The Clinton Brand versus the Bernie Offer
I have spent about half my career working in media -- marketing, advertising, press relations, direct marketing, and social media marketing -- so I tend to be obsessed with watching the strategies play out in a campaign. Would love to hear what other see in the current dynamics and strategies too.
The Clinton campaign relies on bandwagon and Big Brand strategies while Sanders is running a populist campaign. A band wagon campaign looks constantly at race, gender and wide labels. It says in effect 'Be like everyone else in your group: vote for Hillary.' And they have the cable news outlets playing along asking 'why isn't Sanders doing better with ______ (group)?'
In contrast to bandwagon, Bernie's campaign, a populist campaign talks more directly and about issues that affect people across groups and demographics. Sanders does much better among incomes under $100K than above it. What a shock, eh?
There are essentially two types of advertising: brand and offer. When you see an ad that doesn't talk about price or ask you to buy something, that is generally a brand ad. Something like "It's not just a car, it's a BMW" Compare that to GEICO -- "you can save $X and here is a phone number" -- that is offer.
So in advertising terms, Clinton is still running a brand campaign while Sanders is running offer. Brand ads tend not to embrace transparency. They try to play to the strength of name recognition and ad nauseum repetition. In the era of transparency they are increasingly less effective. Sanders ads score much better than Clinton's in part because they engender more trust by being specific and transparent.
This guy's analysis details how the race and gender narrative ignores the better predictors of who favors Sanders vs who favors Clinton:
...
I’ve seen lots of claims that Sanders is only winning because of white men; among every other demographic, he loses. That simply isn’t true. In Vermont and New Hampshire, he beat Clinton among all women voters. In Oklahoma, as I said, he nearly tied Clinton among women voters. In Nevada, he nearly tied her among Latino voters (though the experts are still debating that one). In Massachusetts, as I said, he got 41% of non-white voters. We don’t have any exit polls for Colorado and Minnesota (at least not on CNN’s website, which is the one I’ve been using), but given the size of his victories there, I would be surprised if Sanders didn’t win or tie with Clinton among non-white voters and perhaps women voters.
The issue of race and demographics in the campaign is fascinating. There’s absolutely no question that Clinton has a commanding lead among African American voters. She’s won that part of the electorate in every single contest thus far.
But here’s where things get interesting. Back in the fall, when the issue of the gender gap between Clinton and Sanders supporters was raised, Matt Bruenig very shrewdly pointed out that the real divide there was as much one of generation as it was one of gender: younger women voters were supporting Sanders, older women voters were supporting Clinton. A lot of the subsequent polling and primary results have confirmed his premonition.
I wonder if we’re not about to see something similar—if not quite as dramatic—with non-white voters. The cross-cutting factor here is not only age—Bruenig has also shown that younger black voters are trending toward Bernie (see the graph at the bottom of this post), and even in South Carolina, Sanders did much better with younger black voters than he did with older black voters—but also region.
http://coreyrobin.com/2016/03/02/super-tuesday-march-theses/
= new reply since forum marked as read
kind of the opposite of the rape culture jock life segment .
To the olygarchy we are all just steriotypes , market groups and focus points for mass hysteria .The first thing you learn in advertising is to sell the sizzle not the stake ,rule two use the person's name frequently .REMEMBER SUCCESS COMES IN CANS NOT CAN NOTS !!!!!!!
