The penultimate marketing case study for why people hate marketing

===

“The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.”

–

David Ogilvy

===

“A great ad campaign will make a bad product fail faster. It will get more people to know it’s bad.”

–

Bill Bernbach

=====

Well.

Studying the Trump presidential campaign is like analyzing a marketing campaign case study in graduate school. It is the penultimate marketing case study exploiting every trick, and classic non trick, in the marketing trade and doing so with adept and, well, constant adaptation to the moment. And, I will admit, a part of my marketing soul died a little as I tore it apart piece by piece – viewing each moment of marketing brilliance as a hollowed out soulless maneuvering of tried & true tactics.

In other words <part 1> if you want a case study to understand why people hate marketing just take a second or two and observe the Trump campaign case study.

In other words <part 2> if you want a case study to understand why an amateur should never implement a marketing plan just take a long hard look and observe the Trump campaign.

Beyond the fact it often looks unscripted and feels a little like a hurricane Trump is pulling out every 1980’s marketing tactic/strategy ever known to mankind. Here is what it appears to me <as a quasi-marketing/brand/communications professional>.

Trump heard about Kotler’s classic Marketing book. He sends out one of his minions to get it, read it, highlight the things worth reading and ‘give me what I should know’. Trump got the ‘highlights’ … decides “let’s do this, this and this.” No strategy, just selective tactics he likes.

This is what an amateur does. Implement classic proven professional expertise in a flawed <stupid> way – but it can still generate what appears to be an effectiveness if you do not look too closely <note: and can actually BE effective if the ones competing against it have their heads up their ass>.

———

 “There’s a lot of intensity and energy, a lot of publicity and other stuff. Being friends with Trump is like being friends with a hurricane.”

Richard LeFrak

—————

Here is what I see as I view the Trump marketing plan to be elected president:

It is better to be loved by 50% and hated by the remaining 50% … than to be liked by all

This is probably the best marketing advice anyone can ever give a business. Love is stronger than like. And to be truly loved <position yourself clearly with distinctness and some ‘edge’ to who and what you are> … you have too accept the fact some people will hate you. But 99% of the time no one follows this advice in conducting business. It is just too difficult to stand being hated, truly hated, by anyone when you are the head of marketing and facing a pissed off CEO or board of directors.

Trump is the CEO, the board of directors and the head of marketing and he has clearly embraced the 50 love/50 hate axiom. I imagine when he began he didn’t really care about the percentages all he really believed in was a successful marketing initiative should aim for the concept. Now that he feels like he actually has an opportunity to win I imagine he is hoping it is 52% love & 48% hate but you get the point.

Here is where he is getting this wrong.

50% of the republican party is at most 25% of total population. Oops. He is running for president. Okay. So some sales analysis person will remind me that in a general election I can draw from more than my main constituents. Okay. In that case current numbers suggest his “50% love” strategy is making up to 75% of his non target hate. So he gets another 12% at most. That make him up to 37%. If I were a brand and I was in a huge category, 37% market share is good. Very good.

37% in a presidential election makes you a … well … loser.

Marketing strategy can be really smart but just pulling one widget off the shelf without tweaking it is stupid.

===

“According to the story, “the most powerful predictor of virality is how much anger an article evokes. I will say it again: The most powerful predictor of what spreads online is anger.”

Ryan Holiday, Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator

===

Empty awareness

“I win.” “Let me tell you the great things I have done.”

He is showcasing empty results. He is using proof to, well, show proof. This means you avoid showing how, or the actual means & steps, you attained your proof of performance. Empty awareness is “yes, I am aware of the brand” combined with “no, I cannot tell you anything specific about why I like the brand.”

That is Trump in spades. He is the pinnacle of empty awareness.

Now. You can only pull this off if you have some “ingredient” with a snazzy made up name you can pin effectiveness to the brand with.

Trump? His only effective ‘ingredient’ in his laundry detergent is him. On planet Trump he is the brand and the key ingredient.  That is how shallow his brand is <and if any of the politicians competing against him would think like marketers they could empty the emptiness and eventually make the brand so empty it becomes … well … nothing.

Oh. And he buttresses up his empty awareness with a slew of implied endorsements.

Implied endorsements.

Professional marketers work very hard to gain true meaningful endorsements. They think strategically <what will improve attributes of the product/brand>, seek credible endorsements and gain the endorsement by earning it. Amateurs lean on implied endorsements. Trump is a master of this. He has associated himself, his brand, with Patton, MacArthur and in particular Reagan. “Just like Reagan” is tied to almost any tweet or message he can. This is an implied endorsement.

“Well … if Reagan did it than it must be good ..”

Ignore the fact Reagan’s son has publicly denounced any tie to Reagan <and Patton’s family did the same> Trump is slimeily slithering down the path blanketing himself in implied endorsements which, for most of the public who doesn’t really have the time not the energy to truly research the endorsement, assume it is true or the association is fair. Worse? By implying the endorsement of a dead person with a revered past not only can it be refuted … he gains the positives which are almost always accumulated by the distance of time. This is sneaky. And made up.

This is what an amateur marketer does … and shrugs their shoulders saying “hey, it worked didn’t it?” as justification for a slimy use of a classic professional tactic.

Selective truth.

Ok. He has mastered selective truth at its best, but absolutely 100% adopted the ‘say whatever you need to say‘ to <a> sell your product and <b> diminish the other products.

Here is a fact. 76% of everything Trump says is verified lies or not a complete truth. And that 75% is probably a conservative estimate.

Well. You don’t last long in real marketing by lying but you can have a long productive career in selecting specific slices of truth and make them look as big as the whole pie. That is what Trump does.

This is tricky to debunk and compete against. Surprisingly it is incredibly difficult to debate with a liar. You would think that you could simply point out what is a lie, but it is not easy when dealing with a good liar. Yeah. There are ‘good liars’ in marketing. They justify what they say by saying “but its true” and defending the fraction of the whole they used against the more truthful ‘whole story.’ Technically they could be construed as telling the truth. But truth, in general, is bigger than a technicality. Marketing is hated because they more often than not run their business on technicalities. Inevitably people find out the whole truth.

Therein lies the distaste in one’s mouth over marketing. That is exactly what Trump is doing.

Attacking credible sources to preemptively defend your claims 

So, as noted in the last point, the marketer knows they have selected the one fraction of the whole to pin their entire story on therefore they have to figure out how to defend against the whole story. There are a variety of ways to do so but one of the most insidious <but effective> method is to preemptively attack anyone who could challenge your selective truth by undermining their credibility.

Some people would call this “character smearing” but Trump simply calls it “telling it like it is.” Trump tells his crowds <and the television cameras> the journalists covering him are “absolutely dishonest. Absolute scum. Remember that. Scum. Scum. Totally dishonest people.”

 In other words, the media are liars. Trump is well aware of how essential media attention is to his success <as well as their own livelihoods> but he also realizes that if he undermines their credibility that when he lies <or uses selective truths> they have been effectively castrated. This gives him a double win. He gets to complain the press is being unfair to him but also that they are not telling the truth about what he says and his supporters believe him and it generates anger, or at minimum, rumblings of uncomfortable emotion on his behalf.

Here is the difficulty that most professional marketers understand. In this particular ‘us versus them’ narrative trust, in general, becomes embattled. And attacking trust, anyone’s, begins to leak into unintended areas. It looks smart to loosen the foundation of the ground competitors stand on but there are unintended consequences.

Think of it this way. If you make the foundation of trust unstable … does that not increase the likelihood the ground you stand on becoming more unstable – there are long term consequences to a short term tactic.

Yeah.

Professional marketing people know that. And he does this ‘discrediting’ all by the means of …

Unpaid media as proof you are not ‘buying awareness and likeability’

When your awareness is high and your advertising dollars are low a savvy marketer starts suggesting that people inherently see the value in what is being offered. It is a silly untruthful game that creates a magnificent false soundbite.

And not only is it an untruthful game … it is a dangerous game. Dangerous in that in order to create this situation more often than not you sacrifice substance for style. Uh oh. Back to that nagging ‘empty awareness’ thing I mentioned earlier.

But, let us be clear, Trump is clearly positioning himself as a style brand and not a substance brand. Any marketer, even a good professional, struggle to create a long term success without using some tricks for something only made of style and little substance. And, thru all the unpaid media, his message doubles down on what marketers do … making down look like it is up.

When down is up

“I am the best.” “Millions of people love me.” “I am the most popular by far.” “My numbers are the biggest by far.”

Well. He is the tallest midget. Trump has never been above 50% in any given state.

Uhm. That means over 50% of every state do not think he is the best. In marketing this game is pretty standard and in some categories may not be complete marketing bullshit <I mean that in a competitive crowded category having a 37% share of market may actually be dominant>. But marketers are masters of making down look up. It is one of those unfortunate quirks of the marketing business created by scores of insecure employees worried about justifying their existence.

All the while …

Using scarcity to imply demand

He touts his huuuuuuuge crowds at his events <more than everyone else>. The implication is that he is in huuuuuuuge demand.

Well. This is marketing tactic 101. If I have fewer events, I am going to have higher attendance. I bet Trump turned to his campaign manager and said “I don’t want to show up at an event unless I have 10,000 people. So let’s just do one event <or few events> in every state.”

Sure. His events draw big numbers <not as big as he says but good sized>. But he has less events than others do. In the marketing world this can be an effective tactic … especially if you buttress it up with an ability to buy remotely <without actually visiting physical locations>.

The flaw in doing this in politics is, well, that nagging thing I mentioned earlier — empty awareness. Scarcity draws lots of interest & curiosity but a good competitor <assuming there is one> uses the scarcity to fill it up with face-to-face connection based knowledge.

Tactically he actually is implementing the most decrepit marketing  faux pas … budget creep.

Budget creep

Marketing people are infamous for low balling the price of an idea to make it more palatable.

In fact … they do it so much it is almost a joke in the boardrooms of businesses. As executives stroll out after a big marketing meeting you can always hear the chuckles of “double the spend because that is how much it s going to really cost us in the end.”

The Trump wall. First it was $4 billion. Then it was maybe $8 to 10 billion. Then it was clearly 10 billion. Oops. Maybe $10 to 12 billion. Now I believe we are up to maybe $16 billion. Geez. You know why most non marketing business people hate marketing people? Because of crap like this. And in politics? Uhm. Isn’t this exactly what everyone bitches about government doing? Spending more than what they claimed it was going to cost?

Gosh. It can’t be.

This is Trump. He is the strong negotiator business deal maker. This could never happen.

$4 billion to $16 billion. That’s all I gotta say.

Lastly.

Challenger brand strategy <when he should be implementing a leader brand strategy>

To be clear. A challenger brand, one competing to gain share, has different strategies, tactics and overall mindset than a brand/product which is leading a category.

Now. In a finite category like Manhattan real estate in which you compete for every foot <and it is a disposable market – once it is gone it is gone> a challenger attitude is most likely the attitude needed to exist and thrive. But this is America. And despite what a lot of people say America is the largest economy, the largest military, the greatest higher education system in the world, the strongest innovation output, etc. … the country is the leader in the world.This creates different demands to a company when being a leader.

As one famous advertisement said once “there is a penalty of leadership.” That penalty is that you have to act like a leader.

A leader builds a category recognizing that while everyone benefits a leader benefits proportionately more. A leader doesn’t divide … it unites … knowing that the leader benefits when everyone benefits.

This doesn’t mean you don’t compete <vigorously>.

This doesn’t mean you don’t differentiate.

This doesn’t mean you accept stagnancy and complacency.

This means you recognize everyone else wants your spot but they cannot if you continue leading. A leader knows the moment they act like everyone else they are no longer a leader — just one of the crowd. That is the penalty of leadership.

In the end.

We are all a little cynical and we should be. Especially when marketers do the amateurish kind of shit that Trump is trying to pull off. He has pulled a number of classic marketing tactics out and decided to wield them under what he calls his ‘brand’ <unfiltered mind slop>. The truth is that all of his brand is hollow. And, to be honest, he reflects everything bad about what branding has become.

That said.

Here is the one tactic he does that no marketer, assuming they have some ethics, would ever do.

I call it his “chaffing technique.”

Here is what I mean. Fighter planes have something called “chaf” <a radar countermeasure in which aircraft or other targets spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of aluminium, metallized glass fibre or plastic, which either appears as a cluster of primary targets on radar screens or swamps the screen with multiple returns> they can release as they try and evade an incoming missile. It is a cloud of debris designed to confuse the missile so that it doesn’t hit the plane.

This is what Trump does.

Female reporter missile.

The chaff:

• How can we know he bruises weren’t already there?
• She may have attacked me.
• She is an attention getter.
• She said she almost fell over but it doesn’t look that way.

<note: this is disturbingly close to what some men say about wife abuse victims>

The Cruz missile.

The chaff:

• He cannot be president … he is Canadian
• He is a liar
• He attacked my wife
• He doesn’t have one co-worker endorsement

Mainly his chaff is doubt & “questions remain … just think about it” which all serve to provide the spread a cloud of small, thin pieces of words which redirects the missiles which could affect Trump’s plane <like the discussion of real issues & real solutions>. His chaff confuses the missiles <in my words … he confuxes everyone>.

No missiles ever hit Trump because he throws up chaff.

Ok. That is it. Maybe the best example of the worst of the worst marketing all led by one of the most narcissistic amateur marketers <“aspiring brand builder> ever created.

======

MODERATOR:

What will you do about little green men from Mars?

TRUMP:

Look, nobody up here knows little green men from Mars like I do. I can beat little green men from Mars because I used to be for them when they invaded Washington but then they started tipping cows and now I’m against them and because I have been on both sides I understand them and I can beat them better than anyone else up here or anyone else on the planet or anyone else in the universe and when they tip my cows I will make Trump steaks and when they try to take over the universe I will trump them with my university because I am the greatest person in the world in the universe and in all time and the most modest and that’s what all my celebrity friends – and I have thousands including Princess Di – that’s what all my celebrity friends tell me.

Guardian comment under a debate article

======

Trump is a master amateur marketer who is a master at manipulating people to buy what he’s selling. He is a constant consistent carnival clown barking out his art of the deal day in and day out.

And worse? He peddles ‘hopeful negatives.’ He is treating running for presidency like he is marketing a product … himself … and not understanding this is not the art of the deal an this is not a marketing campaign … this is about becoming responsible for the lives, careers, hopes, fears and dreams of 300+ million people.

This time it’s not vodka, casinos, a mortgage company, steaks, a real estate university/training or killing the USFL.

This is a country and it is the presidency of the United States.

You cannot ask for your money back nor can you simply decide you want to buy another brand <as you realize the brand you bought sucks>.

John Oliver on one of his shows uses a Donald Trump Jr. quote in a deposition to suggest a marketing platform for Trump … “I don’t know if it brings stability or viability, but I imagine some people feel that.” I do not know if Trump offers stability or viability nor do I know if he would actually bring stability and viability but I imagine the people who believe in him must feel that.

What I feel is an amateur marketing huckster wielding tried & true <and oft maligned> marketing tactics. This marketing case study will go down in history as a prime example of marketing principles misused, marketing principles proven to be unprincipled and how the art of the deal is really about the art of lying combined with misdirection techniques to avoid any real truth.

This marketing case study is a prime example of the choice one makes in marketing that I stated upfront: The pursuit of excellence is less profitable than the pursuit of bigness, but it can be more satisfying.

Big & winning is seductive … but often less than satisfying.

After reading this marketing case study marketing, as a profession, will be set back so far in lack of trust & unethical <not that it is near the pinnacle of well respected> that marketing professionals will have to rethink the foundation from which they move forward in communications.

In conclusion. I will end with how I ended my ‘is marketing evil? post:

As a marketer myself … I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think … and ultimately can affect what they do.

With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

The Trump marketing case study will ultimately be judged on this. Trump never assumed responsibility … for anything let alone impacting what people think and what they ultimately do.

=====

“Things must be negative but not too negative.

Hopelessness, despair—these drive us to do nothing. Pity, empathy—those drive us to do something, like get up from our computers to act. But anger, fear, excitement, or laughter—these drive us to spread. They drive us to do something that makes us feel as if we are doing something, when in reality we are only contributing to what is probably a superficial and utterly meaningless conversation.”

Ryan Holiday, Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator

======