If Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama cannot see that using negative advertising against each other will kick them both in the rear end when the general election fight emerges, they need new contact lenses. Focusing on the positive gives voters more reasons to vote for a Democrat, now and in the future. Going negative not only makes voters nauseous and cynical, it makes the battle hilariously easy for the McCain supporters by giving them storehouses of free ammunition for the general.
That's not just me talking. That's coming from professional marketers. The politicians may be dumping gajillions of dollars into their campaigns, yet many of their ads aren't giving them a long-term benefits, according to a new book, "Greater Good" by John A. Qualch and Katherine E. Jocz, published by Harvard Business Press. A recent Advertising Age article titled "Marketing, Much Like Democracy, is Good for You (Yes, Really)" the two Harvard Business School experts show that politicians should treat citizens the way the best marketers do.
In an excerpt from "Greater Good:"
"Politicians constantly sell themselves to raise money to fund campaigns, and their marketing efforts diminish rather than enhance marketing's reputation. This is especially true of politicians who harness marketing tactics such as negative advertising to achieve short-term results at the polls.In contrast, commercial marketers must earn the consumer's vote at the cash register every day. With decades of experience, they therefore view marketing as a long-term investment to boost their brands' reputations. They rarely indulge in negative comparison advertising with their direct competitors, knowing that consumers repect brands that offer positive reasons to buy them.
What is needed in the politicial marketplace is not less marketing but better marketing. Politicans need to understand that marketing, practiced properly, is grounded in the concept of a fair exchange that builds trust."
And yet some are saying that Hillary's victories this weekend happened because she did go negative against Obama. The next few weeks will be very interesting and a lot of fun.
When does telling the truth about a candidates' record(or lack of) cross over and become negative campaigning?I guess that depends on the ear of the beholder.Sen.Obama will have to go negative to counter Clinton Inc. I can't imagine that going positive will work when you have no accomplishments to go positive about.Ditto for Sen.Clinton.Isn't the approval rate of the Senate(McCain included) even lower than that of the President.Doesn't seem like a positive.We will be subjected to hundreds of millions of dollars of negative campaigning by the first wednesday in November and I bet the book "Greater Good" will be in the discount rack sooner than that.
Whether negative campaigning works or not it is whst has made me dislike politics so much. I simply will not vote for the baser candidate cause if thats all they have its not enough to run the country. I go by what their platforms are based on and still am not optimistic because they all lie so much. I really wanted Huckabee but that chance is gone now to.