Trump Vs. Clinton: Old Marketing Vs. Modern Marketing Will Determine The Winner

An opportunity lost by both candidates to make their product more appealing, and thus bringing out more people to vote for them based on policies and the core of how their Presidency would make voters happy. And she has worked diligently with her party to make sure local support exists across the country to help take people to the polls, and encourage voting on election day. And the party itself has not been mobilized to get out the vote for candidate Trump. Mr. Trump has not done the sort of job one would expect for building the support necessary to make sure voters turn out for him. Candidate Trump has relied on advertising. While most people are likely tired of the ads from both candidacy, it is clear that when it comes to traditional ad programs Clinton’s marketing has met the competitive level necessary to neutralize any possible Trump advantage. But internet, mobile and social marketing has been much more successful for Clinton. At this the Trump campaign has been out of step with modern marketing, and overly reliant on tools that were more effective in the 80s and 90s. And today budget is only a part of good promotion, because effective use of social, mobile and internet marketing tools can help you connect with your targets more closely, and more personally. In history there are almost no great campaigns that were won just because a product was superior.

Twitter Employee Deactivates Trump Account on Last Day
Michael Flynn’s parody Twitter account is so spot on people think it is real
Why Americans are wearing safety pins after the election
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump debates
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the third
presidential debate at UNLV in Las Vegas, Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016.
(Mark Ralston/Pool via AP)

Whoever wins tomorrow’s election, their success will have a lot
to do with how they marketed their campaign. And in many ways,
selling a candidate is not different from selling anything
else.

Do you remember the “4 Ps of Marketing” from Marketing 101? They
are Product, Price, Place and Promotion. Every newbie is taught not
to overly rely on any one, and greatest success comes from a well
planned use of all 4.

Product: The candidates are about the same age
and health. And while they represent very different parties, both
have spent less time talking about what a great President they
would be, and a lot more on what a terrible product the other
candidate is. Message after message has denigrated the other, to
the point where we hear most of the electorate is now less than
happy with both.

Most marketers know that negative marketing is risky, because it
tends to tar all products with similar negatives. Greatest sales
happen when you convince people your product is superior in its own
right – not just compared to alternatives. Barack Obama figured
this out in both previous elections, and he was able to convince
the majority of people he would be a good President. Unfortunately,
in this election the competitive attacks have cancelled each other
out, and neither candidate has a majority of people liking them. An
opportunity lost by both candidates to make their product more
appealing, and thus bringing out more people to vote for them based
on policies and the core of how their Presidency would make voters
happy.

Price: One could say that the tax policies of
Clinton make her a more expensive candidate than Trump. However,
the long-term cost of the debt increase from Trump means that the
price of his Presidency will be costlier than Clinton. Let’s just
be practical and say that neither candidate has positioned
themselves as the candidate better for everyone’s pocketbook.

Recommended by Forbes

Again, an opportunity lost. Ronald Reagan did a superb job of
positioning himself as being good for people’s pocketbooks, and it
helped him unseat Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama made hay out of the
economic crisis as Republican George Bush left office, helping him
convince voters that he would be far better for their pocketbooks –
via job creation – than his opponent.

Place: This is all about “get out the vote.”
Here the advantage clearly goes to Clinton. Candidate Clinton has
done a superb job of building a “machine” that has turned out a
record number of Democrats to early vote. And she has worked
diligently with her party to make sure local support exists across
the country to help take people to the polls, and encourage voting
on election day. By making sure her constituents make it to vote,
she will likely do far better at collecting votes than her
opponent.

Additionally, candidate Clinton is not only campaigning, but she
has a 2 former Presidents campaigning for her, a sitting first
lady, a sitting vice president and her key opponent from the
primaries. This breadth of support, canvasing across multiple
states, further puts her message into voters ears right before the
election, and encourages people to go vote for her tomorrow. Her
large fundraising, and ability to offer funds to downticket
candidates, has helped make sure her message was clear at the local
level.

On the other, candidate Trump is walking a nearly singular path,
with precious little party support. While he swept the primaries,
he has not built a strong machine to make sure that those beyond
the party faithful – those who are undecided or independent – are
going to make it to the voting booth to help him be elected. It is
one thing to excite people about your product, it is another to
make sure people actually invest the resources to obtain it.

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 0
DISQUS: 113