Political candidates are often said to be marketed just like consumer products. But there’s a big difference. Consumer marketers such as Coke and Pepsi or Toyota and Ford focus on building up their brand, not on tearing down their opponent. Negative advertising and fear-based appeals, so common in politics, rarely appear in consumer marketing campaigns. To be sure, marketers of breath mints and antidandruff shampoos play on social anxieties; Volvo raises automotive safety concerns. But the fear level never approaches that raised by the image of the commander in chief’s red telephone ringing ominously at three in the morning.

In commercial marketing, Apple’s “Hi, I’m a Mac; Hi, I’m a PC” spots are about as tough as comparison advertising gets. Yet the digs at Microsoft are offset by sympathy for the nerdy but likable PC character; Mac and PC talk to each other.

That campaign is positively gentlemanly by comparison with political marketing. Many ads are devoted solely to attacking the opponent, third-party surrogates shield a candidate from taking responsibility for unverified “Swiftboating” accusations, and anonymous e-mails repeatedly spread false rumors until voters start to believe the charges. It’s unheard of for consumer marketers to run ads that name their competitor but not themselves.

What accounts for the difference? The primary reason we see more negative advertising in politics than in the commercial marketplace is not the virtue of consumer marketers nor the nefariousness of individual politicians and political parties. It’s the structure and rules of the political game.

Political marketing is “do or die.” Candidates typically represent one of only two viable choices for voters and face a winner-take-all deadline on Election Day. Often they resort to negative advertising in desperation.

The temptation for a candidate trailing in the polls or seeing a lead shrinking is to pull down the opponent rather than develop a positive case for himself or herself. The objective is to raise doubts about the opponent in the minds of the electors — often effective against an attractive but relatively unknown candidate.

The alternative of crafting a distinct, positive image takes longer and becomes more difficult as the day of judgment approaches. Policy differences grow fuzzier as both candidates try not to alienate single-issue voters and aim for the undecided and independents in the center to cobble together a winning coalition. The default position is big-tent appeals or, especially for the underdog, negative attacks on the opponent’s character, experience, and leadership potential.

Also, businesses worry about growing the size of the overall market to increase sales and shareholder value. Coke and Pepsi both want to increase the amount of carbonated soft drinks that we consume. If Pepsi and Coke go after each other in advertising, they will turn off consumers and reduce demand for both beverages. Both brands know that they have to live together side by side on supermarket shelves for the long run.

For politicians it is different. What counts is not the size of the market, that is, how many people actually vote. All that matters is winning a plurality on Election Day. The upshot is voters have to endure hard-hitting negative advertising that is out of bounds in the consumer marketplace.

— John A. Quelch is senior associate dean at HBS and a marketing expert. Katherine E. Jocz is an HBS research associate. They are the authors of Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy (Harvard Business Press, 2007).

Post a Comment