Marketing Lesson of the Election: You Can’t Polish a Turd

Billions of dollars were spent on marketing various candidates over the past several months aimed at trying to convince voters. Now that the dust has settled, the question of how effective those billions of dollars were looms large. More than $1.5-billion was spent by outside groups on both sides trying to influence the outcome of the vote. That doesn’t count the billions spent by the campaigns. Most of that money was spent on television advertising.

So, what did all that spending accomplish? Before the election the Democrats held the White House and Senate. Republicans held the House of Representatives. Billions later the Democrats still hold the White House and Senate. Republicans control the House. I think you get the message. Sometimes we get so involved in polls, demographics, psychographics and the like, that we forget to look at the end result. Nothing really changed!

Much of the money spent on television ads was wasted because some of the basic rules of marketing were violated and some assumptions were made that just aren’t true.

Bad assumption: If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. In this campaign many lies were repeated very often on all sides. So often and so obvious that virtually no one believed them by the time they voted. This bad assumption is proven wrong every day when you look at your email. Have you contacted that poor soul in Nigeria that just needs a couple of thousand to access a million that you can have half of? Have you given the Euro Lotto your Social Security number because you’re the grand prize winner? Those lies are repeated all the time, but they just aren’t believable like many of the ads you’ve been subjected to. You just hit the delete button in your head.

Just as is the case with the email scams, these political marketers believe they can steal votes by repeating lies. Just show the opponent in black-and-white and have them moving in slow motion while an ominous voice tells you that person is responsible for everything from an early winter to the NFL ref lockout. DELETE!

Broken marketing rule: Make sure the product is solid before you spend money. Herein lays a very basic marketing principle that played big in the failure of all those billions of dollars. In the case of this election, the product is the candidate. If your product isn’t ready for prime-time, you can save the money. If you look at many of the candidates who lost on both sides, the common thread is they were flawed. Spend all the money you want, but the majority of people won’t buy a flawed product.

The lesson for anyone selling anything is; don’t lie and don’t spend a cent until your product is right.

As an old marketing professor of mine once said, “You can’t polish a turd. It’s still a turd.”

The Prime Directives of Marketing Apply to All

Many times when I’m engaged by a company, it’s to help figure out why a campaign isn't working. In many cases it’s because a company or organization broke a basic marketing rule. One of those basic rules is never over-promise and under-deliver. It’s always far better to under-promise and over-deliver.

This rule has played out in a big way for Apple over the past several weeks, and it proves that even a marketing and engineering dynamo like Apple can pay a huge price when they stumble. The Guardian estimates the latest debacles involving Apple mapping technology and problems with Siri voice recognition have cost the company $30 billion in stock valuation.

Prior to the release of the iPhone 5, the Guardian reported Apple set the bar very high with the words they used to promote the new technology. “Designed by Apple from the ground up, maps gives you turn-by-turn spoken directions, interactive 3D views, and the stunning flyover feature. All of which may just make this app the most beautiful, powerful mapping service ever.”

The experience of many Apple customers has been far from the “most beautiful, powerful mapping service ever.” There have been widespread reports of glitches and mistakes that have frustrated Apple users accustomed to the buttoned-down service from Google that used to be part of the Apple offerings for iPhone.

Apple executives were quick to acknowledge the mistakes and apologize, but much of the damage had already been done and they could offer no real immediate fix. They suggested using the phone’s web browser to access Google Maps, but that doesn’t offer turn-by-turn voice nav.

The lesson to be learned is never over-promise and under-deliver. Remember, even a company as big as Apple feels the bite when they ignore the marketing basics. It could be a fatal mistake for smaller companies with fewer resources.

Are They Ready for the Tools of Democracy?

Watching the coverage of what's going on in places like Libya and Egypt got me thinking today about an appropriate response. This latest "crisis" was spurred by the release of a so-called film by a Coptic Christian extremist in California who has some kind of an ax to grind with the prophet Muhammad. I've made more professional looking films with my cell phone and a laptop.

 This YouTube "film" has been featured in newscasts across the Middle East and has lead to demonstrations, violence and death. Some leaders in the region have demanded that the United States arrest and "punish" the person responsible.

Much of the Arab Spring, and incidents like the murder of our diplomats in Libya, have been mobilized using technology like YouTube, Facebook and cell phones. I believe all of those technologies are dangerous in the hands of those who have no real respect or understanding of democracy. It's like giving a loaded machine gun to a two-year-old.

These technologies are really designed to further extend the freedoms enjoyed by those in democratic societies. It's true that these technologies can also foster democracy in autocratic societies, but in many cases those throwing off the yoke of a dictatorial regime aspire to replace it with an equally anti-democratic theocracy.

The litmus-test for the introduction of these technologies should at least be an aspiration to freedom of speech and religion. If not, they should not be allowed to develop these American technologies. Perhaps an appropriate response would be to "turn-off" their access to Internet, cell and other technologies that are weapons in the wrong hands. Remember what we did to Iran's nuclear program by unleashing a sophisticated virus?

At least the leadership in Libya has condemned the attack, but in other places where leaders either remained silent or praised it, perhaps we should not share these tools that are designed for free democratic societies. Reminds me of the old "Prime Directive" in Star Trek. Do not share advanced technology with societies that are not ready.