Allow me to introduce you to the can of worms that results when my passion (Democratic politics) intersects with my profession (
marketing).
Recently, I've posted a few diaries about politics, media and messaging - most notably Karl Rove, Marketing, and a Grave Miscalculation, and last week's effort, Pressuring ABC: What You Should Know About the TV Biz. I've been amazed (and thankful) that so many Kossacks have expressed interest in these topics. Many of you, in fact, asked in the comments what I would do if I was actually involved in marketing for the Democratic Party - how I'd convince all the floaters out there that it's in their best interests to restore our Party to power.
Damn you all for making me think about it to the obsessive and unnatural extent that I did.
So this is how much of a geek I am: I've spent the last week developing a Marketing Plan for the Democratic Party for the sole purpose of sharing it with my fellow Kossacks. This is the "Executive Summary" of that plan. This plan is intended to work
in support of, not in place of, local candidates' campaigns. But for maximum impact, the national strategies and messages I outline here should be mirrored by local candidates.
This diary discusses strategies and message themes. If you like where I'm going with this, I'll finish Parts II and III - where Part II reveals actual commercial scripts and storyboards, and Part III details the full media-buying strategy.
Before we get to the meat of it, here's the disclaimer: you'll likely find something to disagree with here. That's okay. I can take it. But I hope you also find something you love.
Here we go.
The Premise:
There's a placard on my office wall that reads: "If you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you're getting." Simple, but profound.
I've long believed that the Democratic Party borders on, flirts with, and occasionally succumbs to a remarkable ineptitude when it comes to marketing and message management. This brash assertion is evidenced by our inability to win elections, even when we have the better candidate and a bumbling opposition.
Some of us - right here on Kos - perpetuate that ineptitude. There are those, for instance, who strongly believe that to win, we need only establish that "we aren't them." I'll say this in the most delicate way I know how: you are wrong. Americans are predominantly dumb, but I assure you, they already know we aren't them. And we still lose. Couple that with the fact that Americans aren't a whole lot more enthralled with us than they are with them, and it becomes quickly apparent that we must establish our own identity, independent of "them."
Others contend that Democrats needn't offer any alternative policy or fresh ideas or solutions to the problems they accuse the opposition of creating. You are partially wrong. Change for the sake of change always has been, is now, and always will be, insufficient. More on that below.
The Goals:
Every good marketing plan, which this may or may not be, starts with goals. As they relate to winning back the House and Senate, here are my goals:
1. Nationalize the election: attach the national GOP to every local Republican
2. Neutralize the homeland security and war on terror issues
3. Motivate the Democratic base to vote in unprecedented numbers
4. Appeal to "independent" voters, who, for one inexplicable reason or another, can't seem to decide what's best for them and their families
5. Communicate messages that create an emotional need for change
To achieve these goals, I would employ a variety of marketing strategies...
The Strategies:
First, we have to acknowledge that when it comes to politics (or anything else, for that matter), one size does not fit all. To be effective, we must create different messages for different voters. To that end, my marketing plan would call for different media plans, and different messages, to three distinct groups of voters:
Target 1: 18-34 year olds (30,525,000 registered voters)
Target 2: 35-54 year olds (54,524,000 registered voters)
Target 3: 55-plus (42,499,000 registered voters)
(All figures from the Census Bureau. The numbers are from the 2000 election, so they will be slightly different now.)
Understanding your audience is paramount in marketing. We know certain things about each target demographic (from both research and experience), and those known factors can help us construct the messages that will appeal to them. Note that these observations aren't absolutes, but pervasive commonalities.
18-34 year olds, for the most part, are least likely to be "spun." They have a very sensitive "bullshit meter." They are intolerant of hyperbole, especially when it's absent of factual evidence. They are cynical. They hunger for truth. Especially in politics, they possess a very "don't fuck with me" kind of attitude.
This target, more than the other two, is likely to focus on political intent. In other words, they won't just decide if your policies or actions are good or bad; they'll also question whether or not you intend to hurt or mislead them. They take very little at face value.
There's another thing you should know about this demo: they vehemently disrespect victims who don't fight for themselves. Politically, that means a soft, touchy-feely campaign from the Democrats would actually do more harm than good, especially in light of the GOP smear campaign that we know is forthcoming. They respect you more if you participate in the fight, especially if the playground bully started it.
As you know, they also lean left. From Pew Research:
In partisan terms, there is dramatic evidence for a generational divide. Young people today are much more likely to identify or lean Democratic rather than Republican, especially compared with the GenXers and late Baby Boomers who are in their 30s and 40s today. For example, among 18-24 year olds in Pew surveys over the past year and a half, fully 51% say they are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party; just 37% are Republicans or lean to the GOP.
So let's say we're creating a series of TV commercials for stations and programs that appeal directly to these younger voters. I would create 4 thirty-second commercials. Two of them would hit the Republicans hard, without detailing a Democratic platform. The other two would discuss platform, but only enough to convince them that we have a plan.
The two former spots would be themed on intent, and would nationalize the Republicans. These are themes - idea starters, not actual scripts. But you'll get the idea.
There is a difference between "errors" and "lies"...
There is a difference between "mistake" and "malice"...
There is a difference between "preemptive" and "preplanned"...
There is a difference between "politics" and "propaganda."
You have a choice.
And there is a difference.
This is the kind of message that appeals to the 18-34 crowd - focused on intent, hard-hitting, drawing a line in the sand.
The other two commercials would drive viewers to the internet to learn about platform, issues and solutions. The premise here: "We can't fix in 30 seconds what took 6 years to break." In other words, we won't insult you with quick solutions to complex problems. To learn about the Democratic platform, go to the website. And there's a good chance that while they're there, they'll donate some money, too.
35-54 year olds represent the core of the voting population, and we can profile them psychologically as well. They are more trusting than the 18-34s. The actually consume less news than their younger and older counterparts. They have lost over 30% of their "leisure time" in the last three decades. They look for short sound bytes that they can repeat, because that's all they have time for.
They pretend to know more about world affairs than they actually do. They are more Republican, quantitatively speaking, than the other two targets. They consider themselves patriotic; they genuinely love their country and what it stands for. And they have a defining issue in 2006: homeland security.
Try this at home. Ask a friend or relative (in this age group) why they would vote for Bush, and they'll tell you, with great enthusiasm, that he is protecting us - that whatever you think of him, he is a man of conviction who toils night and day to keep our country safe. "We haven't had any other attacks," they'll say. And safety is their number one priority, because this "parental" group professes to be looking out for the 18-34 year olds who, as we know from above, despise the man that their parents are defending.
I love the message that we send to the 35-54s:
"Just because we haven't been hit...doesn't mean we haven't been hurt."
Read it again.
This target group represents our best chance to play the "at what cost?" card. The cost, in very real terms - a stagnant economy that results directly from a misguided war. Three thousand dead Americans. An invasion of the civil liberties that our Constitution guarantees. NSA wiretapping, signing statements, blatant disregard for international law. War crimes. And one piece that tugs hard at this demo:
A loss of respect and reverence in the rest of the world.
Those messages play to their patriotism, their sense of self as an American.
With this target, though, we can't just bitchslap the Republican Party - we have to do a better job at presenting a real alternative. In at least half the commercials, we have to lay out a plan to turn things around, because they won't seek out that information on the web or their local newscasts or from their friends and colleagues. Because that would be akin to admitting that they're not paying attention.
The sound byte is easily recalled and repeated: just because we haven't been hit doesn't mean we haven't been hurt.
Thank God we're past this group, because now, we're back into Dem-friendly territory, as evidenced by a graph that I would include if it were on an "approved" site, but that you can click to here.
The 55+ crowd is, believe it or not, the most difficult to profile - if only because the demographic is so much larger than the other two. Very simply, 55-year-olds don't see the country the same way 85-year-olds do.
Nonetheless, their life experience makes them more Democratic than the 35-54s (see link above and scroll down on that page). Predictably, they are concerned with health care, Social Security, the economy, and the value of their homes. We've learned this in focus groups and perceptual studies: they will adopt the issues of concern to their grandchildren more than they will the issues of their children. They, too, have a relatively sensitive "bullshit meter," and this target, more than any other, is first to recognize when they're being sold a bill of goods. They want very badly for the two parties to shut up and work.
They are also more frugal, financially speaking. They loathe debt.
The Republicans are going to ask voters to consider a hypothetical: if you elect a Democratic Congress, you might be less safe. With this target group, we have to play the same game. What if you elect a Republican Congress?
I already revealed the message to you up top:
"If we keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep getting what we're getting."
More debt. More deficits. More wars. More death. More attempts at "privatizing" the personal security you've worked your whole life for.
We must empower this demographic. You can turn it all around. You can revive normalcy. But again here, we must offer alternative solutions. There's no reason not to. If we've got `em, we shouldn't be ashamed to trot `em out.
So much more to say, but I know this is really long. I apologize for that. I promise that if you'll indulge me, Parts II and III will be shorter.
Thanks.