How Better Marketing Elected Barack Obama

Harvard Business Publishing ^ | November 5, 2008 | John Quelch

[CenTex Conservative]

Great article describing what I noticed very early in Obama's campaign. Obama ran as a brand rather than a traditional candidate.

I think this explains the early loyalty, particularly by young or new voters, to a man with very little experience and a track record, what little he had, which clearly did not match his rhetoric.

Obama is the proverbial empty suit, but due to precise and effective branding he is perceived as the more preferable candidate to his target audience, the youth and persuadable voter.

[detective]

Voter fraud and the MSM working as the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign helped Obama far more than “branding” or “marketing strategy”.

[detective]

“Almost half of Obama’s unprecedented $639 million in funds raised from individuals came from small donors giving $300 or less.”

Fraudulent campaign financing helped too.

[cblue55]

Media blackouts helped too.

[CenTex Conservative]

No doubt that the MSM had a strong hand in what happened this cycle, and I am confident that lots of voter fraud occurred, but does that explain a 7+ million popular vote win.

[CenTex Conservative]

I agree that there was lots of fraud in his fundraising, but even those investigating say it probably amounts to 20-30% of all fund raising. That still does not explain the multiple millions of real people who gave money under real names. These people obviously bought the branding.

[detective]

If the MSM had merely done its job and been even close to accurate in reporting, Obama would have had to act like a real candidate and explain his positions, his lack of experience and understanding of the issues, his many contradictions, his backing by anti-American terrorists from Castro to Khadaffi to the Weather Underground. Obama would have had to explain where he was going to get the money to pay for his many promises. If this had been brought out Obama probably would have gotten around 40% of the vote. Instead, all he had to say was hope, change and Bush's fault and the MSM said over and over how great he was.

[Frank Sheed]

Right! A billion bucks for a brand... Question is, “who” owns him?

[detective]

“I agree that there was lots of fraud in his fundraising, but even those investigating say it probably amounts to 20-30% of all fund raising”

I'm not sure it was only 30%, but 30% of $639 million is $192 million. In addition, labor unions, liberal special interest groups and government employees always give to the Democrat candidate no matter what.

[Old Professer]

Successful marketing adheres to the Threegee effect:

Gullibility, Greed and Gratification.

[Daffynition]

Classic Madison Avenue ... “sell the sizzle, not the steak!”

David Ogilvy is somewhere. Smiling.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

No doubt that the MSM had a strong hand in what happened this cycle, and I am confident that lots of voter fraud occurred, but does that explain a 7+ million popular vote win.

I disagree. People who rely on the Matrix Media for information were NEVER told any of the negatives about Hussein, nor any of the positives on the other side. Many of us on this board have learned to see through the matrix to reality, but there are tens of millions of people who were misled. This is not voter fraud, but it is information fraud. If the media simply did its job and reported the facts, someone other than Hussein would be the pres - elect (might have been Clinton, might have been Fred or Rudy or even McCain). This election was deliberately shoved down to the level of the homecoming queen election at your local government school, because they knew that their boy could not get elected dog catcher if the electorate was properly informed.