There’s something clearly wrong with the generally accepted theory that political marketing is different from any other kind of marketing. It isn’t. Politicians and political parties are brands, though the party brand is closely related to its leader’s brand. Yet for some reason, political parties in North America seem to believe that it’s okay to:

  • directly disparage & personally attack competitors, even on issues not related to the decision-making process at hand
  • lie to consumers, explicitly or by omission
  • treat the consumer like he/she is stupid

None of this is allowed outside of political marketing, in the court of law or the arena of public opinion. It’s diabolical that we hold the marketing of toilet paper to a higher standard than marketing the leader of the free world—in the case of the USA.

I watched the other Leaders’ Debate last night. From start to finish, something I’ve never done before. I will preface all of my opinions on what I witnessed with this:

  • I vote for the Conservative Party, based on its traditional principles.
  • I believe the Conservatives have done well for Canada in the last nine years and particularly in the last three with a majority in Parliament. I say this because the global economic and geo-political climate has been very difficult over this period, and because I recognise that it takes years for a government’s acts to effect real change and many global factors are not in our government’s control at all.
  • The more I learn about Stephen Harper the person, the less comfortable I am with him leading our country and the more envious I am of the US’s Presidential term limit. Given what I saw of the main (Republican) Leaders’ Debate last night, term limit is also the only thing I’m envious of in the US political system.

Stephen Harper was the leader with the most to lose in the debate as he was the only one with results to defend. He defended his government’s record quite well. However, he missed a critical opportunity to improve his own brand and set himself apart from the other leaders in a meaningful way. It was missed because he, his debate prep team and his re-election campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, [1] clearly don’t believe Canadians need to like the person leading their country—they only need to respect and/or fear him or her. This is naive, in Ottawa and around the table at Tim Horton’s in Fenelon Falls. Here’s what would have happened differently last night if Stephen Harper was properly brand-marketed:

  1. When Stephen Harper was asked if he believed Canada could meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction target, committed to by his government in the 2010 Copenhagen Accord, he would have simply said “no”. His own government has told him so, and there are already new targets for 2030. The barrage of recrimination from the other leaders would have immediately followed. Then Stephen Harper could have done something he’s never done before—he could admit he made a mistake, or something that turned out to be a mistake given what happened to global oil prices and other complicating factors after the Accord. Why? Because admitting to a small or forgivable mistake makes you more human, and therefore, more likeable. Neither Justin Trudeau [2] nor Thomas Mulcair were willing to admit making mistake in their pasts, so by doing so at this critical moment, Harper could have demonstrated his leadership in a new meaningful way.
  2. When stating ‘the facts’ about his government’s economic record (in this context, the benefit statement), Harper would have used real numbers that the Canadian public could easily verify (the benefit support)—and he would have told everyone how to do so. Instead, he said (more than once) that Canada’s economic performance under his watch is the best of the G7 countries. Quick fact-checking indicates this is not true, but that Canada has done better than the average G7 country on most measures and very well on some. The verifiable truth is definitely good enough to support a powerful benefit statement, so it should be used.

Much of what’s wrong with North American political marketing appears to be based on politicians believing the electorate is stupid. This has never been a sound strategy in brand marketing, and we’re talking about the same electorate. One of my favourite quotes of real life Mad Men-era icon David Ogilvy is this:

The consumer isn’t a moron; she is your wife.

Forgive the sexism in this, remembering when it was said. If the Stephen Harper could embrace this basic concept, which would admittedly require some bravery given where the rest of North American politics is going, he would definitely be Canada’s Prime Minister one more time.

Notes and references:
  1. Adam Radwanski, “Harper’s enforcer: Meet Jenni Byrne, the most powerful woman in Ottawa“, The Globe and Mail, May 29, 2015.
  2. Trudeau did admit to being ‘naive’ in his support of Bill C-51, which was ill-advised given his ‘he’s not ready’ label. However, he seems to understand the value of brand marketing in politics better than Stephen Harper.
  3. Photo credit: CBC