Strategic postures of political marketing: an exploratory operationalization

• Date: 01 February 2006
• Published date: 01 February 2006
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.39

Journal of Public Affairs

J. Publ. Aff. 6: 15–30 (2006)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pa.39

Strategic postures of political

marketing: an exploratory

operationalization

1

Stephan C. Henneberg*

School of Management, University of Bath, UK

*In contrast to most political marketing theories which imply that such concepts as ‘voter-

orientation’ or ‘voter-centric political management’ are trivial and uni-dimensional, this

article will take its starting point from an alternative perspective.

*It draws on the concept of political marketing ‘postures’, i.e. a multi-faceted conceptual

entity, based on varied dimensions of political marketing orientations. The main duality

consists of the constructs of ‘leading’ and ‘following’, with an auxiliary (and

complementary) dimension of ‘relationship building’.

*This article provides an exploratory methodology to operationalize this concept, which will

also be initially tested empiricially, using expert judgements as well as electorate’s

perceptions.

*Changing postures will be exemplified within a longitudinal application of the concept to

perceptions of Tony Blair as Prime Minister.

Copyright #2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

It is often assumed that political actors who

adopt political marketing instruments and

strategies, show superior performance, e.g. in

election contests, by developing a voter-centric

approach towards campaigning (Kavanagh,

1995; Scammell, 1995; Lock and Harris, 1996;

Newman, 1999, 2001). Building on this, con-

structs of political marketing management have

been developed that describe, and to some

extent prescribe, political marketing strategies

as well as organizational and procedural

capabilities associated with such strategies

(Newman, 1994; Henneberg, 2002). The

so-called Lees-Marshment Model of a ‘market-

oriented party’ exemplifies one such attempt

(Lees-Marshment, 2001; Lees-Marshment and

Bartle, 2002). However, while loosely coupled

with concepts of market-orientation in the

mainstream marketing literature (Kohli and

Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Kohli

et al., 1993; Deshpande, 1999; Lafferty and

Hult, 2001), these models of political marketing

management fall short of a sense of ‘direction’,

understood as a generic strategic position. In

other words, they provide a means to becoming

‘voter-centric’ (O’Cass, 2001) but do not clearly

point out what the essence of this construct is

(Henneberg, 2004b). In fact, most political

marketing theories seem to imply that concepts

—————

*Correspondence to: Stephan C. Henneberg, School of

Management, University of Bath, Bath BA 2 7AY, UK. Tel.:

þ44-(0)1225-383699.

E-mail: s.c.m.henneberg@bath.ac.uk

1

This article presents a revised version of a conference

paper delivered at the 7th Annual Political Marketing

Conference at Bath Spa University College, 9–11 Sept.

2004.

Copyright #2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, February 2006

such as ‘voter-orientation’ or ‘voter-centric

political management’ are theoretically trivial

and uni-dimensional. Thus, this article will take

as its starting point an alternative view: namely,

that political marketing ‘postures’ are concep-

tual entities that are multi-faceted, based on

varied dimensions of political marketing man-

agement. Their main duality consists of the

constructs of ‘leading’ and ‘following’, with an

auxiliary dimension of ‘relationship building’.

In so doing, this article draws on an argu-

ment that has been fully developed elsewhere

(Henneberg, 2006). A methodology to oper-

ationalize this concept will be discussed and

tested. Thus, different postures will be exem-

plified through the exploratory longitudinal

application of the construct of postures of

political marketing management. For this

purpose, perceptions of Tony Blair’s postures

as Prime Minister over a period of 16 months

are measured.

Strategic Postures and Political

Marketing Strategy

2

Political actors exhibit ‘strategic intent’ in the

sense of developing and implementing strate-

gies. For actors involved in the market of ‘high

politics’ (Henneberg, 2002), th ese strategies

ususally consist of a plan of how to win an

election campaign (Newman, 1994, 2002). To

this end, parties and political can didates may

apply political marketing to ols such as specific

communication tactics, distribution or news

management policies to fulfill ce rtain market-

ing functions that allow them to reach their

strategic aim (Kotler and Kotler, 1999; Henne-

berg, 2002). Use of marketing has become

ubiquituous to such an extent that it ‘ ...has

beccome impossible not to incorpo rate

a marketing orientation whe n running for

political office’ (Newman, 2002, p. 2). How-

ever, besides campaign-specific strategies

political parties need to address some more

fundamental strategic issues of political mar-

keting management (Newman, 1999). These

touch upon the essence of political marketing

and, as such, concern the basic orientation of

the party towards political marketing manage-

ment, i.e. the end towards which they deploy

political marketing instruments (Henneberg,

2002). Research concerning strategic market-

ing orientations of political actors (e.g. focus-

ing on competitive positionin g or the

contingencies of strategic fram eworks) has

been largely neglected (Scam mell, 1995; Butler

and Collins, 1996; O’Cass, 2001; Henneberg,

2004b). This is astonishing because is sues of

market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;

Narver and Slater, 1990; Lafferty and Hult,

2001) are currently dominating the strategic

marketing thinking (Morgan a nd Strong, 1998;

Deshpande, 1999). However, these concepts

need to be delineated from the ‘ma rket-

orientation’ that is someti mes used in the

political science literature (e.g. Lees-Marsh-

ment, 2001) which has to be understood as an

‘orientation towards market ing’ and not as a

specific marketing concept (Sl ater and Narver,

1999). On the other hand, political marketing

instruments and their use is now a commonly

researched issue (see for exa mple Newman,

1994; Kavanagh, 1995; Maarek, 1995; Wring,

1999; Marland, 2003).

This article will focus on the strategic

orientation of a party’s, or candidate’s,

approach towards the electoral market. This

basic direction of a party with regard to

political marketing management can be called

its strategic posture. It exemplifies in market-

ing terms how the organization ‘ ...aspires to

be perceived (by its customers, employees,

and partners) relative to its competitiors and

market’ (Aaker, 2001, p. 192). It encompasses

one element of what is called a competitive

position: how the actor intends to compete

(Hooley et al., 2001). These principles of the

competitive position are derived from the

actor’s/organization’s overall goals, its own

resources/competences, the market and com-

petitive situation, and the needs of its custo-

mers (Porter, 1985; Hooley et al., 1998; Aaker

2001). This posture ‘ ...to a large extent

—————

2

This section refers to the derivation of the concept

of political marketing postures as outlined in

Henneberg (2006).

Copyright #2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Public Affairs, February 2006

16 Stephan C. Henneberg