The Presidential (and VP) Debates: "The Real World" Meets "The World Series of Poker"

BY RANDY SAVICKY

In the four debates, you had a chance to see both the candidates for President (George W. Bush and John Kerry) and Vice President (Dick Cheney and John Edwards) perform in the highest-stakes arena under the brightest lights and most intense media scrutiny imaginable. How each of the candidates performed -- and the public’s perception of that performance -- will go a long way in deciding the outcome of the election on November 2, particularly among the large block of undecided voters in the key swing states. In effect, it can be seen as the nexus of reality television -- much like “The Real World” meets “The World Series of Poker.”

Spin Alley

From a marketing perspective, in the debates the Presidential candidates could be viewed not as candidates from opposing political parties, but as the CEOs of competing companies. Seen from this perspective, it’s easy to understand the importance of marketing and public relations in contributing to their success. (And why do you think they call it “Spin Alley” where the party supporters present their own “take” on how successful their candidate was in each debate?)

Let’s look back at some of the marketing and public relations topics that we have discussed and see what the candidates did in each of the following areas:

• Strategic differentiation
• Key messages and support (or proof) points
• Media training

Strategic Differentiation

Like “Super Brands” that have established themselves firmly in the eyes of the public, the Democratic and Republican Parties have each taken painstaking efforts to differentiate themselves from their competition over the years. Like the Democrats and their donkey symbol and the Republicans with their elephant, each party has come to be associated with macro issues like “pro-business” or “favoring big government” as fundamental points of strategic differentiation.

So for many Americans, this core strategic differentiation has been the deciding factor in their choice of political parties. Each party’s supporters have become philosophically aligned with that party, and it is this strategic differentiation that enables politicians to align themselves with one political party. This philosophical unity has given rise to “voting along party lines,” which means voting for all of one party’s candidates in an election because they are members of that party and therefore must share the same philosophy.

Key Messages

Today, each party defines its view of where it would take the country in the next four years by developing an official platform during their respective conventions. Taken from the title page of each platform, the Democrats stand for:

• A Strong, Respected America
• A Strong, Growing Economy
• Strong, Healthy Families
• A Strong American Community

On the other hand, the Republican platform includes:

• Winning the War on Terror
• Ushering in an Ownership Era
• Building an Innovative, Globally Competitive Economy
• Strengthening Our Communities
• Protecting Our Families

These are, in effect, each party’s key messages. As you compare the two lists, you can see both substantial and qualitative differences (as well as some similarities). While the Republicans state, for example, “winning the war on terror” as their first key message, the Democrats expand that to include a wider statement about “a strong, more respected America.” Another difference can be seen on the family key message -- “strong, healthy families” (Democrats) vs. “protecting our families” (Republicans). The former is a broader message, while the latter is narrowly focused on safety and protection.

And while the two lists are actually very similar, it’s in the support points that underscore these key messages that the parties really start to differentiate themselves from each other. Without going into all of the differences between the two parties, let’s take a more in-depth look at how each party has been addressing the first point in each of their platforms -- whether “winning the war on terror” or building “a strong, respected America.”

In the Republican key message, “wining the war on terror” implies just that -- seeking, pursuing and bringing to justice individuals and countries that support terrorism. It is a very focused perspective that seeks out one specific result for the nation’s efforts. There may be further proof points that expand on this idea, but they are not implicit in the key message. On the other hand, the Democrats’ key message, “a strong, respected America,” is a broader theme that makes it easier to include specific proof points on a number of issues, such as winning the war on terror, improving homeland security on a national, local, regional and personal level as well as strengthening our alliances with our allies and developing new bonds with the world community.

Media Training

For those of you who watched the debates, it was easy to see the difference in media training between President Bush and Senator Kerry in the first debate. Remember, media training prepares an executive to deliver clear and concise answers, using his or her company’s key messages, in the most natural way possible. As such, it focuses on both verbal and non-verbal areas to build the most favorable image with the audience.

In the first debates, Senator Kerry was noted in the press for preparedness on all of the issues and “looking Presidential,” while President Bush often seemed unprepared, gave shorter answers and frequently looked disturbed or actually annoyed at what Senator Kerry was saying. In the later debates, the President seemed much more prepared and his body language was much more neutral, projecting a more positive image than the first debate.

In the Vice Presidential debate, both Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards were well-prepared with data on whether they have been successful or have a plan to be successful on “winning the war on terror” / “a strong, respected America.” Both spoke confidently and comfortably. However, Cheney often “spoke to his chest” and failed to make eye contact with the camera, while Edwards, in his closing remarks, spoke directly to the camera and in essence personally to every American watching the debate on television.

We’ll continue to watch how well the candidates use marketing and public relations strategies between now and Election Day. Next time -- no matter which party wins the Presidency -- we will look at why the President-elect’s answers sometimes didn’t seem to match the question he was asked. In “PR speak,” it’s all about “bridging.” More on that next time …

Important Note: Please remember that I personally invite you to submit your questions on marketing and public relations to me. These questions can be general in nature or specific to your business challenges (your anonymity will be protected, of course!). I promise to answer them in an upcoming column.

Randy Savicky is President of Strategy + Communications Worldwide, Inc. (http://www.strategypluscommunications.com), a consulting firm that helps companies communicate better to their key audiences to achieve their business goals faster and more easily. With his unique "both sides of the editor 's desk" perspective, Randy’s advice and counsel on helping technology companies improve their communications has been called upon by some of America’s largest corporations and best-known brands, including IBM, Apple, Fujifilm, Motorola and Sony, as well as start-ups, early stage and pre-IPO companies. With extensive experience in public relations, marketing communications, web market and interactive/custom publishing, he welcomes your comments and questions on how to put his ideas to work for your company. He can be reached at (516) 467-4122 or at [email protected].

Respond to this article in our forums!