Mapping a market-orientation: can we only detect political marketing through the lens of hindsight?

Darren G Lilleker (Bournemouth) & Ralph Negrine (Leicester)

Abstract

Scholars of political marketing have argued that, in the context of a much more volatile electorate, the party that wants to win must follow the market. That is, a party would attempt to understand those it seeks to serve and deliver a product that reflects their needs and wants (Lees-Marshment, 2001:25), therefore policy development is co-produced through some form of interaction between politician and electorate. Whilst there can be little doubt that parties must successfully sell themselves during election campaigns themselves, and must deliver on their promises if they want to continue in government, it is the area of policy development that is not only the most contentious but also the most difficult to identify. For, if the political marketing literature is to be believed, a party seeking election would be involved in an ongoing process of seeking out market intelligence, designing its products accordingly, testing it and adapting it provides what the voters want.

But how do we begin to identify this process? The research, analysis and discussion of results takes place behind closed doors and out of the public gaze. It is only when the secrets of political consultants are revealed then we gain some insights into the practice of political marketing. For this reason much of the current literature on political marketing tends to offer post-hoc accounts, suggesting it is analytically much more difficult to provide appropriate evidence in real time. Our paper how we identify the point at which market intelligence informs the policy formulation process.

1

Introduction

Marketing is no longer just about selling. It is increasingly about providing the consumer

with the product they want, at the price they want, when they want it and how they want

it. Within the field of commercial marketing, from luxury items to fast moving consumer

goods, the consumer is king, thus the emphasis of marketing techniques is less focused

on the means to manipulate and entice than in the past. The focus is on satisfying the

needs of the consumer, and not just in the areas of basic survival and safety. Since the

Second World War, marketers have been interested in discovering how to satisfy

consumers sophisticated needs, and in order to fulfil those needs many would argue that

it is vital to involve consumers in the design, as well as the communication, of the

product.

Would any of these notions ring true to the modern political campaigner? It seems that

they would and that they do. A Liberal Democrat, currently embarking on launching a

campaign for a council by-election argues that:

We have to really get to know the voter; that has changed Once we would have

said this is the party, this is the candidate, this is why you should vote. It now

seems to be the other way round. You go to them and say, OK, here is the party

the candidate all of that, but what do you want us to do in order for you to

consider to vote for us? (Interview, 15 Feb 2004)

Many have argued that this trend - the public treating politics as part of its regular cycle

of consumption has changed the nature of politics and that political parties are now

2

redesigning themselves and their messages to fit in with what the voter wants. They are

adopting, in other words, a marketing approach to politics.

Given that much of the evidence presented to suggest that politics is moving towards a

market orientation is written with the benefit of hindsight and reliant often on party

documents, should we take those conclusions for granted? Furthermore, given that it is

often very difficult to see the link between voter opinion and policy design in the process

of policy formulation is it valid to argue that marketing is playing an increasing role in

the conduct of politics?

The aim of this paper is

to question the view that all politics is becoming increasingly market-oriented; to critique some of the evidence that currently substantiates such claims; to consider if it is possible to find evidence for a market-orientation in real time.

The overall aim of this paper is, then, to provide some thoughts on how we, as academics,

can study the changing nature of politics rather than simply rely on post-hoc

circumstantial evidence of related events.

What is political marketing?

Marketing is not a term that historically we associate with politics. A recent textbook

definition of marketing speaks in terms of understanding, creating, communicating, and

delivering customer value and satisfaction at a profit (Kotler & Armstrong, 2001, p

3

5). These ideas appear alien to politics, be it campaigning or policy development. Politics

is normally associated with ideas and ideologies. Political parties relied on a body of core

ideas that were subscribed to by a significant number of members of the electorate, that

were employed to demarcate themselves from their opponents and to gain support from

their electorate. The real battle was waged for the votes of the undecided, those without

ideological predilections, but the normative view is that this battle did not involve

marketing; politics was about selling and salesmanship and the only aspects of marketing

involved related to its promotional tools (OShaughnessy, 1990; 2001; Wring, 2002).

The increasingly non-partisan sections of the electorate, it has been argued, seek to make

connections to parties; through the information they receive they attempt to find the party

or candidate that most closely matches their personal ideas and values (Popkin,1994), an

observation that has led to an increased prioritisation and professionalisation of political

communication (Negrine & Lilleker, 2002). Depending on how and where they seek this

information, and often also on how digestible and relevant that information is, they find

one party or candidate more acceptable than another. Some argue this is calculated by

reference to a virtual profit and loss account, with voters asking which party offers the

most advantages for me personally (Heath et al, 2000). It is the process by which they

make this decision that is important when we think about the way modern political parties

act and the way in which marketing has become a commonplace feature of the modern

political campaign.

4

Work on the application of marketing to politics stresses that the modern, or indeed post-

modern, voter needs a greater input into the political process and needs to feel satisfied

with the result of an election: particularly if their vote was for the winning party (Bowler

& Farrell, 1992; Butler & Collins, 2001; Lees-Marshment, 2001). This has led politicians

to recognise the need for adapting to this new environment and to apply marketing

concepts to both policy development and communication. Bruce Newman notes the

applicability of the marketing concept:

"In politics, the application of marketing centers on the the analysis of needs

centers on voters and citizens; the product becomes a multifaceted combination of

the politician himself or herself, the politician's image, and the platform the

politician advocates, which is then promoted and delivered to the appropriate

audience." (Newman, 1999a, p3)

Newman argues that the political party or candidate cannot simply hope that the voter

will connect to them or their party, but that they must discover what factors will facilitate

that connection. The party must therefore use marketing research to discover what the

voter /citizen wants, it must then develop a product that is linked, or can be made to link,

directly to voter concerns and promote it in such a way as to appeal to the voter.

Fundamentally this is no different from any major manufacturer developing a product

that the consumer has shown an interest in and using advertising to raise awareness.

What, then, should a party do if it wanted to pursue a marketing approach? Lees-

Marshments market-oriented model puts forward a step-by-step process through which a

5

party or candidate must advance in order to deliver that which the voter requires. Stage 1

is the collection of market intelligence that enables the design of the manifesto. Stages 2

to 7 turn the intelligence into the product and campaign. It is at Stage 3 that we find the

political party considering the strength of its product: the manifesto is adjusted with

reference to: viability of the promises; acceptance of the promises by the party members;

comparison of the manifesto to opposition promises and an analysis of the strengths and

weaknesses of all competitors; and finally its appeal among the key voters, namely, those

that they do not have the support of but will need to gain in order to win the election.

(This Stage corresponds to the product development stage in Newmans analysis.) The

manifesto is then developed and implemented, the promises are communicated to the

electorate and the messages developed into a coherent campaign strategy. (Stages 5, 6, 7)

(Lees-Marshment, 2001, pp 30-41).

If this model has any purchase on real events, we should be able to identify the stages

that British political parties have now arrived at in anticipation of the next election,

sometime in mid-2005. What should we be expecting to find?

For its part, the government needs to be stressing the ways in which it has delivered on its

promises. This should be part of a constant process of feeding material to the electorate

principally via the media, whilst rebutting criticisms from opposition parties and political

commentators. The government will also seek either to pre-empt what the opposition

parties would like to do and/ or seek to ensure that its own agenda dominates political

events. The government, as well as the opposition parties, should also be conducting

6

market intelligence in order to develop their manifestos (and promises) for the next

election. They should have access to ongoing, continuous research which means that a

manifesto will already have some sort of framework and substance, but that it will require

tweaking to ensure that it emerges from the four stages of adjustment as a manifesto

that will perform the tasks demanded of it.

Party strategists should, therefore, be conducting viability studies: ensuring that the

figures add up and that there is the minimum scope for criticism from the opposition

parties. This will be done within the context of the existing socio- political environment:

parties will assess the record of their competitors, in particular the party of government,

and seek out weaknesses in their arguments. Parties should also be canvassing their own

supporters, particularly party members, as well as identifying which sections of the

electorate could be won over by their arguments. While the production of a manifesto at

this moment in time (April 2004) may seem premature, preparation is the key. If parties

are to make the connections with the voters that Popkin argues is so crucial, the parties

must show they are listening and responding. This may be more difficult for the party in

government, though all parties must be communicating directly to the public over the

course of any political session.

The question we wish to pose is simply this: how do we recognise marketing as it is

happening? Can we assess marketing strategies as they are taking place? Can we find

evidence that parties do follow Lees-Marshments stages of the process, or are parties

simply floundering about trying to find a way to connect to the electorate in an ad hoc

7

manner? And are the results of this floundering, pragmatic and/ or ad hoc activity later

rationalised to lead us to believe that a market-orientation is being adopted? These are

very broad questions and ones that could have huge implications for the ways in which

we study political marketing, campaigning and communication.

Measuring political marketing

Much of the literature on the use of political marketing has focused on its function to

inform campaign strategy, rather than on its application in the design of campaign

messages or the development of policy. In a review of the application of political

marketing across seven nations, published in 1992 (Bowler & Farrell, 1992), most of the

studies find that polls are normally employed to measure perceptions of parties and

leaders and their perceived competence to deal with core issues. Voter reactions are

tested, but, as Bruce has pointed out, Politicians do not ask the voters what they want;

they only seek reactions to what they have already decided to do. (1992, p 81)

Some of the literature also fails to distinguish sufficiently clearly between the role of

polling research and marketing research in political marketing. Varoga and Rice (1999),

for instance, discuss the value of issue research which they describe as the information

that informs a candidates proposals or accomplishments on policy matters, but this is

actually research using official documents in order to contextualise policy. They contrast

their work with that of others who discuss the use of benchmark polls to measure the

expectations of voters and the use of further marketing techniques such as trialling and

tracking to measure further performance.

8

Whilst Maarek (1995) and Newman (1999b) discuss the importance of such research for

informing the candidate on how to conduct a whole campaign from development to

communication, as per the Lees-Marshment model, neither provides clues as to how to

recognise the process in real time, and neither discuss how the research actually feeds

into policy development as opposed to the conduct of the campaign. It would appear that

many of the authors who discuss the use of marketing research as a creative tool base

their argument on the belief that because parties conduct marketing research they must be

allowing this to inform the whole process from development right through to

campaigning. This may not be logical or in evidence for if parties are developing

messages based on their own views of the world and then simply testing them, then

research has a secondary role and marketing is simply a synonym for selling. But if over

a long period of time, parties themselves change and begin to accommodate the

preferences of the public rather than attempt to shape them (Kavanagh, 2003) is this truly

a process of marketing, or is it the product of larger forces, and a part of a partys natural

process of evolution? How do we deal with the following account from Philip Gould

(2002), for example,

New Labours massive majorities came not from focus groups and

presentational brilliance but substance from a long line of revisionism and

modernisation that started in the post-war period and continued in the mid-

1990s. New Labours commitment to understand what the public thought and felt

came from a time, not long before, when the public were too often considered the

enemy, and where it was even said that there should be no compromise with the

electorate.

9

What is obviously missing in much research is what Denemark refers to as the strategic

utilisation of research (1992, p 167). This was pioneered in Australia, used to good

effect by the New Zealand Labour Party, and then adopted by New Labour in the UK.

This made the party reduce the intra-party communication for decision-making, and

instead increase sensitivity to the views of the electorate at large (Scammell, 1995, p 12;

see also Gould, 1998; Sackman, 1998; Scammell, 1999). This means, at least implicitly,

that the party allowed the electorate to play a part largely undefined and somewhat

opaque - in designing the political programme as well as the communication, a step that

few other parties have taken. Although even this interpretation of what may have taken

place is more problematic than at first appears. Butler and Kavanagh writing about the

2001 election confirm that pollsters were right in there advising the parties, e.g. Gould

was 'closely involved throughout in shaping Labour's campaign thinking...' (2001, p 128)

but towards the end of the chapter they also write that 'when party strategists are

challenged about the extent to which their private polls influenced their strategy, they

tend to be ambivalent.' (2001: 130. Emphasis supplied) In other words, we are aware of

the presence of pollsters and researchers amidst the politicians but the precise relationship

between them and in respect of policy development per se is more difficult to gauge.

If Lees-Marshment and Newman are correct to argue that once in power, governments

and presidents are judged primarily on their ability to deliver on their promises, we may

need to look at parties in opposition for evidence of political marketing. Those in

government will be selling themselves as achievers on the strength of their record; the

opposition, in contrast, will be looking at inconsistencies in the incumbents rhetoric and

10

at areas where the public believe them to be weak and attack on these issues and areas.

Nevertheless, even a government must use some form of marketing research, or at the

very least have some awareness of what the polls are saying. Surely no political party

could ignore the advice of MORIs Robert Worcester who, writing in 1977, argued his

role as a pollster was to inform the parties which way the tide is running and how

strongly. His view was that if the party leadership wants to swim against the tide of

public opinion, that is their responsibility (quoted in Kavanagh, 1995, p 137).

But there remains the question of how do we know when a market orientation has been

adopted and how do we test for it. The research carried out for Bowler and Farrells

collection (1992), numerous works in Newman (1999c) and the majority of contributors

to Lilleker and Lees-Marshment (2005) rely on the results of data gathered from

interviewing practitioners and published party documents. These sources, particularly the

interviews, allow us vast insights within the inner sanctum of political decision-making

and campaign design, but it is evidence drawn from people who may be simply justifying

their own roles with the benefit of hindsight. Success is something to claim responsibility

for; the blame for failure can be foisted upon others. A further difficulty is whether

political parties or their campaign managers like to admit that they are led by public

opinion: who would admit to having their power eroded by the fickle results of opinion

polls. Clearly politicians do see polling data as important, but they universally shy away

from hints that they may actually allow polls to inform policy (Acton, 2003; Butler and

Kavanagh, 2001). This leaves researchers in the field of political marketing with the

problem of finding out how politicians employ marketing research.

11

Although accounts suggest that the public may have a significant role to play in the

conduct of politics, how that role manifests itself is more problematic. If a policy is

unpopular is it abandoned? If a policy is popular is it the outcome of a party listening or

the product of a vast range of influences of which the public is only one, and a minor one

at that? What we need to do is identify how a policy is developed, the source of influence

being both, or either, internal or external to the party and the means by which those

public views are incorporated into policy.

Polls and policies: Finding indicators

One possible way of looking at this issue is to argue that in New Labour we have a prime

example of a party that has become market-oriented in its policies and in its practices.

That, in effect, policy developments, campaigning and delivery all fall into place as part

of a market-oriented strategy. The evidence for this, one could claim, comes from the

work of such insiders as Philip Gould who detail how the party took soundings from

professional advertisers and market strategists. Except that another reading of the New

Labour project is as part of a much longer journey beginning in the 1980s and moving on

with splutters right up until the election of Tony Blair as leader. (See Gould, 1998,

and p. xx above) One could thus argue that policy development (and campaigning

strategies) were subordinated to bigger political ideals and the needs and desires of

leadership. Does this confirm or deny the marketing folklore? Does it make the whole

process less clear-cut?

12

We can begin to see these sorts of problems played out as we speak: how is the

Conservative party going to deal with the forthcoming general election? Is it going to

become a market-led party or will it simply try to persuade the voters to buy what it has

to sell? Or a combination of both?

To date the Conservative party has made the following changes or taken the following

initiatives:

IDS (Iain Duncan Smith) was elected after the 2001 election defeat. He was elected by the party members with little consideration for the wider publics concern

opinion polls indicated broader support for Kenneth Clarke.

IDS set up a series of policy reviews. The details of the review process is unknown so we cannot tell the extent to which market intelligence informed the process. We

can infer, however, that the prioritisation of welfare issues was linked to the publics

most important problems discovered through ongoing polling. They may also be

linked to IDSs view that these were the key issues for the future.

IDS was sacked, probably in line with public wishes since he was perceived as a poor leader. The method of succession ensured that a perception of unity was created.

Howard replaced IDS: but on what platform? Is he carrying on with IDS policies or developing new ones? It seems that it is only the leader that has changed. The partys

standing has not improved significantly.

Howard has made key speeches on Europe, same-sex marriages, and immigration/ asylum. Are these part of a marketing strategy? Were these speeches made in order to

13

address key constituencies? We have little insight into when or how research was

conducted or the motivation for it.

How does Oliver Letwins speech on the economy fit within that framework, and is Andrew Rawnsley (2004) correct when he writes that the ground has shifted to such

an extent that they [the Conservatives] are so terrified of being portrayed as slashers

and burners that they darent promise to cut tax.

Debates surrounding where the Conservatives currently are focus on what they should be

doing in order to gain support. Rawnsley (2004) believes that the Conservatives now

have to work within the agenda set by Labour, but Charlie Whelan, former spin doctor to

Gordon Brown, has expressed the view that Letwin should have gone straight for the

winning position and declared cuts in taxes. Whelans key criticism is that Cutting the

money spent on public services from 42% of GDP to 40% is hardly an election-winning

slogan (Whelan, 2004, 20) But is it possible that both Rawnsley and Whelan are wrong,

and that Letwin may have designed his policy on the basis of what the public wants a

future government to do, that is, better services but not at the expense of tax cuts. As we

are not able to access the results of any research, nor what research was carried out, we

could assume this is not market-oriented but ideologically led, although this may be an

unsafe assumption. In the absence of access to the Conservative Party, we can only

analyse what is being made available to the public. This confirms nothing one way or

another. In fact, it leaves the matter open to a number of different interpretations.

14

Another way in which one can progress this discussion is to argue that political parties

must follow public wishes/ desires if they are going to stand a chance of winning voters

over. That to call for a debate on issues is counter-intuitive; it is flying in the face of

accepted normative fact. Parties, in other words, need to take up what the public wants

and to create policies around those needs and desires. In which case, opinion polls offer

one simple method of identifying what political parties need to do to get the publics

vote. If this is the case, there should be a very close and clear linkage between polls and

party policies, though it is difficult to assess which is following the other, and who is

really setting the agenda. If they are out of step with one another then the chances of

parties scoring any electoral success is presumably minimised.

What do current polls tell us? As we have suggested, contiguity between opinion polls

and the prioritisation of key issues by parties provides inferential evidence of a market-

orientation. From a brief survey of party websites, keynote speeches and policy

documents we find that the publics two main issues, the NHS and Education, are given

far more space than any other issue. These may be linked to other policy areas, such as

the economy, but we see parties maintaining a clear link between what they say and what

the public are thinking about: this is shown in Table 1 below.

Given the stability of public opinion and the relative priority of each most important

problem (MIP), it is not surprising that a link between party policy and MIPs can be

found. But is this evidence of a market-orientation or is it business as usual?

15

Table 1: Issues and prominence in party documents

Issue MORI (1)

Lab Website

Big Conversation

Con Document (2)

Con Letwin (3)

LibDem Website

NHS 1 1 2 2 2 1 Education 2 2 3 1 1 2 Immigration 3 - 6 - - - Defence 4 - 9 - 4 4 Crime 5 - 4 3 4 3 Pensions 6 4 2 6 3 8 Economy - 3 1 4 2 6 Housing - - 8 5 - - Environment - - 7 - - 5 Transport - - 5 - - 7

1. www.mori.co.uk accessed 15 Feb 2004 2. A Fair Deal For Everyone, published January 2004. 3. Speech by Oliver Letwin laying out the economic policy of a future Conservative

government, 17 Feb 2004.

Party strategists would claim that there is sufficient evidence here for believing parties

have adopted a market-orientation; that they are becoming more relevant to the public,

of listening, and of giving voice to the public. For example, the Labour governments

Big Conversation website claims that: Its time for a grown up discussion. Big issues

need real debate, a big conversation between politicians and the people

(www.bigconversation.org/index.php accessed 18 Feb 2004). Numerous claims

surrounding the launch of the Big Conversation indicated that its motivation was to gain

public input into policy making. Peter Hain, speaking on Newsnight (28 Nov 2003),

argued that the public will influence policy, they do know this is giving them more

power. Yet one could also point out that all this is little more than rhetoric. The style of

the conversation starter as well as the congratulatory nature of many of the solicited

remarks placed on the website, indicate that this is more salesmanship than marketing

16

(Lees-Marshment & Lilleker, 2005). But, even if this was able to provide the government

with a real sense of what the public want, would the data be used to inform policy?1

The use of market intelligence, rather than simply opinion poll data, as part of a strategy

for developing policy also has its problems. Research conducted within the Conservative

party found party strategists frustrated by the type of people who took part in the

Listening to Britain events. They found that they had extreme views compared to broader

society and that they often only came to air grievances (Interviews, 2001; 2004).

But there are other ways in which different issues can be prioritised. Under Iain Duncan-

Smiths troubled leadership public services were prioritised above the key issues of the

2001 General Election campaign. Though Keep the Pound and tighter immigration

remain on the agenda, the public know where we stand on those [though they need

reminding!], they are important but not out there so we must now avoid them and instead

we need to ensure they also know what we think about other issues they care about

(Interview, 2004). This, one policy strategist argued, was responding to public interest

(Interview, 2003). But, overall, core values and beliefs are seen as more important than

market intelligence. All this is indicative of a product rather than a market orientation. 2

A final consideration is whether in circumstances where there are minor differences

between the main political parties and where each are in broad agreement about the

1 Peter Hain has more recently written that too much policy-making is driven from the Centre. (2004)

Critical comments about the Big Conversation also emphasise that there is often more explaining than listening taking place. (Guardian, 2004).

17

MIPs, there can be ways of differentiating between them. Does it become a matter of

selling different sets of values rather than policies per se? What is the Conservative vision

of society and how will it/ does it differ from that of New Labour? Is it a question of

splitting the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi? These are fundamental problems

when attempting to apply marketing to politics.

So what do market-oriented parties do? It is alleged that polls, focus groups, as well as

informal data collection within constituencies and among party members all feed into

policy development, but what role does each method serve and to what extent does the

data inform policy and the development of policy? Put simply, which bit of information

is most important, who decides and how? The evidence from insiders is discussed in the

following section. Extracts are drawn from a series of exploratory interviews with leading

strategists from each of the major political parties.3

Some perspectives from within

Whilst party strategists agreed that research was carried out, the usefulness of that

research was questionable. A number of different themes were articulated by our

interviewees: some hinted that much of the research was sketchy, targeted key voter

groups only and was designed only to discover perceptions of the party. As one marketer

explained this type of research is concerned only with identifying brand strengths and

weaknesses, not about product design (Interview, 2004). One interviewee made a further

2 A similar comment regarding William Hagues Listening to Britain consultation being mediated by

party ideology can be found in Doreys analysis of Conservative policy, post 2001. (Dorey, 2003) 3 Interviews were conducted by Darren Lilleker. We are grateful to Jenny Lees-Marshment for giving us

access to other interview materials.

18

observation that the research involved just one or two focus groups or a series of paired

interviews, usually with no more than ten people. Such research would be an inadequate

sample for any corporation of a comparable size (Interview, Feb 2004). They failed to

see how such basic research would be allowed to design any type of product.

Interviewees also stressed that political parties exclusively design their policies

internally, particularly their broad policy directions. A Labour Press officer declared

unequivocally that policy design was what they [the voters] elect MPs for. A Senior

Conservative argued that parties that rely on research are largely desperate, they have

no ideas. Views echoed by a Liberal Democrat who argued that the interaction with the

electorate is not and should not be about changing policies.

Although the remarks made by these strategists suggests that there is an element of a

market orientation, it is more nuanced than is suggested in some of the political

marketing literature:

it is developing a policy and then finding out the values out there on the street

and reflecting those values in any communication on that policy. It is talking the

right language, convincing the voters that you share their concerns and can offer a

viable solution (Interview, Feb 2004).

This evidence suggests that policy begins within the party and all decisions are taken with

reference to ideology and beliefs. After this, feedback is gained from discussions with

core voter groups. The purpose of the feedback is to understand the way in which to

19

communicate a policy rather than on the substance of policy. It is akin to the difference

between talking generally about the NHS and discussing key concerns within that issue:

standards of care, access to facilities etc. Policies such as the public private partnerships

emerge from contacts with health professionals and other interested parties and probably

not because such notions are attractive to voters, who may know little about the details

anyway. As an interviewee pointed out, the mechanics are too complex, how does an

uniformed voter solve the funding crisis of the NHS, they cant but they can say what

they are worried about and you talk to those concerns (Interview, Jan 2004).

From these comments we can see that research does have a role to play in the way

policies are progressed but the public input into the process is limited and difficult to

assess. Even those involved can find the process imperceptible:

I guess the public do have input, every time they talk to an MP, send in a letter,

take part in research or even do vox pops on the TV. But so do experts, MPs

themselves, lobbyists. In politics the consumer is not king, but they are listened

to, I do listen, but I dont know how I use all the stuff I hear, sorry (Interview,

Conservative, 28 Feb. 2004)

But while this interviewee wondered how he could use the research, some politicians

had no difficulty in working out its value: leaders, in particular, could use it to drive the

party in directions which they desired. What is less clear is where the impetus for change

came from: was it William Hagues (Or Duncan Smiths or Michael Howards) ideas

drawing on his (their) marketing research or background,? Was it the experience of the

20

collapse of support for the party under John Major (Hague, Duncan Smith)? Or was it

more systematic marketing research? The insider accounts seem to mediate against the

latter option and instead suggest that research was used as an internal sales technique,

something they argue to be a common role within political parties.

Could one argue that the new Conservative leader, Michael Howards I Believe

advertisement cataloguing his core ideals is a more strategic use of market intelligence?

Did this reflect research that suggested voters do not like these politicians with no ideas

and beliefs so (that) Michael affirmed his directly? The problem with this argument is

that John Major produced a very similar set of ideas as his credo for the 1992 election.4

Their generality resemble those of Howard. The other thing that they have in common is

the Maurice Saatchi influence: are ideas being recycled rather than new ones being

developed to deal with new times?

Acton encapsulated the views of may strategists and younger politicians when he wrote

that the real value of market intelligence such as polls is that they are a yardstick, you

know what is on peoples minds and what they think of leaders, but you cant use them

for decision making, they are snapshots, no more reliable than following the opinions of

those who go to surgeries (Acton, 2003, p 68). Polls that identify MIPs and VIPs are

useful as far as finding which issues are hot, though as one strategist commented often

the front page of the Sun is as good. They are used, however, to suggest on which issues

4 These read: I want to give individuals greater control over their own lives. Every mother, every father, a

say over their childs education. Every schoolchild, a choice of routes to the world of work. Every patient, the confidence that their doctors can secure the best treatment for them. every family, the right to have

21

spokespersons need to have a line ready. A Labour Party press officer argued that polls

were useful to find out the order of things, how to order pledges, key issues, this

explains the contiguity shown in Table 1.

But do issues appearing as MIPs, or becoming more prominent, actually put things onto

the agenda? In terms of the Labour Party, they set some aspects of the programme but, as

the strategist argued: only when thinking about what the next government should do.

So a government is expected to do what the public want? Not exactly, they attend to the

issues the public care about in their own way because: you need some form of

differentiation. This caused problems for the Conservatives in 2001; they knew what the

public were concerned about but Labour had the lead on those issues so the decision was

to lead on areas where Labour was weak. Labours natural territory was the NHS,

education and had earned support for their approach to law and order and defence, this

pushed the Conservatives towards focusing on the inconsistencies in the governments

immigration policy and to exploit the opposition to European Monetary Union existing

amongst around half the electorate. But was this market led? Marketing states you seek

gaps in the market, so we can infer that it was, but the reality is less clear.

The Liberal Democrats appear to use opinion polls and MIPs for similar ends, setting

priorities but not defining the solution. In fact they see that what is required is qualitative

research to discover what individuals MIPs are, and not vague national priorities. But we

still fail to see the point at which the parties are being informed, and are actually altering

and to hold their own private corner of life; their own home, their own savings, their own security for their future and for their childrens future. (Hill and Hogg, 1992, p 136)

22

their behaviour because the public told them to do so. In fact there is more evidence for

the reverse, that actually they alter behaviour on the basis of personal commitment and

then allow the public to inform the communication. If this is the case then parties are not

market-oriented but sales-oriented: they set the policy and then determine how to sell it.

Identifying a market-orientation

Given that we currently find little empirical evidence to show that parties are being led by

market intelligence in a more sustained and strategic way than was the case previously,

how can we identify when a market-orientation is being adopted fully. Clearly we cannot

always rely on all of the claims made by party members, leaders or strategists, these can

be simple selling techniques: just political rhetoric. Furthermore we have some evidence

that much of the research is conducted in a less than professional manner, often to lever

the membership into supporting policy reforms, not for the purpose of understanding

public wants and needs. Finally, and a point that has emerged from studies of many

parties across the globe, the ideology or core beliefs of the party acts as a constraint upon

decision making. This means that many parties will lead on the publics MIPs, but will

offer ideologically underpinned solutions. The latter point can also be related to the

pressures of governance, under which circumstances parties may have to take decisions

that can follow neither public opinion nor party beliefs in the name of expediency and

responsible leadership. As these points impact negatively on a partys ability to

implement a full market-orientation is the market-orientation just a mirage, a

smokescreen invented by the political consultants to obscure our understanding of how

23

parties formulate policies? Simply put, is it just a new set of terms that allow policy to be

sold as organic to the voting community?

If we make the theoretical assumption that a market orientation can be realistic, though

perhaps in a limited form if a party is in government, we must then consider ways in

which to map it as it takes place. This raises questions regarding how and when is market

intelligence gathered, the motivations behind the strategy, how the data is used by the

party and how closely matched broad public opinion is to the eventual manifesto. These

points will be considered alongside suggestions for empirical research in this area.

The most important factor, at several levels, is an increased openness by parties and

governments. This would allow us to look into the process of decision making and policy

formulation as well as reducing cynicism among the public. It is almost an imperative

that we are able to see exactly what it is that parties are doing if we are going to make the

claim that they are adopting a market orientation. The insider perspective of party

behaviour is, thus, the only way to determine what is actually happening and why.

This does not, however, imply a reliance on insider accounts made from the position of

hindsight. What we propose is a thorough understanding of the process of gathering and

using market intelligence. The how and when are crucial. If we know that the parties

are using systematically gathered intelligence, obtained using the best principles of

marketing research, we can infer from this that they are using it for more than selling

themselves as being market-led, or selling themselves to the party. The when is equally

24

important as intelligence needs to be gathered strategically, giving time for analysis and

discussion prior to using it for designing party policy. We also need to know when

observing the research taking place whether there is a clean slate in terms of policy

priorities and potential solutions, if we are to say that the eventual programme is market

led. So if parties are now engaged in research among the electorate, discovering what

solutions are acceptable to key issues and working out the best forms of communication,

there need to be no or few policies set in stone. The problem is that, apart from the polls

conducted by the professional agencies, we have little or no knowledge of what the

parties are doing. Getting inside the process of decision making is a tricky task, but an

important prerequisite to this kind of research.

The only alternative method of testing the market-oriented thesis is to conduct research

with the electorate, establishing priorities and cross-checking these with policy

announcements. As one strategist argued when we are all doing similar things, we can

see an announcement or a strategy and say, yes, that has come out of focus groups or

some such However this again assumes a link. If we are to unequivocally say that parties

are adopting a full market orientation then we need to see this taking place and

understand the role of research in policy formulation. Currently we are working under

allusions and inferences, with much evidence actually pointing to a sales-orientation.

Ignoring this evidence is dangerous so we need to develop rigorous ways for considering

exactly how much influence the market has, how that influence is exerted and whether

parties are actually interested in responding to public opinion.

25

Bibliography

Acton, T. (2003) MPs use and attitude towards opinion polls Dissertation for BA Business Studies, Bournemouth University. Bowler, S. and Farrell, D.M. (1992) The Study of Election Campaigning. Bowler, S., and Farrell, D.M. Election Strategies and Political Marketing. Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp 1-23. Bruce, B. (1992) Images of Power. London, Kogan Page. Butler, D. and Kavangah, D. (2001) The British general Election of 2001. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Butler, P., and Collins, N. (2001) Payment on delivery: recognising constituency service as political marketing European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 35 (9/10), pp 1026-1037. Denemark, D. New Zealand: The 1987 Campaign Bowler, S., and Farrell, D. Electoral Strategies and Political Marketing. London, Macmillan, pp 163-182. Dermody, J., and Scullion, R. (2001) Delusions of granduer? Marketings contribution to meaningful Western political consumption. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35(9/10), pp 1085-1098. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, Harper & Row. Franklin, B. (2004) Packaging Politics: Political Communication in Britains Media Democracy. London, Edward Arnold. Gould, P. (1998) The Unfinished Revolution. London, Lawrence Black. Gould, P. (2002) The Permanent Campaign. Talk given to conference, London, November 2002. Heath, A.F., Jowell, R.M., and Curtice, J.K. (2001) The Rise of New Labour: Party Policies and Voter Choices. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kavanagh, D. (1995) Election Campaigning. Oxford: Blackwell. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2001) Principles of Marketing, 9th Ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Lees-Marshment, J. (2001) Political marketing and British political parties: The partys just begun. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK. Lilleker, D.G. (2002) Whose Left? Working class political allegiances in post-industrial Britain, International Review of Social History, 47, 65-85. Lilleker, D., and Lees-Marshment, J. (2005) Political Marketing in Comparative Perspective. Manchester, MUP. Maarek, P.J. (1995) Political Marketing and Communication. London, John Libbey. Mellman, M., Lazarus, E., Rivlin, A., and Grove, L. (1991) Benchmark basics and beyond: How to get the most out of your most important poll. Campaigns & Elections, pp 22-32.

26

Negrine, R. and Lilleker, D.G. (2002) The Professionalization of Political Communication: Continuities and Changes in Media Practices. European Journal of Communication, Vol. 17(3), pp 305-323. Newman, B.I. (1999a) A Predictive Model of Voter Behaviour: The Repositioning of Bill Clinton. Newman, B.I. The Handbook of Political Marketing. London, Sage, pp 259-282. Newman, B.I. (1999b) The Mass Marketing of Politics: democracy in an age of manufactured images. London, Sage. Newman, B.I. ed. (1999c) The Handbook of Political Marketing. London, Sage. OShaughnessy, N. (1990) The Phenomenon of Political Marketing. London, Macmillan. Popkin, S.L. (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Rademacher, E.W. and Tuchfarber, A.J. (1999) Prediction Polling and Political Campaigns. Newman, B.I. The Handbook of Political Marketing. London, Sage, pp 197-222. Ramsay, M. (2000) Are Machiavellian tactics still appropriate or defensible in politics? Harris, P. Lock, A. and Rees, P. Machiavelli, Marketing and Management. London, Routledge, pp 148-162. Rawnsley, A. (2004) Olivers sincerest form of flattery, The Observer London 22nd Feb. 2004 Sabato, L. (1981) The rise of political consultants. New York, Basic Books. Scammell, M. (1995) Designer Politics. London, Macmillan. Scammell, M. (1999) Political Marketing: Lessons for Political Science. Political Studies. Vol. XLVII, pp 718-739 Varoga, C. and Rice, M. (1999) Only the Facts: Professional Research and Message Development. Newman, B.I. The Handbook of Political Marketing. London, Sage, pp 243-258. Whelan, C. PR Week 26th Feb. 2004. Wring, D. (2002) Images of Labour: The Progression and Politics of Party Campaigning in Britain Journal of Political Marketing. Vol. 1(1) pp 23-37.

27

Measuring political marketingBibliography