Marketing lesson from Obama's campaign vs Thai politics

I must say that Obama's campaign created a precedence never to be found in American politics. When compared Obama's tactics to Thai policians' tactics, we are seeing a lot of similarities with both Thaksin's and PAD's campaign.

1. The brand is a narrative:

Too often, the word “brand” is over- or mis-used. When we don’t know what else to call some marketing activity, we’ll say “branding.” We’re so fuzzy about the word brand that people — including some who are receiving this memo — will even start using the word “brand” when they mean graphics. The Obama campaign displayed what a brand is: It’s an overarching narrative. It’s the story that pulls everything together. The Obama “brand” was blessed with a great spokesman who personified the narrative. But the narrative was central to everything the campaign did: creatively, strategically or tactically — even when the spokesman wasn’t present.

Like the Obama "brand", the Thaksin "brand" was blessed with a lesser skill spokesman who personify the Thai blue collar working class with his policies that appeal to the mass. Thaksin represents the rifts in the Thai society and were everything to the campaign, such that anything that appeals to the mass refers to Thaksin -- even when Thaksin was not present.

2. Brand marketing and direct marketing and online marketing and social media marketing are all the same thing:

Somewhere along the way, marketing people like us decided we couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time — that there is something inherently different and distinct about writing copy for a :30 second spot vs. writing copy for a direct mail solicitation letter. Worse, we started believing a myth that one individual can’t think in “TV” and in “the web” or in video or social media — that each of those are somehow extreme specialties like brain surgery vs. dermatology. The Obama campaign proved that thinking wrong. It was “wholistic” marketing. While, no doubt, the greatest amount of money was spent on TV, there was never a sense that TV was “driving” the campaign and everything else was supporting it. Each medium used — including media not even around when the campaign began (iPhone Apps and Twitter, for example) — was utilized with the same intensity and priority and treated, not like an “extension” of the paid-media campaign, but as a critical component to the overall “brand” that, to at least some supporters, was more important than all of the other activities of the campaign.

While not as masterful in the holistic approach to marketing, Thaksin successfully launched a campaign that made him a legend in Thai politics from the start of his term in office to the recent exile in UK. He began his campaign by campaigning directly to the grassroots, then made headlines by being the first Thai prime minister to successfully use mass medias to portray his many policy successes. Once removed from government, the internet, viral marketing, and local radio stations became his strategy to reach out to his sympathisers, and kept him at the very center of Thai politics.

Meanwhile, his opponents, the PAD, successfully use local radios, cable TVs, and word-of-mouth to the extent that trumped the mass media. Although the rhetorics were harsh to the ears, they managed to anger those who may have lost certain interestes, those who were not benefited from Thaksin's policies, or those who jealous of him. The recent usage of social medias, in partical viral emails, lead to a rise of student movements against Thaksin (of course, as well as the many supports the Thai professors gave to the PAD movement).

With successes from these two sides, it remain to be seen who will be more effective in the long run. It is important to note that Thaksin sympathisers tend to remain more loyal, while PAD sympathisers have drifted off in the past few months due to the PAD's hard line stance of no compromization.

3. Don’t focus on features, focus on the narrative:

One of the complaints most professional political pundits (and supporters of his opponents) obsessed over was the lack of specifics in Obama’s plans — that he was just a good speechifier, but not experienced in specific areas of foreign policy or national defense. Such are the complaints of professional political wonks. They, however, don’t realize that focusing on such nut-and-bolts minutae of public policy is like trying to market a computer by describing each and ever part inside the box. Effective marketing is all about the outcome. It’s the problem solved. It’s the need met. It’s about love and pride and hope. And yes, it’s about sizzle. Marketing that works is rarely about the stuff we wonks love to discuss.

This is the biggest difference between the methods of Thaksin and PAD. Thaksin's tacticians tend to focus on benefits he brought to the people. While this is effective in retaining 16 million people's affection (based on the last election), it was extremely ineffective toward the middle class and the elite. Surprisingly, the middle class was most swayed by the PAD's narrative tactics. While Thaksin talks features, PAD focuses on the theme of corruption, ethics, good vs evil, and ancient spirit practices. Apparently, it seems that the marketing that works is the narrative stuffs.

4. Don’t let others define us:

While we at [your organization's name here] would never resort to the type of attack advertising you see in politics, the lesson we should learn from the Obama campaign is this — don’t let any false information in the marketplace sit there without a response. We often think we should be above the fray or that responding only adds credibility to those who may say something about us. While I’m not saying we should respond to every anonymous forum commenter, I do believe we can learn from the Obama campaign that we should be on top of everything being said about us, and if we see something negative gaining any traction, we should respond in a way approapriate to mitigate the impact.

This is perhaps Thaksin's greatest error. PAD's accusation of Thaksin sticked, while Thaksin's accusation of PAD did not until recently when the economy is going badly. While Thaksin is good at appealing to the mass, he and his successor, Samak, were PR nightmares. Both of them were angered easily and said things they shouldn't have said too many times. Thaksin, especially, alienated many allies because of his poor rhetorics when angered.

PAD had been much more successful in terms of PR until recently. With the five PAD leaders unable to agree on a common PR tactic, each said things that hinder the others. Worse, many recent speeches by the PAD made them seemed out of touch with current events, such as the neglect of the economic situation or their denial to move out of Makkawan Bridge in preparation for the cremation ceremony of the King's sister.

5. Great marketing is not about “I” or “me,” it’s about our [customers, members, users, readers, etc.]:

Going back to the primary campaign, Obama’s message focused on empowering his supporters. He positioned himself against his opponents in a way that reinforced theirs were campagins’ of self-centered ambition; his was a campaign that focused on the aspirations of his supporters. I’m just guessing, but if you compared all the times the candidates used the words “I” “me” “we” or “us,” his opponents would be off the charts on the “I” and “me” usage, while Obama would be at the other end of the chart with his use of the “we” and “us” words. It is a subtle thing, but everytime we try to market our [product, service, etc.] by talking about things that are important to us, rather than talking about our [products, services, organization] in terms of the wants and needs and passions and aspirations of the individuals we serve, we fail.

Both Thaksin and PAD have been very successful in appealing to their target audience. Thaksin to the grassroots, while PAD to the middle class and the elite.

6. A grassroots movement is incredibly expensive — and valuable:

In the past, the terms “viral” and “grassroots” and “user-generated” seemed to indicate that a marketing effort was less expensive than traditional media — or, more naively, free. Yet the Obama campaign invested tens of millions into providing the “movement” the tools necessary for it to grow and flourish. If you were to show me a startup business that, in two years, could build a database of 3+ million individuals who will contribute more than $200 each online, I’d show you a startup ready to go public with a multi-billion dollar valuation.

This was the PAD's greatest mistake; they alienate the grassroots. Instead of capturing the grassroots and trying to sway them with the grassroots' core values, the PAD chose to call them "stupid and ignorant." This PR disaster pleased the PAD main supporters who wanted to keep the voting power for themselves, but in turn helped Thaksin to rally for the grassroots' support. With a recent strong showing of anti-PAD support on November 1st, it remains to be seen if PAD can still maintain the support of the middle class until mid-December in this growing global economic turmoil. If not, we should be seeing the end of the PAD movement soon enough. For the Thaksin's side, it most probably depend on the judicial decisions that will have to wait until mid-December as well. We will have to see which side will prevail, if there is any at all.

See "What our marketing team can learn from Obama's campaign" blog at http://www.rexblog.com/2008/11/05/18561