet the need better than competitors but in a socially responsible manner.

In the case of politics the customer is the voter while the solution provider is the politician.

A typical voter in a local government election is a 'household' that consist of a mother, father and children. Hence, if one analyses what the customer wants they can be listed as timely collection of garbage, road maintenance, security around the neighbourhood, adequate street lighting, sewerage system and supply of basic utilities not forgetting access to supermarkets, pola and banks.

Marketing a candidate

The candidate who can effectively communicate how these needs can be addressed better, by their overall solution, will be voted in at an election, which, incidentally, is what the marketing ethos advocates. 'Marketing' helps introduce democracy into a country as at the end of the day it supports decision-making by the voter.

There are two reasons for saying that marketing brings in democracy to a system. The first being that the product and service offered by a candidate must be communicated effectively so that the consumer is better informed on who best fits their need.

However, when communicating, this option must be available to every other competitor too with equal media time so that the 'share of voice' is the same and the only competitive advantage is the message offered.

This can vary if one has to self finance the election campaign, which means that the candidate with higher financial muscle can garner a stronger share of voice. This ethos will hold ground when it comes to below the line activity, like staging meetings at neighbourhoods and hoardings.

The second perspective is that once a consumer (in this case a voter) makes a decision and selects a product (the chosen candidate) he or she must deliver the promises made at the time of campaigning.

If these two perspectives are understood, then, marketing becomes the modus of ensuring democracy is maintained.

Which means marketing a political candidate for high office is not an indignity to the democratic process of a country and in fact facilitates the decision-making process of a voter.

Is marketing wrong?

Marketing is criticised when marketing a candidate is not done in a socially acceptable manner.

This is not confined to political marketing. It happens across many consumer brands too, of which I have first hand experience, is an interesting parallel that many are not aware of.

For instance, when a malted milk was launched in Sri Lanka, the competitor bought up the key media belts on radio to block the new brand, poached the competitor's key employees, broke down the displays at the retail end and over-pasted posters while using guerilla tactics to undermine the competitor brand.

Some even go to the extent of stalking the route of a sales representative's itinerary so that at the retail end you block retail space which to my mind is somewhat similar to the marketing that is practised during an election.

The second point where marketing as a discipline draws flak when used in politics, is when a candidate fails to deliver on the promise made after being elected. For instance the daily collection of garbage, street lights not working and no action being taken to correct it even after complaining.

Then, marketing of a political candidate to high office can be considered unethical and wrong.

One way to correct this situation is to have a regulator, like in the insurance or the mobile phone industry, who can play a prominent role, and major deviations can be corrected.

This can include share of voice (SOV) issues and may be even the message content so that marketing unearths the true discipline that can showcase democracy in a country.

Some may say that it is a far-fetched idea in the case of political marketing but based on the best practices seen in other countries, this can be achieved provided that there is a political will to do so. The challenge is to make it happen in a political economy especially in countries in the Asian and African regions.

The problem that can arise in the absence of a regulator, when it comes to political marketing is that the candidate who is less aggressive will not be able to carve out a clear positions in the minds of voters which will result in the competitor doing this for him or her and can lead to confusion in the mind of a voter.

Politics versus brands

There are many clear cut differences when it comes to marketing a political candidate as against a brand of washing powder or breakfast cereal.

A political candidate has a sense of urgency as only to 4-6 weeks is the window that is available.

So either one achieves a Top of the Mind (TOM) awareness and then carries through to be appointed at the election or you are kicked out.

On the other hand the pace at which one needs to drive a brand will be slower as the time bar can be longer. Which means that the ruthlessness of the tactics used in marketing a politician will be obviously different in velocity and breath.

Another key difference is that, brands can be switched overnight by consumers if it does not meet their expectations but in the case of political candidates the switching time can be as long as six years. Meaning the purchasing cycles are different. This further justifies the need to practise marketing that gives clarity to the decision that needs be made at a polling booth.

This explains the competitiveness when it comes to an election. Hence we see that 'politics' and 'brands' have a many aspects that are common while it has its own industry related peculiarities too. But at the end of the day the winner is the consumer and in this case the voter.

We now have to await delivery of the promises made during the campaign.

The author is an alumnus of Harvard University (Boston) and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute Marketing (UK). The thoughts expressed are his own and not the views of the organisations he serves in Sri Lanka or overseas.