Lessons from the New Hampshire Primary (Part II) – Political Ads in the Post Advertising World

The contrast between Romney and McCain is equally dramatic in their approach to media. Sen. McCain, who has limited dollars, created ads where he just looked into the camera, told the voter who he is, why he is qualified and what he would do as President. Simple, on message and benefit-oriented to the voter. Because he didn’t have much money, he went directly to the voters in a Private Media strategy. He could not afford a media channel, so he built is own. He went from town to town and sat down with voters who asked him questions. No big speech, just an honest dialog between candidate and voter. He also took advantage of free media, making himself available for any and all who wanted to interview him. All the while, he stays right on brand message. He also comes across as warm and human.

On the other hand, Gov. Romney, who has and raised tons of money, started advertising in NH almost a year ago – and ads never really told you who he was and what he believed. They were a recording of him running off a laundry list a shop worn items he would do as president – lower taxes, cut spending, stop illegal immigration, stop terrorism, etc. Stop me if you heard this before. It was the ultimate in marketing campaigns created by consultants and committees, who conducted a big media assault, and spent tens of millions of dollars renting media channels - to little effect.

When it became clear McCain was gaining on him in the NH polls, he went negative in a big way. Here in the Boston market we get all the ads aimed at southern New Hampshire, and I am not exaggerating to say you could not get way from the barrage of negative advertising Romney aimed at McCain both on TV and radio. They were dreadful ads – the old school “man/woman in the street” fake interviews. Mock serious profiles of local NH voters telling us how McCain’s positions will ruin the country and make it hard on plain ol’ folks to raise a family. They made McCain out to be a cross between Karl Marx and Abbie Hoffman. Does anyone fall for this? Is there anyone who does not look at these types of ads and think they are not scripted Romney supporters or actors? These ads did not contain a single reason why you should vote FOR Romney, rather than just against McCain. The Romney campaign spent all this money and didn’t tell the voter anything about their man’s positions, who he is or why he should be President.

As we know now, they did not work. In fact, exit polling clearly told us that voters felt Romney ran an “unfair” campaign. Whether it is politics or business – comparative negative advertising just does not work. I don’t think people respond well to negative messaging. However, the real reason it does not work is that you are not giving the buyer a clear, benefit-oriented message of what you can do for them. In any type of marketing messaging you must create a dialog of affinity and trust to lead to action. In this case a vote. John McCain’s Private Media strategy and brand proposition led to a win, and maybe the Presidency.