In reading the McCain campaign’s latest gambit to suspend his campaign, cancel the debates, and fly to Washington to solve the financial crisis, my mind wanders to a conversation I had with a university president in which she references High Point University’s newly created Director of WOW! According to an NPR story on the school’s initiative:
The campus now features ice cream trucks, valet parking, a concierge desk, a hot tub and free snacks. Classical music wafts through the grounds.
While academics scoff at the “bread and circus” elements of this initiative, it certainly does help break through the clutter of universities competing for students. I think the McCain campaign understands that to break through the noise of popular culture, you need a “wow” campaign. The pick of Sara Palin was a WOW! pick. The move to suspend the campaign and cancel the debates is a WOW move designed to break through the noise.
I don’t know that I have a solid opinion of whether periodically shocking a voting public with brazen measures has a negative effect on American politics. I do wonder what effect it has on governance? The problem with the WOW! factor is that it’s short lived, fleeting and not akin to building sustainable governing coalitions. It might be able to sway a close election if a WOW! move happens days before an election, however
Comments 3
Kenneth M. Kambara — September 26, 2008
Ah, now you're sounding like a marketing prof! I think you're absolutely right about cutting through the clutter and the half-life of a WOW. The medium is the massage. Another issue is whether or not the WOWs are seen as persuasion tactics, as the cardinal rule of marketing is "don't let your marketing show." I don't agree with Noonan's (over at WSJ) characterizations of Palin (but I'll cut her slack since she wrote it way back on 9/5), but I agree with her "unique selling proposition" as being her normality. McCain is trying to bolster his brand as a "maverick of action."
So, this makes me think way back to a seminar consumer behavior study by Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann (1983) on the elaboration likelihood model. Placed in the context of politics, when people are highly-involved in the choice, they tend to rely on factual information (or information appearing that way) for attitude formation. When involvement is lower, they tend to rely upon what I would call (un)likability factors, which promotes framing and attack ads. I think a lot of voting occurs in the "low involvement" category, i.e., the personal relevance for the decision is relatively low in the big scheme of things in that person's life.
So, I see WOW! as a way to persuade people by reinforcing the brand, destroying the brand, and trying to be "on-code" with the candidate's platform. The problem with WOW is (in my opinion) the same one faced by publicly-traded companies. You manage for quarterly earnings targets, rather than for the long-term. Keynesean governance? In the long run, you're dead (in the water)?
jose — September 26, 2008
So how does the Petty et. al. article inform tonight's debate?
Thick Culture » Framing Female — October 3, 2008
[...] to use Palin as a critical “selling proposition” to the ticket, in addition to having a “wow” factor. I think Palin was expected to mobilize the conservative base while still having appeal to the [...]