#associationeffect

[o-behave]

IT’S ELECTION DAY IN AMERICA: A BEHAVIOURAL ANALYSIS OF THE 2018 U.S. MIDTERM ADVERTS

By Will Fernandez, WPP Fellow & Behavioural Strategist @ Ogilvy Consulting’s Behavioural Science Practice

Tomorrow, millions of Americans will cast their ballots for midterm election candidates. Fueled by either animosity of or excitement for President Donald Trump and his political ideology, early signs predict historic turnout levels across the country. In the case of races in the U.S. Senate, where the current political divide in Congress sits on a razor-thin margin of a single-seat majority for the Republican Party, the stakes could seemingly not be any higher.

With every election cycle comes a flurry of spending on political advertising and this year is no exception. According to data from Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) and compiled by Ad Age, TV and radio advertising alone have surpassed $498.4 million since April 2017. That's across only the 13 most competitive Senate races, with candidates competing in what's already become the most expensive midterm Senate TV-radio advertising battle in American history.

While David Ogilvy famously quipped that political advertising “ought to be stopped” for its “dishonest” appeal to voters, we at Ogilvy Consulting’s Behavioural Science Practice are cognizant of the increasing relevance these communications have in shaping not only the future of politics, but also the future of culture. Therefore, we wanted to turn our lens this week to the behavioural principles that are underpinning this season’s political ads as they attempt to convince undecided voters and inspire the party-faithful.

We Can’t Go Back: Trump-eting Loss Aversion

Starting our discussion is a sixty-second spot from President Trump’s political action committee (PAC) fund entitled “We Can’t Go Back”. The narrative of the ad is simple – a young mother reflects on the state of the economy, comparing the current strength of the American market to the slow growth witnessed during the Obama years. Without ever referencing President Trump directly, the PAC’s message is loud and clear – that although things are going well, they could easily slip back to the ways of the past. In behavioural science, we would call this a classic example of loss aversion - a phenomenon encapsulated by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s expression that “losses loom larger than gains” when it comes to human decisionmaking (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

By crafting a narrative that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for a diminished economic outlook, the ad plays towards our deeply ingrained resistance for loss. This tactic is also reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1984 re-election spot “Morning in America”, where the narrator paints a picturesque scene of economic growth and vitality in the country and asks why the viewer would ever vote to go back to the uncertainty of the Jimmy Carter-led Democratic Party.

What’s Best for Michigan: Uncommon Messengers

Moving from the national narrative to one of the most competitive races in the American Heartland, this next spot entitled “What’s Best for Michigan” comes from Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow as she attempts to out-maneuver Army combat-veteran-turned-Michigan-businessman John James. To counteract the belief that she is out of touch with rural Michigan voters, Stabenow has given the focus of this spot over to rural conservative farmworkers who view her as “a different kind” of politician. By using conservative advocates to reach her target audience, Stabenow’s team is utilizing the messenger effect – we are heavily influenced by who communicates information (Schjoedt et al., 2010). 

This tactic has been adopted previously in two separate spots both known as “Confessions of a Republican” – first crafted in the 1964 presidential race between Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson and Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, and second during the most recent presidential race between President Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Tough As Texas: Association Effects Are Bigger in Texas

Going from the Far North to the Deep South, the next spot comes from Texas Republican Senator and 2016 Republican nominee contender Ted Cruz. In “Tough As Texas”, Cruz attempts to expand and connect the Texas brand to his own personal mission of public service. By trying to connect the values and characteristics of the state of Texas to his own personal brand, Cruz, in turn, has dialled into what are known as association effects – we can elicit automatic behavioural effects when exposed to new brands when those brands are associated with tried and true brands, such as Texas exceptionalism (Dimofte & Yalch, 2011). By embodying the Texas brand, Cruz hopes to ride the associated goodwill to success on Election Day.

Many politicians have attempted to embody the ethos and associative effects of their state. None, however, have done it quite to the extent as former President Barack Obama – who found a way to interweave his personal narrative into a broader story of the American experience through multiple ads in his 2008 Presidential campaign, including the sixty-second “This Country I Love” spot. By connecting a personal brand to a beloved legacy brand, one has the opportunity to imbue many of the associative effects.

Dead Wrong: Nostalgia in Old West Virginia

Finally, we head to the old Mountain State of West Virginia where incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Manchin attempts to continue his service in the Senate for a fourth term in a state that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump in 2016. While Manchin has long been considered a historic “Blue-Dog” centrist Democrat, his most recent spot “Dead Wrong” extenuates that connection through a call to action that shows the senior Senator literally willing to bear arms for what he believes in. While certainly over-the-top theatrically, Manchin’s message draws heavily on humanity’s unique affinity for nostalgia – we are far more likely to agree with the information or decision presented to us when primed with a sense of longing for what used to be (Muehling & Sprott, 2004).

Previous iterations of brilliant executions of nostalgia-laden political ads include California Governor Jerry Brown’s 2010 attack ad “Why I Came to California” used against the Republican nominee and former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Meg Whitman. By reminding the viewers of the nostalgic positives of the past, the advert’s message becomes more persuasive in getting viewers to believe in the benefits of the future.

Learnings from the Campaign Trail

While many of us in the advertising industry can hold disdain for the cheesy, dishonest, and downright embarrassing tenor of some political ads, we would be remiss if we did not take them as a serious barometer for our own work. If we are to break through the clutter and overcome the growing sense of compassion fatigue that dominates our culture, then we would be wise to better understand the behavioural levers that successful politicians have adeptly managed throughout history. Without greater understanding, we are doomed to continue making ads like this one.

Sources:

1. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

2. Schjoedt, U., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Geertz, A. W., Lund, T. E., & Roepstorff, A. (2010). The power of charisma—perceived charisma inhibits the frontal executive network of believers in intercessory prayer.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 119-127. 

3. Dimofte, C. V. & Yalch, R. F. (2011). The Mere Association Effect and Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 24–37.

4. Muehling, D. & Sprott, D. E. (2004). The Power of Reflection: An Empirical Examination of Nostalgia Advertising Effects. Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 25-35.

Note: The opinions expressed represent the viewpoint of the author alone and in no way represent those of Ogilvy or Ogilvy Consulting.