Theory and Concept Development in Political Marketing

Transcription

1 Journal of Political Marketing ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Theory and Concept Development in Political Marketing Dr. Stephan C. Henneberg & Professor Nicholas J. O'shaughnessy To cite this article: Dr. Stephan C. Henneberg & Professor Nicholas J. O'shaughnessy (2007) Theory and Concept Development in Political Marketing, Journal of Political Marketing, 6:2-3, 5-31, DOI: /J199v06n02_02 To link to this article: Published online: 22 Sep Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2540 View related articles Citing articles: 25 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Download by: [ ] Date: 23 December 2017, At: 04:46

2 Theory and Concept Development in Political Marketing: Issues and an Agenda Stephan C. Henneberg University of Manchester Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy Queen Mary, London University ABSTRACT. In this article we argue that the state of theory and concept development in political marketing needs to be related to several epistemological as well as topical themes and issues. Seven meta-theoretical issues are discussed with regard to current theoretical position of political marketing research and some initial recommendations are made on how these issues can be developed further. The second part of the article focuses on topical aspects of theory and concept development in political marketing and highlights nine themes for further research. These themes of political marketing are singled out because of their characteristics which show them to be significantly distinct from commercial marketing Stephan C. Henneberg is Senior Lecturer, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy is Professor of Communications, Queen Mary, London University, United Kingdom. Address correspondence to: Dr. Stephan C. Henneberg, Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, United Kingdom ( stephan. henneberg@mbs.ac.uk) or Professor Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Francis Bancroft Building, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom ( n_o_shaughnessy@ hotmail.com). Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 6(2/3) 2007 Available online at by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi: /j199v06n02_02 5

3 6 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING practice, and therefore need more careful modelling in concepts and theories of political marketing. doi: /j199v06n02_02 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: HAWORTH. address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: < by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] KEYWORDS. Political marketing theory, epistemology, concept development, research agenda INTRODUCTION Research is about knowledge creation. To be more precise, Wacker (1998) characterises the two main concerns of research as theory development and fact finding. The knowledge creation process which results in the development of theories and concepts is a central activity of any discipline s enquiry. The state of a research domain can therefore be assessed by looking at its existing theories. Bacharach (1989) states, A theory is a statement of relations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints. It is no more than a linguistic device used to organize a complex empirical world (p. 496). Theories can be posited as parsimonious sense-making tools (they create meaning by organising and explaining) as well as sense-giving tools (they communicate meaning). They are thus implicated in the Verstehen (Weber, 1947) as the social activity of social science research (Nagel, 1961). Theories and concepts are important for any research domain because they offer certain epistemological and methodological benefits: They provide a framework or structure for analysis; they are efficient in that they reduce problem-solving errors and allow for knowledge accumulation; and under certain circumstances, they can also provide pragmatic explanations (Wacker, 1998). However, it has to be noted that being pragmatic can be independent of being true (Hunt, 2003). As such, the appropriateness, breadth, and depth of existing theories and constructs are pivotal to the health of any research area. This does not imply necessarily precision or clarity per se. In fact, many theories and constructs in the social sciences can be shown to be intrinsically messy (Law, 2004) because of the fluid, elusive, and ambiguous nature of the explanandum at hand. However, it is important to somehow examine the quality of the existing theory portfolio in order to understand the contribution of any research domain and to identify issues of current research practice.

4 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 7 Getting to grips with theory and construct development on a methodological level is non-trivial. Many different general epistemological sources as well as discipline-specific discussions exist that define theories and assess their quality (e.g., Kaplan, 1964; Bourgeois, 1979). It is emphatically not the purpose of this article to synthesise this body of literature. What we are attempting relates more specifically to an idiosyncratic contemplation of the state of the art in research in the domain of political marketing, and how it can and ought to be developed. Thus, initially we focus more on the issues of the Gestalt of the knowledge creation process than on the knowledge content itself which will be dealt with separately in the second part of the article when discussing a provisional agenda. Two caveats need to be applied: We want to state specifically that the following discussion is to be understood as relating to issues of conceptual, qualitative, as well as quantitative research, and that we do not, therefore, perceive theory development and theory testing to be distinct entities (Bacharach, 1989). Furthermore, our assessment of theory and construct development in research on political marketing is necessarily based on a perspective mainly informed by marketing theory and management studies (because of the background of the authors). Consequently, we will draw primarily on the general marketing and management literature, enriched by specific sources from the social sciences and philosophy. A complementary political science perspective on theory and constructs in political marketing is encouraged. THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN (POLITICAL) MARKETING Within the general marketing literature, discussions about theory building (and the relationships between marketing theory and practice) are often neglected (Cornelissen and Lock, 2005; Peterson, 2005) which may hint at a possible explanation for the currently fragmented state of marketing (Wilkie and Moore, 2003). Burton (2005) provides a useful overview of the recent discussions regarding the need to develop marketing theory. Consequently, few articles in political marketing claim to tackle issues of theories of/in political marketing, and those that do usually provide only limited epistemological discussions (Butler and Collins, 1996; Wring, 1997; Henneberg, 2007). In this section, we therefore attempt to contemplate theory and concept development from a methodological perspective in order to crystalise

5 8 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING themes that are used in order to take stock of the existing knowledge claims in the area of political marketing. As such, we do not attempt to find hard assessment criteria of or reference to disciplinary models, for example, Kuhn s model of community, paradigm (or disciplinary matrices), and discipline life cycle (1970, 1977). However, these criteria are themselves highly dependent on specific ontological stances and therefore implicated in them (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Tadajewski, 2004). Therefore, we will not set out specific theory criteria (e.g., falsifiability, generalisability, and utility with their specific neo-positivist and pragmatist heritage; compare Bacharach, 1989; Wacker, 1998) which are themselves open to value judgements (Hunt, 1991). We will merely attempt to take stock of the existing research in political marketing by highlighting some issues or themes. These are general vantage points from which we will attempt to make sense of existing research. They will then lead to further elaborations on the necessary content of research in political marketing that needs to be focused on, that is, a tentative research agenda. Maybe it is also important to remind ourselves in this context that theory can mean many things, from a guess to a law-like system of causal relationships or explanations (Runkel and Runkel, 1984). As political marketing research is in its infancy, we therefore include the whole spectrum of theories in our considerations. Hence, we sympathise with Karl Weick s plea to use theory also for interim approximations and other outcomes of theorising efforts (Weick, 1995). Taking stock of theory development is a proper exercise in any discipline, whether mature or nascent. While there are attempts at providing an overview and a critique of existing research on political marketing (Henneberg, 2004), no assessment of specifically available theories in political marketing exists. Therefore, we would like to propose the following seven themes. Epistemology Initially it needs to be stated that while marketing theory can now look back on decades of theory and concept development which manifest themselves in different schools of marketing thought (Sheth et al., 1988; Wilkie and Moore, 2003), this is not the case for political marketing itself. While the research domain of political marketing has been made possible theoretically with the broadening debate of marketing in the 1970s (Kotler and Levy, 1969; Kotler and Zaltman, 1971; Kotler, 1972; Hunt, 1976; Levy, 2002) which opened up the possibility of

6 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 9 marketing research in non-profit areas, political marketing itself has become a serious research focus only in the 1990s with signs of institutional sedimentation since Because this historical development out of marketing theory provides the ontological rationale for political marketing, it is therefore important to link political marketing research knowledge to underlying and fundamental marketing concepts (Newman, 1994, 1999; Henneberg, 2007). As an exemplary one, we would like to single out the exchange and interaction focus of marketing theory (Alderson, 1957, 1965; Bagozzi, 1975, 1978; Hunt, 1976; Houston and Gassenheimer, 1987) which needs to be represented in research on political marketing. 1 Marketing theories use distinct tenets about the underlying monadic, dyadic or network exchange processes that are embedding, and therefore shaping and restricting the marketing (inter)actions. Such understanding of the structural characteristics, based on social exchange theory (Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964), provides clear ontological delineations and partitioning for theory development in marketing. Theme 1: Grounding in Exchanges and Interactions This theme reminds us that we need to make explicit the assumptions that guide theory and concept development in political marketing (Scammell, 1999). A critical analysis of these assumptions is required. What must be avoided in the development of a discipline is the proliferation of models with little epistemological discussion of the paradigmatic assumptions embedded in them (a danger inherent in most management studies areas, see Hazlett et al., 2005). However, such a discussion of assumptions regarding the epistemological grounding is rare in current research on political marketing (Lock and Harris, 1996; Egan, 1999; Baines and Egan, 2001). Furthermore, it seems as if the specific exchange and interaction morphology that characterises political exchanges is underdeveloped. The grounding of research in clear discussions of exchange and interaction characteristics (and their differences from traditional marketing exchanges) has rarely been attempted (Scammell, 1999). The fundamental question of the political marketing exchange characteristics which lies at the heart of filling the metaphor of the political market with life has not been clarified theoretically in enough depth. This is true for campaign exchanges as well as for other relevant interactions, for example, the service implementation of policies (governmental political marketing), or the use of political marketing by non-traditional players (e.g., single-issue groups). This

7 10 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING limitation means research in political marketing is not rigorous enough about the underlying exchange morphology which determines theoryand concept-building efforts. Marketing Approaches When it comes to underlying marketing theories, it must be noted that marketing (as many other management disciplines) is somewhat eclectic: Many different theories and schools exist that are based on differing orientations which are often incommensurable. Marketing as a magpie discipline borrows theories from other disciplines such as economics, psychology and sociology. Therefore, theories exist in abundance in a theory-borrowing environment. What is needed is a further step, using the borrowed insights to build and amalgamate specific theories which are the foundation of a theory-driven discipline (Burton, 2005). While theories of marketing are rare, many theories in marketing have been developed (Sheth et al., 1988). With this comes the ability to sustain multiple research paradigmata, something that is seen to have positive and liberating effects on the discipline (Arndt, 1985; Tadajewski, 2004). While Sheth, Gardner and Garrett in 1988 identified already 12 different schools, this did not include such important contemporary orientations like relational marketing approaches (Grönroos, 1994; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 2000) or interaction and network theories of marketing (Ford and Håkansson, 2006). Pluralism within a discipline is not necessarily a problem, compared with more unitarist approaches (Thomas and Pruett, 1993). Having multiple conceptual lenses can increase the understanding of different facets relevant to the research phenomenon. However, the eclectic nature of marketing also makes it a low-paradigm field (Weick, 1995) in which dominant orientations are weakly defined and detailed vis-à-vis other approaches (Sheth et al., 1988). Theme 2: Pluralism of Theoretical Marketing Approaches Political marketing theories and concepts are obviously highly influenced by research in marketing. However, it has been observed before that an instrumental view of marketing management is dominating political marketing research (Henneberg, 2004). An adaptation to the political market of the 4P concepts including the marketing mix paradigm is crowding out other research streams of marketing (Wring, 1997;

8 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 11 Lloyd, 2003). As such, political marketing theory is developing into a strong paradigm, focused on a singular orientation that is often seen as obsolete or naïve in mainstream marketing theory (van Waterschoot and van den Bulte, 1992). Pluralism (and the juxtaposition) of marketing schools is not employed enough in political marketing (e.g., functional, relational, or network-oriented concepts are rare in political marketing theory development) (Scammell, 1999; Bannon, 2005; Henneberg, 2007). Marketing and Political Science Approaches This pluralistic issue is doubled in the area of political marketing: Not only the abundance of different marketing theories can be used, but political science (and related) theories and concepts can also be juxtaposed, integrated or compared. As such, political marketing concepts and theories depend on borrowing and adaptation of existing theories of both marketing and political science (Scammell, 1999; Newman, 2002a). Although this is dependent on the specific underlying exchange characteristics of the political market, as in Theme 1 (Lock and Harris, 1996; Egan, 1999; Collins and Butler, 2002), such an integrating nature of theory and concept development from different disciplines remains an important aspect of contemporary research. This problem is further compounded owing to the very different discipline paradigmata with occasionally incommensurable theories. However, cross-disciplinary paradigm pluralism can foster meta-triangulation (Gioia and Pitre, 1990) which uses the diversity in theory building linked to different ontologies and epistemologies embedded in distinct disciplinary orientations. This process is deemed to increase theory-building creativity by searching out friction points in theories (for a methodological discussion of meta-triangulation see Lewis and Grimes, 1999). Theme 3: Adaptation of Existing Marketing and Political Science Theory and Concepts (Pluralism of Different Paradigmata) Unfortunately, it can be argued that this theme represents another shortcoming of existing political marketing research. The use and effectiveness of meta-triangulation in political marketing is not high on the research agenda. It needs to be stated that research and theory development done by marketers on the one hand, and by political scientists on the other

9 12 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING remains isolated. Not many truly interdisciplinary research groups or projects exist in the field of political marketing. Consequently, integrated or adapted theories that bridge the disciplinary divide are rare. One may not overstate the point by observing that currently two different ways of thinking about political marketing exist which are not integrating except on the most superficial level (Dean and Croft, 2001). State-of-the-art concepts and theories are not used across disciplinary borders to challenge existing political marketing knowledge claims and to develop new theories and concepts (Henneberg, 2004). For example, currently important marketing concepts like market orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), the service-dominant logic of marketing (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) or value-network concepts (Stabell and Fjeldstad, 1998) are only starting to creep into political marketing research; or they are adapted in such a way that they lose their relationship with the original marketing concepts (e.g., the political market-orientation concept as proposed by Lees-Marshment, 2001). However, with the development and sedimentation of political marketing into an established sub-field of marketing theory and political science, more integration can be hoped for. Double-Loop Approaches Another issue of political marketing research concerns the aim of these efforts: Should it be the development of theories and concepts that are ultimately capable of being applied by political marketers (e.g., candidates, governments, single-issue groups and their marketing advisors), as advocated cum grano salis in other management studies areas (Mahoney and Sanchez, 2004), or should it be about understanding politics through a marketing approach (Moloney, 2004; Henneberg, 2007)? Although the former, more pragmatic approach towards theory building (Dewey, 1929; Rorty, 1989) seems to underpin most management research (so-called mode 2 and 3 projects; Gibbons et al., 1994; Starkey and Madan, 2001.), such a narrow application of political marketing research may hinder the discipline more than it gives it focus. Therefore, the issue of the research aims could lead to different discipline borders for political marketing theories (narrow vs. broad view of research in political marketing) which corresponds to the argument by Mahoney and Sanchez (2004) who suggest a double-loop learning by integrating pragmatic and scientific aspects of theory building, that is, modes 1 and 2 research conflated or linked.

10 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 13 Theme 4: Integration of Pragmatic and Abstract Discipline Views Surveying the current political marketing theories, it becomes clear that most efforts are focused on a narrow definition of political marketing, that is, one that is related to the description and application of political marketing strategies and instruments (e.g., Kavanagh, 1995; Newman, 1999; Wring, 1999). This is connected to Theme 2 and the focus on instrumental marketing theory. While this is in itself not a harmful development, the lack of more abstract and wider theories of political marketing does make the discourse with political scientists more limited. In fact, we would argue that wider theories of political marketing can actually help provide political marketing research with the intellectual rigour and legitimacy which will allow it to become a contributing factor to political theory itself (Henneberg, 2007). Theory Building Blocks Good theory (Whetten, 1989; also Dubin, 1978; Kaplan, 1964) consists of building blocks: (1) the what (the concepts or abstract concepts called constructs with variables that operationalise these), (2) the how (the interrelationships between the constructs and concepts), and (3) the why (the underlying rationale of the selection of factors and relationships which includes the axiomatic assumptions that inform the theorizing process) (Wacker, 1998; Doty and Glick, 1994). The why issue is necessary for a full-blown theory as it is arguably the explaining part (Weick, 1995). According to Hunt (1991), these explanatory models need to be pragmatic, intersubjectively certifiable and have empirical content. However, whether a theory needs to be judged by its application depends on the definition of theory itself; good theory can be abstract and non-applied (Wacker, 1998; see also Theme 4). Furthermore, rules for good theory building include aspects of variable definition: the focus is especially on the uniqueness of variables, a clear understanding of the domain limitations, a parsimonious logic in deriving construct relationships, and the link of theory with (future) empirical support (Wacker, 1998). Such theories (or concepts) cannot be justified by just selecting specific variables. It is important to explain how these have been selected, how they come about, and why they are believed to be connected (Sutton and Staw, 1995).

11 14 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING Theme 5: Theories Cover What, How, and Especially Why (and Justify These Choices) Coming to the essence of building theory in political marketing, a clear plea for better and more precise definition of variables and constructs is necessary. Too often, political marketing research employs a very loose way of using conceptualisations without clear spelling out the delineations of the construct and its interactions with other constructs. Critical discussions like the applicability of the value concept in political exchanges (Brennan, 2003) or of the meaning of the market-orientation for political actors (O Cass, 2001; Ormrod, 2006) are rare. Furthermore, the why question which features so prominently in Weick s discussion of theorising (1995) is mostly absent from the literature on political marketing. A more conscious and reflective way in presenting the gestation process of political marketing theory development may actually increase the likelihood that other researchers will engage with these theories and develop them further. Levels and Context Theories and concepts need to be contextualised (Hicks, 1976; George and Jones, 2000), that is, they need not strive towards universalistic laws but should attempt a qualification by modelling contextual specificities in terms of theories of middle range (Mahoney and Sanchez, 2004). Whetten calls this the who/where/when questions (1989, p. 492). This is linked to providing a multi-level outlook. Micro and macro structures and their relationships need to be developed theoretically. Klein et al. (1999) have summarised the benefits of multi-level work: bridging theoretical chasms, integrating domain foci for richer explanations, and getting to grips with complexity to illuminate the context surrounding individual-level processes (p. 243). However, barriers for such an outlook are the fact that especially in overarching knowledge fields levels are often integrated. Furthermore, specifically with regard to political marketing theory, a clash of interest exists between marketing theory (with a focus more on individual-level analyses) and political science (which may be more interested in structural perspectives). Theme 6: Theories Contextualise as well as Bridge Levels Level issues in theory development are among the most difficult aspects. Political marketing research does not always provide a clear indication

12 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 15 of the explanatory level it operates on. Individual actors (e.g., candidates and professional political marketers) are mixed with organisational levels (e.g., parties, governments). The interaction between these levels remains often obscure. Furthermore, the party system level as a further macro level has so far been excluded from political marketing research. However, as the structures of the party system may be an important contextual variable, it seems reasonable to expect more research that is linked to the aspect of the interplay of political marketing management by actors/ organisations and the political party system itself (a relationship that is clearly bi-directional). For example, any discussions about the ethics of political marketing within a democratic framework (Scammell, 1999; Collins and Butler, 2003) need to bridge this level chasm before they can be meaningful. Theory and Data The last theme extends the theory and concept development by integrating it with empirical data. A validation of theories and constructs needs to link the abstract process of theorising to the empirical plane by assessing the likelihood of verifying the disciplined imagination (Weick, 1989) which is nothing but a hypothesis embedding a probabilistic knowledge claim (Lastrucci, 1963). Consequently there exists a need to develop more stochastic models in contrast with deterministic explanations (Hunt, 1991). As such, any concept or theory of political marketing needs to be constantly juxtaposed with political experiences (see the discussion regarding agenda). However, the relationship between data and theory is a two-way interaction, with theories explaining (but also shaping) the data, and with data testing the explanatory power of theories. Theme 7: Juxtaposition of Theoretical and Empirical Plane Empirical research, especially theory-testing projects are still rare in political marketing research. Only through a strong empirical involvement can we achieve substantive theories (Cornelissen and Lock, 2005). However, mostly descriptive and qualitative approaches dominate the methodology agenda in political marketing research (Henneberg, 2004). Mere description or categorisation of data does not fulfil theory development (Bacharach, 1989), but it can already contain the Gestalt of a theory as part of the process of assembling the data (Weick, 1995).

13 16 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING What is missing in political marketing research are rigorous quantitative and especially comparative analyses that integrate theory and concept development with a deep understanding of data. Research on political voting behaviour in relation to political marketing instruments leads the way in this area (Falkowski and Cwalina, 2002; Newman, 2002b) but other theory aspects of political marketing research need to follow. An overview of the derived themes developed to make sense and take stock of existing research in political marketing with regard to concept and theory development are presented in Table 1. The above-mentioned themes are interpreted specifically for the knowledge domain of political marketing. A short assessment of the current position of political marketing research vis-à-vis these themes is provided. DEVELOPING A FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA FOR THEORY AND CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT IN POLITICAL MARKETING Concepts and theories of political marketing are naturally about their content, that is, their specific explanatory focus. This content implicitly delineates the discipline of political marketing, and also provides it with certain intellectual blinkers. While the first part of our article focuses only on epistemological and morphological aspects of political marketing theory, we will now endeavour to focus on the actual research topics on hand, that is, the areas of political marketing which we believe should be more intensively covered by theory and concept development. As such, this outline of a research agenda is obviously preliminary as well as highly subjective and personal and is meant to initiate a discussion about future foci and emphasis. However, the first point that needs to be clarified is whether any generic content of political marketing exists. One needs to acknowledge the fact that there are researchers especially among political scientists who continue adamant in the belief that political marketing is conceptually irrelevant to the arcane world of politics; we on the other hand claim it should be central to our understanding not only of modern elections but also the conduct of government and democracy itself (Henneberg, 2007). At the most basic level, political operatives have clearly borrowed commercial marketing solicitation techniques, both targeted ones (direct-mail) and general ones (the 30-second television advertisement). However, beyond this they have adopted many operational

14 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 17 TABLE 1. Themes for Analysis of Political Marketing Research Themes Theme Description Current Position Theme 1 Grounding in exchanges and interactions Theme 2 Pluralism of theoretical marketing approaches Theme 3 Adaptation of marketing and political science theory and concepts (Pluralism of different paradigmata) Theme 4 Integration of pragmatic and abstract discipline views Theme 5 Theories cover what, how, and especially why (and justify choices) Political marketing derived theoretically from broadening debate within marketing theory Use of underlying epistemological assumptions of marketing theory: exchange-based paradigm Marketing theory as an eclectic magpie discipline with different schools Use of variety of marketing schools as weak paradigm Political marketing as guided by two main mother-disciplines: marketing theory and political science Use of integrated and adapted knowledge claims from both domains for meta-triangulation of paradigmata Political marketing as pragmatic domain for political marketers and/or as way of understanding politics Use of integrated discipline views which show the correspondence of both domains Political marketing as consisting of concepts/construct, variable operationalisations, and concept interrelationships for theorizing Use of justification of the choices with regard to every aspect of theorising Danger of proliferation of theories without epistemological support Critical analysis of exchange assumptions of political marketing necessary Danger of instrumental marketing perspective to be dominant Network and relational, service-dominant or functional views necessary to complement current perspective Danger of two parallel and exclusive views on political marketing developing Interdisciplinary projects and research groups necessary Danger of a limitation to theoretical issues of political marketing that are pragmatic or instrumental Developing legitimacy via fostering a wide understanding of political marketing theory Danger of not clearly defining basic concepts/constructs of political marketing theory Reflective/introspective theory development and presentation necessary

15 18 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING TABLE 1 (continued) Themes Theme Description Current Position Theme 6 Theories contextualise Political marketing as multilevel and contextualised as well as bridge levels knowledge claims Use of contextual modelling and explicit level-of-analysis integration Theme 7 Juxtaposition of theoretical and empirical plane Political marketing research as constant interaction between theories and concepts on the one hand and empirical data on the other Use of theory-testing methods Danger of focus exclusively on individual actors/ organizations Modeling of level interactions and focus on macro level for ethical discussion necessary Danger of too many qualitative and descriptive methods Empirical and comparative studies for theory-testing purposes necessary and strategic concepts from consumer marketing such as segmentation, and market research techniques (e.g., focus groups pioneered in Britain by Blair s pollster Philip Gould). But the adoption of methods and techniques do not collectively add up to strategic political marketing; for this to occur there must be some level of recognition, even if not fully articulated, that elections and democracy itself are a competitive marketplace, voters and citizens are consumers, and that this development is underpinned by the rise of an advanced consumerist material culture. This fosters a homogenous society and fickle party allegiances a postloyalty society perhaps. The political consequences of this recognition are profound, and need to find their equivalent focus in research content. Parties and other political actors cease to be introverted and exclusively internally or ideologically driven; consequently, the political process refocuses on the citizen as consumer and on the competitive interpretation of their needs and wants. In the most basic exemplification of political marketing, parties, governments, single-interest groups, etc., begin to ask what voters want, and how they want it, not what they think they ought to have. The content of theories and concepts of political marketing have to be nuanced, because the phenomenon in question is in essence a political paradigm; the volatility, pressure, intensity, and instantaneous characteristics of political marketing are all contextual givens which radically dif-

16 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 19 ferentiate the conceptualisation of the political marketing approach from that of traditional (i.e., consumer) marketing. While political marketing represents a specific research phenomenon, its explanatory conceptual frameworks are drawn from the slower and less publicly scrutinised realm of business, so that there is the danger of naivety in some research where the issues of political marketing is absorbed un-interrogated and at face value into a marketing agenda. Many of the agenda points discussed later are therefore derived as clear deviations from commercial marketing. Thus, while political marketing conceptualises effectively some of the relationships in political and specifically electoral communication, serious conceptual issues arise in the search for a comprehensive and literal application of marketing to politics. The idea of political marketing has, therefore, to be significantly qualified with regard to the focus on specific content aspects. The purpose of the following agenda, then, is to stress the particularism of political marketing by highlighting some content aspects we believe merit further conceptual and theoretical emphasis. We outline nine categories of political marketing content which, we argue, have been neglected in the search to construct it as a rigorous branch of mainstream non-profit marketing theory and as a complementary and relevant field to political studies. Permanent Campaign In consumer marketing, campaigns tend to be episodic; they once were in politics. However, US politicians learned that they had to campaign ceaselessly to remain in office, especially employing and remorselessly generating positive imagery and celebratory rhetoric. Thus, the Reagan presidency was calibrated by managed visual imagery from its very inception, where his inaugural address mutated into a travelogue of the major Washington monuments: no one had ever done this before. Visuality, the pursuit of imagery, has always been a political instrument, but one among many; Winston Churchill, for example, was filmed at the head of police and troops during a terrorist incident (the siege of Sydney Street in 1910; Jenkins, 2001). What is new in contemporary political marketing is the integration of managed visuality into the daily activity of electioneering and governing; what was episodic is now normative and transcends mere campaigns by influencing policymaking and policy implementation. Therefore, with political marketing activities becoming permanent, that is, a functional prerequisites of political actors whatever their circumstances, political marketing theories must go beyond the election campaign (in fact, this

17 20 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING should be seen as a very specific and non-representative aspect of the permanent campaign) and embrace more dynamic conceptualisations that take account of the permanence of campaign interactions. Different political exchange situations and their interdependence need to be modelled. To mention only one example, political marketing theory needs to understand the interplay between electoral exchanges (campaign-based political marketing) and policy implementation (government-based political marketing) as part of the overall political system that can be explained by a service logic (ref.), that is, a process of promises and delivery/implementation that is co-produced by all involved actors. Leadership One key issue that we believe is worthy of further theoretical treatment concerns the ability to know the public mind versus the ability to know the consumer mind. By referring to the concept of voter orientation, we touch upon one of the pivotal concepts of political marketing. In politics the ability to know the needs and wants of exchange partners is elusive, not least because people seek irreconcilable objectives such as the desire for Texan taxes and Scandinavian welfare benefits. Hence, opinion pollsters can get wildly different data on many key political topics via subtly different shades of emphasis in the wording of questions to voters. Opinion is often tentative (compare the mushiness index ; Yankelovich, 1992), confused or even contradictory. Persuasion and leadership is still very important and it is the task of leadership to guide these tradeoffs and articulate the parameters of what is possible. Slater and Narver (1999) have convincingly argued that the consumer and market orientation of marketing theory conceptually involves leading as well as following. The same needs to be realised in political marketing theory in order to qualify the often-naïve definition of voter orientation. Otherwise, it will be difficult to relate underlying political marketing concepts to the reality of political marketing practice. Leader Image The political product (better: exchange offering) is an amalgam of the elements of policy, party impression and its received, publicly understood history. However, leader image can perhaps be seen as the central and unifying core to this idea. The leader has to be attractive and also credible; strong and caring; leading but also following. Political

18 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 21 leadership characteristics and their perception represent a conceptually not fully understood merging of opposites. However, leadership attributes and their halo-effect on other offering aspects have arguably a great impact on political marketing management performance. The failure of the British Conservative Party 1997 onwards is or has been until recently potentially a failure to produce leaders who were both attractive and credible, or to communicate and deliver these attributes effectively. However, no business, or very few, could be so dependent on the idiosyncracies of a public persona and the need to create some sort of publicly credible sense of that vulnerable individual. Yet, this is often one of the central tasks of political marketing management, one constrained by the publicly received record of that person. Political marketing can succeed with repackaging, repositioning, and makeovers such as the New Nixon of 1968 (McGinnis, 1969), which is testament to its power, but we lack a clear conceptual understanding of how this affects voters, the media, and other stakeholders. Political marketing theory needs to address this issue and the specific impact that leader perceptions have, also by comparing leader image aspects in presidential and party-dominated political systems. Mediated Phenomenon Our discussion has already highlighted the issue of the exchange and interaction process as a conceptual theme. The topical flipside of this is the phenomenon of mediation that characterises political exchanges. Commercial marketing does only to a limited extent experience mediation (e.g., via consumer watchdog programmes, and the occasional media critique of advertising campaigns as Bennetton and Calvin Klein were to discover). In the political marketing on the other hand, media generally act as interlocutor between political actors; they link the different public and political spheres and interfere with as well as influence most interaction structures. Thus, any conceptualisation of political marketing cannot be detached from the mass media as ever-present actors. The political marketing texts are enmeshed in the same-mediated context and are part of the same conceptual interdependency. So central is media coverage of political marketing phenomenon that media itself is often the principal target, that is, the main consumer of political marketing activities. In fact, what we see are exchange structures that are tryadic instead of dyadic as in commercial marketing, with the media not just being conduits but constituting part of the exchange constellation. Political marketing texts are political events in their own right

19 22 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING with independent political consequences, depending on reception by public and media. They represent volatile, combustible material. Mass media relay but they also interpret, and over that interpretation the party in a free society has influence but not control. Political marketing theory and concepts that do not explain or at least take mediation into account fall short of representing rigorous research in this area. Symbolism and Public Imagery The generation of public imagery, the creation of symbolic tableaux, has become an integral part of modern political marketing as well as the conduct of government. The pictorial simulacra become the currency of political marketing management. Resonant settings, symbolic imagery, and the creation of meaningful contexts are testament to politicians understanding that a picture is worth a thousand words. In general this is a different world to the corporate one, and even in extreme crisis (such as the recent salmonella outbreak among consumers of Cadbury s chocolate) no corporate PR strategy is likely to seek recourse to such methods. However, for political discourse, the creation of the tableaux (O Shaughnessy, 2006) is a way, via stimulating press attention (mediation), of telegraphing the parties civic and social identity to the public (or other stakeholders). Politicians recognise that the consumer of political information is an inadvertent consumer. Political attention-getting is thus a trespass on the consciousness, and rich, symbolically inscribed imagery is one way of doing this. The key political merit is that image resonates, in Schwarz s terminology (1973), far more than a speech or written text to the extent that we may now legitimately speak of visual rhetoric. This issue of symbolism and public imagery as part of political marketing therefore needs further conceptual elaboration, integrating already existing models of communication studies within the framework of political marketing theory. Values Political marketing is connected to the construct of value. Value considerations in marketing theory are a part of the underlying exchange construct. However, while commercial offerings are linked to base needs and value through specific offering characteristics that enable certain desired outcomes, in political exchange the link between political ideas

20 Stephan C. Henneberg and Nicholas J. O Shaughnessy 23 and values is much more direct. Political marketing offerings are values per se. Values environmentalism, for example, or protection of our children are central to political mobilisation. When Goebbels said that no one ever died for the eight-hour day, he was suggesting by implication a distinction between the motive force of materialism versus idealism which is also relevant here. The politicians, single-interest groups or governments do not just appeal to our economic self-interest or collective class interest alone, and the impression that they do so represents a serious misreading of contemporary campaigns and politics. For example, the agenda of George Bush may seem ill fashioned for the needs of working class America (such as his rejection of anything resembling a national health system) but many blue-collar citizens voted Republican in the recent presidential elections. This was despite the Iraq imbroglio and the surge in unemployment. The appeal was value based: The Republican strategy of emphasising gay marriage and successfully associating Democrats with that idea resonated with many Americans accumulated frustration over the hegemony of the liberal social agenda. Political marketing management and policy development today is driven by such value agenda: particularly so when we include, as we now must, the activities of robustly partisan, extra-curricular actors in elections such as the 527 groups in the United States and single-issue groups in the United Kingdom. The special attraction of values in political exchanges as the referent in political marketing messages is that they do not entail any precise, and therefore controversial, policy prescriptions. Political vulnerability is reduced relative to more rational, and thereby prescriptive, appeals. Better, as Blair did in the United Kingdom, to lend to the forces of law and order rhetorical support rather than initiate tough, and therefore politically divisive, policies. The verbal rhetoric of tough on crime, tough on causes of crime melds with the visual rhetoric, the image of Blair placing flowers on the memorial to a dead policeman (Brandreth, 1999). The concept of the political offering therefore needs to include values as an important cue to voter attitude formation and behavioural consequences and deserves further research attention. Deceit Deceit (or more generally negativity) in political marketing needs to become a topic that is not just moralised about but rigorously conceptualised, with regard to its use and impact (micro-level) as well as to its overall repercussions on democratic systems (macro-level). Open deceit represents a puzzling phenomenon for marketing theory but it is

21 24 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL MARKETING engrained in political marketing practice. Johnson (1997) reminds us that a study of 2,000 US political commercials from 1952 through 1992 found that 15 percent contained some unethical passages (a follow-up study for the 1996 US presidential campaign found 20 percent of the 188 commercials examined to make questionable claims: news conferences that were never held, debates that never took place, use of audio or video tricks to stereotype or ridicule opponents). Much of course has been written up on the ethics of consumer marketing, but there are always constraints, legal or otherwise: professional and self-regulating bodies, truth in advertising laws, etc. While consumer marketing is because of its very nature prone to exaggerate, cases of verifiable and brazen lying are rare. Yet we constantly forgive politicians and other political actors (like the media) their duplicity and the consequences of their deceitfulness. We have hypothesised that this is ultimately a question of symbolic government (see also later) whose core is stentorian rhetorical pronouncements and the vigorous pursuit of public imagery without moral conviction (O Shaughnessy, 2006). For example, Dick Cheney s announcement in 2001 of a review of consequence management in a terrorist attack remained simply that an announcement. All political campaigns of course exaggerate too: but many also fabricate, creating events that did not happen and distorting those that did. While much description of this particular aspect of political marketing practice exists, we do not conceptually know much about how this is managed, how it is received, and how it impacts on the wider exchange and interaction systems in politics. Fantasy-Negativity A further content issue that political marketing research needs to deal with conceptually is that of fantasy-negativity. We have hyphenated fantasy with negativity because in political practice it is difficult to separate the two. Consumer marketing and specifically advertising does of course use fantasy often as a persuasive appeal, for example, a product is associated with some utopian or dream-like desired state, but here the resemblance ends. Political fantasies are firmly embedded in negative-type appeals. Negative ads do not make the mistake of asking for belief, but hyperventilate out political fears, animosities, and phobias. This pathology is not imposed or coerced, but rather voters, citizens, and the media are invited to join in as co-producers of these small parables of vindictiveness and enmity. Some illustrations of this political marketing phenomenon may suffice. Johnson (1997) has por-