IMC Hawks Blog

Tag: Republican

  • Donald Trump: An IMC Approach

    Donald Trump: An IMC Approach

    Donald Trump

    By Daniel Dawson

    The race for our next presidential candidates has been nothing short of entertaining this year, to say the least. The Republican Party’s posterchild, Donald J. Trump, is currently the frontrunner in polls. When Trump announced his presidential campaign, our nation couldn’t help but look incredulously at the millionaire mogul who’s already built his successful brand through business, franchises and TV networks. Despite bluntness, controversial statements and even discrepancies in political speeches, Trump has garnered the support of thousands of Republicans and the praise of being one of the most candid, or “authentic” candidates—but how and why?

    Perceptions of Authenticity

    Can a political candidate, or anyone for the matter, be authentic? In short, no. Or at least this is what Andrew Potter argues, author of The Authenticity Hoax, a 2010 book that criticizes the modern individual’s search for an ultimately unattainable “authentic” self.

    In his chapter titled “Vote for me, I’m Authentic” Potter delves into the issue of voter apathy in democratic societies and how political campaigning and the media affect this. Most of us are used to manufactured speeches and the all-talk-no-results perception of politicians—and there’s been a trend of voter apathy, or the choice to not vote, in developed countries.

    Trumps political extremism manufactures a perception of authenticity which could motivate U.S. citizens to vote who may consider themselves apathetic. He delivers seemingly uncensored and extemporaneous speeches—however questionable they may be—that echo his results-oriented business background. Why does he have a larger following than, say, Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP and businesswoman alike?

    The Media Controls It

    Agenda-setting theory, anyone? This communication theory says that the media manipulates what the public thinks is important. Basically, whatever stories have the most coverage in the news become the “important” issues—the flavor of the week. Trump, for a variety of reasons, has been covered practically every day by some type of media outlet since he announced his participation in the race. You probably have read a story or two about Trump, even if you didn’t want to.

    In a recent example of agenda setting not involving Trump—who won the first Democratic debate? Major media reports that Hillary Clinton was the clear winner when, according to online polls, Bernie Sanders was voted the winner by viewers. Is this a disparity of choice or opinion? Potter writes, “The media’s pundit class feeds this gladiatorial conception of political debates by treating them as a boxing match, with the post-debate analysis invariably focused on who scored what points, and whether any of the candidates was able to strike the mythical “knockout blow” (p. 172). While the media like to sensationalize, there are other factors involving what the media cover. In short, the media, across multiple outlets, can report that Hillary Clinton won when voters disagree.  How do we evaluate the ways we receive our news?

    Trump’s Brand

    Like all political candidates, Trump is a brand. Donald Trump is a symbol, a message and a vehicle for his message. Trump is a business icon and has built an empire over many years, but why is Trump running for president, too? Political IMC is integral to the success or failure of a candidate’s campaign—establishing ethos, effective marketing, political advertising, event planning and speech writing are just some components that go into the branding of a politician.

    “‘’Some people think this will be good for my brand,’ Trump concluded, as deep as he probes. ‘I think it’s irrelevant for my brand.’” This blasé quote came from Trump himself in a feature written by Mark Leibovich in the New York Times Magazine.

    I disagree with Mr. Trump. For public figures, every extension of oneself, every action, participation, speech, statement, declaration affects one’s brand. One’s brand is the essence and the story of who they are. While Trump will probably only gain revenue and face time with his campaign, to say that it doesn’t affect his brand is nonsense. Whether it’s good or bad is a value judgment, but it’s fair to say that is not now, Trump’s brand will see the effects of this year’s political campaign.

  • Ron Paul, Who?

    Over the past eight years, the media coverage regarding Ron Paul has been very lackluster to say the least. Although most of the coverage he has received has been positive, the overall amount is significantly lower than the other candidates running. The messages he supports are often considered the most accurate and truthful by any candidate and many believe him to be the most qualified for the political office. However, the media seems to have its own agenda, and seem to have a different idea on who should be the frontrunner.

    Although there are four candidates, CNN seems to believe that only three are relevant. Missing from this photo is Ron Paul, sitting just left of candidate Santorum.

    Both CNN and Fox News are partially to blame for this so-called “media blackout”, and have not been giving fair coverage to Congressman Paul. When it comes to debates or discussion, Ron Paul seems to mysteriously disappear from the subject and is often overlooked. In a recent interview with Fox News, he states that he has observed that the amount of coverage on himself post-debate has a ratio of about 90:1 in favor of his opponents. This shows a tendency that the media does not believe that Ron Paul has the ability to win the candidacy and therefore neglects to give him adequate coverage.

    Although the media coverage on Ron Paul is largely absent from television and news broadcasting channels, he receives overwhelming support on major social media networks. Seeing as the majority of his supporters are those of a younger generation, Twitter plays a large part of his support and communication between his fans. During a recent poll, the Washington Post found that from July of 2011 to January of 2012 that the amount of mentions on Twitter significantly increased from about 30,000 to almost 260,000. Compared to Newt Gingrich who had 294,000 mentions, Ron Paul still comes in second. Luckily, thanks to his many loyal supporters there is still a good chance for him to succeed despite the media’s lack of belief.

    Leslie Tyler, Leanna Marshall, Bryce Koonts, Julius Roberts

  • Why did you vote for THEM?

    The strength of political party’s brand largely depends on knowledgeable voting consumers who understand what the brand has to offer.  However, no matter what a person thinks about a particular party, everyone tends to come to an agreement that the strength of a brand can quickly collapse. If the party is viewed as divided or sending incompatible messages, their voter’s perception of the cohesiveness breaks down and credibility is lost.  Although, if the party is perceived as being more “exciting” and innovative the voters are more likely to pardon their misdoings.  According to Gareth Smith and Alan French, “as all political brands try to appear trustworthy and honest, transgressions pose a clear threat to political brand relationships.”  They also stress that the overall brand must satisfy their needs when it comes to “the competitive nature of the political market, the credibility, attractiveness and personality of its leaders, and the party’s perceived salience and credibility in fulfilling its promises.”

    A politician’s campaign for the Presidency is no different than a company marketing a product or service to a target audience.  Just like in marketing, it’s important for politicians to conduct research and gain knowledge about what their target audience perceives to be important and credible.  During the 2008 election, Brad VanAuken, author of Brand Aid, developed, conducted and analyzed a survey given to 100 people from 29 states on political branding strategies.  He hoped to gain insight into the personality traits often associated with strong and powerful political brands.  Through his research, he established two lists; the most desirable and the least desirable qualities for potential Presidential candidates.  Two of the most desired qualities for a potential President include trustworthiness and intelligence. On the other hand, two of the least desired qualities include using fear to motivate and supporting companies over people.  Political candidates should integrate these characteristics into their brand to appeal to their target audience.


    With the upcoming elections, politicians can take this study into consideration when developing a campaign to promote their personal brand.  It’s important to remember that consumers can make or break a political candidates’ chances of becoming our next President.  Candidates should do whatever they can to connect to their audience.  People feel more of a connection with a political brand if there is access to online interactions. Obama successfully created an online community to establish social networks to recruit and fund-raise among the local community. The Internet has become a means of relationships with its voters and will be of importance for the future political brands.

    “Political brands clearly face a challenging future with the only certainty being that old strategies such as the occasional re-branding and change of leader will be insufficient to address the core concerns that consumers have of them. As the world becomes more interrelated, nation states are increasingly unable to deliver on their promises to electors; electors who are increasingly aware of the brand’s attempt to influence them and less prepared to accept their right to do so.” –Gareth Smith and Alan French

     

    -Kelsey Bendig, Andrea Blanton, Brooke Keller, Brian Burch

     

  • Today’s Politics in the Internet Age.

    With the Republican Primaries and Caucuses well underway, the candidates are narrowed down to the four main contestants. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul are campaigning across the nation and participating in debates to convince voters that they are what the nation needs in a candidate. How do the general public learn information about the candidates though, if they aren’t campaigning in their state? The answer is found on the candidates’ websites.

    Mitt Romney uses his website to thank the voters in the states in which he was victorious.

    Each candidate has their own website, run by their political team and volunteers that keep their information (like interviews, media, photographs and messages) up to date. On these sites are direct links to the candidate’s social media outlets, such as Facebook and Twitter, and their Youtube channels to watch ads that have been produced.

    Rick Santorum's website has his beliefs and campaign strategy on the main page.

    Something you will notice on each candidate’s page are donation links, most notable on candidate Ron Paul’s page who needs the money to continue his campaign. For those who want to support their favorite candidates, there is no better way than to go online and donate to their campaign using links found on each site.

    Newt Gingrich uses his homepage to let supporters know where he will be next and how to contact him.

    These websites are also excellent outlets to connect to mass groups of people at once, without having to pay to run advertisements or receive television or print media coverage.  For candidates who don’t receive as much media coverage as they feel they deserve, this can be a vital part of their campaign. Since so much information is traded on the internet now, much of the general population is turning to the internet to learn more about the potential leaders of the United States.

    Ron Paul's main page takes you directly to his donation totals to try to get more support for his campaign.

    –Joshua Vester, Molly Jacques, Ashley Oliver, and Hunter Wilson.