Retail marketing to ordinary folks now follows the “Rule of 3” on The Road to The White House. Clearly, at this early stage, U.S. presidential politics is about business-government relations in retail marketing.
This is the focus of this brief summary outlining the current state of the U.S. presidential campaigns after the Federal Election Commission’s June 30, 2015 campaign coffers public release.
With the “Rule of 3” in public-sector retail marketing of presidential campaigns, as in any private-sector industrial market organization, there is always a “market stronghold leader with deep pockets” (e.g., a Jeb Bush) and an “entrepreneurial innovator, having technological uniqueness” (e.g., a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio), running up on the heels of a “cautious and efficient-market shaker, feeling a squeeze play in the middle” (e.g., a Hillary Clinton).
In other words, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz lead the early “Rule of 3” Race in retail marketing of their U.S. presidential campaigns.
If a presidential candidate can reach folks that typically don’t vote and get them to vote for you, then that presidential candidate has mastered their retail marketing on The Road to The White House.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll, taken July 9-20, 2015 of 1,231 Colorado voters; 1,236 Iowa voters; and 1,209 Virginia voters, put former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton head-to-head against Florida Senator Marco Rubio, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in three states: Colorado, Iowa and Virginia.
In particular, Clinton trailed Rubio by 8 points in Colorado, 38-46 percent; and Walker by 9 points, 38-47 percent. The former first lady trailed Bush by 6 points in Iowa, 36-42 percent; and Rubio by 8 points, 36-44 percent. Margin of error in this polling is 2.8 percentage points. A majority of voters in all three states also said they found Clinton not honest and trustworthy. On this issue, The Hill reports, “a CNN/ORC poll indicated that 57 percent of adults said she was not honest or trustworthy, compared to 42 percent who asserted that she was. A Washington Post/ABC News poll put the disparity at 52 percent to 41 percent.”
Right now, the American electorate is signaling that they are fed up with the double-speak in the retail marketing of presidential candidates. Rather, they want some straight talking, some good old fashion retail marketing of persuasion for their vote.
So then, filling the void is a “X-factor market disruptor” (e.g., a Donald Trump), flanking from outside, using guerrilla marketing tactics, sometimes in deep background with an “entrepreneurial innovator, having technological uniqueness” (e.g., a Ted Cruz or a Marco Rubio).
Like the entrepreneurial innovator, the X-factor seeks to shakeup the entire status-quo retail marketing to a wanting electorate, asking for something completely new to listen to and enjoy as a leader in 2016.
Meanwhile, the Trump “X-factor retail market disruptor” is surging in the latest ABC News/Washington Post Polls, leading all twenty-one 2016 GOP presidential candidates at 24 percent, as of July 19-21, 2015, holding down a double-digit lead over the next leading GOP presidential contender, including a 28 percent lead in an Economist/YouGov poll survey of 1,000 respondents between July 18-20, having a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percent.
Why? Because an assumption is that Washington political establishment-media is “reflecting public opinion,” when it is surprisingly not on Main Street USA at least for now very early on the Road to the White House.
As discussed at the close of this piece, trust sentiment polling reveals a growing divide between public opinion and the political establishment and media inside an October 9-13, 2013 Pew Research study and inside the Edelman global 2014 Trust Barometer of 27 developed countries.
In other words, the political establishment and media assumption that everybody is outraged “is always erroneous.”
Former Illinois senator Barack Obama was the new entrepreneurial candidate phenomenon that understood this back in 2008. Likewise, former California governor Ronald Reagan understood this too, as he was the enjoyable candidate to listen to back in 1980. History does repeat itself again in 2016, doesn’t it, in cycles.
With that context of presidential retail marketing established, these three U.S. presidential candidates raised the most money, early on The Road to The White House, as of June 30, 2015. According to the Federal Election Commission, backers pumped $230 million into the top three presidential campaigns.
Presidential campaign experts expect the winner who would become the 2016 president-elect will have spent more than 2 billion dollars in retail marketing to get to that extraordinary lifetime achievement.
At this point, family matters most inside the Roman Agora of the Presidential “Big Money” Games. Candidates with the strongest family connections to the White House are in first and second place.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose father and brother are ex-presidents, comes first with $114.4 million. Former first lady Hillary Clinton is in second position, having raised $63.1 million. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rounds off the top three with $52.3 million.
Of course, the disrupting X-Factor challenging the “Rule of 3” Race in presidential campaign marketing is Billionaire Business and Entertainment Mogul, Donald Trump, who recently announced his net-worth of $10 billion, as self-made, self-driven contribution to his accelerating campaign marketing coffers, now standing at just $1.9 million inside the Federal Election Commission’s most recent public disclosure.
Here’s how the rest of the field of twenty-one presidential candidates shakes out in money raised as of June 30, 2015, according to the Federal Election Commission:
#4 Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator (R-Fla.), $40.7 million
#5 Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (R), $17.9 million
#6 Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator (I-VT), $15.2 million
#7 John Kasich, Governor of Ohio (R), $11.5 million
#8 Ben Carson, Retired Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon (R), $10.6 million
#9 Mike Huckabee, Former Governor of Arkansas (R), $8 million
#10 Rand Paul, U.S. Senator (R-KY), $6.9 million
#11 Carly Fiorina, Former high-tech business executive (R), $5.1 million
#12 Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senate (R-SC), $3.7 million
#13 Martin O’Malley, Former Governor of Maryland (D), $2 million
#14 Donald Trump, Billionaire Business and Entertainment Mogul (R), $1.9 million
#15 Rick Santorum, U.S. Senator (R-Pa.), $0.6 million
#16-21 (not ranking, as of June 30, 2015, Federal Election Commission release), George Pataki, Former Governor of New York (R); Lincoln Chafee, Former Governor of Rhode Island (D); Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey (R); Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana (R); Jim Webb, Former Governor of Virginia (D); Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin (R);
Presidential Candidate’s Power of Persuasion in Retail Marketing
Presidential candidates turn three keys of power: to sign off on their retail marketing ads, to appoint great campaign advisers, and to persuade a wanting electorate searching for leadership. In the final analysis, The Road to the White House is quite simply words of persuasion.
Why, because our words create our world. Especially, words of persuasion by our presidential candidates. It remains to be seen as the electorate decides inside the voting booth, whether or not we actually agree with their words about the world they propose to create.
Presidential candidate’s power of persuasion is an art of using words in such a way as to produced a desired impression upon the electorate. The aim is strictly persuasion rather than intellectual approval or conviction.
Homer describes Achilles, as a “speaker of words, as well as a “doer of deeds.”
My late Harvard professor, Richard E. Neustadt, counsels inside his classic, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents – The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, “these are the (five) factors that produce self-executing (presidential (candidate) pronouncements) … lacking any one of them the chances are that mere command will not produce compliance.”
- The first factor “favoring compliance (in retail marketing of) a presidential (candidate’s pronouncement) is assurance that the (presidential candidate) has spoken.” As our presidential candidates make the smallest missteps, or even gaffes, in the meaning of their words heard across a 24-7 online social media news cycle, the core issue of assurance is the presidential candidate’s (somewhat undermined) power of persuasion, that is, “you can’t kick the public to you.”
- A second factor “making for compliance (in retail marketing of) a presidential candidate’s request is clarity about his or her meaning.” Who knows exactly what one X-factor presidential candidate meant to say when said candidate decided to use honestly freelance “blunt words” publicly speaking about the nation’s pressing issues during a presidential campaign launch from inside said citizen’s hotel. Especially now that the favorable national polling turnaround for the X-factor presidential candidate shows differently that half of the electorate does not really care what the political-media establishment thinks anymore.
- A third factor “favoring compliance (in retail marketing of) a presidential candidate’s directive is publicity.” We can know definitely each of the twenty-one presidential candidates really believe their passive utterances anytime or anywhere, regardless of whatever context, will go exponentially viral in the atomic speed of social media in the millennial age, a modern phenomena that will indeed get him or her elected or not?
- A fourth factor “favoring compliance (in retail marketing of) a presidential candidate’s request is actual ability to carry it out.” What do our presidential candidates want us to do with their retail marketing utterances about every single issue in our daily lives on a daily basis at every single moment of our lives for two long years?
- A fifth factor “making for compliance (in retail marketing of) a presidential candidate’s request is the sense that what he or she wants is his or her by right.” Our presidential candidate has by right his or her power to persuade as he or she pleases on every single issue in our daily lives on a daily basis at every single moment of our lives for two long years. But at what cost to the electorate after the polemical (rhetorical) tsunami of presidential campaign retail marketing has been broken with a record twenty-one presidential candidate buses and entourages now on The Road to The White House.
Shown in photo is a record fourteen of a total of nineteen GOP presidential candidates.
Campaign Branding Matters Most After Obama for America’s Remarkable Campaign Marketing.
Interestingly, several presidential campaign logos have made waves on social media. Logos nowadays contributes substantially to presidential campaign branding and resulting retail marketing persuasion, placement, promotion, and pulls for campaign dollars.
Hillary Clinton’s, in particular, has garnered some early criticism, which might be a slight contributing factor as to why her campaign may be lagging behind the Bush campaign in the early race for campaign dollars.
According to a poll by YouGov, Hillary Clinton’s logo is disliked by 55 percent of the public – the highest level among the candidates, followed by Rand Paul’s logo, which the public says it is disliked by 48 percent of those polled.
Largest favorability in campaign branding goes to Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s campaigns, whose logos are liked by 63 percent and 53 percent of the public, respectively. This definitely plays into how their early standing in retail marketing in the race for campaign dollars is so remarkably positioned closely at third and fourth places behind Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s campaign marketing pull of dollars.
The White House and the New Diversity.
In the age of demography shift and heightened engagement, ethnic and gender diversity is the new vogue in U.S. presidential leadership, and even in Wall Street business relations with Washington’s K Street and the Federal enterprise.
With two women, including former state secretary, Hillary Clinton, and former high-tech business executive, Carly Fiorina, running for the White House in 2016, Pew Research asked Americans, if they want to see a female commander-in-chief and federal chief executive their lifetime.
Among that 38 percent, there is a strong partisan divide – 69 percent of Democratic women want to see a female president compared to just 20 percent of Republican women. Among men, those figures drop to 46 percent for Democrats and just 16 percent for Republicans.
Statista’s Niall McCarthy adds: “It is important to point out that the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency may have influenced Republicans, when it came to answering this hypothetical question.”
Interestingly, opinions on the issue depend more on party-affiliation than gender. Generally, 38 percent of adults in the United States are hopeful that a female president will be elected eventually.
Most recently, a June 2-7, 2015 Gallup Poll has revealed 93 percent of adults in the United States say they would vote in 2016 for a female candidate for president.
Be that as it may, the odds remain daunting with only two women and nineteen men presidential candidate buses negotiating The Road to The White House.
So, this begs a related question in business-government relations: Who Are America’s Best Female Chief Executives in the Private-Sector?
According to a USA TODAY analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ and Bespoke Investment Group, Marissa Mayer is in first place. The Yahoo boss comes seventh in terms of overall CEO pay, with her total annual compensation amounting to $42.1 million. Safra Ada Catz of Oracle is the second highest-earning female CEO with $42.1 million, while Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson completes the top three. Her annual pay is an impressive $33.7 million.
Times have changed for female chief executives in the private-sector. In fact, they now earn more on average than their male counterparts. During the latest fiscal year, female CEOs in the S&P 500 earned $18.8 million, substantially more than the $12.7 million paid to the male CEOs listed.
Public-Sector Workforce Satisfaction is Rising for the Next White House Chief Executive.
Interestingly, government employment is on the rise across the U.S. workforce, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics trends are showing going forward in the next seven years into 2022. So, any chief executive inside the White House will be leading an increasingly satisfied and growing workforce not only inside the Federal beltway in Washington, DC, but also inside the statehouse capitols.
Forbes and Statista asked over 20,000 workers at large U.S. companies, nonprofit institutions, government agencies, and U.S. divisions of multinationals the following question: how likely would they be to recommend their employer to someone else on a scale of 0-10? Their answers helped formulate America’s Best Employers 2015.
Top employers in government services, as rated by employee satisfaction (out of a highest possible score of 10, lowest possible score is 0), according to Forbes:
Fire Department of the City of New York, 9.25
Department of State, 9.13
Forest Service (Department of Agriculture, USDA), 8.95
National Institutes of Health, 8.9
United States Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security), 8.83
City of Los Angeles, 8.78
State of Arkansas, 8.72
Los Angeles County, 8.7
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 8.64
When it comes to working for the U.S. government, the Fire Department of the City of New York comes first with a score of 9.25. Benefits of being a firefighter in New York include lifelong medical coverage, up to four weeks paid vacation each year and a competitive salary that more than doubles in the first five years of the job. Read more on Forbes.
Any chief executive inside the White House will also be facilitating an increasingly closer relationship with big business on Wall Street. Google. Costco. Marathon Petroleum. The Container Store. L.L. Bean. These are America’s five best employers! Statista and Forbes have performed an extensive survey to discover America’s 500 best employers. It’s not a surprise at all that Google is ranked first, but who would have expected the Fire Department of the City of New York to be ranked in the top 20?
Top employers in the private-sector, including U.S. companies, institutions, and U.S. divisions of international firms with a minimum headcount of 2,500 employees, as rated by employee satisfaction (out of a highest possible score of 10, lowest possible score is 0), according to Forbes:
Marathon Petroleum, 9.53
The Container Store, 9.51
L.L. Bean, 9.49
Shaw Industries, 9.39
Wegmans Food Markets, 9.38
The 500 Best Employers in the U.S. 2015 were chosen across 25 industries based on an independent survey by Statista 20,000 American employees working for large firms or institutions have been asked if they would recommend their employer, or any other employers in their industry, to a potential employee.
More information and the complete list of the 500 best American employers can be found on Forbes.com or in the print issue, available from April 13, 2015.
Whom Do You Trust in Retail Marketing on The Road to The White House?
Which political-economic institutions interwoven across our social fabric do Americans trust most or least in 2014?
By a wide margin, we put our trust most in small businesses with 84 percent of people now saying that they trust small businesses as a private merchant economic institution more than before, and the U.S. military, with 78 percent of people now pronouncing that they trust the military as an institution more than before, followed by churches and religious institutions with 59 percent of people now believing that they trust the church as an institution more than before, according to a new poll by Harris Interactive.
Notwithstanding the political seismic shift right on November 4, 2014, trust in Congress is plummeting, as 72 percent of American adults reported a decline in trust over the past few years, says the Harris Poll.
The White House has also experienced a major deterioration in trust, not only in the run up to the 2014 midterm election cycle, but also a historical record of twenty-one 2016 presidential candidates currently engaged in retail marketing on The Road to The White House. Henceforward, 53 percent of people now saying that they trust the presidential executive and Cabinet secretarial administrative institution less than before, the Harris Poll concludes.
In the run up to the 2016 presidential election cycle, here are 5 questions that have to be asked of the next legislative and administrative president and chief federal government manager in order to further our trust in retail marketing onThe Road to The White House, as a cherished institution:
- Have you ever run an organization of very large size and complexity?
- How many people have you overseen on a large scale and scope?
- Have you ever overseen a large budget and established financial integrity of a large organization?
- Have you establish a vision for the way forward inside and outside a large organization?
- Have you ever laid out operational efficiency of a complex organization and established incentives to a large labor force toward performance excellence over 5-10 years?
Well, that’s neither here nor there, as the person answering these questions for our trust remains to be seen.
A Gallup Poll taken in the middle of 2013 concluded American’s trust in our branches of government separate in how effective and efficient we see their power. The legislative branch garners the lowest trust at 34%, compared to the executive branch at 51%, and the judicial branch at 62%.
“Congress needs a mindset change, an attitude change. Everybody just wants to fight all the time, and nobody wants to get anything done.” Former President Clinton said on Saturday, October 18, 2014, as he stood in front of a Hope, Arkansas revitalized railway station, at a lectern sporting an “Arkansas First” sign, and embracing political candidates he’s known for decades, according to The Associated Press. “This election is really about economics, education, and families. The rest of it is all smoke and mirrors,” Clinton said, adding, “Don’t let anyone fool you.”
Photo Credit: Jerry Habraken / Associated Press. Democratic candidates James Lee Witt, left, and Mike Ross, right, watch former President Bill Clinton speak to the crowd during a rally at the train depot in his hometown of Hope, Arkansas. Saturday morning. Clinton praised all of the democratic candidates up for election and touched on topics such as the Ebola and healthcare.
Historical trends reveal overall we fell from a high of 78% trust in government in 1958 to a woefully low 19% trust in government in 2013 (and even trending downward in the run up to the recent Congressional election on November 4, 2014), see Pew Research Center Study, performed October 9-13, 2013.
The downward trend shown below represents a three-poll average of percentage of Americans saying “they trust the federal government to do what is right, either just about always or most of the time.”
Data was compiled and averaged from Pew, Gallup, CNN, ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and the National Election Survey.
These trust sentiment findings were additionally confirmed in an Edelman global 2014 Trust Barometer of 27 developed countries (including the United States), and involving 33,000 respondents (surveyed for 6 years in 20+ markets, and 9 years in 10+ markets).
Remarkably, the Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a striking 14-point trust gap between government and business.
“Trust in business and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) remains stable, as trust in government and media decreases,” according to the Trust Barometer.
In terms of percentages of the study’s respondents having “total trust,” and those having “trust a great deal” in 2014 , the findings are as follows:
#1 NGOs at 64% [63%] (“total trust”) and at 23% [22%] (“trust a great deal”);
#2 Business at 58% [58%] and at 16% [17%], respectively;
#3 Media at 52% [57%] and at 16% [17%];
#4 Government at 44% [48%] and at 15% [16%].
By and large, media and breaking news is increasingly driven in 2014 by your highest trust by a wide margin in search engines, like Google, Bing, and Yahoo!, and social media, like Facebook and Twitter.
Our levels of trust in sources of information, according to the Edelman 2014 Trust Barometer, rests in both online search engines and traditional media at 65%, hybrid sources of media at 54%, social media at 47%, and purchased or owned media at 45%.
When Edelman Trust Barometer respondents were asked about their “first source to turn to for general business information,” 30% said they go to online search, 26% read newspapers, and 21% tuned into broadcast or cable television news.
As trust respondents were asked about their “first source to turn to for breaking news about business,” 28% said they immediately search online, 20% quickly grab a newspaper, and 25% click the remote to their favorite broadcast or cable news television.
Finally, trust respondents asked about their “source used to confirm or validate information on breaking news about business,” 36% said they do an online search, 19% open up their newspapers, and 20% watch the broadcast or cable television news reports.
It is a real kindness to trust certain people with your secrets; they can feel so important, as they pass them along!”
Thank you so much for your time in reading this article. Will you please share it across your Facebook, Twitter, Google and LinkedIn social media? I do await your comments on this article.