Political marketing and stakeholder
engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Abstract. Political marketing theory has developed and evolved in conjunction with
advancements in political science and commercial marketing. Commercial marketing
has been increasingly interested in developing marketing mechanisms which allows it
to satisfy the core customer groups while also meeting the broader needs of the community
and other stakeholders. Political marketing has the opportunity to build a
marketing framework that focuses on delivering value to a core target market (voters,
supporters) and addressing the needs of society at large. The paper outlines a new
definition of political marketing to meet the challenges of addressing the needs of the
political marketplace, political party stakeholders, and the broader social agenda. Key
Words
•marketing definition
•marketing mix
•political marketing definition
•stakeholders
•2007 American Marketing Association definition
Introduction
Political marketing is a hybrid sub-discipline that draws on the parent disciplines
of commercial marketing and political science. As a sub-discipline with two
parents, political marketing has the strength of drawing from the two theoretical
fields, and the weakness of drawing down from two areas of vulnerability, which
includes the need to adapt and adjust to changes in either parent discipline, and
the need to address the tension between the incompatible elements of political science
and political marketing. This paper is focused on addressing the first point –
the need to adapt and adjust to changes in the parent discipline of marketing,
given the developments in commercial marketing practice, including the recent
decision by the American Marketing Association (AMA) to release a new definition
of marketing. While political scientists may still debate the role of marketing
in politics, marketing researchers perceive it to have an appropriate and acceptable
role in the electoral process (O’Cass, 2001a).
243
Volume 9(2): 243–256
Copyright © 2009 SAGE
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470593109103070
articles
The paper develops a new definition of political marketing which encompasses
political marketing theory, practice and tradition with the contemporary AMA
(2007) definition of marketing. As a conceptual framework, the paper aims for a
global definition that can guide the efforts of political practice in first-past-thepost,
preferential, presidential and other political campaign styles by emphasizing
the approach of striking a balance between the needs of the marketer, marketplace
and society. By emphasizing the processes of political marketing, such as voterorientation
balanced against stakeholder needs, rather than the content of political
marketing, the definition is intended to be transferable into the specific
cultural, economic and political context of different elections and electoral
systems (Baines et al., 2001).The adaptation of the definition is following the Lock
and Harris (1996) ‘marketing-is-different’ approach, which argues that the applicability
of marketing theory and practice in politics is contingent on its adaptation
to the political environment.
Defining political marketing
In 2007, the AMA issued a revised and updated version of the official definition of
marketing, in recognition of the diversity of marketing practice, and the failure of
the AMA (2004) definition to fully capture the nuances of contemporary business
and non-business marketing activity. The new AMA (2007) definition of marketing
reads as:
the activity, set of institutions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and
exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
Keefe (2008) notes that the inclusion of ‘clients’ specifically relates to the role of
social, political and non-profit marketing in society, and the growing influence
marketing has beyond the traditional commercial spheres of influence. The recasting
of the AMA definition of marketing to explicitly recognize non-commercial
marketing activity presents an opportunity to revisit the interplay between
commerce-derived marketing theory, and application of political marketing. Sun
(2007) noted that the AMA (2004) definition appeared to encompass political
marketing through stakeholder management and exchange theory, although this
was never fully tested in the literature. The new AMA definition of marketing
created an opportunity to apply the Lock and Harris (1996) approach of adapting
commercial marketing principles before applying them to political marketing
practice. To this end, the paper offers an adapted version of the AMA (2007) commercial
marketing definition based on the extension of prior definitional adaption
work of Hughes and Dann (2006a, 2006b), the integration of contemporary definitions
of political marketing, and the influence of broader political marketing
theory and practice outlined below. Political marketing is defined as:
a set of activities, processes or political institutions used by political organisations, candidates
and individuals to create, communicate, deliver and exchange promises of value with voterconsumers,
political party stakeholders and society at large.
marketing theory 9(2)
articles
244
The new definition of political marketing groups the recipients of political
marketing practice into clusters of marketers (political parties, candidates and
individuals); voter-consumers (customer/client); political party stakeholders
(partners/clients); and society at large.
Constructing the political marketing definition
The definition presented in this paper has been developed specifically to adapt the
2007 AMA definition for political marketing purposes. It is a customized definition,
purpose built and designed to be applicable where the AMA (2007) definition
is the dominant understanding of commercial marketing. The AMA (2007) definition
of marketing was selected as the core bedrock definition for adaptation for two
reasons. First, the recent update in the definition provided a timely opportunity
to explore new conceptual ground. Second, a search of the academic journals
demonstrates the relative dominance of the AMA’s definitions (1937, 1985, 2004)
on commercial and non-commercial marketing theory. Consequently, the paper
recognizes the AMA definition as the dominant contemporary framework that
underpins the ‘marketing’ side of the Anglo-European, Asia-Pacific and American
political marketing literature reviewed for the paper.
Political marketing literature review
The review of the prior political marketing literature has been divided into the distinct
periods of marketing identified in line with AMA definitions of marketing.
Baines et al. (2001) noted that developments in political marketing are often seen
as an American export industry, and as such, are influenced by the AMA’s conceptual
frameworks. The paper will briefly overview the influence of prior AMA
definitions on political marketing literature through the respective reigns of the
different AMA definitions of marketing.
American Marketing Association (1937)
The AMA (1937) defined marketing as ‘those business activities involved in the
flow of goods and services from production to consumption’, later subtly refined
by the AMA Committee on Definitions (1960) as ‘the performance of business
activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers’
(Gundlach, 2007). Kotler and Levy’s (1969) suggestion that political candidates
could be marketed as well as soap, and in a manner not dissimilar to the sales practices
of the soap marketers, focused on the movement of party ideology to the
voter. Developments in commercial marketing theory, such as the McCarthy
(1960) marketing mix and the Bagozzi (1975) exchange theory, were adapted by
the developing political marketing movement with O’Leary and Iredale (1976)
discussing the application of the marketing mix for political purposes, and Sharma
(1975) applying the exchange concept.
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
245
Political marketing (1985 to 2004)
The AMA (1985) definition of marketing as ‘the process of planning and executing
the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and
services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives’
represented a world view of marketing dominated by the Bagozzi (1975) exchange
paradigm, McCarthy’s (1960) marketing mix, and a managerial approach of
marketing as a planned procedure. Political marketing literature of this period
adapted the exchange theory, marketing mix, and managerial marketing.
Political marketing theory had been an early adopter of the Bagozzi exchange
paradigm with O’Leary and Iredale’s (1976) exploration of its application to a bidirectional
benefit flow of benefits for votes and votes for electoral outcomes, and
subsequent examinations of exchange through Lock and Harris (1996) Newman
(1999) and O’Shaughnessy (2001).
Newman (1999) approached political marketing holistically, applying marketing
principles and procedures to political campaigning, with O’Shaughnessy
(2001) and Lees-Marshment (2001) emphasizing the managerial aspects of the
adaption of business concepts, strategy, tactics, structures, labels and techniques to
explain the process of exchange between voter and political party. O’Cass (1996a,
1996b) and Lock and Harris (1996) viewed the activities of the political marketer
as a strategic approach, utilizing marketing techniques of positioning, communication,
research and market orientation for political campaigns.
Supplementing the exploration of the exchange were efforts to apply the AMA
(1985) conceptual parameters of the marketing mix, with an emphasis on the
product as ‘ideas, goods and services’. Clemente (1992) integrated elements of the
AMA (1985) in viewing political marketing as involving ideas and opinions which
relate to public or political issues. Harrop (1990) outlined a view of political
marketing as a form of services marketing in which the political marketer was no
different from any other services marketer who was promising intangible benefits
from a future service.
Political marketing (2004 to 2007)
In 2004, the AMA released a relatively controversial new version of the commercial
marketing definition, which recast the discipline as:
an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering
value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization
and its stakeholders.
The decision by the AMA to release a new version of marketing in 2004 resulted in
the need to re-examine how political marketing integrated the new understanding
of commercial marketing into the political marketing sphere. The changes
between 1985 and 2004 had several impacts on the way marketing was to be
considered, which included removing exchange as the core of marketing, discussed
in depth elsewhere (Dann, 2005; Hughes and Dann, 2006b).
With the radical shift away from exchange and the revised definition of marketmarketing
theory 9(2)
articles
246
ing incorporating value creation, organizational benefit and benefit to the organization’s
stakeholders, Dann (2006b: 6) outlined a new definition of political marketing
as:
a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering promises of value to voters and
for managing voter relationships in ways that benefit the political organization and its stake-
holders.
Hughes and Dann (2006b) also defined key elements within the primary definitions
as follows: ‘Promises of value’ were defined as ‘political products which
included explicit promises of policy, political candidates and implicit promises of
the party’s ability to govern’; ‘Benefit for the political organization’ incorporated
support such as votes, financial donations and other support of time, effort and
loyalty.
The AMA (2007) definition of marketing
In 2006, the AMA elected to undertake an uncharacteristically rapid review of the
definition, and move towards developing a revised position before the tenure of
AMA (2004) was fully established. The AMA defines marketing as:
the activity, set of institutions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and
exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
There are four major changes which influence impact on the adaptation and
adoption of the revised marketing concept for application in political marketing
theory and practice. First, there is a renewed focus on marketing being activities,
institutions and processes that reflect its integrated role in the organization, in line
with Lock and Harris (1996). Second, the principle of exchange has been restored
to the core of the definition. Third, the outcomes of the marketing process are seen
as ‘offerings of value’ rather than value itself. Finally, overt recognition of organizational
benefit as a key outcome of marketing has been removed.
The development of a new definition of commercial marketing represents an
opportunity to expand the political marketing portfolio to incorporate the recent
developments in the marketing parent discipline (Henneberg, 2004). The following
section examines the AMA (2007) definition in four component categories:
‘Activity, set of institutions and processes’; ‘Creating, communicating delivering
and exchanging’; ‘Offerings that have value’ and ‘Customers, clients, partners and
society at large’.
Political marketing as ‘the activity, set of institutions and processes’
Political marketing as a set of processes is directly supported by Clemente (1992);
Lees-Marshment (2001); Lock and Harris (1996); Newman (1999); O’Cass
(1996a, 1996b); and implicitly recognized by Baines et al. (2002, 2003); Butler and
Collins (1996); Egan (2005); O’Cass (2001b); O’Shaughnessy (2001); and Wring
(1994, 1997).
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
247
Creating, communicating delivering and exchanging offerings of value
Lock and Harris (1996) predate the AMA (2007) by a decade with their recognition
of the voter-consumer’s interpretation of the whole of the political campaign
as the means of product creation. Similarly, notions of value creation and value
exchange arise in the trade of promises of future intent in exchange for an immediate
benefit to the organization such as votes, donations or volunteering (Harrop,
1990). Political exchange is a recognized element of the practical political marketing
process in campaign volunteering, voting, campaign donations and active
partisan support for an issue or organization (Stone and Rosen, 2006).
Offerings that have value
Offerings of value exist in political marketing as promises of value between the
political party and the target market as the abstract and intangible political
product consisting of future promises and projected belief in the ability to govern,
based on the policy, leadership, candidate, party and prior track record (Hughes
and Dann, 2006a). Harrop (1990), Lees-Marshment (2001), Newman (1999) and
O’Shaughnessy (2001) identify the political product as an intangible, abstract
offering that has value both for the voter and for broader society.
Customers, clients, partners and society at large
Customers are the recipients of direct value from the political process in exchange
for their time, effort, votes or cash which includes voters, active party supporters,
and current party members (Ormrod et al., 2007). Clients are those people who
are the indirect beneficiaries of a policy or government action even if they did not
vote for the political party. Partners are the active participants in the political
marketing process which covers the suppliers and distributors of the political
marketing product and may include the media and other parties within the political
playing field. Society at large represents the whole of the community as a stakeholder
in the political process (Ormrod et al., 2007).
The nature of the political process is such that while promises of future intent
are produced for a specific target market, the consequences of the implementation
of these promises are experienced by the whole of society, with the end result that
successful political marketing is also required to address the needs of all stakeholders,
as well as constituent target markets, while in office (Egan, 2005).
Defining a stakeholder view of political marketing
Definitions of marketing are torn between being a descriptor of current practice,
and an aspirant goal for future best practice (Hunt, 2007). Creating a new definition
of political marketing is fraught with challenges from the perspective of producing
an academically robust concept which is also sufficiently flexible to
marketing theory 9(2)
articles
248
proscribe and describe practical implementation issues. Any new definition must
also compete with the existing definitions in the market, and present a case for its
existence. For an applied discipline such as political marketing, the challenge is
exacerbated by needing to choose between the practical orientation and the conceptual
domain. As part of the new definition of political marketing, the paper also
examines the implementation issue of addressing the four stakeholder clusters of
clients, customers, partners and society at large as part of the new commercial and
political marketing frameworks.
Offering that has value for whom?
The implicit, yet relatively overt, tactical aspects of the political marketing definition
is the requirement for the use of market research and market segmentation to
identify and understand the voter–consumer and stakeholders targets of the
promises of value. Market research will be required as a core part of political
marketing for segmentation, targeting, listening and development of offerings of
value for the marketplace (Foster, 2006; Hayes and McAllister, 1996; Scammell,
1995, 1999; Sparrow and Turner, 2001). Similarly, branding and positioning
strategies need to be based on targeting electorate segments (Savigny, 2005;
Seawright, 2005; Smith, 2005) in order to create the communications of value that
underpin the application of the political marketing definition to practice.
Stakeholder-based political marketing
Political marketing has been relatively limited in the extent to which it regards
political stakeholders as recipients of the outcomes of marketing, as much of prior
literature has focused on the ‘transaction’ between voters and candidate, or voters
and parties as the central political exchange (Ormrod et al., 2007; O’Shaughnessy
and Henneberg, 2007). Stakeholder engagement and stakeholder offerings of
value are a central part of the political marketing definition. The following section
presents a means for identifying, classifying and prioritizing stakeholder influence
over the political marketing organization through adaptation of the commercial
marketing stakeholder frameworks of Agle et al. (1999), Dann and Dann (2007)
and Scholem and Stewart (2002).
Assessing stakeholders in political marketing
Seventeen types of stakeholders have been identified from the broader commercial,
political and social marketing literature through the use of Scholem and
Stewart’s (2002) stakeholder mapping process. These groups have been clustered
by the three targets of the political marketing process (voter, stakeholder and society),
along with an assessment of their source of influence and type of stakeholder
behaviour. These stakeholder categories have been determined by their alignment
with the AMA (2007) recipients of marketing offerings of value, and an expanded
Dann and Dann (2007) construct which identifies stakeholders as passive, active
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
249
or ‘switch’, depending on whether they influenced (active), were influenced (passive)
or could perform either role in their interactions with the organization
(Table 1)
Sources of influence are based on Mitchell et al.’s (1997) model for determining
the relative importance of stakeholders. Urgency is the immediacy with which the
organization feels it has to act to resolve the stakeholder’s issue, and operates as a
multiplier effect on the influence of the stakeholder’s claim (Agle et al., 1999;
Neville et al., 2003). The function of the stakeholder has the greatest impact on the
level of dependence, which in turn influences the urgency, and creates the stakemarketing
theory 9(2)
articles
250
Table 1
Political marketing stakeholders (Derived from Hughes and Dann, 2006a)
Stakeholder Target group Type Source of influence
Alternative Political Providers Party stakeholders Switch Legitimacy or
Urgency
Electoral commission Society Active Power and
Legitimacy/Urgency
Government (parliament) Society Passive Power and Legitimacy
Government (public service) Society Passive Legitimacy
Industry Lobby Groups Party stakeholders Active Legitimacy/Urgency
plus varying Power
Issue Competitors Party stakeholders Switch Power or Legitimacy
or Urgency
Media Society Active Power and Urgency
and/or Legitimacy
Party Donors Party stakeholder Active Power/Legitimacy
Party members and supporters Party stakeholder Active Power and Legitimacy
Political candidates Party stakeholders Active Legitimacy and
Urgency and/or
Power
Political opponents Party stakeholder Active Urgency
Private lobbyists Party stakeholders Active Legitimacy and varying
Power and
Urgency
Social pressure lobby groups Party stakeholders Switch Varying levels of
Legitimacy and/or
Urgency and/or
Power
Society / citizens / community Society Passive Legitimacy
Splinter Interest Groups Society Switch Power/Urgency
Voters (between elections) Voter-consumer Switch Legitimacy
Voters (election time) Voter-consumer Switch Power and/or
Urgency and/or
Legitimacy
holder’s organizational power (Neville et al., 2005). Power is regarded as the extent
to which the stakeholders can assert their will over the political party through
formal authority, administration of reward and punishments, personal power,
politicized power and the convergence of opportunities, shared interest or acts of
co-option (Greene and Elfrers, 1999; Maignan et al., 2005; Yukl, 1998, in Bourne
and Walker, 2005). Legitimacy is the appropriateness of the stakeholders’ actions
towards the party, based on their association with the party as voters, candidates,
traditional support base or other affiliation (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Using the stakeholder as a basis for ethical political marketing
Minimizing unintended stakeholder impact from political marketing activity has
been an underemphasized aspect of the implementation of most political campaigns.
Overpromising undeliverable products damages the political party brand
(e.g. broken promises of low interest rates, undelivered tax reforms) and the overall
reputation of the political product. Increased voter distrust of politicians
increases the complexity of the task facing political marketers – one future development
for political marketing is to improve the perceived product quality of the
politician and political party in the marketplace.
Similarly, although negative campaigning has been a staple of the political
marketing portfolio, it must now be viewed in terms of the impact on society and
political party stakeholders (Bissell, 1994; Hughes, 2003). The after-effect of the
use of fear campaigns to polarize an electorate or to marginalize a social group
falls within the intended and unintended consequences of a political marketing
campaign. Deliberately and willingly targeting a political product or message to
marginalize a group (e.g. asylum seekers, unions) has an intentional consequence
of damaging this group’s reputation in the community in exchange for some form
of political gain. Political marketers also need to consider the consequences of
normalizing targeted discrimination and negative campaigning against a social
group in the broader context of society. Increased levels of negative campaign,
divisionary fear tactics and outright attacks on the personal character of members
of social groups allow similar techniques to be used to foster racism, gender discrimination
and bullying tactics under the guise of political speech. Where the
original campaign may have run with the intention of gaining votes and supporters,
it has the consequence of perpetuating damaging behaviours in the
broader social system by normalizing unacceptable practices of targeted fear and
marginalization campaigns.
Limitations of the political marketing definition
First, although this paper is proactively in support of the use of marketing in the
political context, this position is not universal throughout marketing or political
science; for example Crot (2006) describes political marketing as a ‘wrapper of
deceit’ on the political process. Similarly, the authors are aware of criticisms of
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
251
marketing’s role and place through work such as Savigny’s (2007) complaint that
marketing, market research and segmentation was effectively depoliticizing the
electoral process. The authors accept that a possible limitation of the paper is its
fundamental assumption that marketing has accepted a role, and is entitled to a
place in the political process.
Second, by choice, the authors have limited their work to the adaptation of the
AMA (2007) definition of marketing, and while acknowledging the existence of
alternative definitions of marketing, such as the CIM (2005) definition, the paper
has not addressed alternative frameworks. Further research into the adaptation of
the CIM (2005) definition and its competitors is recommended for researchers
seeking a non-American focus to frame their future definitions.
Third, success metrics have not been integrated into the core of the political
marketing definition, as the authors feel that political marketing should not be so
narrowly defined as to apply only in the event of victory. Multi-party electoral systems,
where political marketing can and will be applied across the whole of the
political marketplace, allows for its success and failure in application – commercial
marketing is not a guarantee of financial success, and political marketing should
not be held to a less realistic expectation than the parent discipline.
Finally, the authors acknowledge a regional, cultural and historical bias inherited
from their backgrounds in a multi-party system with a compulsory preferential
voting system. While attempts have been made to source political marketing
thought from a broader international context, it has been predominantly limited
to the English language (with the exception of Bechtold and Grimiaux, 2006), and
predominantly to American, European and Australian political systems with the
exception of Taiwan (Chen and Chen, 2003) and Thailand (Nelson, 2007).
Further research and application of the political marketing definition across
cultural, political and electoral systems is required before the definition can be
presumed to have the global reach intended in its design.
Conclusion
Marketing has established and accepted a role and responsibility in the political
process, and the time has come to recognize that after three decades of contemporary
academic research, the question is one of the role that is being played, and not
if a role is to be played in politics at all. This paper contributes to the development
of the political marketing literature by adapting the AMA’s definition of marketing
for use in the political marketing context, and by supplementing the conceptual
groundwork of the definition with a discussion of its implementation through
the SIVA political marketing mix.
Political marketing has involved the targeted offerings of value to voters in
exchange for votes, for the benefit of broader societal stakeholders, as the core part
of its engagement in the political process. While party political product offerings
are designed to meet the needs of key target markets, the political process and the
act of government is also one of meeting the broader stakeholder needs of society.
marketing theory 9(2)
articles
252
To this end, the modern political marketing campaign must be examined in the
light of both contemporary marketing understanding, and the importance of
tempering targeted, niche-based political offerings of value against the broader
societal needs of good government, political representation and societal benefit.
This paper offers the adaptation of the SIVA model as a mechanism for political
marketers to assess their offers against the needs of the voter–consumer, and the
needs of the party’s key stakeholders including the wider society in which the party
operates. The consumer-voter-focused marketing mix allows for the creation,
communication and delivery of customized solutions based on the needs of stakeholder,
voter and society. The same political product of policy can be communicated,
exchanged and delivered as a range of different solutions depending on the
needs of the target market.
As the ultimate goal of political marketing is the opportunity to govern for the
benefit of society, it should take the opportunity presented by SIVA, AMA (2007)
and other developments in marketing to create, communicate, deliver and
exchange political offerings of value to the stakeholder communities as part of the
process of pursuing electoral success in 2008 and beyond.
References
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1999) ‘Who Matters to CEOs? An
Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and
CEO Values’, Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 507–25.
American Marketing Association (AMA) (1937) An Association for the Advancement of
Science in Marketing: Proposal for Constitution and By-laws. Chicago, IL: AMA.
American Marketing Association (AMA) (1985) ‘The Definition of Marketing’, Marketing
News, 1 March, p. 2.
American Marketing Association (AMA) (2004) ‘Definition’, Marketing News, 15
September, p. 4.
American Marketing Association (AMA) (2007) ‘Definition of Marketing’, URL:
www.marketingpower.com
American Marketing Association (AMA), Committee on Definitions (1960) Marketing
Definitions: A Glossary of Marketing Terms. Chicago, IL: AMA.
Bagozzi, R. (1975) ‘Marketing as Exchange’, Journal of Marketing 39(October): 32–9.
Baines, P., Harris, P. and Lewis, B. (2002) ‘The Political Marketing Planning Process:
Improving Image and Message in Strategic Target Areas’, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning 20(1): 6–14.
Baines, P., Scheucher, C. and Plasser, F. (2001) ‘The “Americanisation” Myth in
European Political Markets’, European Journal of Marketing 35(9/10): 1099.
Baines, P., Worcester, R., Jarrett, D. and Mortimore, R. (2003) ‘Market Segmentation
and Product Differentiation in Political Campaigns: A Technical Feature Perspective’,
Journal of Marketing Management 19(1/2): 225.
Bechtold, M. and Grimiaux, C. (2006) ‘Le marketing politique quarante ans après . . .
analyse des sept campagnes presidentielles’, Revue Francaise du Marketing 210(5):
39–73.
Bissell, J. (1994) ‘Politics May Be Negative, but not Brand Marketing’, Brandweek, 21
November, p. 16.
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
253
Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2005) ‘Visualising and Mapping Stakeholder Influence’,
Management Decision 43(5): 649–60.
Butler, P. and Collins, N. (1996) ‘Strategic Analysis in Political Markets’, European
Journal of Marketing 30(10/11): 25–36.
Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) (2005) ‘Marketing and the 7Ps: A Brief
Summary of Marketing and How It Works’, Knowledge Hub, URL (consulted June
2008): http://www.cim.co.uk/KnowledgeHub
Chen, C-F. and Chen, J-M. (2003) ‘The Construction of Electoral Marketing Modes in
Taiwan’, International Journal of Management 20(92): 143–55.
Clemente, M.N. (1992) The Marketing Glossary. New York: Amacon.
Crot, L. (2006)‘“Scenographic” and “Cosmetic” Planning: Globalization and Territorial
Restructuring in Buenos Aires’, Journal of Urban Affairs 28(3): 227–51.
Dann, S. (2005) ‘Social Change Marketing in the Age of Direct Benefit – Where to from
Here?’, Social Change in the 21st Century, QUT Carseldine, 28 October.
Dann, S. and Dann, S. (2007) Competitive Marketing Strategy. Sydney: Pearson.
Egan, J. (2005) ‘Another False Dawn? The Liberal Democrats 2005’, Journal of Marketing
Management 21: 959–78.
Foster, J.T. (2006) ‘Is Online Polling a. Representation b. Accurate c. Efficient d. Don’t
Know Yet’, Campaigns and Elections 27(8): 30–4.
Greene, R. and Elfrers, J. (1999) Power the 48 Laws. London: Profile Books.
Gundlach, G.T. (2007) ‘The American Marketing Association’s 2004 Definition of
Marketing: Perspectives on Its Implications for Scholarship and the Role and
Responsibility of Marketing in Society’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 26(2):
243–50.
Harrop, M. (1990) Political Marketing, Parliamentary Affairs. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hayes, B. and McAllister, I. (1996) ‘Marketing Politics to Voters: Late Deciders in the
1992 British Election’, European Journal of Marketing 30(10/11): 127–39.
Henneberg, S.C. (2004) ‘The Views of an Advocatus Dei: Political Marketing and Its
Critics’, Journal of Public Affairs 4(3): 225–43.
Hughes, A., (2003) ‘Defining Negative Political Advertising: Definition, Features and
Tactics’, Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, University of
South Australia, Adelaide, December.
Hughes, A. and Dann, S. (2006a) ‘Political Marketing and Stakeholders’, Australia and
New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, December.
Hughes, A. and Dann, S. (2006b) ‘Political Marketing 2006: Direct Benefit, Value and
Managing the Voter Relationship’, Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy
Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, December.
Hunt, S. (2007) ‘A Responsibilities Framework for Marketing as a Professional
Discipline’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 26(2): 277–83.
Keefe, L.M. (2008) ‘Marketing Defined’, Marketing News, 15 January, pp. 28–9.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S. (1969) ‘Broadening the Concept of Marketing’, Journal of
Marketing 33: 10–15.
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001) ‘The Product, Sales and Marketing-oriented Party: How
Labour Learnt to Market the Product, Not Just the Presentation’, European Journal of
Marketing 35(9/10): 1074–84.
Lock, A. and Harris, P. (1996) ‘Political Marketing – vive la difference’, European
Journal of Marketing 30(10/11): 21–31.
marketing theory 9(2)
articles
254
McCarthy, E.J. (1960) Basic Marketing, a Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005) ‘A Stakeholder Model for Implementing
Social Responsibility in Marketing’, European Journal of Marketing 39(9/10): 956–77.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) ‘Toward a Theory of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts’
The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–86.
Nelson, M. (2007) ‘Institutional Incentives and Informal Local Political Groups
(Phuak) in Thailand: Comments on Allen Hicken and Paul Chambers’, Journal of East
Asian Studies 7: 125–47
Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2005) ‘Corporate Reputation, Stakeholders and
the Social Performance–Financial Performance Relationship’, European Journal of
Marketing 39(9/10): 1184–98.
Neville, B.A., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2003) ‘Stakeholder Salience Reloaded:
Operationalising Corporate Social Responsibility’, Australia and New Zealand
Marketing Academy Conference, Adelaide, December.
Newman, B. (1999) Handbook of Political Marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Cass, A. (1996a) ‘Political Marketing and the Marketing Concept’, European Journal
of Marketing 30(10/11): 21–31.
O’Cass, A. (1996b) ‘Political Marketing: Marketing, Politics and Ethical Issues’, in C.
Riquier and B. Sharp (eds) Southern Marketing: Theory and Applications, Vol II.
Proceedings of the 1996 Australian Marketing Educators Conference, Adelaide,
pp.24–31.
O’Cass, A. (2001a) ‘Internal–External Marketing Orientation of a Political Party: Social
Implications of Political Party Marketing Orientation’, Journal of Public Affairs 1(2):
136–52.
O’Cass, A. (2001b) ‘Political Marketing: An Investigation of the Political Marketing
Concept and Political Marketing Orientation in Australian Politics’, European Journal
of Marketing 35(9/10): 1003–25.
O’Leary, R. and Iredale, I. (1976) ‘The Marketing Concept: Quo Vadis?’, European
Journal of Marketing 10(3): 1446–57.
Ormrod, R., Henneberg, S., Forward, N., Miller, J., and Tumms, L. (2007) ‘Political
Marketing in Untraditional Campaigns: The Case of David Cameron’s Conservative
Party Leadership Victory’, Journal of Public Affairs 7: 235–48.
O’Shaughnessy, N. and Henneberg, S. (2007) ‘The Selling of the President 2004: A
Marketing Perspective’, Journal of Public Affairs 7: 249–68.
O’Shaughnessy, N. (2001) ‘The Marketing of Political Marketing’, European Journal of
Marketing 35(9/10): 1047–57.
Savigny, H. (2005) ‘Labour, Political Marketing and the 2005 Election: A Campaign of
Two Halves’, Journal of Marketing Management 21: 925–41.
Savigny, H. (2007) ‘Focus Groups and Political Marketing: Science and Democracy as
Axiomatic?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9(1): 122–37.
Scammell, M. (1995) Designer Politics: How Elections Are Won. London: Macmillan.
Scammell, M. (1999) ‘Political Marketing: Lessons for Political Science’, Political Studies
47(4): 718–39.
Scholem, P. and Stewart, D. (2002) ‘Towards a Measurement Framework for
Stakeholder-issue Identification and Salience’, Australia and New Zealand Marketing
Academy Conference, Melbourne, December.
Seawright, D. (2005) ‘“On A Low Road”: The 2005 Conservative Campaign’, Journal of
Political marketing and stakeholder engagement
Andrew Hughes and Stephen Dann
255
Marketing Management 21(9): 943–57.
Sharma, A. (1975) ‘The Marketing of Political Candidates’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 4(4): 767–77.
Smith, G. (2005) ‘Positioning Political Parties: The 2005 UK General Election’, Journal
of Marketing Management 21(9): 135–49.
Sparrow, N. and Turner, J. (2001) ‘The Permanent Campaign – The Integration of
Market Research Techniques in Developing Strategies in a More Uncertain Political
Climate’, European Journal of Marketing 35(9/10): 984–1002.
Stone, A. and Rosen, D. (2006) ‘Entertain the Vote: Using Web Video Effectively in
Campaigns’, Campaigns & Elections 27(3): 54–8.
Sun, H. (2007) ‘International Political Marketing: A Case Study of its Application in
China’, Journal of Public Affairs 7: 331–40.
Wring, D. (1994) ‘Marketing in British Election Campaigns: An Overview’. Working
paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference, University of
Lancaster, September.
Wring, D. (1997) ‘Reconciling Marketing with Political Science: Theories of Political
Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management 13: 651–63.
Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organisations. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.
Andrew Hughes is a lecturer at the Australian National University in Canberra,
Australia. His research interests include political marketing, particularly the role of
personal brands in political marketing campaigns, and attention capture in television
advertising. He has also published works in marketing strategy and on stakeholder
theory. Address: School of Management, Marketing and International Business, Crisp
Building 026, Australian National University, ACT 0200 Australia.
[email: andrew.hughes@anu.edu.au]
Stephen Dann is a senior lecturer at the Australian National University in Canberra,
Australia. His research interests include political marketing, social marketing, and internet
marketing. He has also published works on defining marketing, marketing strategy
and the influence of advertising on young people from a social marketing perspective.
Address: School of Management, Marketing and International Business, Crisp Building
026, Australian National University, ACT 0200 Australia.
[email: stephen.dann@anu.edu.au]
marketing theory 9(2)
articles
256