As the Democratic and Republican primaries continue, it has become clear that each party has poured millions of dollars into campaigns where the margins are razor sharp.
Each respective win has been crucial for every candidate; the Democrats, especially, are currently locked in a dead-heat battle for the next two contests. Thus, with such high stakes, the pressure is on each candidate to get his or her message out; each man - or woman - must try to break him or herself from the pack.
So what is the best way to win? Sell the message. Despite the rhetoric, politics is essentially a hybrid of marketing and government. There are striking parallels between political campaigns and marketing strategies that transcend mere coincidence.
To fully grasp the prominent similarities, one must first understand the theories behind behavioral marketing. Marketing is essentially selling a product - how do I convince the consumer to buy what I am selling? Advertising, branding and decision theory all play a role in this. Whenever you see a billboard, or a TV commercial or radio ad, there is an underlying message behind that advertisement. Brands, like Coca-Cola or Hot Wheels, are designed to be easily recognizable, so that you'll favor purchasing that branded item versus the generic item with which you are less familiar.
Advertisers and political consultants alike try to take advantage of us mere mortals, knowing that we are prone to fall into these judgment traps. These traps are called judgment heuristics - irrationalities in our conscious thought process when we make decisions. That is, they are the reason why we, as human beings, make irrational decisions. Certain biases lead us to choose one thing over another - not based on facts or logic, but based on our own inherent flaws.
So where am I going with this boring business sermon? I am trying to show that political candidates, just like soda, candy or magazines, are marketable products. And like other marketable products, they are being sold to you. Political candidates are advertised and marketed. Their platforms are sold. It is no coincidence that the candidates with the most money usually win. This is because money buys face-time: TV ads, billboards, road signs, televised debates and even media attention.
They are trying to tap into availability biases to try to convince you to vote for them. If you see a candidate's name, face and slogan plastered everywhere you look, chances are that when you step into the voting booth, you will recognize his or her name. And in this business, name recognition is everything.
Now, does this mean that all politicians are slimy, manipulative creeps whose whole purpose in life is to trick you into voting for them? Of course not. All I'm saying is that there is a distinct parallel between marketing and politics that cannot be ignored. That being said, I am trying to empower the voter to understand what's going on. Though many of us have already voted in primary contests, the election remains. Knowledge is power; if you know why candidates advertise a certain way, you are less likely to be affected by it.
Elections should be about the issues, not how to sell the product (the product being the message or the person). Elected officials shouldn't be picked by who has the most money, or whose marketing strategy team did a better job. In my opinion, the solution to this problem is, simply, knowledge.
So, the next time you vote - whether it's in one of the remaining contests or in November - choose based on issues, not based on cognition bias. Think!
Dave Adams is a freshman majoring in political science and economics. He can be reached at David.Adams@tufts.edu.
