Za Delo sem konec julija izjavil, da je problem negativnih političnih kampanj, da “zmanjšujejo volilno udeležbo in povzročijo občutek, da volivec izbira med slabim in slabšim.” Seth Godin pa je pred včerjašnjimi predsedniškimi volitvami v ZDA ponudil dodatno – bolj trženjsko obarvano – razlago fenomena1.
Attack ads don’t always work. There’s a reason most product marketers don’t use attack ads. All they do is suppress sales of your opponent, they don’t help you. Since TV ads began, voter turnout has progressively decreased. That’s because the goal of attack ads is to keep your opponent’s voters from showing up. Both sides work to whittle down the other. In a winner-take-all game like a political election, this strategy is fine if it works.
So why didn’t the ads work this time?
The tribe that Obama built identified with him. Attacking him was like attacking them. They took it personally, and their outrage led to more donations and bigger turnout. This is the lucky situation Apple finds itself in as well. Attacking an Apple product is like attacking an Apple user.
Ali lahko torej sklepamo, da bomo v prihodnjih – vedno bolj internetno (beri: plemensko) obarvanih – političnih kampanjah videvali manj tovrstne “propagande”?