Marketing Letters

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 391–403 | Cite as

Marketing and politics: Models, behavior, and policy implications

Session at the 8th Triennial Choice Symposium
  • Brett R. Gordon
  • Mitchell J. Lovett
  • Ron Shachar
  • Kevin Arceneaux
  • Sridhar Moorthy
  • Michael Peress
  • Akshay Rao
  • Subrata Sen
  • David Soberman
  • Oleg Urminsky
Article

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.

Keywords

Political marketing Elections Campaigns Advertising 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A. (1988). Credibility and policy convergence in a two-party system with rational voters. American Economic Review, 78(4), 796–805.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, R. A. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, K. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strengths of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (1988). Presidential primaries and the dynamics of public choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, S., Levinsohn, J., & Pakes, A. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometric, 63(4), 841–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brams, S. J., & Davis, M. D. (1974). The 3/2’s rule in presidential campaigning. American Political Science Review, 68(1), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calvert, R. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Che, H., Iyer, G., & Shanmugam, R. (2007). Negative advertising and voter choice, working paper, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Z. J. (2001). Individual marketing with imperfect targetability. Marketing Science, 20(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coughlin, P. J., & Nitzan, S. (1981). Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare optima. Journal of Public Economics, 15, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. D’Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Thisse, J.-F. (1979). On Hotelling’s ‘stability in competition’. Econometrica, 47(5), 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Degan, Arianna & Antonio Merlo (2009). A structural model of turnout and voting in multiple elections. University of Pennsylvania Working Paper.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Economist, The (2010). Buying votes. June 19th, p. 71.Google Scholar
  22. Erikson, R. S., & Palfrey, T. R. (2000). Equilibrium in campaign spending games: theory and data. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerber, A. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92(2), 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work? Field experiments provide evidence and suggest new theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 541–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Gordon, B.R., & Hartmann, W. (2011a). .Advertising effects in presidential elections. Working paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  33. Gordon, B.R., & Hartmann, W. (2011b). Political advertising and the Electoral College. Working paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Groseclose, T. J. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harrington, J. E., & Hess, G. D. (1996). A spatial theory of positive and negative campaigning. Games and Economic Behavior, 17, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Holbrook, T. M. (1994). Campaigns, national conditions, and U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 973–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 957–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jacobson, G. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jost, J. T., & Sidanius, J. (2004). Political psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Klein, J., & Ahluwalia, R. (2005). Negativity in the evaluation of political candidates. Journal of Marketing, 69, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lin, T. M., Enelow, J. M., & Dorussen, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multi-candidate probabilistic voting. Public Choice, 98, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lovett, M., & Peress, M. (2010). Targeting political advertisements on television. Working paper, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Lovett, M., & Shachar, R. (2011). The seeds of negativity: knowledge and money. Marketing Science, 30(3), 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moorthy, S. (2010). Strategic considerations in political advertising. Working Paper, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analysis of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736.Google Scholar
  61. Ridout, Travis, N., & Michael Franz. (2010). Using advertising as a window on campaign message targeting. Working Paper, Washington State University.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rothschild, M. (1978). Political advertising: a neglected policy issue in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(1), 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schofield, N. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371–383.Google Scholar
  65. Shachar, R. (2003). Party loyalty as habit formation. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(3), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shachar, R. (2009). The political participation puzzle and marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 798–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shachar, R., & Nalebuff, B. (1999). Follow the leader: theory and evidence on political participation. American Economic Review, 89(3), 525–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Skaperdas, S., & Grofman, B. (1995). Modeling negative campaigning. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Snyder, J. M. (1989). Election goals and the allocation of campaign resources. Econometrica, 57(3), 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soberman, D.A. (2010). Exploiting (neutralizing) an advantage in a political campaign. Working paper, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  72. Soberman, D. A., & Sadoulet, L. (2007). Campaign spending limits and political advertising. Management Science, 53(10), 1521–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stokes, S. C. (2005). Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review, 99, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brett R. Gordon
    • 1
  • Mitchell J. Lovett
    • 2
  • Ron Shachar
    • 3
  • Kevin Arceneaux
    • 4
  • Sridhar Moorthy
    • 5
  • Michael Peress
    • 6
  • Akshay Rao
    • 7
  • Subrata Sen
    • 8
  • David Soberman
    • 5
  • Oleg Urminsky
    • 9
  1. 1.Graduate School of BusinessColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Simon Graduate School of BusinessUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Arison School of Business, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC)HerzliyaIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Rotman School of ManagementUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  7. 7.Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  8. 8.School of ManagementYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  9. 9.Booth School of BusinessUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations