Marketing works. I’m not talking about advertising - I’m referring to the science of developing a methodical understanding of a defined audience, targeting that audience with a relevant, resonant message, and articulating that message to them as a clear brand promise. A strong integrated brand message will transcend communication mediums, and a well-developed strategic message is usually more important that how that message is tactically conveyed.
Americans chose to elect a Republican government yesterday, and the Republicans were successful largely because they provided a brand promise that resonated with an actionable majority of the electorate. That’s marketing, in its purest form. You don’t need to market to everyone - in fact, you shouldn’t even try. Great marketing defines a target audience, and engages them with targeted, resonant messaging. While great marketing doesn’t engage non-target audiences, it should still be built on a clear understanding of what their non-target audience needs. “Know your enemy and know yourself” (Sun Tzu) has been a battlefield standard for centuries, and it is the core of effective strategy in warfare, business, and politics - but still, people forget that this standard is made up of two essential parts.
The primary product that Republicans were selling - their Presidential candidate - had obvious flaws, but those flaws were clearly less relevant than the promise provided in his core brand identity. The Republican Presidential candidate clearly knew himself - he understood what his audience wanted, and while that majority of voting citizens will learn over time if their chosen brand can deliver on its promise, at this moment, job-effectiveness is almost irrelevant. Right now, what matters is that his audience made a choice based on the brand identity that was presented to them, and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s how democracy works.
What I find more interesting in the U.S. election is that the opposing brand identity under the Democratic banner was burdened by significant strategic marketing errors. With the benefit of hindsight, I suggest their greatest error was that they understood their supporters, but they failed to understand the competition. They didn’t know the enemy. As they watched election results unfold, commentators were stunned at how results were not matching polls. It was immediately evocative of watching Brexit returns. The commentators expressed evident, repeated disbelief as reality outstripped research results. Even the Republicans seemed a little surprised - but not as much as everyone else. Research is the key here, for in both the U.S. election and the Brexit decision, one side of the political equation did not understand their opposition, and they therefore failed in their fundamental research positioning. They did not ask the right questions. What they could have done with that research is another question, but effective market positioning flows from effective research, and they obviously failed in this regard.
It’s no surprise to me that the leader of the Republican party (and now the President-Elect of the United States of America) is a service industry marketer. As a hotelier, he would understand a thing or two about human motivations. As a real estate developer, he would definitely understand how to motivate people on an emotional level. Residential real estate is rarely built on rationality: the decision-making process around choosing a home is deeply, fundamentally emotional, and any successful residential real estate entrepreneur knows how to target emotions. Emotions, once engaged, are very difficult to change. You can’t prove emotions wrong. Emotions are often impervious to logic and reason. “It feels right” wins over “the research shows…” with surprising (and sometimes alarming) frequency. If you know yourself and your audience, and you understand what motivates the emotions of your audience, you will earn some success. If you can provide something that your competition cannot provide in equal measure, you will earn a majority of success.
At the time of this writing, the Democratic Presidential candidate received a majority of the popular vote, but did not win the White House, nor did the Democrats win a majority in the Senate or the House. That’s the way the U.S. system works, and this certainly feels like the 2000 election all over again to me. Still, what’s most remarkable to me is how insanely close these results can be. In spite of the quality of all marketing efforts, success or failure in American politics is still decided by thousands of votes from the millions cast. Again. It demonstrates how iffy marketing can be in general, and how tenuous its successes (and failures) can be. Brand communication requires effective research, focused targeting, and great messaging - and then you have to reassess and do it all over again. The biggest mistake any marketer can make is to feel they are “safe” - to feel that their support is assured - because it rarely, if ever, is.
The marketing lesson is that complacency, at any level, is not good idea. This is the “know yourself” part. Understanding your enemy, and constantly reassessing their assets and capabilities, is essential. The greatest tool in a strategist’s kit is research - especially when it comes to understanding what went wrong, so that a momentary failure can be assessed and incorporated into future strategic plans. Right now, both sides of the political spectrum should be doing a lot of research and analysis to figure out why everyone was indeed as surprised as they are right now - and understand how they may do things differently next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment