Jeffrey Katz, a freelancer journalist, recently asked me why this was not the case for political campaigns which are often dominated by negative advertising. Katz’s story does a great job explaining the fallout of such negativity while featuring some quotes from yours truly on the fundamental differences between political campaigns and product marketing. Here for your reading pleasure is our entire interview:
Katz: My fundamental question is if negative ads are generally (though not entirely) effective in the political realm, why are they avoided when selling goods and services?
Neisser: Let’s start with the fundamental difference between political campaigns and product campaigns. Political campaigns are zero sum gain battles in which there is only won winner. Political campaigns are also finite in that there is a voting day deadline so the pressure to be victorious shapes their approach. Thus politicians are willing to risk going negative even though it brings down the image of their category and this is just one of the many reasons consumers don’t trust politicians. There is a desperate urgency to political campaigns that often forces politicians to go negative and attack their opponents. Interestingly, most political campaigns start with positive ads to establish the candidates credibility and likeableness. The negative/attack ads start when one or the other candidate believes its the only way to make up lost ground and/or when they believe their bone fides have been sufficient established.
Conversely, product campaigns can result in category growth and rarely have deadlines (new movie releases being a notable exception). For example, when JetBlue started flying to Buffalo, NY from NYC and advertising that fact, they didn’t need to go negative against a competing airline like US Air since it turned out JetBlue could dramatically increase the number of passengers flying this route thus helping the category. It wasn’t JetBlue versus US Air, it was JetBlue to Buffalo versus other destinations and forms of transportation.
Also, product campaigns always have a different way of going negative by focusing on a problem that their product & category solves rather than having to single out a direct competitor. Keeping with the transportation analogies, Amtrak can campaign against air travel and all the hassles of getting to/from faraway airports.
Katz: In other words, why are brand fights “rarely positive for either brand,” as you put it, when that’s not generally true in politics?
Neisser: It’s really a question of efficacy and marketshare. On the efficacy front, if overtly competitive ad campaigns for products worked as a rule, then more would consider this approach. Leading brands have nothing to gain by picking on a direct [smaller] competitor so they are more likely to focus on growing their category. Second tiers brands are the ones that are more likely to consider overtly competitive ads. These folks have lots of options in terms of their approaches, a classic being “compared to the leading brand” without actually naming that brand. The risk of going negative for products is that consumers will associate your brand with negativity, the very opposite of the desired result. That’s why a brand like Pepsi will use a tongue in cheek approach versus an overtly negative approach when doing competitive ads versus Coke.
Katz: Are those who sell products and services more respectful of their industry than politicians tend to be of theirs?
Neisser: Not necessarily. If product managers thought overtly competitive advertising worked many more would undoubtedly make this choice.
Katz: Do consumers feel that choosing among candidates is an inherently different process than other choices they make when responding to advertising and marketing?
Yes. Selecting a candidate for office is a more of a considered “purchase” decision then say buying a plane ticket. Brand decisions can be corrected more easily than political decisions. Have a bad flight experience you can simply avoid that airline the next time you fly. Make a bad political choice and you live with the result for a minimum of two years but more often generations given the advantages of incumbency.