How to beat Stephen Harper
MARTIN GOLDFARB
Globe and Mail Update
September 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM EDT
Branding principles clearly suggest Stephen Harper is vulnerable and can be beaten.
The traditional marketing purchase funnel includes two basic principles – knowledge and liking. Both are fundamental in helping people make up their minds.
This funnel clearly applies to voting as well. Often people like a product before they know a lot about it; they fall in love with it virtually at first sight. In the car world, the old Mustang or the new Mini are products in this category. Other times people need to know a lot about it; that is, acquire a great deal of knowledge before they develop affinity to the product. Hybrid vehicles are good examples.
But sometimes, the more people know about the product, the less they are likely to buy it. Today, Chrysler and Ford cars fall into this unhappy zone. So does Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, which was briefly all the rage in Canada until consumers got to know the product.
This is also the case for Mr. Harper: Voters know he is clever, but they don't like the way he thinks. He may want to be Tim Horton's, but the Liberals can easily cast him as the Krispy Kreme of Canadian politics. The more people know, the less they like.
In contrast, the Liberal brand, for the most part, is well-liked. People understand the values and standards that the Liberals believe in and accept them as consistent with their Canadian identity. There is a deep-seated comfort level with Liberal thinking. Canadians identify Liberals as the party of old-aged pensions, the flag, medicare, getting the state out of the bedrooms of the nation, a strong central government and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are the things the Liberals have stood for over many decades. People almost equate Liberal thinking over time with Canadian thinking.
There is a reason for this – the Liberals enjoy the advantage of having governed Canada for most of the last century. The Conservative brand pales by comparison and usually succeeds only because of the right leader at the right time.
Now, why do Canadians feel uncomfortable with Mr. Harper? From his gung-ho commitment (until Wednesday) to Afghanistan to his one-time desire to fight in Iraq; from his legal battle with Elections Canada to his firing of an inconvenient nuclear inspector; from breaking the spirit of the election law he introduced to Parliament to his flirtation with anti-choice, he makes people twitchy and nervous. They may respect his intelligence but, by and large, they do not identify with his beliefs. They feel they don't truly know what he would do next if given a majority.
The fact that the Conservatives are running lovable and fuzzy ads about Mr. Harper suggests they, too, know that people still don't like him. In trying to build long-term brand commitment, Mr. Harper fails this fundamental test. What he believes and stands for in fact does not resonate with the average Canadian voter. His personal brand is not strong enough to counter the Liberal advantage, assuming Mr. Dion play his cards right.
Mr. Dion must come to understand that the Liberal Party is the brand – he simply occupies a chair. The Liberal Party is not an underdog to the Conservative Party. From a branding perspective, this election pits the Liberal Party against Mr. Harper. The more you know about the Liberal Party, the more potential there is that voters will like it. The trick is to tell the public more about Mr. Harper and more about the Liberals (but not the leader).
Leadership is the ability to create followers. In this simple definition, Mr. Dion hasn't succeeded in convincing most Canadians that his central idea – the Green Shift – is relevant or can be implemented. The secret of good marketing is credibility of implementation. There is no clear understanding of how the Green Shift will or can work. The results of the last three months indicate that Mr. Dion hasn't generated the personal affinity necessary for him to sell this leap of faith.
From a branding perspective, Mr. Dion needs to understand he is not the best agent to build support for the Liberal Party. His popularity and acceptance ratings by Canadians run behind the party. It is the party that must reinforce the strength of Liberal ideals, largely through advertising. By stressing the things that the Liberal Party has been and will be committed to, and placing them in the context of the party's established brand promise – progressive, inclusive, socially and economically balanced, standing for a united Canada – one finds the route to success.
Mr. Harper has to be positioned in the contrasting position as not representing the best interests of Canadians. It is the Liberal Party that positions Mr. Harper this way – not Mr. Dion. It does so through what some call negative advertising, reminding voters of the things they dislike about Mr. Harper. The leader's job in this is simply to stand back and let the professionals do their job by unleashing the party to aggressively challenge Mr. Harper. Mr. Dion must be prepared to take a personal position that isn't front and centre in this election.
So the Liberals must do two things to win this election. One, remember that the more Canadians know Mr. Harper the less they like him, and therefore remind people about him. And two, put forward Liberal ideas that build affinity with Canadians and provide a contrast to the ideas associated with the Conservative leader.
Martin Goldfarb is a marketing expert, and was the pollster for Pierre Trudeau
