Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Why Negative Political Advertising Works & What Can Stop It

10/31/2020

9 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch - professor of Marketing at Messiah University -
​author of 
Honorable Influence - founder of Mindful Marketing

In thousands of ads each day, companies consistently focus on themselves, rarely mentioning competitors, let alone firing a direct shot at one.  So, why do political ads routinely take aim at their opponents?  As a resident of a 2020 election battleground state, I’ve witnessed an unprecedented barrage of such attacks from both sides of the political spectrum:
 
  • The PAC America First Action sent a direct mail piece to our home featuring a photo of Joe Biden on an old-west wanted poster with the text, “WANTED for attempting to kill 600,000 Pennsylvania jobs!”  The other side of the piece blames Biden for wrecking families’ finances and cozying up to China.
  • The Lincoln Project PAC has discredited Donald Trump through a one-minute video, “Mourning in America.” Against a backdrop of barren cities and towns, narration explains, “Today, more than 60,000 Americans have died from the deadly virus Donald Trump ignored,” and “Under the leadership of Donald Trump, our country is weaker, and sicker, and poorer.”
 
Neither of these ads even mention the candidate they endorse; rather, their aim is to undermine the adversary—a strategy that contradicts the research of Sorin Patilinet, global consumer marketing insights director for Mars, Inc.  In analyzing over 700 ads, Patilinet’s team found that negative emotions often backfire on the firms that employ them.
 
Given the tenuous nature of negative ads and their infrequent use by businesses, why do political campaigns regularly resort to antagonism?  It must be that negative ads work for politicians; if they didn’t, PACs and others wouldn’t spend millions of dollars making them.
 
But, what makes negative advertising effective for those seeking a senate seat or the presidency but not for businesses building their brands?
 
Not every type of advertising fits every industry.  For instance, humor is hard for financial planners and funeral homes to pull off since their customers expect seriousness.  Politics is a very unusual ‘industry’ for advertising, as the following seven distinctions summarize:
 
  1. Fear appeal:  Playing on people’s fears isn’t a viable way to promote most products, but it does work well for some, like home security systems, and political candidates.  In fact, some ads, like the two described above, effectively use fear to position political opponents as threats to citizens’ ‘home’ towns, states, and countries.
  2. Lower consumer expectations:  Gallup’s annual survey about the ethics of 20 different occupations supports that people hold politicians, and likely their ads, to a lower standard:  Members of Congress consistently bring up the bottom of Gallup’s list, suggesting little esteem for them and other elected officials.
  3. Familiar fighting:  If there are too many “serious” Super Bowl commercials, people complain, mainly because they’re used to seeing funny ones.  Whether we like them or not, we often expect political ads to be negative. 
  4. Rationalized outcomes:  Political ads also get a pass because of the importance of governance.  As a result, we place political advertising in a different category, accepting its enmity because ‘the ends justify the means.’
  5. The lesser of two evils:  Unlike the overwhelming number of good product options consumers usually enjoy, elections often entail a choice between just two candidates who many find equally unappealing.  As a result, one ends up on top as the ‘candidate of least compromise.’
  6. Negativity bias:  I recently conducted a study of advertising humor that suggested that people remember unpleasant experiences more than pleasant ones.  The same phenomenon explains, in part, why negative political ads work—their animosity stands out and sticks with people.
  7. Fight over flight:  One reason businesses don’t want to brawl is there’s no telling how long a battle could last.  Politicians, however, have finite promotional timelines that end after election, allowing them to engage in all-out warfare without the worry of a never-ending war.
 
Picture
 
These seven reasons help explain the success of negative political advertising and its heavy spending, but they don’t justify its use.  Instead, they lead further into the logic trap that ethics aims to avoid:  reasoning from ‘is’ to ‘ought.
 
Just because advertisers can do something doesn’t mean they should.  There are at least three reasons there shouldn’t be caustic political advertising:
 
  • Polarization:  To say that the U.S. is increasingly a nation divided is a severe understatement.  Negative political advertising ads fuel the acrimony.  Ultimately, one candidate wins, but because of the extreme public belittling, he/she enters office having already earned the enmity of a large portion of the population.  Negative ads help set up elected officials to fail.
  • Opportunity Cost:  There’s limited space in a 30-second radio spot and on a 9” x 12” mail piece.  If a PAC makes smearing an opponent its priority, there’s little or no room to address real issues.  As a result, voters end up knowing all the reasons they shouldn’t select someone but few of the reasons they should elect another.  Insight into truly important concerns is the casualty.
  • Moral Compromise:  Public service is an important calling and citizens should understand significant weaknesses of candidates, but it’s not right to recklessly vilify a person.  Most negative political ads sacrifice objectivity and civility.  Endorsing disrespect and exemplifying disparagement unmoors society’s moral anchor.
 
Amid unprecedented campaign-spending and unrestrained animosity, is there a way forward?
 
Exiting the downward spiral seems like trying to end a nuclear arms race:  The urge is to add armaments, not abandon them.  No nation or politician wants to risk their existence by being the first to disarm.

Picture
 
It’s unlikely, therefore, that political candidates or PACs will self-censor and curb their own negative advertising.  Instead, resolution seems to rest on one of three approaches:
 
  1. Advertiser Pressure:  Media that run negative political ads can conceivably refuse them, which could cause introspection and perhaps ad alterations.  It’s unlikely, though, that many media will take a moral stand; rather, they’ll find the revenue too hard to resist and rationalize that campaigns will just “place their ads elsewhere, if not with us.”
  2. Government Regulation:  Law is an effective form of advertising behavior modification.  If the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) decides a Super Bowl commercial is too risqué, it doesn’t run.  However, the policies needed to reform political advertising require the support of legislators who worry they’ll need such ads for their next election, which makes regulation improbable.
  3. A Social Movement:  Over recent years, we’ve seen the power that social media gives people to speak out against injustices.  The #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements have shown that real change can occur when enough committed citizens actively embrace a cause.
 
These and other movements have demonstrated that socially-driven change depends first on the realization that a real problem exists.  People must perceive negative political advertising as more than periodic unpleasantry and recognize that these ads tear at our national fabric by feeding political polarization and eroding respect for anyone whose political opinions differ from our own.
 
Boycotting advertising that fuels hate is a start, but America needs an even broader uprising against acrimonious ads, perhaps encouraged by #EndNegativeAds or #PositivePromotion.  To avoid becoming a country consumed by anger, our nation needs to get angry at these ads that contribute to domestic division.  We need to vote against such “Single-Minded Marketing.”
​
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
9 Comments
Kellie Chandler
11/12/2020 04:40:54 pm

Although like many, I do have political preferences, I cannot stand all the negative advertising against each candidate. Especially for two men that label themselves as Christians, I really struggle to reconcile with some of the cruel word choice they use, as well as their actions. I see how the means to possibly end negative advertising like government regulation would make sense, however I think American society as a whole would have to see a large shift towards kindness over what gets clicks.

Reply
Andrew
11/20/2020 10:25:36 am

Politics are inevitably corrupt. One battling the other, it is almost as if no one can win. However, what we can do as Christians is stand up for what we know is right in regards to politicians support for specific policies. America as we know it is failing.

Reply
Matthew McDonald
11/23/2020 11:05:06 am

I think that this article was very interesting. I have paid attention to a lot of politics over the last year and have seen many ad campaigns. It is so much more common to see the negative advertisements, rather than something productive about each candidate. I thought that this article was a great way of describing both sides of advertisements. I feel like in politics it is much easier to loosen your ethics and to do worldly things. So, therefore, negative ad campaigns seems so common especially in a world with dropped ethics. I like how this article talked about how you can combat negative ads and play more useful ads for the American people.

Reply
Cassidy Barlock
11/23/2020 05:48:23 pm

This article, for me, addressed many things I have been thinking about throughout this election season. I pay little attention to politics, but the election this year was extremely difficult to avoid and I probably paid too much attention to it. Something I definitely noticed was each opponent creating campaigns that completely trash their opponent. I was not surprised when those campaigns popped up, but still they made me ask the question, is this really necessary? I feel like there are much more important things candidates could put into their campaigns instead of wasting money trashing their opponent. While it is effective and gets people riled up, candidates should focus on important and real issues within their campaigns.

Reply
Morgan Donahue
11/24/2020 10:59:41 am

This article was very interesting. There have been numerous ads about each candidate this voting season, and they were very hard to ignore. I do have my political preferences, as many do, but it was still difficult for me to push past all of the negativity that was happening. We have had a difficult year with just Covid alone, but this was really the icing on top of the cake. Candidates should not be allowed to bash their opponents so much during the running for election. While this may be considered mindful, it just doesn't align with these to men, specifically, who would call themselves Christians. These ads did get a lot of Americans riled up and feel a certain way, but it morally wouldn't align with Christian beliefs, which they claim to have.

Reply
Dalton miller
11/24/2020 11:22:50 am

I found this article very intriguing since the election has been recently the main topic of our country. When it talked about how you normally do not see ads that bash on companies competitors it opened my eyes to notice how much presidential campaigns actually do downgrade the opponent. I can see how effective that can be trying to persuade people to think that the ads competitor is doing harmful things to our country in order to try and get peoples vote. I think that is why it is so effective because if the thing that they are advertising the opposing candidate is standing for, and the person seeing the ad has a different view on that topic it puts a sour taste in their mouth about that person running for president. So I can definitely see how it is a big factor for advertising for campaigns.

Reply
Brooke Boyd
11/24/2020 11:48:48 am

I would really love to know what goes through politicians heads, as I'm sure many others feel the same. These individuals are fueled by their opponents weaknesses, leading to political ads. Personally, I see no positive impact of pointing out why their opponent is "a terrible person." I feel as if these ads have become increasingly worse this election season, and it just creates more turmoil in America. These ads are adding fuel to the fire for the American's who are already angry with this country and possibly the two men seeking the Presidency. Like the article said, people are hearing reasons as to why NOT to vote for a man, instead of the reasons as to why they SHOULD vote for the man. These ads have been getting out of hand, and I think it's time there for a change in how the American people are communicated to when it comes to ads, and that starts with yourself personally.

Reply
Lamorie White
11/24/2020 01:11:00 pm

I think that it is such a shame that politicians choose to rely on making the opponent look bad, and it is also very sad that the people of America respond more to the negative ad campaigns than they do to the positive ones. It speaks volume about the type of people we are as a whole, and that needs to change. I personally would think that when you a politician seeking to lift themselves up rather than bringing their opponent down, it sets them apart from the others that are in the race as well. We see someone with a good character who is focused on themselves and what they can offer and bring to the table as opposed to bringing someone else down so they can seem higher. It makes me think that they have nothing to offer and the only way to win is to bring down the others. I am sure that I can not be the only American who thinks this way and would agree with that.

Reply
Luke Wertz
9/16/2021 12:38:11 pm

I agree that political ads have become increasingly negative in recent elections, with candidates using their marketing budget to slander their opponents instead of promoting themselves. Elections are now more of a "lesser of two evils" kind of race, one that after it's done, will have the victor hated by half of the voters. I believe that candidates need to change their focus towards marketing themselves, their beliefs, and their plans for the country. I agree with your thought that this negative advertising is prominent in elections but not between companies is because there is a specific goal and end date that declares a winner, instead of a continuous back and forth that could forever tarnish companies' sales and reputation. Candidates will do whatever it takes to get more votes by November. Hopefully though, we will soon have elections that have candidates market themselves as a product and appeal to the consumer's sense of logos and ethos, not just their emotions and anger.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly