Consumer Behaviour and the Labour Party

Another interpretation of pricing in voting should be addressed here. Wring (2001) attempted to identify the elements of the marketing mix in political strategy. Price was described in a broader and subtler perspective. He believes that price is the attitude you create on the consumer when associating their choice to its consequences. This can be done by showing opponent’s drawbacks or your own. By guaranteeing a positive attitude towards themselves, parties hope to gain votes in return.

The 2001 General Election offers a good example of the use of “pricing” techniques in political campaigning. While Conservatives focused their ads on “emotional atmosphere of anger”, trying to show Labour’s betrayal and broken promises (Dermody and Scullion 2001, p. 977), New labour concentrated on issues rather than image, especially their own. Labour wanted to connect with the electorate by making them feel involved in their plans for the future. In the end, this changed and the Party began a series of “warnings” about the risks of choosing the Conservatives.

Semiotics

The multidisciplinarity of consumer behaviour study can also be identified in political marketing due to the vast number of areas and subjects that are interrelated in the marketing process. Apart from Geography, History, Psychology and Sociology, one deserves a closer look regarding the Labour Party: Semiotics.

The use of symbols in marketing has been widely studied. Some writers argue that many products are bought not for their functional benefits, but for symbolic value instead (Mowen, 2001). According to these views, consumers choose products based on their self-image and therefore, people’s possessions should reflect part of their personality. The same can be applied to political marketing.

When Tony Blair was elected leader of the Labour Party, in 1994, he brought with him intangible assets to the Party such as the need of reform, freshness, vigour and the idea of a fresh start. He did that by updating Clause IV of the Party’s Constitution, which caused much debate among partisans, followed by the draft manifesto “New Labour, New Life for Britain”. The words make it clear that the just added “New” before the Party’s name was there to stay, having in the young energetic leader its strongest representation.

The change brought about by Tony Blair can also be materialised in the Party’s symbols. “The Red Flag”, anthem is still sung during conferences, but some people accuse Blair of undermining it. The Red Rose, Labour’s logo introduced by Neil Kinnock was also replaced. In 2001, when the Prime Minister was calling out the need to move on from Thatcherism, he introduced a new symbol for the Party: the “Cross My Heart”. Even though it is not supposed to replace the Red Rose as official symbol, the image is used on Party merchandise, such as mugs, t-shirts and cups.

As it is usually the case, the new logo was subject of debate even among members of the Party. It was designed by an in-house team and symbolises the individual voting for Labour with head and heart:

“The head represents the dedication to policies that improve the quality of life, policies such as the national minimum wage and New Deal. The heart stands for our enduring belief in fairness and equality. The cross symbolises the importance of voting, and voting Labour." (The Daily Telegraph)

There is also the “New Labour, New Britain” image which is used on official documents of the Party, as well as on labour’s webpage (see below).

But the symbolic manifestations of the New Labour go beyond images and songs. It has also affected language “icons” used by the Party as a representative of the working class and socialist values (Time, cited by British Studies Web Pages). The changes may appear to be subtle, but what they entailed was the need to “sell” a new socio-economic image of the Party because traditional Labour principles were no longer enough to guarantee public support. Words like “comrades” were substituted by “colleagues” during public speeches.

To credit Tony Blair with what opponents call Labour’s image make-over would not be fair, though. The process began with Neil Kinnock who in 1985, as the leader, made harsh attacks on militant tendency in the Party. It was him who also appointed Peter Mandelson to a position of influence. Mandelson changed the Red Flag symbol for the Red Rose, making the Party image more stylish and light. John Smith, one of the icons of the Labour Party , continued the reforms but died suddenly in 1994.

The Decision-making Process

When looking at the Generic Decision-making process (Mowen 2001, p.124), a few correlations can be made between the theory’s paths and electoral choice. The analogy made here will regard to the 1997 historical victory of the Labour Party.

What the authors call “Need Recognition/Problem Awareness” has to do with the major issues of the election and the overall economic and political situation at the time. The need to cut public spending, reduce NHS waiting lists, lower crime rate and increase education spending are some of the issues which created public awareness and need recognition in 1997. These are also the environmental influences of the election.

In 1997, the “Information Search” was facilitated by campaign advertisement, Party Electoral Broadcasts, media coverage and events associated with the various communication tools used at the time. It is the access to information given by different means of communications that form what Engel and Blackwell define as Psychological Processes during which electors process information, learn about the views and proposals of each Party and finally identify which one they relate to more closely. Note that the 1997 campaign was the longest in 80 years, lasting a total of 6 weeks.

The Psychological Process continues through the Evaluation of Alternatives, the third phase of the model here presented. These evaluations may be directly influenced by personal interest. An unemployed doctor, for instance, may have found it much more rewarding to vote for Labour in 1997 than Conservatives since the Party promised to slash NHS bureaucracy and employ more doctors to improve quality of service.

This self-fulfilment process is what the writers call Individual Differences. It means that the voter will more likely choose a Party which can satisfy his/her immediate needs either as a voter or as a member of a community.The purchase here is the casting of the vote. After acknowledging needs, accessing information and evaluating alternatives, the elector is ready to make a choice.

It’s important to clarify that these phases of the decision-making process, as well as the factors which affect the model can sometimes overlap or simply be ignored. A militant for example, will more likely go directly to the “purchase”, no matter how dissonant it may be to his needs. Also, in the voting process, the “Post-purchase Evaluation of Decision” does not have an immediate effect on future choice because once the Party has majority, the “customer” will have to wait until he can make another purchase.

Finally, I would add that what is the last part of the model – Post-Purchase Evaluation - may well be the first in voting because once the elector has judged the Government mandate, his perception will create an attitude that will serve as the starting point for the next election (see below)

Behaviour, Belief and Attitude Change

Of all the theories and models related to behaviour, beliefs and attitude change, one strikes me as being key to analyse Tony Blair’s leadership traits’ use by the Labour Party during the 1997 and 2001 elections: the Balance Theory.

The theory assumes that people have a tendency to maintain cognitive consistency. That is, it’s natural for humans to try to keep a balance in their attitudes towards different elements. These elements are defined as Observer (o), in this case the voter, a Person (p), Tony Blair, and an Object (x), the Labour Party.

According to the Balance Theory, there are two types of connections: Sentiment (the attitude itself which can be negative, positive or neutral); and Unit Relations, which means that the observer perceives a connection between “p” and “x”. This connection is also viewed as positive, negative and neutral.

The objective of the Balance Theory is to provoke a unit relation between the endorser and the object. Depending on the final goal, a positive or negative will be selected. When you want to enhance a brand’s image by associating it with a person, for instance, marketers will choose positive reinforcement which will make the customer see the product more favourably.

The Balance Theory is similar to the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which says that there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions).

The Balance Theory and Elections

When Tony Blair took over the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994, a wide set of image changes were put forth. By 1997,it was clear that by associating him to the “New” Labour, and therefore, with a modernising, center-left, moderate leader, would enhance immensely the chances of victory in the ballots. Bringing the example to consumer behaviour study, what the Party did was use by proximity, Tony Blair and his ideological appeal as a stimulus to bring about change in the floating voters’ perceptions of Labour.

The positioning approach used in 1997 proved to be effective and the Party won two-thirds of the House of Commons, a total of 418 MPs, their highest number ever including a record of 101 women members elected (The Labour Party). The Balance Theory map is drawn below:

The Balance Theory can also be observed with Labour’s communication campaign of the 2001 election. The agency TBWA created a poster in which William Hague had Margareth Tatcher’s wig and earrings. With the slogan “Get Out and Vote. Or They Will Get In”, the Party managed to create a positive unit relation between Hague and Tatcher, whereas by transferring this connection to the Conservative Party, they provoked a negative attitude towards the Tories. It was the past against the future and in a moment when the electorate still had a fresh negative memory of the “Tatcherism”, they preferred to stick to Labour and the continuity of Tony Blair as Prime Minister (see map below).

It’s important to mention that political parties use the Balance Theory strategy continuously when they do celebrity endorsement. It should be added that even though Tony Blair is accused of overusing celebrities to boost his image, Harold Wilson did it much sooner, back in the 60’s. Actually, the cricketer Colin Cowdrey was used to endorse the Conservatives as long ago as 1957 (Smith 2001).

One last comment should be made about Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviour. It regards the Four Hierarchies of Effects (Mowen, 2001 p. 127). Applying this theory to electoral campaigning is not a simple task because the level of involvement is not as well-defined as in a traditional product purchase situation.

First, it’s necessary to look with more depth at the level of involvement, and therefore relevance, associated with voting. Is it high or low? The answer is a paradox. On the one hand, the consequences of Government ruling has a very strong impact on elector’s life, so voting should be perceived as a high-involvement purchase. On the other hand, voter’s well-known apathy towards politics transfers to the act of voting traits of a low-involvement transaction. So which one is it?

In the case of Britain, the fact that voting is not mandatory makes it even harder to answer because in practice, a person is allowed to ignore the whole campaigning process. In consumer behaviour terms, the affective charges attached to the belief that politics is not worth bothering create an attitude of immobility which in the end stops the decision-making process, stopping it from becoming behaviour.

Different motivations may change that pattern. In 1997, there was a very strong motivation to vote. The Conservatives had been in power for 18 years and Labour seemed to offer fresh blood and ideas to Britain. This had an immediate impact on voter turnout reaching 72% (Moloney, 2001). In 2001, when attitude towards Labour was not as enthusiastic as before and Conservatives didn’t really offer a sound opposition, only 59% of electors voted, the lowest percentage since 1918. (see graph below).

So it seems that the Hierarchy of Effects is susceptible to a number of components, but certainly not only the economical, social and political agendas dominating a certain election. One cannot ignore other factors such as family values, partisanship, local representation and experiences, media influence and events. All these are relevant to the decision-making process of voting.

 

Postmodernism

The postivist paradigm is used to extremes in electoral marketing. Marketers and political strategist are constantly searching for ways to find directions and answers that which could  help them “say the right thing” to electors in terms of commitments and promises.

By using a wide range of surveys, these professionals define how to tackle certain issues, the most appropriate communication tools to be used, dressing codes, speech tone and priorities, plus a plethora of decisions that in the end are translated into votes. With research results in hands, marketers apply them to a general context so that samples can be seen as a fair representation of the electorate’s needs and wants.

One of the most widely techniques used is focus groups because they have the “flexibility to explore beyond the boundaries of tightly worded questions (Threlfall, 1999, p. 103). As a matter of fact, the Labour Party has incorporated market research so strongly into their day-to-day decision-making, that they are constantly criticised for it. On the 25th of December, the Debating Group organised a debate entitled “Government expects market research to take its decisions”. Stephen Ladyman, Labour MP for South Thenet, defends the Party’s position: “A focus group is a group of members of the public. What’s wrong with talking to members of the public about the way they feel?” questions the MP (see appendices).

Trends, Problems and Opportunities

One of the hardest things to analyse in Politics is what underlines voting tendencies and decision-making. The high level of difficulty is due to intrinsic traits of human behaviour. This is however, very similar to the studies of consumer behaviour. Once again, we go back to Weir’s frustration of never being able to anticipate consumer’s choices. 

In Politics, the macro environment is the most important element of the decision-making process and it has a direct influence on the voter’s perception of what might be the best choice at a particular moment. Also, politicians are susceptible to swings on these perceptions, as well as reversals in voter’s preference.

To understand how political, economical and social issues influence voter’s perceptions, let’s again look at the 1997 and 2001 elections and how Labour can be affected by future events.

For the reasons already discussed in this report, 1997 was a year of change. The British population wanted an alternative to the Conservative Party which had been in power for 18 years. According to MORI Political Monitor, the level of dissatisfaction with the Government reached 69% in March of that year, two months before the General Elections (see chart 1).

Labour was favourable affected by this and in particular, Tony Blair’s image which reached 51% of satisfaction (see chart 2). In 2001, things started to change. Blair’s proposal of letting private sector get involved in health and education resulted in threats by doctors to resign from the NHS and Unions to engage in industrial action, so his promises of social reforms had not yet been perceived as fulfilled. This also affected MORI voting intentions (see chart 3).

As a result, Tony Blair’s level of satisfaction dropped slightly from 51% to 47%. It may seem little, but the level of dissatisfaction had increased dramatically from 29% in 1997 to 46% in 2001. Still, Labour won again by landslide, partly because the Conservatives did not offer a convincing counter option and the Party was having structural problems.

What about now? Which issues could affect the next election and Tony Blair’s image as a leader? It is certainly early to know, but one issue in particular has increasingly proved to be a problem: his unconditional support of the American Government’s War Against Terrorism, especially George Bush’s threats against Saddam Hussain.

The latest MORI poll for The Financial Times (MORI) shows that there has been a growing concern among the British population about defence and foreign affairs. In November, 35% of interviewees mentioned it as being one of the most important issues facing Britain today, a slight growth from the 35% of October. More importantly, 23% singled it as being the most important of all. Note that domestically, health, education and crime remain the key issues (see chart 4).

On the other hand, the concern against Iraq is followed by a growing approval of Blair’s support on the war. According to the Guardian/ICM poll carried out in October, 14h, 37% disapprove a military attack on Iraq, a sharp drop since August when it reached 50% (The Guardian). Still, depending on what happens regarding the military action, as well as possible terrorist attacks in the UK, this could immensely affect the future of Tony Blair, his credibility as a leader and the next General Election.

Domestically, it is important to mention briefly, major issues influencing public opinion in Britain today. Cherie Blair’s use of £ 500,000 of a blind trust to buy a flat is the most recent one. The Guardian/ICM survey of December, 11th, showed that 35% remain dissatisfied with her explanations, 31% don’t know and two-thirds believe the affair has damaged the Labour government with 19% saying that it had been wounded “a lot” (The Guardian). Another issues to be mentioned are the Government’s response to the fire-fighter’s strike and other matters concerning the NHS (waiting lists), education (new graduate tax to finance university education) and transport (road extension).

In the long-term, all of these issues can affect the future of Labour Party and the results of the next election. It all depends on how the Prime Minister will handle them and the results of his decisions.

 

Conclusion

The use of marketing tactics has been increasingly present in Politics, and some of these techniques are closely related to the Consumer Behaviour field. One of the reasons for this is because both have consumer understanding as a means of reaching satisfaction. In mainstream marketing, re-purchase will be the final reward, whereas in Politics, particularly in the British political system, party loyalty and therefore, vote, is the final objective.

There is still a need to expand the use of marketing in Politics, mainly because it is still viewed as a tool to be applied to campaigning only, especially communications. The Labour Party seems to be breaking this barrier by using market research in a broader frame, shifting the emphasis to the strategic level. Whether this is positive or not will depend – as it always does – on the use of collected data by party representatives.

Appendices

Graph 1

 

Graph 2

Graph 3

Graph 4

Summary of the interview with Stephen Ladyman on the

12th of December in the House of Commons.

1. Tony Blair is constantly criticised for turning Politics into show business. Is it fair, and how does the Labour Party use celebrity endorsement?

It’s a very unfair criticism because it started way back. You have to understand the marketing reason why you’re doing it in the first place. You’re not doing it because people take the views of the celebrity seriously. It’s about familiarity. These celebrities start making political speeches thinking everybody is going to listen to their views. Once they start making political speeches, they are just politicians. People listen to them as they would listen to politicians. If you feel friendly with that person, then you feel friendly about that person’s friend.

We know from all the research that we’ve done that people are significantly more likely to vote for somebody they’ve met or feel familiar with. If you can associate yourself with somebody that they feel familiar with, that they feel they’re friends with even though they never met, like a celebrity, then you get this familiarity with them and they are more likely to vote for you.

2. There was a debate last month about the excessive use of market research by the Government, especially focus groups. What would you comment on that?

If you look at the policies we’ve got today: we’re taking a very strong line on Iraq. Opinion polls tell we shouldn’t be doing that. On issues like genetic modified foods, huge body of opinion against what we’re doing.

We live in a democracy. Governments are supposed to listen to the people. If you don’t listen to the people enough, sooner or later you lose the election. We listen to the people but we try, and this is what Tony does very well, we try to look at what underlines the people’s concerns. It doesn’t matter the way their opinions are manifested at that moment. If you understand what’s at the bottom of it and you address that problem…

What’s a focus group? A focus group is a group of members of the public. What’s wrong with talking to members of the public about the way they feel? How can that be a silly thing to do?

When we started looking at how to raise extra money for the universities and this debate about tuition fees began and Top up fees the MPs who immediately said top up fees would be a disaster in our constituencies. So it was dropped. Ultimately it’s Tony’s job to balance that. He gets feedback from us and decides which way he wants to go.

3. Regarding the Iraq affair, how do you believe the outcome of the war may affect the Party’s image?

We know that the Americans traditionally go their own way and the only way you can influence the American government is to be very close to it. Tony realised that the only way he could influence their response was to be their number one ally.

We’re close to George Bush but when the payoff of that comes, then we get our reward. How would history judge us if we leave him (Saddam Hussain) to do that know that that’s what he’s doing?

4. But don’t you think that this will be a major issue in the next election?

In this country, the key determinant of a general election is the economy. Since the 1950’s our economy has been very weak. Thru the 60’s we had huge balance of trade deficit, rising unemployment. In the 70’s we had serious instability in the economy. In the 80’s we had rapidly growing unemployment. It went from about half a million to 3 million across the whole country.

What we’ve done since the 1997 is fix that. For the first time in our history in a long time, we now have 5 or 6 years of stability. We have the strongest growing economy in the world.

This is one of the questions we’ll have to ask ourselves when it comes to marketing for the next general election: if we have convinced everybody we’ve fixed the economy, what should we be talking about? So it is possible that defence and foreign affairs become more important in the agenda.

5. And Cherie’s affair?

It will blow over. His image has reached a plateau. It might even turn around to his favour.

6. How would you define Tony Blair?

As a leader, he is persuasive, committed and brave. As a leader of the Labour Party, he works very hard at explaining his points of views. Labour is not an organisation that likes to be led. They tolerate leaders rather then welcome them to their hearts. The most popular leaders are left-wingers to the Party and the least effective ones.

If you had to divide the LP in sections, 30 to 40% don’t like him because they are to the left of the Party. 50 to 60% do like him. It’s because 60% are pragmatic and know that we can do the things we believe in only when we’re in power. The 40% want to do all the things we believe in today even though we would lose the next election. Tony takes the pragmatic view that we do things little by little, bring people forward, don’t tackle too many of the very unpopular issues all at once. That way we keep winning the elections. 60% of the Party understand that.

7. What does the Party consider will be the major issues in the next election and what are the proposals for them?

The priorities are health, education and transport:

Health: hospital waiting lists, quality of care, care of the elderly.

Education: reform, secondary standards and A levels.

Transport: road tows, improve rail services to give alternatives to cars.

Bibliography

Alba, J. W. and Hutchinson, J. W. (2000) “Knowledge Calibration: what consumers know and what they think they know”, Journal of Consumer Research, 27: 2, 123-156.

Ariely, D. (2000) “Controlling the information flow: effects on consumers’decision making and preferences”, Journal of Consumer research, 27:2, 233-248.

Armitage, A., Bryant, R., Dunnill, R., Hammersley, M., hayes, D., Hudson, A. and Lawes, S. (2001) Teaching and Training in Post-Compulsory Education Philadelphia, Open University Press.

BBC [online] [cited 13 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

BBC [online] [cited 14 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

British Studies Web Pages [online] [cited 14 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:  

Brown, S. (1998) Post Modern Marketing, Oxford, Thomson Business Press.

Butler, P. and Collins, N. (1996) “Strategic analysis in political markets”, European Journal of Marketing, 30: 10-11, 25-36.

Cosmopolis [online] [cited 12 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

http://

CNN [online] [cited 14 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) “The costs and benefits of consuming”, Journal of Consumer Research, 27:2, 267-273.

Dermody, J. and Scullion, R. (2001) “An Exploration of Advertising: Ambitions and strategies of the 2001 British General Election”, Journal of Marketing Management, 17: 9-10, 969-987.

East, R. (1997) Consumer Bahaviour: Advances and Applications in Marketing, Hertfordshire, Prentice Hall.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D. and Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer Behavior (6th ed.). Orlando, Dryden Press.

Financial Times [online] [cited 12 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

Gilmour, I. (1977) Inside Right: A Study of Conservatism, London, Hitchinson.

Grossman, R. P. and Wisenblit, J. Z. (1999) “What we know about consumers’ color choices”, Journal of Marketing Practice: applied marketing science, 5: 3, 78-88.

Harvard University [online] [cited 15 Dec 2001] Available from Internet:

Kavanagh, D., Bogdanor, V., Curtice, J., Kavanagh, D., King, A., Lijphart, A., McAllister, I., Mckie, D., O’leary, C., Ranney, A., Rose, R., Seymour-ure, C. and Stokes, D. (1992) Electoral Politics, New York, Oxford University Press.

Kavanagh, D. (1982) The Politics of the Labour Party, Herts, George Allen & Unwin Publishers Ltd.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S. (1969) “Broadening the concept of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, 33:1, 10-15.

Kotler and Armstrong (2001), Principles of Marketing, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Lock, A. and Harris, A. (1996) “Political marketing – vive la difference!, European Journal of Marketing, 30: 10-11, 14-24.

.

Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (1998) “Positioning alternative perspectives of consumer behaviour”, Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 3-28.

Meloney, K. and Colmer, R. (2001) “Does Political PR Enhance or Trivialise Democracy?”, Journal of Marketing Management,  17: 9-10, 957-968.

Mori Poll [online] [cited 14 Dec 2001] Available from Internet:

Mowen, J. and Minor, J. (2001) Consumer Behaviour, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

O’Cass, A. (1996) “Political marketing and the marketing concept”, European Journal of Marketing, 30: 10-11, 37-53.

Pelling, H. (1985) A Brief History of the Labour Party, Hong Kong, The Macmillan Press Ltd.

Reece, I. and Walker, S. (2000) Teaching, Training and Learning, Great Britain, Business Education Publishers Ltd.

Robertson, T. S., Zielinski, J. and Ward, S. (1984) Consumer Behaviour, Dallas, Scott, Foresman and Company.

Seyed, P. and whiteley, P. F. (1992) Labour’s Grass Roots: the Politics of Party Membershi, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Sheth, J. N., Gardner, D. M., & Garrett, D. E. (1988). Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, New York.

Smith, G. (2001) “The 2001 General Election: factors influencing the brand image of political parties and their leaders”, Journal of Marketing Management, 17: 9-10, 989-1006.

Stewart, M. ( 1974) Protest or Power? A Study of the Labour Party, Birkenhead, Wilmer Brothers Ltd.

The Guardian [online] [cited 11 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

The Guardian [online] [cited 16 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

The Guardian [online] [cited 16 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:

The Red Flag [online] [cited 14 Dec 2002] Available from Internet: ()

The Theory into Practice Database [online] [cited 14 Dec 2002] Available from Internet:  http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html

Threlfall, K. D. (1999) “Using focus groups as a consumer research tool”, Journal of Marketing Practice: applied marketing science”, 5: 4, 102-105.

Webster, C. (1992), “What kind of marketing culture exists in your service firm? An audit”, The Journal of Services Marketing, 6, 54-67.

Wring, D. (1994) “Marketing in British election campaigns: an overview”, working paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, university of Lancaster, September 1994.

Wring, D. (2001) “Labouring the Point: operation victory and the battle for a second term”,  Journal of Marketing Management, 17: 9-10, 913-927.

---