Marketing Politics

Marketing is misunderstood and much maligned. The industry is dogged by pejorative associations with concepts such as 'spin', 'hype', 'gimmick' and 'ploy', and it is not uncommon for fellow board members to refer to the marketing director

as 'the chief flower arranger'.

So it's perhaps not surprising that when times get tough, marketing gets it in the neck from governments too. Marketing is seen as an agent of consumerism, and is, therefore, an obvious scapegoat for major societal problems such as obesity, binge drinking, global warming and debt. It is much easier for governments to publicly 'punish' marketers with legislation that restricts their license to operate, than it is for those governments to tackle some of the issues themselves. Marketing and democracy provide similar benefits, as I and my fellow author Katherine Jocz outline in Greater Good - How good marketing makes for better democracy (Harvard Business School Press, February 2008). For example, marketers give consumers information and choice, they seek to engage them to earn their loyalty, they try to bring quality and innovation to the masses. Marketing also provides 'social glue' via successful exchanges, and improves living standards and consumer wellbeing. Similarly, democracies depend on informed citizens participating in the political process and making choices among political alternatives.

They also promote the welfare of all citizens, which leads to improved prosperity. But marketing is better than democracies at providing these benefits. For example, while consumers in the commercial world 'vote' every day at the cash tills, citizens have to subsume their individual preference to a collective will, and consume the policies of the party that has been elected. Marketing is also quicker than democracy to spot and embrace new trends, while strong brands can forge the kind of long-term loyal relationships with their consumers that politics, with its mass market approach and lack of any real competition, can only dream of.

Marketing is also being used as a force for social good - witness the rising popularity of Fairtrade goods and the commitment to tackling climate change by brands such as Marks & Spencer. Indeed, you could argue that the practice we get as consumers every day in the commercial marketplace makes us better, smarter citizens - which may be why our politicians are frequently such a disappointment to us. The difference in the way politicians and brands 'advertise' themselves is further evidence of marketing's more highly evolved status.

Brand advertisements knocking the competition are frowned upon in the commercial world - marketers know that a tit-for-tat war of words turns consumers off the category as a whole - but they are par for the course in politics. The penalties of this approach were obvious in the US Democratic race, where Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama took every opportunity to undermine each other's credibility. Their subsequent efforts to present a united front against Republican John McCain in the Presidential campaign were met with understandable cynicism.

It is time governments, NGOs and the general public sat up and recognised the positive social and economic impacts marketing has on society as a whole. It contributes significantly to economic development, for example. In the US alone 17 million people hold marketing, sales and customer-service jobs. Marketing also supports the pillars of democratic society. It funds our diverse media, including the internet, giving citizens access to information about political figures, policies and programmes. And marketing knowhow helps public policy makers change citizens' behaviours by, for example, encouraging seat-belt use, good nutrition and responsible drinking. So instead of treating them merely as taxpayers, donors and voters, politicians should treat citizens as well as marketers treat their customers. They could improve the democratic process as a result.