Political Marketing:

Theoretical and Strategic Foundations

Wojciech Cwalina, Andrzej Falkowski, Bruce I. Newman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317462583
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Comprehensive and clearly organized, this is the first integrated theory-to-practice text on marketing's role in the political process. It incorporates insights and concepts drawn from the disciplines of Marketing, Psychology, and Political Science, and covers every aspect of marketing's infiltration into politics, including campaign strategy, market segmentation, and media strategy.

Using examples and models drawn from countries around the globe, the authors elucidate the importance of political marketing techniques for the stability of democratic institutions. They also note the potential threats to democracy, especially the use of marketing techniques to manipulate voters at the subconscious level. They conclude with a set of normative do's and dont's for political marketing practice that strengthens civic education and democratic governance.

1

Metatheory in Social Science
and Political Marketing

Theory development in political marketing has borrowed from several different social science disciplines. At the very heart of this pursuit is the understanding of human behavior that encompasses the various activities involved in political marketing. The sum total of those activities is put forward in the following definition of political marketing: “the applications of marketing principles and procedures in political campaigns by various individuals and organizations. The procedures involved include the analysis, development, execution and management of strategic campaigns by candidates, political parties, governments, lobbyists and interest groups that seek to drive public opinion, advance their own ideologies, win elections and pass legislation and referenda in response to the needs and wants of selected people and groups in society” (Newman 1999a, xiii).

Metatheory in Social Science

The various activities that encompass the human behaviors related to political marketing will be analyzed in this book in an effort to understand how democracies around the world use these methods to accomplish the many political goals that allow a society to increase the quality of life for its citizens. The theorists from the different social science disciplines that we have borrowed from all approach theory development in a slightly different way, with each approach unique to the study of activities that pertain to the human behavior in question. However, it is possible to study the contribution of a theory in social science by outlining the various functions that theory serves into four different categories: integration, description, delimitation, and generation (see Howard and Sheth 1969; Rychlak 1968). Each of these functions will be described and used to evaluate how a theory in political marketing should be developed to better understand the technopolitical shift that has taken place in democracies around the world over the past twenty years.

The Integrative Function

One of the most important parts of theory development in the social sciences is the integration of constructs, propositions, and existing models that seek to explain the phenomenon in question. Perhaps the most important function to use to test a theory in political marketing is its ability to bring together the various constructs that define a discipline made up of two different worlds: politics and marketing. We find ourselves at a very exciting stage of theoretical development in the field of political marketing where scholars from around the world are contributing to the knowledge base of the field on a regular basis (see Journal of Political Marketing, published by Taylor & Francis, in its eighth year in 2009). It is not surprising that the research most widely referenced in the field is from two disciplines: political science and marketing. However, it is fair to say that scholars have borrowed from many other disciplines to explain the very wide range of human behaviors that make up the field of political marketing, including, but not limited to, cognitive and social psychology, sociology, advertising, cultural anthropology, economics, management, and political management. Each of these different disciplines seeks to explain and predict the behavior of the many actors involved in the functioning of democracies.

We believe the theoretical structure put forward in this book pulls together the relevant empirical and conceptual findings in several different disciplines that have been tapped to contribute to the current thinking in the field. This statement is made with an understanding that theoretical developments have come from disciplines in democracies around the world. Furthermore, it acknowledges the importance that must be placed on developing theory from empirical works that allow us to bridge the global network of democracies that rely on similar constructs to understand the thinking and actions of the voter in society (Cwalina, Falkowski, and Newman 2008).

The Descriptive Function

Like other theories in the social sciences, theory in political marketing should be explained by the integration of constructs and propositions that allow one to get an understanding of the human behavior in question. Key to describing the central constructs of the theory in this discipline is the ability to integrate the environmental forces that play a role in shaping the behaviors in question. Because the phenomenon in question can have global idiosyncratic characteristics, it is critically important in the description of theory in this field to account for the broad commonalities that do exist in all democracies around the world. This is perhaps the most compelling aspect of the work presented in this book, which to date has not been accomplished by any other scholar in the field.

We believe the theoretical contribution made in this book moves the field forward because human political behaviors around the world do have many features in common, but at the same time have some unique features. For example, some democracies are driven by governments as opposed to political parties. In other words, governments are so powerful that they are able to pick and choose the political party that is in charge of day-to-day operations of the society. At the same time, in some democracies individual politicians may be put in power without the consent of the government, or a political party may gain control through the sheer power of money and advertising that are used to drive the choice of candidates. Furthermore, it has been well established in the field that the set of activities and actors may vary or stay the same as a democracy moves from precampaign, to campaign, to postcampaign status. Finally, the actual use of marketing tools and strategies can also have a differential impact on the outcome of campaigns depending on the democracy being studied. It is therefore imperative that a theory be developed that describes and accounts for all the conditions that might impinge on the uniqueness of a democracy. We believe our theory can be used to fully describe the human behavior we are studying.

The Delimiting Function

In light of the fact that theory in the social sciences must be limited to a selection of constructs that describe the phenomenon from a specific vantage point, and the fact that we are attempting to provide a theory that has a global reach, the selection of constructs is very important (see Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2). Our goal in this book is not to attempt to explain the unique features of political marketing in each and every democracy around the world, but rather to present an array of constructs and propositions that can give meaning to the common human behaviors and activities that cut across the discipline. The question then arises how we went about selecting those constructs that could give meaning to anyone who might have an interest in this phenomenon around the world. The best answer to this question lies in the fact that we relied on both empirical and conceptual works in the development of our theoretical linkages.

By definition, the field of political marketing is an applied science that relies on the application of constructs that are measured in paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Yes, these measurements come from models and conceptual frameworks that fit into the phenomenon being studied. Therefore, it is quite possible that the selection of constructs (from empirical studies) in our theory may be limited to the execution of the research carried out and reported in the literature. We are naturally constrained by the relationships that show statistical significance in the reporting of results, and by the modeling that is developed from these research studies. It must also be recognized that there may be constructs that should be included in our theory, but because they cannot be measured, we are limited to their exclusion. This is the nature of an applied discipline and naturally delimits the choice of constructs that describe and explain the phenomenon in question. As the methodological sophistication of a discipline advances through multivariate statistical testing, it becomes possible for theorists to use more rigorous tests to validate the meaning of the constructs and their relationships. Ultimately, it is the ability to predict the human behaviors in question that allows us to extract meaningful explanations and ultimately a choice of constructs to use in our theory. We are of the opinion that we have successfully selected out those constructs that delimit the field.

The Generative Function

The ability to test a theory, and parts of it, is a measure of the generative function. In the social sciences, testing hypotheses that are generated from theory is one measure of the richness of the thinking. The development of our theory in this book is based on preexisting models, some of which have been tested across people, time, and places. However, we have gone a step beyond the traditional thinking in the field by expanding the phenomenon to be tested across global boundaries. For example, we have borrowed from models that have been conceptualized in one country, but never tested. We also have borrowed from some models that have been operationahzed in selected democracies, but not in others. Finally, we have also borrowed from conceptual frameworks that have not been tested, but have been compared between countries.

It is our goal to generate much thinking and research from scholars around the world on the subject of political marketing. We expect that to happen because the theory provides for an unlimited number of relationships that could exist between constructs in the model (see Figure 2.6 in Chapter 2). For example, it will be very interesting to see how the strategic use of social networking moves from the United States (as witnessed in the Obama campaign of 2008) to other democracies around the world as the Internet becomes more popular and more economical to use compared with traditional communication tools, such as television advertising. We also expect to see some very interesting research carried out longitudinally within democracies from precampaign to campaign to postcampaign as constructs are more clearly delineated and able to be measured by researchers. This function should serve to advance the field of political marketing in a significant way, and we believe that the theoretical propositions put forward will serve to do that well.

Political Marketing as a Separate Discipline of Science and Practice

Politicians are in the business of selling hope to people. This hope is related to convincing people that it is this particular politician or political party that guarantees, as Jenny Lloyd (2005) puts it, successful management of national security, social stability, and economic growth on behalf of the electorate. From this perspective, the major challenge to political marketing is to connect a politician’s words, actions, and vision into a realistic transformation of the electorate’s dreams and aspirations (Newman 1994).

According to Stephen Dann, Phil Harris, and their collaborators (2007), political marketing faces four main challenges. First, we need to turn political marketing into political marketing science. Implementing this goal requires, above all, developing background research and core datasets to utilize for constructing advanced insights into the political marketing process. Second, political marketing needs to be modernized. The research agenda for marketers and academics is to test the applicability of the principles in the context of the local political system so as to identify independent and nation-dependent political marketing strategies and campaigns. This step is necessary to develop a general theory of political marketing. Third, we need to define the relations between political marketing, lobbying, and government. Fourth, any theory of political marketing should include changes taking place in modern democracies, especially the shift from citizenship to spectatorship, and assess and point new ways to increase citizen involvement.

Paraphrasing the words of Phil Harris and Patricia Rees (2000, 368), “political marketing needs to regenerate itself and not fear change or ambiguity in its quest to seek the truth. It needs to avoid shibboleths, false and unarmed prophets, learn from history and show passion and courage or be deemed beyond redemption.”

Mainstream and Political Marketing

The first conceptualizing efforts related to political marketing referred to or represented the transferring of classical product marketing to the plane of politics (e.g., Farrell and Wortmann 1987; Kotler 1975; Niffenegger 1988; Shama 1975), defined by Stephan C. Henneberg (2003) as “instrumental” or “managerial” interpretation of political marketing activities. The starting point for this approach was the assumption that it would be a gross mistake to think that election campaigns have taken on marketing character only in recent years. Campaigning for office has always had a marketing character, and what has only increased in the course of time is the sophistication and acceleration of the use of marketing methods in politics (Kotler 1975; Kotler and Kotler 1999). From this perspective, political marketing was defined as “the process by which political candidates and ideas are directed at the voters in order to satisfy their political needs and thus gain their support for the candidate and ideas in question” (Shama 1975, 793). Applying mainstream marketing to politics was justified by a number of similarities—similarities of concepts (e.g., consumers, market segmentation, marketing mix, image, brand loyalty, product concept and positioning) and similarities of tools (e.g., market research, communication, and advertising). On the other hand, attempts were made to prove that the differences between marketing and politics were only ostensible and that they disappeared under a more thorough analysis (see Egan 1999; Kotler 1975).

One of the consequences of identifying political marketing as product marketing was that candidates or political parties often were compared to particular consumer products, such as toothpaste or a bar of soap, and the media played an important part in popularizing that myth. As Philip Kotler and Sidney Levy (1969, 10) state, “political contests remind us that candidates are marketed as well as soap.” However, as Alex Marland (2003) demonstrates, such comparisons are outdated and hardly appropriate in modern political marketing. The notion that parties and candidates can be promoted in the same manner as soap has become the mechanism for decrying the side effects of political marketing. This outdated axiom still continues to be used by political actors and observers alike. The “selling soap” analogy presumes that candidates are sold with a selling concept rather than promoted within a marketing concept. According to Marland (2003, 106), “only amateur, underfunded, and small-scale election campaign teams are still involved in a selling concept.” Candidates are not “sold”; they are “marketed,” as are realtors (i.e., real estate agents) and other service providers.

This idea is also strongly emphasized by Nicholas O’Shaughnessy (1987, 63): “politics deals with a person, not a product.” Rather, politicians should be treated as vendors hired for a particular period of time—like doctors or lawyers. In other words, political marketing is mainly concerned with people and their relationships with each other, whereas mainstream marketing is often concerned with people’s interaction with products. Therefore, attitude and impression formation in reference to political candidates also has a number of characteristics distinguishing it from consumer brands. The results of a series of psychological experiments conducted by Sarah Hampson, Oliver John, and Lewis Goldberg (1986) suggest that category membership is fuzzier with persons than in the domain of natural objects. It means, for instance, that the category “politician” is more blurred or less unequivocal than the category “soft drink.” There are many more features politicians are characterized by and the associations with them are less predictable than those with the category of products. Furthermore, the results of neuropsychological research suggest that different brain regions are activated during forming impressions of people and inanimate objects (Mitchell, Macrae, and Banaji 2005). Also, Geeta Menon and Gita Johar (1997) demonstrate that judgments related to nonsocial product experiences trigger processes that are different from those established for social stimuli. Product experiences are inherently less ambiguous than personal experiences, thereby entailing more concrete and less self-referent processing. Judgments of social stimuli (e.g., person, party) are likely to depend on inferred, abstract information (e.g., traits); whereas judgments of nonsocial stimuli (e.g., products) are likely to depend on concrete attributes, which, in turn, leads to the manifestation of positiv-ity effects (tendency to recall positive experiences from the past rather than negative ones) in personal but not product experiences. Menon and Johar (1997) suggest then that consumer researchers need to be cautious when applying knowledge of structure and processes dealing with person memory to the domain of products. Furthermore, the results of John Lastovicka and E.H. Bonfield’s research (1982) suggest that althoug...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Metatheory in Social Science and Political Marketing
• 2. An Advanced Theory of Political Marketing: What Is Missing?
• 3. The Campaign Message Development: Segmentation and Positioning on the Voting Market
• 4. Candidate Image
• 5. Dissemination of the Campaign Message: Direct Campaign and Debates
• 6. Dissemination of the Campaign Message: Mediated Campaign
• 7. Postelection Marketing: Maintaining and Enhancing Relationship With Voters
• 8. Political Marketing and Democracy
• References
• NameIndex
• Subject Index
• About the Authors