Volume 2: Beyond the Food Fight

In The Hill this week, I argue that our elected officials need to get out of the food fight brewing in the wake of the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and set about meaningful reform of the Supreme Court nomination paradigm to remove the partisan barriers that have been erected in the past decade. Put simply, the average voter couldn’t care less about the parliamentary warfare set to unfold in Washington over the next few months; they want to know what impact the forthcoming nominee will have on their lives, and they tire – especially against the backdrop of virus aid that’s been held up in the legislature – of the “stuff” of politics getting in the way of it.

Put in terms marketers will appreciate: there’s the “campaign” or the issues and substance – in this case the question of who will be nominated as Ginsburg’s replacement – and then there’s the campaign about the campaign, or all of the back-and-forth punditry about whether one side or the other are hypocrites, what threats are being lobbied across the aisle, and all the “inside baseball” drama.

There’s a lesson for brands here. The past few years have often found brands bogged down in the inside baseball of what a brand, executive, or company says about what they are, chasing what they read as a consumer preference. But as we know all too well, consumers, like voters, are 100% positive about their opinion – until they’re not. The only audience for that kind of activity are the media, and brands all too often are treating the media as their audience instead of the consumer. As a result, brands – just as our politicians did in 2016 -- find themselves in an echo chamber of elites who could argue for days on the “campaign about the campaign,” while their actual product and service offerings stagnate.

I always say that you have to be sure your product 1) works 2) is desirable and 3) has an edge in the market. In all the din, marketers and politicians are missing out on the opportunity to stress the real value they bring to their consumers – or truly reform the product and category (or the Supreme Court). The thing that will motivate consumers to buy – and remain a customer – is the value of the product or service itself.

This has some applicability to the “should brands go political” debate. It’s is not as simple as question as it looks.  The Polling is mixed on what consumers want. In our August Harvard CAAPS/Harris Poll, just over half of American consumers (55%) say they think businesses should not take public stances on social and political issues, even as 72% of Americans in our latest Harris poll said speaking out on these issues shows a company is living up to its internal values. And much of the political posturing by companies is seen as fake – nothing more than lipstick on a pig. Yes, people want everyone, including companies, to take morally right social stands – but companies have to be careful that these social policies are coming in addition to great work on their products, and are not a substitute for innovation in the marketplace. 

Think back to when you’ve been inspired by a company’s statement on a social issue – it’s always been when they’ve demonstrated that the connection between the issue and their brand narrative, consumer base, or employees. Particularly in our charged moment, brand leaders need to live their values, and if they weigh into issues, be sure that they intend to live up to their statements. Ensure that there is a strong tie between the talk and the walk.  And they shouldn’t let social debates eclipse the value their products bring to consumers’ lives.

Brand values matter more than ever, but they need to be lived, not just litigated in the press. By focusing on the “campaign about the campaign,” brands risk losing the plot; they need to be thinking more intently about the innovations they communicate to bring real value to consumers.

Customers want innovation that works for them, the same way voters crave change with personal impact. It’s the reason only 30% of voters in a recent HarrisX poll for George Washington University say the Congress is working; they see where the process has been mired in insular chest-beating and they want solutions that make the experience of electoral engagement more impactful.

The best way to serve and win the hearts and minds of voters in the long term is to take real and differentiated action on the things that impact their lives the most (and communicate it properly), just as the best way to serve and win the hearts and minds of consumers is to deliver value when and where they need it most.

So the big question is: are you focused on the actual campaign to win the hearts and pocketbooks of consumers? Or are you off on the campaign about the campaign? Are you playing to inside baseball or are you playing directly to the innovations, experiences and values that your consumers want to see from you and your products? Good political campaigns do both – marketers have to be careful to stay focused on showing value to their consumers from the start of the funnel right on through their experiences, or risk losing them.