I think any analysis of the US election marketing will deliver the same fundamental conclusion; The rules have changed.

Social Media, permission marketing, tribal leadership were all spectacularly successful. Broadcast media still had a significant role and won’t disappear from the equation any time soon, but the marketing mix has certainly been shaken up and all marketers can learn from it.

The fact that there is so much discussion about Obama’s campaign strategy really demonstrates that we are all heading in a new direction.

A few responses:

1. TV is most certainly NOT over. Where do most people still get their political commentary? CNN. Fox News. MSNBC. Saturday Night Live. Sure, other media channels are growing in influence, but TV still dominates. New media channels only complement traditional channels.

ME: Hyperbole, sure. But ‘over’ in the sense that the equation “spend more get more” is now invalid when it comes to TV. You cannot spend your way to victory marketing anything on TV. It takes far more than that.

2. Permission was completely irrelevant when it comes to these elections. The robo-calls were pretty much effect-neutral.

Robo calls are the opposite of permission. They are spam. If you don’t think permission wasn’t relevant here, you haven’t looked at the gay abortion bill in Arkansas.

3. Marketing isn’t tribal. We are. There’s a difference. Marketing is at its most effective when it takes advantage of our tribal nature, but that’s about the only connection between “marketing” and “tribal.”

Yes, of course. I left out a few words.

4. Motivating the uncommitted transforms them into cause advocates: It’s called turning the swing vote. In the business world, it’s how you acquire net new customers and win over chunks of market share. Seth should take another look at that one.

Nope. The candidates didn’t motivate the uncommitted, their friends and family and pastors and tribe did. That’s my whole point.

5. Attack ads work on the people who want to believe them, so they do, in fact, work. I live in a red state where most people I talk to still list “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama hangs out with terrorists” as the main two reasons they would never vote for him. That’s a pretty powerful testament to the effectiveness of negative ads and scare tactics.

Of course attack ads have influence. My point was that they didn’t ‘work’ on Obama fans (if work means change enough votes to change the outcome) because Obama effectively gained identification with his supporters.

I agree that this is a turning point in media history. It is finally too painful to keep doing things the same old way and more marketers are looking at more effective alternatives – especially digitial.

Now, if only companies sincerely showed that they cared more about helping customers solve problems than selling them their shit, we’d finally be getting somewhere.

I am not really suggesting that any of the stories or posts referred to here are gospel, its more an observation on the sheer volume of commentary pointing towards the turning tide in media and marketing.

Personally I hope Seth is wrong about TV at least…its still pretty important and relevant to my clients, even if that is starting to diminish.

I have also been corresponding with some “red state” residents who very much bought the McCain “attack ads” message, so I guess its still working for some.

Thanks again.

As brilliant as Seth is, he is prone to the occasional hyperbole and sometimes gets carried away with drive-by analysis. Case in point:

1. TV is most certainly NOT over. Where do most people still get their political commentary? CNN. Fox News. MSNBC. Saturday Night Live. Sure, other media channels are growing in influence, but TV still dominates. New media channels only complement traditional channels.

2. Permission was completely irrelevant when it comes to these elections. The robo-calls were pretty much effect-neutral.

3. Marketing isn’t tribal. We are. There’s a difference. Marketing is at its most effective when it takes advantage of our tribal nature, but that’s about the only connection between “marketing” and “tribal.”

4. Motivating the uncommitted transforms them into cause advocates: It’s called turning the swing vote. In the business world, it’s how you acquire net new customers and win over chunks of market share. Seth should take another look at that one.

5. Attack ads work on the people who want to believe them, so they do, in fact, work. I live in a red state where most people I talk to still list “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama hangs out with terrorists” as the main two reasons they would never vote for him. That’s a pretty powerful testament to the effectiveness of negative ads and scare tactics.

I think I at least owe Seth an apology beer now. ;D

Great post!