Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marketing and politics: Models, behavior, and policy implications

Session at the 8th Triennial Choice Symposium

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The American presidential election is one of the largest, most expensive, and most comprehensive marketing efforts. Despite this fact, marketing scholars have largely ignored this campaign, as well as thousands of others for congresspersons, senators, and governors. This article describes the growth of interest in research issues related to political marketing. This emerging research area lies at the crossroads of marketing and political science, but these fields have developed largely independent of one another with little cross-fertilization of ideas. We discuss recent theoretical, empirical, and behavioral work on political campaigns, integrating perspectives from marketing and political science. Our focus is on (1) the extent to which paradigms used in goods and services marketing carry over to the institutional setting of political campaigns, (2) what changes are necessary in models and methodology to understand issues in political marketing and voter behavior, and (3) how the special setting of politics may help us gain a better understanding of certain topics central to marketing such as advertising, branding, and social networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In practice, candidates' choice of positions may be constrained by their past actions and by the party to which they belong (Alesina 1988). “Political baggage” of this sort is carried forth from one election to the next and can only be changed over the long term, if at all.

  2. Negative advertisements are an extreme version of comparative advertising in which a candidate devotes virtually the entire advertisement to highlighting the negatives of the other candidate (real or imagined).

  3. Much of the recent research relies on secondary data. One key source of data is the Wisconsin Advertising Project (WAP), which provides information on the exact television advertisements shown for presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial candidates in the 100 largest US media markets and includes a rich set of descriptive variables for each advertisement. A second valuable source is the longitudinal panel surveys on political attitudes and knowledge found in the National Annenberg Election Survey and the American National Election Studies, both of which can be linked to the WAP data.

  4. See Green and Gerber (2003) for a review of work on using field experiments in political science and Gerber and Green (2000) for a field experiment involving canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mailers.

  5. An example of a loss averse argument in a political context would be, “My opponent's policy will cost jobs.” See Cobb and Kuklinski (1997) for a discussion of loss aversion in the context of political arguments.

References

  • Adams, J., Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: a cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A. (1988). Credibility and policy convergence in a two-party system with rational voters. American Economic Review, 78(4), 796–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, R. A. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, K. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strengths of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometric, 63(4), 841–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhadury, J., Griffin, P. M., Griffin, S. O., & Narasimhan, L. S. (1998). Finding the majority-rule equilibrium under lexicographic comparison of candidates. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 489–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1974). The 3/2’s rule in presidential campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68(1), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, R. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 69–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Che, H., Iyer, G., & Shanmugam, R. (2007). Negative advertising and voter choice, working paper, University of Southern California.

  • Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Z. J. (2001). Individual marketing with imperfect targetability. Marketing Science, 20(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(September), 198–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughlin, P. J., & Nitzan, S. (1981). Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare optima. Journal of Public Economics, 15, 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Thisse, J.-F. (1979). On Hotelling’s ‘stability in competition’. Econometrica, 47(5), 1145–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degan, Arianna & Antonio Merlo (2009). A structural model of turnout and voting in multiple elections. University of Pennsylvania Working Paper.

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, J. P., Sudhir, K., Ching, A., Crawford, G. S., Draganska, M., Hartmann, W., Hitsch, G., Viard, V. B., Villas-Boas, M., & Vilcassim, N. (2005). Recent advances in structural econometric modeling: dynamics, product positioning, and entry. Marketing Letters, 16(3), 209–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist, The (2010). Buying votes. June 19th, p. 71.

  • Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibrium in campaign spending games: theory and data. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S., & Geer, J. (1998). A spot check: casting doubt on the demobilization effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 573–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are american presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23(4), 409–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 401–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work? Field experiments provide evidence and suggest new theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 541–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., & Green, D. (2000). The effects of canvassing, phone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: a field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: new evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, B.R., & Hartmann, W. (2011a). .Advertising effects in presidential elections. Working paper, Columbia University.

  • Gordon, B.R., & Hartmann, W. (2011b). Political advertising and the Electoral College. Working paper, Columbia University.

  • Granberg, D., & Brent, E. (1983). When prophecy bends: the preference-expectation link in US presidential elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., & Gerber, A. (2003). The underprovision of experiments in political science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 94–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. S. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: reestimating the effects of campaign spending in house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 32(4), 884–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groseclose, T. J. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, J. E., & Hess, G. D. (1996). A spatial theory of positive and negative campaigning. Games and Economic Behavior, 17, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedgcock, W., Rao, A. R., & Chen, H. (2009). Could Ralph Nader’s entrance and exit have helped Al Gore? The impact of decoy dynamics on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 330–343. June.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoegg, M., & Lewis M. (2012). The impact of candidate appearance and advertising strategies on election outcomes? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 895–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, T. M. (1994). Campaigns, national conditions, and U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 973–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 957–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Sidanius, J. (2004). Political psychology. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Rao, A. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2009). It’s time to vote: the effect of matching message orientation and temporal frame on political persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(April), 877–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Ahluwalia, R. (2005). Negativity in the evaluation of political candidates. Journal of Marketing, 69, 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 596–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., Heldman, C., & Babbitt, P. (1999). The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta-analytic assessment. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 851–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: a meta-analytic reassessment. The Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S. D. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the U.S. senate. Journal of Political Economy, 102(4), 777–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. M., Enelow, J. M., & Dorussen, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multi-candidate probabilistic voting. Public Choice, 98, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M., & Peress, M. (2010). Targeting political advertisements on television. Working paper, University of Rochester.

  • Lovett, M., & Shachar, R. (2010). Integrated marketing communications in political marketing: an empirical study of presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Working Paper, Duke University.

  • Lovett, M., & Shachar, R. (2011). The seeds of negativity: knowledge and money. Marketing Science, 30(3), 430–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, S. (2010). Strategic considerations in political advertising. Working Paper, University of Toronto.

  • Orhun, Y., & Urminsky, O. (2012). Conditional projection: How own evaluations impact beliefs about others whose choices are known. Ross School of Business Paper No. 1166.

  • Phillips, J., Urbany, J., & Reynolds, T. (2008). Confirmation and the effects of valenced political advertising: a field experiment. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 794–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analysis of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridout, Travis, N., & Michael Franz. (2010). Using advertising as a window on campaign message targeting. Working Paper, Washington State University.

  • Rossi, P. E., McCulloch, R. E., & Allenby, G. M. (1996). The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Science, 15(4), 321–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M. (1978). Political advertising: a neglected policy issue in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), 58–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, N. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shachar, R. (2003). Party loyalty as habit formation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(3), 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachar, R. (2009). The political participation puzzle and marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 798–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachar, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1999). Follow the leader: theory and evidence on political participation. American Economic Review, 89(3), 525–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., Edell, J., & Payne, J. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J. M. (1989). Election goals and the allocation of campaign resources. Econometrica, 57(3), 637–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soberman, D.A. (2010). Exploiting (neutralizing) an advantage in a political campaign. Working paper, University of Toronto.

  • Soberman, D. A., & Sadoulet, L. (2007). Campaign spending limits and political advertising. Management Science, 53(10), 1521–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99, 315–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Brett R. Gordon

  2. Simon Graduate School of Business, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Mitchell J. Lovett

  3. Arison School of Business, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel

    Ron Shachar

  4. Department of Political Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Kevin Arceneaux

  5. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M553E6, Canada

    Sridhar Moorthy & David Soberman

  6. Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Michael Peress

  7. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Akshay Rao

  8. School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Subrata Sen

  9. Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Oleg Urminsky

Authors
  1. Brett R. Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mitchell J. Lovett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ron Shachar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kevin Arceneaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sridhar Moorthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Peress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Akshay Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Subrata Sen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David Soberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Oleg Urminsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitchell J. Lovett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gordon, B.R., Lovett, M.J., Shachar, R. et al. Marketing and politics: Models, behavior, and policy implications. Mark Lett 23, 391–403 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9185-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9185-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation