How To Win An Election With Marketing


Alex Connell, digital planner for Telstra at OMD Sydney, dissects the 2012 US Presidential election to examine the key marketing factors that influenced the result.

As local marketers begin to plan multi-million dollar election campaigns for their respective parties, what does it actually take to win an election with marketing?

By analysing the most successfully marketed election campaign of all time, Obama’s 2012 win over Mitt Romney, here are five things to consider during the upcoming Australian election campaigns:

  • The Power of the Slogan

Obama’s slogan ‘Change’ was much stronger than Romney’s ‘Believe in America’. Change, when relating to politics, is a word that infers a positive outlook; things will be done, our problems will be solved, all our issues will go away. What does ‘Believe in America’ imply? That people don’t believe in America? Why don’t you believe in America? ‘Belief’ isn’t going to fix America, but ‘change’ will.

  • Find your story and sing it

Every successful brand has its own intriguing story, it’s even better if that story can invoke some admiration or empathy. Obama was born to a middle class Kenyan father and English mother, was involved in gangs and drug use during his teens, reformed to attend and graduate from Harvard, then went on to become the first African American president in United States’ history.

What was Romney’s story? A multi-millionaire Mormon businessman from Salt Lake City, who is friends with other mega-rich entrepreneurs such as Donald Trump. Romney’s team made no substantial attempt to change this; to provide Romney with another dimension for potential voters. They definitely weren’t aided by Romney stating he liked firing people or the “$10,000 bet” brain-melt. His money-orientated approach of reduced taxes to the wealthy, only further cemented him as the mega-rich Mormon in the minds of voters.

mitt romney 10K bet youtube grab

  • Establish a point of difference

Romney didn’t successfully establish a point of difference, instead spending most of the campaign attacking Obama for things he hasn’t done. In 2012 America had more than 20 million unemployed and debt in excess of 70% of the GDP, if Romney had established and executed his point of difference (business experience), the election should have been his. Obama has never worked in the private sector, whereas Romney has a vast amount of business experience. Brands don’t beat the competition by trying to denigrate their opposition, they do it by offering a positive concept and exploiting the fact that the opposition lacks this.


  • Leverage Social Channels

Finally, Obama’s team executed a sophisticated social media plan, whereas Romney’s looked like it may have been controlled by the 65-year-old businessman himself. Romney and his advisers stated that Obama’s campaign was wrapped up in petty catch-phrases and internet fads at a time when voters were preoccupied with much larger issues. At an October 19, 2012, rally in Daytona Beach, Florida, Romney accused Obama of running an “incredible shrinking campaign” based on “silly word games”, saying he had no agenda for the future. Oh, how wrong Romney was.

mitt romney twitter home page obama post

Obama’s strategic social media campaign did a number of things for his campaign: it gave a voice/interaction to voters, one which spoke in a quirky social media tongue (“This seat’s taken”); It kept the campaign real-time and immediate; embraced celebrity endorsers – Beyonce, Fergie and Madonna all actively pushed the Obama brand on social media – offering an attractive dimension to the brand; and it reinforced the campaign’s overall message – using Twitter and Facebook to constantly publish quotes, policies and statistics in Obama’s favour.

  • Stick to the plan

In any field it’s never easy for the incoming challenger to dismantle the established leader, but Romney had a great chance. Romney’s campaign ignored several vital marketing laws: the law of perception (how you want to be received by an audience), the law of focus (staying true to a small number of strong principles, rather than trying to do everything at once); the law of the opposite (positioning yourself as different to the leader); and the law of sacrifice (giving up something in order to be competitive elsewhere).

The infinite variety of cross-tabulations and subsets of data, provided by research, frequently lead political consultants and marketers to overcomplicate the message of their campaign. However, it is programs that recognise the power of simplicity and consistency that most often succeed.

This article originally appeared on Mumbrella.

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.