Very little scholarship has been done around the subject of marketing and democracy. In fact, many believe that politics needs less marketing.
Harvard Business School professor John A. Quelch and research associate Katherine E. Jocz see it differently. What the process needs is better marketing, not less. In their new book, Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy, the authors argue that the core benefits of marketing align closely with the requirements of democracy: exchange, consumption, choice, information, engagement, and inclusion.
By extension, the principles of good marketing can be used to create a political process that entices consumers (voters) rather than makes them cynical.
"We wanted to elevate understanding of the power and importance of marketing as a force for social good," the researchers wrote in an e-mail interview. "As part of this, we wanted to give consumers and citizens a deeper understanding of the marketing system, what it means for democratic society, and their power to influence it."
Sean Silverthorne: In general, how does good marketing reinforce democracies?
John Quelch and Katherine Jocz: Marketing as we know it today provides core benefits that align with the conditions necessary for democracy. A critical takeaway is that billions of marketing transactions help to develop the social glue that holds democratic societies together.
Q: How can the two major U.S. political parties market themselves more effectively to voters?
A: While around a fifth of U.S. adults are political partisans, about half don't participate. If citizens think their vote will not matter, see no important differences among the candidates, encounter barriers to voting, or are turned off by the electoral process and candidates' campaign tactics they drop out.
There are structural reasons why we have arrived at this state of affairs, including "winner-takes-all" elections, a two-party system that offers limited choice, and the system of campaign financing. The winner-takes-all system often leads candidates to desperate tactics such as negative advertising to tear down their opponents rather than promoting their own virtues. Citizens can be forgiven for being cynical.
However, what's needed in politics is not less marketing but better marketing. The two major parties should focus on learning current and emerging citizen needs, developing policy and program solutions, informing interested citizens about themselves, and making themselves easily accessible. They should embrace reforms, such as lifelong voter registration, that remove barriers to participation. Politicians need to view citizens not as occasional voters, donors, and taxpayers but as their customers.
It's important for the major parties to give voters choices. With no incumbent candidate or heir apparent running in the current presidential primaries, the diversity of choices is better than ever. Hence, interest and "consumption" of politics is higher than it has been in the last couple of decades.
Also, one way of viewing local elections and political primaries is as a product development process for the major parties. Letting voters choose among a diverse array of candidates with distinct positionings and value propositions represents a market test and signal of what consumers want.
Q: Consumer marketing appears to be drifting away from mass market advertising to more targeted approaches made possible by the digital world. Is political marketing evolving in the same way? What new technologies can candidates take advantage of to reach voters?
A: Political marketing is evolving in the same way. Grassroots political organizations and interest groups are using digital technology to communicate to targeted segments of citizens, receive input from supporters, hold interactive conversations, and process financial contributions. For example, on the liberal side of the spectrum, you have Democracy for America, founded by Howard Dean, and also Moveon.org.
However, online enthusiasm does not necessarily translate into the superior on-the-ground political organization that is still crucial in so many elections. Dean's youthful Internet backing failed to generate enough votes at the polls. In the recent New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton's surprise win is attributable in part to her superior grassroots organizing there—the political equivalent of retail and sales force coverage.
Likewise, the country is far from ready for online voting. We can't even manage to cast and count votes accurately with the new electronic technologies.
Q: In the United States it seems the public has a very low opinion of the federal government. Can government market itself more effectively to its constituents and customers?
A: The federal government and local governments can market themselves more effectively to constituents. First of all, they have to view their organization from a customer viewpoint and ask: Who are our customer groups? How are we going to add value to those customers?
Federal agencies that provide services to citizens can institute service improvements and metrics modeled after those in the private sector. They can call on social marketers to aid in communicating with customers and creating attractive exchanges that will achieve desired customer behavior. The good news is that government agencies can improve—even offices of motor vehicle registration.
The challenge is that public agencies serve two types of customers: clients and taxpayers. This is similar to media companies serving consumers and advertisers. The needs of both constituencies are linked, but they are not identical.
Q: As you note in the book, only 10 percent of the world's population live in countries considered totally democratic. Does democracy need a marketing campaign? If so, who should run it?
A: No one is marketing democracy. The Carter Center deserves credit for monitoring the fairness of elections, but what is needed is an international institute funded by multiple countries, representing different models of democracy, to create pull demand for democracy around the world. It must be multilateral, not unilateral. U.S.-directed initiatives will always be suspected as self-serving.
Q: What are you working on next?
A: We are working on a book on what CEOs need to know about marketing and how they can leverage marketing capabilities for competitive advantage. We welcome input from CEOs on whether they think marketing is delivering or is letting them down and how they think marketing can and should help them.
E-mail Katherine Jocz