Is Marketing Killing Democracy? Why The Basic Principles of Marketing Have Become Antithetical to Democracy

 U.S. political ads are nothing new. 

1840 - 'Tippycanoe and Tyler Too'!

1952 - 'I like Ike'.

1960 - 'Kennedy Kennedy Kennedy!'

The slogans above are just rallying cries, but somewhere in the 1960's as market segmentation was coming into its prime, LBJ's campaign ran the very polarizing 'Daisy' ad that intimated that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for nuclear war. This ad went from cheering for the candidate to disparaging the other candidate. 

https://youtu.be/riDypP1KfOU?si=xahpX_QcYPTB7TgP

However, just like the ads of that era that compared their offerings to 'Brand X', the Goldwater name was never actually mentioned in the ad. 

By the time the 1970's rolled around, the rules in competitive marketing were changing. That's when advertisers began to name their competitors. For example, the 'Pepsi Challenge' took a direct swipe at market leader Coke. In 1979 the FTC formally sanctioned direct comparison ads.

By 1988, that trend had become commonplace. Embracing this formula, the George HW Bush campaign created the infamous 'Willie Horton' ad which tapped into white American's racist fears. Appealing to that segment, the ad implied that Dukakis would release dangerous (likely Black) criminals onto the streets if he was elected. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o

In the 1990's through the early 2000's cable TV took off in the US, creating the opportunity to segment audiences by interest, including political beliefs. Thus, as the TV news model shifted from public service to revenue generator, news brands embraced market segmentation principles. CNN and Fox News battled for viewership by becoming more and more partisan in the stories they chose to cover, and the narratives they chose to spin.

As the internet became mainstream in the early 2000's, the idea of tribalism began to infiltrate marketing philosophy. Instead of just targeting segments, marketers were actively building 'communities' of like minded 'fans'. The famous  'Mac vs PC' campaign was not just about product superiority, but about identifying with larger brand values.

This principle  spread to politics in the 2008 US presidential election, as Obama skillfully used the internet to create his 'tribe'. Obama supporters became active online advocates in a way never seen before in US politics, as illustrated by this 2008 chart.

While Obama supporters were at the leading edge of this trend, as social media usage grew from 5% of adults in 2005 to ~80% in 2019, political tribal support, fueled by algorithms, became more fervent--and the country became more and more divided. There were facts and 'alternative facts'.

But Democracy is not about tribes, it's about majority rule. And that is the problem with applying marketing principles to a democratic process. It is hard to find common ground when tribalism becomes the norm. But unlike choosing a Pepsi over a Coke, or a Mac over a PC, once an election is over, the leader of the tribe is expected to become the leader of everyone. But in today's tribal world, this seems more and more like a fading ideal, with the potential to kill a democracy.