Category: US Presidential 2016

Last week I wrote an article for BBDO KNOWS, a planning resource for the BBDO network, which I’m reproducing here with their permission.  BBDO KNOWS offers thinking, strategy, insights and inspiration on key categories, key themes and consumer segments. If you are interested in learning more about the way BBDO thinks please contact Melanie Norris, Global Planning Director, norrism@bbdoknows.com.

This week saw the US head to the polls to choose their next president and, as ever, there were plenty of brands trying to get a share of the attention.

Given the dwindling number of universal moments in culture, it’s unsurprising. For brands that would struggle to authentically associate themselves with Back-to-School or Halloween, the US Presidential election provides an alternative opportunity for a pre-Christmas communications push.

Here we look at three tactics that brands have used to get involved in the election, and who has done it well.

NEWSJACKING

The most common tactic used by brands trying to associate themselves with an election is the ‘Newsjack’. A Newsjack refers to the practice of a brand anticipating a story that journalists will already be writing and creating a piece of content that will fit seamlessly into the story.

The run up to the election day will always see vast numbers of articles on the theme of “America is going election-crazy”, and this year has proved no different; these stories look at the unusual, extreme and hilarious things that people, neighbourhoods and (crucially, for PR purposes) brands are doing to celebrate the festival of democracy that is polling day.

It’s the one time of year where an Italian restaurant has a chance of generating earned media by emailing a picture editor a photo of a pizza that’s looks like a politician.

A Newsjack tends to generate the most short-lived type of fame, but given the relatively small amount of effort that is required on the part of brands to achieve it, it can often pass the cost-benefit analysis required to run the campaign.

ELECTION-RELATED SALES PROMOTIONS

Similar to a Newsjack, but requiring greater effort, is the election-related sales promotion. An example of this is 7-Eleven’s 7Election campaign where they offered customers ordering an XL Stay-Hot drink a choice between a red and blue cup to represent Trump or Clinton. These were then tallied and used to predict the result of the election.

The ambition behind a sales promotion like this is simply to increase the relevance of a product during this highly debated period, and (hopefully) give a spike to trade.

Election-related sales promotions however rarely have any effect on market share, as they tend to bring in people who were already in the market for a product and any spike begins to decay when the polls close and the time-limited promotion concludes.

BUILD BRAND VALUE BY APPROPRIATING EQUITY FROM THE ELECTION

The election-related activity that will arguably do most for a brand’s longer term market share is the sort which is targeted at the majority of the population (buyers and non-buyers alike), using mass media, which conveys a message in an emotional way.

This is very hard to do around an election. Emotions relating to politics are fairly volatile (to put it lightly) and any brand trying to take advantage of, or capitalise on these feelings, runs the risk of alienating or upsetting large numbers of people.

However, one brand who has managed to get it right this year is Audi, the automotive manufacturer, who premiered a spot – ‘Duel’ – during the first live televised debate. It showed a man and woman seemingly fighting to the death over something relating to the Presidential election.

It delivered a message about the desirability of the RS7 in a high-octane, awe-inspiring, adrenaline-pumping way that took emotions the audience would have already been feeling about the election and channeled them into the Audi brand. By hijacking the conversation already happening around the debate, Audi was able to generate earned media without alienating either side.

GIMMICK OR GOLD MINE?

Whether you want a quick blast of publicity, a spike in sales or an increase in long-term brand value, there are ways of achieving it around election time. And, given that major elections are as certain to capture the nation’s imagination as holiday seasons and Super Bowls, it is worth brands thinking about how they could take advantage the next time the country heads to the polls.

QTWTAIN, for the uninitiated, is an acronym of ‘Questions To Which The Answer Is No’ that was originated by journalist John Rentoul.

It refers to the age-old tactic used by commentators to create a sensational story out of nothing by writing “headlines in the form of questions to which the author or publisher implies that the answer is yes when anyone with any sense knows it is no“.

This weekend, the front page of the Financial Times Life & Arts supplement was adorned with a blatant QTWTAIN.

Matthew Garrahan’s article has been forwarded on to me by pretty much everyone I’ve ever met with a comment along the lines of “ooooo sounds like the death knell for your boring blog MATE; you will have to find something even more niche to write about now (if such a topic even exists)”.

To save myself the hassle of coming up with a suitably hilarious, whilst seemingly-well-informed, response to each of them, I thought I would pen a short retort here.

Garrahan raises some valid points and concerns that I agree with:

• There is certainly a big consumer trend towards ad-blocking & ad-avoidance that is challenging the ad industry as a whole (though this doesn’t impact political advertising any more than it does those seeking to promote soap powder).

• There hasn’t been a standout political ad of the 2016 US Presidential campaign (though this is a subjective observation and may be contradicted by response and tracking data).

• The Remain campaign’s roster of ad agencies didn’t manage to land a piece of creative that captured the imaginations of the nation in the same way as we have sometimes seen in previous elections (though this says more about the difficulty of the brief & political context than it does about political advertising as a discipline).

The only comments made that really irked me were those of the Vote Leave campaign chiefs.

Paul Stephenson, Communications Director for Vote Leave, was reported to have said that “billboards are relics from another era”.  This couldn’t be more wrong.  In a world of ad-blocking and ad-free subscription services billboards are one of the few-remaining channels where you can guarantee reach and impact and you can buy them in the areas of the country where they’re most needed.  Indeed, the latest data from the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising shows that outdoor advertising is the second most effective media channel (TV being the first).

And I was surprised by Dominic Cummings, Vote Leave’s Campaign Director, comments that his “advice to people who want to improve communications is hire physicists, not communications people“.  His tune seems to have changed dramatically since he told Campaign Magazine in February that he was looking to hire a “small, hungry and edgy agency that is not afraid to take risks and upset the government“.

So, to summarise, a quick skim of Garrahan’s article might lead people to think that political advertising is in trouble, however those who finish the article will see that the author – correctly in my view – concludes that whilst the tools being used have changed, the discipline remains very much intact and “campaigns have not stopped selling to voters”.