Now that the election dust has settled, it's time to take a calm look at the marketing that propelled candidate Trump and doomed candidate Clinton. It's not simply about policy, it's about classic brand management, something candidates must heed in preparation for 2020.
IT'S THE TARGET AUDIENCE: Great marketing starts with identifying the target audience. For established brands (i.e. Trump and Clinton), it's vital to reach beyond current loyalists to infrequent voters and party switchers. A report titled "10 rules for TV strategy" by the marketing company Ipsos ASI notes, "Because most brands have lots of light users and comparatively few heavy users, growth often comes from increasing usage among light users and drawing in new ones."
While estimates vary, data shows that voter turnout was roughly 57.1% in 2008 (Obama vs. McCain) but only 54.6% in 2016 (Trump vs. Clinton). This reflects infrequent voters coming and going. That particularly hurt Clinton's chances. In Michigan, for example, Clinton received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. On a national level, Clinton received roughly two million less black votes than Obama captured. In contrast, Trump netted more black and Hispanic voters than Romney did in 2012, suggesting that Trump picked up some infrequent voters and/or party switchers. He also picked up a large swath of whites without college degrees reflecting blue collar workers in industrial states who often align with Democrats. Why did voters stay home or switch parties? There are several potential reasons.
IT'S THE MESSAGE: Trump had a more powerful, benefit-oriented campaign slogan, key to successful brands. "Make America Great Again" resonated. For those who wanted jobs, it meant jobs. For those who wanted security, it meant security. For those who wanted greater pride in being an American, it meant greater pride.
Candidate Clinton's core campaign slogan of "I'm with her" was not benefit-oriented. The tagline did declare allegiance and she masterfully gathered various population segments under her banner, most notably female, young, ethnic, and liberal. But being with her never promised something more to working men and women other than what voters already had...the status quo.
IT'S NOT THE AMOUNT YOU SPEND: If money was the only determinant, Clinton should have easily won. Estimates vary, but Clinton’s campaign and its supportive Super-PACs spent roughly $1.2 billion whereas Trump’s campaign and supportive Super-PACs spent roughly $616 million. The study "10 rules for TV strategy" found that 75% of advertising effectiveness is in the creative (i.e. the message and how it’s delivered), and that only 25% is in the media dollars spent. It concludes that, "media weight cannot make up for weak creative." Clinton's message was weaker, so money spent on it was less effective. But advertising is not enough.
IT'S THE PUBLICITY: Trump’s controversial delivery of his more powerful message made for great television news stories. One study discovered that Trump also dominated the headlines of prominent websites by a ratio of 68% Trump to 32% Clinton. Publicity made up for his deficit in advertising spending.
While studies show that the media coverage Trump received was mostly negative, brand experts know that what an organization "says" can be different from what consumers “hear”. When Trump's opponents stated that building a wall reflected racism, many constituents "heard" that building a wall was keeping them safe. So Trump's detractors, by creating greater awareness of his policies, helped fuel his win. This was heightened by candidate Trump's regular tweets that immediately countered negative publicity. But even publicity isn't enough.
IT'S DISTRIBUTION: Clinton's campaign had more field offices (489 vs. 207 by early October '16), but by a couple weeks before the election Trump and Pence had better distribution of themselves in key swing states: Ohio (25 Trump or Pence visits vs. 16 Clinton or Kaine visits), North Carolina (18 Trump or Pence visits vs. 11 Clinton or Kaine visits), and Florida (15 Trump visits vs. 8 Clinton visits). The added news coverage made up for deficits in advertising spending during the final weeks; Ohio (Clinton ad spend of $8 million vs. Trump's $4 million), North Carolina ($6.3 million vs. $2.9 million), and Florida ($18.8 million vs. $10.5 million).
IT'S THE PRODUCT: Both Trump and Clinton were well known brands before the election. Clinton’s detractors perceived her to be untrustworthy, while proponents perceived her to be a champion of liberties. Trump’s detractors described him as dangerous, while proponents perceived him to be a champion of American workers and security. She was perceived as offering the status quo whereas he offered change. In branding, consumers are often enticed by something new...even for a period of 4 years.
IT'S THE PRICE: Constituents weigh the costs vs. benefits of choosing a candidate. By selecting Clinton, proponents perceived benefits to be inclusiveness and equal protections for various groups. Detractors estimated a cost via security and her preference for big government, taxes, and industry regulations. By selecting Trump, proponents perceived benefits to be less government, fewer taxes, a reduction of industry regulations, and better security. Detractors estimated a cost related to civil liberties, his lack of government experience, and his unpredictable behavior.
Most voters in key swing states perceived Trump to have the best ratio of potential benefits to potential costs. That's the price we pay in each election.
What this means for President Trump; He has four years to make good on his promises, especially to infrequent voters and party switchers. Striving for a more socially liberal stance while keeping his fiscally conservative promise would help. He could even create new voters by crafting a path to citizenship for millions of non-documented immigrants.
What this means for the Democratic Party; Its candidate must reach beyond the party's left-leaning base to more infrequent voters and party switchers. The message needs to be benefit oriented, delivered in a newsworthy fashion, distributed via personal candidate visits in key states, and supplemented with efficient advertising dollars. The benefits of the candidate's policies must greatly exceed the costs.
Net; The winner of the 2020 election will employ better brand management.