January 20th, 2005

Acadia

Political Marketing

Following up on last weekend's marketing class, below is an article from the Washington Post about how Bush's team was able to target key voters and thus spend it's marketing dollars smarter than Kerry. I am including the entire article under the cut because it is no longer available for free on washingtonpost.com, but here are the key points (if nothing else, read the bold part and see if you fit the typical Republican or Democrat profile):

"In the most expensive presidential contest in the nation's history, John F. Kerry and his Democratic supporters nearly matched President Bush and the Republicans, who outspent them by just $60 million, $1.14 billion to $1.08 billion. But despite their fundraising success, Democrats simply did not spend their money as effectively as Bush.

In 2001, Dowd [republican] said that "we made some of the basic strategic assumptions about what we thought the election would look like." One fundamental calculation was that 93 percent of the voting-age public was already committed or predisposed toward the Democratic or Republican candidate, leaving 7 percent undecided. Another calculation was that throughout the Bush presidency, "most voters looked at Bush in very black-and-white terms. They either loved and respected him, or they didn't like him," Dowd said. Those voters were unlikely to change their views before Election Day 2004. That prompted Republicans to jettison their practice of investing 75 to 90 percent of campaign money on undecided voters. Instead, half the money went into motivating and mobilizing people already inclined to vote for Bush, but who were either unregistered or who often failed to vote -- "soft" Republicans.
(...)
Republican firms, including TargetPoint Consultants and National Media Inc., delved into commercial databases that pinpointed consumer buying patterns and television-watching habits to unearth such information as Coors beer and bourbon drinkers skewing Republican, brandy and cognac drinkers tilting Democratic; college football TV viewers were more Republican than those who watch professional football; viewers of Fox News were overwhelmingly committed to vote for Bush; homes with telephone caller ID tended to be Republican; people interested in gambling, fashion and theater tended to be Democratic.
(...)
Ultimately the Bush campaign invested an unprecedented $20 million in narrowly targeted advertising on cable and in radio, with a heavy emphasis on religious, talk and country and western stations, and such specialty outlets as golf and health club channels.

Collapse )
Acadia

Banking on Fischer (from The Economist)

Israel, after all these years, you still manage to bring tears to my eyes.

"Stanley Fischer, the Zambian-born vice-chairman of Citigroup, a former number two at the IMF and one of the world's best-known macroeconomist, thought about emigrating to Israel in the early 1970s, but decided to settle instead in America and to teach at MIT. "We didn't look back, " he said in an interview last year. "At least not more than once every two weeks or so."
On January 9th, Mr Fischer accepted the nomination to be the next governor of the Bank of Israel. Once the cabinet approves him, Mr Fischer must renounce his American citizenship, brush up on his Hebrew and no doubt swallow a severe pay cut. To some, it is a wonder that he wants the job." - The Economist, 1/15/05, page 69

Почему-то эта статья так меня обрадовала - прямо, я знаю, саду цвесть, когда в стране любимой такие люди есть. А если нет, то приедут, не будучи гражданами; дадут деньги, никогда там не побывав; защитят, не зная языка и не понимая политики.

Вы спрашиваете: "А почему ты до сих пор здесь?" И продолжаете спрашивать, из года в год, каждый раз когда натягивается струна, и я опять кидаюсь защищать, оправдывать, оберегать. А я не могу ответить лучше, чем Стэнли Фишер. А карьера, что карьера? Как здорово добиться того, что ты оказываешься нужен любимой, но уже мало-знакомой стране.