Search

Pol Comm 4 Marketing

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    Political marketing, as a distinct area is problematic. Marketing itself attempts to be scientific, however the postmodern consumer defies rules. Political marketing attempts to study the way in which politics borrows concepts from marketing to reach what we term the ‘political consumer’. Current academic study is small and contradictory. Big question that emerges from reading everything that exists is: is political marketing really just political marketing communication (Scammell, 1997) or are political parties adopting a market or marketing orientation (Lees Marshment, 2001; Lilleker & Lees Marshment, 2005)?

    This is a benchmark. If we cannot apply this fully to politics then we are not really looking at political marketing, just the older term of communication.

    Marketing’s introduction stems from changes to society – fewer voters identify with one party and are loyal throughout their lives. Equally the consumer revolution that started in the late 50s, morphed into individualism during the Thatcher era, and has transferred across into politics. We are also the ‘e’ or ‘wired’ generation. Parties are currently still adjusting to 24/7 News TV, while the web, sms are still foreign lands. These new areas are all ones that marketing can help in. However it is the consumerist culture that marketing is most equipped to deal with. The public sees politics within a profit and loss paradigm – we give, you take; we receive (Heath et al). Calculations are made on individualist grounds, not often on the good of society but the good of me! Marketers are used to this, but what can they do to support this complex arena, and are marketing concepts appropriate anyway?

    Dominic Wring talked of colonisation as almost a bad thing. That consultants who lack any understanding of politics were moving in and advising politicians badly – they didn’t understand politics!! But this is necessary, part of the process of professionalisation. There are a variety of demands upon parties to do their work better. Particularly communication Professionalisation leads to parties to be centralised. There is a strategy from the stage of design right through to the ordinary MP when talking to constituents during surgeries. Single messages, core aims, philosophy. This is the ideal, in reality it doesn’t happen. But this is supposed to be the key feature of the Mandelsonian era (according to Bartle & Griffiths) repeat-remind, professionalised, slick, media-savvy… But is it new? Haven't politicians always tried to communicate effectively within their own competence, their budget and across the media of the day allowed. Equally, is this marketing, is satisfaction only a perception (We may be more satisfied by Labour than the Conservatives) not that the government or their competitors for government know what the people want and are trying to provide it.

    To combat the range and diversity, aggregate voters / consumers are created. But this then ignores others. Those others, the loyalists, are important, but no longer feel represented. Lib Dems make in-roads as they present themselves as the peoples party (a real marketing orientation or anti-marketing?). The latter works for some parties (SSP; UKIP; Countryside Alliance) many of whom threaten the larger parties within their traditional constituencies.

    Marketing research, as we all know, requires a lot of money. The major parties conduct focus groups to define how people think about policy areas, to weigh up priorities and to test communication; but it is sporadic and geared towards elections. Opinion polls are the cheapest and most convenient method of tapping into the market, and they are used, however they are limited and parties seldom commission their own. Then there is the size of the market. The Blair led Labour government has an electorate of around 18million. They include company bosses, the disabled, the unemployed; people in council housing and property developers. How do you devise a range of products to suit all those people – no corporate enterprise would try The public often think short-term. “I don’t care about the future of the earth, I want cheap fuel now”. Difficult to combat! War!! Terrorism!! Are governments judged on meeting their set targets or being a competent government? Can marketing help design the response to global terrorism? Should a government hold more referenda, listen to polls or decide when to lead and when to follow?

    Members versus Worcester Woman; MPs versus Media moguls, celebrity endorsers and contributors. Division as damaging as losing support. When does campaigning stop. ‘Hutton Report’ = salesmanship. New media, direct marketing not exploited for more than single direction communication. Big Conversation dubbed Big Con; can parties build relationships with enough of the electorate? Media, attack journalism – honeymoons soon over for a government. Do the public get bored: Blair/Labour out of favour and voters await an alternative?

    If you can get the design right, based upon market intelligence, it needs to be converted into a communication strategy. However, as Lees Marshment (2001) argues, the ‘product’ needs adjustment. Ideology important – it defines what you will do and what you will not. New Labour perceived as rudderless and lacking principles. Holds identity within and gives something to project! But what if there is disagreement. New Labour MPs have complained about the lack of freedom. Kidderminster!!! Is centralisation good? Public want politics to be relevant to their lives. Statement: We will spend £8billion on health care; Public: so what about Poole General? Need to ensure that promises are made locally and they are specific as vague nationally made promises are seen as just hype!

    So is it just about communication – selling, can politics ever really have a true marketing orientation? The Tyrant or the Representative (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods, 1992, pp163-4) Can any policy be tailored for individuals? Can marketing be a route towards a more direct form of democracy, real people power, parties acting as beautiful corporations (Scammell, 2003) in conjunction with their shareholders and stakeholders, serving the people and future generations? Or will it lead to more spin, less voters turning out, disengagement and disenfranchisement? I have no answers here, too soon to tell. Marketing concepts are being used, often badly, political marketing is in existence, but is it appropriate and is it a good thing?

    Some, those who are the Burkeans and believe politics is about ideas, principles and ethos say it is alien and that those who import marketing are akin to the devil – they may be right, most are experienced, long-term MPs though usually ideologically led and of the left. But some others who have been around for a long time see the social change and recognise the need to change themselves. They often come in from business and so know how marketing helps. They see politics as a business, subject to the same market forces, and so advocate more, good marketing as this old Conservative does. There are those who understand the benefits of marketing but equivocate. Like me, this young Lib Dem MP worries about how marketing is used and what effect it will have. Finally the strategists’ view, this one from a man who worked with Labour and now the Lib Dems. I have sympathy with this also, so who do you agree with?

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    Pol Comm 4 Marketing - Presentation Transcript

    1. The Marketisation of Political Communication Lecture 4
    2. Key Questions
      • Is there a political marketplace?
      • Is there an overlap between consumption and citizenship?
      • Is voting about ‘ME’ or ‘WE’ – if the latter who are ‘WE’
      • Can marketing models be applied to politics – if so why, when and how
    3. The Basics of Marketing
      • A social and managerial process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others (Kotler et al, 2005, p. 6)
      • Exchange, value, satisfaction are key
    4. The basics of politics
      • “ Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values”
      • ‘ the reaching and influencing of decisions, and formulation of strategies, that favour the collective good of the society being governed’.
      • (Crick, 1987)
    5. What is political marketing?
      • ‘ the reaching and influencing of decisions, and the formulation of strategies and creation of offerings, that satisfy the needs and wants of a society who exchange their own representative capacity for that satisfaction’ (Lilleker, 2007)
    6. This suggests…
      • An understanding of society, needs/wants
        • Requires 2-way communication at least
      • Ongoing interaction
      • A consumer / user focus within policy development
      • A receiver focus to communication
      • Delivery that is recognisable and tangible
    7. Why marketing
      • Dealignment
      • Political consumerism
      • Mass communication via mass media
      • But can it / Does it work?
    8. The pitfalls
      • Populist policy proposals
        • Base common denominators
      • Professionalisation of communication
        • Spin & Salesmanship
      • Integrated strategies to win elections
      • Disengagement & separation
    9. Reasons
      • Adaptation of tools not philosophy
      • The magpie approach
      • Focus on electoral victory – the big sell!
      • Competing social demands impossible to reconcile
      • Media a force of opposition
      • Quality of a product is perceptual
      • Lack of choice in the marketplace
    10. Party Orientations
      • Product
        • Offer an ideology for the voter to select
      • Sales
        • Promote their ideology to the voters
      • Market
        • Adopt and follow the ideology of the majority of voters (market)
    11. J Lees-Marshment, 2003, The marketing of political parties, MUP. STAGE 8 Delivery STAGE 6 Delivery STAGE 5 Delivery STAGE 7 Election STAGE 5 Election STAGE 4 Election STAGE 6 Campaign STAGE 4 Campaign STAGE 3 Campaign STAGE 5 Communication STAGE 3 Communication STAGE 2 Communication STAGE 4 Implementation STAGE 3 Product Adjustment STAGE 2 Product design STAGE 2 Market Intelligence STAGE 1 Market Intelligence STAGE 1 Product design STAGE 1 Product design Market Oriented Sales Oriented Product Oriented
    12. If a party were market oriented
      • Intelligence gathering
      • Policy development
      • Adjustment – Opposition Research
      • Communication (etc)
      • See Conclusion, Lilleker & Lees-Marshment, 2005
    13. The problems with research
      • The production of Aggregates
      • Worcester Woman and Basildon Man
      • Can cause Disenfranchisement
      • Barnsley Man & Woman
      • Allows room for anti-marketing candidates
    14. Problems in defining requirements
      • Lack of funding
      • Mass Party = Mass Public
      • Long-termism v short-termism
      • The unforeseen
    15. Problems in delivering satisfaction
      • Internal v External
      • Permanent Campaigning or Relationship Building
      • The media
      • Ennui
    16. Problems with Implementation
      • Ideology
      • MPs or travelling salespersons?
      • Macro v Micro
    17. Key Questions
      • Does politics = selling?
      • ‘ Tyrants’ or ‘Representatives’?
      • One size fits all or something for everyone?
      • Future Horizons
      • – Storm Clouds or Sunny Spells?
    18. Views from within
      • “ Marketing will destroy politics – there are no ideas in marketing just profit”
      • “ Marketing consultants’ business is to understand people, we need that skill”
      • Marketing can help us to re-engage with the people, but it can also push them further away”
      • “ Until parties use marketing right and properly, and have the resources to do so, political marketing is bunk and the studies not worth the paper they are written on”
    19. Questions for Discussion
      • What do we mean by political consumption?
      • Are we ever citizens?
      • Is political communication just salesmanship?
      • Is marketing and politics compatible?
        • If so in what way?
        • If not why not?
      • What is the political product?
      • Can politics be market-oriented?
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + Darren LillekerDarren Lilleker Nominate

    custom

    302 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    Discussion of political marketing based around the more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 302
      • 302 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 62
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories

    Tags

    -->
    Search
    RSS Feed
    What's new?

    © 2009 SlideShare Inc. All Rights Reserved