An Epistemological Perspective on Research in Political Marketing

Transcription

1 Journal of Political Marketing ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: An Epistemological Perspective on Research in Political Marketing Stephan C. Henneberg To cite this article: Stephan C. Henneberg (2008) An Epistemological Perspective on Research in Political Marketing, Journal of Political Marketing, 7:2, , DOI: / To link to this article: Published online: 11 Oct Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3062 View related articles Citing articles: 22 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 30 November 2017, At: 17:13

2 An Epistemological Perspective on Research in Political Marketing Stephan C. Henneberg The University of Manchester ABSTRACT. Research on political marketing has now established itself as a spirited subdiscipline of mainstream marketing, producing considerable numbers of high-quality learned articles and books each year. However, a certain stagnation in knowledge development has been identified. Consequently, this article links this inadequacy to the dominating tendency of focusing research on campaign applications of marketing instruments, emphasizing a reactive and managerial orientation. In discussing the core of political marketing theory, two different stances are identified: first, a narrow one, focusing on Dr. Stephan C. Henneberg is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester. He is also the Special Issue Chair in Political Marketing of the Academy of Marketing. His current research interests are in the areas of strategic marketing, relational marketing, consumer behavior, and political marketing. He publishes regularly on political marketing (e.g., in the Journal of Marketing Management, Marketing Theory, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Political Marketing, and Journal of Public Affairs). Henneberg has organized several international conferences on political marketing and has edited a book, The Idea of Political Marketing (Praeger, 2002), together with Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy. The author would like to achnowledge the helpful comments by Dominic Wring as well as two anonymous reviewers. Address correspondence to Stephan C. Henneberg, Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M15 6PB United Kingdom ( stephan.henneberg@mbs.ac.uk). Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 7(2) 2008 Available online at # 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved. doi: /

3 152 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING understanding marketing activities in politics, and second, a wider one, concerned with a more holistic attempt of achieving breadth of knowledge of politics. An idiosyncratic discussion of the ontology and epistemological implications of this wider stance identifies four concepts as pivotal: the exchange character of political marketing; a qualified market environment; the social embeddedness of the political system in other generic systems; and the structural connectedness of political marketing and politics, implying ethical considerations. While current research limitations in political marketing can be explained by an (implicit) focus on the narrow interpretation of political marketing theory, the wider stance frames a new research agenda for political marketing that provides new directions and less restricted conceptual horizons. The article closes with a discussion of such a new research agenda by providing descriptions of six key research areas of political marketing and outlines implications for the field of political marketing. KEYWORDS. Epistemology and ontology, political marketing research, political marketing theory, research agenda INTRODUCTION Marketing theory has been influenced by many different disciplines (Arndt, 1983), but it has also contributed, in a reciprocal relationship, to the development of other academic areas within management studies and, arguably, beyond (Day, 1992; Hunt and Lambe, 2000). In particular, the aspect of broadening the core explananda of marketing (Kotler and Levy, 1969; Luck, 1969; Kotler, 1972; Enis, 1973; Hunt, 1976; Arndt, 1978; Arndt, 1982; Hunt and Burnett, 1982; Hunt, 1983; Levy, 2002) has enhanced the scope for crossfertilization between disciplines. In the area of social and nonprofit marketing (Andreason, 1994; Kotler and Andreason, 1995; Kotler, Roberto, and Lee, 2002), the application of marketing theory to the political sphere constitutes a relatively new phenomenon (O Shaughnessy, 1990; Lock and Harris, 1996; Kotler and Kotler, 1999). While there exists a considerable stock of knowledge concerning political marketing, especially in the areas of campaign management, political marketing strategies, and

4 Stephan C. Henneberg 153 comparative political marketing (Newman, 1994a; Kavanagh, 1995; Scammell, 1995; Holbrook, 1996; Butler and Collins, 1999; Baines and Egan, 2001; Johnson, 2001; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Lees-Marshment, 2004; Wring, 2005), the essence of political marketing theory remains somewhat opaque; crucial elements are still ill defined in marketing terms (e.g., the political market or the political product and the underlying exchange process [Lock and Harris, 1996; Scammell, 1999; Newman, 2002a; O Shaughnessy and Henneberg, 2002a]). This is sometimes explained by the notion that traditional marketing frameworks do not fit neatly into a political marketing configuration (Dean and Croft, 2001: 1197). Furthermore, Moloney (2004) hints at the fact that no clear understanding of the ontological and epistemological implications of a marketing perspective on politics has been developed or even considered due to the research focus on descriptive studies that attempt to explain what political actors actually do (Marland, 2003). This refers to the fact that marketing theory makes specific assumptions about the fabric of reality (ontology) and how knowledge claims can be made about this reality (epistemology). These assumptions can be applied to politics, constituting a political marketing perspective. In this article, it is argued that the managerial focus constitutes only one element of political marketing theory. What has been neglected is an epistemological view of political marketing as a research lens, a meta-theoretical vehicle for making sense of the political sphere. The differences (and interplay) of these two perspectives of political marketing theory will be introduced, and the application of political marketing theory as an epistemological tool will be outlined. In order to develop this argument, the appropriate point of departure is provided by a concise overview of the state of affairs in political marketing, beginning with practical marketing applications in politics followed by a discussion of existing research on political marketing. This will be followed by the main section of this article, tackling the two different facets of political marketing theory: initially, with a description and understanding of managerial marketing activities and, next, an epistemological stance to gain understanding of political phenomena in general. Following on from this, a tentative research agenda for political marketing is derived and the implications will be discussed.

5 154 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN POLITICAL MARKETING Political Marketing Management It has often been argued that the application of marketing tools and instruments in politics is nothing new (Lock and Harris, 1996; Perloff, 1999; Baines and Egan, 2001). This may or may not be the case, but what certainly has changed in the last 25 years is not just the magnitude of political marketing management but the belief that political actors not only act out but also think in marketing terms; they as well as outside experts believe that they do marketing management (Johnson, 2001; Moloney, 2004), and they try to integrate their use of marketing instruments in a coherent marketing strategy (Newman, 1994a; Dermody and Scullion, 2001; Lees-Marshment, 2004). This is notwithstanding the idea that much of their marketing knowledge might be political folk wisdom (Scammell, 1999: 738). In this context, political actors include political parties, politicians, and political consultants but also governments, single-issue groups, lobbying organizations, etc. (Harris, Gardner, and Vetter, 1999; Nimmo, 1999; Harris, 2001a). The changes in the mind-sets of these actors have been tracked in several studies (Jamieson, 1992; Scammell, 1994; Scammell, 1995; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Johnson, 2001; Wring, 2001; Wring, 2002b; Wring, 2005). They are considered a revolution (Lees-Marshment, 2001: 229) or even a new age in politics (Newman, 1999b: 125). In addition, political marketing applications have moved from solely a communication tool to an integrated way of managing politics (Maarek, 1995), be it policy development, permanent campaigning (Nimmo, 1999), or even governing (to the extent that government has become symbolic in certain circumstances) (O Shaughnessy, 2003). Six main developments of applications of political marketing can be generalized for most democratic political systems in the last 2 decades:. An increased sophistication of communication and spin (Kavanagh, 1995; Maarek, 1995; Kaid, 1999; Sherman, 1999; Harris, 2001b; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Denton, 2002; Palmer, 2002). Emphasis on product and image management, including candidate positioning and policy development (Scammell, 1995; Baines, 1999; Kotler and Kotler, 1999; Newman, 1999b; Lees-Marshment, 2001;

6 Stephan C. Henneberg 155 Newman, 2001; Smith, 2001; Baines, Harris, and Lewis, 2002; White and de Chernatony, 2002). Increased sophistication of news management (i.e., the use of free media) (Franklin, 1994; Schnur, 1999; Franklin and Richardson, 2002). More coherent and planned political marketing strategy development (Newman, 1994a; Butler and Collins, 1999; Kotler and Kotler, 1999; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Henneberg, 2002; Wring, 2002a). Intensified and integrated use of political market research (Huber and Herrmann, 1999; Mitchell and Daves, 1999; Smith and Hirst, 2001; Sparrow and Turner, 2001; Sherman and Schiffman, 2002). Emphasis on political marketing organization and professionalization of political management (Panebianco, 1988; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Johnson, 2001). However, most political actors are far from having an integrated and sophisticated understanding of marketing applications for their specific political exchange situations. Political marketing management has caused some parties and candidates to adopt a simplistic and populistic follower mentality, contributing to the disenchantment of the electorate and a resulting cynicism regarding politics in general (Scammell, 1995; Henneberg, 2006). Research on Political Marketing Serious, intensive, coordinated research activities on marketing applications in politics constitute a fairly recent addition to the area of social and nonprofit marketing. The academic field of political marketing started to form 15 to 20 years ago with several seminal contributions (Mauser, 1983; Newman and Sheth, 1985; Newman and Sheth, 1987; Farrell and Wortmann, 1987; Reid, 1988; Harrop, 1990; O Shaughnessy, 1990; Smith and Saunders, 1990) that introduced topical foci and in-depth analyses of marketing instruments, but none proffered a general theory. However, research on political marketing quickly gained momentum, driven mainly by the (perceived) dynamic development of marketing applications by political parties and candidates. Although technological drivers, especially in

7 156 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING the media arena, are often quoted as being the main reason for this accelerated development (Newman, 1994a; Newman, 1994b), an amalgamation of crucial changes in the political sphere fostered this development: a weakening of political cleavage systems (Palmer, 2002) and consequently lower levels of party identification (Ware, 1996; Henneberg and Eghbalian, 2002) and higher electoral volatility (Perloff, 1999). Furthermore, increased competitive pressure in the political market through nonelectoral competition by, for example, single-issue groups (Lees-Marshment, 2001), less differentiation between political offers, and a general professionalization of political management activities characterizes modern political markets (Panebianco, 1988). To provide an understanding of these phenomena and the reactions of political actors to them, research on political marketing became an established subdiscipline of marketing, especially in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia= New Zealand, as well as the United States (Perloff, 1999). The need to describe and understand these phenomena instigated numerous publications in standard marketing and politics journals (e.g., special issues on political marketing in the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, orjournal of Public Affairs) as well as books and monographs (Newman, 1994a; Kavanagh, 1995; Maarek, 1995; Scammell, 1995; Newman, 1999b; Lees-Marshment, 2001; O Shaughnessy and Henneberg, 2002b, Lees-Marshment, 2004; Lilleker and Lees-Marshment, 2005; Wring, 2005) and also the establishment of dedicated fora for discourse on political marketing (an international conference on political marketing held annually, special interest groups on political marketing in many academic organizations). Furthermore, the dedicated Journal of Political Marketing was founded (Newman, 2002a) and the Handbook of Political Marketing published (Newman, 1999a). While the institutional requirements for the development of political marketing theory are in place, an assessment of current research on political marketing shows shortcomings. Without being able to go into considerable detail (such discussions of research on political marketing can be found in Scammell, 1999; Henneberg, 2002; Henneberg, 2004a; Johanson, 2005), the following presents a concise critique of the existing body of knowledge. A distinct bias in the research foci of marketing instrument usage in campaign situations obscures the more general and theoretical discussions. While communication activities, market research tools, and

8 Stephan C. Henneberg 157 other political marketing instruments and activities have been well analyzed and compared with regard to the contingencies of their usage, this has been undertaken on a descriptive level. Higher-level concept development or prescriptive studies are rare. Furthermore, Henneberg (2004a) has suggested that more fundamental issues such as ethical dimensions of political marketing, underlying exchange mechanisms, and the interaction of marketing activities with the political system have remained underresearched. As such, political marketing theories have not been developed in any depth. Consequently, empirical work is not well anchored. Many crucial discussions regarding definitions of terms and ideas have remained unresolved, not due to competing positions and interpretations but because of negligence and inactivity in these areas. Furthermore, a tendency toward ossification exists as many political marketing studies use an oversimplistic managerial interpretation of marketing (Johanson, 2005), classified by Carman (1980) as part of the persuasion=attitude change paradigm, and oriented towards the four Ps and the marketing mix (Sheth, Gardner, and Garrett, 1988; van Waterschoot and van den Bulte, 1992; Webster, 1992; O Malley and Patterson, 1998). This causes a decoupling of research in political marketing from fresh developments of marketing theory, be it on conceptual or epistemological levels. For example, relational marketing concepts that have gained importance in marketing theory in the last decades do not find their equivalent in political marketing (Dean and Croft, 2001; Scammell, 1999; Henneberg, 2002; Bannon, 2005) or nonprofit marketing, for that matter (Arnett, German, and Hunt, 2003). Several arguments have been put forward that theoretical and applied research on political marketing needs to be more innovative, and a next phase of activities is advocated to reinvigorate the discipline. Following this initial overview of research on political marketing, I now address political marketing theory from a conceptual perspective, that is, analyzing what the core of such a theory needs to provide in order to develop a (new) research agenda. As the following discussion shows, this core encompasses two different but related aspects. While one aspect has dominated the literature so far (and might therefore be used to explain the current situation of research in political marketing), it is important to understand the other argument in order to develop political marketing theory to its full potential.

9 158 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING POLITICAL MARKETING THEORY Essentially, the different aspects of political marketing theory can be exemplified by the two different possible research objects or explananda on which political marketing theory could focus (Moloney, 2004): political marketing management on one hand and political exchanges on the other. While the first research object concerns managerial aspects of marketing in politics (i.e., how political marketing is done [without implying a purely normative focus]), the second is concerned with an epistemological stance per se and is therefore not limited to marketing applications but encompasses all political exchanges. These two research objects will be introduced in more detail in the next sections. Together, as synthesis, they provide the core for a holistic theory of political marketing (Henneberg, 2002). Political Marketing Theory as Understanding Marketing Management Activities: A Narrow Interpretation The initial aspect of a political marketing theory takes its impetus from existing practice in the political sphere: political marketing management happens. It manifests itself in such diverse activities as focusing campaign strategies on the salient political issues of swing voters or through the application of sophisticated segmentation techniques (Smith and Hirst, 2001) through a consequent voter ( customer ) orientation (Newman, 1994a; Lees-Marshment, 2001; Lees-Marshment, 2003), the application of celebrity endorsement strategies as part of an integrated marketing communication (Chen and Henneberg, 2007), or the institution of powerful directors of communication and campaign consultants (Johnson, 2001; Wring, 2002b). Furthermore, political actors as well as political communicators (and to some extent also the electorate) believe that marketing has become an essential part of political management in many situations. This belief has now entered the mainstream through endless discussions and analysis of the ill-defined concept of spin in the media (Harris, 2001b). Because of these (perceived or real) occurrences of marketing practice and language in politics (Moloney, 2004), the use of marketing theory as a means of explaining these phenomena seems obvious. While political science (or other related disciplines) have little to

10 Stephan C. Henneberg 159 say about topics such as segmentation, brand management, or strategic capability management (at least these topics are only tangential to their theory constructs), they fit easily into an explanatory scheme that is based explicitly on management and marketing theory. As such, political marketing theory is a necessary (if not sufficient) way of getting to grips with some modern developments of (Western) democratic life. It allows us to describe certain political phenomena in a way that political science would not be able to. Furthermore, as part of the established tradition of marketing theory (Hunt, 1983; Hunt, 1991), political marketing theory can integrate an (initial) descriptive understanding of political marketing management with a prescriptive theory (i.e., one that can help political actors to apply political marketing management techniques effectively and efficiently). Such a research view has been entitled a theory of political marketing management by Henneberg (2002). However, this theory cannot break out of its self-induced narrow focus on marketing activities, relegating everything else in politics to the level of imponderables or exogenous variables. Hence, in such an interpretation the wider political environment that frames the application of marketing management in politics remains somewhat alien, ill defined in its relationship with marketing theory. Political Marketing Theory as Understanding Political Exchanges: A Wide Interpretation This alternative perspective takes its starting point not from the necessity to understand political marketing management as seen in practice; it is based on a wider meta-theoretical foundation. This stance attempts to understand the whole of politics (i.e., its constituting exchange and interaction structures). This is done via the application of the underlying concepts of marketing theory (i.e., through a marketing-oriented epistemology). Such a preposterous claim (at first glance) needs justification that can best be provided by looking at some of the embedded elements. First, political marketing theory in this wide interpretation is not solely about the marketing activity aspect of it; the theory tries to integrate it with the political environment in which it is deployed. Therefore, only a holistic understanding of all political activities, exchanges, players, structures, etc. will be sufficient to understand the specific ramifications of, and for, political marketing management.

11 160 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING Such a development seems necessary in light of the frequent claims that political marketing theory has not yet developed any meaningful ethical frameworks or analyses regarding the implications of political marketing activities on structural variables of politics such as the party system, voting behavior, the media landscape, power distributions in society, etc. (Henneberg, 2004a). These shortcomings, if addressed, need a systemic approach to political marketing theory. Second, a wide interpretation of political marketing theory is concerned with epistemology (i.e. the enquiry into our knowledge of being [Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000: 6]). This is not to say that marketing is an epistemology but rather that certain ontological and epistemological positions can be connected with a marketing perspective (i.e., the specific and fundamental issues that establish the identity of the field of marketing) (Day and Montgomery, 1999). The constituting elements or premises of marketing theory provide such a position as outlined below (although not all of these principles are uncontested in the marketing literature). These positions, insofar as they differ from those of political science, provide a new and innovative way of making sense of the political sphere. As with all ontological=epistemological stances, limitations exist inasmuch as they obscure certain issues and highlight others, and therefore they need to be supplemented by alternative perspectives, which brings us to the next point. Third, political marketing theory as a way of understanding political exchanges in general has to be seen as part of a methodological pluralism. The implication is not that a marketing-related epistemology would explain the political sphere better than a political science, sociological, or psychological one. However, evaluative judgements need to be employed with regard to the appropriateness of certain epistemological positions in the face of a specific phenomenon (to give an example for a specific task, seeking an understanding of the impact of negative political advertising on voter decisionmaking processes in order to provide guidelines for self-regulating bodies of political advertisers). Hence, this is concerned with the respective explanatory power of different epistemological stances in a concrete situation and for a given purpose. As an abstract concept, no preferences can be deduced beyond that. Therefore, a political marketing theory of politics would not supersede but complement other (e.g., political science) theories. It would be more appropriate

12 Stephan C. Henneberg 161 in explaining certain elements of political life, while others would not be covered in the same depth, rigor, or quality. In addition, certain explanations might contradict those of political science directly, without it being clear which claim is of greater appropriateness, thus stimulating further discussions. As such, a wide political marketing theory would consist of theories of middle range and would have no ambition to provide any grand or general theories (Hunt, 1983). Understood in this epistemologically oriented way, a theory of political marketing cannot be anything but a sense-making framework (i.e., a way of knowing [in this case knowing political exchanges]). While these theoretical considerations can only present political marketing theory as a possibility for enriching our understanding of politics, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Therefore, the ontological and epistemological essence of a political marketing theory needs to be described in order to gauge an understanding of how far these provide a specific and valuable lens for the gaining of knowledge in the political sphere (Cornelissen, 2002). In the following, I will distinguish four core notions of political marketing (Table 1), informed by Day and Montgomery s (1999) fundamental issues for marketing. It is my contention that these core notions directly influence the way research in political marketing is done (i.e., regarding methodology, research design, research foci). However, while these core notions are derived from marketing theory, TABLE 1. Overview of Meta-theoretical Assumptions of Political Marketing Theory Ontology Epistemology Implications Exchange Qualified Market Social Embeddedness Structural Connectedness Inquiry focus on dyads (or networks of relationships) Inquiry focus on interactions and interrelations of actors Inquiry focus on systems Inquiry focus on interdependent management and politics spheres Marketing management as interconnections=perceptions within an exchange environment Cooperation=collaboration; mutually beneficial relationships; time dynamics Complex systems, no simple= unidimensional associations; exogenous variables not always definable Neutrality exclusion; ethical implications

13 162 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING they are open to discussion and (to some extent) individual choice by the researcher. The character of marketing as focusing on exchange (theory) can be seen as providing an ontological foundation for political marketing (O Shaughnessy, 1990; Newman, 1999b). The assumption is that reality is made up of actors (or forces) in relation to each other. Everything achieves its characteristics and qualities within a web of (multiple) pairings (Bagozzi, 1975). Marketing, in its simplest form, cannot be done by one actor alone; it is always an exchange between actors (within or between entities). Thus, the corresponding epistemology would prescribe an inquiry that looks at dyads (or networks of relationships) as the main focus of analysis. While these dyads= networks are made up of actors, the exchange focus of political marketing means that, for example, research on political campaigns should not focus on the political marketing activities of parties= candidates, but embed them in the relevant exchange structures with voters, donors, the media, etc. (Henneberg, 2003). Perceptions, interpretations, and representations of activities and other meaning-laden properties (e.g., intentions, positions, resources) within the dyad become the defining epistemological characteristics of political marketing inquiry. Kotler and Kotler realized this when they wrote, Marketing orientation means that candidates recognize the nature of the exchange process when they ask voters for their votes. (1999: 3). Related to this point is the ontological assumption of a qualified market exchange. A managerial perspective of political marketing is linked to a traditional (microeconomic) market understanding as a clearing mechanism, prescribing certain exchange characteristics (namely, independent actors with self-interested goal functions that they maximize in episodic and unrelated transactions) (Carman, 1980; Arndt, 1983; Johansen, 2005). However, political marketing theory characterizes exchange interactions and interrelations of (by varying degrees) dependent actors and structures. This would also encompass cooperation and collaboration and, in some cases, also collusion. An epistemological inquiry focusing on these exchange dependencies and interconnections can be deduced (which in traditional markets are deemed to be anomalies). Furthermore, an increased emphasis on time dynamics is implied: not only single transactions are analyzed but so are the totality of exchanges constructed within relationships over time. Historical determinants, as well as future-oriented considerations, become real forces within

14 Stephan C. Henneberg 163 these market exchanges (Scammell, 1999; Baines, Brennan, and Egan, 2003). A third element is concerned with the embeddedness of politics, especially its relationship with social and other narrative models of representation. This position is related to Hunt and Burnett s (1982) notion of total marketing systems. It can be posited that the political sphere does not exist independent of other cultural and social aspects of life (Butler and Collins, 1999). The interactions and dependencies of politics on the economy, the legal system, and social and cultural experiences (and vice versa) give a clear indication for the arbitrariness of any attempt to disentangle the conditio politicae from its contextual frame (Mancini and Swanson, 1996). As this condition is existent on an epistemological level (i.e., in the way we attempt to gain insights about politics) and also on an ontological level (i.e., the fabric of politics as is), any political as well as social marketing inquiry needs to look at interconnected systems and cannot focus simply on a whichever way delineated political sphere (Brenkert, 2002). This complexity precludes simple and unidimensional explanations (or at least makes them very unlikely). Furthermore, it becomes difficult for political marketing theory to find clear-cut horizons for its explanatory purpose. Last, the structural connectedness of the management of politics and politics itself is ontologically anchored in political marketing theory (and this maybe perceived as a subpoint of the previous argument). The often-identified difference between content and packaging in politics (Franklin, 1994) is treated as spurious. Any political management or marketing activity relates inevitably to policy=politics content (through considerations regarding development, execution, or assessment of policies) and is recognized as such by other actors (e.g., voters). On the other hand, policy making and governing always also encompass management issues (Newman, 1999b). Any inquiry in political marketing, therefore, also looks at aspects of politics that, in a narrow sense, do not have anything to do with marketing instruments. Epistemologically, political marketing theory cannot limit itself to political marketing management, understood in a purely executional sense (i.e., putting the gloss on politics). Directly linked to this is a recognition that marketing is not a neutral aspect or tool of politics and that ethical considerations have to be an integral part of any political marketing theory.

15 164 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING The delineation of a wide and a narrow concept of political marketing theory has implications for research in political marketing, especially with respect to the current stymied state of affairs of the discipline. It is the main contention of this article that the outlined realities of research on political marketing can be explained through connecting them with the two different perspectives on political marketing theory. The underpinning thesis is that the shortcomings of the current stock of research is linked to a research community that subscribes to a narrow interpretation of political marketing theory as being concerned with understanding (existing) marketing activities in politics. While this happens predominantly implicitly, this managerial stance is widespread, not only with researchers but also with commentators on, or opponents of, political marketing applications (Henneberg, 2004a; Johanson, 2005). It can be argued that political marketing actually mirrors the most limiting aspects of mainstream marketing (Sheth et al., 1988; van Waterschoot and van den Bulte, 1992; Webster, 1992; Easton and Araujo, 1994). Political marketing theory, understood as an epistemological lens, has not yet been employed or conceptually discussed widely. Its weakness in terms of the research practice causes the field of political marketing to be myopic. The main implication of this thesis is that the research agenda on political marketing needs to be broadened in order to enhance knowledge development in political marketing (and implicitly in social and nonprofit marketing). In the following section, some aspects of this new research agenda for political marketing will be derived before some of the consequences are discussed. POLITICAL MARKETING: A RESEARCH AGENDA The aim of the following research agenda is twofold: while not being comprehensive or authoritative, it tries to first encourage conceptually deeper as well as more empirical research on political marketing management. As this is a continuation of existing lines of research, the author is advocating a more rigorous and engaging redefinition of the research foci. Second, a new perspective on political marketing theory should be developed that constitutes an alternative research lens on politics itself (as introduced above).

16 Stephan C. Henneberg 165 This strand has the potential to widen the domain of political marketing research and to engage in more meaningful ways with political scientists and other established academic traditions in the area of political studies. Starting at the level of theory of political marketing management, research areas (RAs) will be identified that may help overcome the current stagnation in political marketing research. RA 1: Greater Sophistication in Empirical Research Concepts in political marketing need to come under further scrutiny from an empirical stance. While the (deductive) development of concepts is crucial for the initial phase of a new discipline, it must soon be complemented by empirical studies that allow for an assessment as well as fine-tuning of initial concepts and provide pointers towards further research issues. A categorization of the main research articles (N ¼ 44) in the Journal of Political Marketing (volumes 1[1] 2[4]) reveals that approximately 70 percent are conceptual or purely descriptive in their focus. Only 11 studies (25 percent) can be classified as empirical (half of these use empirical methods for merely descriptive purposes). (Two of these studies were classified as hybrids. The categorization was done by three experienced researchers in the field of nonprofit and political marketing. The interrater reliability was above 0.9.) Analytical and empirical studies, utilizing higher-level qualitative or quantitative methods (e.g., action research, case-study methodologies, or multivariate statistical modeling), are still extremely rare. This snapshot is symptomatic of the current state of concept operationalization. For example, while it is praiseworthy that international and comparative studies on the marketing orientation of different parties and candidates are completed (Lilleker and Lees-Marshment, 2005), the fact that no common operationalization of the underlying market-oriented model (Lees-Marshment, 2001) exists must drive the empirical aspect of these studies nearer to anecdotal evidence. Especially well-researched marketing constructs resembling market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar, 1993; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Lafferty and Hult, 2001; Harris, 2002) ought to be operationalized and adapted to the political sphere and utilized in this kind of research (O Cass, 2001; Ormrod, 2003).

17 166 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING Much existing empirical research on political marketing management is used to underline a descriptive argument. A theory of political marketing management, however, should go beyond this and also provide more prescriptive concepts about how to run election campaigns, how to develop optimal policy offerings, how to position a party vis-à-vis voters as well as other intermediaries (e.g., the media, donors), etc. Empirical research can provide the input for the necessary analyses regarding the contingencies of these concepts, enabling political managers to make the best of their political marketing resources, tactics, and strategies. RA 2: Reengage with State-of-the-Art Marketing Theory To reengage with the breadth and depth of existing marketing theory, research on political marketing management needs to let go of the easily adaptable but unhelpful fixation on a managerial or instrumental interpretation of marketing (Henneberg, 2004b). In order to achieve relevance and influence, research needs to be invigorated by the developments in the marketing discipline at large. Furthermore, political marketing also needs to take notice of recent developments in political science theory. Mere lip service to their concepts hampers a better understanding of the political sphere (Scammell, 1999). In the following text, three areas of marketing theory are identified that show a promising fit with current research questions in political marketing management, on the one hand, and with the underlying characteristics of the political sphere on the other. The first theory group, market orientation, was already introduced under RA 1. Second, relational marketing concepts have been singled out (Dean and Croft, 2001; O Shaughnessy, 2001; Henneberg, 2004b; Bannon, 2005). Emphasis on relationship building and collaboration within a political market (instead of a purely transactional concept) can potentially increase the success and performance of political parties in their dealing with a variety of stakeholders (Bannon, 2005; Johanson, 2005). Such an approach must also be seen in conjunction with more plebiscitary aspects of democratic life as well as the possibility of reengaging voters and citizens (Henneberg and O Shaughnessy, 2005). The existing foundations in customer relationship management (CRM) and the literature on international marketing and purchasing (IMP) provides a plethora of interesting concepts (for

18 Stephan C. Henneberg 167 CRM, see Grönroos, 1994; Bagozzi, 1995; Bhattacharya and Bolton, 2000; Grönroos, 2000; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2000; for IMP see Håkansson and Snehota, 1990; Andersen, Håkansson, and Johanson, 1994; Halinen, Salmi, and Havila, 1999; Ritter, 1999; Ford et al., 2003). Furthermore, research undertaken in contemporary marketing practice (showing how organizations balance transactional and relationship elements; see Coviello et al., 2002) as well as the Nordic School of Services Marketing will be of interest as the main exchange offering in politics (i.e., the amalgamation of candidate characteristics=issues stands=overarching ideology together with the deferred implementation) exemplifies an isomorphism with service promises (O Shaughnessy, 1990). A relational approach of political marketing management would address the ontological areas of exchange and qualified market characteristics as well as take into account the social embeddedness of the political sphere within a wider systemic framework. Third, several studies have recently highlighted the potential of public relations and public affairs concepts for marketing, especially in communication organizations like political parties (Cornelissen and Lock, 2000; Newman and Verčič, 2002; Cornelissen and Harris, 2004; Newman, 2005). While communication aspects are a well-researched area in political marketing, they too often consist of constructs that are not fully linked into a marketing framework. Arguably, a more integrative approach toward political marketing communication is needed. Related conceptual domains such as identity and reputation management (corporate identity management) are also in a position to broaden our understanding (van Riel and Balmer, 1997; Hansen, Langer, and Salskov-Iverson, 2001; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Melewar and Jenkins, 2002; Balmer, 2003). Public relations (PR) and integrated marketing communications (IMC) are at the heart of political marketing management (Cornelissen, 2003). It can be argued that marketing theory can in fact learn from communication practices in the political sphere. Therefore, one research focus for political marketing lies in integrating the existing theories of IMC and PR, so that together with existing communication studies on politics, a theory of political communication that is integral to an understanding of political marketing management can be pursued. This will allow for interaction and interrelation characteristics of political actors to be researched, in line with a qualified market ontology.

19 168 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING RA 3: Insights into Strategic Issues Issues of the effectiveness and efficiency of political marketing management have not been sufficiently addressed. It is still debated to what degree political marketing management actually impacts actors and entity performances: on the micro level, how does political marketing influence individual voters in their decision making? On a macro level, how is the fabric of political life itself being changed by the ubiquitous use of political marketing management in political discourse? Disturbingly, the area of performance of political parties=candidates in terms of strategic management requirements has not been addressed. What kind of resources and capabilities parties=candidates need, what functional requirements they have to fulfill, how they allocate their resources, and what processes are used in doing this are largely unresolved (Henneberg, 2003). A link to a resource-based or a competence-based view of the organization can help illuminate these strategic issues, linking strategic marketing issues with mainstream organizational strategy as well as performance (Wernerfelt, 1984; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Barney, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Heene and Sanchez, 1996; Hunt and Lambe, 2000). This would help political marketing work toward a more general theory of political management that is orientated toward a wide variety of internal and external stakeholders and that acknowledges the embeddedness of management decisions within a wider social sphere (Baines and Lynch, 2005). While RAs 1 through 3 are suggested to invigorate already existing research strands on political marketing management, conceptual developments on the level of a political marketing theory are necessary. Utilizing an epistemologically oriented wide interpretation of political marketing theory presupposes a clarification of the ontology and epistemology of political marketing. The brief outline above should be seen as an initial exploratory attempt to stimulate discussions in this area. A further clarification of the main exchange characteristics in the political sphere (e.g., multidirectional, deferred) would have to precede this (Lock and Harris, 1996). The essence of the interaction structures (e.g., the political product, the characteristics of policy deliveries, or the participative product realization) as well as the functional prerequisites to underpin such exchanges (on systems level but also on organizational entity

20 Stephan C. Henneberg 169 level) (Alderson, 1957; Arndt 1983; Henneberg, 2003) need to be reassessed. Based on this, the following three research areas are identified as priorities. RA 4: Develop Ethical Theory for Political Exchanges In terms of research foci and research methodologies, the notion of systemic embeddedness and structural connectedness of political marketing with social and cultural aspects implies an acknowledgement of the ethical implications in terms of the functioning of democratic systems (Lees-Marshment, 2001; Collins and Butler, 2003). The relationship of political marketing with different concepts of democracy (especially a more plebiscitary democracy) have to be made explicit (O Shaughnessy, 1990; Scammell, 1995; Cunningham, 2002), and the notion of identity in a (post)modern world within a marketing democracy of signification and representation (Dermody and Scullion, 2001: 1087) needs consideration (Bauman, 1997; Bauman, 1999). This ought to go beyond existing ethical considerations and should be anchored in ethical theories (with prescriptive character) that are connected to a marketing-oriented understanding of political actors, especially voters (Bartle and Griffiths, 2002), beyond utopian presuppositions of how voters ought to behave and make decisions (Popkin, 1994). In general, the voter (but also other political actors like donors and citizens) and their way of representation and sense making of the political sphere should be brought back into the focus of ethical research as part of the dyads and relationships that are at the heart of the explanandum. This would allow for a redressing of the balance; thus, the dominance of the current party and candidate-focused research practice would be challenged. A shift in applied methodologies would also need to go with this change in focus, balancing the more quantitative orientation of psephology (in political studies) with a more qualitative understanding inherent in a marketing-oriented voting behavior theory (Bartle and Griffiths, 2002). The exchange paradigm of marketing theory provides a unique and differential perspective on what constitutes a good interaction (Bagozzi, 1974; Bagozzi, 1975; Bagozzi, 1978; Hunt, 1983; Foxall, 1984; Houston and Gassenheimer, 1987). Adapted interpretations of exchanged value can help assess the appropriateness of frameworks for political exchanges as well as marketing instruments that are employed (Woodruff and Gardial,

21 170 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING 1996; Payne and Holt, 1999; Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002). A political macro-marketing theory would be a main aim of this research area (Henneberg, 2004a). RA 5: Understand Voter Behavior in Marketing Terms Connected to RA 4 is the issue of developing a voting behavior theory that is more aligned with modern political exchange phenomena. Traditional voting behavior concepts (e.g., the Columbia or Michigan school [Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, 1954; Campbell, Gurin, and Miller, 1954; Campbell et al., 1964; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1968], the economic rational-choice school [Downs, 1957; Brennan and Lomasky, 1985; Ordershook, 1990; Riker, 1990], or the sociopsychological school [Sniderman, Glaser, and Griffin, 1993]) do not provide adequate insight into what effect these political marketing phenomena have on voters perceptions, attitudes, or behavior (O Shaughnessy, 1990; Henneberg, 1997; Bartle and Griffiths, 2002). Often this is due to the fact that their main explanandum is not the individual voter but groups or the electorate or they use long-term, structural explanatory constructs that are apparently not affected by political marketing (e.g., party identification based on social rupture lines, so-called cleavage structures [Lipset and Rokkan, 1966]). This precludes a cognitive understanding of voters. On the other hand, tendencies toward more cognitive psychology influenced voting behavior research allow for the use of consumer behavior theory to be integrated (Himmelweit, Humphreys, and Jaeger, 1985; Newman and Sheth, 1987, Henneberg, 1997). Knowledge of how people buy can foster knowledge about how voters react to certain political marketing activities and offerings or how citizens perceive policy promises and their implementation. Therefore, a theory of marketing-oriented voter behavior would answer questions regarding impact and appropriateness of political marketing strategies and tactics in a way that mainstream psephology (and normative theories of democracy) may not be able to do. This would address issues regarding exchange as well as structural connectedness. It is noteworthy that this research area was in fact one of the first to develop in political marketing theory (Newman and Sheth, 1987) but has produced only limited interest in the meantime (Falkowski and Cwalina, 2002; Newman, 2002b).

22 Stephan C. Henneberg 171 RA 6: Create Politics-as-Networks Theory Marketing theory, with its variety of different schools, possesses unique ways of approaching a phenomenon that is exchange-related. Relational and network marketing, as one of the newer explanatory orientations of marketing, can be used to engage with and research politics in a new and potentially very powerful way. Representation and sense making of economic exchange situations that are embedded in a net of primary and secondary interactions and interrelations are already extremely complicated (Ford et al., 2003). However, the political sphere shows even more complex structures and processes: many different interaction markets of competition (the electoral, governmental, and political activism market) (Henneberg, 2002) and disconnection between value exchange (policy promises and implementation activities) and organizational resource generation (e.g., via state funding, membership fees, donations) (Lock and Harris, 1996). Intermediaries like the media play a much more important role as facilitators or influencers of exchange behavior. All these actors are strongly linked via feedback mechanisms. Entity-focused or dyadic exchange theories cannot come to grips with the inherent complexity of politics. Therefore, a network-based approach of politics, utilizing, for example, theory constructs of the IMP school (see RA 2), is pivotal in providing a macro picture of politics that enriches the ways political scientists and political marketers perceive their field of interest. As such, this research area clearly focuses on the aspect of social embeddedness as outlined in the ontology of political marketing. Table 2 summarizes the proposed research agenda for political marketing. It must be mentioned that such a research agenda, based on an epistemological understanding of political marketing theory, opens up another issue, one that is thrown at management theories regularly (Arndt, 1978): that of conceptual imperialism and overreach (Wring, 1999; O Shaughnessy, 2002). However, in a pluralistic environment many new insights are gained at the flexing points of theories, where friction between competing theory constructs based on different epistemologies exists. If there is an overreach, the insights gained should be shallow or not appropriate (in relation to other explanatory constructs). Marketing theory needs to be willing to accept (and engage with) other disciplines and their specific starting points for analysis. In any case, management studies and marketing, in their essence, are an eclectic methodological mix of other