His research interests center on cause marketing. Before embarking on a career in academia, Eric spent 20 years in corporate, agency and nonprofit environments leading strategic planning and integrated marketing communications to support business objectives and brands. His work has appeared in

No abstract

No abstract

Although political and marketing analysts commonly describe political candidates as brands, the conceptualization of political candidates as brands within academic research and popular culture is uncommon. This paper presents empirical evidence in support of viewing candidates as such. Using data from a nationwide study that measures the self concept of Mexican voters and their perceived images of the presidential candidates in Mexico's 2006 election, the paper demonstrates that voters see themselves and each candidate as a distinct brand. Furthermore, this view of a voter's self-brand influences his or her perception of a political candidate's brand image. The academic and managerial implications of these findings are discussed. KEYWORDS brand image, self-referencing, political candidates, political brands During the last two decades, the cost of elections has escalated throughout the world. The total cost of the 2008 United States election has been estimated by the Center for Responsive Politics at $5.3 billion, $2.4 billion for the presidential race alone. The Electoral Commission-an independent party funding watchdog in the United Kingdom-has estimated a total expenditure of almost £1.5 billion for the 2010 general election. According to the Mexican Federal Electoral Institute, $1 billion was budgeted for Mexico's 2006 presidential election. Equally, the marketing of political candidates has become a multimillion dollar business in the past decade. According to CNN, 1 more than $580 million was spent on advertising by all political candidates and parties in the 2008 United States election. In comparison, according to TNS Media Intelligence, during the first quarter of 2010, the top five advertisers in the United States (Procter & Gamble, AT&T, General Motors, Verizon, and Pfizer) spent at least $400 million each to promote their products and services. Considering that these companies advertise multiple brands or services, the $310 million spent by then Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and $134 million spent by Republican counterpart John McCain are considerable advertising budgets from any perspective. The marketing budgets of political candidates thus make it seem that now more than ever ''political leadership. .. is driven not only by ideology but also by marketing'' (Newman 1994:6). With so much money involved and so much at stake-in terms of the influence exerted by the winning candidate on the future of the United States, and on the world in terms of economy and geopolitical positioning-trying to understand the market determinants of a presidential election in any country is now more than ever of great interest for politicians, political marketers, and marketing academicians. Furthermore, understanding voter behavior, such as how voters evaluate candidates and the voting shortcuts they take, has provided valuable insights for political marketing given the fact that voters, in general, do not share political commentators' and academics' fascination with politics (Harris and Lock 2010). This st...

Political polarization is a marked political division in the population, characterized by multiple manifestations. We argue that it can impact consumer psychology, which in turn influences marketers, policy makers, and consumer welfare. The present work introduces the construct of political polarization to the marketing literature, and shows how it serves as a novel challenge for various marketing stakeholders. For consumers, we propose that political polarization increases the salience of political identities, alters inter- and intra-group dynamics, and amplifies cognitive biases. These effects negatively impact consumer welfare, including financial welfare, relationships, mental and physical health, and societal interests. For marketers, polarization introduces a challenge to both be more socio-politically engaged while also navigating competing political interests. Polarization also creates new opportunities and challenges for segmentation, targeting, loyalty, and impacts product offerings. For policy makers, political polarization creates policy gaps, impedes the implementation of policy, and obstructs governance. Building from these insights, we consider the drawbacks and overlooked benefits of political polarization, potential remedies, and directions for future research.