Savor the irony of this for a moment: Karl Rove, the architect, may have designed yet another winning election strategy - this time, for DEMS.
Twenty years ago this week, I landed my first marketing job out of college, writing commercials for a radio station in Milwaukee. Since then, thousands of books have been published purporting to definitively unmask the 7 rules of marketing, or the 22 immutable "laws" of marketing, or the mandates of marketing, or...
You get the idea. Ask 100 marketers a simple marketing-related question, and you'll get, at minimum, 99 different answers.
So the marketing "rules" I'm discussing here -
those that Karl Rove (and/or Joshua Bolten) blatantly disregarded when they decided to make "embracing the war" their strategy for a GOP victory in November - are
my rules and nobody else's. Twenty years experience, my own marketing firm, dozens of research studies about consumer behavior, and hundreds of hours of focus groups (many of them political focus groups) got me to this point, where I feel pretty confident about the cause and effect relationship between marketing strategy and the ensuing result of that strategy.
In a diary yesterday titled, Embracing the War: Not Playing in Peoria, or Anywhere Else, I ventured an educated guess at some of the reasons why BushCo has adopted this perplexing strategy of stubbornly and defiantly embracing a war that 61% of Americans don't care for. And I offered up a dozen or so newspaper clippings that represent the mainstream media's harsh, albeit accurate, response to that strategy.
Today, in Part II, I'm going to frame this strategy in the context I know best - marketing.
First, the punch line: Rove (and to be sure, this brain fart has Josh Bolten written all over it, too) has executed a grave miscalculation in the run-up to November - a reactive, ill-conceived, poorly vetted strategy that, in my opinion, will pound the final nail in the Republican coffin.
Here are the marketing rules broken, the explanation for each, and the potential outcome.
RULE: MESSAGE MANAGEMENT DEMANDS CONSISTENCY
What it means, very simply, is that the more you waver, the less credibility you have. Ask John Kerry about that whole flip-flopping thing.
Remember in June when General Casey was talking about a gradual troop withdrawal for the remainder of 2006? Two months later, the civil war in Iraq is so bad that Bush has approved the involuntary recall of 2500 marines who thought their Iraq days were over - and those 2500, more than likely, are only the beginning.
Remember when Iraq's "government" assured the world that Iraqi forces would have all 18 provinces secured - all by themselves - by the end of 2006? Well, they're holding steady at exactly one, and the other 17 are heading in the wrong direction.
Remember June 11th, when Iraq's national security advisor, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, predicted that coalition troop levels would dip below 100,000 before year's end? Now, Dubya says we're not leaving for "as long as I'm president."
Fast forward to Monday's press conference. Now, the guarded optimism of a war winding down has been replaced by the harsh reality that it's getting worse.
The outcome: Very simply, consumers (and believe me, you can use that word interchangeably with "voters") grow distrustful of any new message that differs from the last message. They view it as trickery, or a kind of reverse psychology that leaves them feeling unsettled. They will conclude, and rightfully so, that instead of being in control of this war, the war is in control of us. Breaking the rule of consistency lends strength to the anti-war crowd, rather than neutralizing it, as Rove/Bolten/Bush had hoped.
RULE: NEVER INSULT THE CUSTOMER
Saying that Democrats are "wrong" on Iraq...and that we "don't understand" the threat to America...and that we have an incorrect "world view" is only political rhetoric - until you realize that 61% of Americans will take collective offense.
Bush tried to insult Democrats, and instead, ended up insulting the 180,000,000 or so Americans who say that Iraq was/is a mistake. Of course, those 61% don't have an opportunity to respond to the man at the podium - until November 7th.
Rewind to one of the biggest marketing debacles of our generation: This is not your father's Oldsmobile. Remember that? You may not, because the campaign only lasted about 6 months - when someone posthumously realized that the slogan was insulting to the carmaker's core 55+ crowd. In fact, not only did Oldsmobile call their own customers old, but they reminded the younger crowd - the ones they were trying to attract - why they'd never buy an Oldsmobile in the first place.
Oops.
The outcome: If you've ever insulted anyone - called them wrong or told them they just weren't smart enough to grasp the truth - you know how this ends. The "insultee" becomes defiant and digs his heels in even stronger, determined to prove you wrong. Just ask Oldsmobile.
RULE: NEVER WORK AGAINST THE STREET LEVEL
Marketing campaigns fail most often because the "corporate" office communicates a message that the real front-line sellers - the street-level grunts - can't uphold. In other words, the execs are writing checks that the actual sellers can't cash.
At the street-level for the GOP are dozens of would-be congresspersons who are trying desperately to run away from this war, not embrace it. They have witnessed the stunning power of anti-war and anti-incumbency sentiment, and they have named it "Ned Lamont." For the actual Republicans trying to win elections this November - their "corporate" office, their party - has just made their hill that much steeper.
All politics is local, and in times of war, all politics is personal.
The outcome: In debates and television ads, on flyers and on websites, the single issue that Republicans would rather avoid has now been pushed forcefully to the forefront. George Bush has, in effect, given Democrats permission to use the war against his party.
FINAL RULE: MONOPOLIES SHOULD NEVER POSITION THEMSELVES AS SUCH
Americans hate monopolies, and the Republicans own a monopoly.
From the NSA wiretapping to the "Decider" declaration, Executive Privilege to signing statements, BushCo has made it clear that the Democrats - and the rest of the country - have no choice but to just grin and bear it. "We are in charge," they say, "and we know what's best for you."
American consumers prefer competition to monopoly, and when they don't get it, they immediately side with the underdog - the monopolized. Bush's crass defiance in the face of a new reality in Iraq gives him the appearance (rightfully) of being too powerful -- and that scares people.
Telecommunications giants and cable TV behemoths have learned what happens when Americans perceive you to be too powerful. The consumers, slowly but surely, endorse the very competition that strips that power away.
The outcome: You're probably way ahead of me here. Consumers/voters will gravitate to the underdog - the Democrats - to knock down and provide a reality check to what they view as a monopoly.
The Republican Party has jumped the metaphorical shark, and the man with the skis is named Karl.
Hope you enjoyed reading as much as I enjoyed writing...