Debate
A Critique of the Lees-Marshment
Market-Oriented Party Model
Robert P. Ormrod
Institute for Marketing and Statistics, Aarhus School of Business
This article presents conceptual and empirical criticisms of the Lees-Marshment market-oriented
party model. Conceptual criticisms are the short-term approach, the narrow focus on voters, the
nature of the relationship to competitors, a tendency towards centralisation and the lack of a distinction
between the related concepts of ‘market orientation’ and ‘marketing orientation’. Empirical
studies demonstrate problems with the model when applied to certain party types and electoral
systems, the limitations on implementation of the model due to ideology and scarce resources, the
partial application of the model in practice, and the constraints on the market-oriented party when
in government.
Introduction
One of the most important concepts in commercial marketing, market orientation,
has only recently been applied to political parties (e.g. Lees-Marshment, 2001a
and 2001b; O’Cass, 1996, 2001a and 2001b; Ormrod, 2004 and 2005), and by far
the largest amount of empirical work has examined Lees-Marshment’s (2001a
and 2001b) market-oriented party model. This article will first describe LeesMarshment’s
(2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party model and then provide
conceptual criticisms from the commercial market orientation literature and criticisms
based on the results of empirical studies carried out in various countries
around the world.
The market-oriented party model
Jennifer Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) proposes three basic types of political
party, the product-, sales- and market-oriented party. A product-oriented party
develops its policies internally and then argues their merits to the voting public.
The policies define the party; they will remain the same irrespective of whether
they enable the party to gain political influence. The sales-oriented party uses communication
techniques from the business world to sell its policies to voters, realising
this is necessary as not all of the electorate will automatically vote for it. The
sales-oriented party is similar to the product-oriented party as policy is still developed
internally, but differs in that market intelligence is used to design the sales
strategy. Finally, Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party first
generates information on voter preferences and then ‘designs a product that will
actually satisfy voters’ demands: that meets their needs and wants, is supported
and implemented by the internal organisation, and is deliverable in government’
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2), 110–118
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
(Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 30). Furthermore, the market-oriented party ‘does not
attempt to change what people think, but to deliver what they need and want’
(Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 30). It is Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b)
market-oriented party type that is the focus of her work, and also of this
article.
Lees-Marshment’s (2001a, p. 31) model (Table 1) charts the process the marketoriented
party passes through during the electoral cycle. The first stage, market intelligence,
refers to the activities carried out by party professionals and volunteer
members that generate information from formal (analysis of opinion polls,
questionnaires, focus groups) and informal (social interaction with individual’s
network) sources. Volunteer party members are important, as stages two and three,
product design and product adjustment, describe the process that the results of the
market intelligence stage must go through to gain the acceptance of the party faithful.
As many volunteer members as possible should be included in the formulation
of policies, as this will ‘increase co-operation and understanding between them
and help to reduce the chances of an “outsider/insider” (professional/party
member) distinction arising’ (Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 33).
Stages four and five, the implementation and communication of party policy out to
the electorate is carried out continuously, and if successful, stage six, the campaign,
‘is then almost superfluous to requirements but provides the last chance to convey
to voters what is on offer. If the party is the most market-oriented of its main competitors,
it then wins the election’ (Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 211). Finally, if the
party wins the election in stage seven, it must then deliver on its election pledges
in stage eight, delivery, which ‘is crucial to the ultimate success of marketing and
therefore political marketing’ (Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 40).
Conceptual critique
The concept of ‘market orientation’ in the commercial marketing literature was
first introduced more than 40 years ago by Theodore Levitt (1960), who argued
that more attention should be paid to the markets that the business served instead
of concentrating on the product that the business made.1
Interest in the concept
grew in the 1990s after the publication of two articles (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Narver and Slater, 1990) to the extent that Barbara A. Lafferty and G. Tomas Hult
(2001) could identify five distinct approaches to how a market orientation was
CRITIQUE OF LEES-MARSHMENT’S PARTY MODEL 111
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
Table 1: The marketing process for the market-oriented party
(adapted from Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 31)
Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Activity Market Product Product Implementation Communication Campaign Election Delivery
intelligence design adjustment
understood and then synthesised these into four common dimensions, an emphasis
on customers, the importance of information, an interfunctional co-ordination and a
responsiveness by taking action.
All of Lafferty and Hult’s (2001) four dimensions of commercial market
orientation are present in Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) work. The first
dimension, an emphasis on the customer, is a fundamental characteristic of LeesMarshment’s
(2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party; without this emphasis the
party is product oriented. Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) conceptualisation
of the market-oriented party has, however, its primary focus on the fulfilment of
expressed voter needs and wants in the short term, rather than including the future
needs underlined in the commercial market orientation literature (e.g. Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990; Lafferty and Hult, 2001; Narver and Slater, 1990). This narrow
focus may cause the wider issues of the long-term development of society to be
neglected, and brings with it the risk that the information generated from voters
will be restricted, either consciously or unconsciously, to those segments of the
electorate or particular constituencies that will actually make the difference at election
time: consider the phenomena of target seats in Britain, where a disproportionately
large number of resources are used to swing the seat in question in the
party’s favour.
The second dimension, the importance of information, is present and emphasised, as
resistance to change by volunteer party members can be reduced by making the
results of investigations available to them and can ‘promote a feeling of involvement,
value and worth amongst those within the party’ (Lees-Marshment, 2001a,
p. 33). Lees-Marshment (2001a) also advocates an awareness of competitor actions
in that it is recommended that a SWOT analysis is carried out (Strengths and Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats; see Kotler (2000) for an in-depth treatment of
this tool), but this is an arms-length method and does not take into account the
co-operative nature of some political systems (Bowler and Farrell, 1992). Finally,
the commercial market orientation literature acknowledges the influence of the
external environment on the ability of organisations to be profitable (e.g. Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990; Reukert, 1992; Slater and Narver, 1995), and from a political
marketing perspective, Robert P. Ormrod (2005) argues that an understanding of
society in general is essential for market-oriented parties, but generating information
directly from other external stakeholder groups is not included in the LeesMarshment
(2001a and 2001b) model.
While Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) conceptualises market intelligence (stage
one) as being primarily the expressed needs and wants of voters, Ajay K. Kohli
and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990) define their intelligence generation construct as being
much broader, including information gathering on the unexpressed and future
needs and wants of customers, together with the forces exerted on the organisation
by actors and events in the external environment, and Stanley F. Slater and
John C. Narver (1998) distinguish between being customer led and market oriented.
Lees-Marshment claims that ‘the basic argument of a market orientation is
to follow, rather than lead, voter demands’ (Lees-Marshment, 2001a, p. 223), and
as such is voter led; using the commercial understanding of the term a marketoriented
party would consider all of society – including for example the media,
112 ROBERT P. ORMROD
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
trade unions, lobby groups and pressure groups – as relevant actors from which to
generate information.
The third dimension, the interfunctional co-ordination of the marketing-related efforts
of the organisation, is included to a certain extent. Lees-Marshment (2001a and
2001b) advocates that the party rank-and-file should be consulted by means of,
for example, committees, and that they should be included in the marketing and
strategy formulation process as a prerequisite for party success, but there is no
precise description of the methods whereby the results of this consultative process
can be integrated into the wider policy portfolio.The size of political parties may
also cause problems, as even in small parties with memberships under 5,000, the
co-ordination efforts and resources that would have to be used by the party top to
process the intelligence generated by all party members is likely to be prohibitive.
In Britain, large sections of the electorate have to be persuaded to vote for the party
using the mass media, so analysing national voter opinion may actually provide
results that are more useful than those uncovered by an internal consultative
process prior to policy development, given the resource constraints under which
parties exist.
Lafferty and Hult’s (2001) final dimension, a responsiveness by taking action is, like
an emphasis on the voter, a central characteristic of the market-oriented party –
without continually responding to voter opinion in the appropriate manner, the
market-oriented party will become out of touch with the electorate and, according
to Lees-Marshment (2001a), risks losing the following election as a direct result
of this. The problem of Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) short-term approach
is again relevant as the market-oriented party is likely to adopt a strategy of using
marketing as a governing tool, also known as the ‘permanent campaign’ (Nimmo,
1999; Sparrow and Turner 2001). If taking action is restricted to the fulfilment of
current voter needs and wants there is a risk that the future direction of society in
general will be neglected.
The concepts of ‘market orientation’ and a ‘marketing orientation’ in the commercial
marketing literature are not the same (e.g. Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Lafferty and Hult, 2001; Narver and Slater, 1990). A ‘marketing orientation’ refers
to the activities of the marketing department that encourage the organisation to
become more responsive to the requirements of customers. A ‘market orientation’
is implemented by the entire organisation and refers to an acceptance of the importance
of relationships with all stakeholders, and aims towards being responsive to
the internal and external markets in which it operates. When applied to parties, a
‘political marketing orientation’ would include activities such as image management,
voter opinion research and advertisement creation, all carried out by party
professionals principally during the run-up to an election. A ‘political market orientation’,
on the other hand, would be characterised by all party members feeling
a responsibility for taking part in both the development of policies and their implementation
and communication.
Although Kohli and Jaworski (1990, p. 15) note that a ‘[market] orientation is
useful only if the benefits it affords exceeds the cost of these resources’, and that
in some circumstances a product or sales orientation would be more profitable to
the firm due to the nature of the competitive environment (e.g. Gray et al., 1998;
CRITIQUE OF LEES-MARSHMENT’S PARTY MODEL 113
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Noble, Sinha and Kumar, 2002), the adoption of a
market orientation is generally considered to result in superior performance,
irrespective of the nature of the organisation (Lafferty and Hult, 2001), while
a marketing orientation may actually lead to a lower relative performance by
under-exploiting the resources of the organisation outside of the marketing department
(Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) does not distinguish between these two
related concepts, and while the party type is labelled as market oriented, it is in
fact closer to a marketing-oriented party. Despite including volunteer party
members in the information generation process, Lees-Marshment (2001a) emphasises
that party professionals are primarily responsible for monitoring developments
in general voter opinion, rather than the commercial view that all departments can
contribute a unique perspective on the various markets in which the organisation
operates (Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar, 1993). Charles Lees (2005) notes that in
order for Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party to be successful,
a high degree of centralisation is necessary, implying that the internal consultative
process is counterproductive and thus the opposite of the general view
taken in the commercial market orientation literature.
Criticisms based on empirical studies
Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party is primarily based on
empirical work into the behaviour of the British Conservative and Labour parties.
These parties have memberships that number in the 100,000s and operate in an
electoral system where essentially only two parties compete for control of the government.
There are three problems associated with this: a reliance on empirical
results rather than a conceptual foundation, the electoral system in which the
parties exist and the type of party that is analysed. By using an empirically driven
methodology, Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) has fallen foul of the common
criticism of political marketing research as simply rationalising empirical results
(Henneberg, 2004), by mapping the behaviour of the two parties in question rather
than developing a generally applicable concept.
Lees-Marshment (2001a) argues that adopting the characteristics of the marketoriented
party is a prerequisite for success in general, but does warn against an
unquestioning adoption of the market-oriented party model in other political
systems. In an exploratory study, Jesper Strömbäck and Lars Nord (2005) compared
the Swedish and British political systems and the effects on the ability of
parties to adopt the characteristics of Lees-Marshment’s (2001a) market-oriented
party. Strömbäck and Nord (2005) came to the conclusion that there were differences
both between countries and between parties in single countries, and that
simply adopting the characteristics of Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b)
market-oriented party will not necessarily lead to election victory in all party
systems; in some systems it may lead to an electoral backlash.
Strömbäck and Nord (2005) argue that in order to be successful, a party that consciously
adopts the characteristics of Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) market-
114 ROBERT P. ORMROD
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
oriented party should be a major party with plentiful resources, where the activism
of volunteer members as a percentage of total membership should be low, and
where voters are characterised by a lack of identification with a particular party
and by using their own values as a choice criterion for voting behaviour rather
than ideological identification. While this exists in Britain, it is not easily transferred
to multi-party systems such as Denmark (seven parties), Germany (five
parties) and especially Italy (eight main parties), where party identification is
stronger and generally causes ideology rather than the need to gain mass voter
appeal to guide policy development.
Furthermore, in political systems structured around the candidate rather than the
party (such as in the English and US national electoral systems), and where a commercialised
and adversarial mass media considers politics to be ‘a strategic game’
(Strömbäck and Nord, 2005, p. 19), the market-oriented party may well be the
superior party type to adopt; otherwise, the characteristics of Lees-Marshment’s
(2001a and 2001b) sales-oriented party (internal development of policy, market
intelligence to uncover the most effective advertising methods, communication and
so on) may be a wiser choice.
The Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) model has been investigated in Lilleker
and Lees-Marshment (2005), an edited book that presents cases from various
countries using the model as a framework for empirical analysis. The various
contributors’ conclusions support Strömbäck and Nord’s (2005) reservations for the
application of the model as a rigid either-or set of behaviours. Declan P. Bannon
and Robert Mochrie (2005) note that resource limitations and especially ideology
affect the behaviour of the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP), as it appears to have
adopted a hybrid of the characteristics of Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b)
sales- and market-oriented parties; the SNP is sales oriented on the question of
Scottish independence and market oriented when responding to the needs and
wants of the electorate. Both McGough (2005) and Lederer, Plasser and Scheucher
(2005) come to similar conclusions in their analyses of the Irish Sinn Fein party
and the Austrian Freiheitspartei Österreich, respectively.
Studies carried out by Lees (2005) in Germany and Lederer, Plasser and Scheucher
(2005) in Austria show that market-oriented parties as conceptualised by LeesMarshment
(2001a and 2001b) become more constrained by events and actors in
the political environment when in government than when in opposition. To
account for this, Lilleker and Lees-Marshment (2005, p. 32) suggest that there may
exist a ‘market-oriented government’, where the successful market-oriented party
is less likely to use public opinion as the foundation, instead taking a long-term
perspective. There are two problems associated with this: firstly, when carrying out
empirical work on New Zealand using the Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b)
model, Chris Rudd (2005) notes that there appears to be a significant overlap with
Lees-Marshment’s (2001a and 2001b) sales-oriented party. Secondly, as the
market-oriented government listens less to public opinion as a result of constraints
imposed by the non-voter environment, it is implied that Lees-Marshment’s (2001a
and 2001b) market-oriented party can only exist in opposition with the sole aim
of gaining office.
CRITIQUE OF LEES-MARSHMENT’S PARTY MODEL 115
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
Summary
This article has provided conceptual and empirical (Table 2) critiques of the LeesMarshment
(2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party model. The conceptual
criticisms concentrate on the short-term perspective that is used to analyse voter
and competitor behaviour, the tendency towards centralisation and the confusion
of the related terms of ‘market orientation’ and ‘marketing orientation’. LeesMarshment’s
(2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party model was developed from
an empirical study of the British Labour and Conservative parties rather than
including a literature review of previous work, and case studies of other party
types and electoral systems have demonstrated the importance of ideology,
116 ROBERT P. ORMROD
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
Table 2: Summary of the criticisms of the market-oriented party model
Conceptual Only short-term, expressed voter needs and wants are considered to be
criticisms important to the market-oriented party, not the future or unexpressed
needs emphasised in the commercial market orientation literature.
Only voters and competitors are analysed in the market-oriented party
model; the commercial market orientation literature also emphasises
the importance of understanding the environmental forces that affect
these groups.
Information on competing parties is only generated at arms length in
the market-oriented party model; this does not take coalition partners
into consideration.
For the market-oriented party to be successful, a high degree of
centralisation is necessary; the opposite of the commercial market
orientation.
No distinction is made between the related concepts of ‘market
orientation’ and ‘marketing orientation’ – the label ‘marketing-oriented’
is more appropriate, given the characteristics of the party.
Criticisms The market-oriented party model is developed from an empirical study
based on of the behaviour of the British Labour and Conservative parties; no
empirical other type of party or electoral system is included.
studies
Ideology affects the ability of a party to become market oriented.
Resource limitations affect the ability of a party to become market
oriented.
Parties often adopt an hybrid approach, implementing either sales or
market orientation, depending on the individual policy area.
The ‘market-oriented government’ has more in common with a salesoriented
party, implying that a market-oriented party can only exist in
opposition with the aim of gaining office.
resource limitations, policy areas and environmental pressures, especially when in
government.
While the Lees-Marshment (2001a and 2001b) market-oriented party model has
been used with some success to map the behaviour of the British Labour and Conservative
parties, the issues detailed in this article must be addressed in order for
it to develop further. Otherwise it is doubtful whether the model can become a
true conceptual addition to the field of political marketing, and the empirical criticisms
detailed in this article present a serious challenge to the wider applicability
of the model.
Notes
The author would like to acknowledge the constructive and encouraging comments provided by Associate
Professor Erik Kloppenborg Madsen, Professor Emeritus Folke Ölander and two anonymous Politics
referees on previous drafts of this article.
1 The commercial market orientation literature is a diverse field that numbers several hundred articles
in the last 10 years alone; as such it is not possible for an in-depth treatment in the current work.
Suggested publications for the interested reader are: Lafferty and Hult (2001) for a literature review,
classification and synthesis of the modern literature; Deshpandé (1999) for a collection of the seminal
papers from the early to mid-1990s; Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) as the
first attempts to quantitatively measure a market orientation; and Slater and Narver (1998) for an
explanation of the fundamental difference between being customer led and market oriented. For an
alternative conceptualisation of a market-oriented party see Ormrod (2004 and 2005).
References
Bannon, D.P. and R. Mochrie (2005), ‘Political Marketing in Scotland’s Devolved System’ in D. Lilleker
and J. Lees-Marshment (eds.), Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Bowler, S. and D.M. Farrell (eds.) (1992), Electoral Strategies and Political Marketing, London: The
MacMillan Press.
Deshpandé, R. (1999), Developing a Market Orientation, Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Gray, B., S. Matear, C. Boshoff and P. Matheson (1998), ‘Developing a Better Measure of Market Orientation’,
European Journal of Marketing 32, pp. 884–903.
Henneberg, S.C.M. (2004), ‘The Views of an Advocatus Dei: Political Marketing and its Critics’, Journal of
Public Affairs 4, pp. 225–243.
Jaworski, B.J. and A.K. Kohli (1993), ‘Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences’, Journal of
Marketing 57, pp. 1–17.
Kohli, A.K. and B.J. Jaworski (1990), ‘Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions and
Managerial Implications’, Journal of Marketing 54, pp. 1–18.
Kohli, A.K., B.J. Jaworski and A. Kumar (1993), ‘MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation’, Journal
of Marketing Research 30, pp. 467–477.
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lafferty, B.A. and G.T.M. Hult (2001), ‘A Synthesis of Contemporary Market Orientation Perspectives’,
European Journal of Marketing 35, pp. 92–109.
Lederer, A., F. Plasser and C. Scheucher (2005), ‘The Rise and Fall of Populism in Austria: A Political
Marketing Perspective’ in D. Lilleker and J. Lees-Marshment (eds.), Political Marketing: A Comparative
Perspective, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lees, C. (2005), ‘Political Marketing in Germany: The Case of the Social Democratic Party’ in D. Lilleker
and J. Lees-Marshment (eds.), Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001a), Political Marketing and British Political Parties: The Party’s Just Begun, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
CRITIQUE OF LEES-MARSHMENT’S PARTY MODEL 117
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001b), ‘The Marriage of Politics and Marketing’, Political Studies 49, pp. 692–713.
Levitt, T. (1960), ‘Marketing Myopia’, Harvard Business Review 38, pp. 45–56.
Lilleker, D. and J. Lees-Marshment (2005) (eds), Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
McGough, S. (2005), ‘Political Marketing in Irish Politics: The Case of Sinn Féin’ in D. Lilleker and J.
Lees-Marshment (eds.), Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective, Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Narver, J.C. and S.F. Slater (1990), ‘The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability’, Journal
of Marketing 54, pp. 20–35.
Nimmo, D. (1999), ‘The Permanent Campaign: Marketing as a Governing Tool’ in B. Newman (ed.),
Handbook of Political Marketing, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Noble, C.H., R.K. Sinha and A. Kumar (2002), ‘Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic Orientations:
A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications’, Journal of Marketing 66, pp. 25–39.
O’Cass, A. (1996), ‘Political Marketing and the Marketing Concept’, European Journal of Marketing 30,
pp. 37–53.
O’Cass, A. (2001a), ‘Political Marketing: An Investigation of the Political Marketing Concept and Political
Market Orientation in Australian Politics’, European Journal of Marketing 35, pp. 1003–1025.
O’Cass, A. (2001b), ‘The Internal-External Marketing Orientation of a Political Party: Social Implications
of Political Party Marketing Orientation’, Journal of Public Affairs 1, pp. 136–152.
Ormrod, R.P. (2004), ‘Operationalising the Conceptual Model of Political Market Orientation’,
Report Series on Political Communication No. 14, Sundsvall, Sweden: Institute for Democratic
Communication.
Ormrod, R.P. (2005), ‘A Conceptual Model of Political Market Orientation’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing 14, pp. 47–64.
Reukert, R.W. (1992), ‘Developing a Market Orientation: An Organisational Strategy Perspective’, International
Journal of Research in Marketing 9, pp. 225–245.
Rudd, C. (2005), ‘Marketing the Message or the Messenger? The New Zealand Labour Party, 1990–2003’
in D. Lilleker and J. Lees-Marshment (eds.), Political Marketing: A Comparative Perspective, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1995), ‘Market Orientation and the Learning Organization’, Journal of Marketing
59, pp. 63–74.
Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver (1998), ‘Customer-Led and Market-Oriented: Let’s Not Confuse the Two’,
Strategic Management Journal 19, pp. 1001–1006.
Sparrow, N. and J.J. Turner (2001), ‘The Permanent Campaign: The Integration of Market Research Techniques
in Developing Strategies in a More Uncertain Political Climate’, European Journal of Marketing
35, pp. 984–1002.
Strömbäck, J. and L. Nord (2005), ‘Political Marketing: The Road to Electoral Success or to Electoral
Backlash?’, Paper presented at the Political Marketing Group Conference, London, 24–25 February
2005.
118 ROBERT P. ORMROD
© 2006 The Author. Journal compilation © 2006 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2006 VOL 26(2)