« Google Glitch in Firefox Shows Error: google.ac.i(document.f,document.f.q,”",”") | Home | How To Protect Your Online Passwords »
Why Presidential Election Campaigns Go Negative At The End
By Tim Gross - Internet Business Blog | September 15, 2008
There’s a marketing reason that election campaigns go more negative in their advertising as election day gets closer, and it’s due to a fairly advanced concept:
Psychological tests have shown that when people are selecting (buying) something they’re looking at its positive factors, but when they’re rejecting (ie, comparison shopping, figuring out which one NOT to buy), they’re looking at its negative factors.
This holds true for political candidates as well as for products.
In other words, in the beginning when candidates are trying to “sell themselves”, it’s to their benefit to show off their good qualities so voters (buyers) will find things they like.
But as the election draws nearer the voters (buyers) switch to “comparison shopping” mode, and at that point they’re more interested in negative factors they can use to rule out a candidate.
It’s crucial to understand which mode your prospect is operating in to maximize your sales (and in this case, votes).
It also explains why virtually all election campaigns will “go negative” towards the end, regardless of what they claim in the beginning… In the beginning of a campaign, they don’t want to go negative because voters are still in “buying mode”, so at that point it would hurt candidates to go negative anyway.
However, at the end of a campaign, undecided voters by definition are in “comparison shopping” mode, so by necessity the gloves come off and the mud starts slinging.
Sad, but true.
Topics: Marketing | Trackback URL
September 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi Tim,
This is an interesting analogy that I am not entirely in agreement with. I’m not disputing the psychology, but I wonder if another common theme - social proof - factors into your equation.
If your neighbor buys a Samsung HDTV, and two of your friends swear by Samsung HDTVs, you may have a stronger reason for rejecting Sony HDTVs. Sony may, in fact, be a better product, but nothing the company says can sway you.
With election campaigns, your party affiliation becomes your social proof. Nothing the opposing campaign says can sway you.
It possible that, within the context of your post, social proof is irrelevant. Undecided voters obviously don’t toe the party line - or are independents - and thus, don’t really have the impact of social proof.
Of course, that wasn’t your assertion in the first place, but I feel that selecting and rejecting CANDIDATES is influenced by factors other than negativity.
Cheers,
Mitch
September 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hi Mitch, thanks for your comments…
Yeah, a huge portion of voters won’t budge from their party line ever, due to “party affiliation/social proof”, but they by definition aren’t the target market for any ad in the first place.
We (myself included) tend to judge campaign ads based on how they affect everybody, when the truth is the only thing that really matters is how they affect the 10% of voters who are quote-unquote “undecided”.
Everyone else can think the ad is lame, stupid, couterproductive, etc, but that’s not the point, the point is how affective it is at getting to the relatively small group of people who can still be swayed to either side.
-And that’s where the negative factors of “comparison shopping” come into play.
You’re comparing two dishwashers and the 1st one is supposed to clean a little bit better, but it’s also noiser.
…In the beginning, you’re more impressed that it cleans better, but on the day you have to make the decision, the fact that it’s noisier suddenly becomes a deal-breaker.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
This speaks a great deal about social proof, being the me too factor. Usually people are swayed by other people’s opinion even before they have a chance to find out for themselves,thereby prejudging their opinion. The same can be said for marketing, because to some people Subway is the best ever and then you have those that have never eaten Subway and they think that Baldinos is the best therefore they have to find any negative about the other to put theirs in the forefront.
Keen observation.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Jimmy, yeah, I think there’s no question that the vast majority of people have never truly even thought through their true beliefs about political issues… Along with social proof, they pick whoever they believe the best “guru” is to tell them how to vote, and act accordingly.
Whether in marketing or politics, it’s a very tough job to talk someone out of their prejudged opinion. The biggest mistake “convincers” make is in accidentally insulting the person’s past choice as they try to change their mind.
In your example, the trick would be to say, “Yeah, Subway’s really good (even if you think it’s not), but there’s a little known place, Baldinos, that’s even better than Subway, most people don’t know about it”
…By doing that, you’re acknowledging that their original decision wasn’t flawed (even if it was), and giving them permission to change their mind without feeling bad about themselves or their original decision. It’s trick stuff.