In November The US elections were thrown into chaos by the humble chad, a paper perforation on a punch operated ballot paper. The election campaign had cost a total of $3 billion (Washington Post, 6th November) the largest ever. Eventually George W, Bush emerged as the victor after various court rulings. He had been elected however more as a result of the effective use of marketing than confusion in the ballot. He won because of his campaigns ruthless targeting of swing voters and marginal states. In June 2001, Tony Blair was re-elected Prime Minister as a result of the Labour party’s second landslide victory in the UK General Election. The result was no fluke but had been based on a long-term strategic political marketing planning process, which had been plotted and refined by the marketing headquarters at Millbank. All this of course will be denied or under played by politicians because there are no votes in it, but the reality is that the use of marketing in politics is greater than at any time before and is a major service business and
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phil Harris (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: