Marketing Experts Dissect the Outcome of the Presidential Race

Understanding the role of marketing in the 2016 election

Whatever else can be said about the 2016 presidential election, it was a triumph of marketing for President-elect Donald Trump and a failed campaign for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. It was an even bigger miss for marketing research in the form of election polls, which largely predicted a high probability of a Clinton win heading into November 8. 

With that in mind, Marketing News reached out to some industry leaders for their thoughts on the election. Specifically, we wanted to know:

1.What did the Trump campaign do right from a marketing perspective?

2.How did the Clinton campaign fail to properly connect?

3.Why were the polls wrong?

Here is a round-up of their thoughts:

Key Takeaways

​​What? Now the presidential race is over, it’s clear in hindsight there were huge marketing stories driving the outcome.

So what? Questions surrounding Trump’s victory, Clinton’s defeat and the inaccuracy of the polls provide important case studies to marketers in all fields.

Now what? Emotion and authenticity rule. Never take marketing research as gospel. Never underestimate your competition, or take an assumed position of strength for granted. ​

Karen Albritton, president & CEO, Capstrat

Trump connected emotionally with his audience in a way the Clinton campaign never quite managed. Making an emotional connection is a timeless marketing best practice. … No amount of logic or list of qualifications could overcome the emotion of the Trump movement.

The polls, the media and the pundits missed it because they are concentrated in major markets and our information sources now simply reinforce our own opinions. It takes resources, time and interest to understand the diverse audiences that make up the U.S., especially the rural audiences.

Jordan Cohen, CMO, Fluent

Trump did a number of things right from a marketing and positioning perspective that enabled him to secure the nomination and then win the election.

1. He established a perception of authenticity that resonated with his constituents.

Trump’s “shoot from the hip” style, while viewed as a liability amongst his detractors, actually probably helped him with his supporters. We saw examples of many candidates trying to" appeal to younger voters" by doing things like creating zany YouTube videos. Remember Ted Cruz's "how to cook bacon on a rifle" video?

2. He embraced TV, which proved that it is still king in politics.

Trump's PR strategy enabled him to get something in the ballpark of two times the "earned" TV exposure of Clinton, despite being vastly outspent by Clinton on the paid advertising front. His constant TV coverage also created a ubiquity effect for Trump ... A massive percentage of our survey respondents reported seeing ads from Trump across multiple channels, even when he wasn't running any.

3. Strategic use of social media.

Trump’s favorite social media platform was Twitter. He used it to get the attention of the elites who gravitate toward Twitter, in particular, members of the press, political junkies and other influencers. It was incredibly effective and cheaper than issuing press releases (it was free actually).

4. He consistently hit Clinton where she was weakest.

Since the start of the general election we asked Americans about which attacks were the most effective against each of the candidates. The top answer in regards to Clinton was consistently that “she broke the law by using a private e-mail server,” and Trump kept pounding on the issue. 

[Clinton's] digital sophistication and massively outspending Trump on television was not enough ... to counter Trump's message to his own constituency. Message undoubtedly played an enormous role here. Trump connected with a massive swath of Americans who feel disenfranchised and are disillusioned with the establishment in Washington, and his message resonated with them. In that sense, Clinton, or any other Democrat, may never have really stood a chance.

The most reasonable theory/explanation we have [for the inaccuracy of the polls], in my opinion, is that Trump brought out a lot of new voters who didn’t vote in the last cycle, which skewed the weighting that pollsters applied to survey samples.

Clinton's problems include:

1. Implicit gender bias. Women and men do not like strong women. People don't say this—it's not socially desirable, but research documents this.

2. Connecting with people. She was perhaps too late and light on the children and family message. There are not images of the soft side of Hillary Clinton.

3. Last-minute, unsubstantiated FBI accusations reinforce the “Clinton equals corruption” message. Though she was cleared, there was no time to “recover” with Election Day so close.

The inaccuracy of the polls was due to:

1. Closet Trump supporters who would not publicly disclose their support for Trump but voted for him.

2. Undecided voters, not considered in the polls, who decided to cast a ballot for Trump (per above).

Todd Grossman, CEO, Talkwalker

Trump managed to use social media to get his message across directly, unfiltered by the media. By combining this with a general anti-establishment, anti-media message, Trump made his followers in particular distrust media/establishment opinion in favor of his own messages. The social media profiles of politicians and public figures are very carefully manicured and follow best practices; Trump breaks all the rules. He says whatever he wants and uses an almost conversational tone, particularly on Twitter.

Trump has been a master of tailoring his messages and approach and created a brand that resonated with his followers and beyond.
Trump also attacked Clinton on her alleged corruption with a series of hashtags that came off as advertising taglines like  #DraintheSwamp and #BigLeagueTruth that his followers adopted widely. Additionally, part of Trump’s success on social media has been down to his very “authentic” voice.

Clinton ran a traditional campaign ... that didn’t stand up to the "wild West" of social media. Clinton depended on surrogates, most noticeably celebrities, to carry her message in social media. By depending more on traditional television advertising, Clinton couldn’t keep up with the constant barrage of tweets put out by the Trump campaign. 

This election embraced social media, and the pollsters weren’t ready for it.  
It is fair to say that Trump would have had much more difficulty gathering support had it not been for the massive reach of social networks. Social media may have played a role in creating a kind of scandal-driven (as opposed to issue-driven) campaign where topics such as Trump’s attitude towards women, Trump’s tax returns and Clinton’s e-mails tended to dominate discussion as opposed to actual policy issues.

Bruce Newman​, professor of marketing at DePaul University and author of The Marketing Revolution in Politics 

The election results represent a marketing revolution in American politics. The Trump victory offers marketers of all products and services, in both the for-profit and nonprofit [sectors], lessons: 

Lesson 1: Follow the marketing concept. Trump was talking about what mattered most to American people, namely jobs. Hillary spent too much time trying to tie-in Trump’s negative and tarnished image with raising children. In the end, jobs trumped family.

Lesson 2: Use technology strategically. Trump’s use of Twitter and Facebook allowed him to stay connected to 25 million voters, supporters of his, on a weekly basis throughout most of the campaign. Hillary took her base for granted and did not take advantage of the unfiltered nature of social media to stay connected with her loyal democrats, many of whom defected and ultimately cost her the election in some key states leaning towards her.

Lesson 3: Develop a unique brand identity. The Trump brand was unique in an election setting where voters were looking for the outsider from Washington to change the course of direction for the country. 

Lesson 4: Create a winning advertising strategy. The Trump brand demanded the attention of the media and afforded him the ability to run his advertising campaign by spending close to half of what Clinton spent in advertising. Ultimately, voters bought his hard-nosed message.

Lesson 5: Build a relationship with your customers. Voters who supported Trump were constantly reinforced with his use of Twitter in particular, something that Clinton did not do, which cost her the election.

Lesson 6: Be prepared to engage in crisis management. Trump navigated his crises better than Clinton did hers, and in particular, the last-minute announcement by the FBI was not handled well by Clinton—and was probably the key reason she lost—as it reinforced her negatives that Trump pounded away at throughout the race.

Robin Coulter, department head and professor of marketing, University of Connecticut

Trump’s classical conditioning effects for four months have been:

1. Clinton equals corruption; Clinton equals murderer (Benghazi); and Clinton equals old and tired and can’t get anything done in Washington. As a consequence, people “hate” Clinton—it's visceral.

2. Washington doesn’t work. Those Washington insiders never accomplish anything. Trump to the rescue.

3. People are now very afraid of immigrants, GLBT, etc. Trump will protect U.S. citizens and their jobs from these populations.

Clinton's problems include:

1. Implicit gender bias. Women and men do not like strong women. People don't say this—it's not socially desirable, but research documents this.

2. Connecting with people. She was perhaps too late and light on the children and family message. There are not images of the soft side of Hillary Clinton.

3. Last-minute, unsubstantiated FBI accusations reinforce the “Clinton equals corruption” message. Though she was cleared, there was no time to “recover” with Election Day so close.

The inaccuracy of the polls was due to:

1. Closet Trump supporters who would not publicly disclose their support for Trump but voted for him.

2. Undecided voters, not considered in the polls, who decided to cast a ballot for Trump (per above).

Vanitha Swaminathan, Thomas Marshall professor of marketing at Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh

The polls did not get this right for three separate reasons: 

1. It was a really close race, and the numbers were within a margin of error across many states, so in the end, no one knew how they would go. 

2. There is a social desirability or the shy-Trump effect—those who were supporters did not want to admit it. We see this in marketing research as well. People may overstate their intention to buy something and then not end up buying it. In this case, the shy Trump supporter did not want to overtly acknowledge his or her support, thereby skewing the poll numbers. 

3. The polls did not account for the larger turnout from rural areas, which primarily accounted for the surge in Trump support.