|
Archived
Articles
Whose
side are you on anyway?
By Todd Brashear
Remember recess in elementary
school? Before a game of kickball, everybody lined up, waiting to be chosen by
the team leaders, usually the most popular kids in the class. The same goes for
American politics.
As the primary season approaches,
the Democrat presidential contenders are busy wooing supporters, looking for endorsements,
picking their teams. Gephardt got most of the labor unions. Dean got Gore and
Bradley. And just when you think all the good kids have been taken, the biggest
fish of all – the guy who could change the campaign – might have just
been picked. Is Bill Clinton waiting in the wings, ready to endorse Wesley Clark?
Currently airing in New
Hampshire, a commercial for Wesley Clark shows a few seconds of the two men together.
Granted, the commercial doesn’t mention Clinton by name. And the footage
is more than three years old – taken from the Presidential Medal of Freedom
ceremony honoring Clark – but I believe it’s a sign of things to come.
Bear with me. I’ll explain.
In the advertising business,
it’s not uncommon to test your messages and messaging styles. In 2003, one
of our clients did exactly that. We created a series of direct mail pieces with
slightly different messages, sent them out intermittently and measured the outcome
of the responses. Using this data, we could make some pretty accurate assumptions
about what worked and what didn’t. I believe that’s the case with
the Clark campaign.
Bill Clinton is undoubtedly
the biggest name in the Democratic party. The problem is that he’s beloved
by some, detested by the rest. Aligning with him could be either the biggest coup
or the most devastating flop for an upstart candidate. Underscoring the point,
no candidate other than Clark has produced a commercial featuring Clinton.
So, if you were a highly
decorated, retired general running for president, you’d probably want to
introduce him into your campaign in a very benign way – like showing him
presenting you with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Then, through carefully
phrased research questions, you’d find out the public’s reaction to
Clinton’s presence in your ads. If it was unfavorable, you’d stop
the association before it officially started. Conversely, if people liked the
ad, you’d subtly work him into future advertising with increasingly greater
prominence. As long as the ads continue to win favor, you’d publicly draw
a more defined link between the two men. Step by step, you’d work up to
an official endorsement complete with campaign appearances – and a last-minute
surge in the primaries thanks to American politics’ most recent Comeback
Kid.
Now, you might say that
I’m making a lot of assumptions putting Clinton in Clark’s camp. And
you’re right. I am. But consider the following similarities. They’re
both from Arkansas, raised in relatively humble upbringings. Both attended Oxford
University as Rhodes Scholars in the late 60s. As CNN reported, dozens of former
Clinton staffers are working on Clark’s campaign, which, by the way, is
headquartered in Little Rock. And recently, the Clark campaign released a documentary
about Clark’s life that was produced by fellow Arkansan and Hollywood executive
Linda Bloodworth. The film is reminiscent of a Clinton documentary produced by
Bloodworth. All coincidences? Maybe.
Just don’t be surprised
if we see Clinton introducing Clark at the Democratic National Convention. On
the other hand, don’t be surprised if we never see Clark and Clinton together
again. That’s the beauty of testing your advertising messages. Your successes
can be public. But your failures don’t have to be.
It’s 2004. Let the
gamesmanship begin.
E-mail the
author: Todd Barshear
Click
here to e-mail this article to a friend.
Archived
Articles
<Back
|