Pol Comm 4 Marketing
âąAls PPT, PDF herunterladenâą
1 gefĂ€llt mirâą601 views
The document discusses the concept of political marketing and its application to politics. It explores whether a political marketplace exists and if marketing models can be applied to politics. While political marketing aims to understand society's needs, wants, and satisfy voters, it also faces criticisms like promoting populist policies, professionalized spin, and disengagement. Whether politics is truly compatible with marketing approaches or simply adopts some communication tools also remains an open question according to the document.
![Key Questions ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere Àhnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (19)
Ăhnlich wie Pol Comm 4 Marketing
Ăhnlich wie Pol Comm 4 Marketing (20)
Mehr von Darren Lilleker
Mehr von Darren Lilleker (18)
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen
KĂŒrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Pol Comm 4 Marketing
- 1. The Marketisation of Political Communication Lecture 4
- 11. J Lees-Marshment, 2003, The marketing of political parties, MUP. STAGE 8 Delivery STAGE 6 Delivery STAGE 5 Delivery STAGE 7 Election STAGE 5 Election STAGE 4 Election STAGE 6 Campaign STAGE 4 Campaign STAGE 3 Campaign STAGE 5 Communication STAGE 3 Communication STAGE 2 Communication STAGE 4 Implementation STAGE 3 Product Adjustment STAGE 2 Product design STAGE 2 Market Intelligence STAGE 1 Market Intelligence STAGE 1 Product design STAGE 1 Product design Market Oriented Sales Oriented Product Oriented
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Political marketing, as a distinct area is problematic. Marketing itself attempts to be scientific, however the postmodern consumer defies rules. Political marketing attempts to study the way in which politics borrows concepts from marketing to reach what we term the âpolitical consumerâ. Current academic study is small and contradictory. Big question that emerges from reading everything that exists is: is political marketing really just political marketing communication (Scammell, 1997) or are political parties adopting a market or marketing orientation (Lees Marshment, 2001; Lilleker & Lees Marshment, 2005)?
- This is a benchmark. If we cannot apply this fully to politics then we are not really looking at political marketing, just the older term of communication.
- Marketingâs introduction stems from changes to society â fewer voters identify with one party and are loyal throughout their lives. Equally the consumer revolution that started in the late 50s, morphed into individualism during the Thatcher era, and has transferred across into politics. We are also the âeâ or âwiredâ generation. Parties are currently still adjusting to 24/7 News TV, while the web, sms are still foreign lands. These new areas are all ones that marketing can help in. However it is the consumerist culture that marketing is most equipped to deal with. The public sees politics within a profit and loss paradigm â we give, you take; we receive (Heath et al). Calculations are made on individualist grounds, not often on the good of society but the good of me! Marketers are used to this, but what can they do to support this complex arena, and are marketing concepts appropriate anyway?
- Dominic Wring talked of colonisation as almost a bad thing. That consultants who lack any understanding of politics were moving in and advising politicians badly â they didnât understand politics!! But this is necessary, part of the process of professionalisation. There are a variety of demands upon parties to do their work better. Particularly communication Professionalisation leads to parties to be centralised. There is a strategy from the stage of design right through to the ordinary MP when talking to constituents during surgeries. Single messages, core aims, philosophy. This is the ideal, in reality it doesnât happen. But this is supposed to be the key feature of the Mandelsonian era (according to Bartle & Griffiths) repeat-remind, professionalised, slick, media-savvy⊠But is it new? Haven't politicians always tried to communicate effectively within their own competence, their budget and across the media of the day allowed. Equally, is this marketing, is satisfaction only a perception (We may be more satisfied by Labour than the Conservatives) not that the government or their competitors for government know what the people want and are trying to provide it.
- To combat the range and diversity, aggregate voters / consumers are created. But this then ignores others. Those others, the loyalists, are important, but no longer feel represented. Lib Dems make in-roads as they present themselves as the peoples party (a real marketing orientation or anti-marketing?). The latter works for some parties (SSP; UKIP; Countryside Alliance) many of whom threaten the larger parties within their traditional constituencies.
- Marketing research, as we all know, requires a lot of money. The major parties conduct focus groups to define how people think about policy areas, to weigh up priorities and to test communication; but it is sporadic and geared towards elections. Opinion polls are the cheapest and most convenient method of tapping into the market, and they are used, however they are limited and parties seldom commission their own. Then there is the size of the market. The Blair led Labour government has an electorate of around 18million. They include company bosses, the disabled, the unemployed; people in council housing and property developers. How do you devise a range of products to suit all those people â no corporate enterprise would try The public often think short-term. âI donât care about the future of the earth, I want cheap fuel nowâ. Difficult to combat! War!! Terrorism!! Are governments judged on meeting their set targets or being a competent government? Can marketing help design the response to global terrorism? Should a government hold more referenda, listen to polls or decide when to lead and when to follow?
- Members versus Worcester Woman; MPs versus Media moguls, celebrity endorsers and contributors. Division as damaging as losing support. When does campaigning stop. âHutton Reportâ = salesmanship. New media, direct marketing not exploited for more than single direction communication. Big Conversation dubbed Big Con; can parties build relationships with enough of the electorate? Media, attack journalism â honeymoons soon over for a government. Do the public get bored: Blair/Labour out of favour and voters await an alternative?
- If you can get the design right, based upon market intelligence, it needs to be converted into a communication strategy. However, as Lees Marshment (2001) argues, the âproductâ needs adjustment. Ideology important â it defines what you will do and what you will not. New Labour perceived as rudderless and lacking principles. Holds identity within and gives something to project! But what if there is disagreement. New Labour MPs have complained about the lack of freedom. Kidderminster!!! Is centralisation good? Public want politics to be relevant to their lives. Statement: We will spend ÂŁ8billion on health care; Public: so what about Poole General? Need to ensure that promises are made locally and they are specific as vague nationally made promises are seen as just hype!
- So is it just about communication â selling, can politics ever really have a true marketing orientation? The Tyrant or the Representative (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods, 1992, pp163-4) Can any policy be tailored for individuals? Can marketing be a route towards a more direct form of democracy, real people power, parties acting as beautiful corporations (Scammell, 2003) in conjunction with their shareholders and stakeholders, serving the people and future generations? Or will it lead to more spin, less voters turning out, disengagement and disenfranchisement? I have no answers here, too soon to tell. Marketing concepts are being used, often badly, political marketing is in existence, but is it appropriate and is it a good thing?
- Some, those who are the Burkeans and believe politics is about ideas, principles and ethos say it is alien and that those who import marketing are akin to the devil â they may be right, most are experienced, long-term MPs though usually ideologically led and of the left. But some others who have been around for a long time see the social change and recognise the need to change themselves. They often come in from business and so know how marketing helps. They see politics as a business, subject to the same market forces, and so advocate more, good marketing as this old Conservative does. There are those who understand the benefits of marketing but equivocate. Like me, this young Lib Dem MP worries about how marketing is used and what effect it will have. Finally the strategistsâ view, this one from a man who worked with Labour and now the Lib Dems. I have sympathy with this also, so who do you agree with?